. . .

. . .

i want to grow the private sector by reducing the size of government. >> what would you do? >> i think he deserves an answer. somehow we grow the economy for those on the top it's going to trickle down to those at the bottom. that isn't what's happened. as i have gone through the state, no matter if you're in milwaukee, or up in superior, they're telling me that hasn't happened. what do we need to do, we need

to do the opposite of what senator has proposed. it is 7.25, actually if you have a family of more than one, two or 5 members, that's below poverty level. he has said in the past that he doesn't think we should have a federal minimum wage. secondly, you asked for specific. we need to have paid family leave for families. we need to make sure that when you have a child you have an opportunity to have a few weeks off to bond that with child. that's better for the employer and we can join the rest of the country and that can make a measurable difference in youngam's lives. you know how worried the older people in the state are? sometimes people have 400-dollar

dose. senator son -- johnson stands with the pharmaceutical industry . that would save the country $123 billion on all of the issues. he has zero specifics because he will only stand for those things that the corporations won't allow. >> let me give you specific on your show when you asked about the minimum wage his proposal to raise, the number of studies would cost the american economy 6 to 1 million jobs. there would be some dislocations. a father not having job to providing to family. there's negative consequences. to you allowing negative to negotiate prices, we have medicare part d, a single payer run bureaucrat system like senator wants for all of our economy, for all of the american people like health care system.

they only have access to 82% of drugs, medicare at least has access to 95% of the drugs because they allow the different providers of medicare to negotiate prices alone. cbo director says the negotiation of medicare will save amounts of money. the bottom line what senator feingold more debt and unbelievably callice. it's an official estimate. $123billion it would save. by the way, the senator opened up to open up the doughnut hole

again. he's voted to open up the doughnut hole. there's really nothing we can do about it. >> let's talk about how we need to grow the economy because, again, i have grown a business, i have providing hundreds of wisconsinans good-paying jobs. he seems to have a problem with that. how you succeed and how you grow on economy is get the government out of the way, reduce regulatory burden. right now we do not and senator feingold support president obama. he couldn't pass those laws through legislation so now he's passing the same policies through regulation and so that's what we need to do. we need to reduce burden and

competitive system and keep wisconsin competitive. we all want to maintain a clean environment. that makes wisconsin workers less competitive and cost us jobs overseas. >> very, very quickly. >> let's be very clear, simple, senator johnson paid himself $700,000 for ten years for his time at his company after he went to the senate and he described that as reasonable. he doesn't think raising the minimum wage from 7.25 is reasonable. >> let me ask you -- >> i do need to respond to that. nobody should apologize for working hard and succeeding in the american economy. i'm proud of the fact that i worked with some great people at my company, built a great business that provided good-paying jobs. that's just a fact. i left the money built in the

business so it would create additional jobs. it's sad, he says he's fighting for middle class. my business provided great-paying jobs. some people are still with me for 30 years. i don't know why he has a problem with the successful family manufacturing that exports to all kinds of different countries. i don't think anybody should have to apologize. >> nobody has a problem. >> i have never suggested we do it with minimum wage. i would be happy to look at reasonable proposals. i'm just not supportive of dramatic increases that actually cost families jobs and opportunities and he's for that and he calls that dislocations. >> nobody said anything about your business or who you hired. all i said, you won't even raise the minimum one nickel. >> i would be willing to do on index basis. >> your position you have voted

consistently at raising it at all. that's what the people in wisconsin need to know. >> i want to ask a question, i think, of interest for students in audience. it's affordability of college. mr. feingold you talked about the need to allow students to refinance their loan debt and you also talked about free tuition for families making under $125,000. briefly, the first question. why do the student loans need to be tackled? >> well, it's a crisis and everywhere you go in the state if you want to hear one issue within the cost of living and the problems of making a living, the thing you hear most is the frightening aspect of student loan. the average student coming out of university of wisconsin madison with student loans is about $28,000 in debt. >> half of them come out with no

debt. >> 28,000. many other people come in with much more. now, this is very expensive and i have held town meetings and round tables with students all over the state who tell me that this is very disturbing. senator johnson say they think it's free money. they think it's disturbing and a terrible way to have to start their life and one of the young woman at the university of milwaukee, senator, you have to understand that sometimes when you go on a first date this is what you talk about and i like to say, well, ice breaker. that's no way for the generation to be treated. senator johnson doesn't respond that. when elizabeth warren had a bill like you do on mortgage, he voted no. it was very close. i think there was a couple of votes. he prevented it. that's what people want. we should have a goal of making it that people should graduate from college at least debt free when it comes oh to tuition.

>> how do we pay for that in. >> we have a 19 trillion-dollar debt. we have increasing pressure because of our aging demographics on social security and medicare, how do we pay for free college tuition? >> i have offered a federal fiscal plan. that's what a senator should do. >> explain for a pay for. >> you close the loophole of carried interest and use it for something like stone loan. senator johnson doesn't do and talks about how much the debt it's going to be for. the job of a senator isn't just to say the system is bad or he has not done essentially any of it. >> let me get you to respond to the student debt.

