fontana of more than 100 campaign based itself is

bring you this year. you can find a schedule on our web seifs. as the past debates on line in our video library. solace on together, like us off on phase book. if if two years ago democrats 5425 of rematch between the two candidates in the northern suburbs of a large city. they debated last week in poughkeepsie, new york. this is an hour. fast mac past lack pass back que to the debate. i will be moderating. those candidates have represented the district in congress.

she held the seat for one

skyrocketing energy costs, obamacare. i fought to protect social security, medicare. congressman sean patrick maloney cut $716 billion in medicare benefits. this is the record. he is running one of the most vicious campaigns the hudson valley has ever seen. i stand with you. congressman sean patrick maloney stands with washington, and washington has failed us. thank you. >> moderator: congressman. maloney: good evening. thank-you to a time warner cable news, congressman nan hayworth, and to all of you. he told me to get to work.

i told you i was a democrat and would not forget i came from a middle-class family. my dad was a disabled veteran. i would not forget that we needed a government fighting for families like the one i grew up in. i went to washington and have one of the most bipartisan records in congress. proud to have had 13 bipartisan bills and my first year in congress -- my first term in congress. and each one of those was a response to listening to you, local solutions to urgent, local needs helping veterans, investing in infrastructure mon-khmer reforming crop insurance and getting it done. i want to keep doing this work. by reaching across the aisle i have gained the support of senators and have heard the ranking of the top 3%, independent observers, and if you give me your voice and vote for two more years i will keep

fighting for middle-class families and families struggling to get into the middle-class. >> moderator: thank you very much. the first question will go to you. pretty much the topic of the day. it is about ebola, a story that is moving so rapidly. it is difficult to get a handle. just today there are talks on testimony being given on capitol hill. we heard from a cdc director who insured every one that we are not going to have a widespread outbreak. we are talking about travel bans, closing borders. are we, in fact, confident that the cdc can handle the situation or do you believe that the doctor should be responsible? >> i come at this crucial question from the perspective of the doctor. as a doctor, i am deeply concerned, making sure that the american people public health is

protected first and foremost. i have to a institute strict travel restrictions so that we contain the epidemic where is located in get aid workers in and out to special transports. and i am praying for our troops who are over there for their safety because, as you know, we have u.s. military deployed to help control the epidemic. the cdc has not inspired confidence unfortunately. that is characteristic of this administration. i think that there has not been sufficient aggressiveness in controlling the cost of facilities. i have great confidence in our centers of excellence and think that the cdc is doing the right thing in directing patients to emory university in the university of nebraska. the. >> moderator: do you think he should continue to serve?

hayworth: i think the cdc has not provided the that it should and would be open to someone with more expertise in containing this kind of epidemic >> moderator: congressman. maloney: it is clear the demonstration has been slow off of the mark with this. they need to do better, and they need to do better fast. the most important thing right now is that we need new protocols or anyone who comes into contact with somebody who has been exposed to the virus, someone who is treating someone with the virus should not be getting on an airplane. we have to have tighter protocols, a travel ban immediately on travel directly from these countries. there are 200 people a day coming directly to the united states from the countries where the ebola outbreak is the greatest. we need to have tighter screening procedures for all folks, even those who are transiting. that is the way the majority of the people com. one of the things that we must not do is keep cutting the

centers for disease control. the truth is, the congresswoman is budget to $600 million out of the cdc, and those are reasons to the funds that we need right now to be fighting an epidemic like ebola. when you want to give huge tax cuts you go out and attack everything else. >> moderator: forgive me for cutting you off, and just to be clear, regarding the director of the cdc, do you believe -- i know that you are upset about the administration's response, but do you believe he should continue to serve? >> at the key can stay in the job, but we'd better measure him against a higher yardstick right away. i don't want to create additional disruption by terminating someone this soon in the crisis. but if he cannot get the job done, let's get someone who can. right now what is more important is action, not words, and not any one person. we need a travel ban, fully

funded cdc, tighter protocols of health care workers and make sure that we know what happened with men and women who are about to put 4,000 american service members in the hot zone. we better know what we're doing. i don't have a lot of confidence i think it has been slow and inadequate and we need to do better. >> moderator: would you like to respond? hayworth: i read the cdc guidelines. by the way, this is not a matter of politics. this disease knows no party. we have to explore legal issues appropriately to deal with it today. i read published guidelines, and they are not adequate. i am not confident this is fully in hand. we saw what happened to these poor folks in taxes presbyterian who were not given appropriate instruction. every health care worker in contact with an ebola patient should be completely covered and protected. that is not part of the current

guidelines and is one example of the failure of on doctor friedman's part. >> moderator: forgive me, regarding the congressman's allegation in terms of cutting, i mean trade was something that was said today that he had asked for 45 million additional dollars in the fiscal budget of 2015. the reductions to the cdc left them less able to address the problem. hayworth: that is is this possibility. this cdc and the cbo has come out with figures on this. they have had varying budgets under all different kinds of leaders. it needs adequate resources. no one is questioning that, and this is not a time to play politics. >> moderator: thank you very much. next question to congressman sean patrick maloney. job creation is a top priority, especially since new york is behind other states in terms of

private sector job creation. so much disagreement about what congress should do to boost the economy. how would you make sure the state and the hudson valley is getting involved? says -- maloney: is a broad topic. we need good jobs. when and raise a family on. right now middleclass is getting squeezed. that is why i am working to create a new generation of wealth, becoming a distribution center. that is why i want to invest hundreds of billions of dollars of american infrastructure. we need to invest in our country , and begin doing it with private dollars, bringing back corporate profits. i think that we need to train our workers, invest in schools, and that think that we need to help local businesses. that is why. creating jobs right here in the hudson valley. why i worked with the regional

economic development council on things like the biotech sector, why i am working on a renewable energy projects and orange county that unfortunately the congresswoman will not support. she is killing us, killing small business because he does not believe that washington has any role to play. i think that is wrong. we all have to work together and congress has to be a good partner to local businessmen as we grow jobs for the middle-class. >> moderator: dr. nan hayworth hayworth: the congressman's record is one of complete and consistent failure to help folks in the hudson valley go back to work. it is just that simple. he has voted consistently for a washington agenda that has kept our health insurance prices sky high, which is actually employing hiring. as you know, small businesses are afraid to hire because they cannot afford to insure their workers. energy prices are sky high. electricity prices right here in

the hudson valley, that is an outrage. if want to help folks go back to work, let's help them afford to be able to have operations. let's stop the avalanche of red tape and regulation coming out of washington. the congressman has done nothing to help with that severe a problem. he does however help his campaign builders. it has to do with his pocket being lined with campaign dollars. >> moderator: if you could come by what the congressman to have a chance to respond. what exactly you would do differently. hayworth: i would lift these burdens. right now as a doctor i know that our health care costs are out of control. the affordable care act, obamacare did nothing to stop that. it is a $1 trillion gift to the insurance industry. if we want help we have to lower the cost of insurance. obamacare does not do it.

