naturally draw on the well of evidence that some cases exist about what is working. what is generating long-term benefits especially a memo can be much more productive use of resources to try progress toward the same goal. i see a good fit, that's a a good way in fact of getting evidence into the budget decision-making process. >> i agree and i expect him to answer his own question on this issue. but the rhetoric right now about evidence-based policy is primarily about advanced social science methods such as trials which generate much more confidence about how programs are working and cannot be done at a very low-cost and very, very quickly compared to the way they used to be done.

i think the obama administration in the previous bush administration both deserve a lot of credit for pushing advanced investments in those and integrating some findings into their allocations to different programs consistent with what steve was saying. my only concern about this is in a court of law of evidence information that changes your mind. it's it's not simply randomized controlled trials. there's a lot of things that budget examiners and on b do that they make decisions based not just on how programs work on the same goes for members of congress and their staff. congress get evidence every day by talking to constituents. i think it's quite relevant to hear from casework experience about how well programs work. i think in general the evidence-based approach is great. but we should also be open to

the idea that there are many different ways in evaluating how effective and efficient and equitable programs are. >> this is from marge at network lobby for catholic social justice. primarily fred but for anyone involved. most of the focus has been on debt reduction to the spending side of the budget. can you talk about the tax side and whether that needs to be more of a focus especially in terms of thinking about fiscal priorities and who is getting the benefits of tax expenditures? >> it definitely needs to be part of the discussion that with an aging society that were never going to be having greater spending on those programs that were going to need in reference to meet those programs. that's why think if you're looking at

trying to do a trigger to enforce the rule that it needs to look at the revenue side in the spending side through tax expenditures or other means. any successful -- will have to look at both in controlling mandatory programs as well as increasing revenues. both parts of the equation need to be in the discussion to make the matters work. >> senator talked about the housing policy portfolio as an example and that includes as he said tax expenditures for housing. in a quite capture the magnitude of the the differential between the spending for low income housing in particular and how there is about $30 billion annual for all come housing and related purposes. the two largest tax expenditures that benefit homeownership total four, maybe five times that number.

in the current year. that is annual revenue losses that door the housing budget through the spending side. and they are heavily skewed toward benefiting wealthier more affluence older people. so there's a huge discrepancy there that never analyze because the tax expenditures of flyby below the radar they benefit powerful or organization. >> our next comes from jeff davis at the center for transportation. he says the highway trust fund is required 144,000,000,000 dollars in balance from the general fund since 2008. highway trust front programs are the. highway trust fund programs are the only accounts classified as both discretionary and mandatory

, so should we be surprised that the program exempted from those restraints overspend and is a possible for process reform to addresses? >> i think i was spending is one of the greatest areas for budget gimmicks and needs to be treated as entirely mandatory or discretionary sort subject to rules or discretionary spending roles. it should because congress can authorize highway spending without it being subject to pay go but there's no limit to increasing spending. so should be either entirely discretionary and or limit the amount of highway spending to the amount of incoming revenues into the trust fund. if we made those reforms that make a big improvement. we have budgets on both sides of the aisle would agree the area of highway spending is an area in great need of reform. >> the ministration has had proposals along these lines in recent years. for many years.

>> of the underlying issue is that the application ceilings are controlled by one committee in the other is controlled by another. so this gets onto the question of the structure of congressional committees and incentives each member faces. over the long run i don't think it makes much sense to have an authorization level but we could create the program and have one committee control it maybe when when we have the transportation portfolio analysis it will become clear. >> if i may, just a quick, the last time the gas tax was increased was a 1993 when it was increased by 4 cents. it was after a huge amount of political arm-twisting. i think it is a victim of the no new taxes approach to budgeting

and i think it highlights the fact that in order to deal with the budget we have to do so generically and look at all parts of the budget, mandatory spending, discretionary and revenues and you cannot have a meaningful process where one part of that are one of the three is pulled off the table before the conversation begins. >> will take one more question from jack at the mercator center. can members of of the panel speak to a solution on reforming use it or lose it roles to curb spending surges and can solutions insure individual departments have incentives to use resources more efficiently carryover? >> i will take a stab at it. i think the first pass to build on skills on time so agencies have told must obligate their funds. >> one last point i wanted to make which i think has come up a

few times is that i think the real problem in terms of improving our fiscal policy is the lack of political will. in the sense that congress already has the authority it needs to improve our fiscal policy one way or another. you can argue about that but are you hopeful that process reform can lead to, can do something about the problem of the lack of will on congress? >> budget process cannot replace any for political will but you can improve the way decisions are made. you can make it more transparent so people are aware of decisions, you can hold members accountable for the decisions that increase accountability so making it harder for the budget act would be in important proposal and to stick to it, and improve the process by which you

make the decision. you improve the information available, you can at least help make the environment better to make those better decisions pretty stilly political will to do it but a better budget process and i would encourage people to look up the initiative of a range of ideas to do that. it could help to lead to better results. >> thank you so much to our panelists into for out and watching on c-span. [applause]. >> coming up on c-span2, the debate between the candidates running for congress in new york's 19th district. then senators rand paul and chris murphy on u.s. policy in the middle east. later, senate budget committee chair mike talks about proposed changes to the budget process.

>> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you in coming up on tuesday morning, national journal hotline editor kyle will talk about campaign 2016 and the chance democrats will we take the majority in the house in november. and then a senior fellow at manhattan institute and vicki, vice president president of the national partnership for women and families action fund will be on to discuss hillary clinton and donald trump's childcare and family leave policy. watches c-span's "washington journal" lives seven journal live seven eastern on tuesday morning. join the discussion. >> tuesday, president obama speaks on the united nations general assembly in new york city. this is expected to be the president's final visit to the un as president. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> c-span, created by america's cable television companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> now a debate between the u.s. house candidates in new york's 19th district, in the eastern part of the state north of new york city. republican john and republican answered questions on campaign finance. term limits, same-sex marriage and net neutrality. this was hosted by w amc public radio and w nyt and w nyt news 13. it is one hour. >> now from news channel 13, an associate chin with w amc, this decision 2016 election special, the 19th debate between john -- now your moderator, doctor alan shar tell.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the performance art studio for to raise debate between the candidates for new york's 19th congressional district seat. john -- i'm your moderator. we will begin our hour-long debate but i'd like to introduce our panel go over the ground rule. making up the panel is a state editor, the coanchor of new's child live at five and six, partner in today's debate and wmc hudson valley chief allison. you can follow the debate on social media using the # and why, and why debate. we have asked the audience to hold the applause of the candidates have agreed to a few ground rules. so be no opening or closing statements as our time is precious.

they will alternate questions and each candidate will be given three minutes to answer question his or her opponent will have two minute rebuttal. you'll hear a a bell ring like this when the time is up. the candidates determine who will go first bike tossing a coin. our first question comes from kc of the time. >> thank you and thank you to the candidates. you cite overturning citizens united and public campaign finance as priorities in terms of reforms you like to bring to campaign-finance yet your opponent has criticize you for taking campaign donations and your federal disclosure sows that you raise more than 1.6 million through the end of june. is your fundraising in conflict with your policy position to remove or reduce a big money from politics? >> not at all. thank you all for hosting this debate. thank you

to john and thank you to all of you who are here in person or listening or watching. look, i spent my life fighting against big money in politics. we. we really have a crisis of corruption and arc country right now. we have the crisis in albany but also in washington. there are two different parts of it, one is one is the basic way campaigns are funded. congress is not working right now and one of the reasons is so many congress members spend 40 to make 70% of their time raising money from rich people instead of dealing with the real issues like flood mitigation or supporting independent businesses, or education policy or how to support our family farms. the not doing doing their jobs are working for big donors. the other problem is citizens united which unleashed and allowed for big corporations to spend unlimited money in campaigns. these are super packs.

my opponent there's a super pack that supports my opponent. there is to new york city hedge fund billionaires who each given half a million dollars to a super pack supporting him. my campaign is supported by an average of $19. i'm proud of the fact that we are grass roots funded. i challenged john to a pledge. i. i asked him to join me in keeping all super pac money out of this race so that we would not have hedge funders like pulsing was a big free trader in support of common core putting in half 1,000,000 dollars in a race and trying to buy a seat. john turned me down and in fact has said that you citizens united was the right decision. when i'm in congress i'm going there to clean up congress. to change the way campaigns are

funded and to fight for overturning citizens united. everything that i have done from my entire life shows that i will always shows that i will always work for the people not the big corporations. >> it is a pleasure to be here as well and i think w mit and my opponents for participating in this. i think these forms are important for the voters of our district and for our democracy. i think opponent or chest too much. she is raising big money from people who are connected to super packs. she knows the law as well as i do which is that i have no control over what someone may spend or do independently. i would also point out that she wrote a book on corruption. one of the things she said in her corruption that the founders wanted to guide against adventures moving into districts that they have no connection to. indeed, she is an adventure who just popped into the district, she parachuted in from brooklyn, she just arrived and registered to vote in january this year. she has no connection to the district, no family, business, civic, charitable arrangement.

i've lived and worked in this district for 33 years. my wife is a school nurse at the local public high school for more than 20 years. we are deeply meshed in the public life of our district. i think if you want to represent people you have to be from here. you have to have some basis upon which you will say i know this district. this is called called the house of representatives not the house of up adventures. and yes her own book warned against adventures. she said adventures were one of the things of the founders wanted to guard against because adventures moving into districts generated corruption. she has a very expansive view of corruption. i want campaign-finance reform. i reform. i would like for disclosure of anyone that gives money. but a big backrub hers, she didn't object in 2004 when george thousand four when george spent $50 million way before citizens united by the way, to

try to defeat george w. bush. citizens united, were not running for the supreme court, were running for congress. her prescription is public financing which is the thing most taxpayers don't want to have. >> thank you very much for being here today. my question is for you mr. -- is a long one. i will read slowly. on wednesday, the house committee on science and technology held a hearing on new york attorney general eric schneiderman is a properly disagree regarding the subpoena sent his office in july. the subpoena had materials concerning multistate investigation of whether exxon may have misled shareholders about what it scientists were learning about the potential perils of climate change. do you believe the attorney general and others should be compelled to respond to the subpoenas? do you believe that exxon probe is a valid or as conservatives had categorized

it, a a witchhunt that could kill scientific inquiry? >> i think it does present a challenge of the balance of laws for the conflict of laws if you will. what the power of a house committee to compel be a subpoena and independently elected state official i think that is subject to a law review article which i've not read or written yet. let me say this, i do say that unfortunately this issue has been very politicized and i think that's unfortunate. no doubt climate change is real. there's no doubt we should be trying to take efforts to mitigate it. new york, because we have replaced coal and electric generation with natural gas for the last 20 years we have reduced our co2 emissions by about 20 or 25% in the state. all without due to market forces, not due due to any intervention of the government. so i think that we need to

pursue energy policy that say all of the above energy policy that looks at renewables. we have tremendous subsidies for renewables and state and federal law now. i have i have supported those. i also think that we have to be cognizant that we have to make sure any solution we come to is enforceable across international boundaries. frankly, i, i do not really trust the chinese for instance, to abide by agreements that they enter into regarding regarding climate change. we have to make sure that nothing we agree to hurts our economy. i have a program and a set of policy proposals to help the small business economy in the 19th congressional district. i have lived here for 33 years. i understand the district and i understand the issues they are facing. we have to make sure that in a district like ours were people rely on their cars and they rely on their farm tractors to work in their cars to get to work, the fact is we need to make sure