>> it's always about college affordability. exhibit a he was paid $150,000, almost $8,000 a lecture, lecturing sanford in california. so when colleges have that much money to pay a guest lecture you understand why the cost of colleges increase at 2.56 rate inflation. what's the different ant what college and education spend their money on. the federal government poured money into higher education into a limited supply. for every dollar poured in, tuition increased by 65 and 55 cents. do the math on that. $2.1trillion. that's times about 60%. that's $1.3 trillion which happens to be the amount of student debt that's outstanding. so the federal government with the best of intentions had the very negative unintended consequences of making college much less affordable, making

much less accessible. so the solution is drive competition and productivity in education. we are still -- >> what would that look like? >> we are still offering colleges and universities based on 19th century model. explosion of computers, technology, best practices and we simply don't utilize it. before i became a senator i was really involved as a volunteer in education. we did something with catholic school system called the academic excellence initiative. how do you teach more, better easier. i typed into my search educational productivity, i didn't misspell it. i got zero results. so what we need to do is drive a democracy of technology into higher education. things like massive online open courses, promote those things. move away from degree model and here is the example. i don't care how you got

educated to be able to pass the public accounting test, it's not an easy test. you can pass it you're a cpa. if we do that you put competitive pressure, you find all kinds of innovation. we are already seeing in the academy. a bunch of innovation. because you have higher education cartel, we are not seeing those types of advances in productivity and education which is why you see college so unaffordable. let me remind, $8,000 in lecture. >> we are going the talk about that right now because senator johnson's most specific idea about higher education is we should get rid of professors -- i'm going to finish and put in tapes on civil war and have proctors to poke people in case they go to sleep. he's talking about this school. he refuses to acknowledge that i taught here at this wonderful law school for a year and was

paid for the same way. he's demeaning the work of this wonderful faculty here that i had a chance to be a part of. the professors aren't paid by the class time alone. let me finish, please. the other day i was in wasa and i had a chance to do press conference on ideas of social security and senator johnson's idea to privatize social security. after a i don't think man walked up to me, you taught me and i now i have my own law firm across city hallment one of the smartest students here. megacum laude. senator johnson demeans higher education, he demeans professors, he's pretending what they do isn't real work and he should be ashamed. >> there are not enough minutes for me to refute all the false

charges and fact that is of senator feingold. i was not even coming close to saying we should replace teachers, what i said teachers should use the excellent documentary, excellent documentary, it's called technology. utilize that as a best practice way of teaching the civil war and have the teacher proctors. not poking students. proctor. utilize technology to lower the cost. that's what i experienced in the private sector. i had to compete. because i had to compete in the free market system my prices were a lot lower, quality was higher, as was my level of customer service. wouldn't we love to have that in health care, wouldn't we love to have that in education? the problem we have driven disciplines and all senator wants to do is grow government, impose more government control of those things won't simply work. i'm talking about things that

will actually work. >> you did bring up health care and i want to spend time on affordable health care or obamacare depending on your point of view. we talked about that six years ago. you have been a strong defender. you've got president clinton i like the idea of obamacare, i was in favor of the law but this is the craziest thing, people who are small business owners or don't qualify for subsidy, you heard the democratic governor had own affordable care exchange there, the affordable care act is no longer. would you concede that it has not worked exactly has -- as you had envision. it's essential that you make sure that everybody in the country has health care that's

affordable and accessible. when i was the united states senator that's what people wanted. that was number one request and what the health care reform bill did was some very important things that we would not want to give up. senator johnson wants to completely repeal it. if he had his way we would be in the situation where 20 million people who are not covered because of successes of reform bill would no longer be covered. ask the hospitals, ask the clinics, not having people in sicker is one of the best way to save money through the system. secondly, senator johnson has his way, they can be turned down for preexisting conditions. those are all things obviously i think are successes, moving forward, yes, we have to work in

a bipartisan basis to figure out how to make it better, for example, there's a family glitch family where the evaluation is based on individual and not the family. we need to do something to deal with the cost of prescription medicine and we do have to figure out a way to control deductible because this is the greatest concern i have heard. that can only happen but conceding that the law is here to stay, senator johnson he wants to go back six years, get rid of the whole thing, that won't work. it's time to work together on a bipartisan basis to make it more affordable. that should be the goal. >> let me -- >> well, he got a lot of time on the subject. >> i was just going to say the other night you referred to obamacare as a massive consumer fraud and my question essentially is this, is there value in having 20 million people or that number ensured today who were not ensured?

>> i misspoke yesterday or on friday. before the affordable care act was implemented 94% of wisconsinans. >> it has been a disaster. i have jenna who had to quit get a full-time job because her premium went from $500 a month to $1,200 a month. there are three basic promises and senator feingold made promises. there's nothing in the healthcare law that would force you off the ones you like. premiums the families would pay reduce up to $2,500 per year. if you like your doctor, you can keep it. the fact of the matter thousands of wisconsinans lost coverage.

he should have known that obama eliminated the high-risk pool. lowest cost increase was from one 1.8 time. that was paying thousand bucks, now $1,800. you bet i would go back. i would work to free market reform and put parents back -- patients back in charge and work in this system that's in a death spiral right now.