the congressman supports energy regulators having unfettered ability him to raise our electricity prices. that is the sure way to keep people from being able to work here in the hudson valley. i voted to rein in regulators and stop the avalanche of regulation. they're making impossible to hire. >> moderator: congressman. maloney: that is a bunch of nonsense. we get the farm bill done, the biggest job mechanism we have. i got that done, and it is the best that has ever been written for the hudson valley. working with local businesses, and i am working with them whether they support we're not. and you should be ashamed of yourself running down jim taylor. you stood in his parents to years ago and said it was a great project and will but thrives and wish him well and started supporting me because you were killing him because you would not lift a finger to help and now all of a sudden he is a bad guy. we have to help everyone,

republican or democrat. it is my job to be a good partner. improvements for businesses so that we can create jobs engines again. and government has a role to play. a private sector is always going to be the job creation engine. iran and business creating hundreds of jobs. i know what it takes to make a payroll and how hard it is a deal with regulation staff. red tape reduction act. what it does is reduce red tape and bureaucracy. so veteran's disability claims heard faster. those of the kind of local solutions that i heard and needs that i heard and took to washington. >> moderator: you are over your time. hayworth: may i? >> moderator: very quickly. hayworth: the mom-and-pop businesses on main street are represented by an organization of the national federation of independent business. every --, i voted consistently o

help small businesses. the congressman voted consistently against small businesses. that includes bonds. he has actually not walked the walk. he talks the talk but not walk the walk. he has voted consistently to place burdens on us. >> moderator: we have to move on. we will move on to a topic both of you have talked a lot about. i will start with you. you have an ad out that criticizes the congressman's record on veterans. he supported the bipartisan budget agreement which included those cuts. supported by 332 of the house's four under and 35 members including some of your republican colleagues, the speaker of the house and congressman paul ryan. i did not mention cuts are restored a few months later in a vote that congressman maloney

supported. so a 2-part question. what did you leave out those details? and please point to some specific policies that you differ with when it comes to veterans? >> look, i am blessed to be the daughter of to world war ii veterans. i actually worked in the veterans administration system. so i know very well how crucial it is that we provide the right kind of care and compensation to our veterans. and one thing i would never do is cut $6 billion from veterans and military family. i do not care which members of which party voted for that budget. it was the wrong thing to do. what i did do when i was in the house of representatives was to recognize that for the obama administration there were trying to sell off pieces of our castle point campus the private development. and i stopped it.

i acted on behalf of our veterans and stop it. as i get back to congress will make sure that they have health insurance for life, any doctor, in a hospital, no questions asked. they deserve at all. they certainly do not deserve to have $6 million cut in benefits. >> moderator: want to get to you. some specific policy that the congressman says. what else has he done wrong? hayworth: clearly to cut the benefits of veterans is something that indicates that this is not the way to care what more do we need to say? but i know because i have fought for our veterans, for preserving at the hospital access. that is why i made sure that those campuses would not be sell-off for private development maloney: you asked a great question, and it would have been nice if the congress when

inserted. we restored the cuts she is talking about, so it is a bogus charge and played was called shamefully misleading. the college shamefully misleading because it is not true. and when you say you have never cut $6 billion, that is true because you voted to cut $11 billion twice because that was the cut in the budget, your budget plan that voted -- he voted for twice. my dad got out of the navy 100 percent disabled, spent three months of his life in a hospital bed trying to walk again in one year getting better congresswoman, you throw a wrench charges like that, you should think about who you are talking about and what you were saying. we have held six. we pass the red tape reaction to act from a speeding up the disability claims. that is why the republican senators chairing the veterans

committee endorsed me and said the covers woman never did anything. twenty-four year veteran, combat veteran, army colonel praising my work they know my record. you should it stop playing politics with our veterans. >> congressman, senator, playing politics with these records, certainly i respect senator larkin. we have worked very well together. in fact, he introduced me to the our in our project in middletown which is a crucial projects to help veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. and i was introduced to the folks at our and our this past a line. not in office, but i am so concerned about our veterans who have posttraumatic stress, and i think that this is a promising

new therapy. as a doctor i have studied it. so i had actually started a support network for them so that they can continue this crucial work in the pilot project and make sure that we have effective therapies for this enormous suffering. i talk about this project. i encounter veterans who say i know what you are talking about because i have ptsd. >> moderator: we are going to move on. you have both touched on this. this question is for you. that bill was eventually -- there was a deal, but it took more than two years and there were fights on both sides. the main focus was about food stamp funding. an leyna there were billions of dollars, less than a conservative republican sen. so would you have voted in favor of the final agreement, and do you believe that food stamps should be part at all or perhaps should we take food stamps out

to back. >> having served hudson valley i know how crucial family farms are. we have tremendous local sources , wholesome, healthy food. i have certainly fought for farmers when hurricane irene struck are led the charge in a bipartisan way with peter wells, a great member of congress on the democratic side. we brought back 11 and and a half billion dollars for relief and restoration to devastated regions. that is our important farms are. and i know that and we actually also worked very hard to try to get better drainage for the deaths of oil that is so important. food stamps are obviously an important part of our nation's safety net. so it is troubling when the

congressmen went out of his way to vote for an amendment in the air wrote ready that cut $20 billion from two steps. >> i am curious to know what you have voted for the bill, the final bill that did cut billions of dollars? >> last cut its? twenty, too much. still not sure why the congressman did that. do we need a farm bill, yes. >> moderator: you would have voted yes? do you believe to stem should continue to be part of the discussion going for? hayworth: i think it is reasonable to consider them separately, but we have to make sure that we respect their role. we have to make sure that our family farms are represented in agriculture.

>> moderator: thank you. maloney: i am shaking my head because sometimes when you debate it is like she is debating her own record. and did you say that the farm bill had too many food stamp cuts in it, that's fine until you realize she voted for a plan in congress that had $140 billion of cuts in food stamps, not 20, 140 billion, seven times greater than what she is now complaining about. when she says she works for farmers, she did not bother to get on the agriculture committee. i did. we get the bill passed. she failed. the best that has ever been written, and then the end by working in a bipartisan way we get a bill that had very few food stamp cuts and made them so clever that the governor was able to work with us to eliminated for the state of new york. there are no food stamps in new york and we get a good farm bill for the hudson valley. the cumbersome and has given

you a bunch of rhetoric. her worst day in congress was responding to a hurricane irene. she said to all we cannot help until we get the budget somewhere else and compared cutting the budget to the families living vacation. in sensitive and wrong, and our farmers remember it. hayworth: when the debate was going on regarding the farm bill you did say that you thought that large subsidies for big agriculture should be cut before food stamps and in the end you did of yes. did some of your colleagues actually opted not to. democrats in new york were so upset about it. i remember. and yet you did in the end of yes. there were cuts. they were considerable. maloney: let's focus on that. there were dramatically less than what came out of committee because we knew working with the senate and the white house we would

reduce the. we did another thing coming tweet them in a way that made it possible for the governor of new york at very little expense to eliminate them and we cut corporate subsidies by tens of billions of dollars ending cash payments that for so long was such a wasteful program. this farm bill says tens of billions of dollars for the taxpayers but is the best that has been written, and we got it done. and i am in the top 3 percent of all democrats for bipartisanship. so there were many times when i disagreed with my own party and president yet it was right for you and your family. that is my job and i am proud of the farm bill and that i am on the committee fighting for farmers which is a big difference. >> moderator: if you want to respond directly. hayworth: wpde and a half billion dollars came back because of my efforts.

i was the first to call for our devastated counties to be on the president's disaster list of and he did that. we succeeded in that. i thought immediately i was in the black dirt with farmers he showed me the fields with an onion crops floating in an. i took that immediately to washington. i was there the night of the storm in manhattan, the next day at was on the ground. i went to washington and made sure that we fought to get the relief. that is the fact, congressman. that is the actual record. you need to stop taking credit for work that i did. you do it consistently. >> on this point. i have heard the congresswoman say several

times. that is interesting. the entire relief package was six and a half billion. in fact, the most important relief was in the san the bill which waited 75 days while in congress. there were bickering and fighting. so taking credit. their is a record. >> moderator: the controversial process. i know you oppose it. i was wondering, what do you propose instead to make energy more affordable in the long term and fort the yorkers to reduce the overall reliance. maloney: that is a terrible idea. she supports fracking on federal land are the

national bird sanctuary. that is what it would mean. she does not support disclosure of the chemical being pumped into the ground if we are going to do it let's at least know that toxic materials are being pumped into the ground. their is a bill i support that would force disclosure of that so that we can follow the science. she has are radical energy agenda, and that think that we can do a lot better which is why i support the biomass project in orange county. that is renewable energy. developed right here in orange county in the hudson valley that will create hundreds of new jobs and other projects. and i do support the use of natural gas as a bridge begins i have a plan to bring back manufacturing jobs. to have a bill on us that will bring manufacturing jobs back, and we can take advantage of the low gas

prices. but i do not want fracking with our fragile water resources, the hudson river to the new york city reservoir system. it is crazy. i would not do it until we know the science. the congresswoman discloses because she has been one of the biggest recipients of contributions in the energy industry before i want the doctor to respond. hayworth: stunning because nobody is talking about fracking and the hudson valley. you just spent one minute wasting people's time on something that has no relevance whatsoever. do we need to recover natural gas? we certainly do. when we talk about pollution and about disclosing, i am all for it. i think it is something that we should do. let me tell you what the congressman supports. he claims to be an environmentalist.

