responsible for content of this advertising. ♪ >> on election day, november 8th, the nation decides our next president and which party controls the house and senate. stay with c-span for coverage of the presidential race, including campaign stops with hillary clinton, donald trump and their surrogates and follow key house and senate races with our coverage of their candidate debates and speeches. c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> more of our coverage of state races with debate between candidates in iowa's third congressional district. the republican incumbent is david young. he is up against democrat jim mahre. they discuss the affordable care act, nation's voting laws and international trade among other issues. this is been a an hour

>> iowa's 30third congressional district. includes des moines, and guthrie center, south to the missouri border and to mount hare, westward to council bluffs. even when that geographic diversity the republican and democratic candidates are both from the des moines, central iowa part of the district. 48-year-old republican david young calls vanmeter home. he is competing his first term in the u.s. house of representatives. the democratic nominee, 30-year-old jim mower ran unsun successfully in the fourth district two years again against republican steve king. welcome to western iowa. looking forward to see areas of agreements in your campaigns as well as contrasts. we'll be going an hour as you

know. and because this is an iowa press election special edition, we have an audience here in the iowa western community college arts center but they're watching and listening and not cheering or otherwise distracting from our discussion. we've also, pannedded as i just said this program to 60 minutes to accommodate additional issues and questions. across the iowa press table, "des moines register" political columnist kathy obradovich. and radio iowa news director kay henderson. >> mr. power, you have been a supporter of the affordable care act as you've been watching the news and seeing these double-digit, in some states, even doubling of the cost of buying insurance. isn't it time to junk it and start all over again? >> well, kay, i really appreciate the question. i want to thank you you. i want to thank you you kathy, dean. thank you so much. i want to thank iowa western.

i want to thank my wife chelsea for her support all over the years. i want to thank my two sons, carter and jack for all of their support? hopefully they're in bed for my mother-in-law's sake. speaking of my two sons, my son jack suffers from a rare nerve degenerative disease. there is no treatment or cure for it. so it will never be affordable for insurance company to provide him with insurance. through the affordable care act has done a lot of very important things. a lot of steps for word. number one insuring that kids like him who have a preexisting medical condition can get health insurance, that they want be discriminated against health insurance. you can have your children on your health insurance until the age of 26. we have the highest insured rate we've ever seen in this country, over 90%. so we have taken a lost step forwards with the affordable care act but, on the affordable front, we do still have some challenges that remain and we need to address those. we need to fix those. so i, in congress will look for those fixes through the

affordable care act. i believe that there are things that do need to be fixed. >> such as? >> when you look at relicensing requirements that are placed on physicians? you look at cadillac tax, taxes placed on folks who have health insurance that is deemed to be too generous in some cases, i disagree with those things. so we need to address the affordable side of the affordable care act but the wrong approach is repealing the affordable care act which would take away coverage from millions of americans. it would go back to a time when even being a woman was a preexisting condition. >> mr. young, you have voighted to repeal the affordable care act but when you were first running for congress you said that you thought the affordable care act was here to stay, at least while president obama was in office. that you would be at the table to try to fix it. where is that table and what have you done to try to fix it? >> well, first of all, thank you, dean, kay and kathy for the opportunity to be here. iowa western community college and dr. kenny and jim, i want to thank you for being here today. and getting in the race. i want to thank you for your

service, for, putting on the uniform and fighting for our liberties and freedoms. thank you for that. i have always been consistent with my stance on the affordable care act, the president's signature health care law. it is not working. it is causing people's premiums to go up dramatically. it will be about 30% will be the average next year in iowa. people have lost access to their doctors. and insurance, people have lost insurance. i spoke to a gentleman yesterday, got email from him and letter where his premiums are going up from $342, to $1390. now some of these premium increases where they go, that is where mortgage payment is at right now. so this is really squeezing iowans. now there are some things within the affordable care act that i would keep, okay? some of the wellness provisions. making sure that folks with preexisting conditions weren't kicked off. if you're up to the age of 26

staying on your parents insurance. but we need to empower iowans with their health care dollars to make the decisions they need for their families and transparency is issue. we need to know what we're paying for before we go into a provider. waiting after that can create quality health care through competition. >> are you prepared to take a, you know, to say, now that we're this far down the road, to say, yes, we're going to keep 26-year-olds on their health insurance but we're going to kick off everybody else who is already committed to being on the exchanges? are we too far down the road to go back now? >> time will tell i guess but it is falling apart right now. even president clinton says this is irk discuss. it is craziest thing out there. governorses on both sides of aisle in respective states are seeing what is happening with the affordable care act, the president's signature health care law, it is causing people great anxiety and economic hardships.

>> the basis of kathy's question is what you have in that letter there. what are you, writing back to that gentleman, who's premiums have increased threefold? what are you going to tell him? she is really asking what are you doing? >> we had a conversation on the phone with about 45 minutes. >> what did you tell him? >> i told him first of all i opposed the affordable care act, and you know where there are areas where things can be fixed i am going to do what i can for the people of third district. we had some opportunity here already in this last congress to make some fixes and, i want to help relief the burden to the folks in iowa but, i think it is falling apart. i think you have to start all over. >> mr. now remember -- now remember, would you support universal health care.

>> we need to the make the affordable care act work and -- >> how do you dress the premium increase that congressman young addressed? >> good news for folks on the exchange, right now 3/4 of those folks will still have access to health insurance under $75. a lot of people still do have access to quality and affordable health care. we need to look to expand that. the people that are seeing undue premium rises, we look at that and fix it but unfortunately this is the same thing that we heard congressman young say in 2014. and he went to washington and then did the exact opposite, which was vote 12 times to repeal or undermine the affordable care act. and i just think that is the wrong approach. >> i've always been consistent in my position since when i ran in 2014. that i was for repeal and for replace. this health care law has helped some people, it really has, but it also hurt a lot more. we're seeing, i'm seeing these

letters and hearing from constituents about 30%, 40% increase in their premiums. it is not helping iowans overall in my opinion. >> natural question after that though, excuse me, kate, the natural question is, what are you going to do if you repeal, what's next? >> sure. i talked about expanding health savings accounts. we need medical liability. we need to have transparency in our health care system. we need to make sure that those who have preexisting conditions aren't thrown off. those are some of the things but we need to also recognize the difference between states and innovations that are going on there already and what could be done. what was happening before wasn't perfect but where we are now is become disasterous. >> you mentioned states. many states expanded the number of citizens who are eligible for medicaid, with the proviso that the federal government would be sending states money. after president obama's gone, will you as a member of congress under whichever president take

office on january 20th, vote to extend that money to states, or do you expect states to pick up that cost from here on forward? >> well, first of all we want to make sure that safety net is there and people are taken care of, those who are most destitute. i will work with any president and anybody in my party or across the lines to try to make sure this is handled in a way where states have some relief and help but they're also given power to have some innovation and freedom to do what they think is best for people in their state. >> mr. young, one of the goals of the affordable care act was to make health care affordable for everyone. the idea was down the line that the costs of health care at the doctor's office and at the hospital would actually go down at some point. not just be insurance program but actual cost of health care reduction program. that has not happened in any substantial way at all. so mr. young mentioned, liability reduction for example, are there, are there ways that

you see to actually cut the cost of health care at the doctor's office? >> that is exactly right, and again we are seeing more and more people have access to health care and coverage which is a major accomplishment. we should acknowledge that but when you look at cost we need to look at ways to reduce the cost. it is going to require fixing it, but unfortunately every time someone tries to fix it, republicans just hold another vote to repeal it. we need democrats and republicans who are willing to get past just the repeal part and get to the good public policy. >> give us ideas for, let's say you have a democratic congress or democratic president, what ideas are you going to bring to the table? >> well, i think we have to look at working with providers, hearing what they're saying, what i mentioned before, when i travel around the district i talk to doctors. i talk to medical administrators. what they tell me their concerns with relicensing requirements and other bureaucratic pieces to it. so we have to work with all of

the stakeholders and i'm open to innovation and working to fix it. but again, unfortunately what we're seeing from congressman young is simply voting repeatedly to repeal it. >> congressman young, there is a lot of talk about there being a quote, unquote, rigged election. if you are in the next congress, will you feel compelled to vote to extend money to states to improve the voting systems, or even to have some sort of uniformity across the entire country rather than relying on a hodgepodge of state by state rules for elections? >> well, i have talked to a lot of our county auditors and our secretary of state about the elections and we have integrity here in iowa with our elections and i want to keep iowans in our state government in charge of our elections. i'm not so keen maybe federalizing the election system but i will be open to the debates. we'll see what happens. i don't believe we'll have any problems here in iowa.

>> after the 2000 election the federal government did send money to the states to invest in new voting machines. that is almost 16 years ago. is it time for there to be additional investment in more modern voting methods? >> i up for the debate. i'm not sure, we have not talked about that in congress. i've not heard about that from folks here in the third distribute. our auditors or secretary of state. >> well it is something i have been hearing from folks who are very concerned about all the rhetoric we're hearing from donald trump, the person that david supports for president and it is undermining our democracy. we do need to invest more in our voting systems. democracy is nun fun to our state and our country and we do have a hodgepodge of different voting systems across the country. they're underfunded. we're seeing long lines in a lot of places, people waiting to vote. we do need to fix our voting civil. we need to invest in it. we also need to restore some of the provisions of the voting rights act that were struck down

by the supreme court? >> such as? >> investing in voting? >> parts of voting rights act? >> there is bill in the house with representative john lewis that works to restore some of those provisions of the voting rights act. >> mr. young, would you support those changes in the voting rights act? >> well -- >> or updates? >> i don't have the details on them but i want to make sure we are taking precautions here and making sure we respect the role of the states in the elections like we have for so long. >> this presidential campaign has overshadowed a lot of this season and also led to a lot of divisiveness but i want to ask you about unity. mr. young, how would you find ways to work with a president clinton should she be elected? >> just like i have done every day with folks who are on the other side of the aisle in congress. doesn't matter to me what party you're in. the successes that i have had for the third district have been in bipartisan way.

