going to be phased in over time based off of compliance. the iranians said sanction relief will be immediate, no suspension. you could go down the list of material terms of the agreement where both sides do not agree. what was made worse was that certain components that they could not agree upon, by the end, was put into these deals, the verification agreement between the iaea and iran. there was more than one of these verification agreement. what brings into the tidbits of the sanctions relief. we have negotiate away the sanctions relief that is brought into the table, propping up the wrong machine. deservedly bad people. -- these are really bad people. ..

>> do you believe that planned parenthood should be funded to -- >> moderator: i'm sorry, ms. throne-holst, one question. >> okay. all baked into one. >> moderator: excuse me. zeldin: i am pro-life. my daughters were less than a pound and a half when they were born, and i am so blessed, my wife and i, that these girls were given that ability to be born into this world. we have every amount of admiration and respect for the doctors through that process, the nurses through that process,

the power of prayer. we accepted prayers in about 16 different religions. i hope that's okay. i'm jewish. that was one. there was probably about 15 others. and our daughters are growing up to be strong. but, you know, i got a chance to see life at 25 weeks. it's precious. now, when i was up in albany, all this debate about abortion, the debate actually taking place right now in state governments and the federal government is whether or not we should be allowing partial birth, late-term abortion. i passionately disagree with allowing late-term, partial-birth abortion. we need to encourage adoptions in this, in this country. we, we need to do whatever we can to provide the best amount of health for women, men, children with the entire planned parenthood debate had taken place when the videos were first

released, one thing that gets left out a hot of the video -- of the entire debate was that the legislation itself doesn't take money away and out it in the treasury. it directs money to women's health centers which are included right here in suffolk county. there's the elsie owens women's health center, there's the women's health center in south hampton, in greenport, that's where the money was going. so it was going towards women's health. during this time when there was an investigation taking place into those videos. it is, obviously, a very passion a nate topic for everyone -- passionate topic for everyone, but it's something that i unapologetically, you know, have many different positions that i believe in. i'm not going to change my answer from one audience to the next. >> moderator: thank you. okay. so -- [applause] please, no applause. thank you. you'll have your opportunity in just a couple minutes when they give their closing statements.

ms. throne-holts, would you please give your closing statement, two minutes. >> thank you, everyone, for coming out tonight. i'm glad that the interest in this election is as big as it is, because there's no question that both on the presidential level and right here on a congressional level you are looking at two candidates that are about as diametrically opposed as they could ever be. and and i will just talk about what i think is important right here many district 1 in new york -- in district 1 in new york, but also spills over to the national level and why i believe that you need someone in congress that has an absolute track record of reaching across the aisles, working in a bipartisan way to find common sense solutions. we need to resolve immigration reform in this country. we immediate to find -- we need to find a path to citizenship and the dream act. we need to shore up our borders and make sure that our

immigration and visa system goes back to a functioning level where it used to be but no longer is. we need to make sure that long island is affordable. we need to revamp our tax code today that gives away the store to the top percent of earners while giving it away to big corporations and big oil. we need to get the money out of campaigns. we need to overturn citizens unitedwhich is where all the dark money that is going into politics today, is there. we need to get common sense gun safety laws in place and make sure that guns are out of the hands of terrorists and any criminals. we've talked about it. the bill that mr. zeldin is talking about is not supported by law enforcement including former new york city police commissioner bill bratton. and you can't on the one hand say that government should stay

out but then on the other hand say that government should have the sole responsibility. it's one or the other. we've got to do what we did on a local level right here in southhampton and cut the wasteful spending that goes on many government and make it more efficient and make more affordable living right here on long island a reality. and college affordable for all of our kids. >> moderator: thank you. [applause] >> moderator: mr. zeldin? zeldin: i think it is important to be able to work across the aisle with people at different levels of government and just today we announced 22 endorsements that we everied from east end -- we received from east end officials with legislation that i discussed