that any agreement that we enter into relating to climate change is not something that is going to disadvantage our economy and heard our up stators. unlike msm brooklyn, they have subways in brooklyn. she has natural gas in her apartment in brooklyn. a lot of the communities in our district on have cheap energy. the have to drive to work. these are the things. i want want to make sure were protecting our upstate economy which is really hurting. if i'm elected to congress that would be job one. jobs and improving the economy. that's the single most important thing we can do. >> thank you. climate change and energy sources and protecting our water against the big polluters is an area where we have a real difference. voters in the 19th district have a real choice. i'm so proud to have been part of one of the greatest environmental victories in recent history. the fracking ban in new york state. that did not happen because of

political elites. that that happened because of extraordinary grassroots efforts. people raising the issues of the impact on fracking on water. the impact impact of fracking and can pressure stations on air. i am a poster fracking, john, my opponent not only as an favor of fracking but has been paid by the fracking companies both as a spokesperson lobbyist. that has really hit home right here, right next door. i was working with people to stop the ned pipeline. ice talk to so many people about meetings, hearings come about their frustrations and fear that the compressor station would threaten the health of their kids. were talking about about carcinogens coming out of this can pressure station. john was a paid lobbyist for the tennessee gas company which was

pushing the ned pipeline project. i'm going to go to congress to protect our water against the big polluters. john has already shown which side he's on. it's not on the side of the people in this district to care deeply about whether their kids can trust the water to drink. we have to care about like the mom i was talking in nassau who is worried about her kid playing. if they can pressure station came in. when you're talking about exxon you're talking about a big polluter who hired a bunch of lobbyists like my opponent, john, to push through subsidies and exemptions in the law. thank you. >> it is now my turn to thank you both for being here. thank you very much. and covenant congressman chris said that he would serve for terms and put term limits on himself. he is retiring after three. you have said that you support term limits but have not publicly said or specified

length. we publicly stated maximum number of terms you would serve and just to point out that your opponent does not support term limits. >> yes. i support term limits. i would serve five terms, i think ten years is enough to actually do the work that i want to do in congress. but not so long that you become a career politician. career politicians career politician. career politicians have not been serving our politics right now. i want to talk about the things that i can do in those ten years. one of the most important things is a standing out for independent businesses and family farms. i have have released a seven-point plan that would do just that. the core of the plan is recognizing that both republicans and democrats have really abandon the independent business owner and the family farmer over the last three decades. people talk but when you actually look at what is happening on the ground it is much worse. you you have seen a decline by as much as 40% of the

smaller farms across the entire country and that is in part by 75% of the subsidies are going to really big concentrated farms, the one who can it afford to hire lobbyist, like my upon a. something is happening with independent businesses. the true job creators, the smaller independent businesses that are really essential in the heart and soul of our community have suffered in the last 30 years. so part 11 is that we need to bring jobs home, support local farming. we need to make things in america again. my opponent is in favor of fast track for the transpacific partnership. another trade deals. i am opposed to fast track. i think we need to relook at all of our trade deal so we can beat manufacturing and making things here again. we can be assembling iphones here. we can be actually doing a lot more of the essential work for

putting together our shoes, close, the basics that we rely on right here. i think we. i think we need to be renegotiating nafta. we have a 10 billion-dollar trade deficit with china. i think it is essential that when i'm in congress i'll be standing up against the kind of trade deals my opponent has supported. the second step is making sure that our banks are lending again. after the crash of 2008i cofounded a group dedicated to breaking up the big banks. making them lunch our local communities. they are not. they are not lending. in fact there more concentrated in fragile than ever. i will will hold hearings and try to bake break up this banks and sport community banks and making sure independent businesses are getting access to funds. i was talking to business in kingston who have been in the

black for four years. they cannot get bank of america to lend to them because they are too small. what you hear over and over again is that access to capital is really central. they're just not getting it from the big banks. >> the question with term limits, yes i support term limits. i would like, this is perhaps one of the areas where my opponent and i agree. i would like to serve, if elected and honored to survive like to serve no more than five terms as well. i think i could could get something done in that period of time. but, in fact when i ran for governor in 2006 i propose term limits for the state. now, it is hard to unbundle all of the untruths interpretations that was just beauty. number 1i have never been paid by a fracking company. i have never been a lobbyist firm of fracking company. i did work as an outside consultant for williams which is a pipeline company.

for a project that was supported by chris gibson and the local state legislators in our district. she would not know that because she just arrived here from brooklyn like you may have heard. the fact is, i opposed the ned pipeline that was a kindred morgan program. tennessee gas, years ago i have done legal work for tennessee gas about that long since ended and in fact, it ended well before tennessee gas was acquired by kindred morgan. so your fact checker has to go back. maybe they came from brooklyn but they are mistaken in this regard. her proposals for small business. well, i, i am endorsed by the national federation of independent business which is the largest small business organization in the country. the reason is because i have a concrete set of proposals to help small business. number one, let a small business expense right off of full deduction against their taxes in year one, not with a depreciation schedule but in

year one. that will accelerate will accelerate investment in machinery, and vehicles, and equipment may need to operate their small business. that is vital that we do this. the first point in the plan is that she wants antitrust enforcement. okay, after ten years maybe that might help a small business, maybe after 20, but not right away. >> they had a question of the top of the ticket, you have not officially endorsed all trump, his presidential bid, and you been very critical of some of the statements including the goldstar parent who spoke at the democratic national convention. you have referred to them as our candidate and said you will support a party's nominee. both of you will be running on the republican line. why haven't you officially endorsed donald trump in a state were both he and adcox, the state party chair has said they want to be competitive? >> the answer to that question

is that i've said right from the gecko when i started running i announced my candidacy a year ago today. on the front front steps of our home where mary fran and i have lived our american dream and racer kids. . .