>> are there specific issues though that you would think that you would have in common? >> well i hope that we could, i think, i want to make sure that in the next farm bill we're making sure that agriculture and farmers have a seat at table with renewable energy, crop insurance, conservation practices, energy independence. those are a few things. >> and mr. young -- i'm sorry -- >> that's all right. >> you guys look so much alike. mr. mowrer, how would you work with president trump on, and other specific issues you would think you could work together. >> i'm very confident it will be president clinton but if it is president trump i would look to work on any issues i could. i know one of the few things that i agree with donald trump on i do oppose the tpp, the trans-pacific partnership. both mr. trump and secretary clinton oppose the trans-pacific partnership. that is an area where i disagree

with congressman young. i know he is strong supporter of that. but i would look to work with any president on issue i could but i would also have disagreements with any president, even if it is president clinton. while i do support many of the ideas that she has proposed, i'm sure that there will be things that we will disagree on. >> you know when you came in here i saw you shake hands and thanked each other for being hire. voters in the third congressional district are hearing responses to the questions tonight but many of them to now have been evaluating both of you by advertising purchased by those opposing your election. we have a couple of those ads. one about each of you. first mr. mowrer, an ad about your candidacy. >> beheadings, executions, deadly terrorist attacks right here in the midwest. isis is a real threat and jim mowrer supports bringing thousands of refugees from isis war zones right here. what's worse? jim mowrer supports the

dangerous deal putting iran on a path to get nuclear weapons, a deal that gives iran billions. money they can use to fund terrorism. jim mowrer, risky, dangerous. congressional leadership fund is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> tells me a lot about you or somebody else's voice saying it. what is your response? >> really makes me angry, dean, because i have a long record of keeping our country safe. my entire career has been in service, serving in iowa army national guard. serving in iraq. serving as intelligence analyst, civilian in iraq and the pentagon where i focused keeping our country safe as well. i've been very disappointed see these attacks coming from david young and his allies who questioned my commitment to national security. i think i have a very clear record. i'm only candidate in this race who has a clear, direct, national security experience. that's what i will bring to congress.

we have the lowest percentage of veterans serving in congress right now than at any other point in the nation's history. while you don't need to be a veteran to serve in congress, you bring unique perspective and unique experience. i've been committed to keeping america safe. that is what i will do in congress. >> congressman young, you stand by the ad? >> that is not my ad. i did not put the ad out and i don't coordinate says the -- >> i agree with that ad, i will tell you why. iran agreement is very flawed. even the state department said that funds going to $150 billion likely used for terrorists activities. we've seen the hostage situation, right? you're for that act, that agreement. but sunday night on kma radio debate you said we can't trust iran. and there are a lot of other people who do not this iran agreement and who support me because of my views on this one

is former commander of the iowa national guard general dardis i supports me in this campaign because he thinks i have a better view about national security. >> mr. mowrer, how do you know iran will comply with this deal and it will not be able to get nuclear weapons? >> well i don't know, and that is why this deal is not based in trust in any way, shape or form. it is based on inspections and verifications. so this deal has stopped iranian nuclear development in its tracks. when i was civilian intelligence analyst i was primary focused on iran. i know a great deal about iran. i know about what they do, supplying shia militants. general soleimani, irgc, quds force, everything they're doing. i know a great deal about iraq. this deal stops iranian nuclear development in its tracks. commander of the israeli defense force, our strong allies in israel said this removes the biggest threat to israel's

future for their foreseeable future. what i hear is not an alternative to the deal but just criticism. there are only go alternatives to the iranian deal. either going to war with iran, to remove the nuclear threat, or to allow them to continue to develop nuclear weapons. so i would like to hear what congressman young's alternative is. >> congressman young. >> people on both sides of the aisle before this deal was struck said economic sanctions were working. now look what is happening. you say you don't know if it is going to work, you don't trust iran support the agreement. iowans i hear in the third district, wary what is happening in the middle east, giving iran anymore power and fund that they have. we gave them $1.7 billion. >> i know what it means to send americans to war. and what congressman is proposing is either invading iran, or allowing them to continue to development. >> those are your words, those are your words, not mine. >> look what happened in north korea, we have put tough economic sanctions on them. we isolated them but still were

able to develop a nuclear weapon. >> now, congressman. did you want to say something. >> those are his words. i never said that. >> other issue raised in the ad is about syrian refugees. how many syrian refugees should the u.s. accept on yearly basis, mr. mowrer, and are you comfortable with the process where they're quote, unquote, vetted. >> well again, i've always been committed to keeping america safe. when you talk about topic of refugees our number one priority has to be vetting and insure we keep americans safe. now the process we in place for vetting refugees is post 9/11 process. it was put into place by president bush. it is a over year long process that includes comprehensive interviews, biometric checks, fingerprints, iris scans. it is primarily women and children. we have accepted those 10,000 refugees. in august. that it is state inned ad. congressman young says he oppose those es refugees.

my question to him, does he want to send the 10,000 families women and children back to war zone and potentially to their death? >> give you a chance to answer the question. >> the head of the national director of intelligence, head of the fbi, the secretary of the homeland security, says we don't have the proper vetting process in place to deal what we're dealing with from syria and iran. i'm going to trust their judgment. >> so you wantsend them back? >> i want to protect america jim. >> so do you want to send them back? >> i want to protect america. >> what is your experience protecting america? congressman? >> my first solemn oath when i was sworn in is to protect and defend the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. i'm not going to take a chance. when isis says they want to infill tate our refugee system. >> i lived it. i know what it takes to keep america safe. >> we're going to be reversing direction here, congressman, young. this is commercial helping voters understand you.

>> donald trump says he will defund planned parenthood. >> i would defund planned parenthood. >> david young voted to do it already. five times. and donald trump says about women who have abortions? >> there has to be some form of punishment. >> david young already voted to make abortion a crime. even though donald trump brags about sexually assaulting women, david young continues to support him for president, and now we understand why. >> i'm jim mowrer, and i approved this message. >> congressman, jim mowrer saying i approved this message. it ties you to the republican nominee, donald trump. what is your reaction. >> first of all i want to make sure that folks know that i have voted to increase fund for women's health care by $7.8 billion this last year. and that goes to our community health sent is. we have over 200 in iowa. so i take women's health care seriously. also being member of the

appropriations committee, voting for cancer research for women. cervical cancer research as well. you may remember a time about a year-and-a-half ago, a year ago when there was some videos out there talking about unfortunately this entity, possibly selling baby body parts, okay? that is a big deal, right? we should pause that i'm just not for taxpayer funding going to that organization. i'm a pro-life. matter of faith for me. >> what about the aspect, you haven't addressed the donald trump was cut in there. alluding, insinuating that you have the same view as the republican nominee. is that true? . .

because the policy because of things like, my opponent is what the epa is doing. president obama vetoed the repeal of that. i think the next president come if it's a the republican nominee will allow that to go away. keystone pipeline. it's a matter of policy. these are our choices. >> that dad was tagged and i support this add. >> i do absolutely.

>> even assured him explain? >> absolutely. he supports donald trump. those with the facts are. he doesn't want to say his name by the support of donald trump for president and their views on these policies are the same. he can bring up videos that have been debunked, people who made have been indicted. they been proven false. i support planned parenthood. roy up with a single mother my wife and i understand women can be trusted to make their own health care decisions. they should be empowered to make their own health care decision. is votes are very clear. he has voted to defund planned parenthood and that is donald trump's position as well. >> you said there are aspects of what donald trump proposes you probably will not agree with. do you know particularly which would not agree with? >> the tone, that's one of them. >> okay. we will talk a minute about trade but are the other aspects of his proposals? not necessarily about his

comments or his rhetoric. >> i agree with wanted to make sure the border is secure. we have a real issues in council bluffs. a young lady was killed by an illegal immigrant and got away. i introduced the bill in a bipartisan way. >> so you support building an entire wall along the border and try to get mexico to pay for it? >> well, i said we need is a secure the border. i've been down to the border and i've been to the area near san diego, cochise county in arizona over in texas as well. different needs and different sectors, more department of homeland security boots along the rio grande. more horseback border patrol on horseback. unmanned aerial vehicles in the sky. you're getting more coast guard. so different needs in different sectors. >> you can comment on immigration as well but it would ask you are there specific things that hillary clinton has proposed each judicial president

that you would not go along with? >> as mentioned we were -- she's running for president, i'm running for congress. i don't know if it's useful to point out areas we might disagree but as i said i promise you there are things we will disagree on. >> a person might find useful to know we disagree. >> i think there's only one real choice, person is qualified they can be president and that is secretary clinton. and i think david supports donald trump is unfit to be president, whose comments about the meaning women, attacking veterans and gold star families have proven that he is unfit to hold office. >> let's put it this way. if she is president and send something to congress of the proposal that you know right now you could not support, what would that be? >> again i don't think it's useful to look for individual policies -- >> been let's turn to a policy that he just raised, sarah's law.