here tonight. this, all these different bills were a product of republicans and democrats working together. my opponent tonight is talking about people, not politics, and bipartisan and working across the aisle. that all sounds good, but you wonder why no one, political party or elected officials, no one that served with her on the town board supports her race for congress. that includes democrats who campaigned against her in the primary. now, during these debates we say there's a lot that you might get, you might say when you're desperate for votes. you really, really, really want to win an election, so you'll say whatever it takes in order to get elected. well, what's most important is actually looking at over the course of 21 months my office, we closed successfully resolved over 4,000 cases. i mentioned the legislation and creating the east end, veterans health care clinic. the fimp project and making sure that we have $1.16 billion

coming to restore our coastline or getting a new zip code for flanders, northhampton and riverside, legislation that we now have in a must-pass bill, the potal service reform -- postal service reform act, the chairman of the committee, jason chafe feds. working with the southhampton trustees when they needed help in order to get permitting done to open up the cut at the bay. i mentioned the national estuary program and getting the $26.5 million in funding there. when you actually look at my track record, the cove study in south hold which is now completing the public comment period to restore that coastline, these are all really important issues, and i ask you to look at my record and not my opponent's slant on it in order to win vote ares. i ask for your support on november 8th. >> moderator: thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> moderator: i thank the candidates, i thank the audience and, again, if you haven't registered, get out there tomorrow and definitely get out there on november 8th and vote. thank you. [applause] >> road to the white house coverage continues later today with donald trump and mike pence at a rally in eau claire, wisconsin. three polls gathered by real clear politics from the middle of october give hillary clinton about a five-point lead. c-span has live coverage beginning at 8 p.m. eastern. and the former secretary of state will be campaigning in florida today where she and donald trump are running neck and neck. she'll be in ft. lauderdale beginning at 8:45. c-span2 will have live coverage of that rally. and here's a look at some recent ads from both campaigns.

>> i'm hillary clinton, and i approved this message. >> this was me in 1964. the fear of nuclear war that we had as children, i never thought our children would ever have to deal with that again, and to see that coming forward in this election -- >> three times, why can't we use nuclear weapons. >> i want to be unpredictable. >> what safeguards are there to stop any president who may not be stable from launching a nuclear attack? >> the commander in chief is the commander in chief. >> bomb the [bleep] out of them. >> our next president faces daunting challenges in a dangerous world. iran promoting terrorism, north korea threatening, isis on the rise, libya and north africa in chaos. hillary clinton failed every single time as secretary of state. now she wants to be president. hillary clinton doesn't have the fortitude, strength or stamina to lead in our world. she failed as secretary of state. don't let her fail us again.

>> i'm donald trump, and i approved this message. >> on election day, november 8th, the nation decides our next president and which party controls the house and senate. stay with c-span for coverage of the presidential race including campaign stops with hillary clinton, donald trump and their surrogates. and follow key house and senate races with our coverage of their candidate debates and speeches. c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> in south carolina's 4th congressional district, incumbent republican congressman trey gowdy and democrat chris fedalei debated immigration policy, campaign finance reform and the solvency of social security. >> moderator: 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 heads up that james madison will be on the program, so i'll catch you folks up to speed. presumably, they've already done the reading. we have to be able to have deliberation and a substantive exchange of ideas to reconcile the competing views that 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 interest, not just what's 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 4th congressional district with us. we have mr. chris fedalei, the democratic candidate for the 4th congressional seat. we have congressman trey gowdy, republican, who currently holds the 4th congressional district seat. we also have with us, and i'll be introducing them in a little

bit, pastor thomas dixon, the 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 the two house candidates. i'll 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. so we'll try to divide it up a little bit. they have all agreed to abide by same standards i require of my students in class discussion. they can agree -- excuse me, they can agree. i would be thrilled if they agree. [laughter] they can disagree, they can do so passionately, but they must do so respectfully. they will not no to knoppize -- 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 be under no circumstances

will they talk over each other. should they fail to abide by these standards, it will result in stern glares -- [laughter] and warnings and, no doubt, a reduction of their participation grades for the evening. [laughter] i'll let you know how they did at the end. [laughter] questions tonight have come from a variety of sources. i have actively asked for groups on campus, a variety of student gripes and groups -- groups and groups in the community to send me their questions. i have encouraged individuals to send me questions. i have is received numerous e-mails 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 the ones that seemed most relevant to congress. so, no, they're not going to tell you how to fix the potholes in south carolina. sorry, that's going to have to

