.. the places that had problems 50 years ago are still the places with the worst problems of race discrimination today. that said, these issues that i have discussed, and i presume we will discuss further in this panel, making it more difficult to

vote and have one's vote counted, these are really national issues. and at some point i would like to see the united states congress take action to establish a baseline of uniform rules for registration, identification , and early voting so that the many people who moved across state lines in the united states know what the rules will be for voting when they moved. as it stands now, if you live across state lines he may face entirely different rules regarding registration , identification , when you can vote and so on. we have, in my opinion, a lot to learn from the rest of the world when it comes to the way we've run elections, including the protection.

>> adding to that ought to be the way that people interact with voting, the machine or type of voting. some are more accurate than others. also, a huge issue in the united states is absentee voting, and a lot of litigation now comes up about absentee voting, and that, too, is different for each jurisdiction. but now we can turn to what happened after shelby county and what has happened since then. >> yes. so, basically there was a call almost immediately to update the coverage formula, which was what was struck down in the supreme court decision in shelby county. it took a little bit for a draft to come out, but eventually one day. think a little bit about, you know, what are the options for updating, if

there is a desire to do so end what is the situation if they don't. i will start with the latter question first, which is, section five was, as i mentioned at the beginning, only one provision of the voting rights act. section two applies nationwide and does address some of the the latest principles and practices that the professor was speaking about. in fact, it is mainly used for those purposes. the trouble is, -- of trouble, with a unique feature of section five was that it stop things in its tracks before the practice took place where a section to comes after the fact. that was, i think, what was lost as opposed to the ability to target these practices generally. there is still a judicial mechanism for targeting these practices in section two of the voting rights act there is also section three of the voting rights act some of which creates a jurisdiction has been found

to violate the united states constitution in terms of voting rights, then age years -- that jurisdiction can be brought into the type of pre clearance process section five use to have kind of as a default rule in certain areas of the country. so that is directly responsive to ongoing constitutional violations and in response to current conditions and jurisdictions and then, of course, there is the constitution itself, the cause of action to bring an action against the state, a local jurisdiction based upon a violation of folks constitutional rights. and so all of these things still exist. the one thing that does not is the prior restraint, the thing that stops the practices before the start. what is going to need to happen is folksy to think

long and hard about, is that prior restraint something to have to come back, or are their claims and causes of action that currently exist on the books sufficient to deal with the types of voting discrimination that everybody agrees still exists today because there are things that go on across the country. and no one will deny it, i think, that some of them violate the united states constitution. that is the question in my mind, whether that will be necessary. to my mind, the draft bill that was released, i don't think appropriately addressed that particular concern. i think it was more of a move to do something quickly as opposed to trying to strike the right balance. and so in that respect there was going to be a modification of that section three which would have responded to, not constitutional violations, but other types. in my mind, and in reading

the supreme court decision just as an outside observer, i -- well, i was not an outside observer. [laughter] reading this supreme court decision into which i have no particular inside more than anyone else, i don't think that that type of bail and would be constitutionally sufficient. and then, i think a coverage formula of of the type that is not going to respond to constitutional violations but to some other types of violations, statutory violations is probably not going to pass muster either, so those are things they will have to think about. i am not in charge of any of these things. i am just kind of observing this. to my mind, if congress was going to go that route it would probably be subject to challenge again and would have a reasonable chance of succeeding. those are my views on the landscape of where section five stance after the shelby county decision.

>> and i don't know if we want any discussion about the specific states, what has happened maybe. >> sure. let me actually talk about two things. first, the legislative picture at the federal level, which was addressed. secondly, what has gone on in the court. the bottom line in terms of what our congress is likely to do is nothing. we have enormous party polarization and still make -- stalemate. there has been a deal proposed with mostly democratic support, which, as brandon mentioned, would create a new coverage formula and would require disclosure of the impact of voting changes. there are some features of this bill i like, others

about which i am less enthusiastic, but the bottom line is that in this very divided congress it is not going anywhere, nor is any voting rights bill going to go anywhere. as i mentioned earlier, i would love to see a bill that imposed greater standards at the federal level over all of these issues, and might resolve some of the contentious debates that we have had in recent years, really since 2000 over voting, but that is not likely to happen anytime soon. so, as is frequently the case where these controversies windup being alternately resolve tony is in the courts. we have seen a significant increase in litigation over voting rules in recent years, really sense that

2000 elections which first brought these matters into courts, and some of the restrictions that i mentioned earlier, voter identification, limits on where and how you can register to vote, restrictions on absentee and early voting, rules regarding the accounting a provisional balanced love of technology. all of these practices have been challenged in court. in fact, and my state alone every single one of the practices that i just mentioned have been challenged. this is to be expected. you have partisan legislative bodies making the rules for elections and you have partisan elected officials for the most part running elections, questions

about this conflict of interest that i mentioned earlier are inevitably going to rise, and in our system, the institution that is most insulated from partisan politics is the court. so in my view, it is quite appropriate that the court be arbiters of these disputes regarding the fairness of elections rules and whether or not there really is a level playing field. >> panel on election and disability rights. i am an access and inclusion specialist spirit at work and all of our projects around the world to include people with disabilities and democracy and governance. 50 percent of the world's population is estimated to have a disability, so think about considering the fact that many people with disabilities encounter a lot of barriers to political participation, what a large

portion of the population that is at a large portion of your citizens that are not able to vote. they encounter a lot of different types of very -- barriers to participation. some are maybe a little more obvious, such as physical barriers, maybe a polling at station on the second or third floor, a voter registration center not in an accessible location and there are barriers related to information. so the information that the elections commission issues of over to a good laugh out of both allowed to register to vote, is all that information disseminated in an accessible form the -- format such as sign language, brio, large print. and there is a third type of barrier which is a lot more difficult and pervasive, and those are legal barriers. many election laws contain clauses that are discriminatory toward people with disabilities and people with intellectual disabilities in particular. the u.s. 24 years ago became the first country to enact disability rights legislation that bans

discrimination against people with disabilities. and this legislation has gone on to produce additional acts such as the help america vote act that is specifically related to voting and providing access and inclusion to the political process. and so i am joined today by an esteemed panel. going to talk a little bit more about access to the political process and how the u.s. standards have been used to help draft the un convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. this treaty is really the main international standard, a gold standard in terms of access and inclusion in people's disabilities in all areas, including participation in political and public life. so on the panel today we have set the special adviser for international disability rights of the part of the state. and this is a presidential

level appointee position. where she works at the state department she ensures disability rights are dressed in u.s. diplomacy. an internationally recognized civil-rights leader prior to joining the state department to work at the world bank, under the clinton administration she was in the department of education, says she is really an all-around star in terms of disability rights. and then right beside julie we have charlotte. she is the coordinator for disability inclusive development at the u.s. agency for international development. and so her position was also affected by the president ought path, and in her role death usaid she works to mainstream the rights of people with disabilities in government development funding. prior to joining usaid charlotte was also at the world bank and was appointed by president nelson mandela to serve on the south african human rights commission. and here right beside me we have the senior staff attorney at the babylon

center, an organization founded over 40 years ago and advocates for the rights of people with mental disabilities. and so in that capacity, louis has brought pamphlets about work that the battle on center has done on access and inclusion in the legal barriers that people with disabilities might encounter prior to joining the center he worked at the department of justice and the civil rights hero ended litigation around the americans with disabilities act. so we have a impressive and exciting panel here today. each of our panelists is going to talk for about ten minutes, and then we will have the remainder of our time together open to question and answer. so i will start off with judy at the end who will give an overview of the americans with disabilities act and the help america vote act and talk a little bit about some specific provisions. >> think you.