do you support sarah's law, sarah was killed by an undocumented immigrant who ran into were any high speed accident in omaha by after she graduated from college. >> absolutely. we do have a broken immigration system and we do need to fix it. not the one, that is securing the border. we have to do in a comprehensive way. i support the bill that came in united states senate with 68 votes, and a woman bipartisan majority. that would secure our border. it would have been 11 the people who are here without legal status register, go to recruit to process, pay a fine, learn english, background checks over that time period. we have to fix our immigration system top to bottom. unfortunate that billy came out of the senate was never brought up for a vote in the house of representatives. we have to have a representative who's going to look to fix our immigration system in a comprehensive way. >> are the components that you

support? >> it's hard for me to believe he wouldn't support sarah's law because i didn't have answer a yes or no on that. spin as a sub me to fix her immigration speed it's a bipartisan bill. >> the farm bureau, the chamber of commerce speed but that's a different piece of legislation speed and i think we have to fix it in a comprehensive way. we can look at the individual pieces of the need to be addressed and it is broken. one way to fix is in of way top to bottom. >> give you a chance to enter the you try to enter and argue chance right now if you want to. >> get asked about immigration, i don't like a 10,000 page bills that are out there, who knows what is shoved in there, right? i like more piecemeal approach. i want to do with employment practice. when they're smaller and more transparent. you can see what's in there. reforming our legal system. 40% of those here illegally overstayed their visas and and

thing. so look at that. i want to do targeted approaches to that i think that's what he needs to be. >> you mentioned the trans-pacific partnership. when she brought that up. congressman young, tell me, generally farmers and agricultural interests support of that. labor unions do not. do you support it? >> i had a great opportunity to visit with farmers in the agriculture industry and manufacturing folks throughout the last few years. yesterday i did my harvest your, annually. minden, red oak, clarinda and i think it would have the best yields out of their. the booming yields, record booming yields. but if we have no place to sell, what's it all about? spirit what do you say to the labor union people in your district who say this takes our jobs?

>> there are provisions within the tba we passed before the tpp, trade promotion authority, which dealt with labor guidelines, and i'm of the guidelines and environmental issues. there's a piece of goes along with the called trade adjustment assistance just in case there are some repercussions in our employment it there some funds to help our workers in those times to gain new skills as well. is an area in the pacific rim that is hungry for our goods and services. 95% of the world consumers are outside of america. if we want our economy to do well we need to start selling our goods and services to others. china is right there as well. the strength, we will have respect. >> mr. marr, you have expressed support, no, opposition, sorry, opposition to the trans-pacific partnership o what do you say to agriculture interests?

southwest i'm is a big agricultural area. >> i think it's pretty remarkable military that secretary clinton donald trump agree on, and oppose the tpp because they know it will continue to ship american jobs overseas, it's something that congressman young supports. the one area that they agree they know is so dangerous for our future and continue to ship our jobs overseas, he does support. i grew up on a family farm. when i talk to farmers they understand that their trade deals that did get our products to market. that have appropriate protections to protect american jobs. the tpp does not have proper environmental and labor standards in place. it will continue to ship jobs overseas. wanted to support, our number one could trade deal that you appropriate provisions in place but also the export-import bank of the export-import bank help small businesses and their products to market and move them overseas. the export-import bank supports 1500 jobs in iowa. it costs the taxpayers nothing. it returns $1 billion to the

treasury every year and david young opposes the export-import bank. he voted against it, to shut it down. >> congressman young, a response if you want. do you oppose the export-import bank? >> the export-import bank came up for reauthorization. it up and fraught with fraud, mismanagement or people into jail. the majority of it went to the biggest corporations in the country come some who don't pay taxes, ge, boeing. so we reform that and we had a targeted to smaller businesses. i don't think ge and boeing need the backing of export-import bank at all. speak even governor branstad sent a letter saying i was for the export-import bank because it does cost taxpayers nothing and to support 1500 jobs in io iowa. >> i wanted to ask you, is there a trade deal that we could have on the books that you think was a good example of making sure under can jobs are protected? have we ever had one that's good

enough for you and for american labor? >> we just have to look at the protections that are in place. we have to have good negotiation that do ensure that the countries we are dealing with are paying their workers fairly so american workers can compete, that there's environmental standards in place so they are not polluting and americans have to shoulder that extra cost. so again we have to go trade deals in the future. >> is the one you like? >> i think that they all have come to have the pros and cons but i think went to do the cost-benefit analysis in the future to see whether they're going to benefit more than they cost. again when we talk about the agriculture provision of the tpp outfit is some analysis that showed that it will provide short-term gains for some agricultural interest. but the cost comes with continued to ship american jobs overseas and that's not a good deal for americans. >> mr. young, the next congress

will be reauthorizing the farm bill. the farm bill would likely include subsidies for the purchase of crop insurance. should there be some effort among congress members to store of link that to environmental stewardship? in other words, restrict the amount of farm chemicals that can be applied to farmland? >> i don't know if we're going to get to the point where we are linking environmental stewardship with crop insurance. that debate will, but i do know that it is a big issue for i will crop insurance. last fall that was a budget deal i posted at $3 quintillion out of the crop insurance program. farmers were depend on that. that was opening up the farm in the middle of it but i introduce a bill a in a bipartisan way to get that restored to pass as part of the five highway bill that he voted for and was signed into law. in the next farm bill we want to make sure we analyze the crop insurance system. want to make sure farmers to

have skin in the game of course because taxpayers do as well in case of catastrophes and droughts. water quality initiatives are something i've been working on. been on the agriculture subcommittee there's any quick fun, environmental quality incentive program. i worked to increase funding. also i think precision conservation bill that is by parser that's coming out. i do want to dictate what happened here on our land from washington, d.c. when it comes to environmental quality and the what issues we have, kind of one size fits all approach but at the weather to be resources because like about this that much and will have the most population dense county and the state, polk county and the least popular count in the state is in this district, adams county. want to pictur make sure we work together and i met the table. >> there are democrats the new party who do think the voluntary approach is to longer working and it's time for the federal government to regulate farmers. do you agree?

>> agriculture very important. we have been farm in iowa since the mid-19th century. but i think we can look at conservation of the building for my two sons to potentially farm someday, to hunt and fish, to have clean drinking water, these are very, very important things. when you look at the farm bill as a vehicle to help provide a safety message for farmers to invest in the conservation techniques it's a very, very good vehicle to do that. that they got what we do. i think we do need to link incentives to behavior, to the farmers when i talk to when i travel around the district, they said they want to do the right thing. they are trying to do the right thing but they're also trying to run a business and make a prof profit. >> you reduce the farm bill to leverage behaviors that might improve water quality? >> i think that funding of effort for farmers to put in nitrogen removal buffer strips,

et cetera, the fund that is the proper place to do that. the farmers i talk to want to do those things but they come at a large cause. cost. so providing assistance for farmers to do the right thing is the right approach and the appropriate use of the farm bill. >> but would you support or oppose the restrictions which would regulate the amount of nitrogen, for example, that a farmer could put on his or her land speak with if farmers have been provided the ability to invest in all these areas and do those things, then they should be able to meet those criteria. >> go ahead. >> if you wonder why we may be losing so many farms in iowa sometimes because they had the end of the federal government, the rules and regulations imposed mandates that are choking farmers. i have a bill that is getting headway. i want to make sure that the current beginning farm loan program is extended to allow for environmental quality initiatives on their farms as well as purchasing unused equipment. another thing the way we are

losing our farms is to the death tax. i want to make sure the family farmers pass on from generation to generation. my opponent and for should support the death tax. >> you just brought that up and let's let you respond. >> first let me say there is a such thing as a death tax big it doesn't exist. there is an estate tax in place to ensure that billionaires like donald trump who can go decades without paying the taxes to pay their fair share to roads come military's biggest we are talking here about -- >> i do not speed the death tax, an estate tax at a certain level. >> the estate tax, i don't support any changes to the current estate tax system. >> see you as -- said he would oppose hillary clinton's proposal to? >> i don't support any changes to the current estate tax. >> what tax by greece would you have if you are in congress, mr. maurer? and just limit bunch of incredibly important to help

with get the economy going into boston help with job creation? >> absolute. i think we need comprehensive tax reform. we need to lower the rates, or on the base, close loopholes for big companies -- >> such as? >> giving subsidies to big oil companies. when you look at the tax expenditures we have, passing the buffett rule which insures people who make more than $1 billion a year through capital gains, through investment, more than $1 million the year, pay tax on it as if it didn't come. even warren buffett understands this is a huge loophole, that the wealthiest ticket finished up and they are not paying their fair share. >> a golden a more rabid or less becausless? >> i think right now with a massive inequality. the economy is doing better the other plan is low but too many people still am i getting ahead. yet wall street is seeing record levels, we are seeing the richest americans do even better and for those folks do need to pay their fair share so that every single speed but will

rather go up or down under your priority? >> i think that really for the wealthiest americans would pay more of their fair share to ensure quality and affordable education, that veterans have access to the resources that they need, that we have a strong national defense and investing in our future. >> mr. young, your top priorities. >> i will work with anybody. the president opened the door on lowering the corporate tax rate if you wonder why so many companies are domiciled overseas and not paying taxes here, we need to stop the. i want to stop that. lowering the corporate tax rate, bring it down to 15-20% in the number that's been put out but in return you to get rid of a lot of those credits, incentives, deductions. the oil production tax credit of those kinds of things. i don't think big oil needs that.

we have to look at the multitude of the. there 75,000 pages of the tax code. in the end, there may be some we keep, such as the interest deduction on mortgage, charitable giving. because certain public policy reason we want to promote things. whatever it is, we have to make them permanent. we have to bring certainty to the texan because there's over $4 trillion sitting on the sidelines by people at invest in economy and create jobs. when you create jobs you will be treated more texan and want to use that to drive down the debt and the deficit. >> you said your overall goal is to reduce or increase tax revenue? >> bring certainty and i think the revenue would come in if there's more certain and people are investing in the economy. >> what they think of the warren buffett rule? >> i agree with my opponent. >> both of the presidential candidates have been talking about the need to invest in the nation's infrastructure, things

like roads and also things like airport. would you, mr. mowrer, vote to raise the federal gas tax or do you have some other tax in mind that would finance those kind of construction projects? >> i do think we need to look at the different revenue streams but i do believe we need to invest in our infrastructure. our roads, bridges, schools. when you look at what built this america, when the greatest generation came home from war, they invested in a roads and bridges and schools. they invested into big things and that's what america's of the greatest nation on earth. that's going to require us to continue to invest in those areas and guess that sometimes neglect have the revenue to invest in those areas. it's a very big important i was disappointed congressman young was only member of the iowa delegation and one of only 64 members of congress to vote against the bipartisan highway bill. all along while i wasn't the third most sufficient roads and bridges in the country. i want to invest more in our infrastructure in iowa.