i think you have talked with them. the partnership for policy. and they will tell you that the project is honor has brought at least $100,000 in to the congressman's coffers , those groups will tell you that that project will pour more lead, cadmium , benzene, arsenic into the environment. when that will poor multiples. >> moderator: i want the congressman to respond. do you have in mind what appropriate regulatory framework should be? >> i stand with our communities. i stayed with accountability so whenever they need to know so that they can be comfortable with what is being done in our communities obviously is the

direction we need to go. we need representation. but would like to point out, we talk about representation verses regulators. when the town did not want a compressor station for natural gas put in a neighbor and i stood with them against the regulators. the congressman did not even look. >> moderator: what are the regulations? the particular i do feel that we have sat have safe, sound, scientifically rational recovery of resources, not in the hudson valley. no one is talking about that standards for our communities. maloney: well, there is someone talking about it. he is not just talking about it.

she supports opening of the federal land to drilling. this is is not some academic package. the prophecy is running down would create hundreds of new jobs of renewable energy biomass commend everybody supports it. republican elected officials, democratic elected officials, local folks. what they needed someone fighting to get a loan guarantee of a federal program. the reason the congress woman does not like it is there is a role for government to play. you just heard that she did not have an answer, and the reason is she supports this tea party fantasy which the league of conservation voters said was a radical and unnecessary attempt to destroy all sorts of health and safety regulations, one of these bills that says every smart regulation was only a vote in congress.

no room for government to keep you safe, your airplane all kinds of things. if you think a tea party radical -- >> moderator: you are over your time. thank you. let's turn to another source of endless conflict. the budget. i will start with you. as you know, a driver of spending. would you support changes to the entitlement specifically raising the retirement age for future retirees? >> absolutely not. and this is one of the biggest differences. two years ago in this room and all of the valleys you went around schering as saying that medicaid is going to go broke. we had to scrap it, turning it into a voucher program. right now the medicare trust fund has been extended for years and years and we have

saved $800 billion in medicare savings because the cost inflation that was in the program is coming down. so i do not and i did not support the congresswoman's radical plan to privatize social security, turn it over the wall street and let the wall street campbell's. these are proposals. if you like your back to congress she will push. she was to end medicare and turn wall st. louis on social security. those are terrible ideas. >> moderator: you would support the changes? maloney: i support funding social security and medicare to keep the promise we have made to our seniors. >> moderator: what of the people who have not retired, people who have not even reached close to retirement age. maloney: the programs are working well, and we should achieve them. it is always the same thing. tony's tax cuts to multimillionaire's.

they cannot to middle-class programs, medicare, social security, tried to sell you one it. it will turn it over to wall street, capet, privatize it. we have to stop that. two years ago we made a good decision to not panic. but the congressman would end them, and it is wrong. hayworth: already if they get as the ballot. consistently to cut $715 billion for medicare benefits. i know it as a doctor. i have parents who rely on their medicare benefits. and i know that if we want to protect medicare, the most important thing that we need to do is take a fresh approach that is taken out by obamacare. you won't hear that. it will not privatize social

security. we have to make sure that the 30 and 40-year-old u.s. to about are able to go to work and under the agenda that the congressman supports and votes consistently for. we will not see those people go to walt. losing jobs all across the hudson valley, losing medicare benefits and jobs because of the agenda that the congressman supports. >> moderator: on social security, for instance? maybe they should not collected. hayworth: i would like to keep social security as it is because that is what is familiar and what works for people. here is what we need to do, put americans back to work, make sure that those folks have jobs because if they do not, and that is the agenda that the congressman supports, we have obamacare

to our energy prices that are skyrocketing, and we cannot create jobs and that hudson valley. that is the security that people need. we have this opportunity at this point that one of you can ask a question of the other and then vice versa. if you would like to go ahead and pose a question to your opponent. hayworth: you have voted ten times to get $716 billion from medicare. please explain that, why you would do something like that . >> well, this is the biggest of these charts that has been out there. when we stood here, i agree we should put that back in medicare, and it was taken out not by me but by the budget use supported twice. and the point is that the congresswoman's plan for medicare and is to destroy

the traditional benefit of it. my goodness, you're listening to someone who wants to capture benefit. it will cost seniors thousands more per year. you were dead wrong when he said miller going to run out of money. one of the reasons is because the congress woman wanted to give tax cuts to multimillionaire's like herself and take it out of middle-class families. we stop to that idea. if you think a bill clinton democrat poses a bigger threat than a tea party radical, i don't know what to tell you. i do not support any changes to the medicare program to reassess -- extended the life for years and years. we will not break the promise as long as i am in congress. hayworth: not listening to your seniors across the valley. it is that simple. as a are losing access to doctors, paying more than they can afford for a lot of different reasons because of the agenda that you support.

but the congressional budget office, which works with you and the congress, says that if the affordable care act that you support take $716 billion out of medicare. no matter what the congressman tries to distract you with, the fact of the matter is seniors are being harmed by folks that you have voted with repeatedly. >> moderator: you are going to ask her question that she will have an opportunity to respond if you would not mind. maloney: on the subject of entitlements, if someone goes to youtube and type in the words nan hayworth, privatized, and social security. they will see you at that town hall meeting saying you want to privatize it. that is what i mean. i feel like and debating your record.

why did you want to privatize social security? what you said i thought was interesting. people need to realize we as a government are not going to take care of you. and then you even compared people on social security to sheep. we are not cheap but free men and women. what did you mean? why you want to privatize social security, and you think people who have been paying in this program their entire lives are sheep? >> they have been paying their whole lives into social security and are suffering under a terrible economy. they would like to know why you vote for energy crisis. i know because i talked to the seniors. you said to rein in regulators. you can point to whatever videos you want, slice them, dice them, whether you want to do. i am not going to privatize social security. i am not going to take anything away from medicare.

i will put $716 billion back into medicare that you took out. so if you have an energy question -- >> we have to follow up on the question. >> we actually did not allow the congressman. maloney: for the congress woman to say you can slice and dice, we are talking about you go to youtube. privatize social security. you will see the congresswoman not just supporting it. this radical plan. >> moderator: we would like to move on to the energy issue. brought up a number of times, and just brought up actually. if you would like an opportunity to talk about it, she did say that she voted for in increase. a federal energy regulatory commission.

you are sponsoring legislation. what can be done to prevent? maloney: that is flat wrong. there is no vote to support this, certainly not by me. this is one of the messes that we found when we got to washington. before i got to congress this regulatory commission cut up this side. the congresswoman said not one word. we went and checked. i asked. did she give his speech, did she do anything to back the answer was no. zero, zip, not up. what we did is warped across the aisle with republican congressman. he and i have been handed glove on doing excellent, bipartisan work. we wrote letters, petitions, i met with the chair the federal energy regulatory commission and told her this thing stinks. when all else fails we

passed a bill. it would not even apply. here is the truth. we're doing excellent bipartisan work cattle stopped the energy act. i am proud to tell you that as of november 5th they have agreed to reopen this. the will win it by working across the aisle. i cannot leave the congress woman wants to talk about it because she has no record at all on this issue. hayworth: the rhetoric and a fantasy. in fact, in 2011i took action to rein in before this kind of price hike could have ever happened. and that is something that i know you would rather forget about. the congressman also voted for the rains act which makes federal regulators accountable. i know that you support the president's agenda.

