cspan2. introductions are underway. >> he stations, radio stations digital platforms including the support from local newspaper. we have tried to keep the rules are pretty simple here. each candidate will have two minutes to make an opening statement.

one minute for closing statement. candidates are drawn straws to determine the order but throughout the debate over pose questions to each candidate, loving to answer and then make sure the other candidate has had a chance to respond. whatever question is directed to a specific candidate, only that candidates microphone will be open. at all other times every microphone will be open. thank you to the voters across arizona who have submitted questions for this debate. no candidate has been given advance access to any of these questions. i'm so with that let's introduce our candidates for this debate republican incumbent juan ciscomani and democratic challenger kirsten engel. mr. ciscomani you have the opening statement have two minutes progress thank you daniel, thank you for the clean elections for host this debate as well but think it's all the people at home. this also being transmitted in spanish.

i am proud to serve the district where i grew up with the district also where my wife and i are raising our six kids. you may know my story. i am an immigrant, a proud immigrant. immigrant to the united states. when i was 11-year-old became a u.s. citizen in 2006. was like to congress 16 years later in 2022. nowhere else in the world would have this opportunity. i believe in the american dream i am committed to defending the american dream but it saddens me that american dream seems out of reach to so many people now. listen, washington is broken it's completely disconnected from the reality you and i live on her home today i know that with all the people i talked to back at home from community leaders all the way to the parents of the kids that i coach as well. that is the reality we're living right now but politicians are trying to tell us that things are okay. how can prices are still too high question for tom come the

border is in chaos? how come our veterans are strung with mental health issues and also homelessness? what's the reason is the extremes have taken over. partisanship is taken over but i do not subscribe to that. my approach is always brilliant to bring results and work with both sides. that's why i was ranked the most bipartisan member of congress from arizona. that's also why, as an appropriate her libido to secure resources to come back home so we can fund police, fire, hospitals. so we can invest in roads and water infrastructure. these are things that mattered. today i look forward to debating being able to contrast and compare what i stand for what what my opponent stands for. kirsten engel believes in increasing taxes. defunding the police. i'm not except in the border crisis. with those differences here tonight because your two minute opening statement. miss engel you have two opening

statements for. >> thank you and good evening. tonight representative ciscomani and i stand as a potus on this debate stage. but i would like to acknowledge that last night i was proud to stand with you as a yellow to stone and as we commemorate the tragedy of october 7. one year ago today. i want to thank clean elections for delaying this debate so that we could attend that event. now, let's get to that debate. i am kirsten engel i'm honored to be running to represent southern arizona congress. it was truly a dream come true to move to arizona 20 years ago with our then infant daughter to teach at the university of arizona. i'm proud to call arizona my home. i first ran for office as a mom fighting for funding for our schools. elected three times to arizona legislature i thought for the freedom for women to make their own reproductive health care

decisions. to fight to lower prices. to secure our water future and work as a bipartisan basis for a thriving economy. now i am running for congress. i think representative ciscomani and i agree congress has been run by extremists. it has been the most dysfunctional congress in modern history. congress has not been able to pass a budget much less pave our roads or protect our troops. where we disagree is i believe mr. ciscomani is part of that dysfunction. he has sided with the extremist over and over again to raise costs, to restrict abortion access and even to reject a bipartisan border deal to secure the border. i have a 19-year-old daughter and 88-year-old father. i am running to restore her freedom and protect social security and medicare for him.

not just for them but for all arizonans. thank you for tuning in. >> thank you has two minutes but we have a lot of issues to get to in this next hour. but, since we have you both here and want to start with current events but given what's happening right now and israel in the lebanon i would like to quickly catch on foreign relations but yesterday marked one year vince hamas initial attack on israel. what is the u.s. role in fostering peace within this region? mr. ciscomani will start with you. >> is an important question thank you for starting that especially given the date we have the when your anniversary that just passed. i was in israel in april. six months after the attacks of october 7 thread got to visit the sites where this happen. especially in the southern part of israel. visited with families, heard from them the families of the hostages as well. we went all the way up north where the new battle has also started there. israel is under attack from all fronts at this point. at that time they'd only seen

the attacks of the south expecting attacks from the north as well. the situation has gotten worse. the weekend after we came back from israel, that we can i plunk it there was an attack on israel there to protect themselves with the iron dome. that is produced right here with the raytheon in our district. that alone shows the importance of the u.s. relationship with israel. the partnership we must continue to foster, invest in, and support between israel and the united states. the greatest ally in the middle east. we need to be supportive of their efforts. they have the right to defend themselves against all terrorism. all of these iran funded terrorist groups from the north, up from the west, from the south that israel's being threatened. they have the right to defend themselves it is our duty as their partners and friends to stand by them every step of the way. i am proud to have been a part of that parent proud of the

appropriation committee where we funded the international efforts of the state and foreign operations. we have been able to allocate more resources so that israel has those tools to defend itself. >> ms. engel your response to that question? what's the escalation of military conflict in the middle east is truly concerning. it keeps me up at night. this follows on from the latest we are seeing follows on from that terrible attack on october 7. and the loss of life was absolutely horrible. israel, absolutely has a right to defend itself. and how it does sell matters. we have also seen tremendous loss of life in the palestinians. that has also been very hard to witness.

our role has to be to bring a negotiated cease-fire that will bring the hostages home. there are still many hostages in gaza. many of them are americans. we have to make sure there are clear objectives for the future here. and how are we going to bring this to peace? we need to make sure that we have a plan for self-determination. for the palestinians. and that we return to a two state solution. israel is one of our greatest allies. we have to continue to support israel. and i support that. supporting israel is also supporting peace in the middle east. that will happen when we are able to come to two state solution for a quick survey sticky with the issue of security but bring it a little closer to home with what's happening at the u.s. currently

the 2024 voters agenda shows 89% of voters who were surveyed feel that immigration reform is important to our economy. that we need to prioritize creating a functioning border for commerce and integration. also 82% see it as a humanitarian refugee crisis. and they want leaders to work together to find a bipartisan solution to this issue. so mr. ciscomani you said you would a bit open to amending the bipartisan border bill had it made it to the house. you mentioned you took issue with the bills threshold of border patrol migrant encounters but saying it was too high. and ms. ingle you a bit outspoken critical voting down the bipartisan border security bill. with all of that said. moving forward what are some actionable steps that you can take to help improve the border situation and a bipartisan way? ms. engel will start with you. >> 's is absolutely a top issue. i have always said we need to secure the border.

neither party has done a good job of this. president trump famously separated families at the border. put kids in cages. president biden, let's be real. he was late to see what a crisis it was becoming. we need to secure the border. we have the opportunity as a bipartisan border security deal that was backed by the border patrol union. i put more boots on the ground. would have put conventional detection systems at ports of entry. more asylum officers and judges. way ahead and dealing with but my opponent opposed it when

president trump made it very clear to you the border crisis he could run out for his presidential campaign. my beef with her current representative he is not committed to solutions on the border we are tired of that. we cannot afford more months of politicking on the border. we need solutions. that was a solution and i think that was a really good place for us to start. we know we have to secure the border first. and then we need to fix our very broken immigration system. >> mr. ciscomani your response? ... two minutes of no solutions you asked for solutions and i did not hear any because there aren't any on that side. when kirsten engel edge abide it was late to this issue, just a little while ago when she was asked if there is a border crisis, immigration price crisis

she straight up said no. she is right in line with what the buy demonstration has done on this issue. now, when you look at the board you've got to look at the issues on the board approved immigration of a personal journey with, it's bureaucratic, it's expensive, it takes way too long 13 years it took my family to achieve citizenship. you got trade and commerce for arizona, our number one trading partner. then you have the security issue. the security in the sense of fentanyl but also human trafficking. the lives are lost, the kids traffic the 85000 plus children lost by the federal government that are in this country they cannot track down. that is a real crisis. how kirsten engel doesn't think is a crisis is beyond me. but winning to do question might find solutions that work. this a bipartisan border package had a broader bipartisan opposition to it. which is why it did not pass a democrat-controlled senate were even representatives my neighbor

your representative that you live in he came out against that belt even with this statement before the one i sent out by stand by what i said on the issues i wish i would've been up to work on it. we need to implement again remain in mexico. we need to tackle this issue piece-by-piece because a big idea of a huge border package is going to find problems but we can't wait for that to work and not do anything but we have to work on that big package at the same time we can continue to keep on getting rid of catch and release. ending the parole authority. and increase the asylum credibility of fear and remain in mexico. there are specific things we can issue right now projects as far as responding to that, a better strategy than a one-size-fits-all border security bill that lumps all that in there. >> look, we have a closely divided government. this is a bipartisan deal is a

very conservative one. it was endorsed by the border patrol union. it'd been negotiated by when most conservative senators in the senate, lankford. also arizona's own independent senator houston sinema and a democrat. this was a bill that would have pushed us forward in a really significant way on an issue we know has been very divisive. it is been very divisive nationally and here in arizona. when you talk about things like trade, that is so important. mexico is our biggest trading partner. but when i talk to people here in our community they all say southern arizona is given a bad rap because of the border. you had a chance to embrace a bipartisan deal that would have made significant step forward sd and you rejected it. and you rejected it because of president trump telling you and

your caucus to do so. and the deal then fell apart. we need to elect people that will embrace solutions and no longer this politics. we keep on electing people to go down to the border, take a photo ops but are not willing to do the job in cdc of actually solving the border crisis. that is what i will do. that's what i didn't arizona legislature as they worked across the aisle on some of our biggest issues for water, to education, to public safety. i will do so on the issue of the border. >> gratian is very personal to me. i went to this journey. i know the pits and the falls and where we need to be improving this. for someone who is not in the state legislature you have been elected official longer than i have five years the legislature not much to show for. when you look at voting for the border strike force as an example of why sam of the border. listen, we talk about this bill or any other effort we have to

make sure it has a wide bipartisan support for the fact you get a few people at each side of the aisle a small number to it like something doesn't mean it has brought a bipartisan support. and i'm going to say this now before we continue, you really need to temper the lies on the stage and on the airwaves. trump never called me. no one called me too tell me how to vote. i know how to do that for myself and i know how to read bills. what i read on that were several aspects that needed work. it was not ready to be passed by i have no authority over that as a house member all he could do is get my thoughts on it and wears a legislator i thought saw that going which is what i did. the senate, they are controlled by the democrats were not able to pass the bill out of the senate. we actually never got a chance to work on it. that is the reality of that bill. the fact you and to exaggerate that input more power than even i could ever seem to have two be able to kill a bill that's almost humorous. but, what we have to look at our our records.

our records and standing by our law enforcement. would you talk about border patrol council they have endorsed me in this race. law enforcement done the same. nine of them. none have endorsed kirsten engel, why? they know we stand by them as they believe in border security they believe in immigration reform. being pro- border security because we were putting into anti- immigrant. that something we need to get very straight here. i am proud of it. i'm also pro border security and pro- trade given that i lead the arizona mexico commission for eight years under governor to enhance that trait and that was a big priority for me. >> will her question on this that will move on to some of her other issues. if elected to put it that border security bill and a spot for it could pass or is it time to look for new strategy? >> absolutely. and had in its 20 issues we all know about other southern border

is there is a very large number of migrants that have come to claim asylum. that has been a distraction for our border patrol agents. who we need securing the border. stopping the flow of fentanyl into the united states. half of the fence and what comes into the united states comes across arizona's border. we also have a problem with human smuggling. what that border bill would have done is put more boots on the ground. it would have hired thousands more asylum officers. one hundred more immigration judges. it would have made sure that we had the technology to scan every truck coming across the border that had fentanyl in it. not just as we have now, one in 20. so, right now we do not have those resources. we do not have this immigration judges. we do not have the scanning technology. we are back basically to ground zero and yet those were the

components that we need. that is what i would work on. not photo ops, not words, that actual actions. this is our elected representative. and i don't think he has much to show for himself in terms of the issue that he's been talking about for years. it is time for change. >> you both mentioned the border and mexico is incredibly important to arizona's economy so let's switch gears. >> can i add on that? the last time she spoke were two minutes. >> 32nd rebuttal. >> this is the issue. we are running for housing for reelection in her for an attempted with high-speed chases.

who voted for this every republican voted for this. also 56 democrats voted for that is 32nd et cetera we are going to have to move on. thank you mr. ciscomani. we can bring it back we have time later want to make sure we get to enough issues. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> understand, thank you for let's understand the economy disappoints from the pew research center 81% putting that at the top. inflation is back to its lowest levels arizona's are still feeling the pinch in some of those every day costs the grocery store, paying rent, they are making tough choices but what steps will you take as a member of congress to provide the average consumer with some tangible release?

mr. ciscomani will start the first request this is the issue here about the most a question about it. wherever i go whether it is discussing community leaders, with the mayors come with elected officials to be on the field quite frankly will never go to a political meeting. dropping kids off at school both from kindergarten all the way to high school. we have an opportunity to talk to a lot of people and a lot of parents this is the number one issue, the cost of living. how expensive things are they have to tighten the belt by the federal government continues to spend in a reckless way. i am at appropriate her. as the only freshman in the appropriations committee on the house site and the only freshman in congress appointed at the beginning of this term i have a seat at the table to make sure to fiscal house in order.

the way the federal government has been spending money. people at home i've tightened their belts. they reduce their spending because of the inflation that the joe biden administration has brought in. one that kirsten engel approves and supports it but we cannot continue on that path. we cannot continue on that road. families are hurting but we do to reduce the spending from the government way to reduce the regulatory environment so they can create these jobs but we do to make sure we are promoting them by expanding the economy and spending less money on the government side. that is what i've been focusing on as an appropriate her in the resources i been able to bring back home to the community funding a project having had the economic developments like new roads, and our hospitals, the land for a new building to help fund with the funds are brought back to the appropriation committee. this is targeted investments that help with the economic development and the workforce as well.