>> my opponent, he knows this, but he knows that i voted for the five your highway bill in 2015. that was signed into law by president obama. >> you can try to plan how we voted against it before you vote against sab 18 to pastor i leave that to him. >> i don't question i started this discussion with was how to finance infrastructure projects like fixing roads, bridges and the nation airports with the rays of the federal gas tax or do you find some of the means by which to pay for those projects to? >> with the economy and the folks i talked to in the third district for barely getting bye, some of them, i don't think it's a good time to raise taxes. i'm on the transportation subcommittee and we're increasing funding. it will come out of general revenue. we have to make sure there's equity and equality out there was some of the new vehicles on our roads. i think you have to make sure that everybody is paying into

the system, pay to play. nobody should write for free. >> i was just going to see one e deliberately to i do support is a bipartisan effort presented by congress than john delaney from maryland. 22 democratic sponsors, 19 republican cosponsors. it has been a funding mechanism that would allow american companies that don't have profit sitting overseas to repatriate that money, put into this infrastructure fund. they would pay a lower rate by putting it in this infrastructure fund and the congressional budget office digs this would spur tens of billions of dollars of new investment. >> we have more topics that we have time. >> budgets have started -- a bunch of status to legalize marijuana in one way or another of the federal laws are still on the books. they are just not being enforced. so would you go into congress and vote to repeal those laws and let states manage their want however they want would you

enforce those laws and go back to marijuana laws that states are doing, or would you continue to just look the other white? >> i think this is a states' rights issue. they should be up to intellectual states in some states want to legalize computer without medical exceptions, et cetera. i think it should be up to individual states. we need to update the federal law to reflect what's happening in this country. i think the wrong approach is to continue to just throw americans in jail for minor drug offenses. that's all we're saying something problems we have with our criminal justice system. i think it is a states' rights issue at the up to the individual states spirit do you agree and would you go back some of those nonviolent offense since his? >> i would. a bipartisan bill to do that now. nonviolent offenders who may be just do some dumb stuff in their early years or whatever. however, old they are.

i believe in second chances. i would put the drug teams in jail but the occasional user, no. >> would you take those marijuana laws off the books that are being basically ignored? >> that's the thing. we have these laws and are not being enforced. i think they should be enforced. i would like to have states have more jurisdiction over these things but it shouldn't be happening unless the repeal any kind of federal law. i am for moving marijuana from schedule one to schedule two under controlled substances because i think there can be some great research involved to help with medical marijuana. i'm for allowing canada's worldview because i've met many families out there who are looking for treatment for their children, their loved ones. that's what also big support of the 21st century cures act. >> so how would you do with the jurisdictional issues, the border issues that arise when

you go from state to state with cannabis oil? >> i think there should be agreement between states like a permit, some kind of waiver. there's not that potency within that oil anyway that would get you high. >> mr. mowrer, what sort of gun restrictions would you be an advocate for come if any, were you to be elected? >> i grew up on a family farm, gun owners, hunting. i am a gun owner. i served in the military. i slept with an assault rifle in the words of the i don't tell my wife about that. but i'm ver very comfortable wih against an athlete in the second amendment, amendment, but we have to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and we need to have universal background checks. every single gun purchase in this country, that person should undergo a background check. wilson did you passed no fly, no buy which ensures that people who are on the no fly list them on the terrorist watch list can't purchase goods.

it's a commonsense approach. it so interesting because i've e heard david john when he's and i was a he's in favor of no fly, no buy but he voted 27 times in congress to block no fly, no buy from coming to a vote on the house of representatives -- >> congressman young? >> a little procedure votes that they were not substitute edited that the due process that i am for. so i am for taking people who are terrorists, on the terror watch list, taking away their guns. only if there is due process, if there are americans on the list who should be on their and they are law abiding. the second amendment is important the constitution is important to me and important to this district. >> the nra says it's not constitutional what you're talking about. do you disagree then with -- >> well, i don't listen to them. i mean, i think of the constitution. we ran that through the judiciary committee and those protections were there for due process. >> a year ago you expressed the belief that there should be something that could be done to

make sure that people who are suffering from mental illness to get their hands on a gun. a year later, what in your view should congress do in that regard? >> well, i hear about the mental health issues all over the district was in the urban areas our district is. it's a real issue for iowans. i'm cosponsor of a bipartisan of us made its way to the house already. that addresses this. it takes many multitude of mental health programs within the federal government comes under an umbrella. if we're talking gun violence we want to make sure those who are not mentally capable of understanding a firearm by the weapon what it's for, they shouldn't be allowed to have guns. they should be adjudicated in courts have taken away. they should also be given the right to petition if they get better speed without about a lot of issues over the last hour, but congress has been so dysfunctional that voters may not believe that anything you say that you would like to do is

going to get done. how do you break through that dysfunction and make sure the things that you proposed our a possibility of? >> this has been a very divisive election and once we get past this election it represented to go to washington and work in a bipartisan way to get things done. i had a record at the pentagon working with a 54 state and territory governments both democrats and republicans as the army's elite represented to the council governors. i oversaw the army office of business transformation i worked with house and senate armed service committee in both democrats and republicans on thosthose committees. there's currently a post-9/11 caucus in the house of representatives. it's made about iraq and afghanistan veterans. is made up of both democrats and republicans and if and when to work in a bipartisan way because there are folks who put their country first before they entered partisan -- >> the word mention most is bipartisan. and you are using it,

congressman young, you have used it, and yet i don't think that your record or your proposal, who is to believe your work in a bipartisan way? or your record reflects that? >> my record and everything event has been in a bipartisan way. i started a bipartisan task force for identity theft and fraud. bipartisan. we go got and minutes passed ina bipartisan way on that. my bill fix the veterans crisis line. a bill to prevent dropped calls in rural iowa bipartisan. thto work on the appropriations committee, bipartisan. because i know how to get things done to get to work across the out of do that because if you just pick up these partisan fights, not a lot gets done. you can't override a veto. >> david john, when he's here in iowa he says one thing. when he goes on to washington, d.c. where he spent the last 20 years, he does another.

he says pay no attention to my record. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain spirit and go do something different? >> absolutely. i have a record of results working in the executive branch to get things done. that's exactly what i will do in congress. >> the final have been giving tb dwight you then deserve speedy checkout my record or i'm proud of it. my competence in a bipartisan way. i know enough to not promise that is going to get all these things done in washington, d.c. because you know what? i've seen what's happened. those who promise to much break promise and that's why we have this frustration. i have been successful to the state. >> we need to get off on time and we are out of time. thank you. we will be back next week with another addition of iowa press. a special reporters roundtable event on the final weekend before election 2016. that i will press on statewide iowa public television, 7:30 p.m. friday night at noon on sunday.

for our hard-working crew here at the art center of iowa western community college in council plus, thanks for joining us. [applause] >> c-span brings you more debates on key u.s. house, senate and governor's races.

>> c-span, where history unfold.

>> and in the presidential race donald trump turning his attention to ohio today. we will have is springfield rally live at 1 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. hillary clinton in north carolina and her first appearance on the campaign trail with the first lady michelle obama from winston-salem at 2:00 eastern on c-span. is a look at some of the recent campaign ads. >> our children, they look up to us, what we value, how we treat others. and now they're looking to see what kind of leaders we choose, who we will entrust our country and their future to. will it be the one respected around the world, but the one who finds our allies and emboldened our enemies? the one with a deep understanding of the challenges we face, or the one who is unprepared for them? a steady hand, or a loose cannon?

commonsense and unity, or drama and division? a woman who spent her life helping children and families, or a man who spent his life help himself? our children are looking to us. what example will be set backs what kind of country will we be? hillary clinton, because we are stronger together. >> i am hillary clinton and i approve this message. >> far too many families today don't earn what they need and don't have the opportunities they deserve. i believe families deserve quality education for their kids, child care they can trust and afford, equal pay for women, and jobs they can really live on. people ask me what will be different if i'm president? kids and families have been a passion of my life, and it will be the heart of my presidency. i am hillary clinton and i approve this message. >> what's at stake in this election?

it's not just who goes here. it's who rules here. the supreme court. a justice who guarantees the right to own a gun is gone. now the next presidency choice rates the tight. for supreme court justices support a right to own a gun for self-defense, four justices will take away your right. this acronym is outdated. >> the right to possess a gun is clued not a fundamental right to what does the second amendment to you? >> and hillary says. >> we have too many guns. >> the supreme court is wrong on the second amendment spill hillary has made her choice. now you get to make yours. defend freedom. defeat hillary. the nra institute for lots of action is responsible for the content of this message.