sorry that i am late. very nice to be here, and i appreciate the fact that we have a commitment to the inclusion of disabled people in voting, and i don't know if you have already been told, but then just been awarded a grant from the state department as part of a consortium with ability international, usaid, education and defense fund and the united states international council on disability. and it is a pilot project. and they are going to be working beginning in three countries to help people learn more about some of our laws and to work, like the americans with disabilities act, and to learn about leader development and basically be available to help, and this case of vietnam, kenya, and mexico to continue to move forward as they work on the implementation of the

conventions on the rights of persons with disabilities. i am going to try to focus mainly on the voting rights act and the americans with disabilities act and start off by saying that i am almost 67 years old. so i have the privilege of being able to speak about what the united states was like when i was growing up, and i think it is an important issue to raise because many countries are still working on making their country's more accessible in order to be able to ensure equal rights for disabled individuals, and the americans with disabilities act, which did not come into the united states, was not passed into law until 1990, really has been one of the major pieces of legislation granting disabled individuals' rights in the public and private sector. and voting is one critical component of this law. when i first voted when i was 18 years old in new

york, we had no laws requiring accessibility for disabled individuals, so i voted in my neighborhood. there were four steps into the voting, polling place. my father carried me up those steps and helped me with voting because i could not utilize the materials to be able to exercise. and my father did what i asked him to do, but today because of the changes in our legislation, i can actually get into a polling place and vote by myself. so as we all know, you would not be here otherwise, the issue of voting is critical, really important to help ensure democracies, and in the case of the disability community, we know because of the world health organization and world bank that at least 15 percent of the population of people

around the world have disabilities. this is a very large percentage of individuals which, quite frankly, as voting becomes accessible and disabled people can vote more freely, participate in elections, as well as run for political office, it should be something that parties are interested in reaching out to the disability community because it is a large enough population that, in fact, between people themselves who have disabilities, friends, colleagues, family can, in fact, influence elections. we have a number of laws in the united states which addressed the issue of voting. the first one is the americans with disabilities act. this is, as i mentioned, a federal civil-rights law that provides protections to people with disabilities, similar protections that are provided for other individuals in the united states in the areas of race, color, sex, national origin,

age come religion. one similarity in the united states is that civil rights legislation, which we had passed and and 1960's in a number of areas, which included the right to vote, did not at that time include access to voting for individuals who have disabilities. so it was the americans with disabilities act which actually allowed the disability community to be able to catch up to the rights that others with disabilities had. the voting rights act of 1965 contained provisions relevant to the voting rights for people with disabilities, but not as extensive as the americans with disabilities act. so the voting rights act requires officials to allow a voter who is blind or has another disability to receive assistance when voting. another very important piece of legislation in the united

states is the help america vote act, which we call hava it requires a jurisdiction responsible for conducting -- jurisdictions that are responsible for conducting elections, provide at least one accessible voting system for persons with disabilities at each polling place in federal lections. and the accessible voting system must provide the same opportunity for access and participation, including privacy and independence. now, when we look at the issue of voting, obviously we also in the united states are requiring registration. and so when someone goes to register to vote, they also must be assured their right to be able to register to vote. so the law itself requires that all offices which provide public assistance or state-funded agencies have

to ensure that disabled individuals have the opportunity to register to vote by providing voter registration forms can assisting voters in completing these forms and transmitting completed forms to the appropriate sources. we also have expanded entities that we are requiring provide information for disabled individuals to let them know that, should they wish to register to vote, they can register. for example, through one of our federal agencies that assists disabled individuals in three st. -- receiving training to be able to move into the world of work and other organizations, like the local, community-based groups call centers for independent living. we both looked at the importance of enabling disabled people to register to vote as well as to vote,

and i think this is an important point because if disabled people within the country have felt excluded and in the past were not able to vote then, in fact, they may not believe that things have been changing to enable them to vote. so putting messages out in many different ways to enable people to know that, yes, they are encouraged to vote. yes, they can register and can be assured greater access to the ability to vote. now, as far as requiring accessible voting places. so, elections in the united states are held in many different places, such as schools or religious institutions, as well as public or private buildings. and so when an election is being held, there may have to be accommodations for the place where someone is voting that may be temporary

so, for example, we may have elections and libraries are in schools or in fire stations or churches or stores or private buildings. and what we would be looking for would be the ability for a person to gain access into the building, so there would need to be an accessible route into the building, places to park. there would need to be a ramp into the building in the event that there was not access previously. that ramp, for the sake of the election, would not necessarily have to be permanent because the voting place may be temporary voting place, and attention would have to be paid to things like painful to get through the door, to be able to get to the place where one would vote and the area where a person would be

exercising their right to vote would be accessible for someone who may use a wheelchair or other kind of technology. guide dogs and other animals that a disabled person may use to be able to be more independent in the community must be permitted into the place where someone is going to be voting. the department of justice, which is the agency that has responsibility for overseeing elections in the united states in the area of race, the other categories i mentioned has expanded its election day month during, and i believe a number of you will be going out tomorrow to voting places, and if you wish you can certainly ask them about accessibility for disabled individuals to vote. the election site, they have responsibility to ensure that individuals who are

giving people the appropriate materials to vote have been trained to work with people who have disabilities so that they can get people information about what is available, and it is civil person who needs assistance and voting is allowed to bring someone with them into the voting poll to be able to actually vote. one of the other important parts of what is killing on with the department of justice is the fact that people can file complaints in the event that they believe that the voting place is not accessible, and the department of justice has had a number of findings in this area. and i have brought a couple of copies of a recent case that the department of justice had with a district in texas. and so i brought four copies

if you want to make more copies, virginia will be able to help to that. i think that is a very broad overview, and we can get into more specifics in q&a. [applause] >> thank you. thank you in particular for pointing out to keep things that are often overlooked, the focus on voter registration, so it accommodation you may make later is not going to have nearly as big of an impact of people with disabilities are not able to register to vote in the first place, so that is a key area to focus on, the registration process the other thing that is often a big barrier is that sometimes election commission's will develop a system devices, for example, the textile ballot guys that allow people who are blind to vote on their own end and secret but will not train poll workers on how to use

the devices. all this money goes into development of the system tools that are then not used because the poll workers do not know how to use the tool and the voters have not been educated at the tool exists. that is another unique aspect of law that is required. alterra a co-workers need to be trained, and there needs to be education to the general public that these are available. judi gave a good overview of u.s. legislation and steps being taken. charlotte will talk next a little bit about how the americans with disabilities act were used to lay the groundwork and influence the u.n. convention on the rights for persons with disabilities and will talk a little bit about work that usaid has done in this space >> thank you very much. i would like to thank the organizers, ifes, for a inviting me to be a part of this distinguished panel and

really just thank ifes for a their relentless commitment for including persons with disabilities in the electoral but also importantly in the political participation process. i was asked by virginia to speak a bit about article 29, a convention on the rights for persons with disabilities and to share with you some examples and emerging many incentive practices that we are aware of. but i would like to preface my remarks this afternoon and with that general reflection. and my reflection is that in many countries the history of the right to vote has been really defined by exclusion, as we think about it. and i think for me that is an important piece of information to base all of my kind of thinking around because i never want us to lose sight of the fact that women and men have sacrificed their life's

tessellated in building the of the directive of. people have been exiled for the right to vote. people have gone to jail. nelson mandela went to jail for 25 years for the right to vote. and so i guess it is more of up legal enough that i need to ask you guys to do this because that is why you are here but really to underscore the importance of never taking for granted the importance of the right to vote because it really embodies the spirit of democracy, and that is something that people with disabilities want as much as anyone else. that is just kind of by way of preface. so, i mean, i think it is fairly -- it is knowledge that the right to vote and to participate in politics is very much a cornerstone of international human rights law. and yet people with disabilities are often denied his rights. as both judy and virginia

pointed out, and i will repeat because in this instance i think repetition is a good thing, persons with disabilities make up 50 percent of the world's population, so this is a significant population we're talking about. it is also important to recognize that 80 percent of persons with disabilities live in the developing world , so they're living in the countries in which you come from and certainly in the countries in which we work in part. yet too often people with disabilities are excluded from both of the electoral and the political process. and as you mentioned, this is often due to discriminatory laws, but it is not just in the actual voting. it is also in that they are discriminated against in terms of holding office or monitor elections and other kind of political and public duties. i think too often people