>> miss engel how do we get relief question. >> they really need relief. high costs are digging into family budgets. it is a real issue for families. it is an issue for seniors. it's an issue for people working at minimum wage jobs. they need relief for ivan advocates worked on lowering costs for families here in arizona. when i was in the arizona legislature introduced a bill to go after price gaucher's to the authority of the attorney attorneygeneral and 36 other ste two go after companies that are jacking up prices during this emergency. we need to make sure we are not letting companies get away with things like fixing prices for

rental homes, affordable housing is also part of the high costs. it is still price-fixing. companies, large equity firms that are coming into her housing markets to make sure that doesn't happen. such as promoting and expanding authority medicare now has passed by congress earlier it was in office. to allow the negotiation for prescription drugs. opposes actually caps the cost of insulin in cap the cost for healthcare.

most of the kinds of things using we have not seen that. we haven't seen that for my opponent he's even done things like cuts vote to cut things like affordable housing money on the federal level. >> has two minutes. mr. ciscomani your response to that. >> that's a lie when dad like to ask you for the sources of 90% of the things that you say about me. >> the home program. young students graduating college. having to move back into their parents of seniors on fixed income not able to afford basic necessity. just before coming here i met with seniors where they are nervous about their pharmacy closing that's a big big concern for them. what's happening in the entire healthcare industry. we talk about the economy something hurting everyone.

and with the government over spends money that's exactly what we are going to get. that's exactly what's wrong with that approach of having more government more of the private sector when it comes to government spending how do you feel those funds should be managed or spent? >> with clean energy tax credits. i wrote a letter along with 17 other republicans that we should be projecting clean energy tax cut. on businesses or having to hire full-time people the bureaucracy the federal government is putting them through it's a full-time person that can be used to actually enhance their

service and grow the business as well. talk to a group of businesses where i had a roundtable money is coming in. everything is more expensive. it's taking longer. you talk about affordable housing. less government regulation would free up builders able to be invested in this and create the affordable housing we very much need in our district. that'll put in policies to help those in the most need and give people the freedom to go want to pursue their american treatment business pursuing education but whatever it may be. they are being made if they can afford that are not spray talk to a pastor whose kid said i cannot buy a home unless my wife is making the exact same amount of money which is a considerable amount of money they're having to move back in with them. these are the kind of stories we keep hearing they're very common. unfortunately we have to step in

and invest in with which to grow the economy. work government rules that does have history of working at all. >> missa engel your ideas? >> absolute, absolutely. unfortunate my opponent has used his position on the appropriations committee make better you did vote to cut by 60% in july the top affordable program that is putting money into tucson. two so it uses to absolutely, absolutely. we know that we need more affordable housing here in arizona ande that families are really struggling with that. your vote to cut by 60% one of

the most effective programs, you know, that is not what we need.n absolutely, i am together with you in terms of let's build our clean energy economy. it's very exciting and as a result of that inflation reduction act there's a lot of private investment coming the k arizona. you know my background of environmental attorney. one of your first when you were elected were hr1 which cut monee for clean energy. so you're not consistent in how you're using position in congress, it's actually cutting the programs that we need. we need to make sure that the middle class is not shouldering our tax burden. we know that we need the wealthy and the big corporations of this country to be paying their fair share and they're not right now. we need to close those

loopholes, we need to pass a child tax credit, that would really help working families. we need to cut the taxes for the middle class and not support things like the trump tax cuts which is a handout to the wealthy. >> thank you the wealthy. >> mr. ciscomani rejects respond? something hr-1 cut was regulation more government interference to allow the market to take offered to make more clean energy here domestically but that's the main purpose of hr-1 and that is what i supported. when you look at housing for example when you talk about education one of the projects that i used in the appropriations to be able to support teacher housing. why question at the school district is having a very hard time attracting teachers. as a matter fact if you go and talk with them they will tell you a good number of teachers that have been of the fill the positions come from the philippines for that goes back to the visa issue we need to be

working on on the board immigration side of things meet worker visas to impact the economy and workforce as well print how to use my position on the appropriations committee to be able to have and enforce and apply fiscal responsibility but also to bring the proper resources back to the district that belong here with these dollars would use my position wisely and strategically to benefit those with the most need strength or teachers as well. >> you mentioned resources there and we want to transition into water crucial resource particularly in this district given its unique demographics. urban growth and development party of farmers in places like wilcox and some of these five counties this district covers. certainly of particular concern here. so how do you plan to balance water conservation efforts with the state and really the district in particular question at the district economic and population growth?

mr. ciscomani will start with you. >> you look at water that's the lifestream of the state. that has always been our most precious resource. arizona is a very good at managing water. this is one of the issues that historically we have been able to work across party lines to be able to come around this issue. under same without this we would not be able to exist for certainly not the way we do. he would not build build the fifth largest city in the nation in the middle of a desert where we are sitting in right now if we did know how to manage water. one of the unique things about water specifically in our district you have added, you have farming, you have urban areas, you have mining of course, you have rural arizona, areas more populated. these all have different priorities. an interest in our water resources. so, we have to continue to make sure we are efficient on it.

add the complexity in arizona we have of the international boundary with mexico as we share water rights with them as well, assess texas but these are intricacies that arizona has not been able to measure them and cochair of the bipartisan colorado river caucus with a member of color of the democrat leading back on their side. we talk about these issues. with negotiations coming up next year we need to make sure we are at the table. that is where i am on these conversations. in the agreement with the history of the country between the navajo nation in the san juan tribes. in order to come to an agreement, give them certainty and something that was approved. it signed off by the farm bureau, by the agate community paid by everyone involved in this including the tribes. it was the perfect timing to be able to do this it. i will lead on this issue. this is the issue means refocusing on right now.

>> is engel what piles of jew support or implement shepherd better projector groundwater and maintain the water supply? >> in everything we do with respect to water we have to be guided by the principle here in the desert states. arizona water for arizona. because we know how precious a resource it is. vital to life is vital to our economy. we know we have a water crisis. we have a drought condition on the colorado river. which is responsible for 40% of our water. work in the arizona legislature on the colorado drought contingency plan it was because of me with several million dollars going towards conservation and drought contingency bill. but, we also know our ground water is under threat. i held a water town hall in pierce, arizona on saturday afternoon. whole bunch of folks came in.

farmers, townspeople, small business owners, all talked about the crisis of their water. they have lost access to their water. they've had to spend thousands of dollars to deepen their well and that is because we have not adequately managed our water here in arizona. we have not been through industl agriculture has come in and is pumping our water dry. and we know under the administration my opponent worked in four years they need sweetheart deals with saudi arabia to come over here and pump our groundwater dry so they can plant alfalfa and ship that alfalfa back to droit saudi arabia. that is not good management. that is not fair for arizona. it is not arizona water for arizonans. the principle that used to guide what we are doing. there is so much that we can do

however. we need to make sure that we are supporting our farms and our ranches to make sure we are using part of the most efficiently with conservation we can help our homeowners, our developers use water much more efficiently. >> thank you for that response provokes my experience as an environmental attorney to do that. >> thank you. mr. ciscomani what is your stand on leasing state land overseas companies? is that something you would support a future? >> in the future? >> absolutely not. give other nations coming in, especially adversary nations like china buying up farmland like they do in latin, america that the huge danger and huge issue. we need to make sure is we apply innovation here. i met with the staff are farmers there and they implemented this drip irrigation.

saving a huge amount of water for them over 40% savings into another piece of land they have as well but that produces more egg and concerns the water. every time i visit the minds i'm impressed by the way their recycling water there as well. i keep going back to this why it is so important to be in the appropriations committee. i will defund a few projects i'm going to list them in terms of where money for water projects have gone. what's important is city of tucson and the air force base to irrigation. one point to for graham kelty 1.75 for tucson part 1.75 for miranda. 2.25 for the moran airport as well. 990,00014 stone on this years of budget were going to pass but we get back to washington. these are the investments i made using my in the appropriations committee should make short water issues are being prioritized here in our district

at every level. it's got to be at every level that is why farm bureau has endorsed me they trust what i'm pushing for here. i just met with them again, the whole group the national group. they stress the importance of this for they celebrated the water agreement i mentioned earlier with tribes and of course are happy with the way we have been representing farming industry. balancing it with the interest as well around the district. >> 30 seconds are quick to respond to that. >> real quick i would say i am glad to hear my opponent agrees with me the principle guiding us should be arizona water for arizonans. unfortunately that has not guided his past decision. it certainly has not guided the administration that he was a part of. on his watch in that administration we see the administration made a sweetheart deal with the state of arizona to come in here because we are wide open and unregulated.

we need to stop that and manage our water. >> thank you, ciscomani 30 seconds final response before blog to another issue. [laughter] i find it humorous for your given me a lot of credit. so in your book i killed the bipartisan deal all by myself. also in your theory i was able to shepherd a deal with saudi arabia for a water when i was with the administration and not sure how many have to think i was wearing during that time. for that ministration i the arizona print southern arizona relationships among the seven counties in the south for that was my responsibility for think of four nations owning our land or water rights that we have. >> thank you a thirty second response. we need to move on however. time is going quick i want to make sure you get as many issues and as possible. now into issued not just import here in arizona but across the entire nation. on abortion access next month.

to stay in the states hand or belong at the federal level? ms. engel will start with you. >> this is a top issue. when i go from door to door and talk to people they are really, really upset. here in arizona we almost at 1864 criminal abortion ban go into effect. every woman, every person has to have the freedom to make their own health care decisions. with their doctor, with their families and that is not what we have. when i go to congress i'm going to fight to protect reproductive healthcare. i am going to fight to restore the rights that we as women have the last 50 years in roe versus wade. my opponent is showing us where he is on this issue. we cannot trust him to protect

her reproductive rights. he repealed roe versus wade. he voted repeatedly have reproductive rights he voted to be strict access to fda approved medication abortion. very, very vital to women in the rural areas hispanic and latino women he has voted to restrict reproductive healthcare for the active service duty members. and imagine that. they're fighting for our freedom. we cannot give them the freedom to make their own health care decisions. my opponent has been extreme on this. and perhaps that should not surprise us. for years he was a board member of a christian nationalist far right organization. the patriot academy that is very clear about its views it. it rejects the separation of church and state.

it believes in banning abortions entirely. and this is what he comes from. he was part of this organization for 14 years until he ran for congress progress okay thank you the two minute time is up. your stance on if abortion should be a state or federal issue? oxo answer question directly. this is a state issue. this is absolutely a state issue. always has a state issue and the supreme court agreed with that and put back on the states. this is going be a very personal issue. it is a personal issue for a lot of people. i reject the extremes on this issue. i've been very clear of forests and on this. i reject the federal ban on abortion. i support the exceptions. for rape and incest in the life of the mother i support access to ivf or those whom to grow their families are able to do so. this is an issue again voters

will decide on in november but we are going to respect the will of the voters on this issue. and it's going to be a state decision like we have seen all across the country. that is again the position that i stood on for a long time since we started talking about this. and also the decision of the supreme court came down with. that is what we are living with. that is what we're going to abide to whatever the decision is come november progress you support a ban or limits on abortion? lexis is a healthcare decision. it is a personal decision of a woman and her doctor. i'm fortunate what we have seen as there are complications from pregnancy. there is no timetable. pregnancies can go bad at any point. wanted pregnancies and we have seen just devastating horrible

situations. women have lost their lives. two women in georgia we have been reading about, nicole, kandi, georgia has more exceptions in the state of arizona. and has an exception to protect the life of the mother did not save their lives they did not get the lifesaving care. they had complications. i am a woman, i've had complications. i've had miscarriages. this is not something we leave to politicians. last time i checked, you are not a doctor. i don't trust you with my healthcare i'm sorry, i don't trust you with my daughter's healthcare. we need to leave this to women and their doctors. it is too important. women are dying as a result of the lack of healthcare. we leave this to the woman and her doctor.