be saved for another day with state legislators, but we will see how many of ez thattish -- these issues that we can cover this evening. well kohl to -- welcome to our house candidates. thank you, gentlemen, for being here. there are a variety of topics awant to cover, but i want to give you a chance to focus on something that your campaigns have told me that are important to each of you. i trust that your staff has 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. [laughter] all right. mr. fedalei, i'm going to start with you. i understand one of the issues that you're concerned about is international trade, in particular trans-pacific partnership agreement addressing trade relations among 12 pacific rim nations and the u.s. and and particularly its impact on american workers. talk to me a little bit about your concerns there and what you as a member of congress would do on that issue. fedalei: that's right, and thank you again for having us tonight.

it's really good to be with all of you. trade's been a hot button issue this year. it's one that there's a rare, rare source of agreement between both presidential candidates, in fact. and i think there's good reason for that. 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 the american worker at heart. to me, that's a fundamental flaw. and because of that, you have a trade deal that is less about free trade between countries and more about special interest gifts embedded in a very large, very complicated trade deal. that, because of the trade promotion authority, would go true congress without one minute of debate on an extremely consequential trade deal. to me, that is a fundamental flaw, and at a time when people trust their government and are less satisfied with congress than ever before, it's incredibly important that we actually have debate in the people's house on such a complicated, important trade deal. it's 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' efforts to protect our people. and and it's one that undermines our sovereignty as a result. it's a bad deal, and it's one that we should not be supporting. >> moderator: i'm going to assume if you were elected to congress, you would be voting against that trade deal. fedalei: that's correct. >> moderator: okay. do you want to respond to that, congressman gowdy? i have a follow-up if you don't want to jump in. gowdy: i'll be happy to. i want to thank you, professor, for doing this. and, chris, thank you, and everyone who's here tonight for participating. and i would be remiss if we had an event at herman university discussing civility and substance in public course without acknowledging the man for whom the government school is named, governor dick reilly, who has personified civility for his entire time in public service. with respect to tpp, chris and i agree. tim and i voted for tpa because we wanted you to be able to read

tpp. and now that you've read it, i would surmise that you have reached the same conclusion that the two of us have reached, that it's not in america's best interests. but i would caution you to keep this in mind. we are in one of the most trade-intensive districts in the entire country. think, we have the general counsel for michelin who is here tonight, law school classmate of mine, bmw. ge does not sell their gas turbines in spartanburg, they sell them overseas. we are a trade-intensive district. so we benefit from trade, but it has to be fair for the american worker. tpp is not, which is why both major presidential candidates are opposed to it and which is why it's not going to come before the house this year. if it did, i'd vote no. >> moderator: met 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? is that a cost we're willing to bear?

is that a cost we're willing to acknowledging? gowdy: well, it's certainly -- i don't want to -- i'm very nervous about getting a bad -- [laughter] >> moderator: no, no, you're fine. fedalei: no one wants that. >> moderator: i'll give him a chance, go. fedalei: go ahead, congressman. gowdy: yes, which is why you negotiate these trade agreements in the first place. if the united states is not trading with our, with our friends in the pacific, then china will. that's why we rushed to negotiate this trade deal. it's 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 and apart from the geopolitical considerations, is it in our workers' best interests. and they did renegotiate some of the textile provisions, i will give them credit for that.

textile is still alive and well in south carolina. they renegotiated the -- [inaudible] rule. that was good. it's still not good enough to support. so maybe we need to go back to the bargaining table. i don't want china to establish the relationships to the 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. fedalei: 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. so that's why tpp is not what it's billed to be and is not factually in the interest froms of the american work, because it's not, again, about necessarily improving our trade relationships, but it's about a series of special interest write-ins. this was a deal that was negotiated in secret by a bunch of corporate attorneys that don't really care about the american worker, and that's why