with -- there is an assumption that people with disabilities are unable or uninterested to participate, and so states really fail to provide the necessary accommodations that would enable persons with disabilities to participate. and if we recognize that participation is really one of the most -- is one of the key pieces of political and public life, by excluding people with disabilities, we are preventing them from taking part in a social life i think it is also important for us to think about how participation extends beyond just floating, and i know i have mentioned this before, but it is important for me to think about participation as a part of decision making, a process of developing prostate -- developing policy, a process of being part of the social

fabric. let me turn to the convention on the rights for persons with disabilities and in particular article 29. this article establishes that state parties shall guarantee political rights to persons with disabilities , and it provides an a opportunity for persons with disabilities to enjoy those political rights on an equal basis with others. so it is not asking for a separate kind of regime, political regime or electoral regime for persons with disabilities but on an equal basis with others. however, that requires addressing the reasonable accommodations that were mentioned. in my view, article 29 is a very pragmatic article, and it requires -- the process is related to participation, and so it addresses issues such as excess ability and addresses issues of around

how we can progressively moved toward accessibility within the physical environment, but it also addresses the importance of other aspects of accessibility, such as information and communication technology. article 29 cannot be read in isolation, and that, too, is an important piece. has to be read in conjunction or in collaboration with the other rights that are entrenched in the crp. for instance, if you're talking about the right to vote solely focusing on article 29 you may miss the fact that there are rights in the convention that speech to the right to accessibility. if you do not have been accessible transportation, if you do not have accessible infrastructure, that right in article 29

becomes very difficult. so it is important for us to recognize that these rights are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. now, i would like to just briefly mention some of the challenges that people with disabilities access and enjoying their right to vote . the one and is loaded strength in texas to the commission communication. and accessibility remains a major challenge for help people with disabilities engage in the voting processes or the left door process used. another major challenge which has been mentioned by my colleague is the issue around the lack of norman a framework for where you have legislation but you do not have mechanisms to enforce that legislation. i see a lot of heads nodding in the room. we often have great legislation but of the

mechanisms to make sure it is enforced. so those, to me, are to major challenges, but i have to say that i am very optimistic because i think that increasingly we are beginning to see a lot of good examples, and i think, you know, hava and certainly the ada has paved the way for that and the practices that we employ in the states in terms of ensuring accessible elections. so i won't go through all of the points because many were touch done, but a few that i would like to touch on that, perhaps, she did not, is the importance of raising awareness also among parliamentarians. that, for me, is an important piece of this package because we often think about accessibility only in the physical sense. how do we ensure that there are ramps, tactile ballots, but it is a process, and we

have to make sure that we have a narrow gap approach to ensuring full and seamless accessibility for inclusion of persons with disabilities. so working with the electoral bodies such as ourselves is clearly an important piece. virginia mentioned the importance of voter registration, as did judy. that is important. the training of polling station officials is absolutely key, and that is often, i would argue, best done by working with persons with disabilities to actually embark or engage in that training command that will come to that in the minutes. so that is an exciting space also, as i was waiting to come into the session this afternoon i was fighting -- talking to a colleague who was telling me about how there are looking and online voting. how can we use high ct in the broader sense to start thinking about online voting

as a way to begin to include persons with disabilities but actually not just persons with disabilities, a whole range of people. think about how this would revolutionize the issue for aging people. think about how this would be useful for people who live in remote areas. so online voting is certainly an exciting prospects going forward. finally, i would like to share with you what i think are some instructive examples that i see have been influenced by the application of article 29 of the conventions of persons with disabilities. and i will not delve too deeply. i will just highlight them, and if any of you are interested in background information, i am happy to provide that. and so i just wanted to mention a case in peru where voting rights were restored to thousands of persons with

disabilities, and this was after 20,000 people with intellectual disabilities have been executed from the voting will. and what happened in this case was that there was a resolution that mandated the registry to issue a national identity cards to persons with disabilities so that they could vote. the exclusion of this group of people was overturned, and people were then able to participate in the electoral process. in jordan usaid supported persons with disabilities in a campaign. s sought to it change election law that did not reflect the attendance of the crpd article called twitter.com/booktv, so what was happening previously was that, people with certain types of disabilities would go to the polling station

without personal assistance, and personal assistance we're not provided at the polling stations, which meant that they were not able to vote. and so what was happening there was that the person with the disability would have to announce their candid it's name in the presence of a committee. that is not a secret vote. but fortunately, the senate has since addressed this issue, and persons with disabilities now can vote with their personal assistant. so i think we're beginning to see how article 29 is really beginning to change the dynamics of around how we include persons with disabilities in the electoral process see. >> guest: -- three other examples that i would like to share briefly, in kenya, in kenya usaid supported the presence of a sign language interpreter during the last televised political debate. again, not just the end part of the election, but the process around elections.

empowered by usaid recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the electoral tribunal to think about inclusive election's going forward. finally, wanted to share an example from south africa the touch of a point that i think virginia had mentioned. that was that in south africa the independent electoral commission contracted the deaf federation of south africa and line organization of south africa to work with the itc cut to develop manuals, to actually do the training. and so they brought in the experts, and this has proven to be very successful. i share with you these examples because i think we are beginning to see that it is possible to break down barriers and that breaking down barriers is beneficial, not just the people with

disabilities but two of whole range of people. i just want to end by saying that usaid remains committed to further in the human rights of persons with disabilities and recognizing that their right to vote is an essential and inalienable right. we continue to support our partners and nappy to save that is -- in your bag their is a manual produced by ifes supported by usaid that has been hugely successful and our mission and is being used to inform colleagues around how to include persons with disabilities carried i just want to lastly say, i think, for me, the important piece around this is the impact and the benefit of including persons with disabilities. not only potentially bringing in a large percentage, the 15%, but also societies that are

inclusive are often more democratic. and we also know that society is that a more democratic of those societies that are more often to meet their development goals. thank you. [applause] >> thank you : charlotte. thanks also for pointing out how many accommodations might make the voting process more accessible for people with disabilities are often helpful for the general public. it's a good investment on multiple levels. and also the examples of what is happening around the world are encouraging to hear, good examples of good practice that can be emulated. charlotte also mentioned that article 29, political participation of the un convention should not be read an isolation. there is another article focused on legal capacity. so our next speaker is going to address legal capacity on

issues and how the u.s. is addressing those barriers and give some examples of things they're happening here in some chance. >> thanks, virginia. and please to have a chance to speak with you today about an issue that you may or may not be aware of or may or may not be working, and that is the voting rights of people with mental disabilities. as virginia mentioned to my work at the center for mental health, which is a non-governmental organization here in the u.s. that advocates for the rights of people with mental disabilities to live independent and in the grave lives in their own homes and communities. what do i mean by people with mental disability? onion the rights of people with psychos social disability, which in the united states we used to call insane people or the mentally ill, but the

bazelon center also works on behalf of people with developmental, intellectual, or cognitive disabilities, which in the united states with our laws and media were used to call the mentally retarded. these are old words that were enshrined in our laws and commonly used in our media. we tend not. ♪ to assist in synthesized into italy if this to people with disabilities to describe a group of people that and talking about. my office, the bazelon center, has worked for decades to ensure that people with mental disabilities have the right to vote. we work on this issue with other disability rights organizations here in the u.s. like the national disability rights network and the national alliance on mental illness. in the u.s., as charlotte and judith have described, we see voting is a fundamental right. we think that by expressing our views through voting we

can help ensure that our government develops and implements good policies and practices and protect our civil and human rights. as you did noted, and general and the u.s. the act of voting has been made far more accessible for people with disabilities with the passage of laws like the voting rights act, the americans with disabilities act, the help america vote act. these laws of require our state and local governments, which are primarily responsible for conducting elections in the u.s. led to make sure that people with disabilities have equal access to voting with support or accommodations if need be. much of the attention in the united states and perhaps around the world has focused on the physical accessibility of polling places, whether or not people with physical disabilities can vote in this and location and manners everyone else.

