frankly right now we've got to rebuild our military. i would like to see spend in it 4% of gdp on our military. we live in an increasingly dangers world. america needs to be prepared to respond, america has to assert leadership in the world and dramatically in my view underfunding american military today. and you can talk to any of the service chiefs, any of the -- anybody you talk to about the military and they will tell you the same thing. in terms of other places you can find savings, we have a huge bureaucracy. how about putting a hiring freeze in the bureaucracy? we have agencies that are driving up the costs making it more difficult and expensive to create jobs and grow this economy. i could start naming names but i'm out of time. [laughter] >> mr. williams. there are a lot of things we can do that about the last third spending. one of the things is look for waste and fraud, like right here

in south dakota our program eb5 program are with fraud it looks like. our representatives should be paying more attention to federal funds that come to our state to make sure there's no waste and fraud in them. in terms of the military, we have the strongest and best military in the history of the world, put more money in it now is not really a good idea, in fact, our military doesn't really even have the means to be audited. you know, shockingly $6.5 trillion of army expenditures the pentagon cannot account for. that doesn't mean it's being stolen, they don't have a way to do an audit of the military and that's what we should be doing. we should be auditing the huge military spending to make sure that there's not a lot of fraud and waste, you know. i'm a military veteran and i can tell you there are things that are wasted in our government -- in our federal budget in terms of the military. that's one place we can look hard and look hard. >> how would your proposals

protect for federal spending in any changes in government regulation, how would they help ignite or stagnant economy and promote jobs and promote prosperity? >> it doesn't matter where i go in south carolina, i go all over, small towns, big towns, farms, ranches, health care, financial services, the thing i hear the most is the cost of federal regulation is like a big wet blanket on this economy. lessening the avalanche is huge. major regulation and defined as regulation of $100 million a year economic impact or more. 600 new federal regulations, we ought to have a process, if you create a new one, you ought to be one in and one out. we ought to get rid of new

regulations and require congress to vote on every new major regulation, every regulation has 100 million-dollar impact on the economy or more because accumulative over the years it's a trillion dollars or $2,000 per family in this country. >> mr. williams. >> senator thune talks about regulations, regulations are the way the administrative branch of the government carries out the law that is are passed by the legislative part of the government. without laws, there wouldn't be regulations. so when congress passed laws we are going to have regulations an they don't happen by accident. there's a lot of time and energy and everybody gets to hear before they go into effect. if we want to grow the economy what we need to do is use the federal government to use infrastructure projects like the kind of project to use the clean energy that we have right here in south dakota and south dakota we have a lot of wind but we can't use -- harness that wind power and pas it all over the

country because we don't have the infrastructure. if we spend federal money on infrastructure, we could grow the economy, create new jobs and we would have a much better world and a cleaner world and that's something we have to do, we have to 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 it relates to the middle east, the threat from isis and the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding in syria, iraq and elsewhere, mr. thune? >> well, there are so many missteps along the way in the last eight years, the premature withdrawal from iraq, not enforcing the red line in syria, agreeing to a bad iranian nuclear agreement that has put us we are in a place where we don't have good options, but i will tell you is that in order

to defeat isis which is a immediate threat not only to that region but the entire world as we have seen here in the united states, we have to take the fight to them and there is a fight going on right now led by coalition partners, iraqis, kurdish forces and hopefully they'll be successful but then we have to defend the homeland. we have to make sure that we are vetting people who come in the country if we are going to protect our country against terrorist attack. that means that we have to have more aviation security measure, something i've worked as commerce committee, we have to give our intelligence community the tools they need to find these people to root them out of their lone wolf factors to defeat the enemy. >> mr. williams. >> there have been several missteps from the middle steps. those began with george w. bush who decided it was important to

use our military to invade iraq. that was in a time where iraq had a bad dictator anything. he couldn't fly his own airplanes, we had him totally contained. by golly, our military did it, they went through there like a knife through butter. more mistakes. the administration decided to use its own people instead of using iraqis to build iraq. as a result we have the mess that we have in the middle east. so we do have to address it. we have to address what's going on in the middle east. we are doing a good job of it right now, we are working with coalition partners, we are providing drone strikes and isis is being pushed back and, of course, we already took care of al-qaeda, it was president obama who did get osama bin laden, so we are doing the right things and i think we need to continue. >> mr. thune, you brought up military spending. let's take a closer look at

that. what's the sufficient level of military spending in order to ensure that we have the proper strength and readiness for military courses? >> well, a good benchmark historically i think is 4% of gdp. listen, folks, if you can't defend the country, if you don't get national security, the rest is conversation. we face threats not just in the middle east today, iran is on the virtue of acquiring a nuclear capability, russia is increasingly aggressive, they went to ukraine and annex crimea and china is provocative in the south china sea. there are threats all over the world. the world is in a dangerous place. i hope it doesn't happen but the eye has to be prepared to be able to project power in multiple areas if necessary at any given time and american leadership is essential. the world looks to us to lead and if we don't have the

military capability to be able to lead we are not going to be the leaders that the world need and so national security is a critical issue, military issue is critical. >> i am a veteran so i watch, specifically i watch navy, we have the most powerful military in the history of the world. just our navy, we have 11 carrier attack groups. three of them deployed around the world. three of them are on the way to relieve them and the other five are in r and r, prepare to go back out. we don't really need to increase military spending because we have this very strong military right now. unfortunately most -- a lot of our military spending has gone for weapon systems that are not necessarily useful weapon systems and they are wasteful. so i think increasing just increasing military spending, we do, however, live in a dangerous world and so we have to spend

resources on things like, you know, our cia and our undercover guy who is are going out and finding out what's going on in the world. we can't send an aircraft carrier into the middle of syria, we do have planes we can send in there but, you know, our military is plenty strong enough to defend us. >> you both agree that this is a dangerous world. how worried are you about the increase and the spread of nuclear weapons? >> well, very worried and, ewe know, that's why i say we have to modernize our nuclear capability. a lot of our nuclear weapons delivery systems, we need the next generation bomber hopefully will be bed down at air force base. they are currently working on that today at developmental stage. if we are going to stay ahead of adversaries, we have to be prepared to use that nuclear capability as deterrent and i am

worried about a rope nation like an iran acquiring a nuclear capability which they are on the path to have and then that creating nuclear proliferation in the middle east. if iran has one, the saudis are going to want one, the egyptians are going to want one. we need to be -- we need to be worried about what's happening in the threat of nuclear weapons and prepared for that and that's why we have to modernize our nuclear capability. >> mr. williams. >> the proliferation of weapons is the most serious threat we face today. the last thing we want to see a group get nuclear weapons. the head of israel came and talked and said iran is going to

have a nuclear weapon in one year, the united states went and negotiated with iran and got them to give up that nuclear capability at least for ten years. now, senator thune sent a letter saying to iran, don't negotiate with us. if i had done that as a young naval officer i would have been court marshaled. it's best to negotiate with people. right now iran is not going to have a nuclear weapon for at least ten years. .. is the

president didn't want to come to congress, he went to the united nations. normally this would be handled as a treaty. this president went to the united nations to get approval before consulting with the united states congress. >> we gave iran $150 billion of their money, to get them to come to the table and agree to this deal. it would have been a bad deal if we didn't have a deal, we would have been looking at an invasion, us troops, sons and daughters being killed. that is not the way we should do things. >> moderator: what is your assessment of trade policy specifically north american free trade agreement and propose transpacific partnership? thune: trade is an important issue in south dakota.