the problem was that there wasn't premiums and obviously there was. the idea that somehow this started in 2011 is ridiculous and he knows it. fact is that we have an opportunity here to broaden this coverage which would be better for everybody. senator johnson just as he did in minimum wage, he won't raise it a nickel. he won't help up with student loans, he said that 200,000 wisconsinites is not just for them. you may have health care coverage but they didn't, you dismiss it and social security significant. >> we could have covered those people without completely remaking the whole healthcare system. it's been a disaster an on your show senator feingold, here is a quote, it isn't as bad as some

people are pretending it was. she's not pretending. the couple with cancer, he was prostate cancer, called me panic because they couldn't log onto healthcare.gov. they were in a panic. stress, when you have cancer is not a good thing. that was the result of his health care plan and, yes, you bet i repeal it in a heart beat. they allow people to purchase insurance across state lines and handle preexisting conditions and reinstate those things, all kinds of things and didn't have to spend trillions of dollars on the scheme that's a complete

disaster and actually is harming real people. senator feingold he is not pretending. >> what he's going to do is repeal this. what he said was it's a lot of stress when you have cancer and you can't get health care coverage. he's going to stress out a whole lot of people. >> i want to ask you about trade and has become a big issue in race and presidential contest has become a big issue. i want to this a little different. we are talking about the transpacific partnership. he thinks it's a good idea to open up 12 countries. not china but 12 countries. when you announced your candidacy, you said right off the bat i'm against it, why are you against it? >> first of all, anybody that

has been following the subject for a few years knows that the agreements have a common characteristic. they're corporate handshakes. these aren't legitimate deals where countries and workers and other concerns are represented. they are done in secret and they always benefit the big corporations. nafta and the other agreements have cost wisconsin 75,000 jobs over the years. that's certified by the government so it's not automation and companies picking up -- those 75 were certified by the government to have been relate today trade because otherwise you can't get the ta benefits. there maybe others, of course that were affected by what you just mentioned but that's specific to trade. in the tpp there was ton of publicity. without a doubt this was the same kind of thing. a deal that says to our companies here in the united states, why don't you move some where elsewhere there's more wages, you don't have to pay workers a fair price or file

environmental regulation and senator johnson has refused to tell his position on it. think about that. he's a senator from this state. he's had access till last december and it's really complicated. i just can't come up a decision until after election. well, again, he stands against the workers of this state who i know have figured out that these trade deals are a raw deal and their senator has supported them every chance he's gotten. >> senator. >> unlike senator feingold i know what i'm talking about when it comes to trading and exporting products. it's vitally important that we keep overseas markets open to our culture products and manufacturing products, so you're right, senator feingold knee-jerk reaction said no. i went through the thoughtful process, he says he listens to people, he'll not listening to anybody on this one.

i'm reaching out to complex businesses, agriculture and manufacturing and how does that affect their very complex business? the fact of the matter with both presidential candidates against this, paul ryan having serious reservations, it'll probably never come up for a vote. i'm happy to let the next president negotiate a better, a fair trade deal. happy to do that. but i also understand it's in the best interest to keep overseas market and in order to do that you'll have to negotiate trade deals but i am going to insist on fair trade deals and there's no doubt about it. we have been taken advantage of. donald trump is absolutely right on that and so we've got to make sure that that doesn't happen in the future. i'm happy to support a new president negotiating better deals but we have to keep overseas markets open. >> this is the first we ever heard of it that there might be a problem with what's happened and unfortunately he does what a politician does. a pure political play. the other senators around the country, people like rob

portman, leading advocates of trade has come out against this deal. roy in missouri has come out against it. senator johnson is hiding because he's worried about reelection, he will not tell us where he stands, it's just a game. political game. >> final word on this. >> i'm doing the hard work. it's going to be a close call because we have to keep overseas market together. one of the things i do do is bring people opposing views, manufacturing interests and find out where it is. we are a long ways from that, i'm not going to make a snap judgment based on a 60-page wikileaks version of this thing. how incredibly close-minded is that? he doesn't understand how important overseas markets being able to export aagriculture and manufacturing products are to the economy of wisconsin. >> i want to spend a couple of minutes in the supreme court because there are estimate that is we could be talking about three appointments to the court for the next president and i

want to get a sense from each of you whether there are certain things that you must have or cannot have in a new justice. senator johnson i will begin with you. >> i only worked to confirm judges not liberal activists and legislators who don't have the integrity to the written law and the written constitution. people like scalia and the fact of the matter is -- this is why this election is for all the marvels, this is for the presidency and the supreme court and this is for wisconsinites second amendment right to keep bear arms and keep families protected. you have justice ginsburg that the majority has been lost and they can't wait and the liberal voted against the landmark decisions that made the second amendment an individual right to bear arm. they can't wait to overturn the heller decision. these freedoms are under assault

and so i will only vote, i will only vote to confirm judges, people that have the kind of fidelity that justice scalia had even in the case where he was offended by the result realized no the first amendment trumps his own desire for certain results. that's not what happens on the liberal wing, i won't vote to confirm those types of super legislators. >> mr. feingold. >> it's amazing that he would answer in that way when he has been a key part of denying the president of the united states his role in the constitution to have an appointment considered. you know, i did teach a course here. it was about the role of the senate and the constitution. students were good in understanding that the constitution doesn't give the president and the senate the option to deal with supreme court justices, it says the senate shall advise and consent. the presidential nominate and