>> mr. ciscomani women to respond before we move on too. >> still no answer if this should be limits on this but that's part of the problem and i've been very clear i said here again exactly what my position is here on the issue. however when kirsten engel talks about this she uses these examples that are tragic stories that nobody likes to hear. including her own personal one i obviously feel for it we do not want to see anyone go through any of that. however we need to be clear on this issue. we need to understand exactly where we stand and define exactly where we stand on this. i was very also upfront about my criticism of 1860 the decision that came down by the 1864 lauper completely opposed it did not include the exceptions that we needed it was something and bring us back to one or 50 years ago. not where we are today on this. i've been very upfront and open about this issue.

who can you not trust questioning someone who is not clear on the answers on the questions you're providing here today. like kirsten engel progress one last term to respond do you support term limits? >> that's the wrong lens. this is healthcare for they are not timetables for the complications of pregnancy. we have to make sure it doctors are able to do what we asked doctors to do which is to save lives. we know these exceptions don't work. there are exceptions, exceptions, exceptions even exceptions for the life of the mother that will not necessarily save the mother because doctors may not give them their care as we have seen over and over again too. >> that's our time is running short i want to make sure both mention social security and medicare throughout this conversation but i want to make sure we touch on that spring those are often lifelines for seniors. especially important in this particular district. should these programs be protected?

and if so how do you have not only keep these afloat but also strengthen them for the future? mr. ciscomani if you like to start projects we cannot have cuts or changes on these programs. they need to be protected. they need to be solvent also to protect for our seniors. that is the priority i have. that is what we need to do with the government acts miraculously over spends money and changes in other priority that of course impacts the solvency. it makes a lot of our seniors nervous. also those who plan to retire one day which is quite frankly everyone. we need to make sure we protect medicare. that would protect social security for those that depend on it today. for those who havepaid their wae what they receive i'm sorry they have they earned on this. these are their resources. we cannot be fooling around with that and endangering this issue and making them nervous. when kirsten engel attacks on

the old and tired of talking points from the left republicans want to cut social security and want to cut medicare. these are the kind of things that make her seniors very nervous. because they don't want to see that pretty have their implants out there? even for my own side of the aisle presented on this issue there have been i have come out against them. i am on the site just subscribe to it over the party. i don't take direction from anyone in washington to take direction from the people in my district. they have suggested any kind of reduction or change on these programs that would endanger our senior benefits both in social security and medicare. i'll be judge of what i have put forward in their solvency as well of the government continues

to spend the way they do and the federal government they continue tax and tax and tax that endangers his or earned benefits to the financial security and health of our seniors. i have coffee with him every morning on his porch. i know how important medicare is to him and his conditions were social security is important him as well. these are not government handouts. these are earned benefits. take money out of every one of our paychecks. it goes to social security so we will have it when we are older. but, i am sorry. you have not been a supporter of the social security administration. the veterans administration or social security benefits.

this is already under funded underfundedprogram cutting up aa billion dollars decimates it. wants to raise the retirement age. it's a big cut in benefits. you say that you stand up to these organizations but why are you a member of it? and i am sorry you have not convince me you are able to send it to your party because she rejected the bipartisan border security deal when trump said let's trash it because we have to keep the border crisis. so that is the problem. you present yourself as a moderate. but you caved to the extremists in your party the extremists are driving the dysfunction. they are scaring the seniors

because they are in control they will do these things and i cannot trust you to stop these cuts that are going to affect people like my dad. >> one minute to respond. i'm not convinced because i'm not trying to convince him trying to convince my constituents. those that actually live in the district. you don't live in the districts are not one of our constituents. but here is the reality of it we look at organizations whatever plan they put forward i publicly come out against these plans we are on record of doing that. so let me make it clear i am not for raising the age. i am not for changing it. i'm not for making any cuts that's exactly what's put me at odds with some of these groups that i guess we belong to as a republican caucus. we debate ideas they put the plan out there and sometimes i agree with that, sometimes i don't sometimes i agree with part of evan clear on it. you either have to be all in our all out for there's no wiggle room there's nothing in the

middle that would work. i present myself as someone who is bipartisan it's not just my opinion i say again from my opening i was ranked the most bipartisan member in the as a freshman to have it track record. >> it's hard to believe it's time for opening statements already paid. >> of a quicker battle there? >> we don't have time. we'll do closing statement to youeach have one minute to keeps on time please stick to the wind minutes. mr. ciscomani you kick us off with one minute. >> owed to say trevor went home thank you so much as been an honor to have this conversation with you today. it's been an honor to represent you this entire time. in the two years i have been in it for i am an outsider put them .an outsider still in congress. politicians there did not understand what we are going there. i understand our community because i grew up here. i grew up at your school here, i graduated, and were raising my family this welcoming when my family and i integrated to the

united states. so i just ask you to support -- i ask for your support in this election but i ask because i want to continue to work with you. we have a vision we cannot continue on this path. this path is not been working for your family has not been working for my family i can speak from experience. i want to thank you again for the support you gave us the shot you gave me this job the last two years and ask for your vote to do this two more years to continue to represent her interest in washington because washington politicians don't understand that the local politicians don't understand that either like my opponent kirsten engel. ask your vote. mr. engel at one minute your closing statement. >> gas than 30 days we have an election. early ballots are going out tomorrow. our framers were smart people. they said you could elect a member to the house every two years. that means if you do not like your current representative, you don't think they are doing the

best job in representing your interest in washington d.c., you can vote them out for you can vote in somebody you believe will be a better representative of your interest. i hope tonight that i have shown you that i am on your side and i will be a better representative, an independent thinker. someone who will fight for you in washington d.c. mr. ciscomani just said, he complemented me by saying i'm really out for what i believe in. and that is true. i am out for believing that you deserve your social security and your medicare. >> thank you we do have to wrap up now. that is all the time that we have for today's debate with the candidates for congressional districts six on behalf of our partners at clean elections arizona immediate

>> many massachusetts democratic senator elizabeth warren is seeking a third term against republican challenger john deaton, the two participate in debate hosted by boston and new england public media, gets underway on c-span and in the evening we will take you to wyoming for a debate between 3 term republican senator john barrasso and democratic challenger scott murrow. you can watch on c-span now, free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. american history tv sates on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern, hosted 20th

annual discussion on the american revolution, highlights swanson, 1777 and historian karen, british crown to committed revolutionary. first election in which all 50 states participated. on 8:00 p.m. on lectures in history, boston college communication director on how baseball connects americans to their past and their culture, exploring the american story, watch american history tv and

find full schedule on program guide or watch online any time at c-span.org/history. next discussion as china escalates its military intimidation of the island nation. author of battle for taiwan and talks about technical importance and geopolitical implications if china were to take control of the country. the hudson institute hosted this event in washington, d.c.

>> hello, patrick, asia pacific security chair here at the hudson institute and today it's a great pleasure to welcome back to hudson, who is not only former senior fellow here at hudson but distinguished danish diplomat and executive director of the alliance of democracy's foundation headquartered in copa haggen denmark and founded by andres. jonahs has written a lot of things over his career but most recently the battle of taiwan is a really good short read if you want to understand why taiwan matters and how conflict the breakout and how to prevent it. it's coming from european leader which makes it very important, also diplomat who has experience

in beijing and own personal experience with taiwan over the years. welcome back to hudson. we worry so much the conflicts that we see in ukraine because of russia's aggression, the war in the middle east, the fact that that could come to the indo pacific and lead to conflict is no small matter. everybody is working on diplomacy, economic resilience and thinking of the economic future of these democratic govern people in taiwan who just celebrated by the way anniversary for the republic of china slightly more than the people's republic of china which celebrated 75th anniversary. so tell us, why from your

perspective, again, coming from europe in particular, why does taiwan matter? >> thank you, patrick, great to be back here and personal pleasure. for me if i rewind the clock back a little bit, almost 20 years ago in 2005 i was the head of the danish current affairs, china just entered a couple of years before that, the world trade organization that would lead both to continued open and liberalization to chinese society. that year in 2005 i was invited by chinese minister foreign affairs, we were at coastal city, taiwanese islands, telling me how peaceful everything would be and trade would solve

everything and a couple of years later, opening up a lot of that trade with -- with china. that, of course, was very far away from how things turned out with china and now here almost two decades later as a did this book, part of that research, i was back in -- i was in taiwan on the other side in kenman and standing there looking over to shaman, mainland and the foundation that i worked for is sanctioned by the chinese government probably because of the work we do with including taiwan among the democratic family at our democracy summit. it's really been a personal kind of journey but you might ask, what us the this matter for ordinary citizens, this is my story, but i think the real big reasons why taiwan matters to all of us even though we could say we are sitting here 8,000 miles roughly away from

taiwan and it's a small island, kind of the size of maryland, but the first one is economic and economic and technological when you have these here, rely so much on smartphones, iphones, it's really the taiwanese companies. 90% of the world's most advance and smaller semiconductors are produced in taiwan. that means that estimates, the conflict out in taiwan that that would really in any way stop sort of the world economy, loading group has probably done more assessments which valued at 3 billion u.s. dollars, so that would be the size of california's economy but disappeared overnight in case of

a conflict. bloomberg leading up to taiwanese presidential election, in january they did another analysis, staggering 10 billion u.s. dollars, that would mean that it wouldn't just be california but it also be texas, also be new york and also be florida combined would add up to 10 trillion that disappeared from the world economy. on the economic side, you can say this is really the model of all conflicts and then there's the military geopolitical side, the fact it's a conflict for chinese potentially attacking taiwan but also the u.s. being involved in that and that would, of course, pit the world's two largest powers, the world two largest military, the world's two largest military in the taiwan strait and whoever would come out victorious would very much define who is the leading

power in the 21st century. i think that's the other big reason and then last but not least working in democracy organization with closed connections with taiwan, i think that the fact that also define whether we live in free or less free world, 23 million taiwanese were to be -- subjectated and it really matters the fate of taiwan to all of us whether we live in this less or more free world. so that's really the reason why i wrote it and thanks for calling it an easy read. i really tried to say, we all know as expert and as you are in particular, patrick, ordinary people when you tell them these things, i ask in public events

and relatively low number, one of the world's largest companies, publicly traded company in asia and the impact it has on our daily lives. so i think there's debate about taiwan is really crucial and that really has been main mission with writing the book with getting that out there to ordinary people, ordinary americans but where i come from ordinary europeans, danish language version as well which was the age that sparked debate in our small country about it as well. >> well, translates well. it's an easy read, personal stories often and i hope a few of them in this broadcast, but i wanted to just go back this week, speech and in many ways had alive branch for the chinese and encouraging them,

challenging them to say, what are you doing for peace? what are you doing for peace to wind down the russian military machine, not much. not in a good way. what are you i think to for peace in the indo pacific and yet the morn ministry, they were ready, they were poise today do that before he spoke a word, i think. but when you think about the reflexiveness of the communist party of china going after every word that is uttered especially by president li, i mean, is this insecurity or is it just good-old political warfare or is it both, maybe? >> that's a really good question. i think probably a mix to have two but it is clear that, i think, we have seen china down the path where xi jinping has several times evoked military option is there and something that is ready to do and something they are trained for

since august 22 when then speaker, nancy pelosi visited taiwan, the chinese military navy enacted some of the largest military exercises in their case and basically kept them up. let's see now if typically been sort of military response to taiwanese 1010 speeches. there could be. basically rehearsing for the kind of the military component of a possible subjectation of taiwan. i personally thought speech was very good, very balanced and did have the olive branch, element of reaching out to the chinese and for dbp leader probably also little bit courageous by using the republic of china kind of language a lot more, so in that

sense, you could say, so, i mean, unfortunately i think on the chinese side there seems to be sort of really kind of more towards, particularly by xi jinping reportedly having given the mission to be in 2027 capability wise ready to invade taiwan. so there's a certain military that is kind of starting to abate the chinese thinking. >> you also go to chapter, edited that is an excellent small volume, another quick read but a collection of authors in this case, looking at how to make the mode and, therefore, deter china from using aggression, using force, but they seem to be moving inch by inch toward that capability that xi jinping and distrusted

military and wants them to be ready by 2027 but the strategy seems to be political warfare and economic strangulation. you talk about the strategy as well which could be preparation for blockade and as in beijing, it seems to be all of the above. every day they are getting better toward a combat capability should they pull the trigger, but their strategy is really to absolutely dissuade taiwan, dissuade, japan, united states, dissuade the europeans from supporting taiwan, movement toward independence. so when you think about the international preparations, u.s. nato allies, others on deterring military option, what you wrote in the excellent book, how much weight should we put on the military deterrent element, a building block before we get to the political diplomatic, the economic and in the narrative

question about taiwan? >> i think all of them are really important, so i think if we only sort of focus on the military we might exactly miss that -- the people's republic of china can do a lot of the things through economic means and strangulate taiwan-- but we see what the chinese coast guard is doing with the philippines at the moment. those kind of tactics, we are here to use water cannons, lasers, u.s. was a treaty ally of the philippines. it doesn't in that sense sort of trigger an activation of that treaty and i think they're