i know that you support the policy agenda that raises taxes and our energy prices and makes life difficult for folks in the hudson valley and have done it consistently. but it is simple, common sense. if any federal regulator wants to impose a regulation are people here in the hudson valley, that will cost them more than $50 million. they have to be accountable to the congress and an up or down vote. that is common sense will be if that bill had passed a co-sponsor. we would never have to deal with this and all. that is why iran the mess that we iran. maloney: it is a red herring. it is also a terrible bill. until the of conservation voters called a radical attempt to destroy safety and environmental regulation right now we are in need of

putting in a whole new regulation in place. if you think congress is working great, then you should listen to her. safety and health and welfare regulation the ebola epidemic. why has been called stopping this energy price hike. that is more than anyone has ever done. restarted from behind. we're going to win this thing. >> moderator: thank you very much. let's move on to foreign policy. specifically we are engaging in air strikes.

president obama has said he does not want to the boots on the ground. i will start with you. >> i am deeply concerned. this is a terrible threat. we have had real problems in the united states. there has been a lack of by the president not only for us but for the world. what we need the president to do is articulate a clear

strategic goal, cleared national interest, which we certainly can do. international cooperation with confidence by our allies that we're actually going to back them up when we say something. even need to have an exit strategy that is crucial. many to have a plan for victory and an exit strategy and and tell the president has led on these crucial issues it is hard to have confidence in what he is doing. stand up to the president on issues like this, and that is a problem that we have in addition. >> moderator: on the second part, do you think the military will have to put troops on the ground if it wants to combats isis? hayworth: there are military experts to have said that, but unless we have and a clear vision that articulates goals, obtain cooperation, has an exit

strategy so that we are protecting our troops, yes, i am concerned about it. i don't want to commit troops unless we have that clear from the president. we do not have that, and the congress has not challenge the president on issues like this. a. maloney: that is ridiculous. i've voted against the president's request for authorization to do this action standing up to my own party in the of my own party. is lion and the top 3%. i am working for you. and i do not think that we have a good plan and every day that goes by proves it. the congresswomen said that we should be able to put american troops and on the ground. where is turkey? the other countries? dagen not support putting american kids in the middle of the syrian civil war while the middle of a regional conflict.

i still love to the president on this and think it was the right thing to do i want our kids getting good jobs, going to school, getting an education, starting a business. i wanted take your tax dollars and poor them back into our communities. i do not want tax is going all over the world to other countries. i want to build bridges, rebuild the port of newburgh, invest in the united states of america, and i do not believe we have a plan for success. we can capture or kill the people and hurt our citizens. we have all kinds of tools and our kid and i support going after these guys who hurt these americans, beheaded in, capture, kill, or bring them to justice. no one has stood up to the president more than i have. that is the facts. >> moderator: will try to move on and get in a few more questions. >> on the hudson river is the indian point energy center. this question is for congressman maloney.

should indian point be recertified? if not, what should replace the power generated by the facility for the new york city area? maloney: we need irresponsible plan. this is a big difference. the congresswoman said let it go forever. it might have something to do with the fact she received more money from the nuclear energy industry in any member of congress. my kids go to bed 10 miles from the indian point. we have seen the horrors of fukushima. i think we have to ask tough questions about whether we can keep it going. we have all kinds of new generation companies transmission opportunities and renewal projects like the one that the congresswoman has been criticizing. there are all kinds of ways. and we know where this has been done intelligently. created job by transitioning plans and have actually grow the economy in the surrounding area.

concerned about the workers and the economy. this is a ticking time bomb, and i am not satisfied with the evacuation plans. i believe we can transition away and keep energy prices love can keep the economy going and get that on line 37 indian point energy center, as their congressman advocates, and i am not surprised. that is why we are paying higher prices now. you can imagine what it would be like. people cannot afford that. not only that, but indian point, though carbon.

if you want to talk about a low carbon footprint, talk about as zero carbon footprint. is it a crucial source? yes. i know that they are doing their best to make sure and that indian point is safe and reliable. a clean source of energy, and it would be a terrible burden on the people of the hudson valley and our environment if it were shut. it is a bad idea. >> moderator: a quick rebuttal and if you could be more specific. those projects the been controversial. a. maloney: the congress will then received more money from the owners of indian point than any other congressman. here are the facts. even the people who support indian point will tell you that in 20 years it is going away. we have to plan for a new

source of energy. and if you look at the natural gas generation coming on right now, the transmission initiative that the governor has put on the table to bring more power into the region, the opportunities through conservation, i have a bill that would allow homeowners to make energy efficient improvement, a bill that would allow schools to do modernization. the best generation is conservation. and if you look at the renewal of technologies coming on that the congresswoman for political reasons is criticizing which is interesting technology and things like wind and solar, there is every reason to believe that responsibly move away from indian point and remove forever the horrific threat of a nuclear accident in the middle of the hudson valley. >> moderator: i do want to give him a quick chance to respond to that new charge and that believe we will be going to closing debate. hayworth: i support and all of the above energy plan

that will lower prices, not raise them the way that the congressman will. taking credit for the act that is classic. i was the original sponsor of that bill in the house of representatives, the one who put it together. the folks who actually came up with the plan. democratic councilman in the town of bedford with whom i worked in a bipartisan way to make sure we got the bill on the floor. we need energy prices that we can afford. $200 million put into a project that will make no sense. >> moderator: we are a lot of time. you have one minute for closing. hayworth: i want to think time warner cable news and all of our hosts.

folks, there is a clear contrast in where the candidates stand. i stand with you, the hudson valley killing jobs and that some valley, real jobs that mean we can put people to work because our mom-and-pop businesses that have support me, endorsed me will have fewer burdens, lower energy prices, lower taxes, and less regulation. the congressman wants washington to make decisions , once you to line his pockets with campaign dollars a weekend direct money to you including $200 million with the harder it money from folks in the hudson valley to give toward a project that is an incinerator, not an energy generator. it is a shame that the folks in the hudson valley have someone standing with washington instead of them, i will stand with you. maloney: well, thank you all for a lively debate.

listen, you gave me a chance to represent you in washington. thank you. it has been the honor of my life to do so. the solutions that we worked on kemper new. listen to veterans passing legislation. listens to farmers passing the farm bill and reformed the crop insurance. we listened to folks who said fix the bands. and we have so much work to do together. that promise to that i would not forget i was a product of a middle-class family, sun of a disabled veteran, bill clinton democrat and am proud i have built one of the most bipartisan records and the congress, top 3 percent as rated by independent observers, and here we are of the jurors to make. are we going to go forward to keep his progress of him keep someone in washington who is fighting for you, our legal with a radical agenda? we rejected that two years ago, and it was a good choice because we need to

create good jobs, build the hudson valley where kids will want to stay in the prosperous country and have an equal opportunity, and i am asking for your support for another 2-year term to fight for you in washington. thank you. >> moderator: thank you. that does conclude our debate. thank you. thanks to our audience. i appreciate that. please remember that the election is on november november 4th. we encourage everyone to get out there and vote. we would like to remind you to stay with time warner official this for all your decision 2014 coverage. >> be part of c-span campaign 2014 coverage. debate schedules, video clips of key moments, in debate reviews from politics

team. bringing you over 100 senate, house commend governor debates and you can instantly share reactions to what the candidates are saying. the battle for control of congress. stay in touch and engaged by falling as on twitter, biking us on facebook. >> c-span 2015 student can competition is under way. this nationwide competition will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000, create a 5-7 minute documentary on the topic of the three branches and you. videos should include c-span programming, show varying points of view, and must be submitted by january 20th, 2015. grab the camera and get started today. >> coming up tonight ..