it is our number one industry. as a member of the senate agricultural committee i feel the dishes on a regular basis and ideal with the administration on a regular basis dealing with trade relationships in places around the world where we are trying to hold the market. trade deals negotiated in the past you can relitigate those, there are bad deals negotiated in the past but going into the future, when we negotiate these deals, agriculture has a seat at the table it is critical to american agriculture, south dakota agriculture, increased exports, get prices back at a federal level for farmers in south dakota. that means good deals on the front end and they have to be enforced. we can't disengage from the global marketplace because it is too important for south dakota's economy and america's economy. at the 20 i agree with john thune on this. the tpp is good for south dakota

and will export agricultural goods. in general i believe in free trade, one of the things that happened as the result of trade policies in place today, global extreme poverty, 30% down to 10%. as a people of the world it is a good thing. that is why i am in favor of free trade. the question i have is president obama negotiated the tpp deal and republicans control both houses of congress, why is that it hasn't been approved? the reason is we have a dysfunctional congress that won't get along. with negotiations, democratic president and it should have been approved. >> let's look deeper at

agriculture. trade policies, what is right or wrong with other us policies, in the largest industry. >> one thing i would argue, this will pertain to asia, that is why we are trying to negotiate barriers, they put in place barriers to products or commodities in this country. 90% use gm, there is nothing scientifically wrong with at. in europe and asia block american exports over that issue. and to protect local domestic industry. that is the purpose of the trade

agreement, opening markets for american producers, they have the most open market in the world, that is the purpose to tear the barriers down. >> mister williams? williams: we are in general agreement. it is blamed on trade, the country of origin labeling for our product, that is a real problem especially for producers in south dakota. when they look at the beef, the origin from brazil or south dakota, and they know when they buy beef in south dakota they know the quality they get. i don't mind brazil selling their beef, that is fine but consumers in the united states

should be allowed to know the difference. those are things, to make sure trade policies don't affect in a negative way. i am for free trade and the more free trade the better for the country, and the rest of the world. >> moderator: is global warming a real threat to our planet? is it an uncontrollable act of nature would do you think it could be addressed with environmental energy practices? thune: i think the climate is changing, it is changing all the time. it has been changing for thousands of years. the question of whether human activity contributes to that i don't know at what level but i will concede at some level it does. there is a lot of disagreement in the scientific community about how much was the question becomes what do we do about it and at what cost? in my view the best way to get a change in august, the hottest m

on record. 2016 will be easily the hottest year ever. we have to do something about it, do something now. it is not a matter of if. it is a matter of when. it is really great president obama is trying to address this issue. the worst we can save let's just wait until it is such a terrible issue we have to take draconian measures. >> moderator: we are halfway through the debate so we will reverse the speaking order, and we will let mister williams answer first. should construction of the dakota access pipeline proceed underneath the missouri river? do you foresee peaceful resolution to the protest, the

standoff, standing rock indian reservation? williams: i see a peaceful resolution, protests are a hallmark of the united states and dakota access pipeline, the fossil fuel infrastructure we don't need to do, we can move that fueled by rail and more dangerous than moving by pipeline and if you take a pipeline, put it under the missouri river, months or years. and the missouri river is flowing black, and we should start construction evident concentrate on infrastructure, to clean energy, that is the future of the country where we got to be. that is my position on the

dakota access pipeline. thune: the pipelines are safer than rail or trucks, the safest, cleanest, most effective and efficient way to move those, i am all for moving away from independence on fossil fuels but for the foreseeable future we need those and best way to move that is through pipelines and if you bring a pipeline to this part of the country, you have to go under a river. there are already 100 pipelines under the missouri river. there are millions, billions of miles of pipeline today, and more cost-effective when moving those products. with respect to what is happening i hope they can resolve it peacefully. i talked to the head of the office a couple days ago and i hope they can deal with this in a way where people are respectful of the right to protest and respectful of the

laws of the land. >> moderator: there are 500 recognized indian tribes in the united states including tween 9 in south dakota. how do you assess the condition of indian country and what do you see as the federal government's proper role in dealing with these sovereign nations and their people? williams: this is a major issue in south dakota. we have the two poorest counties in the united states in south dakota and that is not right. that is not the way it should be. the federal government has been trying to deal with this forever. back in high school they were trying to deal with it and they haven't found a way to do it and we need to get rid of the traditional politicians running congress today to put in guys like me with new ideas and ways to relate to our native american

population in south florida. makes up 9% of south dakota and we need to take a new look, find leaders in the native american population and help them find ways to get the projects to get behind and champion. going from fossil fuels to clean energy. thune: the long-term solution, i consult with tween 9 tribes multiple times every year, dozens of meetings with tribal leaders and numbers of the tribes out there. the thing that will change the way of life on reservations and improve standard of living is a private economy. we need a private economy that creates jobs and allows people to create wealth. right now there isn't much of a private economy. there are a few businesses on reservations but by and large

you are talking about -- by and large you are talking about an economy dependent on the federal government. that doesn't work. in the meantime, honoring treaty obligations with healthcare, education, a better future for kids on reservations and education, elementary and secondary and higher ed and i also think like i said before we have to make sure there is security, we have to have security, people need safety on reservations and elderly people and kids on reservations constantly living in fear. >> moderator: what aspect of the affordable care act should be retained and what should be scrapped? williams: the affordable care act is a major milestone in the united states. we have been trying since 1948 to get a national healthcare policy and finally the affordable care act, we did it.

it needs improvement, biggest room in the world is the room for improvement according to my high school band instructor. the affordable care act could be improved. one thing we could do is repeal it and start over. that is not a way to do anything. the affordable care act is using private health insurance to implement health care and has done great things. you can't be on health insurance and get sick and find out at the end you lost your health insurance, preexisting conditions don't exist anymore. it has done a lot of things that things need to be done and we can do them. we need to work together to improve the affordable care act instead of saying we want to repeal it. that is one of the problems we have with our dysfunctional congress. thune: this is a problem of liberal economics, central planning by federal government. defining what insurance

coverages and it hasn't worked. there are 30 million americans without insurance. the goal of obamacare eight years ago was everybody gets coverage, there are 30 million americans today without coverage and more losing coverage because of obamacare, and individual markets, talk to a bunch of them, who are losing their coverage. bill clinton has said obamacare has doubled premiums for people, have their coverage, greatest thing i have ever seen, the liberal government next door, mark davis, said the affordable care act is no longer affordable. we need to go to a different model that needs to be repealed and we need to put reforms in place that will drive down the cost, and make insurance coverage more accessible and more affordable to more people.

>> moderator: what is your stand on us immigration policy? security, enforcement, deportation and amnesty? >> 15 million americans having health insurance than they did before. and just repealing it, in terms of immigration, we are a country of immigrants, that is what makes us great blues not the we are homogeneous but heterogeneous. we have people and religion and cultures from all over the world joined together to make the greatest country the world has ever seen. immigration is a good thing for us. we need to make sure immigrants that come here are not wishing arm, of course we do. that is not where we are facing issues. 9/11 was caused by people who were not us citizens but they were here legally. what we have to worry about is the hate being in the united states. in kansas, last week, a hate

group blowing up an entire somali community, that is a real problem. immigration is a good thing for the united states. thune: my grandfather and great uncle came here in 1906. this is a nation of immigrants. we have been a welcoming nation, always have been. i also know people need to follow the law. any discussion of immigration has to start with enforcement first. we can't talk about people here legally until we convince the american people we can secure the border. secure the border creating biometric exit entry program after these and overstay visas so we can track the man's we got to make sure we have a venting system for people particularly talking about the refugee population coming in, that there are people who will do us harm.

enforcement first. we want a verify system in the workplace so people here working in the economy are here legally. we are a nation of laws and immigrants and we need to figure out how to strike that balance. you can do that when you enforce the laws on the books. >> moderator: the issue of refugees specifically from the middle east, and the humanitarian crises, in aleppo, we begin with mister williams. >> moderator: p the question please. >> moderator: i hope that wasn't too confusing. what about refugees? williams: we are a nation of immigrants and refugees, that is a strong component, presidential republican platform of president

eisenhower, and accept refugees. we need to do that which most of these refugees, we already have a great vetting program for our refugees which we haven't had any refugees that have done any terror attacks in the united states but the united states does accept refugees, that is the character of the united states, to help those who are in need. refugees, these are people sitting in war zones being bombed, can't live in their homes anymore. the united states is a place of last resort for them. we should do what we can to help refugees so i am in favor of refugees and agree they should be vetted. thune: we accept more refugees in the united states every year than all the other nations of the world combined so we are

doing, we are a welcoming nation and trying to welcome people in this country but we have to make sure in light of what is happening in the middle east in terms of radicalization of people in this country that when people come here particularly from a region of the world where there are terrorist organizations operating, the head of the department of national intelligence, and fbi director testified in front of congress, there are gaps in the system, and we have a vetting system will ensure people in the population do us harm. what we need to do is make sure, we are vetting people in a way to protect the american people from someone who will do us harm. they are infiltrating the refugee population, high on the

list. >> moderator: the cost of higher education spiraled in the last decade, student loan debt in the united states has grown to one$.2 trillion. should access to public education extend beyond high school and what, if anything, should the federal government do to address soaring student debt? jay williams soaring debt, citibank or any large banks borrow it, 1% interest. of student goes he has to pay 7%. the first thing we can do with lower interest rates for college students. as far as free public education that is another great american tradition. free public education through k-12 forever. we have higher education,