it's not in our interests. >> moderator: all right. i'm going to resist the urge to talk about why deals get made in secret. the constitution was kind of written in secret, but i get your point. [laughter] i'll give you that one. fedalei: that that's our job as representatives, to make sure. >> moderator: all right. let's shift to a 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? gowdy: well, we've got a good head start. we've been meeting for about a year in secret -- [laughter] i'm afraid to say. but i'll tell you why it's been in secret. it won't be a secret anymore. cory booker is someone that i have are tremendous respect for. i consider him to be a friend. it is not easy for a 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. and tim scott is sitting right there, and hakim jeffreys and cedric richmond and bobby scott. been to the white house twice,

which is not in neither president obama's or my best interests to admit to, but i've been to the white house twice on the issue of criminal justice reform. why is it important? because we have incarcerated a generation of young, black males. primarily because of a ratio between cocaine powder and cocaine base that defies any rational explanation. the punishment for cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine, was a hundred times more severe than cocaine powder. do you know the difference between cocaine base and cocaine powder? baking soda. so what is it about baking sew do that is a hundred times more deleterious? currently 18 times? so, yeah, i'm a big -- i spent 16 years in the criminal justice system. the overarching responsibility of the state government is protection, and of the federal government is national security. i will take a backseat to no one on the safety and security of my fellow citizens. but what we are doing in the war

on drugs is not working, and people have lost confidence in the criminal justice system as evidenced on the nightly news almost every night. which is why i am proud that this friend on the front row decided let's get faith leaders, faith leaders and law enforcement all across south carolina together and see what we can do as a south carolina solution. we're doing it nationally, professor, but as you know, the overwhelming majority of the crime in this state is state crime. when i was a state prosecutor, we had 10,000 cases a year. as a federal prosecutor, they gave you an award if you did 100 a year. so the overarching majority of the crime is state, which is why the remedy ought to be state, but it's fine for us to look at it in congress, and that's what we've been doing for 12 months. >> moderator: do you want to respond to any of that or offer? ped lei: i absolutely would like to. -- fedalei: this is a massive injustice that has been going on for much longer than a year.

this has been going on for decades where we disproportionately incarcerate millions of black and brown men for crimes that they don't need to be in prison for in the first place, and then we sentence them under mandatory minimums that causes them to, essentially, have a life destroyed for something you shouldn't even be in prison for in the first place. that's number one. number two is the fact that this has been going on for so long, you know, it really shouldn't be a surprise. and i'm surprised that 12 months ago is the first time you decided to work on this, because 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 the people here, then you know this has been an issue in the community for decades under both democratic and republican presidents who have exacerbated the problem with tough on crime bills. increasing, escalating the war on drugs. that does not help anyone and costs the 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 unjustice -- injustice perpetrated across the country for generation not just one, and not just in the past 12 months. [applause] >> moderator: go ahead. gowdy: i agree it's not a new issue. in 1997, that's the very first time i said no to mandatory minimums in drug cases. you may have been in elementary school in 1997. [laughter] no offense to you, i wish i was as young as you are. fedalei: can't get older and faster. [laughter] gowdy: with respect to what we've done over the last year, i will remind you the democrats had the house, the senate and the white house from 2008-2010. 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 gears of government. it's 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, because that's when i was inseated. [applause] invited. fedalei: well, the congressman referenced two years that the democrats were in control of the house, but how about the six years since then? it's not like there's been a position of disadvantage when it comes to power and the ability to introduce these bills. if congress wanted to make this a priority, they would. but the simple fact is congress has made getting nothing done a priority, and there's a reason there's a 13% approval rate for this congress, and it's one that is well deserved, frankly. [applause] you have a historically unproductive congress with a historically low approval rating. let me put it this way, there aren't a whole lot of jobs with

you can only work two-thirds of the year, not get anything done concern. >> moderator: i'm going to interrupt you later, we're coming back to that issue when we've got everybody on stage. fedalei: well, this is a perfect illustration of, yeah, happy to talk about it later. >> moderator: we'll come back to that. 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 get in, but this is one that a lot of students have asked me about. it's still in the criminal justice vein of things, and because i've heard so much frustrate on 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? fedalei: well, i would start off by saying that there is a lot that congress can do to address this issue. and if they wanted to make it a priority, they could and would have long ago when we knew it was an issue. you know, it's, it's troubling to me because on one hand we ask police officers to do too much. one of the common things that i hear when i talk to law enforcement officers is that 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. is and part of the problem with