>> i want to welcome you today to carnegie and thank you for joining us for this timely discussion on u.s. efforts to disrupt the financial network that supports islamic states of iraq and iran, what is called

isil. i see there's enough interest in the room for this issue. it's overflow. while considerable attention has been focused on the military every times to die grade isil, there's another effort focused on shutting down the flow of money to isis from outside sources and networks from neighboring countries. it has been estimated that isil produces $50,000 worth of pile per day, which once sold on the black market, can provide between $1 million and $2 million per day in revenue. this money is in addition to the funds the group collects from activities such as extortion, kidnapping, and illegal

surcharges. it should be no surprise that isis is considered the world's wealthiest and most financially sophisticated terrorist organization. the discuss the u.s. strategy to cut off the funds were are honored to have david cohen with us today. mr. cohen is the undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the treasury department, where he leads the department in enforcing, enforcement, and intelligence functions, aimed at identifying and disrupting financial support to international terrorist organizations, and other elicit actors posing a threat to national security. he will discuss the terrorists' financing challenge by isil, the group's sources of revenue and the measure the treasury departments and other departments are taking to address the threat.

following his remarks we'll open the floor for questions from the audience. for those who want to join the event online -- join me in welcoming treasury undersecretary, david cohen. [applause] >> good morning. thank you, dr. muasher, for that kind introduction and to carnegie endowment for hosting me here today. it's truly an honor to have the opportunity to helped my voice to the ongoing dialogue fostered by carnegie and its middle east studies program. before i begin my remarks, i'd like to take a moment to note our sympathy and prayers are with the people of canada during this difficult time. we're still working on gathering

all the information about the attacks yesterday, and are working very intensively with our canadian counterparts. this is a tragic reminder of the need to remain vigilant in the face of terror, as president obama has made clear, to prime minister harper, that our friends in ottawa will have whatever support they need from our national security teams here in the united states. i come this morning to discuss, and especially pernicious expression of the problem- violent extremeike, the terrorist group known in the islamic state in iraq and the levant. in particular i will describe the u.s. and the international effort my team is leading to undermine sizele's financial strength and as part of the camp presentsive strategy to disrupt and degrade and ultimately

defeat. isil terrorists have slaughtered thousands of people who depend subscribe their ideology. they enslave and rape women and girls. they have brutally murdered aid workers and journalists who travel to syria just to bring a small measure of relief to the syrian people, or to tell their stories. and the vast majority of their victims are muslims, sunni and shia alike. as it sows chaos in communities across syria, isil threatens core u.s. interests. it threatens american personnel and facilities in iraq. it threatens our regional allies, including turkey, jordan, and lebanon, who are already strain el by the ripple effect of the crisis in syria and because it is destabilizing an interregion, isil, if left

unchecked, could ultimately pose a direct threat to citizens of the united states and our allies outside the middle east. put simply, terrorist organization with territorial ambitiouses and stated desire to kill innocent people abroad must be confronted. that's why, under the leadership of president obama, the international community has come together to stop this threat. the president has capped general john allen as special envoy to spearhead the establishment of a broad coalition. now some 60 partners strong. behind a strategy to degrade isil's capables, roll back its recent gains and ultimately defeat it. isil has grabbed the world's attention for its outlandish amibitions and astounding brutality, and because of its substantial wealth. the are able to generate tens of

mentales of dollars per month. including the sale of stolen oil, ransoming of kidnap victims, theft and extortion in the people that currently dominates, and to a lesser extent, donations and supporters outside of syria and iraq. so as part of the united states' broader strategy to degrade and defeat isil, we at the treasury department are intensifying our focus on undermining isil's finances. this is a whole of government effort, and while we take the lead on the financial component of the strategy, we are working closely with our counterparts in the state department, the department of defense, law enforcement, and the intelligent community. we are also linked up with international counterparts. indeed, just last friday, we hosted a meeting with the state department that brought together over 20 countries and organizations to identify financial measures to financially isolate and undermine isil as well as the fund and the illegitimate assad regime. as with the rest of the campaign

against isil, our efforts to combat its financing will take time. we have no silver bull bullet, no secret weapon. this will be a sustained fight. but one thing is certain, so long as isil terrorists the people of iraq and syria, threatens u.s. interests overseas and at home, we will remain committed to degrading its financial strength. in 2004, the treasury department was created and charged with deploying financial tools to combat terrorist financing, reflecting the recognition that one way to forestall terrorist attack is is to deprive the organizations of money. through the application of powerful national and international sanctions, close cooperation with foreign partners and the private sector, enhancement to financial

transparency, we have made it harder than ever for terrorist groups to raise, move, store, and use funds. many respects or campaign against isil's financial foundation will build on our work of the past ten years and closely resemble our previous campaign. but to some extent isil poses a different terrorist financing challenge. it as amassed wealth at an unpress department faith and its revenue sources have a different composition from other terrorist organizations. unlike, al qaeda, isil derives a relatively small share of its funds from deep pocket donors and does not department upon moving money across international boreds. instead isil obtains its revenues through local criminal and terrorist activities. so, just as isil relies in part on new models to fund itself, we, too are taping our tools and

techniques to combat isils activities. let me take a moment to detail these sources of revenue. first, isil has raised a significant amount of money, many millions of dollars, from selling oil it extracts program fields in syria and iraq. and they have tanned into black markets, connecting traders. after extracting the oil, isil sells it to smugglers who, in turn, transport the oil outside of isil's stronghold. these smugglers move oil in a variety of ways, from relatively sizable tankers to smaller containers. we also understand that isil controls oil refineries of various sizes and output capacities and earns some revenue from the sale of refined petroleum products. who is buying this oil? according to our information, as of last month, isil was selling oil at substantially discounted

prices to a variety of middlemen, including some from turkey, who then transplanted the oil to be resold. it also appears that some of the oil emanating from isil territory has been sold to kurds in iraq, and then resold interest turkey. and in a further indication of the assad regime's deprave, seems the syrian government has made an arrangement to purchase oil from isil. it is difficult to get precise revenue estimates on the value to isil of these transactions in light of the murky nature of the market but we begin by mid-june isil earned approximately $1 million a day from oil sales. there are good indications, however, that recent coalition military efforts have begun to impair isil's ability to generate rev nye frow oil smuggling. air strikes on isil oil refineries are threatening the supply networks and depriving it of fuel to sell or to use

itself. moreover, our partners in the region, including turkey and the card -- kurdistan government are committed to preventing isil oil from crossing their border. la's week the international energy agency recorded isil's able to produce, refine, and smuggle oil, had been significantly hampered. second, isil also kidnaps innocent civilians to profit from ransoms paid to obtain their release. isil did not pioneer kidnapping for ransom. it has been round for thousands of years, and other terrorist organizes, including al qaeda's affiliates in yemen and north africa, also rely on ransom payments as a key revenue source, and as i said before, kidnapping for ransom is one of the most significant terrorist threats today. for isil these ransom payments are irregular but each one can be a significant boom.