california did it and kentucky starting to do it as well. high school education isn't quite enough, it is a good idea to consider public education in terms of tuition to extend beyond high school. two years seems reasonable to start but maybe, that is an important thing to do. education will drive a economy into the future. thune: you want to make college education expensive make it tuition free because cost will go up, weight and see. this is a result of legislation we pass to congress the last couple years, 3.76%, came up the hard way, you ask about characteristics of your self, i

am somebody -- work and effort, earning your way. those are all things that are important about this country. anyone willing to work hard deserves possibility of a college education and that is why we need incentives, affordable student loans, i helped get reauthorized at the end of the last year helping 4000 low-income students get to $5500 a year toward their education, strengthen those programs but the idea to make it free to everybody to me goes against what we are as a culture. >> moderator: if and when you vote on a presidential nominee to the supreme court what criteria will you use to reach your decision? williams: if i were elected to the senate i pledge that i will

indeed provide the advice and consent the constitution requires. i won't wait until the next election and our current congress does. when i look at a supreme court justice what i am looking for is a man who is a fair-minded person. i don't litmus tests are good way to go for supreme court nominee. you can't enforce them. once they are on the court you can't enforce litmus tests, you look at it jurist and say is he a fair man? does he listen to the argument? what are the decisions he has rendered? do those decisions make sense? that is what i would look for no matter whether it came from a republican or democratic president but i do pledge i will always give them a hearing. ..

people in this country have the right to defend themselves. we shouldn't trifle with it.

but we need to make sure we do everything we can to address what is the fundamental problem. that is mental health. >> moderator: the first amendment protects freedom of expression. is the bill of rights too permissive in allowing what some people consider to be offensive, hateful speech and unpatriotic forms of protest such as flag burning? mr. williams? >> i do not believe the bill of rights is too permissive. i believe the bill of rights is fundamental part of america once again. i believe those fundamental rights have to exist. one of those things is the right to protest. so, even though it is may not be likeable to me. i don't like to see somebody burning a flag but i believe they have the right to do that kind of thing. you know, that is our whole country is based on the freedoms that we get from the first 10 amendments to the constitution, the bill of rights. you know the second amendment, i agree on that. the first amendment, i agree with that even more.

the first amendment gives us the free press that we have. the idea of trying to sue journalists for doing their jobs, for libel, that kind of thing, i'm against that. freedom is what we're all about, the first amendment lists first of our basic freedoms. you don't have unlimited freedom to yell fire in crowded theater but you have the right to do peaceful protests. >> moderator: mr. thune. >> i think that is what another amazing, amazing thing about our country. the first amendment, the right of speech. the right of expression. free press. those are things that are, make america a model and envy of the world when it comes to our democracy. so, yeah, i think we, we need to make sure that people protest in a non-violent, peaceful way. we need to make sure that law enforcement respects the right of people to protest. those are both things that we need to insure happening in this country.

and, there are some things. for example, flag burning. i worked with the vfw. i worked with the american legion in this state four years on an amendment to the constitution that would ban flag burning. it would take amendment to the constitution. i realize that would be very hard to make happen, that is something so sacred to the people that defended our country and our freedoms, that is an area i think actually could be a restriction. >> moderator: both of you have been vocal critics of donald trump yet john thune, you have said that you will still vote for mr. trump. jay williams, you have been consistent, enthusiastic supporter of secretary clinton. how does your choice align with your values, your policy positions and your vision for the country? >> well, i believe secretary clinton is a principled person. she spent her entire adult life working forwomen and children. she was a senator from new york,

new york state. senator thune even worked with her in the senate. she has been a secretary of state under president obama. she worked for others all her life. there has been seven or eight investigations of the benghazi tragedy. there were two of 9/11. the reason for that is because the partisan house of representatives has spent millions of dollars and who knows how many -- man-hours investigating secretary clinton how to vilify her. after all those investigations they found nothing. senator thune said in previous debate that fbi director comey said his underlings recommended they indict him. quite the opposite is true. the fbi investigated secretary clinton and found she did no wrong. so there has been a lot of vilification of secretary clinton. i support her because i believe she is principled woman and she is not donald trump. >> i didn't say, there was reporting that there were people, career investigators at

fbi who disagreed with that investigation. but the point is, hillary clinton, whether you think she is a role model or not, did destroy 33,000 emails after they had been subpoenaed. how many people in this room could get away with defying a subpoena to keep those emails? she literally took a hammer to two of her blackberrys and crushed him. she was described by fbi director comey as 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 flawed candidates, folks. there is nobody here who will win a character contest. it comes down to whose policies will be best for south dakota, on that issue there is no, in my mind hillary clinton would be terrible for south dakota when it comes to economic policies, when it comes to judges she would put on the court and but these are the choices that we're left with.

>> moderator: these are divisive times in our nation. are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of these united states, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election and for the greater good are you hopeful that the polarized american electorate will accept and unite behind the new president? mr. williams? >> well as you probably can tell i am an optimist. i'm optimistic about the united states of america which i love and the greatest country in the world. i am optimistic. there is lot of polarization. that is the crux of the problem. our congress is populated entirely with career politicians. that is what i'm not. i'm opposite of that. i have never been elected to a political office but i am here offering myself to go to washington and to try to change that gridlock that exists there. so i think that is the problem. when we pole rise -- there are both sides the way we say it is my way or no way. that is not a good thing.

i am not beholden to a political party. i'm not beholden to special interest groups or to large donors. i'm beholden to the voters of south dakota. i think if we could elect representatives like me we could address these problems and we can make the united states better than it even is now. despite the fact it is greatest country in the world. unfortunately the republican presidential nominee doesn't agree with any of that. >> moderator: mr. thune. >> i'm very bullish on the country. we are a great country made up of great people and with the right policies we can be better and greater. i hope when the election is all said and done and smoke clears and dust settles we can work together. i will do that i have done that my entire time in office. i stood up to presidents who i thought were trying to do things bad for south dakota. i worked with presidents when i felt like they were doing good things for south dakota. we need people willing to build bridges and relationships and get results. my whole career has been built

around getting results for people of south dakota. i chair a committee called commerce, science, transportation city. it has jurisdiction over planes, trains, automobiles and internet technology. ranking democrat on my committee, bill nelson, joined me last week in rapid city. we voice stead underground lab. we worked together to pass numerous bills through congress last year, because of the approach we bring. i think commerce committee could be a model for a lot of other committees in the congress. the fact of the matter challenges are too great. we have to work together for the good of the american people. i always will do that, i always have and put south dakota first. >> moderator: we end the forum with two minute closing statements. in the past hour we discussed 24 different subjects. based on what you have expressed and what you have heard your opponent express, why should the voters of south dakota elect you to serve in the united states senate? mr. williams? >> i like to thank you, jack,

and the rotary club here and senator thune as well for the spirited debate i would say. i'm a fourth generation south dakota tan, raised on a farm in north central south dakota. i'm u.s. navy veteran and as navy pilot i served in the europe and u.s. i am veteran of peace corps. i served in south america after volunteering with the peace corps. i have a ba from the university of wisconsin and masters degree in computer science from. i worked for tex instruments in dallas, texas and two different high-tech software companies out in silicon valley in california during the height of the computer revolution. 30 years ago, my waive carol and i our three children moved back to south dakota to start a high-tech business right here. last 30 years i've been operating that business and serving my community. on school board i was president

of our rotary club down there. i know about rotary and i do love rotary. those traits, if you can tell from my experience i am not a career politician. i'm quite the opposite. i have a lot of background. almost everybody who i meet i can find something in common with. that is the trait that allows me, will allow me, if elected to go to washington to work with other people and to get things done. you know, it's a real problem we have right now with this polarization in this country. i'm not bee holden to the democratic party. certainly not to the republican party but you know in the 1990s, i was a republican. so i'm kind of guy who works with lots of different ideas and thoughts. i can work with people and i can work together. i think why november 8th, you should vote for me. if you're early voting vote for me as well. i appreciate the opportunity. i look forward to another debate with senator thune tonight on ksfi television. thanks again. >> moderator: mr. thune. >> thank you, jack.

thank you rotarianns and thanks for the opportunity to discuss issues. every election in my opinion is about the future. some of you heard i just had a granddaughter five weeks ago. it makes you more keenly aware of the things that we do, decisions we make and what they will do to shape the future those kids and grandkids will live in. elections are about differences. we have stark differences how we approach issues. one thing i will tell you that we have big challenges facing this country, on the economic front, domestic front, national security. we're going to need a strong voice in washington, d.c. and i have proven in the time i've been in office, that i am somebody who knows how to get things done. as i mentioned, i chair the come blesser science and transportation committee in the congress, in the senate. i serve on the finance committee. which has jurisdiction over health care, taxes, trade, social security. i serve on the ag, committee, our state's number one industry.