the senate should nominate and consent. senator johnson has refused to do his job. just like the trade deal. he won't tell us where he stands. i will meet with the guy and won't consider him. he said something else, if mitt romney had run the election, it might be a different story. in other words, somehow it's about the next election but the constitution doesn't create a 3-year term for the president. it's a four-year term. he has broken the all-time record with the colleagues of not having a vote in the supreme court nominee and the nolings that i wouldn't vote for people that republicans would want, when i was in the senate i did the opposite. president bush had two nominations to the united states supreme court. i met with them for an hour each in my office. i did the four days or five days of hearings before the judiciary committee and i made my judgment. i voted against one and by the way, i voted for chief justice roberts and chief justice roberts, senator, voted on the right to bear arms decision which i happen to agree with

with justice scalia. so your statement about that is completely false. i have to tell you, i think justice scalia who the dean of the law school once clerked for would be horrify today see the united states senate doing this terrible damage to one of the most important institutions in our country. >> constitutionally -- full disclosure here. they're not required, are they, to hold hearings or to take a vote? >> it says they shall advise and consent and so if they do not as you can see the historical record here this is the most extreme that's ever occurred. the longest 125 days. they are, of course, required to take action of some kind and all they have done here is deny president his ability to have a nominee considered. they can vote no but he refuses to do that. >> i would say he's probably the most partisan. there are two political branches, yeah. president obama has the

responsibility to nominate. the senate's role is to consent. advice is when we are close to election, let the american people have a voice and what the constitution should be and then consent. i would not have voted to merrick garland.

justice sky that would definitely flipped the court and we all of a sudden have a five for liberal legislature, a liberal activist court and that's something that does threaten individual liberties, your freedom, your first and second amendment right next your founders of this country cited what george garland views would be without even giving him a hearing. not even doing the simple job of having a person come before the judiciary committee and having a hearing.

judge garland is a moderate judge who many republicans have voted for in the past. for political reasons, senator johnson said no because he is voting on the basis of ideology instead of following the constitution. the constitution clearly contemplates he should do his job here, sat on his hands, he has joined with others and maybe he says he will be fine with seven justices. maybe one will be enough. because this process will not end. what's going to happen is democrats will do it too. you will destroy the supreme court. this disqualifies him for this office on these grounds alone >> that's absurd. i am fulfilling my constitutional role of advice and consent. along with the american people and their votes. there is no guarantee we will

get a conservative president who actually goes through the list and for example, donald trump has provided of judges who could go the other way. the american people decide, i can't be a more fair process from that standpoint. no constitutional crisis on the whatsoever. >> there given the same thing. were not going to let him have anything because he doesn't have regard for her as president, he's going to disregard it . >> a totally different situation. at that point, the american people have spoken. >> i want to spend more time on foreign policy issues. i want to talk about what's happening with isis right now where this is a fairly important moment where iraqi forces with the help of american forces are trying to retake the city of mosul. in the past we've all talked about what is the proper role for the us and trying to deal with the threat of isis and i want to spend some time on that. mister feingold, i'll begin with you. what is the proper role at this moment in time? are we doing enough to defeat isis and play by using airstrikes or special operations forces to assist

iraqi troops or coalition forces? >> this organization is the most disgusting organization and it has to be destroyed, there's no question. although steps have been taken i feel strongly more has to be done and that's why admin specific in talking about it before. the specific plan to enhance what's being done. there's some progress made but it needs to be increased. we need to have special operations that apparently got the number to a guy in isis increase. that has to be accelerated. the only way it's going to work is if we have greater human intelligence, more spies on the ground in places like syria and iraq so we can identify where these people are. we need to be more aggressive in cutting off their ability to have this date or caliphate and that means cutting off their oil supply, the ability to produce and transport it. we need to cut off their finances. i worked on the finance committee about the ways in which we can do that much more effectively. we need to make sure they can't get arms coming through

the turkish border. there's been progress, the border has been closed off. there's been land away from isis in syria and now in iraq but we have to make sure we do all these things and we need to do something else. we need to stop letting saudi arabia say they are our friend on the one hand and on the other hand export a wahhabi ideology or religion that causes people to start believing americans are evil and should be killed. senator johnson had a chance recently to vote for a resolution that would cause the saudi's to have to think twice before they got arms about some of the things they are doing. he voted no, it was a bipartisan resolution and he voted no so these specific plans are necessary. senator johnson has no plan. >> we know he has to answer the question. you have to understand that president obama laid out america's gold towards isis two years ago. it was repeated and senator feingold says obama's plan is not working. it's not close to acting fast enough. don't just take my word on

it, listen to the cia director john brennan in july and he said all of our efforts have not reduced isis's global reach. they remain an intact entity. the fact of the matter is sending mohammed otto planned to murder, he said he would be happy if 30 wisconsinites, he was able to murder them. isis is an evolving and from my standpoint, a more dangerous threat than it ever has been and we've not been addressing that. senator feingold in his plan, in his plan are elements of things he voted against during his 18 year career in the senate. 11 out of 18 years in the senate he voted against authorizing our military, five of those years the authorizations passed by unanimous consent or by voice vote. the only twice voted affirmatively to authorize defense for special ops . he is the only senator to vote against giving law

enforcement the tools they need to combat against international terrorists. so he's got a very phony record when it comes to these plans and his support for elements of this plan. we need to do is we have to lead. following our military, we got to strengthen our economy and strengthen our military and america's leadership in the world right now, president obama and senator feingold have a plan that's called peace through withdrawal. you realize he was the first senator to call for the strategic blunder of withdrawing american troops in iraq in a statewide force? that's not history. germany, japan and south korea, those were fabulous excessive . we should have done that in iraq and because we didn't, feingold was able to rise from the ashes of what was a fairly defeated al qaeda in iraq and that's why we have to deal with this now so we got to strengthen our military, we have to lead a willing coalition.