this spring isil released captured journalists and other hostages from several european countries in return, according to press reports, isil received several multi million dollar payments. all in all isil has taken in at least $20 million in ransoms this year. third, like its predecessor, al qaeda in iraq, isil raises money, up to several million dollars per month, through a sophisticate it extortion racket in iraq and syria they extract payment from those who pass through or seek to live in territory where it operates. iraqi city of mosul constants have surface offed terrorists going from home to home demanding cash at gunpoint. a grocery store owner who refused to pay was warned with a book outside his shop -- with a bomb outside his shops. others have seen relatives kidnapped. religious minority have been forced to pay special tributes

went have seen reports that when customers make cash withdrawals from local banks, isil demanded as much as 10% of the value. make no mistake, this is not taxation in return for services or even reel -- real protection. itself is theft, pure and simple. the money is being exchanged not for guarantee of safety but for the temporary absence of harm. fourth, isil also profits from a range of other criminal activities. they rob banks. they lay waste to thousands of years of civilization in iraq and syria by looting and selling antic quits an antic quits, they seal alivestock and sell abducted girls and women as sex slaves. finally, as i mentioned earlier, isil derived some funding from wealthy donors. even though isil currently does not rely heavily on external donor networks, it maintains important links to financiers in

the gulf as a state of treasury desnations last month made clear. isil's revenue streams are, to be sure, diverse and deep. with the important exception of some state-sponsored terrorist organizations, isil is probably the best funded terrorist organization we have confronted. nonetheless, underring this effort will take time, dedication, and broad collaboration, we're well-positioned to degrade isil's financial strength. our strategy involves three mutually supportive elements. first, we are working to disrupt isil's revenue streams in order to deny it money in the first place. second, we aim to limit what isil can do with the funds it collects by restricting its access to the international financial system. and, finally, we'll continue to impose sanctions on isil's senior loadership and financial facilitators to disrupt their

ablity to operate. the first element is working to cut off isil's main sources of funding in particular its revenue from oil sales, ransom payments, extortion and crime, and strum foreign donors to disrupt the market in oil derived from isil controlled feels we'll target for financial sanctions anyone who trades in isil's stolen oil. it is true that isil's oil moves in elicit networks that are largely outside of the formal economy where individuals are less vulnerable to financial pressure. but at some point the oil is acquired by someone who operates in the legitimate economy, and who makes use of the financial system. he has a bank account. his business may be financed. his trucks may me a insured. his facilities may be licensed. all that makes isil oil facilitators vulnerable. the middlemen, traders,

refineres, transport companies, and anyone else that handles isil's oil should know that we are hard at work identifying them and that we have the tools at hand to stop them. we not only can cut them off from the u.s. financial system and freeze their assets, about we can also make it very difficult for them to find a bank anywhere that will touch their money or process their transactions. in combating isil's fundraising to oil sales, we'll leverage the well-established reluctance of banks around the world to facilitate the financing of terrorism. and beyond financial sanctions, we are working closely with others in the u.s. government to enhance the ability of our partners in the region to choke off cross-border oil smuggling groups and identify those involved in the smuggling network. the turkish and iraqi kurdish authorities made emptiments to battle oil smuggling in their territories, and of course, is a mentioned earlier, our military

colleagues are playing a significant role in degrading this source of funding threw airstrikes on oil-related targets. next, to prevent isil from raising funds through ransoms we are redoubling our efforts to translate the emerging international consent suns against the payment of ransoms to terrorist groups into a more widely adopted practice. it has been u.s. policy for many years to refuse the payment of ransoms or make other concessions to hostage-takers. this policy rests on the sound premise, confirm by experience, that an ex-explicit and consistently applied no concessions policy reduces the frequency of kidnapping by eliminating the underlying incentive to take hostages in the first place. in the context of hostage-taking by terrorists this policy has even greater force. we know the terrorist organization, isil included, use ransom money to fund the full range of their violent activity.

refusing to pay ransom to terrorists makes it less likely that americans will be taken hostage but deprives terrorists of funding critical to their deadly aspirations and operations. we maintain this policy not because we're cold hearted. to the contrary, the president -- at the president's direction, we use all of our military intelligence, law enforcement, and diplomatic capability, to secure the release of american hostages. the attempts made this summer by u.s. forces to rescue hostages being held by isil reflects this commitment. but very simply, if we are to protect our citizens and avoid bankrolling our adversary, every country must adopt and implement the no-ransom policy. last year the g-8 unequivocally rejected the payment of ransoms to terrorists and this year members of the u.n. security

council have twice adopted resolutions reaffirming their shared commitment to seek the safe release of hostage without making monetary or political concessions. going forward as we seek to prevent kidnappings from occurring, and remain dedicated to freeing those taken, we'll continue to urge partner nations to subscribe to a no-ransom policy. at the same time we'll la look use to your counterterrorism authorities against those who demand or receive ransoms on behalf of terrorist organizations. we're also concern about external donor networks. to prevent isil from raising funds from donors abroad, we'll continue to identify itself financial supporters and target them for sanctions. we have long focused on disrupting disrupting the funding networks of icele and its predecessor, aqi. in fact we have applied sanctions against more than two dozen individuals associated

with aqi or isil over the past ten years, and we'll continue to tarring those who would exploit the suffering of innocent people in syria, and iraq, to raise money for their extremist agendas, whether in support of isil, or any other terrorist group. in the months ahead we plan to accelerate our efforts to identify targets for sanctions, and take actions against them through our counterterrorism authority in september president obama led the u.n. security council in unanimously passing a binding resolution to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters into and out of iraq and syria. security council resolution 2178 aims specifically to prevent and suppress the flow of foreign fighters and money to isil and we're working with others to implement it swiftly. we're working especially closely with our friends in the gulf who are stall cart warter ins in the antiisil coalition to ensure they all have the tools in place

to combat terrorist financing and they all use the tools effectively. we especially appreciate the close collaboration and strong sends taken by the emirates and the saudis to combat isil financingsing. even though isil does not currently rely heavily on the traditional donor model for terrorist finance, that is no reason to relax our efforts in this area. particularly as we make progress in disrupting isil's current sources of income, and as isil gained prominence, we must be prepared for the possibility that way. y extremists will increasingly seek the funding. as for disrupting the revenue that isil generates from extortion, we recognize the this re's tools are not particularly well-suited to the task. we can and will identify and designate the people who oversee isil's extortion networks, calling attention to those who

are brutalizing the people of iraq and syria. but our experience in combating aqis extortion network, drives home the point that shut downing the revenue flow from the extortion network will require breaking its hold on territories other. lines of effort in the antiisil coalition are focused on this objective. nonetheless, even where treasury's financial tools cannot cut off certain revenue streams, we still have a crucial role to play. that brings me to the second key almost of our strategy. as we work to disrupt isil's sources of income, we are focused on restricting isil's access to the international financial system in order to impair its ability to collect funds from abroad and to move, store, and use the funds it acquires locally. isil's able to make the most effective use of the money it raises depends on access to the banking system in syria, iraq,

and internationally. operating entirely in cash is both cumbersome and risky. cash is bulky, vulnerable to theft, and requires complicated logistics to transport. moreover, isil will have hard time funding external operations, including facilitating movements of foreign fighters, without access to the international financial system to that end we are working to limit isil's able to transact through the iraqy, syrian, and international banking systems. scores of bank branches are located in territories where isil currently operates. through cooperation with the iraqi authorities, bank headquarters, and the international financial community, we aim to prevent isil from using those bank branches. the private sector is also playing a key role in this element of our strategy. bank secrecy act reports filed with the treasury by financial institutions provide the u.s.