i worked on all the committees to put policies and legislation in place that are good for south dakota. we've seen a lot of success, in this polarized toxic environment everybody talks about, when you get past all the cable news anchors shouting at each other we chalked up wins for south dakota. we passed first freight rail reforms in two decades. we passed aviation reforms first time in eight years. we passed a pipeline safety bill. we passed technology bills. all out of the commerce committee, reported to the floor of the united states. passed to the house, sent to the president, signed into law. we're getting results for people of south dakota. there is a lot more to do. this economy is sputtering, it is stagnant. we need faster growth, better-paying jobs in our economy. we do things well in south dakota, thankfully to a lot of people in this room we need to take the same kind of common sense to washington, d.c.

and get this country moving in a different direction. i'm asking for your vote on november the 8th. thank you. >> moderator: for their economistment and desire to serve our state and our nation, please join me thanking the candidates. republican u.s. senator john thune and democratic u.s. senate candidate jay williams. [applause] >> c-span brings you more debates this week from key u.s. house, senate and governors races. tonight 8:00 eastern on c-span, the georgia senate debate between republican senator johnny isakson, democratic challenger, jim barksdale and libertarian allen buckley. rick nolan and stuart mills debate from minnesota's 8th district seat. at 9:30, a debate for colorado's 6th congressional district between republican

representative mike kaufman and morgan carroll. saturday night at 10:00 on c-span, pennsylvania senate debate between republican senator pat toomey and democrat, katie mcguilty. and at midnight on c-span, the north carolina governors debate between republican governor pat mccrory, democrat roy cooper and libertarian. lon cecil. watch key debates from house, senate and governors races on c-span networks, c-span.org, and listen on the c-span radio app. c-span where history unfolds daily. >> kicking off in about an hour legacy of former british prime minister winston churchill. the first panel focuses on mr. churchhill and his relationship with u.s. presidents. coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern. until then a debate between

incumbent congressman trey gowdy and democrat chris fedalei in south carolina's fourth congressional district. >> a representative democracy requires deliberation. we'll be talking a little bit more about james madison later in the program. i did give the candidates a head's up that james madison would be on the program. i will catch you folks up to speed. presumably they have already done the reading. we have to be able to have deliberation and substantive exchanges of ideas to reconcile competing views we have in a democracy. we don't all agree with each other all the time or sometimes even most of the time. and so we've got to be able to have conversations that allow us to explore what's in the national interests, not just what is in our own self-interest. i hope this evening's experiment will help us do a little bit of that. we're happy to have four of the

congressional candidates for senate in the fourth congressional district with us. we have mr. chris fedalei. congressman trey gowdy, republican who currently holds the fourth congressional district seat. we have with us, i will introduce them in a little bit, pastor thomas dixon, democratic challenger for the senate race in south carolina and senator tim scott, the republican who currently holds that seat. our format this evening will be 40 minute segments where we have just two house candidates. i will be asking them a variety of questions about issues. then we'll have 40 minutes with the two senate candidates and then we'll have 20 minutes with everyone all together. we'll try to divide it up a little bit. they have all agreed to abide by same standard i require of my students in class discussion. they can agree, they, i would be

thrilled if they agree. they can disagree, do so passionately, but must do so respectfully. they will not monopolize the conversation. i do not have firm time limits here. you don't time each other in a conversation but they will not monopolize the conversation. and under no circumstances will they talk over each other. should they fail to abide by these standards, it will result in stern glares, and warnings, and no doubt a reintroduction of their participation grades for the evening. [laughter]. i will let you know how they did at the end. questions tonight have come from a variety of sources. i have actively asked for groups on campus a variety of student groups and groups in the community to send me their questions. i have encouraged individuals to send me questions. i have received numerous emails from folks in the community, suggesting questions. i have been accosted by lovely

elderly ladies in the grocery store who told me what i needed to ask them. i will not be able to ask all of these questions but i have tried to get ones that seemed most relevant to congress. so no, they're not going to tell you how to fix potholes in south carolina. sorry, that will stay for another day with state legislators but we will see how many of these issues we can cover this evening. so welcome to our house candidates. thank you, gentlemen, for being here. >> thank you for having us. >> moderator: as i mentioned there are a variety of topics i want to cover. i want you two to focus on something your campaigns told me are important to each of you. the campaign sent me two issues that were important to each campaign. i trust that your staff consulted with you on this and this won't be a surprise. if it is you can feel free to call them out right here and now. all right. mr. fedalei, i will start with you. one of issues you're concerned

about, trans-pacific partnership agreement, with 12 nations and u.s. and particularly the impact on american workers. tell me a little bit about your concerns there and what you as a member of congress would do on this issue. >> that's right. thank you again for having us tonight. good to be all of you. trade is hot button issue. a source of agreement between two presidential candidates. they're both united in their opposition against the trans-pacific partnership. this deal is one that was negotiated in secret, and was negotiated without the interests of american worker at heart. to me that's a fundamental flaw. because of that you have a trade deal less about free trade between countries and more about special interest gifts embedded in very large, very complicated trade deal. because of the trade promotion authority would go through congress without one minute of debate on extremely

consequential trade deal. to me that is fundamental flaw at a time when people trust their government and less satisfied with congress than ever before, it is incredibly important we actually have debate in the people's house on such a complicated, important trade deal. it is one that would hurt american wages. it's one that would allow foreign companies to sue the american government because of issues they don't like because of our own congress's efforts to protect our people and it undermines our sovereignty as a result. it's a bad deal and one i'm not supporting. >> moderator: i'm assuming if were elected to congress you would vote against the tray deal? >> that's correct. >> moderator: would you like to respond and i have a follow up if you don't want to follow up. >> thank you, professor for doing this chris, thank you everyone who is here tonight for participating. i would be remiss if we had an event at fuhrman university discussing civility and substance and public discourse without acknowledging the man

for whom the government school is named, governor dick riley, who has personified civility for his entire time in public service. with respect to tpp, chris and i agreed. tim and i voted for it. pa because we wanted you to read it. pp. now that you read it, which surmised reached same conclusion the two of us have reached it is not in america's best interest. but i would caution you to keep this in mind. we are in one of the most trade investment districts in entire country. general counsel of michelin, law school classmate. bmw. ge do not sell gas ture pines in spartanburg. they sell them overseas. we're a trade intensive district. we benefit from trade. it has to be fair for the american worker. tpp is not. why both major presidential candidates are opposed to it,

which it will not come before the house this year. if it did i would vote no. >> moderator: let me play devil's advocate for a minute. two things. one, if we don't do tpp does this affect us negatively in terms of our political influence in the region? is that a risk, a cost we're willing to bear? is that a cost we're willing to acknowledge? >> well certainly a -- well, i don't want, i am nervous about getting a bad grade. >> you're fine. i will give him a chance. go. >> go ahead, congressman. >> yes, which is why you negotiate these trade agreements in the first place because, nature abhores a vacuum and if the united states is not trading with our, with our friends in the pacific, then china will. that's why we rush to negotiate this trade deal, is because if we stand down, china will move in to our place. so there are trade

considerations. there are geopolitical considerations. but the first rule of thumb should be, even separate, apart from the geopolitical considerations, is it in our workers best interests? they did renegotiate some of the textile provisions. i give them credit. textile is still alive and well in south carolina. they renegotiated the yarn rule. it is still not good enough to support. maybe we need to go back to the bargaining table. i don't want china to establish relationships to exclusivity of the united states but i'm also not willing to sign a trade deal just because of a fear that china will step into the vacuum. >> yeah, and certainly one of the important things to remember is that most of these countries are already, our trade partners. the majority of them have already signed into the world trade organization which requires member countries to abide by a series of free trade principles and policies. that is why tpp is not what it

is billed to be and not factually in the interests of the american worker because it is not again about necessarily improving our trade relationships but it's about a series of special interests write-ins. this deal was negotiated in secret by a bunch of corporate attorneys that don't really care about the american worker and that is why it is not in our interest. >> moderator: i will resist the urge to talk about why the deals are made in secret. the constitution was written in secret but i get your point. >> that is our job at representatives to make sure. >> moderator: let's go to different issue. congressman gowdy, one of the issues your staff told me was very important to you is criminal justice reform. what should congress be doing on that? >> we have a good head start. we've been meeting about a year in secret, i'm afraid to say. but i'll tell you why it has been in secret. it won't be a secret anymore. cory booker is someone that i have tremendous respect for. i consider him to be a friend.