with support or accommodation and whether they can vote independently and privately, as everyone else does. but the americans with disabilities act, the help america vote act, the u.s. constitution also protect the rights of people with mental this of these. disability advocates in the u.s. are still fighting battles over the rights of people with mental disabilities to vote. some of these are battles over updated language in some of our state laws, which have imposed categorical restrictions on the voting rights of people with disabilities, and some of these are battles over the practices and assumptions, judges and election officials and others make in determining who is competent to vote or who has the capacity to cope i will touch on both of these issues today. i also want to highlight the efforts of disability advocates in the u.s. to

inform people with mental disabilities, their advocates, and people who are responsible for elections about the types of assistance or accommodations that can help ensure that everyone has an opportunity to vote. just with regard to motor competence requirements, many of our state constitutions and state voting laws in this country require that voters have a certain level of competence. there is still above 13 u.s. states and the district of columbia, where we are today, that have laws that bar voting by individuals who may judge has ruled are mentally incapacitated or mentally incompetent. after such ruling, the judge usually places that person under guardianship, meaning

that the judge names another person, a guardian or in some states a conservative, to make certain decisions for the person under guardianship. in these states, you still may not be able to vote if you have a guardian. these laws are a problem, we think, because this language in alas singles out persons with mental disabilities for different treatment from everyone else. also, use of these terms is over broad. just because a person has a guardian to assist in decisionmaking about certain types of decisions like financial decisions or decisions around living arrangements, does not mean that the person does not have an understanding about how the elections work and have a preference about who to vote for or what to vote for. there are also states that have laws that used

stigmatizing terms such as idiots or insane person, the kind of terms are was referring to earlier, to describe who is barred from voting based on competence concerns. this is a problem. stigma around the capacity of people with disabilities to make independent decisions is too often the basis for disability discrimination. another problem we face here is that and all of the states with voter competence standards, only a court of competent jurisdiction, usually a state record, is supposed to make a determination about who is competent to vote. but we know that over the years there have been situations in which election officials, poll workers, guardians, service providers, including staff from nursing homes or other institutional settings that serve people with mental disabilities and prevented those people from voting

because of a perceived lack of confidence to vote. this is a highly problematic issue and, we think, a violation of the constitution when people other than judges make decisions based on assumptions about who can and cannot for. no, i have mentioned voter competence standards. add to the bazelon center we generally think that there is no need to have voter confidence standards -- voter competence standards than the target people with disabilities. from what we know there is no u.s. state or no nation anywhere in the world that subjects people without disabilities to any type of standard to measure their voting capacity. we do not generally expect voters without disabilities to just to demonstrate the rationale for their vote for their understanding of how the voting process works. we should not expected of

people with mental disabilities either. there are at least 11 states in the united states that do not have any competence standard for voting, and there is no indication that the election systems in those states have been compromised by the votes of people with mental disabilities. to the extent that states choose to have it for over competence requirement we think that all individuals in the state should be held to the same standard and that given that the essence of voting is expressing a choice, the standard should be whether a person can communicate with or without accommodations a choice whether to cast a vote. the standard should be the same for a person with a mental disability as for anyone else, whether a person can express a choice. in 2007, the american bar association, which is a non-governmental organization representing

the committee of lawyers adopted a similar standard for determining voter competence, whether a person can communicate with or without accommodations a specific desire to participate in the voting process. and that is very similar, if not identical, to the standard that we at the bazelon center and other disability advocates would propose. the ada, the american bar association's standard also requires that no prohibition on an individual's voting take place unless it is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction that has afforded the individual appropriate due process protections and that the court's order is based upon clear and convincing evidence. these are of protections that are important to ensuring the fundamental right to vote is not taken away from an individual in error. since the american bar association adopted the

standard to add least two american states have adopted the standard. have heard this all of you will be traveling to maryland tomorrow to look at polling places in a state. maryland adopted the american bar association's standard, as did the western state of nevada. although we appreciate the changes that the states have made, this language is much better than what was in the voting laws before. still, there are issues in other u.s. states. in july of this year advocates in california filed a civil rights complaint with the united states department of justice alleging that thousand people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including down syndrome commensurable palsy, autism lost their right to vote. according to the advocates, in a kit -- in a sample of cases they review from los

angeles, california 90 percent of people under guardianship had been disqualified because the judge used in the jersey test to determine whether the person was qualified to vote. as i said before, we think that the only test that should be used to determine if someone could vote is whether a person can express a choice commander should apply to everyone, not just people with disabilities. we do not use a literacy test to determine a people without disabilities can boat commander should not use one to determine that people with disabilities can vote. i have just a couple of other points i wanted to mention. one was the impact of the crpd on this issue. charlotte mentioned that article 29 covers access to voting. there is also article 12 of the crpd, which states that states that ratified the crpd show recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an

equal basis with others in all aspects of life, including, i would argue, voting. as the crpd also states that the aside a jury's shall take appropriate measures to provide access to the support them require in exercising their legal capacity, including exercise in the right to vote. i just wanted to briefly touch on the kind of accommodations that people with mental disabilities need in voting. there are at least five principles that we would like to see disseminated to people with disabilities, their families and friends, advocates, election officials, poll workers, and service providers about how to help a person with a mental disability vote. number one, people with

mental disability should have the right to get help of voting and to decide who will help them go. number two, a person with a disability should be able to get help from a friend, a family member, a care giver, and residential service provider, or almost anyone else of his or her choosing, except under u.s. law under the voting rights act, the person's employer or a fellow union members. in the united states a person can also ask a poll worker for assistance with voting. number three, a person helping a voter with a disability should ask the voter what chores he or she wants to make, if any. it is a voter who makes the choice whether to vote and how to vote, not the person providing help. number four, the person providing help should not marked ballots to reflect any choice other than that

choice expressed by a daughter. again, it is the voters' choice, not the helpers' choice. number five, the person providing help should respect the borders privacy at all times during the voting process. in the united states everyone else gets to vote in private, and we should try to make sure that the voting process is as private as possible for people with mental disabilities. the handouts that are at your tables describe these principles and everything else and have been talking about in more detail. please look to them. they are in english, but there are also available online. just to conclude, we have made significant progress in this area, but we still love long way to go in the united states and other countries the for people with mental disabilities consistently have an equal opportunity to participate in the voting

process. we appreciate the ifes leading in this area and look for to working with the ifes in all of you to make this goal a reality. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, and thank you for pointing of the intersection between article 29 of participation in political and public life and article 12 of legal capacity and have combined the two articles, bitch by the way the crpd has been signed by over 80 percent of member states. there is pretty much international standards. the two articles from the crpd, how that really means that people of any type of disability should not be discriminated against in terms of voting rights. i am in the bit behind. i will take one question. right up front. >> thank you very much.

i have dozens of questions. i may not be able to ask all of them some examples from my own country, i am from the paul. disabled persons are treated in different the, of course, and those countries. and parents treat him differently, even if they are not mentally disabled, and they are kept in home and kept there for up to, you know, there are of age, even if they are capable of participating in the election. so that is the problem there. i would have liked to say this, do you have the provision, providing training to the parents for providing, you know, kind of

the opportunity to participate in a regular process? also, you mentioned some where there are representatives, senators, the life of disabled people. don't you think that section of society should also be represented himself as a senator said that they can better play a role for their section of society? that is what i would have thought. because in my country, they wanted to represent themselves. and they also wanted to be categorized. physically disabled wanted to be physically disabled. and blind like to be blind. into the deaf, they like to categorize and get their representation in the elected houses so what is

the future here? and don't know much about that. providing the rights is a difficult thing because you have to have the ballot. in the ballot, you should have a kind of braille. how much this is possible for all the country to have this braille, you know from a particularly for the blind and also for others, how would we introduced this? the accessibility, of course, there are a lot of problems in the polling place and educating them. i should share one small point that we already started providing training to disabled people themselves about elections and opportunity and their role and how they can get