government with valuable insight into financial activity in areas where isil operates. we carefully review these reports for indications of isil financing, and quickly disseminate information to the appropriate authority. the third amount of our strategy draws on our time, tested approach to countering the financing of terrorism. that is, we will continue to dismantle isil's financial foundation, its leadership, supporters, and financial facilitators. running a terrorist organization, especially one that, like isil, spans hundreds of miles-is both costly and bureaucrat include challenging. in order to keep track of all its revenues and costs, isil depends 0 on complex management networks with cfo-like figures at the to as we identify the individuals that make up the networks we'll expose and designate them. we have seen from our fight against al -- al qaeda and other

organizations that sanctioning top officials hampers their able to raise and handle funds. do so against isil will make it heard for isil to conduct commercial and financial activity and clearly identify for the international community who stands behind this evil organization. we have already stepped up our designations of isil officials. both those based in iraq and syria, and their financial supporters outside the area. most recently on september 24th, treasury sanctioned two high-profile individuals associated with isil. a financial facilitator who arranged a $2 million donation from the gulf, and a senior military commander. both were based in syria, soliciting donations, procuring military equipment, and recruiting foreign fighters. these designations will not on their own stop these individuals from operating. but they, and the designations

to come, will frustrate isil's able to tract money and fighters. before concluding, i'd like to make one final point about our campaign against isil's financial foundation. we should not confuse funding with financial strength. while isil today is well-funded, terrorist group0s overall financial strength turns not just on its income but also its expenses and importantly the degree to which it can dedicate its resources to other purposes, and in that regard isil operates within certain reel constraints. isil territorial amibitions are a fortunately burden. attempting to govern the cities, towns, and sprawling territory in iraq and syria, where it currently operates, much less delivering some modicum of services to the millions of people it seeks to subjugate is expensive. by way of comparison only, since no one expects ice toll deliver the same level of services as

the legitimate iraqi government. the official iraqi budget the year for the provinces where isil operates is well over $2 billion. that far outstrips isil's revenue and does not include the price tag for the territory it seeks to dominate in syria. what this means is that isil cannot possibly meet the most basic needs of the people it seeks to rule. in fact, we are already seeing reports of water and electricity shortages in mosul, as isil fails to deliver. as we make progress in diminishing isil's revenues and freedom to use the, we'll further exploit this vulnerability. the consequences of isil's enable to meet the cost of governing, with the way, were articked very well in a -- articulated really well. with time, patience, and close international cooperation, the

steps i have outlined today will help undermine isil's financial foundation. i must stress again, however, that the campaign against isil finances will require more than just financial tools. this is primarily because, given that isil is enriching itself locally, cutting off one key source of funds will require dislodging it from territory in which it operates. but more broadly, even as its vital military campaign progresses we recognize the own only solution to the conflicts are political in nature the hateful ideology propagated by isil must be countered by tolerance, governments that rule in an inclusive manner. these are long-term goals that the united states is deeply committed to fostering. 0 while we work toward lasting solutions, treasury will continue to deploy innovativing extra to disrupt isil's financing, together with our

partners in the u.s. government and across the globe we will degrade and defeat isil. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, undersecretary cohen. let me start the discussion with a couple of questions and then we can open it up to the audience. you just got back from a trip to saudi arabia, both countries where individuals continue to donate money to isil. what was your message to them and how do you assess the state of fundraising in the gulf organizations? >> that's right, i just last week was in saudi arabia and in qatar. the gulf is enormously important in the antiisil coalition, for a whole host of reasons, including

the counter-financing aspect of this. and i think we have made no secret over the years of our concerns with financing for terrorist organizations coming out of the gulf. i think we have made some significant progress in the gulf, but there's obviously more work to be done. i think if you go through each critical country individually, if you look at saudi arabia, for instance, my meetings there were very, very good. the saud diz are deeply committed -- saudis are deeply committed to ensuring to the best of their ability that no money goes to isil, al qaeda or al-nusra. they have really over the last number of years made enormous strides in combating terrorist financing, and i'm confident are completely committed to ensuring

that isil is not able to raise funds in the kingdom. in the uae -- i didn't visit the eae this trip but i'm a frequent visitor. they also are steadfastly committed to preventing funding for isil. we have a very good, close relationship with the emiratetys and combating terrorist financing. we just initiated bilateral terrorist financing task force with the emirates where we're going to work closely on combating terrorist financing, and that's a very positive development and one that reflects an ongoing commitment by the emirates to combat terrorist. with respect to qatar and kuwait, i didn't make it to kuwait on this most recent trip, although general allen, who is spearheading this effort, is

just embarking on a tour that will include kuwait as well as qatar. i have in the past noted that both qatar and kuwait are permissive jurisdictions for terrorist financing, and have raised some specific concerns with respect to al-nusra and to some extent isil. and i think both countries have more work to do. in qatar, where i was last week, i had very good meetings with senior leadership, where we discussed how best to address this problem. the qatar -- amir promulgated new laws in qatar to ensure that the charitiability is not used as a mechanism to fund terrorist

organizations, but there are u.s. and u.n. designated terrorist financiers in qatar that have not been acted against under qatari law. one we designated last december, the u.n. designated in august. both residents in qatar. with respect to kuwait, they're also home to a number of u.s. and u.n. designated terrorist financiers. they also have the laws and institutions in place to combat terrorist financing in kuwait, but one of the things we are particularly concerned about, and of the recent sidnees were

raising funds throw all-star media, -- are reaching out to others, including, in saudi arabia to make appeals to raise funds. so one of the areas where we are quite concerned is ensuring that, in particular people designated by the u.s. and by the u.n., are disrupted and unable to continue their funding activities. i think there is more work to do, both in qatar and kuwait. we have been deeply engaged with both countries for a number of years. we have seen others make really substantial progress in combating terrorist financing, we're going to continue to work as closely as possible with our

partners in the gulf on this issue. , how would you address critics of u.s. policy who said this is not america's fight and that should be better left to countries in the region and not the united states, and how do you see the campaign progressing in the months and years ahead? what would you look for to determine whether it's working or not? >> well, i'd say a couple of things. first of all, this is certainly america's fight to some extent. as i noted, what isil is doing threatens core u.s. interests, whether it's our personnel and facilities in iraq and baghdad in irbil, or the interests of some of our very close partners in the region are jordan, lebanon, turkey. very significant u.s. interests. and as well as the concern that

isil is attempting to create a safe haven for terrorism across that territory, which is attracting foreign fighters. i think we have seen something on the order of 15,000 foreign fighters flow into the area from 80 or so different countries, including dozens of americans, and so it is deeply in our interests to confront isil, combat isil, to degrade and defeat isil. but it's not our fight alone. the size of the antiisil coalition, 60 countries and organizations coming together to combat isil, ten of which are involved in military strikes, and i think demonstrates that this is viewed quite properly as a threat to really many, many

countries around the world. and then as to how we will judge success of our particular efforts to address isil financing, this is going to be a long-term effort and going to involve work the treasury department does in designations and exposing the networks to involve work of partners in other countries, in turkey, and elsewhere, and we're very much engaged mitchell deputy was in turkie a couple of weeks ago. general allen was there last week. we're continuing very close communication with the turks on these issues. and it will require an enhanced understanding of the funding networks that we're combating. whether it's the oil network, other smuggling networks,

external donation network. i should note that we're very proud of the treasury department that we have an in-house intelligence agency. we are the only finance ministry in the world that has our own intelligence agency. what these folks do is help us understand the financial network. they develop financial intelligence. it's enormously important to the efforts that the intelligence community help us understand these networks. so, to answer your question, how will we judge our success? we'll see over time that we are degrading each of these lines of financing for isil. as i said, isil has a fair amount of money today. what is critically important is we do everything we can to prevent it from being recuring revenue.

one-time revenue we can address is one thing. we want to make sure that as they have significant expenses, they don't have the ready flow. >> let's open it up. we have 20 minutes so we'll take questions in batches of three. please keep it short. yes. >> hi. just a couple of questions. how would you assess what you have done so far, and also, you talked about how people in the golf -- how some governments in the gulf had new tolls you want to make sure they to the how to use. what are these tools, and the last question, you talk about how you guys hey been trying to come up with novel ideas could combat this novel way of raising funds but really you haven't outlined anything new about what you're talking about.

you have always had designations, so what's now about what you're doing? -- what's new about what you're doing? >> okay. >> with national endowment for democracy. i want to have -- you laid out a great strategy for banking and stuff like this. i just want to raise your attention to two things. what about informal companies that they are sitting in turkey ask there is a company in saudi arabia or cat -- qatar, i can make hundreded thousand by sayi, i give that to you. second, one thing you didn't mention, agriculture. if you see just in iraq, 80% of the wheat and corn produced in iraq, in isis area. i don't know about syria but that's a lot of money coming in. did you look in these areas?