it is not easy for democrat senator from new jersey to admit to being friends with a republican congressman from south carolina. so we go to dinner and we discuss it. tim scott is sitting right there and hakeem jeffries and bobby scott. been to the white house twice, which is not in either president obama or my best interest to admit to but i've been to the white house twice on criminal justice reform. we have incarcerated young black males bawls of a acre yo between cocaine powder and cocaine base that defies any rational explanation. the punishment for cocaine base, known as crack cocaines was 100 times severe than cocaine powder. you know the difference between cocaine base and cocaine powder? baking soda. what is it about baking soda is 100 times more deleterious,

currently 18 times? i spent 16 years in in the criminal justice system. overarching of state government is public safety and overarching of the federal government is national security. i will take a back seat to know one on safety and security of our dellow citizens. what we're doing in war on drugs is not working. people lost confidence in the criminal justice as evidence nightly news almost every night. i'm proud of this friend on the front row decided, let's get faith leaders, faith leaders and law enforcement all across south carolina together to see what we can do as a south carolina solution. we're doing it nationally, professor but as you know the overwhelming majority of crime is state, state crime. when i was a state prosecutor we had 10,000 cases a year! as a federal prosecutor they gave you award if you did 100 a year. overarching majority of the crime is state. which is why the remedy ought to be state but fine for us to look

at it in congress. that's what we've been doing for 12 months. >> moderator: response to any of that or offer? >> i absolutely would love to, criminal justice reform is the number one issue of our campaign. there is a reason for that. this is a massive injustice that has been going on in our country for much longer than a year. since this has been going on for decades where we disproportionately incarcerate millions of black and brown men for crimes they don't need to be in prison for first place and sentence them under mandatory minimums causes them to essentially have a life destroyed for something you shouldn't be in prison for in the first place. that's number one. number two, it is the fact this has been going on for so long, you know, it really shouldn't be a surprise. i'm surprised that 12 months ago was the first time you decided to work on this, this has been going on in our country for decades. this is not the first generation to suffer from disproportionate sentencing, from disproportionate incarceration. if you have an ear to the ground, if you understand people here, you know this has been an

issue in the community for decades under democratic and republican president with tough on crime bills. increasing escalating war on drugs. that does not help anyone an cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year and we don't get anything for it. we don't get safer streets. we don't get lower drug use rates. what we do get is a massive source of government waste and a massive injustice perpetrated across this country for generations, not just one and not just in the past 12 months. [applause] >> moderator: go ahead. go ahead. >> i agree it is not a new issue and in 1997 is the very first time i said no to mandatory minimums in drug cases. you may have been in elementary school in 1997. no offense to you. i was wish i was young as you are. i was a federal prosecutor.

it wasn't popular back then to be opposed to mandatory minimums. with respect to what we've done over the last year, i will remind you, democrats had the house, senate and white house from 2008 to 2010. they did not lift a finger on criminal justice reform for two years. not a single bill was introduced, for two years when they had the control of all the years of government. it is only been in the last year that the president invited us to the white house to discuss criminal justice reform. so i'm not a johnny-come-lately to the issue. i am a johnny-come-lately to the white house. that is when i was invited. [applause] >> congressman referenced two years the democrats were in control of the house. but how about the six years since then? not like been in position of disadvantage when it comes to the power and ability to introduce bills. if congress wanted to make this a priority they would. simple fact congress made

nothing done a priority. there is reason 13% approval rate for this congress. one that is well-deserved frankly. you have a historically unproductive congress with historically low approval rating. and you know, let me put it this way. there aren't a whole lot of jobs where you can work 2/3 of the year, not get anything done, collect six-figure salary. >> moderator: i will interrupt you. we're coming that issue later in the program when everybody is on stage. i want to hold off. >> that is perfect illustration. >> moderator: hold that thought. all right. i want to follow up a little bit, i'm looking at my watch, trying to figure out how many of these issues i can fit in. this is one a lot of students asked me about, so still in criminal justice vein of things and i heard so many students expressing frustration with this i want to raise it with both of you. students right now have been talking to me a lot about concerns about institutional

racism within the criminal justice system. and particularly where we're hearing most about that from their perspective is the high-profile cases where it appears that there has been disproportionate use of force by police officers, particularly against african-american young men. and so i want to know from you, is there anything that congress can do in addressing that issue, understanding that a lot of law enforcement is done at the state level as you pointed out earlier? is there a role for congress to play as we look at some of these kinds of issues of police training and community policing that congress or the national government could help encourage or direct? >> well i would start off by saying that there is a lot that the congress can do to address this issue. if they wanted to make it a priority and could have would have done long ago when we knew it was issue. it is troubling to me because on

one hand we ask police officers to do too much. one of the common things i hear when i talk to law enforcement officers they have to be not only a cop, but they have to be a social worker, they have to be a psychiatrist, they have to be a guidance counselor, all rolled into one. and part of the problem with that is that we have failing schools. we don't educate, we don't treat our children well enough for them to get on the right track and stay on the right track. also we slashed mental health care funding. . .

and also promote policies like community policing which is so important because the best and most effective officers are those who are liked and not feared. >> i know we're not getting -- [applause] >> i know we're not getting that until the last segment but i can't help, we're talking about education which is a state matter. we're talking criminal justice system 90% of which is a state matter and mental health, the bulk of which of the fun is provided for the state level. i get congress is not popular at a get there's a tendency to want to blame us for everything but state and local law enforcement is not a function of congress. the fbi yes.

atf, ea yes. there's only one person on the stages of her prosecutor to a law-enforcement officer. that would be me. there are bad apples in every profession. they are even bad lawyers, chris. believe it or not. they are bad everything which is why we are going around the state-run to get people safe, states a law-enforcement to work together. i find it interesting, i assume you agree to by law enforcement when you got here tonight. i know i was. we trust them to provide security for us at every level of our life from the moment we got out of our truck tonight until the moment we leave this campus, we trust law enforcement. the last time i was at a firm in was to bury a law-enforcement officer, alan jacobs field with your, and thank you to ferment to opening their arms to him and his silly. so yes, i support law enforcement.

i think there are to be more training, but that's a state issue. it's not a congressional issue if you're not talking about federal law enforcement. >> i want to fall but because that is, i asked the question explicitly is there a role for congress. you seem to think it is but what exactly do you think congress should be doing? >> congress biggest and most brought power is the power of the person believe it or not congress does put a very large role in education it was a great role in mental health care. you have to keep in mind the importance of the federal government leadership on issues. we've had many times in history where it was the federal government does able to take the role instead of for something that's right in the principles we really stand for as a country. empower and law enforcement, we can provide more mental health care funding and better turning. we can provide grants and to send programs to local enforcement for extended training, more in depth training that will empower them to do

their jobs in a way that is beneficial to both their own safety and the communities and relationship with the communities they work with. [applause] >> i'm looking forward to that portion of the discussion where we talked about the debt. we are $20 trillion in debt and everything you just mentioned is -- [applause] i will agree with you that the federal government has led in a thousand most significant issues in our culture. i will tell you south carolina has led, too. when nine of our fellow citizens were murdered in charleston it was those nine family members, those nine families that led the nation in grace and humanity and forgiveness. so south carolina can lead. it doesn't always have to be the federal government. every once in a while it can be a state. when it comes to race relations and law enforcement, what happened when walter scott was

shot in charleston? he is charged with murder which is the most serious thing you can be charged with in the state of south carolina knows exactly the right choice. so south carolina can lead. it doesn't have to be the federal government. every now and again it can be a state. [applause] >> i want to shift gears a little bit and turned to an issue that's been largely absent from the presidential campaign, though it has been a persistent issue for a number of years, and that is a long-term health of social security. latest projections are that if we change nothing about our current system, the government will be able to pay only about 79% of benefits beginning around 2034, 18 years from now, in time for me to retire. i have a vested interest in your answer. are there specific measures, not asking you to solve all of social security right now, but

are there specific measures that you would be willing to support to provide for the long-term sustainability of social security? >> social security is a program that helps millions of americans and we need to make sure that we did everything to preserve and protect it. we are not going to cut benefits and we not going to raise the age to qualify for social security. this is a promise we made to our fellow citizens. what we can do is remove the caps on the payroll taxes that fund social security which if we did would make us solving, period. considering how complicated the problem is, it's amazing to me that to me what seems like a logical sensible thing to do, that's just and fair to the promises we kept our seniors, and yet congress has still failed to do. six years as longtime to not do anything and considering so many millions of americans are asking