>> every weekend booktv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. here's some of our programs for this coming weekend.

>> the real birth of advertising is in the 1920s with the birth of a big, the growth of madison avenue, also london, paris, other places as the center of an industry which is dedicated assessment development of advertisements over and over that will keep you i stuff. >> go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule your. >> now south dakota's u.s. senate candidates can republican incumbent johnson, democrat jay williams debate topics including

tax reform, immigration and trade policy. >> welcome everyone from the heartland of america, sioux falls, south dakota. the rotary club of downtown sioux falls in partnership with midco is honored to host this form and issues debate between the two candidates for a u.s. senate seat representing south dakota. the republican two-term incumbent john thune, the democratic challenger jay williams. on jack marsh, longtime journalist and retired executive of gwinnett, freedom forum and the museum. for the next 60 minutes or so mr. thune and mr. williams will have a fair opportunity to make their best cases and state their position on a wide range of issues. the questions are mine and do

not been shared in advance. as moderate i challenge the candidates to talk about themselves, their views, their values, their experiences, and not go negative against their opponents. and ask all of you here in the holiday inn ballroom to be respectful of the candidates by avoiding applause and outbursts that could detract from the civility and the quorum of this debate. the candidates will each have one minute to respond to most of the questions. more time may be allotted as warranted. diane delahoussaye to doubt if it is is the official timekeeper and she will hold up morningside for the candidates as time runs down and then expires. the seating order an initial speaking order or determined by a coin toss earlier this afternoon. mr. thune will go first and then about halfway through the debate the speaking order will be reversed and mr. williams look

at the first turn. we begin with two personal questions. give us some insight into how you perceive yourselves concisely with one word or two word description of possible, what are the 12-15 most important personal traits, qualities, characteristics and values that define you as a person? we begin with mr. finn. >> well, thank you, jack ethics to downtown rotary. i've a chance to interact with this group a lot over the years, and it's great to be with you again today. 12-15 is a lot. [laughter] i don't know if i can get that many. >> we will take your top 10. >> that maybe even stretching it. i guess what i would say is, i'm just a small town kid who loves the state. i grew up out in the western part of south dakota, little town called myrtle when i was

growing up, for me life began and ended at the city limits of the downtown. we didn't have the internet. we can give you many places very often but i just greatly value the upbringing i had the chance to go to live in a small town, go to a small school, or just that in a lot of activities. i go got to play football and ak about them on track and play baseball and play tuba and sing in the swing choir and to all the things educated in a small town. so i would say if i could use one word, i'm just a small town kid. >> mr. williams? >> i want to go his comments. thank you jack for having us and thank you to the downtown rotary. i am really happy to be here today. i also am a south dakota boy. south dakota boy. fourth generation south dakota. raised on a farm abrupt gettysburg. a u.s. navy veteran and a veteran of the peace corps and i've been a businessman for the last 30 years. i guess i can think of myself as being really a fair-minded sort of person, and opens her purse and.

i love people and i like talking to people. i've been going around the state for the last six, seven months maybe longer beating people. i really enjoy doing that. i consider myself to be fairly personable and i consider myself to be open, opened ideas. i don't hold any ideas just sacrosanct. i'm mostly, i've come to a lot of police over the years but i'm the kind of guy who would like to hear what you have to say and they so much of this especially if you can convince me i'm the kind of guy who will change. so i consider myself not malleable but open and willing to listen to new ideas and to look forward to hearing from you guys today. >> as a u.s. senator you be dealing with matters of a complexity. how do you keep your mind sharp, stay well informed and continue to learn quick specifically please explain your reading and viewing habits. what kind of books and periodicals do you read, what news sources do you trust them what programs do you watch at

how else to stay top of domestic and international developments? >> in this day and age, and thanks for the question, there are so many sources of information and news after that you can get your news from. i always say that in the morning i try and read "the wall street journal" and the new kind of a now both sides are saying. i think you have to diverse reading habits. i think you have to in terms of the books you read, the things you watch, you can become a news junkie and that oftentimes you lose balance. my dad is 97 almost. he lives in my hometown and he is way too much time to watch cable news. so he watches cable news all the time and then he calls me up and these all worked up and i'm like dad, turn it off. i think you need balance in life. i did that with my family. but i think what i would say is you have to be a really good listener. i get a lot of information from listening to people in this

state than what's on their hearts and minds, and that shapes a lot of what i do and how i view issues. >> mr. williams? >> is a good idea is philosophy, believe it or not. i don't philosophy. my dad was a velocity sort of guy even though he was a farmer. he had a large library of philosophy books. he recommended all of them to me. that's the kind of reading i do. the kind of television i watch, i watch the cable news networks and i enjoyed them and i watch, tried watch a lot of news. that's mostly what i watch on television. when i go to movies and mostly coded documentaries. the last document isa was a documentary called the 13th which was about the 13th amendment to the constitution. i recommend it to you all. it is being streamed on netflix but that's the kind of executor i do love to talk to people and i get a lot of ideas from debating political and religious

at all kinds of issues with people. >> the national debt is approaching $20 trillion. it grew by $450 billion last year because of deficit spending. would you and how would you address the budget deficit? >> it has, the overall debt has doubled in the last eight years under president obama. in a short printed on we're going to be back to trillion dollars a year deficits added to that debt. so the only amount of time before this thing, we're going over a cliff. if we don't do something about it and do it soon, the country is going to be an huge, huge trouble and that was heavily on me as i think about our kids and our grandkids. jack, which have to do is two-thirds of all federal spending is will become mandatory spending to its atomic programs, sal sosa could, medicare, medicaid, food stamps. we have to reform those programs to get them on a more sustainable level if we're going to deal with the debt.

that needs to be job one, the next president of the next congress, have the political courage able to get together to figure how we can reform our and other programs. the second component is economic growth. we have to store growing our economy. that makes the deficit look smaller by comparison because that means revenues will be up significantly. >> when we talk about the debt we need to understand how we got here. in 2000 when republican president bush took over, he had a billion dollar budget surplus. we were paying the debt down. eight years later after tax cuts in two wars, he gave president obama a $1.4 trillion deficit. over the years a president obama he is cut from 1.4 trillion down to about 400 build which is still quite a lot but he's cut it by two-thirds. that's also been done with spending cuts. if we want to read address the debt, and by the way, the debt is at zero interest let's not as

big an issue as it could be but if we want to dress up what we need to do is pay for the things that we have. when we agree on spending things we need to be pay for them. it's not just spending cuts that fixes things. if president obama had little bit of help from a dysfunctional congress he would've gotten it down to zero. here we sit with a $400 billion deficit and with a few little tax increases we could solve that spirit let's take a deeper look into federal revenues and expenses. beginning with tax policy. what changes do you favor in the federal tax code and impossible for individuals and for corporations? >> first off the tax cuts and need to be reformed or i know a lot of people in the show would agree with that. it needs be simple find and it takes to be about growth. i'm not talking about growing the government. i've talked about growing the economy. the focus of tax reform ought to be economic growth. we are growing at one to 2% a

year. the historic average go back to world war ii is three, 3.5%. after a recession is been 3.7 person. we have in the nick of growth. a lot of that is because our tax code is completely antiquated and it penalizes people in this country when they do well. we are not competitive in the global marketplace. knowing the business tax competing rates down, rodney the tax base, simplify the tax code that making it about economic growth. we want to get growth back to the three, 3.5% and in the deficit picture looks dramatically smaller by comparison because for everyone percentage growth, generates $300 billion of additional revenue. >> i would agree that our tax code needs some revision so that multibillionaires such as donald trump can't take billion dollar losses and not pay taxes at all. we do need that kind of reform. tax cuts, something is been

tried by the republicans ever since the 1940s but if you look at the treasury department statistics every time we have a tax cut we have less revenue as you might expect. tax cuts really are not the answer to the answer, we need to do really fair tax so that people at the upper end, the 1% that have all the money pages like the rest of us hard-working americans. to with a look a of tax increass at the upper end we can pay for our deficit and start bringing the debt down. that's the real problem we have is that the republicans strictly want t to cut taxes. we cut taxes. when we cut taxes we do things like this sequestered which cut across the board 10% taxes. hurt everybody. we need to be smarter about the and in order to do that maybe will talk about it later. >> you mention two-thirds of the federal budget goes for entitlements. also i think for being interest on the debt.