>> question from the back. >> international center for terrorism studies. a big source or big method of combating isis has been supplying materials and weapons to the syrian rebels and the peshmerga. shouldn't a priority be put on ensuring these supplies do not fall into isil hands which would then put less pressure on their financial coffers? >> let's start with these. >> great. so how would i assess our progress so far? we are in the early stages of these efforts. i think some thing wes have done which i do think have been useful are the designations in

september of some of the -- beth the military and financial facilitators, which builds on work that we have been doing for a number of years to identify people who are related to aqi as well as isil. dozens of designations. this helps and was useful in my recent trips to the gulf to highlight work that can be done. i don't -- this is not going to be a exercise where we are going to, at the end of every month, be able to produce a balance sheet that shows what isil's finances look like. this is going to be a steady effort that will degrade isil's financing over time. the other area where i think we have seen, as i noted we have seen progress already, is not something that we have done at the treasury department.

it's something our colleagues in the department of defense and their partners have accomplished in terms of strikes against isil oil facilities and oil refineries in particular. that in part impedes their ability to sell refined products and makes it more difficult for them to fuel their vehicles are both military vehicles and vehicles that may be smuggling oil. so i think those are efforts -- i guess the one other -- this comes to your question about what is new -- we have also begun conversations with the iraqi government and with other financial regulatory authorities, around the world, about our concerns with bank branches that are within the isil controlled territory. this is a difficult problem

because our interest is not in shutting down all economic activity in the areas where isil currently operates. they are huge swaths of population, people still trying to live their lives, and banks, as everybody knows, are important lube lieu -- lube can'ts for the economy but we're concern about isil's able to co-opt or coerce the bank employees into sort of using the banks as a way for them to move money and particularly internationally. and so this is sort of -- i don't know if it's new or old but a new manifestation of a core treasury -- working with financial counterparts in the

iraqi government and outside to do what can be done to try and prevent isil from making use of these branches. on the question of the informal mean to move funds, it's absolutely right and something that we confront in all of our counterterrorist financing efforts, is that not everything moves through the formal financial sector. but we also have a history of identifying and taking action against informal financial networks. we have done it in afghanistan, we have done it in pakistan. what it requires, as i noted earlier, is good intelligence on who is involved in these activities and then action against them. and it also requires the cooperation and collaboration with partners in the region.

thethe example you cite, one enf the transaction is saudi aabe ya. we are closely engaged with the saudis on this issues. they are fully engaged on the efforts to combat isil financing and we will work with partners in the region on those sorts of issues. both on -- with respect to the question on agriculture and isil selling weapons, as i said, one of the challenges here is that isil controls territories, and that means that they are able to engage in activities within the territory where they're currently operating, whether it's stealing crops and selling them, or coming into weapons that have been left behind and selling them.

that's all activity that we're aware of-that there are ways to address if it is particularly -- particularly if it is going beyond the borders where they operate, but fundamentally is going to require pushing back isil from the territory where it operates and freeing the lands where they are as well as sort of -- that won't work on the extortion network, work on the filling of crops they're stealing. >> please. >> hi, rachel oswald. could you please talk a little bit about -- you said there had been some success in your conversation wiz countries, i'm getting primarily european countries, about no longer paying ransoms to icele and other terrorist groups. could you be more specific about

which countries are coming around? >> barbara from atlantic council. you do you deal with the fact that there are mixed motivations on the part or the member of the coalition, with many of them putting a priority on getting rid of bashar al-assad, and particularly turkey, and many folks who seem to have an am a&m ambivalence, and in regard to iran, how much progress have you made for setting up financial channels who want to do business with iran. >> in the back. >> thank you. i had a quick question -- you said that some of the oil from

the territory that isil is controlling, is sold to iraq and re-sold to turkey. could you clarify which one -- i mean, what source of oil is crude and what its refined, and there are two ways the iraqis are transporting oil to turkey. one is through the pipeline and second through the trucks, and sees that as smuggling. what is your position on this issue, when you said that you are working with the partners in the region to cut off cross-border oil migrating groups. is that including oil trucks trade made between krg and turkey? >> in the back? yes, sir, please. >> will with "the wall street

journal." following up on the oil trade you. mentioned fairly well sized tanker vessels. has the u.s. or others identified which vessels are being used, what routes they're plying, between which ports, and how would they be stopped, being arrested at the ports or on the high seas? how is that going to be stopped? thank you. >> okay. try to do this in reverse order. on the question -- i didn't mean to suggest vessels in terms of ships. i think what we have seen are tankers, truck tankers, not ship tankers. so, just to clarify that. and then to -- in response to question on how the oil is

moving and what the smuggling networks look like and what we're doing about it. i don't have much more detail that i can provide today on the specific routes and specific mechanisms than what i've already said. but i will note this. the smuggling routes have existed for a long period of time. long before isil was active in the territory. and what may have been a willingness to sort of look the other way, to see these sort of -- not knowledgeable about the origin of the oil that these smuggling networks are using, and i took this smuggling networks -- it's not just oil.

there oar commodities that have for hundreds of years moved through these smuggling networks. but the ability of people tend of the networks to be unaware of the origin of the oil may have been tolerable in a time where what was happening was just people stealing oil from the syrians or the iraqi government and selling it through networks. what is different is that we now know, and they now know, that this oil begins with isil, begins with a terrorist organization, and that the trade in this oil fundamentally funds this terrorist organization, and so what may have been a willingness to look the other way in the past, is something that i think cannot continue going forward. and as i said, we will try to emphasize that message, both

rhetorically and through action as we identify the people who are involved in those networks. with respect to competing objectives or ambivalence or what have you, i believe the diplomacy -- i leave the diploma to diplomats. i don't sense any ambivalence whatsoever among some of the key partners the importance of combating isil financing. i think even with respect to what i was saying on qatar and kuwait. neither of those countries and none of the officials in those countries are saying that they are indifferent to the funding of isil coming from the territory. quite the contrary. beth of those countries are

aware of the problem, and i didn't answer the question about the tools. let me come back to that. the qatarys have, is a noted, new law regarding charity. they have long-standing legislation that allows them to designate individuals and designate terrorist organizations as they're obligated to do under u.n. security council resolution. the kuwaitis also have the -- the institution and legal framework to do what we do, which is to take administrative action against terrorize financiers. so those are the tools available. and as i said, i think we're going to continue to work with both those jurisdictions so they employ those tools as effectively as possible. and then, on the question about ransoms and the -- where we have

had success, think it's notable in the last year, year plus, you had the g-8 come out with a very, very strong statement about the payment of ransom, and then you have had two u.n. security council resolutions that -- one specifically focused on ransom payments, and the other in the context of the foreign terrorist fighters-noting the importance of not paying ransoms to terrorists, that is a very significant declaration of the adherence to a no-ransom policy. and the trick is -- i know you ask me this -- the trick is translating that into practice, and being committed as a matter of fact to a policy and approach that, as i noted is becoming a

broader international norm and that requires very hard choices to be made and recognition of the importance of adopting a no-ransom policy as a mean to protect all of our citizens, and is a noted in my remarks, isil received something on the order of $20 million this year in ransom payments. that means that not everybody is as committed to this no-ransoms policy as certainly as we are, and i would note as the british are, too. i think, like us, long adhered to in word and practice, no-ransoms policy. so there's obviously more work to be done on that front also. >> thank you so much. i'm afraid that is all the time we have0. please join me in thanking undersecretary cohen for a timely and interesting conversation. and may i ask you, please to stay seated until the secretary

is able to leave. thank you so much. [inaudible conversations] ...

you can see his remarks live starting at 11:30 a.m. eastern on titov. but mack