that is that we have failing schools, we don't educate and we don't treat our children well enough for them to get on the right track and stay on the right track. but also we've slashed mental health care funding. while congressman gowdy was in office. the fact that we lock up people who need treatment goes against to show how broken the criminal justice system is, and it makes the jobs of everyday officers much more difficult, and it makes it so much more difficult to assess the actual danger in any given situation. .. >> in order to do their job and to support them, and then to also promote policies like community policing which is so

important because the best and most effective officers are those that are liked and not feared. >> i know we're not a -- not getting to madison -- [applause] i know we're not getting to medicine until the last segment but i couldn't help but think of him when my friend was talking you're talking about education which is inherently a state matter. talking about the criminal justice system, 90% of which is a state matter and mental health, the bulk of which that funding is provided for at the state level. i get congress is not popular and i 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 the atf, dea, yes. there's only one person are the stages of her prosecutor a law-enforcement officer. that would be me. there are bad apples in every profession. believe it or not there are even bad lawyers. >> you don't have to tell me. >> there are bad everything which is why we are going around

the state trying to get people safe -- state law enforcement to work together. i find it interesting, i assume you were agreed by law enforcement when you got to ferment tonight. i know i wasn't. we trust them to provide security for us at every level of our life from the moment we got out of my truck tonight until the moment we leave this campus can we trust law enforcement. the last time i was at furman was to bury a law-enforcement officer. his funeral was here. thank you to furman for open your arms to him and his family. so yes, i support law enforcement. i think there ought to be more training but that's a state issue but it's not a congressional issue. if you're not talking about federal law enforcement. >> i want to follow up because i asked the question very explicitly is there a role for congress in this. you think there is. what exactly do you think congress should be doing?

>> congress biggest and most broad power is the power of the first. believed are not congress does play a large role in education. it was agreeable and mental health care. you have to keep in mind the importance of the federal government leadership on issues. we've had many times in american history where it was the federal government those able to take the role and stand for something that's right and the principles we really stand for as a country. and powering law-enforcement to do their jobs, we can provide more mental health to fun and better training. we can provide grants and its into programs to local law enforcement for extended training, or 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 that they work with. [applause] >> i'm looking forward to that portion of the discussion where we talk about the debt. we are $20 trillion in debt and everything you just mentioned

involves money. [applause] i will agree with you that the federal government has led in the past on really significant issues in our culture. chris, i'm going to tell you south carolina has led. win 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's charged with murder which is the most serious thing you can be charged with in the state and that was exactly the right charge or 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 turn to issue that's been largely absent from the presidential campaign, though it has been a persistent issue for a number of years, ma and that is the long-term health of social security. latest projections are, i look to these up yesterday, latest projections are if we change nothing about our current system, the government will be able to pay only about 79% of benefits beginning around 2034, that's 18 years from now, in time for me to retire. i have a vested interest in your answer to this question. are there specific measures, i'm 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? mr. fedalei, i'm going to start with you. >> social security is a program that helps millions of americans and we need to make sure that we do everything to preserve and

protect it. we are not going to cut benefits and we are not going to raise the age to qualify for social security. this is a promise we have made to our fellow citizens. what we can do is remove the caps on the payroll taxes that fund the social security which if we did would make a solvent, carry it. 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 to our seniors, and yet congress has still failed to do. six years of longtime cannot do anything. considering so many millions are asking the same question, wills also security be there when i retire? i'm surprised congress has not made it a larger priority, given the aarp and other organizations have advocated so from and i've met with these people that volunteer their time to protect this program, that they are

planning on, relying on. >> if you think sixers a long time, how about eight bucks that's along the president has been in the white house. he has never proposed any remedy, not one. it's politically not popular. i will do something else that is politically not popular. i'm going to tell you the truth. a government good enough to keep its promis promise to seniors oo be did have to tell young people the truth and the truth is this. win social security would into effect there were 16 workers for every recipient. 16 workers for every recipient. i the time the students at furman become eligible for social security, there will be two workers were at the recent yet. too. so i'm fine raising the cap. but you also have to raise the retirement age. here's the good news. we are living longer. we should celebrate that. win social security went into effect, the life expectancy for black males was less than the