>> do we need more american soldiers in that part of the world to defeat isis. >> we already have 6000 american troops right now, that the estimate and those troops, we probably have a statewide force not in harm's way . what we are going to need is we're going to have to lead. were going to provide air cover, were going to have to get it right. if we lead too much, everybody sits back and don't join the coalition. if we don't leave enough which is happening right now they're not going to get involved enough that we have to defeat isis. that's allowed isys to train additional operatives. >> we will pass that is being directed, little children becoming barbarians, that's what we've allowed to happen by allowing isis to exist for another two years. the plan he supports is not going to do the job. >> very briefly, i want to cover a couple more things. he has no plan other than sending 100,000 troops which he has said. the coalition force, coalition troops, he said

100,000 and he also said 25,000 americans at one time, he said 10,000 and that's his plan. got to tell you, that's the same mistake we made when we went into iraq. this is exactly what isis wants. can you defeat isis with airstrikes? you talked about can you beat isis with airstrikes? >> not alone, that's why a specifically told you the things we've got to do. people from iraq and others are in mosul risking their lives and senator johnson minimizes it. they are making enormous progress. but there has to be more progress. he said last week or two weeks ago that he thinks we should send a force there for a generation. let me tell you something, that is the worst possible idea. that is exactly what isis wants. he has not learned the lesson of the mistake in iraq. i guarantee, isis was created because we went into iraq, not because we left. >> the struggle against terrorism is a generational struggle.

isis, islamic terrorists declared war against america in the 90s and try to bring down the twin towers with a 1500 pound bomb. this is for generations but it is going to be a generational struggle. this is not going to be easy but we have to commit ourselves to success. we've got to defeat isis and remain tenacious at tracking down a islamic terrorists wherever they reside in defeat them. you touched on human intelligence, we gathered human intelligence as you capture these in unlawful combatants and you put them we got to get serious about this. the longer we delay on this, the longer they will be able to train. a me remind you, no walk-ins were arrested in texas trying to get to syria.this is a growing involvement. >> the homeland security committee has had an opportunity to fight the ways of the fbi's budget so they can get more agents, there's

a there right now that would provide 225 counterterrorism agents if enacted and they need those resources so they can do all these investigations . he has not acted in the way he can and the same goes for the intelligence budget which needs to be increased as well we are always fighting for more funding to the homeland. the problem is the funding for example to defense, democrats care about the defense appropriation bill because they hold it hostage for all these training programs, all the things that don't work. that's been our cover. we got to fight for this country and i'm therefore prioritizing spending to government. sending the homeland, democrats and the allies, feingold with he wanted to spend more domestically on programs to actually do more harm than good. >> i want to ask you about what's going on in syria because this is part of the conversation. we've all seen these terrible images from telephone which has suffered greatly with war

in syria. here's my question. your party's nominee, hillary clinton has talked about increasing the number of syrian refugees in this country from 10,000 to 65,000, do you favor that? >> i think we have to play a role in having refugees in this country. the one of the things we can do if we actually increase the human intelligence but in that region is learn more about these individuals before they come over here i think we're missing the boat on that . with regard to syria, the human tragedy there, what has happened with the syrian government and the russians is something that has to be addressed. we have to take more serious action. senator johnson has not provided leadership. there are things we can do, i for many years and thought the moderate groups or rebels should be given arms, should be restraints about how you do it but they can have antiaircraft artillery given to them that would be helpful in entering russia and syria from doing the horrible things they are doing in

aleppo. we can help the russians to have more sanctions. >> do you support 65,000 syrian refugees? >> is not thenumber interested in, i'm interested in proper scrutiny and making sure we know how these people are before they get here instead of figuring it out after the fact. >> you set on my show it's a robust process . >> it should remain robust but again, mike, the events in syria would not have spun out of control had we not done that strategic blunder. leaving a stabilizing force behind in iraq. we haven't seen the slaughter of is to half 1 million syrians had not been for the fact that we withdrew from the rack, we bond out so again, that is a problem and that's the bad judgment editor feingold wanted to

withdraw from the region. what we should be doing rather than bringing in more refugees, let's stop the refugee flow. let's provide safe zones, no-fly zones. let's leave and i was the us representative of the united nations general assembly three times, most recently last december and what i did is i met with delegations of red states around the region. they are begging for american leadership. they say they will follow, provide the ground troops, provide boots on the ground to not only gain the territory but hold it. these sunnis going to these regions, it would completely change the dynamics on the ground. you might end upwith a negotiated settlement but unless america provides the air cover, provide the no-fly zone, sets up safe zones, we're not going to solve this problem . >> i understand you went up to new york to meetings but he's in the senate. eternal of the homeland security committee. why hasn't he done anything why hasn't he made proposals? senators can make proposals and they can propose a no-fly zone. they can propose arms for the rebels. the fact is, what senator