their rights and exercise their rights. so providing training for deaf and blind and physically disabled other groups. that could basically help in making them aware and so that they can really participate. but crane himself into the electoral roll itself is a difficult thing because parents are not aware of. thank you very much. >> i would like to say that i agree with you completely that it is very important that family members be involved, not just for the issue of elections, but to be able to encourage them that their child with a disability has a right to education and employment and they can become advocates appropriately. i do want to say also, you have, i believe, in your folder is to document and the department with a lot of materials that can be looked

at to get a better understanding of many of the points being raised. i think one of the components within the ada, which is requiring that organizations serving disabled people provide information on the process of registering to vote, helping to register as well as encouraging people to vote is one way of also getting disability organizations involved. i just want to say before i came to government a number of organizations i were involved with and organizations now are doing much more with people that are running for the president, for senate, for local elections to make visible to the disability community there will be able to vote and participating in elections. >> charlotte, did you want to -- >> i will make a quick comment. i wanted to thank you very much for making the point

around the importance of increasing the number of persons with disabilities as senators and parliamentarians. that is an absolutely essential piece. that is happening, fortunately, almost organically in many places. we are definitely seeing a lot more senators with disabilities and a lot more parliamentarians with disabilities. so that is an important piece of it, and i just want to touch on the point around working with family members and parents. as i was saying, you cannot see article 29 in isolation. you have to think about the other articles. and one of the pieces is the importance of advocacy, and it really is about having campaigns, getting out there and getting parents to understand the importance of their children participating in elections, but as judy mentioned, broader than just elections, participating in society as citizens.

>> hi. i know we are pressed for time, but i wanted to respond to a couple of questions or issues raised. one certainly to echo, an outreach to parents or legal guardians who may not share the understanding that the person with a disability that they feel prepared to vote, have a preference to express, they have a choice to make. >> said it may be different than their parents. deaf

i think there is a lot of work that we can do here in the u.s. that can be done everywhere to help parents and guardians understand not. i would also add with respect to elected officials that a lot of disability advocates have put a lot of time into ensuring that judges to make decisions about not just voting, but about how disability rights laws are applied are we there people with disabilities are people with food right laws. although it doesn't get a lot of attention in their u.s., but a lot of insulin treated diabetes

who would probably be protected under the americans with disabilities act. and so, having her on the court, if there were a disability issue to come up, it is something we hope would be helpful and have another judges at the same kinds of backgrounds would be really helpful. both in helping to develop our law. >> thank you. thank you two other panelists were interesting and informative discussion which we can continue in the hallway during a coffee break. following the session, we hope you'll join in the dupont ballroom, which is right down the hallway. you can experience what it's like to vote in two different polling stations either using a wheelchair or been blindfolded. one of those will be accessible at one of those will not be

accessible. you can experience what many citizens in your countries might experience. so join us right down the hall. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> if there is one message in the book to take away, it is the notion that the state is characterized by handshakes and handoffs.

this speaks to your question as to who who should do what. by handshakes are washington may be behind the curtain and not as well reported in the media, which is shaking hands on some of the key principles, opening up data, encouraging collaborative work, issuing challenges and so forth. that means the opportunity to have a more open government starts with a by partisan commitment to lay the foundation. what is critical is your hand off american people entrepreneurism and local levels of government and build more interesting services. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> election day is tomorrow and tonight a preview of the midterm elections at the most recent debates in key races around the country. or follow calls and reactions on

twitter and facebook from the latest political headlines starts in about 50 minutes at 6:00 p.m. east are on c-span. the beanbag democrat dan maffei select it in the 24th district

in 2008. he lost the receipt republican in 2010 and a 2012 he win the feedback. if feedback. this year is running against republican john katko. the two candidates debated last week from syracuse, new york. this is an hour. ♪ >> hello, welcome to our time cable news debate between the candidates in the 24th congressional district. i am tonight supposed, liz benjamin. i will be modern with bill kerry and rochester reporter, seth voorhees. the district is that the center of the state and in the last elections it has changed hands from one party to the other. democrat dan maffei is holding the seat and participating with federal prosecutor, john katko come as a republican. these are the rules both have agreed to. each candidate will have one

minute for an opening statement in one minute for a closing statement and in between we will ask as many questions as we have time for. responsively limited to one minute each with rebuttals allowed at the discretion of the moderator. or also be a lightning round about halfway through our answers are limited to a single word, usually after now. so with all that said, let's get to it. you are for opening statements were selected by a draw at first is congressman maffei. maffei: thank you, live and thank you time warner for hosting us today. i grew up in central new york. i went to public schools, graduated from nottingham house school. i worked at the plant on the road here and i saw the struggle firsthand to run a small business, to raise a family coming to get to the middle class and that is why i dedicated myself and focused creating jobs, making sure that small businesses can succeed and to factor in the middle class

because the middle-class succeeds in central new york will succeed. i believe we do have challenges, but we can face those challengechallenge s together in central new york is the best place to live and work in my family and is congressman, my job is to keep it that way. >> moderator: thank you very much. mr. katko. katko: evening. thank you for having me here. thank you from the time warner. this is my first go around and i'm excited to take part in the great democratic process. i have been born and raised here in syracuse, new york. i am one of seven children. my mother and father lived here their whole adult life. i love central new york yet it is my heart and soul of what i care about deeply. i am married. i have three children. 15, 16 and 18 years old you my life and i've been married for 27 years old. we set down our roots in syracuse, new york. i'm a 20 year federal prosecutor. i have a long career as a federal prosecutor in making it

safe for all people in new york. i'm not just for the middle-class. i am for all people. rich, poor, black, white, doesn't matter to me. that is why i am running. i believe washington is broken and i'm the type of person that can't sit on the sidelines when i see a problem and that is why i'm running. >> moderator: thank you very much. the first question goes to, commerce and peer the white house made quite clear over the weekend it is not on board with mandatory quarantine for health care workers are turning to the u.s. after treating ebola patients abroad. and responsible, and governor cuomo did not remove, neither did chris christie, although the 20 day period could be sent to the individual's home. do you agree with the governor's position? do you think they should be implemented at a national level and what's i've should they take to ensure quarantine individuals

are cognitive other time. maffei: it is a serious situation and we should address it. one of the chief is prevention and that's why got together at the county executive and met with hospitals locally making sure they are prepared in case of implication, central new york. we are fortunate to be in a health care system as good as it is because if that happened where repaired for the serious situation. i do think it is important that we can say things like travel bans and the current foreign team. i appreciate that it is being made to be more comfortable. i see these people as heroes who've gone to africa to help and ultimately to get rid of the problem we have to solve it in africa. i appreciate that. and i basically think we should leave it to the scientific experts. we should talk to the doctors,

health care experts in and out of government. >> okay, two questions if you don't mind. the first would be do you expect ebola at some point and make its way to central new york? maffei: i don't expect it. it is unlikely, but it's possible and we should be prepared. >> moderator: i just want to make clear and your position ,-com,-com ma doctors and experts have said this is not necessarily a problem because volunteers going overseas to assist to dissuade them from doing so. so you are or are not in the quarantine? maffei: chris christie was essentially imprisoning the workers. the way governor cuomo has decided to do it, making sure they can be a home and visited by their families, et cetera. being cautious to think is fine and there are experts who believe that's the right thing to do. >> moderator: thank you on,

congressman. mr. katko. katko: it's another reaction. two governors, one from new jersey, one from new york who have presidential aspirations and got together blessed by the lack of leadership from washington. the ultimate idea of having to quarantine individuals is a necessary start because we don't know for sure we have you. where the doctor came back who has been stricken with a bullet. whether it's necessary after further research remains to be seen. i would rather play it safe. as comfortable as possible, for sure. maybe had stayed in the home is a fine idea. until we know for sure, it still doesn't sound like we do at the national level. we need to play it safe. >> so just to follow-up on not come you agree with the steps the governors to anything they were forced to do so because of the lack of attention to this