>> >> but the very first bill i will introduce a time-honored to be elected the to the people of the 19th district i will send over a five-year period to impose the burden on the local property taxpayers. i went back and read the law it is very plain the federal law permits states to impose

part of that burden on the county's. new york went, well beyond seven and 1/2 billion is on your state just because nelson rockefeller did it does not mean we shouldn't try to fix it now. wants to help small business investment expensing of equipment to employee jobs and to reduce the property tax burden that drives so many people out of state that is what people are looking for with experience how to do these things to get things done and i am the person best suited to represent for these reasons.

>> i support hillary clinton for president first of all but one of the reasons i feel so strongly is and i have shown analyst willing to be independent when i disagree there is plenty that i disagree at the top of the ticket that i will be independent because they have been disappointed and so when i may representative bank congress and not big corporations but to talk about taxes they are out of control on a green with my opponent for medicaid reimbursement. that is something new york should do absolutely.

i talk about the property tax burden and how much it hurts them. with my opponent had a chance to represent parts of us district before he became a lobbyist steve voted for tax raises 135 times. and he lived 30 miles from albany and missed 1700 votes. he takes a paycheck but not showing up. or the times that he did he voted against equal pay. p. already had a chance to show what he will do when he is paid to represent. then he cashed out to become a lobbyist after missing so many votes.

>> we were just talking proximity and we will continue in that vein only recently he moved into the 19th congressional district. you are called a carpetbagger or adventurer how do you respond? >> i grew up two counties away from the district windsor county is a dairy community and we had about 40 sheep with a good year without the coyotes and 30 chickens both neighbors also edward dairy farmers. zero lot of those issues that are facing the community are similar. but to what i hear wherever i go in is our you going to stand up and fight for their interest not lining up with a the party-line deal

understand the issues and will listen to us? that i have been working with people not just standing up against cracking and for about water but also on the opt dash out movement the common corps has been a disaster with teachers and community members around this district standing up for opt out and recruiting more women to change the conversation about women and from working against the constitution pipeline so last spring and was sitting on church street and saying how can we bring more renewable energy or more investment?

dole always represent people not the powerful interest and that is what i will do in congress to listen to what people really care about to raise those voices when i go to washington my opponent shows how he represents he missed 1700 votes so to be against equal pay and for raising taxes. >> is amazing to me 1700 votes in the time was in the legislature by voting percentage was 97% but the fact is ahead in 97 percent voting record because i was excused for legislative business cited missed about 100 thrower -- 104 because my wife was operated on for

cancer and i was out the right place by her side worried about her and our two children instead of sitting in indeed assembly and that is below the belt. if it is something of somebody comes into this district, flies in to talk about votes the very first time to vote in the school board election if but she did not show up to '04 per zero school board to how much did she care? equal pay? i a support that and the bottom line is my own mother was disadvantaged to trade young men to be branch managers she didn't get the job because she was a woman's life fully understand the issue but just like you can't tell a book by its cover? you cannot tell a bill in her assembly by the title they give it it was not

equal pay for equal work it was equal pay for different mark. we'll -- work but you expect to hear this in politics but i hope that did residents will come up with other things. lee york city is a great place and they have 13 men don't need 14 from our district. >> to have hearings on the contamination of fallout have left many unsatisfied somewhat woody you do on the federal level with ramifications across the state? >> try have talked to so

many about what they have experienced and it shows the failure of state and federal regulators to take the authority they have and why they said the water was safe to drink but a google search would have been able to recover information that there was definitely a problem with the accelerated levels. but the congress and the last session updated the toxins -- toxic substantive backed it was in need of updating and this is an opportunity to make sure that we have the right bureaucratic responses but also investigating uh chemicals that are not being true leave tracked and evaluated it was a failure

of bureaucracy and it is the shame they spend their time pointing fingers rather than figuring out how to fix the of problem or avoid the problem in the future. but it brings to mind my opponent believes in big government talks about making big banks lend to small business but virtually every one of her proposals basically make it so the small business is a disadvantage once the minimum wage to kill family farmers that will help the farm to table movement in pennsylvania because ours will be priced out of the labor market they cannot afford what she talks about. she is completely unrealistic because she

comes to many art city centric point the view. would get the foreign policy she supports the irene and deal. the rate just given money on a pilot that was sent over from europe to the every needs as a ransom and we also said over $1 billion the year radians cannot be trusted she did not even criticize chuck schumer. pdf so whether my faulty voting record and i was one of the most fiscally responsible i was the first budget in 52 years to reduce spending year-to-year and $19.5 trillion of debt in washington?