johnson does is criticize the president, you criticize the president but you don't you do your ownjob which is the layout legislatively what you need to do , provide the president with the authority to do some of these things and maybe he will use it or what but senator johnson is talking about this, he hasn't acted. >> he blocked three defense appropriation bills before the senate where he's prioritizing set where you can do what senator feingold suggests. his minority leader that is blocking this is being the partisan here. the instruction of the united states senate now has democrats and that's why were left with resolutions , massive spending bills. it's a terrible way to address government. we've been trying to bring appropriation bills before the senate, we continue to be blocked. that's not how you do this. prioritization so bottom line is, there the obstructionists. i want to prioritize spending and my standpoint, i'm the guy in this race that understands the top priority of government. senator feingold is the guy that voted 11 times to

authorized against authorizing military.>> let me respond to that first of all this is about appropriation bills. this is about whether he even introduced ledges relation. harry reid can't stop you from introducing a bill. you have introduced a bill to deal with a serious situation and when he talks about these military authorization bills, everybody knows there's thousands of provisions. in a number of occasions, i was not the only one voting against it. a number of republicans including john mccain because it was loaded with pork and wasteful spending. senator johnson said friday night he always vote for military authorization. think about that. the united states senate whose job is to reveal legislation, see if it's loaded with wasteful spending and all he's going to do is vote for it for political reasons. senator mccain and many republicans make military and all agencies justify their legislation and if they vote for it, when it's bad they

don't. but the idea that he's going to vote for it no matter what is surely political. >> are men and women are in harm's way. >> i want to ask you a quick question about your brand. the two of you have very different views on the deal that was made by the obama administration, a deal that was designed to dismantle parts of the iranian nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. senator johnson, i'll begin with you. do you think this is a statewide. >> disastrous deal. it is designed to modify iran's behavior supposedly for the better, it's going to modify their behavior for the worse. it is crazy to enter into a deal that injects hundred billion dollars plus into the economy and military of a self-proclaimed enemy of

america and the largest state sponsor of terror. there are increasing their ballistic missile tests. we can't even inspect, we are were supposed to have anytime inspections, it wasn't part of the deal. that was a treaty. advice and consent, it was my amendment that would be matter treaties of the united states senate would have stepped up to the plate and said yes, sir no on a treaty at every senator upheld their oath of office on my amendment read in other words, to support and defend the constitution. to guidetheir own political power . that amendment passed 100 to 0. so the fact of the matter is, that is actually emboldening our enemy. what we should have done is brought them to the negotiating table so they negotiate in good faith show she would've dismantled for all time the nuclear weapons program instead of allowing them basically in about 10 years to be. centrifuges spinning, recognizing and with ballistic missile technology, it was a disastrous deal. >> there's nothing more important than making sure

rand doesn't get a nuclear weapon. that is exactly what this deal does. sanctions were put in place that i greatly supported forcing them to the negotiating table and what happened at the negotiating table as we were just there, the chinese were there, the russians were there and others were ready to participate in making this deal which i believe is the best chance we have make sure rand can never get a nuclear weapon which is something we cannot tolerate . >> senator johnson again. >> just like on the deficit issue and on the other issue, he doesn't have a plan. just want to say look, let's jacked up the sanctions but he doesn't have any specific idea about the plan because the reality is, the section is the thing that got them to the negotiating table. i believe this program is going to work. i believe iran is not going to be able to get a nuclear weapon because of this,

because we will have enforcement and is one of the most important things to do for the safety of the people of this country but also the people of the middle east and the state of israel so again, you can be negative, you can attack something in a partisan way across the board, most experts believe this is a success. it has to be proven over time but it was the right thing to do because we do not want rand to get a nuclear weapon. under johnson's alternative, the alternative would be to go to war including having the generational war in iraq, i don't think that's a good idea. >> you ratcheted up sanctions to bring iran to the negotiating table in good faith and the goal of that negotiation then should have been to dismantle the nuclear weapons program like cannot be did in libya. you do that through restraint, we showed a believable weakness, it was a horrible deal and i don't trust president obama in negotiating the deal. senator feingold supports that disastrous deal. >> i want to take the remainder of our time to talk about a thing that really directly affects the people of wisconsin and that is the opioid and heroine epidemic in the state.

law-enforcement people and families across the state, they know someone who has suffered from this. they know someone who has fought a victim, they know someone who has died. what is the role of the us senator in dealing with this? >> you have to acknowledge that it's an emergency. that's exactly what you did, it affects every community in the state. poor, rich, doesn't matter. it's one of those times when you have to be willing to venture that the resources are there. resources have to be there for treatment. make sure doctors are trained and other drugs are available for emergency situations. we have to make sure we prevent it. that means making sure there's resources to get intervention when kids are still in high school. we have to also make sure

that these big companies that have been pushing these painkillers have a little accountability. they have a responsibility here to to the pharmaceutical industry. this is an opium addiction. this is people who begin taking these painkillers and then get addicted and move on to other things. when there was a chance to actually vote on this, $622 million in march, senator johnson talked about the issue and i give him credit for raising it but when there was a bipartisan amendment to provide funding on an emergency basis, he voted no and said we can't just throw money at the problem we do need resources, it is an emergency . >> we provide funding in the conference of addiction and recovery act which i supported. this is one of the more disgusting false attacks senator feingold has logged against me in his negative campaign. the fact of the matter is, my nephew died of an overdose in january of this year. we held multiple hearings in my committee, in the walkie and arizona and ohio and new hampshire, roundtables. she testified at the milwaukee hearing, she lost her son.