issue are not a rapidity and the sponsor the federal government? katko: i think so. if we had better guidelines on a national level. there were no guidelines for people coming into the country other than to see if they had the ebola virus. coming back from these countries, we still don't have the full grasp of the entire parameters of the ebola virus. >> moderator: leaving it up to the states is not the way to go. it should be a blanket federal travel bans for a blanket federal quarantine policy. katko: the center for disease control needs to leadership. so does the white house. i think with the disease like that, it could potentially harm anybody in the country got to play it safe and we need national leaders say. >> host: should adopt their frieden step down in your

position? katko: i don't think so. we need to do it better. right now we just have to focus on controlling the epidemic by making sure our aid workers can go safely to africa is to africa is that we don't have more cases coming into america and other places and it's only a tiny fraction of workers who have been infected. if we have a case can we make sure is contained and they get the best care available. >> moderator: thank you, gentlemen. >> i want to turn to jobs. this region has been a long decline in manufacturing jobs. should be confident that all that manufacturing has a future here in central new york or should the region be focused on trying to attract other jobs? maffei: absolutely. i have great faith in the spirit of the folks in central new york. the factories here are lean and mean. they have people doing for jobs

instead of poor people -- four people they have one person. it's high-tech and absolutely have faith in them. we need to level the playing field and it's part of my job to do so. that is to increase vocational training both at the high school and college level because these are not your dad and mom jobs anymore. they need skills to do them. there's many things for me to do because the companies compete on a world level. by leveling the playing field, as well as tax reform we will have great faith in that. >> i do think in fact it is a growing part of our economy. that said, it is different than it once was. my grandfather was very labor-intensive and now it's more machines.

i toured a number of plants in one of them run by a person named laura miller and syracuse showed it's not that it's advanced technology but it's good know-how on the part of the workers are not violating worker training and i've gotten funding for worker training. we do need a level playing field and that's why intervene to make sure new courses have a fair level playing field in order to sell us-made steel manufactured in central new york. >> moderator: dealing now with wages, you both have indicated in the past he would support an increase in the minimum wage above what it is now. wondering if you can tell us how high you would like to see the minimum wage be right now and refute go along with the idea of

indexing minimum wage that continues to rise with inflation and we don't workers falling behind on the income scale. congressman, we will go with you first. liz benjamin i voted to raise to $10.10 an hour. i would prefer we keep it in a package for small businesses make sure it doesn't come down on debt. we've come back in a bipartisan way and has not hurt our economy. it's important we raise the minimum wage because america needs a raise and we start with the minimum wage. it needs to be something we make a priority as fun as we do it in the right way. if you win back that it wouldn't be such a problem any time you had raise it because it wouldn't be any kind of economy. that's a shocker in trying to make sure we avoid by the small business package and a gradual

increase. katko: to $10.10 an hour, independent organizations have opined for the jobs. that is, not your nose to spite your face. i think if you did it in an overall reform package. and also included will tax the reforms that they can compete on the world stage. that's a better way to do it. more costs on businesses to cut more job and 500,000 jobs is the way to go. >> if you cut the minimum wage, if you look at past cuts, those jobs have not been lost in large numbers. they have cut back from the initial shock to some businesses why would this be different? katko: we lost 3100 jobs. 1200 in september alone.

i don't want to ignore report that says if you do this will cost 500,000 jobs. i'd rather have an incremental rate and see how it goes. if we have this 40% rise in labor cost for entry-level businesses, that is the heartbeat of small businesses. if you do that at least 500,000 jobs, it is too big of a risk. having her mental raises endured in the context of real reforms so not only do they have increased cost of labor, but decreased cost as a good upset to have. maffei: my opponent said he would do the best thing for the poor. the best thing you can do is make sure they have jobs to do for a wages. it starts with raising the minimum wage. we do it in a bipartisan way and it will have the little impact. it gets back to the question we've been leaving jobs in central new york for three

decades. we need to hold back reason the minimum wage to suddenly put us on a bad path. it will allow families more money to invest in the economy. to if you would allow me before we move on, in the absence of the wage, there is a proposal that certain cities that have the power come in new york city in particular to raise minimum wage on itself at the state level. is that something you agree with, congressman? it should be the same throughout the united states. it shouldn't be that new york is in a different new york is mrs. and businesses in idaho or new hampshire. it's important to raise the minimum wage because new york's wage is different and not create some level playing field. the federal wages for a concentrate. katko: i don't think every problem can be solved in the federal government. if you impose the same in new

york as new york city, they can observe it as well. taking a look from the state standpoint and a regional basis isn't a bad idea. the cost of living is extraordinary. there is a difference. >> moderator: thank you very much. we move on to a national security issue. in light of the one person in canada, should the country be taken steps to better secure the northern border and what should those steps take? katko: i've been trying to secure the border. it's one of the least recognize threats to national security. it is scary. in new york state alone we have a reservation which straddles both sides of st. lawrence. it is a prime smuggling route. i've had countless smuggling cases through there. it is absolutely, positively has to be a full aspects that are not adequately patrol.

they have to face the fact that there's more lack of immigration standards than we do. most people get into canada and try to sneak into the united states. the biggest fear we always had as prosecutors in our district was the fact that maybe they could smuggle through there someday. i got it hasn't happened yet. >> moderator: defense from your remarks that you would think more patrol. it's difficult to patrol, certainly quite lengthy and then areas while, difficult certainly to maintain. it's not like the texas border. it's a different challenge altogether. what exactly would you do? katko: i bake to differ. they are both very fast borders. it's a heckuva lot more than a multifaceted approaches to the voters on our northern border. that's because they view the

southern borders more from an immigration standpoint and i don't think that's valid. we have to secure borders and talk about immigration reform. >> moderator: thank you very much, mr. katko. mr. maffei. maffei: we should secure all of our borders absolutely. we have to do it in a way that will not hurt commerce in central new york good many businesses export a lot and do a lot of trade with canada and indeed canadians come here to many other local attractions so we don't want to discourage that. but certainly we do and in my sides and take allergy committee, we had a hearing on technology to do so. the civilian use of the aerial vehicles, the remote-controlled vehicles and so-called drone. we have worked getting an experimental rate to help with that. >> moderator: forgive me. that would be civilian use of

drones unalike vigilante? maffei: now, with military. >> moderator: okay, understood. thank you very much. >> congressmen maffei, agriculture is a major industry and communities within the district. a lot rely on farm workers to harvest crops. what would she do to make sure guestworkers are still allowed in its immigration policy were to change? maffei: well, the immigration policies need to change. they need to allow a guestworker pro cram that would be worthy in wayne and you got an sago calumnies because right now they don't have enough workers to pick their crops and that means they can't employ as many americans see their others not as merry americans and processing. one plan is bipartisan and that is the united states senate is

the senate immigration bill. it would make sure that we have enough workers for those particular business days and it would make sure that there is a path to citizenship that would deal with the 12 million families that are here. unfortunately, my opponent doesn't support the bipartisan bill. we can't get anything done because when something is bipartisan. it's not a perfect though, but at least it is bipartisan. ..