those entitlements which includes also security, medicare, medicaid, food stands, so forth. what, if any, changes would you make in the funding of those entitlements through increased payroll taxes, changes in payment, benefit payments and changes in benefit eligibility? >> i don't think that you can tax your way out of this problem. i think when you raise taxes, which is useful to the economy. but we need is faster growth. faster growth, more people working, more people paying payroll taxes. that's how you solve this in the long term. if you look at specific suggestions was also security and medicare, one thing that's been talked about and it doesn't affect anybody who targeted for anybody who's nearing retirement age, and that is we congratulate face in an increase in the retirement age for younger workers. if you are not retired or if you're 55 and older, he would not be affected by that but for many parents also security got people are living longer, more productive lives and to me that would be aware dramatically

expanding the lifespan of those programs. with respect to medicaid i would like to see or medicaid shifted to the states. estates to design and customize programs that make sense. you would get a lot more efficient, effective and accountable programs. people trust the state government. they don't trust the federal government. >> there's some fundamental instruments we have on this. first of all for social security, a real easy fix for social security is just to take the artificial cap off the payroll tax. payroll tax is kept at about $120,000. the people to pay the payroll tax by the hard-working south dakotans of a 50-$60,000. if you make 250,000 you only pay payroll tax cut to 120 and after that you don't pay any payroll tax. we took that off, we did find those is good on into the future. senator thune says we should raise the age for social security. that's because senator thune like me has never worked in a really manual labor type job. if you spent your entire life

out there swinging hammer and working hard and turn things around, by the time you get to be 62 your back is at about 85. raising the age is also security i don't think it's a good thing for the right your hard-working people, and manual laborers. i'm not in favor of the. we can fix that social security is by making everybody pay their fair share. >> with a two-thirds of the budget going for entitlements and paying off, paying interest on the debt that leads one-third congress who has any discretionary authority over from year to you. in broad terms what is the federal government spending too much money and what is the federal government spending too little money? >> at the moment and of the third that's left of you backup all the incumbent programs and mandatory spending and interest on the debt, yup about one-third of the pilots. and one half that or won six of the total budget is defense, the military. frankly, right now we've got to

rebuild our military. i would like to see us spend 4% of gdp on military. we live in an increase of dangerous world. america needs to be prepared, assert its leadership all over the world and we are underfunded american military today. you can talk to any other service chiefs, any of come anybody you talk in a military today and they will tell you the same thing. in terms of other places you can find savings, we have a huge barack is in washington, d.c. hollowpoint a hiring freeze on the bureaucracy? we have agencies that are proliferating regulations that are driving up the cost of doing business, making more difficult and more expensive to create jobs and grow this economy. i could start naming names but i'm out of time. >> mr. williams. >> there are a lot of things we can do about that last thursday that what i think they just look for the waste and fraud that exists in our government like right in south dakota, our

programs are rife with fraud. our federal representatives should be paying more attention to the federal funds that come to our states and make sure there's the waste and fraud. in terms of military with the strongest and best military in the history of the world. put more money in it now is 7a good idea to contact our military doesn't even have the means to be audited. shockingly $6.5 trillion of army expenditures, the pentagon cannot account for that disney is being stolen to it just means to drive away to do an audit of the military. that's what we should begin. we should be auditing that huge military spending to make sure there's not a lot of fraud and waste. i can military veteran and i contested that there are things that are wasted in our government, in our federal budget in terms of military. that's one place we could look and look hard. >> how would your proposal for

taxation for federal spending and 80 changes of government regulation, how would they help ignite are relatively stagnant economy, create jobs and promote prosperity? >> it doesn't matter where i go in south dakota, and i go all over, small towns, big towns, farms, ranches and small businesses, health care, financial services, the thing is the most is the cost of federal regulation is like a big wet blanket. it's costing us more and more every day to comply with regulations. so lessening the regulatory avalanche is huge. there were 600 what they call major new regulations in the last eight years, and a major break is defined as regulars of $100 million the year economic impact or more. 600 new federal regulations. i think whatever process. if you quit anyway you want to be one and one after we got to get rid of regulations that were going to create new regulation. we often require congress to

vote on every new major regulation. in other words, every regulation has $100 million impact on the economy or more because the effect of that over the last eight years is that $1 trillion or $2000 per family in this country. >> senator thune talks of regulations which is all understand what revelations are. regulations by the way did minnesota branch of the government carries out the lost their passed by the legislative part of the cover. so with outlaws, there would be regulations. so when congress passes laws without regulations. those regulations don't just happen by accident. that's a lot of time and energy and nobody gets to have their say before they go into effect if we would want to grow the economy what we need to do is use of the federal government to use them for such projects like the kind of project we need to use the clean energy we have right here in south dakota. south dakota we have a lot of wind that we can't harness that caimpasse all of because we dont have the infrastructure.

if we spend some federal money on infrastructure we could grow the economy, create new jobs and we would have a much better world and a cleaner world. that's something we have to do come with move from fossil fuels to clean energy immediately. it's not a matter of if. it's a matter of when. >> please elaborate on your platform regarding u.s. foreign policy and international security. specifically as relates to the middle east to the threat from isis and the humanitarian crisis that is invalid and syria, iraq and elsewhere. >> there are so many missteps along the way in the last eight years that premature withdrawal from iraq, not enforcing the redline in serious, agreeing to a that iranian nuclear agreement that has put us where we are in place we don't have good options. but what i would tell you is i think that in order to defeat

isis which is a very immediate threat not only to the region but to the entire world as we've seen in the united states, we have to take the fight to them. there is a fight going on right now th but by coalition partner, iraqis, kurdish peshmerga, peshmerga forces ad hocly there will be successful. but then we got to defend the homeland. went to make sure we are getting people who committed this country if it were to protect our country against a potential terrorist attack. we've got to have more aviation screening measures, something i've worked with as chairman of the senate commerce committee if that means we have to give our intelligence community the tools they need to find these people come to root them out if they our global factors or sleeper cells in this country. that's what is going to take to defeat this enemy. >> there have been several missteps in the middle east but those the steps actually began with president george w. bush who decided it was important to use our military to invade iraq.

that was at a time when iraq of course they had a bad dictator, but that i couldn't do anything to he couldn't even flights on airplanes. we had him totally contained by the republican president decided we should invade that country. and by golly our military did they went to -- they went through there like a knife on but it. there were more mistakes the administration didn't decide his own people studies the iraqis to rebuild iraq as a result we have the mess we have. so we do have to address it equipped to address what's going on in middle east. were doing a great job right now. working with coalition partners, providing air cover, providing drone strikes and doing a lot of good things. as a method isis is being pushed back and, of course, you already took care of al-qaeda to it was president obama to give osama bin laden. we're doing the right things and think we need to continue. >> mr. thune, you brought up military spending. let's take a closer look at that. what is a sufficient level of

military spending in order to ensure we have a proper strength and readiness for our military forces? >> a good benchmark historic i think is 4% of gdp. listen folks, if you can't defend the country, if you don't get national security right, the rest is conversation. we face threats not just in the middle east bay. iran is on the verge of acquiring a new group that are nuclear capability. russia is aggressive. china is increasing provocative in the south china sea. asia illegal the horizon of the threat matrix we face individual be a very serious threat. there are threats all over the world. the world is in a dangerous place. i hope it doesn't happen but that trend has to be prepared to be able to protect our in multiple hours if necessary. at any given time. american leadership is essential. the world looks to us to lead. if we don't have the military capability to be able to lead

and will not be leaders the world needs. national security is a critical issue. military but this is a critical issue especially now we live in an increasingly dangerous world. >> mr. williams, what is your assessment speak with i admit that are somewhat the navy pretty close. we have the most powerful military in the history of the world. just our navy we have 11 carry a pack groups. ..

we do have planes we can send in there, but our military is strong enough to defend as. >> we both agreed this is a dangerous world. how worried are you about the increase in spread of nuclear weapons? >> very worried and that's why say we have to modernize eric capability. the triad, a lot of our nuclear weapons, deliver systems, we need the next generation bomber. they are currently working on that today at the development of stage, but if we are going to stay ahead of our adversaries we have to be prepared to use that nuclear capability as a deterrence and it has to be a believable deterrence, so i am

worried about eight renovation like iran acquiring nuclear disability, which they are on the path to have and then creating nuclear proliferation the middle east because if iran has won the saudis and egyptians will want one and you already have a crackpot in north korea firing nuclear weapons. he might aim at alaska and hit seattle we need to be worried about what's happening in the threat of nuclear weapons and we need to be prepared for that and that's why we have 10 modernize skip ability. >> the spread of nuclear weapons is probably the most serious threat we face today. the last thing we want to see is a terrorist group get a nuclear weapon in their hand and just a few years ago everyone was saying iran would have a nuclear weapon in one year. the threat of israel came and talked to congress and said iran will have a nuclear weapon in one year.

the us went and negotiated with iran and got them to give at the nuclear weapons that-- came ability police were 10 years. republican sent a letter saying negotiate with us and if i had done that as a young naval officer i would been court-martialed because negotiating people to get them to stop. right now iran will not have a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years and after 10 years of negotiating with us and dealing with us i think we will find iran will be our friend and they won't have a nuclear weapon. >> we will give you about a 30 second rebuttal about that. >> that's right. he went after me. this is a bad bad deal. we just gave $150 billion sanctioned relief to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. iran is on the way to acquiring nuclear capability. make no mistake about it and that was a bad deal and the

reason the letter went was because the president did want-- not want to come to congress. yuan to the united nations. normally, this would be handled as a treaty. this president wanted to circumvent congress. >> so, we will give you the last word. >> we gave a rant $150 billion of their money, money we used in sanctions to get them to come to the table and agree to this deal it's not a bad deal. it would've been a bad deal if we would have not had a deal and then we would have been looking at invasion and us troops and sons and daughters being killed in as all the way we should do things. >> they are not going to be our friends. >> what's your assessment of us trade policy, specifically the north american free trade agreement and the proposed transpacific partnership? >> trade is important issue in south dakota because we are an ad economy. it's our number one industry and as a member of the senate agriculture committee idea with

administration on a regular basis, dealing with trade relationships with places around the world where we had in open markets and so trade deals that of a negotiated in the past, relitigate those in maybe there were some bad deals to go shaded in the past, but we need to make sure going into the future that when we negotiate these deals the agricultural has a seat at the table. it's important to american agriculture in the south of-- south dakota agriculture that we open up markets, increase exports and get prices back in a better level for our farmers in south dakota. that means-- good deals negotiated on the front and that means after being forced, but we can't disengage in the global marketplace because it's too important to south dakota's and -- economy and to import america's economy. >> i agree. i believe it's good for south dakota and will allow us to export our agricultural goods.