we need to cut the budget. >> l. want to take some time to talk about because it is a truly devastating crisis and i spent a lot of time talking to community members there. and what she talks about it is those 18 months when her kid was swimming and now water getting a glass of water for her daughter and it turns out the state knew there was something wrong. everybody is to blame. to be incredibly easy frustrating there is a lot of finger-pointing the state in the federal government

have to take responsibility for i have called for federal with subpoena power to have real concrete solutions that will mean something to people with fighting for a fund for medical monitoring on going because when you talk to parents who are worried about the ongoing levels as well as a response to the health crisis i will stand up for clean water. our water is threatened across the board. a young mother eight months old and she said i have been trying to take up blow dryer of mine milk bottle of that is crazy but she has come to

fear water because of the scandal we have to do everything we can and that the polluters pay and we stand up to them. >> that will surprise no one that bob ratings in the single-digit with campaign finance reform. what else would you do to improve the reputation of government? >> congress and is broken it is a gridlock and corrupted at the same time. i believe in that basic process of representation to raise up people's voices that they are heard there are opportunities to work across the aisle and when i

and incongruous one is the independent businesses that i think are extremely important we have a crisis with broad band that is holding back our rule economy. fdr came to bother with rural senators to push through the act that we will figure out how to get electricity to every farm i think it is time for the updated act to focus on broad band and a cellular service everywhere. this is something that should not be partisan. the opponents are the big

companies like comcast that have bought the of lobbyist to push for keeping us cable industry tight not those that are dominating the market i believe in more open markets for more competition and choices as you as the consumer should have the choice between different service providers. i was part of fighting for neck work neutrality that she beat up partisan like common core. i have been strong opponent of high aids stakes testing that is not a partisan issue but where bill gates and basically tries to push of a

top down idea of the federal overreach it is becoming a real problem. and when i am in congress i will be working across the aisle 590 me enough with high-stakes testing but what should education look-alike? how can we support safe and secure schools for all kids? i support music. >> q have heard my opponent castigate me as a lobbyist but as a point of information your viewers should know the most prominent clients that represented was autism speaks to have a major role

of the health insurance coverage with children with autism. in den fighting for their everyday in terms of their needs of autistic children on the spectrum. but that overall issue in our country today and the overall issue that upstate new york faces how do get more growth in the economy? this means within 10 years every nickel of federal tax payer money into treasury will go for medicare medicaid social security and interest on debt. we don't get more growth we cannot fulfil our obligations to seniors and veterans but provide opportunities for children

and grandchildren so this is what is going on in our country today and in our district for it was a manifestation that exist. a serious plan to end the over regulation. talk about the banks that are crushed by regulation from dog frank. one banker told me i hired two extra people with $80,000 for compliance in they prepare reports that nobody reads. that is the problem to stifle small business. >> during your run for governor a decade ago you opposed same-sex marriage and abortion. where do you stand today? >> i recognize the issue of

abortion is contentious in our society and always has spent. my position has been i have moral objection but i support to exceptions for rape and incest and life of the mother but not taxpayer funded but i also recognize the of lott is a lot and it is the law of the land and upheld by the supreme court and i respect the law. i am not running for congress to change that. second, were asking about same-sex marriage that is the law as well democratically adopted in new york stay i fully respect the law but with the reason i am running for congress is not a debating society. the left and watches them is

nbc the right watches fox. but the fact is that people are talking past one another one and to come to common ground just like tip o'neill came with a plan to save social security that is the model we have to pursue to get more growth in our economy. $19.5 trillion of debt. we are passing the cost on to our children and grandchildren. if we do not fix this week cannot be a country strong domestically for have the traditional strength of the of military in the world and to fight islamic extremism. my opponent supporting the

iranian deal for the movement that wants to boycott that is an outrage it is the strongest ally in the middle east militarily and diplomatically with shared intelligence to confront isis and i have not heard anything from my opponents that she supports the every indio -- to give any to israel after they were gunned down in their car one month after she said that black lives matter is moral and thoughtful but if you read the platform you can see how anti-semitic many parts are. and way to the left to never be effective in congress.

>> a think the question was about same-sex marriage and a portion. i want to address those directly. in 2006 my opponent did not just say he was privately opposed to same-sex marriage but if a bill came to him is desk supported by the legislature he would veto the bill to impose his own views on your stay. this release supportive of soleil same-sex marriage and i have a private views on

abortion and i respect those but i feel very strongly it is not the government's business that it is a private choice and i feel very strongly that we have to actively be supporting the work that planned parenthood does with the overwhelming majority of the services they provide and cancer screening and there is a bunch of republicans who are stumping funding for the zika virus they don't want any money to go to win in clinics and that is so wrong. and it is very clear where isdn if you look at my opponent's record it looks like where you would stand

on the side of those that are opposing funding because it is not the women's health clinic. >> with that to be punished for the of west bank should congress or individual states by imposing oceans to take part. >> my opponent said something that was not true but i am a strong supporter of us to state solution with a very important role to move toward the strategic solution. important policy more generally the united states faces free very serious threats. one is the threat of either

ivory and are north korea to get nuclear weapons. the reason that i support the air radio is because we cannot allow lybrand to have a nuclear weapon it is too much of a threat to. we are further away from a nuclear ivory and. to address the real threat and that we are using the of leverage. fed is the inspirational movement to encouraging others to take action even without having a direct

reaction. i believe strongly to use that special capacity to defeat isis and i feel very strongly the trade deal to weaken us globally. the core reason i support trade deals to bring jobs home. but it is the of balance of power were looking towards renegotiating we have to have a strong relationship with allies but not the billion dollar a day trade deficit with china.

>> it is against our interests of the allied in israel lies support measures and we have done this before in new york state and nationally and for those that support to apartheid or are to the macbride principles so there was principles. after she was caught them and she rushed to proclaim her support for israel but she has a history for the campaign for governor and for that primary for debt to avoid the cuts that are expected on nonmilitary.