a palm print was all i needed to get into the most dangerous and secure prisons. why can't we do something like that so that we know the event -- the individuals who come in and out for the betterment of the industry? >> moderator: for one minute, if you would, just to follow upon that, do you believe then, as the congressman suggested, that the u.s. senate bill should be brought to the floor by the house, that the speaker should allow it to the floor for a vote? katko: of course they should so that people can decide. i am for a complete overhaul of the immigration law, absolutely the only thing i have a concern with is the pass to citizens of for people here illegally. for people here illegally, think given some sort of

resident alien status muybridge a gap between those who want to send them back and those who want to give them complete citizenship. as far as the overall immigration issue, there are several aspects of it. student visas, those leading non productive lives, but the last part that people are leading otherwise law-abiding lives, i don't think you can ship them out of here. >> moderator: so it is not a perfect deal. do you feel comfortable he would vote yes? katko: i don't think i could vote for it if it included a path to citizenship. resident alien status i would vote for. >> moderator: any last words? maffei: just to say that that is actually the problem with washington, people leaving everything to be perfect before they supported. it is not surprising that the speaker in washington republicans have invested so much money and getting it mr. john katko elected. they know that once he gets down there you will be a vote. he says, i will vote for

that and call the speaker to bring that to the floor, but he is standing with the speaker right now as he collects these ads coming in against me. so i think it will be difficult for him to be that independent once he gets to the floor. a better thing would be to embrace the senate bill. >> moderator: last words. katko: at think that we should have a discussion on the issues. that is trice now you are trying to bring a partisan issues and is why nothing is getting done, why i ran for office. i want to work with democrats, independents, conservatives, republicans, everybody. it is no one's fault and everyone's fault. when you talk about that, that is what people do not like washington. let's work together, not point fingers do for we have another issue. >> the issue of social security which has been what

we have seen. what should we do to ensure the solvency of the system, and would that include fidelity you believe could increase in the retirement age for workers? katko: if i went for any changes, have a strong, a catholic mother who is vibrant, i would be in trouble and and not for changes in medicare and social security. the only person standing here who has voted for dramatic changes to either one of those trouble to five problems is mr. dan maffei. the bottom line is, for people in the system alabama against changes to either social security or medicare because we have our contract with those individuals who make career decisions. people coming into the system, i would like to sit down on a bipartisan manner with both sides can try and figure out some way that the

system would be different for them to make it solvent going forward. social security has about one generation before it will have financial problems we have time to plan for this, and that is what i would like to do. how would ultimately turns out, i do not know because i want to talk and see what the numbers are for individuals moving forward. >> the need to increase in debt retirement age in order to maintain the system's financial stability? >> i would be against it for anybody in the system no. >> i mean in the future. katko: we have to take a look and see what we have to do to make it solvent. people are living longer. we should take a look at everything, but we have to make sure that social security is the safety net it is intended to become of medicare is the safety net it is intended to be done and i cannot make it more clear the one no cuts for anyone in the system no.

>> congressman. maffei: i would believe him more if he did not keep changing his position. he said on one occasion when social security and medicare needed were structural changes, did not define what they are. it sells like raising the retirement age, but maybe it isn't. he came out may be considering private accounts. what he does say is medicare and social security recipients should not have to worry. i find that fairly cynical. they wanted their for their children and their grandchild, and that is what we need. we can strengthen it for future generations. one thing that he will not consider is getting rid of or raising the cap on social security contributions. right now in the middle class family pays on 100 percent of year and come back, but if you make a million he only paid 10% from a billion and it is a tiny fraction. that change could put it in the right place. he will not consider that. all i can say is that it

amounts to a cut in social security. katko: first of all, what is middle class? what rage do you consider middle-class? ♪ and with -- athletic tooth to find a lot but i think that raising taxes -- you know, i am a fiscal conservative. it should always be the absolute last resort. a generation to fix social security. we do not need to be increasing fees and costs. money to roll up our sleeves, like our families do every day, and figure out a way to fix it without increasing fees and costs. maffei: i would rather raise taxes on people making over a million dollars a year that see my child not to social security. it is a great program. katko: i want to respond. the bottom line is, he uses these phrases such as

millionaires. that is not what it would be . for what i consider middle-class people would face a tax increase. families with two incomes are not millionaires. they would be facing a large tax increase at the same time as crushing medical cost and crushing cost educate their children and everything else. the middle-class is the people don't will get stuck with this. >> moderator: just one final question for both of you. it sounds to me like neither of you have a finite age in mind. katko: i am not for raising the retirement age. it was already raised in the 80's. that is enough. no final days. >> moderator: we have reached the final stage in our debate. just to be clear, can visits are allowed to answer yes and no. in a couple of cases it is a 1-word answer.

it will be self-explanatory. we will start with you. if elected, would you vote for the current leader of the conference you would be joining in which in your case would be nancy pelosi? katko: i would go for whoever nominated. >> moderator: nancy pelosi ♪ i will vote for whoever is denominated. >> moderator: it would be the speaker of the house at this moment. ♪ i can't answer that. >> moderator: did you go apple picking this year? maffei: i did, actually. this the other day, in fact. and i am sure after the fact will be lovely to hear. congressman, did you eat the deep fried bacon wrapped twinkie et it fair this year ? katko: no. maffei: no. >> congressman, do you think the supreme court, lobby

ruling was the right decision? katko: no. >> congressman, should syracuse university replace the carrier dome? katko: yes, it should. maffei: i agree. >> have you ever been to the renaissance festival? katko: that is not fair. of course i have. everybody knows this. >> these should be the easy ones. when your time in congress is at an end, would you rule out joining a lobbying firm in washington? katko: yes. maffei: yes. >> this requires not a yes or no, but a title, what is your favorite national cable network? katko: definitely espn. maffei: espn hands down. >> so agreement on that. favorite news network?

katko: i will take cnn. maffei: i really don't have one. >> have you ever called a journalist to complain about a story? katko: sure. maffei: absolutely. >> moderator: congressman, do you believe the president's response or lack thereof has worsened to the ebola crisis currently facing the country? katko: response worsened, yes, i think it should have been faster. >> moderator: do you have a tattoo? katko: no. maffei: no. >> could you support your family while working the middle-aged up? katko: no. maffei: not at the current minimum wage, no. >> have you ever eaten a cheeseburgers of? maffei: oh, yes. love them. katko: yes.

>> have you ever i stated at clinton square? katko: many times. i love it. maffei: no. and i guess this is the last one. >> where did you take your last vacation? katko: to my in-laws farm for a weekend. >> moderator: the hard part is over. we have heard -- i'm sorry. >> i will pick it up there. >> i will allow you to go ahead. >> we heard a lot of from your campaign and your record as a prosecutor, close ties to police, we have not heard much of the details of where you stand on some of the issues at the forefront of this race. the first question is, what about being a prosecutor qualifies you to become a member of congress? katko: that is easy, hands down. for 20 years i have been

leading people, put together task force. what i did as an organized crime prosecutor was to put together task forces to attack organized crime, police corruption, political corruption and, of course, gains. i could never do that alone. i had to put together federal, state, and local law enforcement. in that is no easy task. in order to get those put together to work properly carry it takes daily involvement. in el paso taxes on the southwest border, pr, an extraordinarily difficult circumstance, and in syracuse. >> elected check with you on this issue of discussing are not discussing particular issues. that question has been raised. questions like freedom of choice, why not discuss that more fully?

katko: as far as what? >> abortion. katko: and answered the question every time. to be the question will not turn on that issue. reasonable americans will disagree, but time and again everyone you talk to ranks that low on the priority scale. their ranks jobs and the economy, trying to fix what is broken much higher. reasonable people will disagree. we are on different sides of the fence. what else more needs to be discussed about this? maffei: i do believe that mr. john katko is not being completely candid. for instance, this is the regular republican budget. he said he would not take a position when he was trying to get the republican nomination. once he got the nomination he opposed it. he was pro-life.

but after he got the nomination he started talking about various exceptions. the lesson until i get to congress i will not issue opinions. that is a big problem. is prosecutorial record does merit examination. a lot of good things to all but some things that bring of questions, please bargains, those sort of things, and if i were to judge him as he judges taken any bad consequence in new york must be my fault. welcome all of those things he mentioned, corruption, that has gone up. i am not saying that is his fault of. katko: i can only tell you, i have been judged by attorneys general all over the united states last 20 years, and three times the attorney general of the united states of america has awarded with the highest honor you can have, selecting me out of thousands of prosecutors.