the same question, will social security be there when i retire? unsurprised congress has not made it a larger priority, given organizations have advocated so firmly and i've met with these people that volunteer their time to protect this program that they're planning on, relying on. >> chris, if you think six years as longtime, how about a? that's how long the president has been in the white house. he's never proposed any remedy for social security. it's politically not popular so i'll do something else that's political not popular. i will tell you the truth. a government big enough to keep its promise for seniors ought to be good enough to tell young people the truth and the truth is this. when social security went into effect there were 16 workers for every recipient. 16 workers for every recipient. by the time the students at ferment become eligible for social security there will be

two workers for every recipient. so i'm fine raising the cap, but you also have to raise the retirement age. you're so the good news. we are living longer. we should celebrate that. when social security went into effect the life expectancy for black males was less than their eligibility age. talk about allows a retirement plan, you were going to die before you are eligible to draw your retirement. thank god we are living longer. life expectancy for women is 80 years. so i would ask the young people, are you willing to work six more months, nine more months? are you willing to make am unwilling to work another year. i'm willing to work another year if it means it is solvent for you. others -- social security disability, and the disability has gone up exponentially in the last 20 years.

i want you to think of this. there is an advocate for the climate enduring really counts is also to be disability. there is to advocate for the taxpayer in the hearing room. which is why certain districts in west virginia there's a 99% approval rate. for social security disability. 99. that's where i think you can see some waste and fraud and abuse reductions. i am fine with raising the amount, the capital what i contribute to social security if it will make it solvent for the young people out there, and i'm sure they will be willing to work six more months to make it solvent for their kids and their grandkids. [applause] >> i'm relieved he said was only six months would have to work. i was afraid i would have to work in july was a deep. all right, let's talk a little about immigration. that has been an issue in the

current presidential campaign. the senate has passed or had passed in 2013 i think the last time we saw this really comprehensively addressed in congress, the senate tried to pass bipartisan immigration bills that had a substantial resources for border security and a pathway to legality for most of the 11 million undocumented workers in the u.s. at that point. it had a lot of other stuff in as well. it passed the senate. it got to the house and the house definitely started discussing it. i know you are part of some of those discussions so i'm going to start with you on this. the house wasn't able to reach agreement on bills, and they want to know in an ideal world, this question left to park and you're both getting both parts but we will start with part one. in an ideal world what would you like to see on immigration reform? whatever you want, you can get it through congress and the president will sign it.

>> that will require a different form of government but i'm willing -- >> ideal world. i didn't say was anyone's ideal. it's your ideal world. >> you give me a promotion i will never get so i want to take advantage of it. the first objective is let's assume the 11 million to the first objective is to make sure the number 11 million doesn't go up. if there are 11 people come 11 million people undocumented in this country, i think obligation never one to us as a country's make sure that number doesn't go up which meant border security comment by the way we have to borders, and interior security. over half the people who are not here legally did not cross any borders. we invited them. they just did leave when they were supposed to leave. so make sure the 11 million doesn't go off. border security, interior security. that is not an immigration issue. that's a national security issue. i don't think a sovereign country should have to apologize for knowing it was coming and going from its country.

so security number one. number two, number two, with the 11 million you have to come forward. you have to let us know who you are. and if you cannot pass a background check, one of the problems with the senate bill is you could have committed an act of domestic violence which south carolina by the way fleets of the nation in men telling women, you can commit an act of domestic violence and still be on the path to citizenship. so now, i'm not going to support that. i will support a rigorous background check and, and i need to know that you're willing to assimilate the you don't have to be, uniform much up to assimilate into our values. so with the 11 to make sure the number doesn't go up. border security come into security. pass a background check. you have to come forward. if you have been convicted of a crime, you have forfeited your right to stay in this country.

and think it countries that were not take back their foreign nationals to take them back or cut off the foreign aid. you will be stunned at the number of countries that will not take back therefore national that we want to deport because of some removable proceeding. so security first, then we will deal with the 11 billion. i find wit with a path to legal status but i'm not going to jump people ahead of others have waited in line and dennis away this country asked them to do. i'm just not going to jump ahead of them. [applause] >> i think it's funny because you asked in a preferable if we were able to do something about it, the president will sign it and everything, one of us has been in a position to do something about it, a very powerful very consequential position for years on end, and that is to be the chairman of the house subcommittee on immigration. [applause] i mean, it's amazing, you don't

get that on the back because we are in power and we didn't really think the senate has raised the bill that the menus for for president marco rubio before you supported donald kohn, meaning result republicans supported a. we had company is immigration reform. the fact that we're still talking about this issue today is not, is because people in congress failed to do their job, failed to chill work on these issues that really matter to people. and yes speed what are you going to do? >> because the same provisions that we talked about. obviouslyabout. obviously, we need to secure the border nobody disagrees about thathat is the real question and the bigger question is how and what of the going to do with those 11 million? >> what would you do with in? >> i think there needs to be a path to legal status. i've and lifelong soccer with the happened to interact and grow up and become friends with many people who are undocumented. these are some of the hardest

working, the most dedicated in the most intelligent people that embodieembody everything americl that we ask of our citizens. people -- [applause] people that want to work hard, they want to come forward, they want to go ou come out of the ss but until we pass comprehensive immigration reform they will feel locked away to isolated. they were not able to join like they want to unlike we should want them to because at the end of the day this nation was founded b by immigrants. tri-county's ancestors, my answers at all came from somewhere else. for us to turn our back on our legacy and value at this but because of fear and division is not who we are as a country. [applause] spoke with all due respect i would substitute for fear and division, respect for the rule of law. that is the foundation of this country. so for all the folks who did it

the way we asked them to, for you to subvert them and suffocate them and put them behind people who broke the rules and came unlawfully, not going to do it. and yet you can talk about my stitches in congress. you can talk about all you want to in just under chairman of the immigration subcommittee. i wish we had had the need of fewer hearings on oversight of this administration failure to remove people. i wish we had no that taken so h time having to figure out what the president but prosecutorial discretion not you had the congress and the white house from '08 to 2010. can you find immigration reform bill that the democrats introduced? do you know wha where it is? it doesn't exist. from '08 to 2010 to i'll tell you why, professor. they don't want a solution. they benefit. they benefit from this question. if the president wanted a solution, he had from '08 to 2010. wendy davis was dodd-frank in the aca. he didn't lift a finger on criminal justice reform or

immigration reform. [applause] >> let's stay focused please on what you will do in congress. we've got a whole nother race going on about what we will do with the president. >> yes, ma'am. >> second part of my question, this issue can contemplate will but because you ideal world is now gone. you're back in reality. you've got to do with the other party, whichever party budget got to do with the other party. you may even have to deal with a president of the opposing party. so whatever you pass us to get through the senate, which is a matter what happens this year it's going to be divided. you may have to deal with the president of the opposing party. what compromises are you willing to make on immigration that might get passed the senate and the president? >> welcome of want to copy but chris.

was actually departed from the democrat mantra, which is citizenship to decent pass legal status. when secretary castro testified before the judiciary committee, he said immigration, period, even if they don't want it. that is the political and you. think about that. we're going to make people don't want to come to the united states citizens who sold what legal status, w we're going to make and become citizens. that is a political answer. so the middle ground between citizenship and merely a work permit is legal status. pass the legal status but, frankly, professor wood comes to border security and injury security i'm not going to come from is because those are the preeminent function of government. quite frankly you shouldn't have to negotiate when comes to border security. that should not be a bargaining chip that you use in a broader immigration debate. that is what sovereign, i think there's a fence around for but a

sovereign entity should not have to apologize for who was coming and going. >> an excellent question and get back in a minute, is border borr security issue and in tulsa could issue them is this a matter of resources? >> it's a matter of will. let's go with these overstays. >> i'm asking because of the senate bill of which would provide a tremendous amount of resources in terms of increased border personnel, and that was a sticking point and now for some people, but for others it was a question of passed the legality versus round them up and send them home. >> they propped it up with an amendment at the very end and it was an effort to give republicans votes and it worked. but that's half the analysis. the other half our visas, overstays. so unless you do with the injury security, there is a list of who is overstayed their visas but dhs will not give it to anyone. so into your serious about not just the border crossers the

people of overstayed visas, they also are not here lawfully. so until we know who they are, then no, it's not a question, it's a question of will not a question of political resources. >> i couldn't agree more. it is a question of will. with a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill came down from the senate, negotiate and agreed upon by both democrats and republicans detail in the house with you as chairman of the subcommittee on immigration. at some point the buck stops with you. if you're in such an immensely powerful and important position and you the opportunity to fix a problem that millions care about and want done, you have suggested it. you can keep bringing up the first to use of the obama presidency and then say, to forget about the six years in between would republicans who control both the house and the senate. it's just amazing, the abdication of responsibility when we talk about such an important issue and people are

sick of the partisanship in congress right now. and rightly so. people would rather see rather than the wind at all cost mentality, a reasonable compromising functional legislative body running this country. why would they have any faith that's not. [applause] why should our citizens have any faith in congress when we continue to fight the battles we don't even fight with and when there are areas of agreement, if we disagreed on four out of five things, that's all right the we should be taught but the one thing that we do agree on and off the four things we disagree on. >> we will get to madison at the very end but there's a senate but there's also a house and we stand for election every two years. we represent smaller districts. the house doesn't want to do a comprehensive immigration bill. comprehensive is latin for lots of bad stuff in there, chris. what we wanted was a step-by-step process. what's wrong with that?