willing to use all of that as well with taiwan saying maybe there would be at some point a quarantine and they can block some goods and we would end up in situations that would be similar to something seen under the cold war, everybody would along taiwan but the chinese might be willing to keep this up for a long time and so i think there's -- holds series of scenarios and also, of course, first and foremost are the taiwanese prepared for that and i also did interviews in the book, speaking on, of course, the military side with military experts and generals and admirals but then also on, for example, digital side that's speaking how taiwan prepare here on both chinese, the information and elections also cyber-attacks and -- and how to basically safeguard their critical infrastructure, taiwan is quite reliable when it comes to the

internet on a couple of cables and we did see one of the outlying islands not to where the internet cable by the chinese controller when i met and interviewed then digital minister during the book, those are from the ukraine war was two things, we need free uninterrupted internet and international coverage, that sort of thing, so we can blackened out which russia exceeded back in 2014 when they took crimea, basically we were not aware of what was going on before it was all complete. so, for example, work on -- on having satellites in different levels of like the middle and different kind of position and having different providers as well so that they are sure in a time of crisis and conflict, they actually have to access through internet. so multirange of things where you have to prepare the

deterrence, the boiling, favored term is, of course, in military terms, there's also, i think, a whole level of resilience fighting with the taiwanese that's necessary. the political will of the taiwanese to fight, on the one hand taiwan has not been overly spending on defense even though they have been in precarious position at the same time taiwan seems like they would stand up and fight and they want to but they're preparing for both asymmetric strategy and trying to buy time and in the united states meanwhile for our famous lack of power in the view of many people we seem to be engaged internationally and not likely to really walk away from this engagement and yet in europeans, japanese, australians, koreans, a lot of countries around the world that

are interested in peace, instability in the taiwan strait. there seems to be political will but that's not stopping beijing from breaking political will. ukraine flag on the lapel here, i have to say in the third year of vladimir putin's special three-day military operation, you know, you think the chinese are underestimating the political will of taiwan and the international community. >> i think so. >> i hope so. it's sort of the takeaway i get from when i speak to taiwanese, you also have it in the civil society that these training sources to give taiwan is island and in difference to ukraine, refugees have been able to go to other european friendly countries, taiwan, people would be internally displaced and there as part of the book and in taiwan i joined some of the

self-defense courses, people are getting a hold of each other in case there isn't internet and first aid and all of these things are an important part of the total resilience of the taiwanese society and actually one of the workshops of these i was on on the slide show up there suddenly president biden that appeared and with chinese and as i was trying to -- i initially thought, this is going to be his, you know, words about that he would defend taiwan if china attacked. it was not, it was from afghanistan and people don't want to defend itself the u.s. power can do very little. the first line of defense, the taiwanese are willing to stand up because if you have a chinese invasion ended up similar to

crimea in 2014 and took over taiwan and very little even that the world's greatest could do about it. so, of course, the taiwanese have to sort of be willing to do fight and then you have all of these debates which can get a good technical strategy, what's the right one, all the different taiwanese parts, army, navy, and air force, of course, have some of their components and so on and i think that's a valid discussion trying to figure out which was also really the interesting part about book with some of the other contributions which is very detailed on what is really the plan for gearing up taiwanese military deterrence as well. >> looking very specifically at the hard power that's needed to gird the diplomacy, i think the

political there is there and that's so important with ukraine. when ukraine survived the first day and they wanted to -- it was a matter of defending people who had sovereign right to defend their sovereignty, the charter as well. so what about the economic resilience, though, because, yes, they have a silicon shield to some extent we talked about but at the same time china is trying its upmost to be in position to blockade and there's another good report that came out a few months ago, looking at avalanche decoupling, could the international community impose such make sanctions to make it clear to china that aggression will be extraordinarily costly and really what undermine all of the achievement of the china dream that xi jinping is trying to work toward to. it doesn't mean it would stop. once you get to the point of

deciding to use force, it's hard to deter that. at the same time, enormous penalty. how do you think about building up the economic resilience of taiwan further and our ability to enact the kind of economic pressure to shape this environment. >> let's start with taiwanese, they are, of course, doing every part of this. in n many ways economy being heavily relying on the mainland to southeast asia, europe to japan, basically broader network on trade and investments with democratic allies. i do think the part of the terms that europeans can contribute to on the economic side is of saying to the chinese, would you have seen with russia has really been not just the government enacted sanctions but also the companies in europe have been

willing to take losses and basically voluntarily move out of the russian market and i think that -- prc, taiwan and hong kong listed as each independent entities and the chinese use market power and hotels in china to force their hands. something that they had not seen

coming that have companies been willing to take quite substantial losses, basically sort of decision of seeing russia leaving completely the international order and norms of behavior and if china were to do something similar by military attacking taiwan, so i think as europeans, part of effective diplomacy should get to that message to chinese leadership as much as we can direct today xi jinping because i think it's increasing system like putin as well where there's an echo chamber around the leader and then we needed -- that this could happen, there's a little bit still even though putin did invade ukraine, there's still slight in europe, oh, this is never going to happen with taiwan, particularly because -- so much loss of the world

economy. xi jinping is like putin a dictator. at some point say, that will be taking taiwan military and i'm willing to let my people suffer more even though, yes, this will mean a huge collapse of globalization but i can maybe shoulder that better than and willingness to suffer. so in that sense, we shouldn't count it out basically than saying it's not going to happen but i think being part of that proactive of saying, as you are also saying for xi jinping it will destruct another component like the whole idea of delivering china in 2049 at hundred years, the leading nations on all parameters. i personally don't want to live in 2049 and have the people's republic of china led by the communist china. attacking taiwan will completely

does corrupt that for you. i do hope we can be sort of -- have a part of deterrence based on economics. >> well, you're essentially allude to go the fact that you have long-term and not just short-term because they are both connected and they are connected in china's policy, xi jinping's dream, who is going to stop them. nobody can say no to him. if he decides in ten years time rather than 2027 that he wants to use force, he pulls that trigger, we're in that situation, so we have to do everything we can before then to work together to try to make that unthinkable option, option at least for china and that's not going against the status quo, this is where there's a difference. i had an argument with chinese difference despite that we are sanctioned and we talked about our different views of the status quo.

so, americans think of the status quo on the taiwan strait as we are not going to be -- we do not support independent taiwan and it's listed along with the 3 communique when u.s. administrations officials talk about this, but that's not satisfactory for the chinese. they want much more than that. they want their narrative, the one china principle essentially. they were cast in a very different era. even just the shanghai communique talking about the united states would be willing to wind down arms sales to taiwan over time, that was predicated on cross strait peace moving forward. that's not what china has done. that's not what this coercion, harassment, strangulation, the strategy, the cyber intrusions are all about. when you think about the narrative coming out of china, you talk today the high niece, you're not going to shake hands with xi jinping, you say

probably in your book. how do you think about the chinese approach to the narrative on the taiwan issue? >> i think you're very right in pointing out that chinese are very much trying to erode the status quo and we need reactions that are adapt to that because there isn't really status quo anymore. informal military line now that the chinese are crossing it every day so that's also how do we respond to that. it's on one china policy more broadly. it's been something that chinese, the way they've been lifting the bar kind of continuously, i mean, most europeans, i think, i was probably part of -- the danish prime minister back in 2009 and

then as a serving diplomat and then i think a lot of europeans thought, now we have appeased to chinese on this question, yeah, but then just like come with new one and on taiwan and also south china sea which didn't used to be seeing core interest of china but gradually been lifted and also among the things where they're like this is unnegotiable and having signed up to a one-china policy, it also means that you sign up to the south china means, it means that you sign up to taiwan part of it and i think what we also have a joint battle and should help jointly both u.s. and europeans is working with global and also democratic partners because the chinese get them to sign up to communicate and they don't think too much about, add that the taiwan -- they've done t at the un as well, the

original un resolution that it gave to the people of china, this is international norm, it didn't said nowhere in the resolution and they've been kind of using their strongholds over un organizations to basically eradicate taiwan from -- from the map. so there as well, we have sort of big job ahead and whether the chinese have been ahead because they've been -- been gradually kind of changing this and undermining the status quo and so many others and i think unfortunately we've only relatively recently come to talk with how much this is sort of very multi-prong strategy for completely eradicating taiwan international space.

>> the chinese don't seem to understand that we would live with competitive coexistence. they don't seem to be able to live with democracy at the doorsteps. that's one of the challenges. how do you view this? you work at a foundation promoting democracy, chinese are looking for revolutions in a box to come out and grab them. it's really question about legitimacy, isn't it? about the party's legitimacy? as the economy slows down, are they now increasingly worried about their legitimacy slipping away? >> i follow your debate with

your experts, mike gallagher, arguing for sort of strategy of winning which some have interpreted as regime change strategy as well. maybe it doesn't matter that much because if you look at it from the point of view of xi jinping he's defined that he thinks what the u.s. fundamentally to regime change. so however march you send out appeasing messages from state department here, i'm not sure that he changes his view, that this is fundamentally, whether they say it as a strategy or whether they don't, so in theness, you can say point of view of -- this is already what they're expecting. this is why early on in his time in office, you know, signed off on document number 9 basically saying, democracy liberal values are not just something we don't want in china but it's actually a threat to us globally as well

and this is why over the last decade have seen prc that's been really aggressive in trying to -- when you look at sanctions, what they're basically saying, foundation in denmark is not allowed to do a summit inside free country where they have a taiwan's speaker and we are allowed to sanction them for that. that's actually the level of dislike, freedom of expression of having sort of alternative views out there even inside free societies. in that sense, maybe this is a diplomatic way of dutching the geopolitical question, the chinese -- it's part of undermining and somebody who is

sanctioned but also kind of like the chinese people like to travel in china and can't do it any longer, i, of course, have start having vested interest in regime change so this is a nice country to visit for those on the sanction's list. >> thinking about a poll the chinese just released, academic poll, saying the chinese not surprisingly have unfavorable view of the americans and japan right now. positive view of russia which, of course, you're thinking about china's real interest, real interest aligned with russia and are they not considering the economic growth that they gained by working with japan, the united states and europe over this and we are in a very different situation right now which may be temporary or generational.

it is a good question about how the gage chinese perceptions of our actions and i think this is a question for -- former president going to prague, for instance. how much does that matter, those kind of actions used as pretext for more coercive action, even aggression against taiwan, not to mention sanctions against foundations that are no threat whatsoever but nonetheless china feels insure enough that it has to sanction us and you to show that they're stuff, i guess. what is it that we should really be worried about?

>> no, i don't think so. i also agree, diplomacy is extremely important. the question is how do we get diplomatic traction that matters so even those who want to cooperate on areas where we have to cooperate. we have to cooperate on which mate change, there's really no choice for the planet but don't expect china to do any favors for you in any other issue where it's geopolitical and strategic competition. that's the problem with that. there's still a problem, how do we negotiate our how do we deal with them on issues where they are different. let's take the south china sea. look at the behavior of china, china coast guard, maritime militia as well as pla navy with this imaginary dash line. yes, the map has a history to it but the lines don't have any meaning in contemporary international law. >> they don't.

>> and yet that's what they are trying to enforce on the philippines, on vietnam and other states, and so we can say, okay, it's just taiwan but it's not just taiwan. throughout their entire maritime region intruding on their neighbors and imposing their domestic view and their historical claims approach to international law and on japan as well. how do we negotiate with a country that's going to use sort of -- use historical claims rather than international law to discuss international law? >> that is a big challenge. i think europeans missed a bit of a chance and i've been arguing in my home country denmark as well, the fact that there was a ruling, arbitration ruling that basically legally came out and said that the chinese came to a void according to international maritime law. that was something that we

should have built on much more. did not really follow up and initiated by predecessor and that also made it harder. also because for denmark which includes greenland we have actually maritime disputed areas up near the north pole. according to international law but if the chinese would basically -- why on earth should the russians keep sort of having this legal affair with the kingdom of denmark. i don't see that happen. i would see negative repercussion for us. that's why i've been arguing with the european, this is in a sense far away from us but it's repercussions on international law and, of course, on trade that goes through maritime trade that goes through the south china sea will be huge, suddenly

the chinese that control all of that. i had the pleasure in 2018 on the freedom of operation and see some of the -- the small one meter shows before and now you have james bond movie, you have completely artificially build islands and it's actually quite scary in the way that the chinese have been willing to make political and military world to build facilities on all these -- all these reefs. >> especially when that militarization of the south china sea came after the legal proceedings. i mean, this is -- the philippines went to get to see legal redress of legitimate dispute and this is how china responded. >> i was here in 2015 and xi

jinping visited the rose garden. to president obama, scout honor, will not militarize the south china sea and went back and did it. >> in a huge way. that's the concern here. it's not -- i have chinese students, i love all -- all the students are great. they are brilliant, hard-working, they want a future where they can make money, you know, and provide for a family and education and travel freely but they're increasingly worried about travel and speaking out, you know, what -- what is your emergency to the chinese about how we can -- we can work through these differences including even disputes over taiwan and do this peacefully? >> it's a really good question also because very often the high niece communist parties instrumentalize and 1.4 billion are disappointed with what you

said and so i've heard that very often as a diplomat and, of course, never having polled the chinese population on all of this, you do see, for example, free chinese -- having a different point of view. it was a small demonstration but demonstration when xi jinping that visited that had banner, we don't want a war with taiwan with our name and at the moment you can move chinese outside, they might actually have different opinions. i would of course, hope someone idealistically to where we are right now that taiwan became much more of an inspiration for -- for mainland china as well where they could take the society. if you look at international rankings it's among top 10, really on democracy, we saw it

during covid period as well, solutions were respectful of individual liberties and we saw all of the opposite on the mainland, so, of course, my dose of idealism, could infusion to the chinese people, we want more of this. also now that the social contract of the communist party used to have with the chinese people is sort of broken. we give you growth, each decade you get new cars, new apartments and then you shout-out into those rules and now growth is anemic and you have the covid period where people on the streets even in the -- xi jinping society as well. i also think we shouldn't underestimate, maybe there will be a change in china at some point.