for fish and that is one of the reasons to have a strong spokesperson and to also be a spokesperson for the military and to have purdy sanders coming here tomorrow that he she should get clemency she belongs to the far left side of the political equation to be the political equivalent of the free dukakis see how the radical fringes of full-size that cannot get anything done because they are not willing to talk to the other side and collaborate. that is how we get jobs back care those said the pier on

the no-fly list should be purchasing firearms. those that close the dead show loophole? that doesn't mean i want terrorists to purchase weapons. so those that were falsely put of the watch list have the means to get off so we can come up with a approach for due process rights if so

there's no real its support them purchasing firearms settled think the gun laws are necessarily the solution to the problem i'd like to see more penalties for more trafficking of weapons those that commit a crime with a firearm. with strict gun laws like chicago because they could not effected lead police to get the weapons off the streets. one of the weapons that we are facing is very important in this district is heroin and opium we did use. with treatment and enforcement. no doubt where democrats and republicans can work together and agree that hair when does not discriminate

between male or female black white days straight. it is affecting every community throughout the 11 counties and congressional districts after words to tell me about a situation in their family that is affected and another local district issue is lyme disease with the 21st century act i am hopeful pdf to take up the battle to have the diagnosis for lyme disease so that legislation

could not be affected by will not support that. so what we have to do for the laws and not being enforced in many cases to have strict penalties that the state level. >> i also think we should make sure those on the no-fly last of the no-fly list. all the men in my family hunt but we also had another gun for the raccoons getting into the chickens in this important any law that our respectful and understand

the done and is a tool and way of life. the hero when crisis is devastating that death is up three times since the year 2000 and i was talking to my father food talked-about the day his son came home who said i need help and he spend one week on the phone with insurance companies to find a bed. to get approval from the insurance companies. his son went back and since has overdosed. part of addressing the crisis is the insurance company and our broader health crisis if they cannot afford basic medication or pay off outrageous amounts for drugs before one

resident the drug costs $300,000 the year nobody thinks it should cost that much but if we address the core issues to raise up people's voices to take on the powerful drug companies to hire a lobbyist to be in a position to charge a rages fees. it isn't on the ground with well-paid lobbyist. >> that's all the time we have for the debate. >> and all baja our work and

now we can add a round of applause for the candidates. [applause]

>> we want to get back to make america strong and a great again. >> i of everyone working hard everybody that is knocked down by gets back that.

>> [inaudible conversations] and

and. >> with thanks for coming wheat are delighted to have senators paul and murphy. aho for adults think they need in introduction because if they do i am surprised that you are here talking about the middle east in general with relations with saudi arabia in particular america's relations with the states of the of middle east has become increasingly complex over the last few years to the point where many of our friends in the region have no idea where we are. to give you an example from saudi arabia odd one hand you want to see the united states literally $20 billion

worth of arms but on the other hand, of the bipartisan basis are concerned about the more recent sales because they sponsor legislation to that defect on the one hand the united states supports the operations saturday arabia is conducting that are sponsored i i remember of the other hand also telling them to share the gulf so hot you figure that out? the same sorts and by the way we're for such a long time united states to go but now with cnn's to say they can stick around for awhile that saudi arabia is puzzled about. not just one country look at israel or the other

countries you can see the same degree of confusion. to help them lateness we have the two senators to give us his views and senator murphy and it works out nicely. [laughter] senator paul, over to you. >> thank-you to the senators for national interest in for this discussion. there are aspects right and left. there has a bipartisan consensus but unfortunately there needs to be another from another fashion but senator murphy and i will introduce legislation and is a privileged resolution it

is unusual in the senate that it had asked to be voted on within a period of time summit moby past and voted on wednesday and is almost never happens so this is extraordinary in congress. the power was given to us by the arms export control act and the resolution will say to the president but other that we disapprove the sale of arms and next question would say it could sit on it but it elevates the debate to allow congress to be part of this decision. some might ask why would that have to do for policy? according to founding fathers it was intended to be the initiation to

specifically taken away from the presidency and given to congress. and madison said the executive branch the constitution took that power to invest in the legislature. how could enormous they'll do anything with initiation of war sending arms to an ally? there is a war going on, into refuel what is dropping of the bombs. helping to guide the missiles to their targets. and almost no america knows to debate the pros and cons but we cannot simply have no debate. so absolutely it is a big

deal to bring this forward. also uh discussion that congress should authorize. there is to out of the last 15 years and that is simply what it says. and the other from the iraq war. and applying to syria needs to be debated. with a foreign relations committee discussing a water bill that authorized the use of force we had a good debate but we began the debate unfortunately it did not go to congress and it languishes if you talk to our soldiers everyone that i encounter sox can see a day

from the naval academy want the people to debate there is an american soldier right now in course suing over if it was of valid order to go to war since congress did not authorize the war. it is incredibly important the foreign policy wet founding fathers intended i am very excited to have senator murphy one dash for free to partner. >> there you go. >> this is my first trip by hope is the first of many. i will associate myself with all of the sentiments of

senator paul. budget to conduct foreign policy of this nation. when it is a well-defined enemy with hostilities to be neatly wrapped up peace treaty. when victory is harder to define the response ability to declare war is conditional depending on the parameters of that declaration. and congress's refusal to authorize war to authorize of current operations we are at risk to never again be relevant in our lifetime.

in this is serious but doing a great job the particulars of why we care about the arms sale. this is in part designed to replace, weaponry that is battle damaged with the coalition fight with the u.s. national security interest to back the saudis in the civil war but the first thing to say this is not proxy. no doubt the iranians have taken a vantage to make the decision to supply them. the iranians did not have command and control

relationship so to view this simply as a clean and clear fight that misunderstands the nature of the conflict. talk to the yemenis on the ground they will tell you it is a campaign they view every casualty take seriously the fact we own every single civilian document as much as we are pressing them to get better they are not in the 72 hour . they bombed another doctors without borders facility even when we tell them not to to resupply humanitarian relief, and they ignore us and still balm.