i think that is a fine thing. as general i believe in free trade becoming a global economy and working together. one of the things i has happened is the result of the trade policies we have in place today is that global extreme poverty has went from 30% to my 10%. that is not really affect us in the us, but as a people of the world it's a good thing and that's why i'm in favor of free trade. the question i have is president obama negotiated this tt dee deal and that republicans control both houses of congress are quite has it been approved? because we have a dysfunctional congress that won't get along, so i think i'm for free trade and i think with the negotiations by the democratic president and republican congress it should've been approved. >> it has not been sent to congress should. >> let's take a deeper look at agriculture. you are generally in agreement on trade policy.

what is right and what is wrong with other us policies and regulations regarding agriculture and the witches are state's largest. >> i think one thing i would argue in this would pertain to the europeans and also to asia and that's why we are trying to negotiate these agreements is there are a lot of nontariff barriers put in place they will put in place barriers to products or commodities raised in this country that use for example gm owes a 90% of the crops in south dakota used gml seeds and there is nothing scientifically wrong with that, but we have countries around the world in europe, in asia who block american exports over that issue and is so that's just one example of what i would call a nontariff barrier used to protect a local domestic industry in these countries and i hope we can tear those down.

that's the purpose of the trade agreements. it's to open markets for american producers in american businesses because we already have the most open market in the world, so that is the purpose of all these trade agreements to tear the barriers down and get us access to those markets. >> we are in general agreement about trade, but we have had happen that have been blamed on training one is country of origin labeling for products. we don't have that anymore and i think that is a real problem especially for producers) south dakota because i think most people when they go to the supermarket and they look at the beef and they see the beef as origin say from brazil or from south dakota will choose south dakota and they will do that because they know when they buy beef from south dakota they know the quality they will get. they don't know the quality they will get brazil. i don't mind brazil selling their beef here, but i think consumers of the us should be allowed to have a difference, so those are the kinds of things we have to make sure our trade

policies don't affect in a negative way. once again, i have for free trade and i think the more free trade we have the better it will be for our country and for the rest of the world. >> is global warming a real threat to our planets? is it an uncontrollable act of nature or do you think it could be addressed with environmental and energy practices? >> well, look, i think the climate is changing. is changing all the time and has been changing for probably thousands of years and the question of whether or not human activity contributes to that, i don't know at what level but i will concede at some level it does. there's lots of disagreement in the scientific community about how much, but the question becomes what we do about and at what cost to. in my view the best way to get a change of behavior is to provide incentives to change behavior. we have tried through a lot of the energy policies i've been involved with with congress and global fuel standard, wind

energy to move us in a direction where we are less depend on fossil fuels. what i don't think is the right approach is what the president has proposed a method national energy tax with fixed income people in this country, seniors and families with a huge energy tax particularly in the midwest. public utility commission estimated it could increase cost in this region of the country by as much as 50% and that's not the right approach. >> well, we have another disagreement here. the senator believes he's not sure what humans are doing to cause this global warming that we see. myself and virtually all the scientist in the world agree that we are doing something and we are doing something really significant. starting in 1900 till today our atmosphere has warmed 1 degrees centigrade, which may not sound much, but it's a lot and at 3 degrees it's not clear we can live on the planet anymore and that is continuing to go up.

the last three months, september, august and july, the hottest months on record and 2016 will be easily the hottest year ever. we have to do some thing about or quit to do something now. it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when because it will be more expensive and harder to you and if so it's really great that president obama is trying to address this issue and the worst thing we can do is say let's just wait until it's such a terrible issue that we have to take your coding measures to fix it. >> we are about halfway through this debate, so we will reverse the order of the speaking order, so we will let mr. williams answer first and then senator thune. should construction of the dakota access pipeline be allowed to proceed underneath the missouri river? do you foresee a peaceful resolution to the protests and the standoff now near the

standing rock indian reservation mr. williams. >> i surely for see a peaceful revolution-- resolution. notices a hallmark of the us and i think the dakota access pipeline is an example of fossil fuel of the structure that we really don't need to do. we can move that fueled by trucks or rail and some people say that's more dangerous than moving it by pipeline, but i will tell you if you take a pipeline and put it underneath the missouri river in there is a leak that they don't discover for i don't know, months or years, it could be when the missouri river is now flowing black that we realize there is a leak so i think the dakota access pipeline is a bad idea and i think we should stop construction concentrate on infrastructure that will take us from fossil fuel through clean energy. i mean, that's the future of our country and that's where we have got to be. anything else, to me, appears to be-- that's my position. >> the pipeline is safer than

rail. they are safer than truck. they are the safest, cleanest and most effective and efficient way to move those products. we won't get rid of those patterns overnight or, for moving as away from our dependence on foster-- also feels, but for the future we will need-- need those in the best way to move that is through pipelines. if you are going to bring a pipeline in this part of the country you will probably have to go under a river. there are already 100 pipelines under the missouri river. there are millions literally miles of pipeline in this country today. it's safer, more efficient, more cost-effective when you're moving those types of products. with respect to its happening up there, i hope they can resolve that peacefully. i have talked to the head of the office a couple of days ago and i hope they can deal with this in a way where people are respectful of the right to protest, but also respectful of the laws. >> there are more than 500

federally recognized indian tribes in the us including nine in south dakota. how do you assess the condition of indian country and what do you see is the federal government's proper role in dealing with the sovereign nations and the people? mr. williams. >> well, this is one of the major issues facing us in south dakota with our nine tribes in indian country we have the two poorest counties in the us right here in south dakota. that's not right. that's on the be. you know, the federal government has been trying to deal with this forever. i mean, since i was back in high school they been dealing with it and they just have not found a way to do it. i think what we need is to get rid of the traditional politicians, career politicians running our congress today and put in guys like me who can bring new ideas and new ways to relate to our native americans population here in south dakota.

i think we need to take a new look to we need to go in and find leaders in the native american population and help them to find ways to find the kind of projects that they can get behind and champion for all of the rest of us like for instance going from a fossil fuel to clean energy. >> mr. thune. >> well, the long-term solution by the way i consult with a nine tribes in south dakota multiple times every year. are dozens of meetings with the tribal leaders and with members of the tribes out there. the thing that's going to change the way of life on a reservation and improve the quality of life and standard of living is a private economy. we have got to get a private economy that creates jobs that allows people to create wealth. right now there isn't much of a private economy. there are a few businesses on a reservation, but by a large you are talking about economy that

will-- is completely dependent on the federal government. that does not work. in the meantime honor our treaty obligations with healthcare, education, best bridge, i think, to a future for kids on a reservation and trying to get them into higher education and then i also think that, like i said before, we have to make sure security work we have security. people need to live in safety on reservations and there are elderly people and kids on the reservation today were constantly living in fear. >> what aspects of obamacare, the affordable care act, should be retained and what should be scratched next mr. williams. >> the of four to the care act is really a major milestone in the us. we have been trying since 1948 to get a national healthcare policy and finally with the passing of the affordable care act we did it. does it need improvement?

[inaudible] >> the affordable care act could be improved, but the worst thing we could do is repealed and start over. that's not a way to do anything. .-dot for the care act is using private health insurance to implement healthcare and it's done a lot of great things. i mean, you can't be on your health insurance and get really sick and suddenly find out at the end of it you have lost your health insurance. pre-existing conditions or not they are, don't exist anymore. it's done a lot of great things and there are things that need to be done and we should do them. that's all we need to do. we need to work together to prove that a formal care act instead of saying we want to repeal it, repeatedly, review it and that's one of the problem is we have with our dysfunctional congress. >> mr. thune. >> this is a problem of liberal economics. we will define what concerns coverages for the entire country and it has not worked. there is still 30 million

americans without insurance. the goal of obamacare eight years ago was everyone gets covered. there's still 30 million americans today without coverage and there are more losing coverage because of obamacare. blue cross blue shield pulled out of the individual market in south dakota and their 8000 people and i talked to a bunch who are losing their coverage. bill clinton, bill clinton has said that obamacare has double premiums for people, hast their coverage and he said the craziest thing i've ever seen in the liberal governor next-door and mark-- minnesota said the portable care act is no longer affordable. this does not work, folks. that's why we need to go to a different model and it needs to be repealed and put reforms in place that will drive down the cost and make insurance coverage in this country more assessable and more portable to more people >> what is your stand on us immigration policy, border security enforcement, deportation and amnesty?