what is wrong with proven to that we're serious about border security before we move to the next step? what is wrong with that? that's what the house wanted. improve the border security. quite frankly you ought to be skeptical because both political parties have promised to border security since i was a kid, and neither of them did it. injury security, prove it. output it in a congress a bill or you're giving about the citizenship before you provided the security. and instrumental step-by-step process is what the house preferred and i don't apologize for that. the fact that the senate did something, that's great but it doesn't mean house has to go along with it. we face the voters, too. spent thousands is getting nothing done and forgetting something bipartisan done which is a classic example and very representative of the past six years. [applause] >> i'm going to throw in the political side for a minute, since i am one, entities that the congress for a living. just to answer his question

about compromise, unending going to address it in the context of immigration but why'd you have to compromise or a comprehensive bill as opposed to single pieces is a fundamental problem of party a doesn't trust party be. so sometimes party a would like to go with what, let's take this first step and it will go to the next one if this was a successful but i going to get party b on board you've got to give them their step. i thanks that's where the senate comes to because it's a different beast. you don't have quite the majority rules you do in the house. your political science lesson for the day, why even the most of our elected officials don't like the concept of compromise. it's required in some cases. [applause] and we have not always got more

secure by our we would not be having this conversation. we haven't gotten into your ear security right we wouldn't be having this conversation. but the overall picture is you don't do both coming up to be one before you can do the other. i know she will ever get congress to agree to do any of it. we end up with the status quo. free lesson for the day. all right, are we done with that? all right. i'm down to the last question. i'm getting my queue for my timekeeper. so we're going to end on a bank because i got more in those on this than anything and in of some of the folks that want and address were not able to be in the room. they did not get tickets as i promised that i would get to at least one set of the candidates. campaign finance, a number of -- [applause] some of you are here. all right. a number of folks are worried that big money donors and corporations have become too powerful in our political

campaign, special in the wake of the supreme court citizens united ruling that permitted super pacs to spend unlimited amounts separate from the candidates, independent of the candidate. and political parties. is there anything either of you would do in congress to change current campaign finance laws and try to address the concerns that voters have about big money blanket much of a role in this. start with you this time. >> voters should be concerned about campaign finance because just like you should be concerned with a congress who doesn't do his job and while give anything that will change if you don't have millions to spend, millions to content on national campaigns? if moneyed interest are able to exercise more influence than the average citizen then we have a broken system. we have a democracy that is fundamentally undermined. and i mean, this is something

that really bothers me because i'm very passionate about getting young people involved in the political process. and so many young people right now to an out and they don't identify with either political party. there's a good reason for that. not only do they feel like they're not represented by either party but if you like their influence, their potential to exercise, to stand up and participate as citizens in this country is completely swept out from underneath them. because they're not coming in with a big box in the big inflows. they shouldn't have any confidence when people like the koch brothers on the number one contributor as we've heard in the news this year, this week, to trade down these campaign. [applause] there's a reason for it. -- trade down these campaign to if you want to know who he is working for, check the receipts. >> what would you do to change it? >> we can and must have robust campaign finance reform that includes their reporting,

editing congress to fight citizens united ruling that says money equals speech. because our rights are inalienable and their individual to us. the right for us to speak and to be involved in this and democracy does not come down to a piece of green paper. it comes down to who we are as human beings, exercising our voices and our right to purchase the end is a democracy. if we don't change that, they continued to -- don't expect anything to change if we don't change it. [applause] >> disclosure of that also includes unions. disclosure, sunlight is the best antiseptic. so disclosure, including the super pacs, and to the extent that the supreme court considers speech to be tantamount to a donation, there are limits to

what everyone in this room can give him a political race. there's a $2700 limit. so if it should be a limit on this young lady in the first will contribute to a member of congress, there can be other limits, to. so i don't agree with the whole thing was citizens united that puts me in a small majority of republicans bu by want, let me t say this to you. i'm going to let the koch brothers, go for this reason. i've never met either one of them. i have met bono twice. i've never met the koch brothers once. i met the president six times. never met the koch brothers a single time. so the notion that you are a member of your senator can be bought for a single donation from you should categorically reject that. i'll tell you what matters to me. the opinion and advice of someone i trust that i work for in the upstate of south carolina. never met the koch brothers. i get that it's a talking point that they to all of y'all to mention the koch brothers every

chance you get. i have met -- look, chris. your condom asking them for money, too. they are just saying no. that's the difference. [applause] spinning they never would and i wouldn't want and you. >> keep this in mind. your opinion, your perspective matters more to the people that you represent, so if you want an e-mail, text me, call me, you don't have to give me a cent. but the notion that amount of congress can be bought by single donation, we either need a new form of government or y'all got to start rejected that because i don't know a single person on either side of the aisle, on either side of the aisle who can be bought by a donation. and maybe it's just i'm not hanging out with the right people -- [booing]

>> if you know a member of can't that be bought for $2700 to turn them into the fbi. turned them into the fbi. because i don't know them on either side of the aisle. [applause] >> this is a fun place to end this segment. we are out of time with our two candidates were no. gentlemen, turn your microphones off. [applause] >> we are live this morning at the churchill centre today kicks off its 33rd conference on the legacy of former british prime after winston churchill. planning on bringing the entire conference today here on c-span2. it is just getting underway. >> for all the panel sessions today, and tomorrow so we're sticking to a rigid timetable. we're going to get right into it by introducing our first speaker of the morning, the executive

director of the international churchill society, mr. lee pollock. [applause] >> thank you, david. and i join you in welcoming everyone who is your duty to will be a wonderful conference. or as one of our presidential candidates might say, this crowd is huge. it's been a year since our last and very memorable conference come into my case six years since i became your executive director. during the past year with your support we have continued to build on the work that has gone before. just consider a couple of things are do a google search for winston churchill, you'll find 36 million results. we are number three. it's hard to beat wikipedia but we'll keep on trying and we will be more accurate. we have continued our series of events on capitol hill building of one of our proudest moments,

the dedication of the boston churchilchurchil l two years ago in the capital. we've expanded our programs from events with young professionals at the british embassy do seminars at the aspen institute and the national world war i and to museums. we finance our partnership with organizations such as the royal oak foundation. we've reached out to prominent audiences such as her dinner last year with madeleine albright and tonight at the state department with james baker. when i became executive director, laurence asking to look into another idea, a permanent home for churchill studies in washington, d.c. i did not know much about that but i found a brochure in our files. it began with we stand on the brink of a new century. quite a while ago. in a moment laurence will tell you what happened next took one of the great pleasures of being your executive director has been the opportunity to know more about the life of winston churchill.

and so much of that knowledge has come from you. it is also allowed me to develop deep and cherished friendships. to meet the finches overriding purpose is to ensure that today's young people believe in three things. first, that history matters. second, the leadership is meaningful here and that our destiny is not beyond our control. and third, that a special in challenging times one person makes a difference in the world. winston churchill is surely a good example of that. at the end of this but i will be stepping down as the centers full-time executive director. as laurence will tell you i will be succeeded by a very talented individual and i couldn't be more pleased about the chosen candidate. i'm also delighted that i'll remain on the board of trustees and as an advisor and vigorously support all of the international churchill society's activities. i will continue speaking and writing about churchill when the opportunity arises, and if it's

a slow news day perhaps i can get "the wall street journal" to let me write another op-ed. [applause] >> you all know the story when churchill was once asked about retiring, his response was i leave when the pub closes. but the metaphorical churchill bob always remains open as long as, in the words of president kennedy, courage and faith and process for freedom are indestructible. so you'll find in the churchill, perhaps with the johnnie walker in hand. come say hello and i will that will have a great conversation for there's nothing more fun than being a churchillian in the company of other churchillian's. a novel turn over the mic to of another chairman, laurence geller. [applause]