the most recent was four weeks ago eight months after i left the office as a democratic attorney general who did so because of my game work in the city. i would put that up against anything in the day. any of what you thought you were trying to infer in your commercials, attack ads, i would have never had those, i never would have had the top-secret security clearance i have had all over the world. and i have been to indices all over the world as part of my job. i would never have stepped 1 foot in any of those embassies if any of the things you allege i did happen to. >> moderator: at think we will get back to the ads. unless you feel the need to respond at this moment. okay. >> our next question is for you. lake levels, water levels on lake ontario. there are many residents and officials who live in those towns along the southern shore of the late to worry about the impact of raising and lowering water levels saying it could have a devastating impact on the

shoreline. some of the town officials have criticized you for not coming out with a clear position. where do you stand? maffei: i met with town officials, people who are both perot and against. it is a difficult issue because we will see some sort of rise in water levels no matter what we do, if we leave it the same, do something else. and as a matter of law that congress actually does not decide. it is the governor and state department. what i am focusing on is making sure there is funding for remediation would ever happen so that those towns along the lake will be able to fix any damage that happens on any of these plans with some projected issues. that is the most important thing. it does not have to come from the taxpayers because there is power generated by the lake of ontario, but the most important thing for me is to charge a represent all

of my constituents. as i said, this is an issue which divides them. >> having said that, you're not taken an official position. maffei: again, my role in this i believe is to get the remediation. congress does not have the say either way. i can help make sure that that money is there. katko: i am against it, and here is why. wayne county alone, 60 percent of property tax revenue comes from the shoreline. by any statistical model talking about plan 2014, basically for everyone at home it is basically deregulating the lake levels more than they have. it will have a negative impact on the show that -- southern shore, and there is no provision to recompense the property damage. we have property all along the southern shore that will face a lot of damage. part of the reason, i think

we can accomplish wetland restoration as well as continue what we have had for the last 60 years as far as lake levels, and that is a more prudent way to go because after 60 years of lake levels being a certain way in developing land along the waterways that way we will never change it? does not make sense. often accomplished of but that restriction that change the collection of ticket. >> moderator: will love back to national issues. this question goes to you. there have been conflicting reports. at one point in the campaign -- and this has been highlighted, you said you did not believe it could be fixed. more recently you suggested it had great portions and principles. please to clarify. katko: i have been consistent saying that it either needs to be repaired or replaced, but either way we can't go back to a time when millions of americans do not have health insurance i would like to first sit

down in a bipartisan manner and do everything possible to try and fix the affordable care act. the medical device tax has a crushing affect on local businesses. that needs to be repealed. the health insurance tax. can we fix that under their current iteration? i don't know. if not, let's sit down together in a bipartisan manner, take the best aspects including portability for existing condition, having kids under policy until 26, having well as provisions, those are all great things. of course the current iteration i think is just too much government between the doctor and the patient. >> moderator: do you believe given their current tender in washington and particularly if the republicans are successful in their quest to take back the u.s. senate, will it be politically possible to sit down and hammer out some kind of agreement?

katko: i believe you cannot give up just because of the current political climate. the moment that you think you cannot -- we have to get past the gridlock and we have to reach across the aisle. and i am confident that we can do it. confident that republicans are getting the message. they are getting pounded out there just like the democrats. >> moderator: yet they keep bringing up all these proposals to repeal. katko: now without a fully in place replacement, i would not. maffei: another example. before he got the republican nomination he had a choice words to say about the affordable care act, certainly never talked about good portions of it. i think he talked -- called it abominable. now suddenly he is for the good parts but not others. you know, the popular party is for. again, it is playing politics. it is very, very important

that we try to work on things that need to be changed. i crossed party lines to make sure that people can keep their own plans to lead to get rid of the device tax which are reduced when i was there, but we need to get it -- we need to get rid of it. in other important changes. but it is important that we acknowledge that it is not going to be repealed and we're not going to a wholesale replace it. let's work with what we have, go from there, and improve the bill, and make sure it works for all americans. katko: i think having a discussion is great, and if we can fix the problems with it, great. but the fundamental promises when this bill was ran through on a partisan basis, if you have your assurance he can keep it, if you have your own doctor you can keep it. it will affect cost of insurance. all those things are not true, and we have to figure out why it happened and why

the middle class is getting killed with health insurance costs that are on the rise. if we can sit down in a bipartisan manner absolutely positively want to fix it and i think that we can, but we have got to do it in a bipartisan manner without pointing fingers. maffei: there is a quotation in an early story that the affordable care act cannot be fixed. and yet now he has changed his tune because it is not very popular. i agree we need to do everything we can to keep health costs down. a supported a bill to get rid of the cadillac tax and is why i have written the state insurance commissioner to make sure they could not raise the rates as much as they wanted to. we can make this work, but we need to work together in a bipartisan fashion to make it work and not just say things and change a position for political gain.

>> next question, very early on in this campaign you staged an angry news conference in which you pointed out that your family have been dragged into the campaign but mr. john katko. reviewing his comments, what you seem to be pointing out was that at some point you have purchased a home that to many of us seems expensive in virginia to a $700,000 to whether your wife worked at the nonprofit organization and the washington area, and that when it came time for the birth of your child to come with a child appeared to be born in the washington area hospital through the paris choice. that combined with reports we have gone in recent weeks that 80 percent of your campaign funding in recent weeks has come from sources outside central york, all of this season to an ongoing narrative that has been raised by republicans in past races that you're more connected to washington d.c. then you are to syracuse.

>> well, let me be perfectly clear. central new york is my home, where are want to be, where my family is, where my entire family is. my family does go back and forth with me when i have to be in washington. we have rented apartments for the last couple of terms, but we felt for our own financial security we needed to have an investment , a small town house. where my wife works frankly is irrelevant to this campaign and, frankly, i'm not going to answer any questions about that. where my baby was born, you know, she was born in washington which allowed me to make every single vote for this congressional district while also being a good father. now she is here, of course, but, frankly, to use those things to me know, my wife's employment sources to lend my daughter's health care, i

think that should be out of bounds, and if it is not, then maybe politics is broken as everybody says. >> issued a press release announcing she was born. you are the person -- you cannot have your cake and needed to. when you buy a $700,000 house in washington, use soldier house here, but one less than half the price. i was out canvassing door-to-door and happens to be in your neighborhood, and your neighbors told me this sometimes the genesee you for months on end. he lived in washington, and germany has come from washington. 82 percent of your money has to offer washington d.c. over 80 percent of my money has come from donors as syracuse and central york. you are where you get your money from, and your washington. maffei: $2 million have run on his behalf. so that is the system, and we need to get rid of all of those outside ads and money.

campaign finance reform. it would be funded by it attacks on lobbyists, people , professional lobbyists, so it would not take taxpayer dollars, and i co-sponsored an amendment to the constitution to make sure that these big special interest groups running ads on either side are not allowed to run a negative that the free speech. >> let me ask about this because it is something we hear day to day. the few years when i have been told by voters that i talk to that the most important thing that strikes them about these races is not the issues but the campaign ads. they have grown sick and tired of the negative ads that they have seen on television. to either of you feel any remorse whatsoever about the tone that this campaign has taken? katko: i will take that first until you exactly how i feel.

and did not start running ads until he had been slimming me for six weeks. he never once talked about his accomplishments, and that speaks volumes for someone who is an incumbent. and so the first three as we ran reposits about my career . the first one from a colleague of mine, the second one was sullivan, a person i have been mentoring , the third one was from my wife. while doing this, i was getting pounded by a text calling into question everything from the fact that i hate women even though i have five sisters and a mother and wife to call me a prosecutor. at some point you have to respond, but i am responding to facts. it is a fact that he lives in washington. it is a fact that he gave $200,000 in bonuses to his staff commend those of the type of things that i am talking about. the problem with him is he

takes my career, for example, and takes normal facts and tried to insinuate that both myself and a federal district court judge calls integrity into question and thinks that is okay. i think that is wrong. maffei: we need to get rid of all of these negative ads this is my fifth campaign. whenever he thinks he has been accused of, have been accused of far worse. get rid of these negative ads by supporting fundamental campaign finance reform, put -- >> is the way to get rid of these ads for you to gentlemen, the candidates, to say, stop running these ads? ..

the >> moderator: i'm sorry, i would like to move onto another foreign policy issue. are you okay with that? maffei: sure, of course. >> the united states is still building the islamic state. there's no scientist tapping anytime soon. we are engaging in airstrikes, but so far no boot on the ground. question for you, mr. >> moderator:. he would've voted yes to armed some serious rebels. can you explain why in the second part to that is would there be any situation where you