the second to even if you believe there is an important message through u.s. participation we have to ask ourselves what is the chief and primary goal? because the civil war has allowed for oxide and basis to gain a foothold they never have before to strife united states again improvement has spite food this base of the period of time a major city that they were earning more money than they ever have before. so from u.s. national security perspective to participate in the slaughter

of civilians and allowing extremist groups to go stronger so this is of a question of congress is relevant and also a direct and immediate question if we will continue to fund and supply a war that is hurting national security. and does not put an end to the participation to these hostilities but a positive vote tory very strong growth would send a change. >> thanks very much and for making the case so clearly allowing time for people to ask questions. i will start. by the of way when you have a comment or question,

please identify yourself i am vice chairman. in question for both the view. you made a very strong case would congress. translator: di more mixed signals and we're already getting? does that make sayings worse not better? does that drive them into the hands of the one that is more influential news seizes on every opportunity to push us out? water reactions? -- what are your reactions quick. >> i think it should not rarely be the goal with uh

national security interest and does not being completely private and to pay for the defense department it retains an interest to have ownership to say that we can veto the arms sales. i saw the figure in an article i almost did not believe it. over the last eight years so i think, i don't know if it is of mixed signal the shortage of weaponry. but it seems to be social or end with foreign policy but that is a debate by talking

about the issues of the specifics of senator murphy if it is in our interest. and the complexity that we often daddies unintended. and we often get the unintended consequences with millions of people displaced the same can happen in yemen. i believe they should be taking refugees from syria and i like the way that they were described as an arsonist and firefighter to throw fire -- fuel on the fireballs and to help but they said a mixed message to their loyalties throughout the world to support those

that preach hatred of our country there is an article of the ambassador. yes. [laughter] when recently talking about saudi arabia that we will do better but that may show them that they can do better. >> i will restate the point of the dramatic increase of arms sales. talking about a 16 fold increase with the dollar amount verses of the russian ministry should reassure us recognize that we hear selling more and giving more than ever before.

there should be a pause on the arm scale. i would absolutely argue we should send signals that is conditional. with the ultimate goal anytime the saudis asked but if the goal is to create a more functional relationship than occasionally you have to say no then they have asked for our help. it is not in our international interest to answer the call so of makes sense to say we will not be with them but there will be other times when we are. this is where it may be in their interest to fight the war but not ours and i would

concur with senator paul i think it is time to take stock of this relationship every year representatives, year to tell us bay have made mistakes to find a the wrong people or the story isn't like the newspapers talent there is a directly proportional relationship to what is going into parts of the globe look at example number one is a direct relationship of the gulf state actors with the bedrock of conservatives with the ability of those recruiters to recruit out of that area they continually tell us they're focusing to be a firefighter in to get

better on their targeting but they don't so i argue is time to be less consistent and more conditional. >> >> so to agree with what you have said the leotard been an empathy be have the deficit on the front cell hallwood lead you try to show that analysis of that assessment we are with you but what is missing is does it not act of legitimate

needs or interest that pretty much parallel? to be defoliated of defaults that they could say of the $750 billion of the financial system? >> i think there are many places that are interest align in this baby part of where we made differ but when we talk about my desire i did commit there are positive things pdf that they do in counter intelligence is critical with their ability to

facilitate the talks very important to u.s. national security goals. but i would argue we are no longer having our interests aligned in a way that many are taught. i think we have largely turned to allow the saudis to create a version of islam against the very groups we are fighting today we have asked them to stop in the evidence suggests they have not over the course of the last year-and-a-half we told them the target is not they have not listened but it is time to question if this alliance is clearer or as

solid as they may have been told. for the last five years to be the case but with the civil war in yemenite still have yet to see why it is in our national security interest. >> we don't only show a bit before arms i am not proposing we cut off trade i would propose that the more interconnected our eight economies are the better the fact bedded down our debt i wish we didn't have so much but the fact is intertwined is the good thing so that is good but this is only issues

with regard to aid as well we don't like them enough's. but also saudi arabia could be more open in brother outside ownership they could immediately start changing the schools instead of p. transeven barakat we could have them teaching tolerance . people have talked about a reformation within islam because we are so preoccupied with the bombs. but we aeronaut hearing of the other side many professional muslims are working in this country that

are very tolerant in a coordinated way it doesn't seem to be a simplifying that and they could do a better job to always so the markets there could be limitations or better behavior is said to the open arms sales. >> against that popular perception with feel domenic administration largely to placate that is already created a prime minister in

reference to the point to placate that issue they have a long history of distrust of one another but one of the problems of chechnya is the results of the influence can you see if putin is close to where ron at this point in saudi arabia? >> i am not as worried about this idea especially given the clear signals

allowed for this sale to go forward should there be tangible progress on these issues of the targeting of civilians and clear evidence of the coalition going after all kinda did you know, they have done very good work but that have done that

without the systems so i am understand why did ministrations decided to support them in this fight but given the fact they have shown no willingness to listen to our concerns now was the time to withdraw that support. to use u.s. refueling capacity to run as many missions around the area then we are having a different discussion. >> whiffs of questions of unintended consequences that creates a space crisis grew. it is and who created what

however it is the unintended consequence. budget if the saudis to feed them then who takes over? the coalition or the allocate the peninsula of or isis and frankly they have a toehold as well. and is set to placate them? yes. and more than just placating is essentially fuelling the arms race whether we like it are not will take some of the money you can argue police say it was theirs to buy conventional weapons in saudi arabia and to counteract that by one of those great ironies is looking at all the weapons

there is a certain degree of irony to see the u.s. tanks rolling in to fight against the u.s. arms there is a little town to see the pentagon backed kurds fighting the cia backed moderates with two different branches of government is a messy place and we need to step back and be wise about our decisions that doesn't mean we don't do nothing but often we do too much. >> bad example is proof of system to support everybody off laugh. [laughter] >> with those allies of the

of the least and to engage in is part of the region but in this case they are not taking ownership to conduct the operation without major u.s. tactical strategic support. if the united states decided

not to refuel capacity or replacements for munitions can did not replace da battle we're not providing the intelligence they will take that the answer is yes. because targeting would be even worse. diana stanwyck they are doing to facilitate with for the states to take care of problems but that is not this. clear the and internet be involved in this question but certainly this looks like the axe of four.