>> minimum preventive economic deterrence. of course, member states, no, you have some like czech republic is visiting lithuania, has been willing to take economic coercion from china on that.

then you have countries, germany, largest economy, it's not even german economy overall but industry which has huge reliance on the chinese market and, of course, extremely worried about what this would mean for their business if china were to sort of subject the german economy to higher levels of make coercion. so it's still a big-moving picture inside europe. you did have president macron of france as well when he was in china that talked about europe as a kind of third poll and modified that but for me, i think, another way i tried to sort of -- through the ukraine conflict as well showing the parallels and also the fact that chinese now and other things basically supplying the russians with the means to continue this war which also means for us we

actually see china in our own area which has often been -- there's still kind of far away from us and we mostly trade with them but we actually see in our area right now helping an an --aggressor fuel their war. regional and local threat for us in europe. >> would you just add a sentence or two about history here. in the chinese narrative, europeans are still back in coil onialism, they are going back several hundred years and thinking about a history that is checkered rather than the europe that we see now trying to contribute to the growth and freedom and the survival of the planet and international relations, so if you want to just address that narrative point that the chinese love to say, europeans have no place here, you don't belong in asia? >> if you look at the modeling

history of the poc's engagement with europe, we have taken massive debt on the china would become much -- it's a rude awakening for a lot of europeans in general maybe how the world turned out post 1990's where we expected trade to make us happy. i would say it's europeans that have taken a very long time, actually really listening to signals from beijing that this is a different kind of world that they want and so i don't see a part from rhetoric the sort of -- playing any role in modern relations. serious question on u.s. election. pivotal moment, whatever happens, though, the next president is going to be challenged for the next four years with this taiwan issue and dealing with china, from your

view as an expert, from a diplomat, somebody who is traveling the world as a european as well, you know, how do you view america's reliability going forward? you know our country so well. as we talked about before, it's really hard to sort of make solid predictions on this election. of course, i've been here as well meeting with people in the campaigns and trying to gauge primarily on ukraine as well which force europeans, of course, the war is, hot war going on right now where we are trying to avoid here with taiwan another war erupting. i think it's a big question for -- for us on ukraine first and foremost but overall how much does the u.s. want to engage in

the world sort of going forward, we have the discussion of so-called forever wars and that was also part of their withdrawal. i don't see anybody else that i would like to be in the world stage and try to give a helping hand so i really personally, of course, invested in to see -- i don't have a -- even though i don't have a vote in your elections, i just really hope on a personal note that you have good and peaceful elections. so i've seen it happen nice and peacefully and i do hope that this would be the case this time around and new leadership come in will also look to -- to gage with the world and allies, europe and taiwan as well. >> from your lips to god's ears

as they say, thank you so much, the battle for taiwan, why taiwan matters and everything about u.s., europe and china in this discussion, congratulations on another great publication, great to see you back here at hudson and god speed. thank you. >> thank you, patrick. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> thursday on c-span2, international military officials discuss combining industrial efforts among u.s. allies, keep pace with rising conflicts, live from the hudson institute at 9:00 a.m. eastern, also at 10:0l

monetary fund managing director talks about the global economic outlook and the ims policy priorities. live on c-span, c-span now our free mobile video app and online at c-span.org. thursday on c-span, our campaign 2024 coverage continues with j.d. vance speaking to voters at a rally in speaker live at 12:3. at 3:00 tim walz is joined by former president bill clinton in durham, north carolina to kick off early voting in the state. at 8:00 p.m. on c-span vice president kamala harris holding a rally in green bay wisconsin marking sixth visit to the state since start of presidential campaign. you can watch our campaign coverage on free c-span now video app or online at c-span.org. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features leading author

discussing latest nonfiction books. at 6:30 p.m. eastern surgeon and john hopkins public policy researcher marty, book blind spots. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, pulitzer prize winning author bob woodward talks about wars, 2024 presidential election and at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwords, stephanie baker of bloomberg news looks at global impact of u.s.-led economic sanctions against russia following vladimir putin's invasion of ukraine in her book punishing putin. she's interviewed by author and brookings institute senior fellow angela watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find full schedule on your program guide or watch online at book

tv. >> next look at findings from annual survey examining public views on immigration, abortion, the economy and the roots of fascism. msnb reed and columnist were among the participants for the event, from the brookings institution and the public religion research institute. it's an hour and 40 minutes ding from their annual american values survey. that event expected to get underway shortly. live coverage here on c-span. >> i want to welcome everyone

here today and everyone who watches or hears this. this is a very exciting day for us. this is the 15th joint effort by brookings and prri, cooperating on prri's extraordinary annual survey. 15 years is a long time for an institutional marriage. robbie jones of prri said we are way past the seven year itch and this is been a fruitful partnership for my colleagues and i. it has been a wonderful partnership. we have learned a lot from robbie, from melissa who is the ceo at prri. we are grateful to be here. some of you may have read columns lately by ezra klein in new york times and my colleague

jean robinson in the washington post and also our friend and colleague elaine said stop reading polls, stop doom scrolling. after this event you can stop reading polls. not just because i am obviously biased, but also because the survey really sheds important light on issues we should be thinking about as election day and perhaps its aftermath approach. in a campaign where the words "enemies within" have become part of the campaign dialogue, this catches out not only polarization. you thought we couldn't get more polarized? this survey suggests we are even more so. also as robbie will show -- no

one does power points as well as robbie in his presentation in a moment, there is real division about the role of violence in our society and in the electoral process. it is a very troubling time that is a country we need to come to terms with now but also after this election is over. i want to thank catalina navarro of brookings who has done so much, particularly to pull this together today. one of the great things about this partnership is we have always had awesome some respondents to this survey. a veteran and somebody who has been there with us is joy reid from msnbc. at the brilliant a.b. stoddard of the bulwark has joined us today. even if you are not a numbers guy, which i confess i am, you

are in for a real treat today. in the process of enjoying that treat you will learn a lot of stuff you did not know. welcome, everyone, and i want to welcome, the president and founder of prri, the author of some extraordinary books. robbie has been at the forefront of demonstrating the racial and racist past within our religious traditions but also pointing the way towards reconciliation. his last book -- let me plug the last book. title should have written down. it is "the hidden history of white supremacy." it has a section on efforts communities have made to achieve reconciliation.

a profit of problems but also a profit of solutions and he knows a lot about numbers, robbie jones. [applause] robbie: welcome, everyone. it is great to see a full room. we are coming back from covid, still. it is nice to see everyone in the same room. a quick thank you to ej and bill , i feel old, joy told me i should use the word seasoned. i thought before i jumped into the numbers i would give a highlight reel of the 15 years and some findings that have had a long shelf life as we have gone along. just a few quick ones. i will not take too much time. all the way back, the 2010 to the present.

if you can think back to what politics looked like in 2010 compared to what they look like today. we've been tracing these trends along the way. remember the tea party? we were one of the first people to break that the tea party was actually a rebranding of the old christian right. that half the people who claim to be a follower of the tea party also claim to be part of the christian right. that was not how the tea party was branding itself. there were branding itself as a libertarian movement. we found that only about one in 10 americans were true libertarians. in america if you are economically conservative you tend to be socially conservative as well. the other thing we've been paying attention to is the sorting of political parties by race and religion. remarkable today that the republican party is 70% white and christian in a country that is 41% white and christian.

the democratic party today is 25% white and christian. the racial and religious polarization, in addition to the ideological and political polarization. the other thing we -- in 2016 when trump first entered the scene there was a lot of debate of the role of the white working class. is it economic anxiety or cultural anxiety? it turns out it is both. we were able to quantify that if you're going to make a recipe for white working-class attraction to trump it would have to be two parts cultural anxiety and one part economic anxiety. one of the things i constantly still get lack jaws when i mentioned is sometimes the assumption about where religious groups are on particular issues are completely wrong. among american catholics, the

catholic church, the hierarchy has staked out a strong position on lgbtq rights and abortion. it is not at all where catholics in the pews are. most of the time we tracked this they look pretty much like the general population. that is to say supportive of abortion rights and supportive of marriage equality. that is something people often do not know. we've been tracking demographic shifts as well and we were able to track -- we were one of the first just put a spotlight on the fact that during the tenure of our first african-american president we experienced a seachange in our religious demographics. we went from being a majority white christian country graphically speaking, if you take all white christians together, we were 54% white and christian in 2008. that number today is 41%.

that seachange happened during barack obama's presidency. part of the thing that sets the stage for a lot of anxieties and nostalgia and resentment we are seeing is the shifting demographics in the country when we had a very visible symbol of that change in the white house. finally, one of my favorites and one that has the longest shelf life and is still getting you to print almost 10 years after we asked the question is the question about candidates character and how much it matters for people. in 2011 we asked the question was do you agree or disagree that a candidate who commits an immoral act in their private life can still behave ethically and perform their duties and their public life? when we asked white even chuckle protestants this question in 2011, only about 3 -- when we asked white evangelical protestants in 2011, only about three in 10 said yes.

and we asked this after trump received the nomination in 2016, it went from three in 10 to seven in 10. during that same period trump's favorability went from the mid-40's percent up to about 70% in that same period. with that i will jump in to where we are today and hopefully we have some things that will stand the test of time today to the very challenging moment we find ourselves in in this election cycle. 15 years of doing this survey, you see the long-term trends in the presentation. this is a fairly large survey, over 5000 interviews. the typical political poll you see run by me, this is about five times as big as typical poles in the media. we want to thank the carnegie corporation of new york who has been a long time supporter of this since the beginning.

also the ford foundation, the uua project as founding this year -- for funding this year. where are we? we asked the standard question if we are heading in the right direction or wrong direction. we will count three levels and give you a sense of where people think we are. in the country it is pretty dark out there. it is only democrats who are a majority saying we are headed in the right direction. independence bank to 29%. report -- independents down to 29%. republicans at 6%. in the local community the pattern still holds but the numbers go up. about half of republicans say things are going in the right direction. they are divided. independents and democrats at

7%. there is my personal life and hear the partisan split goes away. most americans think in my personal life things are going in the right direction. that tells you a little bit about how to read those big numbers, it is more complex a picture in the top numbers often tell you. another question along these lines, this is been a standard question. we first asked in 2013, not just today, i will to hat to bill on this one. we were sitting around a table and thinking about how to ask questions about the countries changes. i think a lot of people think of the 1950's as a benchmark time. they think things were better or worse in that somewhat mythical golden age. sure enough, when we asked this question it has all along the way been a huge divider by party. we asked it in 2013.

it was 55% democrats and 23% republicans saying things have changed for the better in this country. the gap is still there but it has gone up. among democrats it is 68%. republicans remain fairly steady. this little blip of 46% is the end of trump's term. there was this one moment at the end of trump's term people thinking things were going for the better and as soon as he loses it drops back down to this historic place. this is a big divider in the country today. what about this year? we had about 10 questions about what were the most critical issues for your vote in this election year? i will give you democrats and republicans. there is some overlap but not a lot. here are the top things democrats say are critical issues for voting in the

country. there are four that reached a majority of democrats. the health of our democracy, the cost of housing, abortion, and health care. abortion is unusual for democrats historically. this is a post dobbs phenomenon that we are seeing abortion jump up as this high of a priority. you see crime and immigration are quite low for democrats. i will leave these up and put up the republican numbers. you will see there is agreement on the health of our democracy, barely, although as we will see democrats and republicans mean something very different by the health of our democracy. where there is agreement is the increasing cost of housing and everyday expenses. we also have jobs and the economy here, it is not jobs in the economy, it is inflation. it is not just generic economics.