i've been active, i understand what an enormous challenge it is eerie at all of our work on figuring out why our bordersare so porous . we have a peaceful demand for drugs. we can't allow this heroine coming in to dramatically increase the price of heroin so no, i've been at the forefront of this and it was my act boating responsible opioid prescription that was probably the most important piece of legislation leading to an act on the subject to prevent these tragedies and it was so important that medicare picked up my proper act and began to implement through regulations because they have the authority to do it so it was the oversight community, i will make sure that what it does is it no longer allows medicare to reimburse a stolen a survey in terms of how patients pain management which has given to the senators for over prescribed opiates which is one of the leading gateway

drugs to heroinaddiction. i've been incredibly active on this. the fact that mister feingold has attacked me and said i've done nothing on this is completely false and a very disgusting false attack . >> the radio ad said senator johnson essentially did nothing . >> the fact is when yeah just a vote for the funding, he didn't act and he's not really talking about the fundamental issue here which is people becoming addicted to painkillers. not about drugs coming from mexico. it's about the process where people start having painkillers and then become addicted and have to figure out other ways to deal with the problem. this requires resources he was unwilling to vote for . that's based on his record. >> i just didn't offer as many resources as senator feingold would want. you have to be in the senate here. we're talking about a problem exacerbated by government programs where the solution wasn't another government program. like a student loan program, we have 38 of those and more

government funding. that's the difference in this race. senator feingold will always have a plan that grows government. i hope government will come and take more money out of your pocket. i'm looking for solutions that actually work.i'm actually in touch with i think the real problems that wisconsinites are facing. it's the lack of the type of opportunity, it's a slow economy. it's because of massive government overregulation. i've been incredibly engaged on this opiate issue, i will continue to be engaged and put myself in the position quite honestly as chairman of the homeland security committee to accomplish things through legislation like the 28 have signed into law, the prop back implement it for regulation. >> you talked earlier about the report that was part of the problem in your opinion. were there any time, why do we segue into that. what do you do about security? donald trump says he wants to build a wall, what do you want to do? >> that is illegal immigration. i was very upfront when i

took over the chair. my concept of a security bill would have a robust guestworker program. over by the state. they can set how many people have guestworker programs and they set the prevailing wage rates in different industries so we don't depress any american night in wisconsinites wages. once you eliminate that in the senate , you've got a whole lot less number of people coming to this country illegally, it's going to be easier. so many areas are a joke. >> do we need a wall? >> i don't think you need a 1700 mile wall but you need more boots on the ground but what we need is a commitment by the commander-in-chief, by the president and we haven't had that on a bipartisan basis. we have to secure our border, not just the immigration problem but the public health and safety.because our borders are so porous on this issue, do you realize a gram of heroin in the 80s cost

three dollars a gram? now it's about a $150 a gram. it's an affordable addiction because our borders are completely porous. >> the problem here is there's disagreement about the border issue. the problem is we need greater security, i'm sure we do but i voted in the senate for 900 more agents and i would have no problem. the issue is what we do about the 11 million undocumented people that are in this country. need comprehensive immigration reform. senator johnson has interested only in dealing with the border issue to avoid dealing with that problem but that's bad. i was in green bay the other day, a group of latinos i met with about how scary it is to go to work at some of the companies but because they can't get a driver's license. it's bad for them but you know who else is bad for? it's bad for our business climate. the businesses in this state strongly on comprehensive immigration reform.

the dairy farms in this state need a legal status for these individuals but senator johnson has lifted a finger and has actually said we can't do that until we close theborder. you're never going to 100 percent close the border but this is one of the most important issues of our time. it is a bipartisan issue . president bush acted on it, john mccain, even marco rubio for a little while was working on this thing when he came in with the tea party, they shut it down so one of the most important issues to the economy in the state of wisconsin, for the jobs in the state of wisconsin is comprehensive immigration reform and he has stood against it and only talk about the border, i find that troubling? >> any incentives for illegal immigration. the reason i voted against the conference a bill that included $260 in benefits for immigrants, that's called the center for illegal immigration. my guestworker program, that would address the people in this country in wisconsin so i've got a very practical approach and the reality is ,

we've got to have a public willingness to accept some kind of legalization. i'm happy to do that. once we secure the border we will treat the people that are not committing crimes and are eating off the welfare system, we will treat them with humanity, there's no not doubt about that. that would be my proposal by comprehensive bill that offers $260 billion of benefits to illegal immigrants and by the way, when senator feingold had a chance at social security to make sure that illegal immigrants wouldn't get social security benefits, he basically voted to table that amendment that would have prevented exactly that so he would continue these incentives for illegal immigration and that's the first thing we have to do. >> that is false, it's been proven to be false repeatedly but no effort by senator johnson to work with other senators on a bipartisan basis for comprehensive immigration. we just signed law and i can't vote for which his leadership. he's the chairman of the committee. why doesn't he introduce a comprehensive bipartisan bill to allow some kind of