eligibility age. talk about adlai is -- 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. siler asked the young people, are you willing to work six more months? are you willing to work nine more months? are you willing to make, i'm willing to work another year. i'm willing to work another year if any it is solvent for you. there's another part of sources can we have an address which is social security disability. the disability has gone up exponentially in the last 20 years. i want you to think of this. i want you to think of this. there is an advocate for the claimant in her room when it comes to social security 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 rating your 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 if it will make it solvent for the young people out there, and i'm sure that they will be willing to work six or months so they can solve it for their kids and their grandkids. [applause] >> i was afraid i would have to work until i was 80. >> let's talk 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 bill that added 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 has a lot of other stuff in as well. it passed the senate. it got to the house and the house started discussing it. i know you're part of some of those discussions and so i will start with you on this. the house wasn't able to reach agreement on bills and i want to know in an ideal world, this question with two parts and you're both getting both parts but we will start with part one. in an ideal world would you like to see on immigration reform? whatever you want. you can get through congress and the president will sign it. >> that will require a different form of government but i'm willing to play a long. >> i didn't say it was everyone's ideal. i am saying it's your ideal world. >> you've given me a promotion i will never get so i want to take advantage of it. the first objective is let's assume it's the 11 million. the first objective is to make

sure the number 11 million doesn't go. if there are 11 people come 11 million undocumented in this country, i think obligation number one to us as a countries make sure that number doesn't go up which means border security. and by the way, we have to borders. and interior security. over half the people are not here legally didn't cost any border. we invited them. they just didn't leave when they were supposed to leave. so make sure the 11 million doesn't go a. border security to ensure security. that is not an immigration issue. at the national security issue. i don't think a sovereign country should have to apologize for knowing who is 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, what are the problems with the senate bill is you could have committed an act of domestic violence with south

korea by the way leads the nation in men telling women. you can commit an act of domestic violence and still be on a 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. you don't have to become uniform but you have to assimilate into our values. the with the 11 million make sure the number doesn't go up. border security, interior security. pass a backgrounbackgroun d check. you have to come forward. if you have been convicted of a crime, you've forfeited your right to stay in this country. and then get countries it will 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 who will not take back their foreign nationals that we want to deport because of some removable proceedinproceedin g. so security first, then we will do with the 11 million.

i am fine with a path to legal status but i will not jump people and as others have waited in line and done it the way this country asked them to do it. just not going to jump ahead of them. [applause] >> i think it's funny because you asked in our perfect work of were able to do something about it, the president will sign in everything, one of us has been in a position to do something about it in a very powerful, very consequential position for years on end come and that is to be the chairman of the house subcommittee on immigration. [applause] >> i mean, it's amazing to you don't get a pat on the back because we're in our everyday do anything to the senate passed a reasonable that the man you support for president marco rubio, he voted for, john mccain voted for, many reasonable republicans supported it. we had an opportunity. the fact that we are still talking that this issue today is

because people in congress failed to do their job, failed to actually work on these issues that really matter to people. and yes -- >> what are you going to do? >> exactly. because the same provisions we talked about it obviously we need to secure the border nobody disagrees about that but the real question and the bigger question is how and what of it going to do with those 11 million people speak of what would you do with them a? >> i think there needs to be a path to legal status. i'm a lifelong soccer place i happened to interact and go up and become very good friends with many people who are undocumented. these are some of the hardest working, the most dedicated, the most intelligent people that embody every single american ideal that we ask of our citizens. people -- [applause] >> people that want to work hard. they want to come forward.