it is this increasing cost component that is driving democrats and republicans. the things that are really driving the vote among republicans, immigration and crime. e.j. mentioned the enemy within, the fear on things within the country going wrong, that is part of what this is reflecting. these are also obviously racially changed things. look at abortion among republicans. way down, particularly compared to democrats. almost twice as many democrats say that is a critical issue for voting as republicans. that is an inverse of what we have historically seen until the last few years with the striking down of roe v. wade. just to give you this comparison , here is what critical issues look like in 2020. the last election cycle, immigration and abortion the two

t election cycles. in 2020 far more republicans at abortion was a critical issue for voting and immigration. look at 2024, how these things have changed position. today abortion 29, immigration 71. you see how this is driving the election in different ways. we asked the question another way. the last one is what you think is critical. we ask you -- we asked it in a harder way that was a litmus test. would you not vote for a candidate that disagreed with you, would it be a dealbreaker on the question? i will show you immigration and abortion. these are the percentages that say they would only vote for canada to shares their views on these issues. here are the parties, republican, independent, democrat. even when we ask it this way it is far more republicans who say immigration is a dealbreaker

that abortion is a dealbreaker and the inverse is true among democrats. a majority of democrats say i would not vote for a candidate who disagrees with me on the issue of abortion. the other one i will show you are christian nationalism adherence. we also attract the support for christian nationalism in the country today. to give you the overall numbers, about three in 10 americans today affirm tenets of christian nationalism. the u.s. should declare itself a christian nation. u.s. law should be based on the christian bible. christianity should exercise dominion over all areas of u.s. society. among those who share those views, they look kind of like republicans. a majority of republicans do affirm christian nationalism. that is part of the reason you

see this overlap. among those who say they agree with christian nationalism is being driven more by immigration than abortion. among those who are skeptics, it is more abortion than immigration. seeing immigration, one of the other long-standing questions we asked is what do we do with the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the u.s.? what is the right policy to deal with them. we did a lot of good work back in 2013 to come up with a three-part question. i will show you one part. the question basically says how should we handle people in the country illegally? should we allow them a to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements, allow them to become permanent legal residents but not citizens, or identify and deport them? it has all three parts. this is just the top part.

these are the people who say we should allow them away to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements. what is noticeable was until 2016 we had a majority of republicans agreed with this statement. it was a consensus across party lines. as you can see it drops and drops. one little blip in 2019 where it goes back up, and then it consistently drops and now the bottom has dropped out. only 36% of republicans today agreeing with that statement, down from 53% when we first asked this question in 2013. democrats have remained pretty steady. you can see this divide, you can see the mouth opening. it is basically a 20 point gap in 2013 that has now blown up to a 40 point gap between the two parties in 2024.

here is one -- e.j. mentioned the rhetoric we are hearing. there are number of questions that eyes the social scientists never thought i would write. this is one of them. we need to know how many americans believe that immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country. less it be lost on any of you, that language is straight out of mein kampf. it turns out that one in three americans agree with that statement today. you'll see where that one in three come from. this is a classic case of asymmetric polarization. republicans are far more outside the general population then democrats are. 61% of republicans today affirm the statement. only three in 10 independents

and only 13% of democrats. there is only one religious support that has majority support. this is what evangelical protestants. this is the group that supported trump eight in 10. you can see the effect. white catholics are the next group out, but they are still below the majority. are there groups are at the general population or below the general population in terms of the religious landscape. this is a truly alarming situation to find this kind of rhetoric finding this kind of support among one of our two major political parties. this is a national poll and where it is really true if you're trying to figure out who will win the election a national poll will not answer that question. it only swing state polls that will make the difference. i want to see the religious landscape.

we like many others, these numbers are from the large sample from the end of august and the beginning of september. we did go back to check the numbers again a few weeks ago and they have not really moved. i am showing you the bigger sample. the basic divide among registered voters at the national level and here is the divide. as always in the american religious landscape, the two groups always at the polls are white evangelical protestants and african-american protestants. there is no group that votes more and has been more supportive of trump than white evangelical protestants. no group has been more opposed than african-american protestants. the other thing you will see is the groups that tend to support trump are white christian groups. one shorthand way you can describe the american electorate

since 1980's you can boil it down to this. white christian groups vote republican and everybody else tends to vote majority democrat. that has been a clean divider since ronald reagan and all the way through. trump has largely held onto that voting pattern over the last few election cycles. not a lot of changes. what might be the most remarkable thing is there are not a lot of shifts given what a different kind of candidate we have at the top of the ticket in the last few election cycles on the republican side. when we first started doing the survey, every year there was news articles writing about the god gap and said the more likely you are to go to church the more likely you are to vote republican. i always thought there was something wrong with that. what is wrong with that is it is mostly true for white people.

if you break it down it looks quite different. here is white americans by attendance. those who attend weekly or more, the bottom a tent seldom or never. those who attend weekly or more, 76% voted for trump, only 20% went for harris. it trips by the time you go seldom or never. even among white people that is largely ineffective white evangelical protestants and is partly structural. there are many mainline protestant churches, methodist, presbyterian, episcopal, who do not offer more than one service a week. the category that is weekly or more is stacked into white evangelical protestants. here are hispanic americans. the pattern still holds but it is the attend monthly part where it crosses the line. it is only the weekly or more group that is most likely to support trump.

once you get to the monthly or more it tilts the other way. here are african-american protestants. it is the exact opposite. the more likely you are to go to church the more likely you are to support harris among african-americans. you see the pattern tilting the other way. r.i.p. the god gap. threats to democracy in the 2024 election. we only go back to 2021 because we started asking questions about political violence after the insurrection on january 6. we do not have to go back before that because it is not something we imagine it would be a likely thing to ask about. the question asked is because things have gotten so far off track american patriots may have to resort to violence. you're the group divides on that

question. it remains fairly steady. ups and downs. the main thing to say is we have three in 10 republicans today agreeing that true patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country. only 8% of democrats and 18% of independents. three in 10 is nowhere near a majority, but three intent is a lot of people. one of our major political parties saying we may have to resort to violence. we decided to ask two other questions that had violent implications to them. i will show you the patterns on both. we cannot just cherry pick one question. we asked one about armed poll watchers. there is been a call for people to show up to the polls armed to the teeth to watch and verify the vote. this question, do you agree or disagree that to ensure fair presidential election we'd need

everyday citizens to show up even if it makes some people uncomfortable. the second question is the same one i just showed you, in general we may need to resort to save the country. the third is about voter fraud and everyday americans needing to rise up even if requires violence. if the 2024 election is compromised by voter fraud, everyday americans we need to ensure the rightful leader takes office, even if it requires taking violent actions. here is the first question about armed poll watchers. about three in 10 republicans. these are people who are sympathetic or adherent to christian nationalism, it is a full one third of that group who favors armed poll watchers. democrats it is around one in 10. the second is when we saw. three and 10 republicans saying true american patriots may have

to resort to violence to save the country. the last one is that everyday americans may need to rise up. a little bit less on that question but the patterns are still clear. republicans about twice as likely as democrats to say this and if you affirm christian nationalism may be almost three times as likely. we should let this sink in. this is quite alarming. i have looked these numbers a lot and have to remind myself that this is a big deal. this is something quite new in the country. the other question we have is not exactly about violence, but it is about a coup. support for trump overthrowing the election if he is not confirmed as the winner, he should declare the results invalid and do whatever it takes to assume his rightful place as president. i will give you a couple of attitudinal measures along with

demographic ones. among those who believe people who are convicted for violence on january 6 are political hostages, and we have a question about that, three in 10 of them say if he is not declared the winner he should do whatever it takes to assume office. among those who believe the 2020 election was stolen, it is about one quarter. it is 62% of republicans who believe the election was stolen from president trump today. then this one is just republicans who have a favorable view of trump is nearly one quarter. they say if he is not confirmed should do whatever it takes. here are the christian nationals on the same number again. do whatever it takes. this is interesting. this does not say anything about legitimacy. it just says if he is not confirmed, this is what we should do.

this is a nonpartisan poll show we did ask the same question about harris. if harris is not confirmed the winner she should declare the results invalid and do whatever it takes. your democrats with a favorable view of harris, about one in 10. half as likely as republicans with a favorable view of trump. those who disagree about one in 10, those who reject christian nationalism a little less than one in 10, those who disagree that those convicted in january 6 there hostages, it is single digits. about half of the republican side. looking back at january 6 to give you the lay of the land, this first question is on the disagree side. people who disagree that trump broke the law to stay in power are almost all republicans. 82% of republicans disagree that trump broke the law compared to

9% of democrats. here is the number that the election was stolen from donald trump, 62% of republicans believe the lie that the election was stolen. about half of republicans believe people who have been convicted by a court of law for their role in the january 6 the tax are patriots who are being held hostage by the government. down into single digits for the democrat side. that is all pretty dark and worrisome. i thought i would end with three things where there is still agreement on substantive issues. here is one. three quarters of the country agrees we should require supreme court justices to retire at a certain age or after a certain number of years instead of serving for life. you can see it is nine in 10 democrats and six in 10 republicans. that is about as strong as you will get in this current environment for agreement on a substantive issue like supreme court justice tenure. the other is laws that make it

illegal -- opposition that make it illegal to approve abortion pill for medical abortions. 68% of americans oppose restrictions. you will see even the majority of republicans oppose restrictions on the abortion pill. eight intent democrats but even a majority of republicans. finally ivf, if anything should be the third rail in reproductive health it is this. 85% of americans oppose laws that make it illegal for people to seek out in vitro fertilization or ivf to have a child. look at the partisan. i cannot think of anything else where i can say there is no statistically significant difference between republicans and democrats on these issues. that is quite remarkable. on that sunnier note i will wrap it up and headed over to the panel.

-- and hand [applause] it over to the panel. -- and hand it over to the panel. [applause] >> we now begin the panel discussion phase of this event. for those of you who have not seen my face for the previous 14 years, i am bill colston, a senior fellow in government studies at brookings. it is my pleasure from this all-star panel. if i were to do justice to the resumes of all of them we would

not have any time left for a panel discussion so i will not. i will simply introduce them. you've already met robbie jones. to his right but stage left or reverse, who knows, is melissa jackman, who is this -- is melissa deckman, ceo of the public religion research institute. to her right is a.b. stoddard, a veteran columnist and political analyst, now at the bulwark. we also welcome back joy reid, who is the host of the readout and a political analyst for msnbc. each panelist will have about five minutes and if you look to

your left you will find catalina navarro who will hold up a one minute card when you have one minute left and a stop card. in order to get in all of the panel and the very high volume of internet questions i will be a tough cough -- a tough cop. you can see i have some pork from the american people in that. -- i have support from the american people in that. [laughter] i would ask you if you have not done so already to please silence your cell phones or pagers. with that melissa, over to you. melissa: good morning.

first off, i want to welcome everyone here on behalf of prri and extend thank you to the brookings institution. this is the 15th annual american values survey and has been our longest standing partnership in the most fun. catalina, thank you for keeping the trains running. i want to acknowledge the incredible work of our staff. we have 10 full-time employees at prri. i'm am amazed by the good work the staff has done this fall in turning around the survey. please take a look at the survey. follow us on social media as well. i would like to speak about the role of gender in this election. i am a political scientist who has studied gender in politics for more than 20 years. i too am seasoned.

i've never really run across an election in memory where gender themes have played such a prominent role this year. take the rnc convention. i found it notable that when trump was introduced to accept his party's nomination goes dana white, he is the head of the ultimate fighting championship and this is what he said before he introduced trump. he said this man is the toughest and most resilient human being i have ever met in my life. i would also say the selection of jd vance represents a different gender plank that speaks to more traditionalist patriarchal views of america. we are all very familiar with his comments made to tucker carlson when running for senate about the threat posed by a childless cat ladies to america. he singled out childless democratic leaders such as kamala harris by name, saying how does it make any sense we

have turned our country over to people who do not have a direct stake in it? he has also floated the idea of having parents have more voting rights than non-parents. this worldview he is talking about is one where making children makes you more invested in the nation and that is more politically deserving. it is a very pro-nato list view of america -- is very pro-natalist u of america which may have serious policy implications for a potential second trump administration, especially what you can read in project 2025, which is the heritage foundation blueprint for a second trump administration. project 2025 calls for banning abortion nationally, banning the morning-after pill, but also advancing an idea of personhood for fetuses which would threaten access to ivf, which we just saw is the one thing uniting the

nation, apparently, that most americans strongly support access to ivf. what does it tell us about how gender will play out? the gender gaps in american politics has been with us a long time, typically speaking since 1996 american women have tended to back democratic presidents and men have tended to back republican candidates. in 2020, men broke for trump 53% compared to 45% for biden while biden's advantage for women was 55% to 44%. according to him so's, they gave -- according to ipsos, they gave us more recent data. men are breaking for trump 51% to 47% and harris has an advantage among women voters 54 percent to 41%. what is more important is not just on the sex of the voter but knowing their attitudes about

gender. that is far more important. one of my favorite questions from the prri archives is we typically ask americans each year, do you think society has become too feminine. when we first asked that in 2011 42% of americans agreed that america is too feminine. where are we today? we have gone through the #metoo movement, there is a rise in young feminists making big strides in american politics. it is 42% of americans think we are soft and thin and -- and feminine. we've not seen much difference. if you look at the gender break about half of american men agree with that but 38% per of american women. among partisans, only 20% of democratic men agree that america has become too soft, while two thirds of republican

women agree america has become too soft and feminine. with gop men it is 80% to agree. the abs, if we look at that measure among registered voters in a two way race, we find 80% of americans who agree society has become soft and feminine tend to vote to donald trump compared to 77% of americans who disagree society has become soft and feminine and are attending to vote for kamala harris. what does this tell us about other voters we are hearing about? there are slots of concern about democrats that -- there is lots of concern among democrats that trump is making inroads among men and latino men and black men. if you look at the measure isolated to those groups, only 42% of young men aged 18 to 49 agree society has become too soft and just 34% of black men. 42% of hispanic men agree.