>> via their ways that being gauge so for example, the more important aspect is with russia when i was active in the presidential debates you may remember everybody else said they wanted to punch russia in the nose i said it can be part of the solution i am not naive be enough to think russia is always good or will do the right thing but they had a base 50 years they are pretty active in if we engage them it does involve russia. that second is the part between the turks and the

kurds. as i go around the country to talk vice this is like 25,000 people. that is how many fighters that they have but the turks have 600,000 pest more dash how to hundred thousand the iraqi army has 200,000 common jordanians have several hundred thousand israelis have 1 million they are surrounded by 2 million people who don't like them and sounds like sweeney did arrange we aeronaut shooting each other by trading their fire on the enemy of civilization and enemy of peace. so once they move across the of border to the new kurdish area but have had a lot of people say that would be easily done then david be more engaged not less diplomacy is incredibly

important why people mistake the whole concept of foreign policy that if you don't believe for and is the answer it doesn't mean we are shirking the region to do nothing so trade and diplomacy are important things. to have that presence through businesses not talking about military installations the more intertwined the batter -- a better. >> so certainly i have heard a sign expectations but it comes when from congress

with that potential so that these are to sayings that saudi arabia of opposes with congressional support so if it doesn't succeed do you think congress in is changing? and when i talk to folks in in the region even if totally opposed they recognize that the russians stick with their allies and based on this question doesn't that send a signal the sunlight of russians.

>> that is a tough question. [laughter] the most likely teetoo pass in five base decisions on what i support them i would not be very busy to do things differently. to go against a bipartisan consensus it is always good and always works in russia always intervene. they do believe it is the answer and really we do ledbetter job better -- believe better not under

george to be a bush the two military excursions so president statement is that no president should go to war without be imminent attack. with the republican in the caucus i asked what about the award in is namibia? der never believe? he said there was the imminent attack i said really? he said yes benghazi. you have got to be kidding me to unilaterally that is a standard far different than what at was presented but

they should be debated to be involved with the initiation of four we do lose there is no debate in the country or on television for the candidates if we should be at war in yemen. none. water the ramifications there is no real congressional debate and to when it comes to prospective to hawk of the of willingness to challenge the nature of the relationship. i am the loudest critic but i don't argue we should

throw it out. i am a realist. but alliances go both ways if your partner is doing things not in your interest you need to reserve the ability to question your alliance it is beyond charitable the classic realist as soon as a country decides to part ways with the russian interest the russian said ukrainians were of the verge of signing a new gas deal then there were russian troops. is sending a message we will

always be with you think gore thin that we do have value in this world they are in your opinions but today i don't know if we had a values based partner in sodium arabia the way we do with other countries that we will hold up our end of the bargain faugh. >> thank you for your initiative and clear explanation regarding congressional authorizations

if there was the new a u.s. math -- with that activity from a the middle east with the spee2 what the objective should bns scope should be and how that limits geographically. >> i would it argued there should be a limitation in the range of three or five years. would talk about the authorization of military force against isis. which i would argue would be appropriate. so with respect to the military authorization i would argue it should have a geographic specificity we can propose with those

parameters should be and dozens upon dozens of countries. if luby's simply said if somebody claims to have an affiliation you now have authorization of military activity. that is a disastrous mistake to be included in the authorization is inappropriate for that type of resolution. >> we may be slightly different on details but it should be limited geographically and tactically.

and why is this so messy? to be pretty unanimous and we were fairly unanimous. in times when the time to vote for something the other times to be less clear whether it was then done national interest. with regard to geography there are 32 countries that pledged allegiance. to isis my diet -- minus side voted for a resolution with no limits or tactical limits when i voted against did the democratic side the last one did not have a geographic limits either. is different than fighting germany and japan. we are not fighting a government that is clear

when victory comes. to put 200,000 american troops how long will victory take? if u.n. bans for word but would we have won a? who will go on the aircraft carrier to sign the armistice? it is my opinion to fight back radical ideology but i am of the of belief that civilized is long will have to defeat those that are truly rejected of those teachings because i don't think they will never accept it from us. even those who are not radicalized those that our

satanic they will not accept a victory from us. there are those that don't think it accepts islam and to talk about containment and amplification. and that is something a would support arms. in to give many more directly to the kurds the and the iraqi government. to be the best fighters in the region with the $100 billion of farms is better spent going to the kurds.

with some of those weapons a big boat full passing them out i love america. we have no idea of the moderates are those that take the weapons. many of those weapons from saudi arabia is did end up in the hands of physis directly. >> >> learn it were killed or

wounded with those circumstances to comply with the cease-fire. to make that announcement there is the announcement on both sides. and with that information to use the airforce for that.

would that resolution to? or to use the of course, will support the of government? i will leave that for the senator. [laughter] >> that is under -- ever-present that the united states can solve this. then you'll never come up with the right answer. i can give you the answer that you want thence in the united states but if you start with the promise and it makes it worse not

better. the first do no harm and to bring that with them but we have been so friendly to provide arms to anyone we feed ultimately will fight to those inside now we are in situations they are used against each other and in 30 years we will see more those arms withdrawn against each other. watched those videos with the unsatisfactory answer. but how terrible a must feel for those inside syria at the very least to empty out

the country at the very least to reconsider the commitment of those 10,000 syrians to put in every dime to make assure every refugee i don't think we can solve this alone. we should stop trying to find the u.s. dominated solutions. . .