they want to come out of the shadows but into we passed comprehensive immigration reform they will feel locked away, isolated. they would not be able to join the society like we want to see. at the end of the day this nation was founded by immigrants. our ancestors all came from summer else oppressive toward our backs on our legacy and our values at this point because of fear and division is not who we are as a country. [applause] >> well, chris with all due respect i would substitute for fear and division, respect for the will 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 put them behind people who broke the rules and came unlawfully, i'm not going to do it. you can talk about my six years in congress. you can talk about all you want to. guest on the chairman of the immigration subcommittee. i wish we had had the need to a

few hearings on the oversight of this administration's failure to remove people. i wish we had taken so much time having t to figure what the president meant by prosecutorial discretion. you had the congress and the white house from '08 to 2010. can you find the immigration reform bill that the democrats introduced? do you know what it is? it doesn't exist. from '08 to 2010. i'll tell you why, professor. they want the issue. 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 to what he gave us was dodd-frank in the ac. 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 hold of the race going on about what we will do with the president. >> yes, ma'am. >> the second part of my

question, this you can countably oval but because your ideal world is now gone. you are back in reality. you have got to do with the other party. whichever party that you have to do with the other party. you they even have to deal with a president of the opposing party. so whatever you pass has to get through the senate, which no matter what happens this year is going to be divided. you may have to do 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? >> well i want to compliment chris. chris departed from the democratic mantra, which is citizenship. he said past the legal status. when secretary castro testified before the judiciary committee, he said immigration, period, even if they don't want it. that is a political and. think about that.

we're going to make people who don't want to become united states citizens who simply want legal status, we are going to make them become citizens. that is a political answer. sal the middle ground between citizenship and merely a work permit this legal status. pass the legal status. but, frankly, professor wood comes to border security and injury security, i'm not going to cover because those are the premier auction of government. quite frankly you should have to negotiate when it comes to border security. that should not be a bargaining chip that use in a broader immigration debate. that is what sovereign thinkers, sovereign entity should not have to apologize for knowing who is coming and going. >> i have a question for you and i'll get back to you in a minute. border security issue in the interior security issue. is a as a matter of will. let's go with visa overstays. >> amassing because of the senate bill originally provided

a tremendous amount of resources in terms of increased border personnel, and that was the sticking point and now for some people, but for others it was a question of path to legality versus round them up and send them home. >> they propped it up within a minute at the very end and it was a successful effort against republicans did it work. that's half the analysis. the other half our visas. overstays. so unless you're dealing with the interior security that is an list of who's overstayed their visas. and the just will not do that to anyone. so until you are serious about not just the border crossers by people who have overstayed visas, they also are not your lovely. so until we know who they are, then no, it's not a question of, it's a question of will, not a question of political resources. >> i couldn't agree more. it is a question of will.

when a bipartisan, conference of immigration bill came down from the senate and was negotiated and agreed upon by both republicans and democrats. it failed 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 six years to do. you can keep bringing up the first two years of the obama presidency and then forget about the six years in between. when republicans have been to both the house and the senate. so it's just amazing, i mean, the abdication of responsibility when we're talking to 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 win at all cost mentality, a reasonable compromise in functional legislative body running this country. why would they have any faith -- [applause] >> why should our citizens at

any faith in congress when we continue to fight battles we don't need to fight, and with our areas of agreement? if we disagree on four out of five things, that's all right but we should be talking of the one thing we do agree on and not the four things we disagree on. >> we will get to madison at the very end but there is a senate but there's also a house and we stand for election every two years under the theory we will be closer to the people and to 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 but what's wrong with that? what is wrong with proving to you that we are 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. white frankly ought to be skeptical because both political parties have promised to border cities and i was a kid, and neither of them data.

interior security, prove it. don't put in a conference a bill where you were kidding about the citizenship before you provided the security. into middle 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 the house has to go along with it. we face of the voters, to. >> the house insisted on getting nothing done in favor of getting something bipartisan to which is a classic example and very representative of the past six years. [applause] >> i'm going to go into political science for a minute. since i am one. and i do study congress for a living. just to answer his questions about compromise. i'm not even going to address it in the context of immigration, but why you have to compromise or a comprehensive bill as opposed to single pieces is a fundamental problem of party pay doesn't trust party be. so some times party pay would

like to go with what, let's take this first step in will go to te next one if this was a successful. but if you're going to get party b on board you have to give them their step, too. i think that's what the senate comes in because it's a different beast. you don't have quite the majority rules you do in the house. just, you're political science lesson for the day, why even though most of our elected officials don't like the concept of compromise. it's required in some cases. i get white house did what it did. he's right, we've not always gone to border security right or we wouldn't be having this conversation. we haven't gotten interior security right we wouldn't be having this conversation, but the overall picture here is if you don't do both, if you have to do one before you can do the other, i'm not sure you will ever get congress to agree to give any of it and would end up with the status quo. so free lesson for the day.