>> i would like to make a quick comment from the beginning about the affordable care act, 15 million more americans have inch-- insurance, so it really is working, but it could work better. in terms of immigration, we are a country of immigrants. i mean, that's what makes us great, not that we-- we are people religions and races and cultures from all over the world they join together to make the greatest country in the world. immigration is a good thing for us. do need to make sure the immigrants that come here and not wishing us harm? of course, but that's not where we are facing issues. i mean, 911 was caused by people who are not us citizens, but they were here legally, but what we really have to worry about is the hates now being festered up in the us and that is what is a real danger to us. just doubting kansas last week a

hate group was going to blow up entire somali community. that's a real problem. immigration is a good thing for the us. >> mr. thune. >> my grandfather great uncle came here 1906 and this country is a nation of immigrants. we have been a welcoming nation. i don't know about the hate you are talking about, but i also know people who come to the us need to follow the law-- law. enforcement first. we can talk about people who are here illegally until we convince the american people we can secure the border. securing the border, creating biometric exit entry program so the people who are here on pieces and overstay their visa, that we can track them and then we have to make sure that we have a vetting system that for people particularly that we talk about the refugee population coming in that can certify that there aren't people there that will do us harm, but its enforcement first. i know a lot of people,

employers, we want to update you verify system in the workplace so we know the people working in our economy are here legally. we are a nation of laws and immigrants and we have to figure out how to strike that balance, but you can't do that to you enforce the laws on the books. >> let's take a deeper look at the refugees and specifically from the middle east including those from syria and those who are caught in the humanitarian crises around that region including what we see happening in aleppo. >> will you repeat that question for me, jack? >> i hope that wasn't too confusing. what about the acceptance of middle eastern refugees? >> i think we are a nation of immigrants and their refugees is a strong tradition of the us. you know, in the 1956 republican presidential eisenhower, one of

the planks was to do what we can to accept refugees and i think we need to do that. we don't need to be afraid of women and children, which is where most of these refugees are and we already have a great vetting program for refugees. we haven't had any refugees that i know of that have done any kind of terror attacks the united states, so i can that the us does accept refugees and do what we can to help them. i mean, that is the very character of the us, to help those who are really in need and refugees, these are people sitting in war zones and being bonded in the can't live in their homes anymore. the us is a place of last resort for them and we should do what we can to help refugees, so i'm in favor of refugees. i believe they should be vetted. >> mr. thune. >> we accept more refugees into the us every year than all the other nations in the world combined. so, we are doing well-- we are a

welcoming nation we are try to welcome people into this country , but we also had to make sure in light of what's happening in the middle east and in light of what's happening in terms of radicalization of people in this country that when people come here and they come particularly from a region of the world where there is terrorists organizations operating an active, that we set them carefully picked the head of the dni, department of national intelligence, department of homeland security and the fbi director testified in front of congress that there are gaps in our system that they can certify, that when people come here we have a vetting system that will ensure there are not people in the population that will do us harm and so i think what we need to do is make sure that they can certify that and that we are vetting people in a way that protects the american people from someone who might want to come into this country and do us harm and i think they are the full trading that refugee population. >> as the cost of higher education has spiraled in the

past decade, student loans debt in the us has grown to $1.2 trillion. should access to free public education except in high school and what if anything should the federal government do to address soaring student debt? >> first, went to attack soaring debt. citibank or any of the large bank, borrow money from the us, they borrow it at little under 1% interest. if a student goes what's to go to college he has to pay think 7%, so the first thing we can do is lower interest rates for our college students today. as far as free public education, that's another great american tradition. we have had free public education from k-12 forever. is has worked really well and we have had higher education be free to wish and before, also. teleport needed it i believe

kentucky is starting to it as well, so i think a high school education isn't quite enough in today's job market. i think would be a good idea to consider free public education at least in terms of tuition to extend beyond high school. how far beyond? two years seems reasonable to start, but maybe four years, but i think that's an important thing to do. education is what will drive our economy and drive our country into the future. >> mr. thune. >> you want to make college education really expensive, make tuition free because the cost will go up. wait-and-see. the interest rate on student loans and this is a result of legislation we passed through congress in the past couple years, this slasher 3.76%. i'm someone who came up the hard way and you asked earlier about characteristics of yourself and part of mine's work ethic and i am someone who appreciates work and efforts and earning your way

and i think those are all things that are important about this country and so free college education strikes me is the wrong approach. now, anyone willing to work hard deserves the possibility of a college education and that's why we have to provide as many incentives as we can, affordable student loans. there are programs which i hope get reauthorize at the end of last year that helped 4000 low income students in south dakota get up to $5500 a year towards education. strengthen those programs, but the idea we ought to make it free to everyone, to me, goes against what we are is a culture >> if and when you vote on a presidential nominee to the us supreme court, what criteria will you use to reach your decision? >> well, first of all if i'm elected to the united states senate i pledge to you that i will indeed provide the advice

and consent that the constitution requires. i won't say we will wait until the next election as our current commerce has them. when i look at a us supreme court justice, what i'm looking for is a man who is a fair-minded person. i don't think that's ms. tess i good way to go for supreme court nominee and first of all you can't enforce. was there on the court they are on the corporate life, so you can't enforce witness test, but you can look dangerous and say you see a fair man. does he listen to the argument? what are the decisions he has rendered and do those decisions make sense, so that's what i would look for in a supreme court justice whether it came from republic it-- republic of president or the democratic president, but i pledge to zero's give them a hearing and that is not what has happened to merit garland, president obama's choice. >> look, i think when it comes to the supreme court's it's important that we have people

that are constitutionalist. i went to see people nominated to the supreme court's who will exercise the dude-- judicial restraint. i do want judges on the supreme court that are very accomplished some agenda or legislate from the bench because they have not been able to get something through congress and activist judges, i think, are dangerous to this country and so i went to see someone that will exercise judicial restraint that will be a constitutionalist and as someone who will worry about enforcing the constitution and the laws of this country and not become someone who is trying to use the cord as a way to legislate some agenda. >> the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the second minute. what, if any limitations should be placed on the ownership and possession of weapons and ammunition? >> well, i'm a big believer in the second amendment. i think americans do have the

right to bear and own arms and i'm for that, but we are not allowed to own anything we want to keep can own a stinger missiles. since 1934, if you wanted to own a machine gun you had to pay a fairly large tax and register them, so some kinds of weapons we need to keep track of. we can't just leave it wide open. unfortunately, that's the position of the nra and the nra has a really stranglehold on our congress because they don't even want to limit the kind of bullets that will pierce the best of our police, so i believe there are things we can do, technology things we can do to make guns safer. there are 33000 americans killed with guns every year and with a bit of technology we could maybe cut that in half, so i believe guns need to be regulated in the sense that we can use technology to make them safer. keep them out of the hands of mentally ill is all very well and good, but we can't stop them from stealing a gun and using it

>> mr. thune. >> there are way too many people in this country lost to gun violence, almost 33000 and two thirds of them are suicide. that still way too many. with make sure that we are doing every thing we can is a culture to address the fundamental problem and jay mentioned mental health. that something of which there is agreement. many of these cases of mass violence prevented-- mentally deranged people and i think that's where there is common ground turkey won't find common ground on more restrictions. there are a few areas-- i think for example no one that is a suspected terrorists or anyone on a watchlist or no-fly list should be able to buy a handgun without the fbi having some say so, but there are things we can do in the area of mental health and that's where we ought to focus i think this is a second amendment right, guaranteed under our constitution and people in this country have that right to defend themselves and

we should not trifle with it, but we need to make sure we are doing every thing we to address what i think is the fundamental problem and that's mental health. >> the first amendment protects freedom of expression. is the bill of rights to permissive in allowing what some people consider to be offensive hateful speech and unpatriotic forms of protest such as flagburning. >> i do not believe the bill of rights is to permissive. i believe the bill of rights is a fundamental part of america, once again, and i believe those fundamental rights have to exist in one of those things is the right to protest. even though it may not be likable to me, like i don't like to see someone burning a flag, but i believe they have the right to do that kind of thing. at bats our whole country based on the freedoms that we get from the amendment of the constitution, the bill of rights. the second amendment, i agree on that and the first amendment, i

agree with that even more. the first amendment gives us the free press we have. the idea of trying to suit journalists were doing their jobs and that kind of thing i'm against that. i think freedom is what we are all about and at the first amendment is the first of our basic freedoms. of course, you don't have unlimited freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater, but you have the right for peaceful protest. >> mr. thune. >> i think that is another amazing amazing thing about our country, the first amendment, the right of speech, the right of expression, free press, i mean, those are things that make america and the model emma ending of the world when it comes to our democracy. so, i mean, we need to make sure that people protest in a nonviolent peaceful way. we need to make sure law enforcement respects the right of people to protest, those are things we need to ensure happening in this country.

butts, there are some things like for example flag burning, i mean, i have worked with the vfw, the american legion in this state for years on a memo to the constitution to ban flag burning. it would take a memo to the constitution and i realize that can be very hard to make happen, but that is something that is so sacred to the people who have defended our country and our freedoms that it's an area that i think actually could be a restriction. >> both of you have been vocal critics of donald trump. yet, mr. thune, you said you would vote for mr. trout. jay williams, you've been a supporter of senator clinton. had a short choice align with your values, policy vision and your vision of the country? >> i believe secretary clinton is a principled person and spent her entire adult life 44 women and children. she was a senator from new york

state and senator thune even work with her in the senate. she's been secretary state under president obama and has worked for others all her life. there's been seven or eight investigations of the that ghazi tragedy. there were two of 911 and the reason for that is because the partisan house of representatives has its spent millions of dollars in who knows how me man-hours investigated secretary clinton trying to vilify her and after all those investigations they found nothing. senator thune said in a previous debate that the fbi director said his underlings at all recommended they can die to are quite the opposite is true. the fbi investigated secretary clinton and found she did no wrong. there is a lot of vilification of secretary clinton and i support her because i believe she is a good woman and not donald trump. >> i said there was reporting

that career investigators at the fbi disagree with that decision, but the point is still very clinton, whether you think she's a role model or knots did destroy 33000 e-mails after they had been subpoenaed. how many people in this room could get away with defying a subpoena? she literally took a hammer to two of her blackberries and crush them. she was described by fbi director: be asked extremely careless with classified information and that no other normal person would do the things that she did. she has repeatedly lied to the american people about that over and over again, so these are two candidates folks, there is no one here that will win a character contest and it is really down to whose policies would be better for south dakota and on that issue there is-- in my mind hillary clinton would be terrible for south dakota would it comes to economic policies, two judges she would put on the ur