i do not think that doubling down on those masculine themes we are hearing all the time from the trump ticket will necessarily bring young man or black men were latino men to vote for trump. i think it has the potential to animate lots of anger among young women. i have written a book called the politics of gen z and i have taken a deeper dive into the divide we are seeing among young women, and i document how gen z women are the most progressive in american society today and therefore more likely to identify as feminist compared to their mothers and grandmothers and gender equality has become a huge thing among young women. the talk we hear from trump will animate the younger women to turn out in higher numbers this election cycle. i think the strongman language is about trying to motivate the base of donald trump and jd vance. talking about childless cat

ladies and the need of having a great protector as donald trump has been saying lately is geared more at trying to get his base to turn out for this election cycle. we will know pretty soon whether or not it is effective. thank you. william: thank you so much. a.b.: i have two 23-year-olds and a 21-year-old and because social media is intentionally using algorithms to separate them and make girls more conservative -- and make boys more conservative and girls more liberal so i'm worried about having grandchildren. i want to -- melissa just said it is not as sticky as we fear. pew had a finding a few months ago that four in 10 young men believe that advancement for women has come at their expense, which is concerning. and trump and the bro zone and

the ministry or try to amplify that for them that they're getting left out and cut out. women -- there will be a boomerang effect for trump condescending to women that he needs to be there protector. i was fascinated by the findings in the survey. i find the same things alarming that robbie outlined about violence. my main take away is that tribalism is a hell of a drug and so is fox news, newsmax. if you dive into the numbers and find what people's opinions are and where they are getting their media, there is a direct and wretched correlation. when i look at where we are in this election, i write for the bulwark and we hope to be donald trump and we hope harris is seen as a change agent in the

electorate and not as an incumbent. what we found in these numbers is the pessimism in the electorate is bad news for harris. the wrong track numbers and economic stress numbers are concerning. 66% believe the economy has changed for the worse in the last four years. that is not true and is not in the numbers. that is a shocking finding. inflation and price hikes, those are new, so for people experiencing new prices for the first time in their lifetime, that is creating so much anxiety that we saw inflation highest among all voters and abortion lowest in terms of the top several issues. that is concerning for harris in terms of what will energize people. immigration was less salient as a litmus test issue, i was surprised to find it more of an issue for independents than it was in 2020.

the country is so dramatically shifting right on immigration and it shows in the survey. the path to citizenship down. support for dreamers down 10 points since 2018. in six years. the support for the wall 10 points up in eight years. the 57% number showing the influx of immigrants into communities is burdening local committees and their social services. 57% overall is a high number. immigration has grown more salient than abortion, even though it is lower in litmus test numbers it has grown in salience more than abortion since 2020, post dobbs. i find that stunning. america's reputation has changed for the worst in the last four years.

65%. america's reputation around the world, this is a stunning statistic. 65% of independents concurred with that, which i found really depressing. they are skeptical of party, they are less tribal than republicans and democrats. for them to view our situation -- you could take the afghanistan withdrawal and separate that out. i found that stunning. 53% agreeing that trump broke the law to stay in power. that is a low number to me. 54% of independents. seven points down in one year. it reflects an acquiescence on the part of the electorate as a whole to trump's corruption and criminality and authoritarianism that is very concerning and concerns me going into the election.

49% agree there is real danger of trump being a dictator. 49%. nearly one third of all republicans say patriots may have to resort to violence. i was going to use robbie's positive ending on ivf. [applause] [laughter] i have two children as a result of ivf and this number 85% made me very happy. and also the scotus numbers, the fact that 73% of the country understands how our three branches of government work and that there should be some age or term limits on the supreme court justices service. i thought that was very encouraging as well. i look forward to the discussion and thank you for having me. joy: i want to echo the thanks

to bill and melissa, robbie, my favorite pulling guy, my buddy e.j., catalina, a.b. i think i'm a little seasoned. my kids are similar in age. i do not feel too old. when i went through the survey i went right to four things. the first is the question of political violence. i do believe this election is a litmus test for american tolerance for fascism. the elements of fascism are rooted in this nationalistic drive for more babies for the state, for women to be subordinate to men, for a strongman driven nation, and a deep state-based religiosity.

all of that is in these numbers. the question of whether people must resort to violence in order to ensure that the right person becomes the leader of this country. americans who trust conservative news outlets are the most likely to support political violence, 41%. followed by those who most trust fox news. i believe we have a media problem and some of our media is leading people towards fascism. the second number on that list was the question of america has become too soft and feminine. i think that is a fascist litmus test because it tests the question of whether men and women accept the idea of modality -- of modernity. if you look at countries that practice the most oppression of women, or even if you go back to previous fascist countries like south africa, if you look at

society where women are suppressed, you have elements that include political violence and include lack of abortion access. these things go together. the question of whether a society is too soft and feminine , it was alarming to me that a majority of hispanic protestants agreed. that is not shocking because it is a social thing. 25% of black protestants also agree. the places where you're seeing trump resonate among people of color, you can look to that. anecdotally i can tell you you hear a lot of complaints within some black religious folks and even black men and women were latino men and women about what they see as a feminization of society. i went to that. this question of whether or not immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country. this is one of the most terrifying things you heard a presidential candidate say because it is straight out of

mein kampf. it shocked me to have 23% of jewish respondents agree with that because that is straight out nazi talk. 19% of black folks agree with that. 60% of republicans are agreeing. that should scare everyone. the last one which i think might have been the most scary for me is the question of whether we should corral undocumented immigrants into armed camps. white evangelical protestants, 75% are the most likely to favor militarized encampments. the majority of white catholics, 61%. the catholic church is rooted in the care for the immigrant. i have not been catholic since i wasthe majority of white cathol, 61%. six, we became methodist which is when our church where you going watch football after, that i became a baptist. i've been all of them.

i can tell you the catholic church is the most pro-immigrant church. for you to have a majority of white catholics say there should be armed camps, white mainline non-evangelical protestants, 58%. 56% of mormons, a formerly persecuted group of american religionist agreeing there should be armed camps. 42% of black protestants. 33% of hispanic catholics. i wonder, we are booking this on the readout, the question of whether latinos who believe this think that your average border patrol official or national park member or police officer is going to be able to tell who is an undocumented immigrant and who is not. they will just see your color and hear your accent. i am always curious what makes them think they won't take marco rubio when they see him or they

will not see the son of jd vance. he has a brown child named vivek. how is he safe in this scenario? i don't know. christopher russo is married to an undocumented immigrant from thailand. does she think he believes the average cop will be able to discern this particular asian person is legit to be here? there are a lot of black people who cannot tell from a latino. i have relatives who you might think are hispanic but they are black. i have police in my family. they can barely deal with the social services aspect of their job, let alone being required to discern who is undocumented or not. more than half of americans who attend church weekly or more, 57% believing there should be armed camps. those who attend church a few times a year, 51% favor putting

illegal immigrants in encampments. that is the scariest thing in this survey because it shows american tolerance for fascism is growing. it is not getting better. the one piece of good news that will make americans feel less bad about themselves regarding the survey is this is a global phenomenon. this is not just happening here. if you look at the election in argentina, if you look in venezuela. the difference is americans have viewed ourselves as not capablef falling into fascism but in the 1930's we came about that close to supporting hitler's. this is not a country that's been immune to fascism ever. it is just with usually all of our anxiety has been hyper directed at black people. but right now melissa is correct we are in a moment where the fight is even more so over gender.

and it is a question of whether america will be willing to tolerate the leadership of a woman and asked -- and is that a woman of color, this will be the ultimate litmus test for whether america is capable of becoming a fascist country will find out on november 5 or if their lawsuits may be sometime in december or january. >> on that cheerful. [laughter] >> not bringing the joy. [laughter] >> ok. let me tell you what's can happen now in the next half hour. it will be divided into two segments. in the first of those two segments, i will address questions to the panel, sometimes to specific individuals, sometimes to the panel as a whole. and then we will turn to questions from the floor interspersed with questions that we have received online.

and when it comes time for questions, please introduce yourselves by name, by institutional affiliation if you choose and think it's relevant. and then state your question. there will be no time for speeches as that would be deeply unfair to the many questions but we are going to get more than i fear we have time to accommodate. so let me begin with a question for robbie that we in fact received online which is such a perfect question that i've decided to throw it this way. here is how the question reads. please clarify the difference between two groups. the first group, christians who believe that religion has a legitimate role in public life.

the second group, the people you called christian nationalists that you have really pioneered the study of. so what are those differences? >> it's a really important question. i'm guinness a one quick thing to joy's comments about the encampments. we have now heard trump calling for an alien enemies act which would be the thing you would do to marshall those kinds and just as a reminder that act is how we got japanese internment camps in this country. this is not something we have not done before. it's not even theoretical. i just want to put that point out there. it's really important point. we have a long tradition in this country of religious groups having all kinds of appropriate influence in public life. separation of church and state

but that doesn't have a separation of religious input in public life. and our measures of christian nationalism were specifically designed to respect that difference. we designed the questions to measure christian nationalism we make sure that those were not just things about christians having influence in public life but they were about christians having dominance in public life. so when you say u.s. law should be based on the bible, that's not just influence that's dominance of one religious tradition determining law in the country or if we move from art christian traditions we won't have the country anymore. the only way we are truly american is to be christian. it's all about a kind of hierarchical view of where christians sit vis-a-vis other citizens. and we did a study in 2023 with brookings where we have a whole study looking at questions we

asked, a set of five questions that we used and we also were careful to make sure all five of those questions statistically held together so you can measure how tightly correlated they are, a very high correlation and other sophisticated factors to make sure that they hang together. one's not going this way and the other. so they're all pushing in the same direction. the content of them is all about dominance in the theocratic views. we find that it's about three in 10 americans who are in that category of holy agreeing or mostly agreeing with those statements. two thirds of the country leaning the other way. again a majority of republicans, 54% who affirm that christian nationalist view and evangelicals to affirm that. >> thank you. i am now going to move on to a

series of cultural questions for the panel as a whole. based on the survey. and the first of these cultural questions concerns the issue of crime. which i think may be a sleeper issue to some extent in this election. here's one of the findings of the survey on crime. 52% of hispanics and 50% of african-americans see crime as a critical issue. compared to only 40% of white americans. how should we understand these numbers? >> i will jump in and say because a disproportionate share of black and latino americans live in cities, live in big cities and disproportionately live in cities where crime is higher because they are under

policed when it comes to protection and over police when it comes to arrests, crime is sort of an ever present issue more so in black and brown communities. if you are a white american living in an affluent suburb, you really only think about crime is what you see on fox news in which you envision a world in which black and brown people are marauding through the streets raping and killing. that's what you view as crime. your officers are friendly, you know them by first name. they might come to sunday lunch. you don't encounter them in a friend -- unfriendly way even if your kids are smoking weed or doing harder drugs they are unlikely to be arrested for it. if they are it's more there likely to give a break or get away with non-adjudication. there are different experiences with it. we saw this with the mayor's race in new york city where

black voters were heavily invested in the idea of crime-fighting because again crime isn't really fought very much in their community and they cannot count on the police. and they are experiencing that issue in a different way. i would not read that into more support for donald trump or republicans. i think it's people reflecting their own reality. william: other reactions. >> in 2020 there was any erosion from the democratic coalition for biden among latino and black voters on this issue. you saw biden in his term repeatedly fund law enforcement in greater amounts and then say several times in the state of the union other addresses that he wanted to fund the police to try and put this defund the police slogan republicans used very effectively against democrats in 2020 two bed once and for all. because there were voters who

formally voted democrat who needed more police protection in their neighborhoods. so that was a pivot that was made several years ago by biden that was very explicit. in reaction to the data they saw out of 2020 election and i think what's also fascinating about the survey is the fact that i think social media tends to make voters enjoy -- and joy is a perfect example if you're protected from these issues but you see them on social media. when these videos are seen a people looting or crazy behavior and walgreens and crazy behavior on the subway. things are checked -- terrible elsewhere but the first to see this in the data things are moving pretty ok in my community but out there the whole nation is going to hell in a handbag. that i think is the result of people being on social media and

it was so much that it was years ago in terms of the state of the country versus the community. joy: it's ironic because fox news is right across the street from 30 rock. william: would it be fair to conclude from these numbers and your elucidation of these numbers that in minority communities nonwhite communities the call is for both more policing and better policing. >> i think there's been a very clear the charlamagne interview that came up and that was one of the issues is black communities do want to leave. who -- want police. the police are generally called from immigrant communities. largely italian american. when they were coming in, it's a

working class job. irish-americans become police, there are a lot of caribbean americans, a lot of black immigrants come in because it is a good pension job. so you have a lot of people who are police or people of color. the idea of defunding their -- the police and their own economic lives. committees of color want them in the community they just don't want them killing people over a traffic stop. so there is sort of a both ends. i also think people tend not to know the relationship of the president is to the police. they are seeing everything as the president is the quarterback of everything and they're not really understanding a different president doesn't change the police but you can do police reform which of course are republicans blocked when they tried to go to congress. >> if i may be permitted a personal note for we shift to the next topic, the president i worked for bill clinton proposed

that the federal government sponsor an additional 100,000 cops on the beat as we said at that point. you are absolutely right that it is predominantly a local function but the federal government can play a role if it chooses to. moving on now to immigration. which i believe is the issue that elected and did most to elect donald trump in 2016 and if he wins this year will be the issue that puts him over the top again. i noticed in the survey that the american people are somewhat nuanced in their response to this issue. let me tell you what i mean. we've talked about finding about poisoning the blood of our country, about one third of americans go along with that. immigrants increase crime slightly more.