solution to ensure that 11 million people will be legal status, pay some kind of penalty, a new life for citizenship? that's what manufacturers and leaders in this state on but he won't act on it. >> i have been acting, i've been taking a step-by-step approach. we passed the act, killing two birds with one stone. i've had the border metrics bill which was the first to secure the border, we need the metrics and you don't have it now. the administration only will secure the border through the comprehensive approach. the comprehensive approach isn't going to work. we had comprehensive healthcare reform, look what a disaster that is. i'm going to continue to improve. i don't like to be the enemy of the good and we don't pass 83 pieces of legislation, 28 signed into law without an incredibly bipartisan approach, that's been my record. his false attacks on me are simply that, their untrue. >> i want to give you about 30 seconds. >> bipartisan reform and immigration, the only chance they have is to have a different senator because he will never work or

comprehensive immigration. >> we want to secure the border first. >> is possible and i've got 15 or 20 seconds, is it possible to do a comprehensive plan or do you have to do it piece by piece? >> it was almost done earlier by the bar partisan efforts made in the 90s. it was also almost done with the combination of marco rubio and some other senators. he didn't participate, you wanted to block it but i think that's what will happen. i think this election will create a different senate, different president and i believe there will be comprehensive immigration reform but the business community to create jobs in this country wants this done quite i've gone through a listing of all the bills that have been passed and how illegal immigration population has continued to increase. these bills haven't worked. senator isis, what he proposes wouldn't work quite i have to wrap it up there to make sure you get the closing statements, it is that time of the evening and we flipped a coin to determine the order

and we begin with senator johnson. >> when i first ran into thousand 10, i need two basic promises. always tell you the truth and i'll never vote with my reelection in mind. i'm not running because i want to be a us senator. i'm not running because i want to be somebody, i'm running because i understand this nation faces enormous challenges and we need people coming from the private sector, having the perspective of accomplishing something in life. that's why i'm doingthis. so the fact of the matter is , as center of the homeland security i put myself in a position to accomplish. 83 pieces of legislation, 28 signed into law. i'm doing what folks in wisconsin have asked. can you guys get along and do something? the fact of the matter is, i want to solve these problems. i'm asking for your support and for your vote. this will be my last term, i'll never vote for my reelection in mind. i don't know how many times senator feingold will run for reelection.

>> now we will hear from mister feingold i so enjoyed getting around the state and seeing the innovations, things like urban evolutions in appleton where they take the bound barns and take the spools and turn them into beautiful home appliances and frankly i thought it was important i visit six or seven of these craft breweries around the state as well as a distillery in wisconsin that eventually sampled so this is a great part of this state and you have to be positive about the future but unfortunately i heard great concern from people that they are not able to make ends meet. people at the top are doing great that they are not doing so welland that's because people like senator johnson vote against their interest area a vote against minimum wage increase. they don't doanything about the student loan program . you deserve asenator who will stand with you . and if i'm elected, that's exactly what i'll do .i ask you for your vote. >> mister feingold, and with that our time is up tonight. we want to thank the candidates for being here, thanks to senator johnson and

mister feingold for joining us today. i want to thank the folks at home for watching and in this audience tonight.i'd like to knowledge our editorial politics editor and the upfront worker stations doing tonight's broadcast live and a reminder, please get out and vote on november 8. for wis and you tv, i'm mike boucher, have a great night. [applause] >> this has been a special presentation of wis in tv and market university law school on the upfront network of abc stations in wisconsin. for joining us.

state race coverage continues today with the debate between incumbent ohio senator republican rob portman, democratic challenger ted strickland. that's life at 2 pm on c-span. sunday a debate between candidates running for the u.s. senate in washington. incumbent democrat patty murray faces off against republican chris vance. see it live at 10 pm eastern on c-span. every four years the presidential candidates turned from politics to humor at the house smith memorial foundation dinner to raise money for catholic charities at new york's historic waldorf astoria hotel. >> i have traveled the circuit for many years, i've never quite understood the logistics of dinners like this and how the absence of one individual could cause three of us do not have seats . >> mister vice president, i'm glad to see you here tonight.

many times in this campaign it said that if you want to give america back to the little guy. mister vice president, i am that man. >> is an honor to share the night as with a defendant of the states alchemist. your great-grandfather was my favorite kind of governor. the kind who ran for president and lost. >> al, you are right. a campaign can require a lot of wardrobe changes. the bluejeans in the morning perhaps, suits for a lunch fundraiser, sportcoat for dinner but it's nice to finally relax and wear what anna and i wear around the house. >> watched the al smith memorial foundation dinner with hillary clinton and donald trump tonight at nine eastern on c-span and c-span.org and listen at nine eastern for the c-span radio.

now the debate between incumbent pennsylvania senator pat toomey and his democratic challenger katie mcginty. this debate was hosted by ada atv in pittsburgh, it's just under an hour. >> welcome to a debate in the race for the u.s. senate from the studios of kdka tv, it's downtown in pittsburg. >> welcome to a debate from the senators from pennsylvania, i'm from kdka news serving as tonight's monitor but welcome the candidates, pat toomey of lehigh county and his democratic challenger katie mcginty of chester county. i will be joined tonight in questioning the candidates by my colleague, money and