>> good morning. riding in his memoirs, churchill observed his american people that their national psychology is such that the bigger the idea, the more wholeheartedly and obstinately do they throw themselves into making it a success. nearly 50 years ago a small group of enthusiasts came together -- bearing churchill's likeness. only a few months before he died, sir winston's son randolph gave his blessings to the newly formed organization, thus the international churchill society was born. today as we gather for our 33rd international conference, we count more than 3000 members,

and two dozen, over two dozen chapters worldwide. our journals finest hour has been published continuously since 1981. we have hosted royalty, leading politicians, journalists, authors, captains of industry, and renowned scholars. many of whom have not only spoken at our events but also contributed to our journals. above all, we aren't our reputation as the go to organization for anyone, be it idle amateur or failed academic, anyone with an interest in the life and legacy of churchill. our website is visited by more than one and half million people annually, and we are bringing other church websites into our fold as we work towards our goal of the least 4 million since --

sessions and the. it has today more than 30,000 subscribers. out ambitious target of 100,000 subscribers is well within our reach. daily we connect with thousands more through our continuously strengthening social media platforms. even more importantly we have made it possible for high school students around the world to have free access to the churchill the archives online, and to use the related and constantly updated spokes learning modules. already some 1000 schools have signed up in the u.s., uk, canada, australia and new zealand, and we are only just beginning. we have our next step of 5000 schools as our goal. concurrently we continue to promote the teaching of

churchill's legacy in schools, both through locally organized seminars free to teachers and students, and by making attendance at our conferences free to these same eager minds. we have improved as an institution. we have professional staff. we are able to pay for quality contributions to our journals and our conferences. our milestone merger with the american fund for the churchill museum in london solidified this growing professional identity, broaden our base and firmed up our finances. in 2013 we donated a bust of sir winston for permanent displays in the halls of united states capitol buildings and organize an unveiling ceremony at secretary of state and all for congressional leaders, republicans and democrats in a bipartisan effort, publicly

affirmed their admiration for who the man was clear the most important person of the 20th century. yet despite these achievements, these many achievements, we were at a disadvantage. the uk is blessed with a plethora of physical assets that help to keep the memory of churchill alive, the churchill war room museum, the archives of churchill college cambridge. all of these splendid facilities protect churchill's legacy in the uk for each new generation to discover. however, within the u.s. the only physical assets of the national churchill museum located on the campus of westminster college in missouri, the site of churchill's 1946 iron curtain speech. this museum was part of a separate organization and needed much more support to expand its reach and attract more visitors.

we knew that without a significant platform here in washington, to educate succeeding generations and inject the lessons of churchill's examples into the mightiest corridors of power, interest in churchill would wane. aging would take its inevitable toll on us, and we would simply fade into unpalatable obscurity. our duty to churchill unfulfilled. so in a depth of the global economic crisis that began in 2008 i developed a plan to the future to be accomplished in 2015, the 50th anniversary of churchill's death. i presented this rather over ambitious but much-needed plan to our patron the wonderful and wise married stone into her nephew that always uplifting winston churchill's namesake grandson, whose belief in the need for a permanent home in washington to preserve his

grandfather's legacy never wavered for one moment. both gave complete and unconditional support, pragmatic advice and endless encouragement, although i privately thought they believed i was barking mad. their deaths, winston in 2010, and mary in 2014 whether devastating blows. and it made it clear that time was not on our side. early last year we endured yet another heavy loss with the death of the dean of all churchill scholars sir martin, a passionate supporter of this bold plan which he called our lifeblood. as churchillian's we know that inspiration can always be found in the words of our hero, never give in, never give in, never, never, never. i will admit, however, that

those three deaths, the economic downturns which affected our financial situation, and the daunting challenge we set ourselves meant there were times when i had to fight mightily to get churchill's infamous black dog that day. but use another churchillian expression, i kept wondering on your other members of the church or failed to provide their own support help and encouragement. they always uplifting -- his sister, that wonderful artist that come and, of course, the irrepressible and continuously generous randolph churchill. will never be able to repay a debt of gratitude we owe and will go to that incredibly hard-working support of churchill family who, despite having their own busy lives, and large families, always graciously give so much of

themselves to our organization. it's a testament to what we're achieving today with so many more hard-working family members are committed to our cause, including mary's eldest son, sir nicholas come and randolph three siblings, ginny, marina and jack. algorithm have accepted roles within our new organization -- all three of -- so we put forward, at last we can see the upland. we have, in fact, achieved much more than the original plan envisioned. we have made it more certain than ever that the legacy of churchill continues to be widely known and appreciated throughout the world. now, thanks also to the hard work, creativity and persistence of both john paul and dr. benjamin, as well as the support of edwin meese fans and those

two wonderful churchillian's, monroe and dick, we are at long last but rightfully merging with the national churchill museum in the united states at westminster college. our combined strengths are truly a classic case of two plus two equal in at least six. we have come a long way and we've reached an important milestone. to mark this type of change were making some name changes as well. from this moment we shall once again be known as the international churchill society. [applause] to increase our name identification with nonmembers, the bulletin will be renamed the churchill bulletin beginning with the next issue. we have a new logo, diplomatic of a fresh tomorrow --

emblematic -- tomorrow after decades of wishful thinking will officially open our national churchill library and center on the campus of the globally respected george washington university. [applause] this long-awaited event could not have happened without the support of two successive gw presidents who are far both great friends of ics. first, the inspiring stephen, in particularly steve knapp, whose wisdom, and his patience with me, perseverance in spirit will make him for ever a much revered churchillian. ics will both intellectually and financially support, advice and ordinate the work of two u.s. churchill institutions.

the national churchill library center and the national churchill museum that it will ensure that these two sister institutions not only cooperate as allies, but promote the memory of winston churchill in north america. importantly, they will flourish together far better that each could do on their own. ics will also be based at this newly purpose built facility, the nclc, to introduce a new acronym in a city full of alphabet acronyms. there we will welcome bright readers, writers, researchers, scholars and the just plain curious to explore the life and legacy of churchill, using a growing and unique archive of documents, books and electronic media. the collection will expand it exhibitions and high profile events will be organized from here are flourishing journals

will continue to be published. the nclc will make meaningful and original contributions to churchill studies. symposia and lectures and debates will always be happening. links to our sister institutions in britain and phone will provide an amazing opportunities to sharing exhibitions and events. nclc will be the epicenter for all churchill related activities in the united states. finally, churchillian's throughout north america will have their permanent home. not only one link to the historical venue of fulton at scituate here in the very heart of the most important of the world's capitals. this new home, our home, adjacent to foggy bottom state department is only a few minutes walk from the white house where

i am happy to say much of my bust of churchill continues to stand as it has now for the last 50 years into the corners of the first family. now, this is not the end. it's not even the beginning of the end. but it is perhaps after nearly a 50 year start the end of the beginning. at long last we now have the tools to do the job, and must look to the future. our plan said that one of those big ideas that churchill understood could completely captivate the names -- the minds of the market people and bring out their courageous and energetic powers. here in washington we are surrounded by venerable's and venerated institutions of study including for example, only the woodrow wilson international center for scholars of the

brookings institution, the heritage foundation and the american enterprise institute. we are dedicated and passionate in our commitment that within five years the nclc will stand tall among these institutions and the globally recognized and respected as a facility that supports and encourages research, discussion and you're thinking in methods of leadership, global citizenry, statesmanship and resolution of conflict. with the example of the last century's supreme statesmen as our guide, the fellows of nclc without a growing and influential impact in these fields, policymakers will come to nclc for guidance and advice. and we will promote healthy exchange of ideas, even hosting within eight years presidential

debates. as we've seen again and again in and the many crises that have beset are still young century, in times of trouble, people rightly look to the example of winston churchill. now we have a strong country of leadership from a new generation of churchillians led by randolph churchill come who i am delighted to announce his final today accepted the role of resident of ics. [applause] -- president of ics. it was not an easy task to get him to say yes, but he's the only one we want. this continent of young leaders known simply as the other club are pushing us forward with fresh energy, dynamism and vitality. they make us financially, intellectually and generationally