[applause] all right, are we done with that? all right. i'm down to the last question. i'm getting my cue from my timekeeper. so we're going to end on a being as i got more e-mails on this than anything and in of some of the folks that want it address were not able to be in the room tonight. they did not get tickets and so i promised them i would get to at least in front 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 campaigns, especially 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 candidates organization. and political party. is there anything either of you would do in congress to change current campaign finance law and

trietry to address the concernst voters have about big money playing too 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 when you see a congress that doesn't do his job, why would you have any faith that will change if you don't have millions to spend, if you don't have millions to exhibit on congressional campaigns? if might interest are able to exercise more influence than the average citizen, then we have a broken system and wa we have a democracy that is fundamentally undermined. i mean, this is something that really bothers me because i'm very passionate about obviously obviously getting and people involved in the political process. so many young people right now to get into don't identify with either political party. there's a good reason for that. not only did he feel like they're not represented by either party but they feel like

their influence, the potential to exercise them to stand up and participate as citizens in this country is completely swept out from underneath them. because they are not coming in with the big bucks and the big influence. they shouldn't have any confidence with people like the koch brothers untenable and contributor as we've heard in the news this year, this week, the tray down his campaign. [applause] there's a reason for it. if you wan want to know. august and is working for a check of the receipts. >> what would you do to change it? >> what would i do to change it? >> we can't and must have robust campaign finance reform. that includes better reporting. we needed everything to fight the citizens united when this has money equals speech. because our rights are inalienable and individual to us. the right for us to speak and to be involved in this democracy is not content to a piece of green

bay but it comes down to who we are as human beings, exercising our voices and our rights to participate in this democracy. if we don't change that, then continued -- don't expect anything to change if we don't change it. [applause] >> disclosure, but 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 that amount to a donation, there are limits to what everyone in this room can give any political race. there's a $2700 limit. so if this should be a limit on this good lady on the first row contribute to a member of congress, there can be other limits, too. so i don't agree with the whole thing citizens united. that puts me in a small majority among republicans but i want to

let me just say this to you. i'm going to let the koch brothers, to go for this respect i have never met either one of them. i met bono twice. 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 member of congress or your senator can be bought for a single donation, you should categorically reject that. i'll to you what matters to me. the opinion and the advice of someone i trust that they work for in the upstate of south carolina. never met the koch brothers. i get that it's a talking point that they can all of y'all to mention the koch brothers every chance you get. i have met, look, chris, you are going to ask them for money, too. they are just say no, that's the difference. that's the difference. [applause] >> they never would an and i

wouldn't want them to. >> 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 a member of congress can be bought by a single donation, we either need a new form of government or y'all got to start rejecting them because i do know 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 not on any out with the right people. [booing] >> if you know a member of congress that can be bought for $2700, turned them into the fbi. turned them into the fbi. because i don't know them on either side of the i'll. [applause] >> this is a fun place to end this segment. we are out of time with our two house candidates for now so gentlemen, turn your microphones off.

[applause] >> to use the debates are coming up tomorrow by the ap in eastern. a number of candidates from running in louisiana. live coverage beginning at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. at 9 p.m. also on c-span and can republican senator kelly ayotte and democratic governor maggie hassan told the final debate. state race coverage all this week on c-span. >> this week on c-span2, we are featuring political radio programs with a national talk show hosts.

>> here we are live at george washington university here in washington. up next a conversation on the 2008 financial crisis and the role housing policy played in that crisis considered by many to be the worst financial crisis since the grea great depressione also in by the federal government bailout of financial institutions. among those expected from this afternoon, an american enterprise institute scholar who work in the reagan administration, the afl-cio policy director and an economics professor from the university of north carolina. this discussion will be moderated by a securities la