but immigrants in local communities almost six in 10. so what does this tell us about where we are as a country on immigration when you strip away all of the rhetoric. is there a real issue there? joy: i am the child of two immigrants. it is -- the thing about this, the real world experience of white springfield residents is that haitian immigrants come to town and save their town because they take jobs that were badly needed to be filled. they open businesses, their upstanding members of the community. but how quickly they are easy to demonize on a couple neo-nazis at the city council say that is a source of whatever problems you have pointed those folks. and essentially suggested the death threats.

when they had done nothing else other than -- and so unfortunately immigrants, whoever they are throughout history are easy to demonize. florida tried this game and they have to root out all of these immigrants and undocumented and illegals have to go and then they tried it. and when all of the latinos who were working in farms and agriculture and doing all the construction said ok goodbye, adios. they were like weight don't go. we need you. and they were going into places like hialeah and miami and begging people to stay. because it turns out know there's not an issue. without new migration we are europe which is an aging population that got rid of money -- many of its immigrants when brexit happened. brags it screwed them over because he got rid of the people who are your nurses and doctors,

if you go to paris right now, take the africans out, paris won't function. they are doing all of the jobs. but make paris function. so it's easy to demonize people but go ahead and get rid of them. the country will not grow. we won't have a large enough workforce. we do not have a height of birthrate to sustain the replacement of workers without immigrants. so without immigrants good luck to the united states. >> one quick thing on this. i think the ideological shifts i've seen, immigration used to be approached in a more pragmatic way for the country. we had a whole effort. it did not work. and under a republican president it was going to come up with comprehensive immigration reform. that was something that was plausible and are not too distant past. and it move from pragmatism to ideology. and the other move we've seen

even in 2020 and 2024 is the move from the wall to the enemy within. that's been a different move. immigrants are out there but now that immigrants are in there. i think it's more the emphasis on that kind of fear tactics and vermin, they are not human, their animals. that kind of language as well. >> but what's encouraging and the data backs this up in your report that americans don't believe there's more crime, they are not as reactive to trumps rhetoric about vermin as republicans are. that's the general population. you guys don't have this but abc news on sunday showed 53% support up 20 points in eight

years. 20 point since donald trump became president. mass deportations in the country from internment camps. it's knocking to be our local cops because local law enforcement's mass deportation internment plan that far out sees the capacity of our local law enforcement. this is madness and americans i believe the shift, i believe it is an issue. i don't think it should be but this turning to the right is directly connected to the fact we are becoming more isolationist and when harris was on with charlamagne last night one of the questioners said why are we sending money overseas and we are broke and we have all of these needs here. that is a completely fair perspective. i think that immigration and all the crazy things they're saying on fox news and facebook feeds into that.

but we are hurting in this town and maybe it's a town that has the benefit of springfield from immigration coming in but i don't want any resources going to anyone but the residents here. what's also heartening about springfield is ohio this month said they don't believe the lies about the haitian residents. i think americans are largely still tolerant, but they are drifting to not really a fear of the other, it's not replacement theory or that their criminals it's that we don't have enough resources and we cannot defend ukraine's sovereignty and it doesn't affect us anyway. we really need to spend money at home and the same with immigrants and taking care of them. >> the reality of immigrants is

not that it's harmful. that it's not a real harm to the country. you make a really great point because there was recently an issue where a rapper went on a grant on the social media about the city of new york, this program where they were providing ebt cards to venezuelan migrants who were in shelters being shipped from florida, ron desantis went into texas, grab these venezuelan immigrants and started sending them all over the country. they have no green card that cannot work they are stuck in the shelters and because they are in the shelters they weren't eating the food it was getting thrown away and wasted because it was generic food they do not need. so the city of new york comes up with this program and it was a -- it saved the city money to give people these ebt cards where they can go to local bodegas and stores and buy the

food they wanted. people are actually eating it. and he goes on his social media and does what you're talking about and says you see that, the hood cannot get any money. lack communities are struggling and they are taking this money and a set of spending it on us theorist set bending it on these illegals. this is the way the right-wing media is turning black and brown people against each other and even some latinos, those immigrants are criminals. my family or not but they are criminals and all the money is going to them. it turns out the ebt cards were created by a black company that innovated the specific kind of card that is easy for people to get and use if there on bank. this is a black business that was benefiting from a program that saved the city money and actually cut the expenses of taxpayers. so when you tease it out it

turns out it was the opposite of what he was saying. this was helping the community and it then turns out the money was being used is completely separate from any money that is going to african-american communities. it is disinformation. >> i have so many more questions and i'm very reluctant to interrupt the spirited exchange on the hottest issue in american politics. but you've been patient for 75 minutes and now it is your turn. we will start with the gentleman right here on the aisle and the roving mike will reach you now. >> this may be off topic a little bit but these findings about gender and the country getting softer does that have any implication in business where we want more women ceos especially in the tech sector? >> i would just say if you look at young people, women are more likely to go to college and

actually would recommend to your listeners the battery of questions about america's attitude that was interesting that we did not get a chance to talk about. i suspect that part of the gender divide when it comes to college is really making college less appealing. there's a history of studies and sociology that finds once application for more feminized men don't want have anything to do with them and also the salaries go down. but i do think in terms of trying to get more women to embark on those kinds of stem careers i think what often happens in american society, women are often waiting to have kids if they are having them at all so it's really hard to know sociologically that women are still doing the double shift at home. and so i do think we still have to reckon with women's full participation in the economy in certain fields. and i think that's feeding into

the narrative about all the troubles we have in america becoming less strong and we let women take control. women's gains of, of the expense of men. one thing we hear all the time and see it showing up. it's pretty troubling because it's again a lot of women have made and is been hard-fought. a lot of the self-esteem and confidence and young girls to achieve the sorts of things. i do think there are many indicators showing young men are falling behind, i think we can address those problems. but certainly we are still mired in these important conversations by gender. >> way in the back. >> hello. i am a journalism student, my question is for joy. i am a big fan. i was just wondering what can

someone you guys talk about so many important issues, big issues. as a college student i can speak about of people my age that we want to do something about this. i'm 20 years old what can i do about this. what would your advice be to young people who are engaged and involved to help make sure our country ends up ok. >> thank you for the question and congratulations on making it here today. being interested in these kinds of conversations shows that you are ready a leader. i always say even if you're not old enough to vote you have a voice and your generation are the most connected and the most amplified generation in history. you all have access to that phone in which you can speak to multitudes whether it's a few hundred of your own followers which can be amplified to thousands to people your age to

potentially millions of people. you have the equivalent of a show on msnbc for a lot of these people. i think the most important thing is to keep talking, keep communicating. especially young women. this is an age. back when i was in college there was an album of public enemy and now i think there is a fear of a planet in which women are truly equal. i think in particularly women of color who are already on need to have these conversations. white women as well. white women are still the one group of women who are tending to side with the side that wants to suppress them. so i think having those conversations and being vocal and staying informed and doing what you are doing. >> also vote please. >> sorry. >> i think one of the things

that would be fantastic for democracy and i want -- bill clinton talked about it. universal voter registration would be game changing in this country. if we didn't have to have these fights over who gets to register its automatically people became registered and were able to vote i think it would change so much. >> i would quickly add the most because you are more dust you are globally connected and community minded in your generation more than anyone us before us, you have a real opportunity to really lean on political reform. so joy makes a very important point. talking about these issues and ways whether it's how we can vote more easily to also how we can mitigate the effects of gerrymandering, final four voting. all these things that open up the system it depends on your

generation and that's a way for young women who are politically engaged to talk to young men who are politically engaged not about leaders of the parties but about ideas and policies and reforms as a way not to fight and a way to converse. and build more trust. >> also consider running for office pray there more than 500,000 elected positions and it's always been a challenge getting women to run more generally and a lot of collecting shows a lot of people are out there running for office. can't make policy changes until you have an elected position. think about running for local office. it makes a huge difference and we need more women to do it. >> we need a microphone upfront here. >> thank you bill for doing such an awesome job here. i could not resist asking you a question. i have to say. i want to sort of directed to maybe in particular on the data because we've been saying we a lot and we americans about immigration but in some ways i

found most depressing about these numbers is the collapse of the possibility of bipartisanship on behalf of a pragmatic solution. the warning of our traditional question here really closely matches i think it's fair to say george h. w. bush is immigration plan. it was a plan supported by john mccain. it was for a while by marco rubio. more republicans in congress who supported that kind of position and when you look at our numbers on that to kill a question 36% of republicans. the collapse is farm -- from republicans from 53 to 36. still a majority. i would suspect that it is republican leaning independents and the democrats of gone up. the question is about political leadership because while i agree what i wanted to disentangle was how much is this increasing

concern about immigration working about immigration across the board versus republican. i want to ask a lot of this is the influence of donald trump's rhetoric and campaign and i think it's influenced the view of people who have chosen to stay in the republican party. what would you see going forward about these numbers. how much do you think these reflect the trump influence on the republican party and what opening is there for pro-immigration republicans and conservatives, there used to be quite a lot of those. thank you all very much. >> i want to be hopeful that if donald trump is done with at some point in his party, because it is such a cult attraction that there will be an opening not -- a pragmatic pro-immigration reform champion with the passing citizenship at more reasonable perspectives on

immigration and solution seeking to try and find a voice because right now they just want the base of the republican party wants trump and they are not going to stand at a rally site for four days in advance wearing t-shirts for jd vance. it is not the same thing. i hope there is an opening for different perspectives we cannot see right now if that day is going to come. but generally yes, i remember republicans saying yes or republicans came to the table and wanted to work with democrats but it was still a promise with their base. it's -- this move to the missile -- middle has become an issue if trump wins the election democrats will be very upset about what could've been done what should have been done. that is a problem. i think it's stirred up the base

rate he has not changed a lot of minds. the republicans -- i'm eating marbles today. the republican electoral pretending they agree with trump who definitely would like to go right back on some kind of reform but for now they are completely quiet. >> two different things from the data. from that number. >> it's a majority. i think it's 53. low 50's and gone up. >> we've seen this in our data would you ask separately you get much higher numbers. with three options which is immigrants living illegally in the country, should we allow them to be permanent legal residents or should we deport them. you ask that way deportation is 25%. when they have other options on the table.

that goes to the pragmatism, i think the biggest thing is there is this sense for republicans in particular there is a sense of the kind of chaos versus order dynamic we saw in focus groups and in our data recently you may remember we had several versions of the question. and the more requirements we put in the question, the higher republicans -- you had to learn english, pay back taxes. every time we added a requirement republican support went up and when we took any mention of requirement out and the current question providing certain requirements but we took that out altogether. so there is that pragmatism thing. the bigger question is when you've been painted a picture that immigration is an invasion, chaos at the border, that undermines any sense of

pragmatism and problem solving. and you've undermined the ability of government to even administer a solution. and one last point on this thing about the focus group in north carolina we did in 2016 on this issue and was among republicans and i'll never forget the response. i'm a small government conservative and we try to deport 11 million people that would be the largest federal program the country's ever seen parade i'm not up for that. >> i don't know how much you dug into because isn't it the identity of the immigrant sprayed if you ask the question would you like to deport european immigrants, would you like to deport german immigrants, would you like to deport -- isn't it because the immigrants because trump is being very specific pray he is saying venezuela, congo and haiti. he's identifying the immigrants

as black and brown. >> absolutely. he's not talking about danish immigrants. >> donald trump's mom and his family, a two out of three wives were immigrants. they are saying she could stay. >> no doubt. >> ok folks. [laughter] got to blow the whistle here. i have one more question, an online question before i will call up -- to pronounce the benediction. [laughter] we are running out of time i am sorry. so here is the online question which i think is an appropriate question. it reads as follows. given that in every election someone has to lose, how can those on the losing side be encouraged to channel their disappointment or constructively. is there a role in civil

society. please some brief answers and then ej will end the session. any good ideas? [laughter] >> being willing to lose is a democratic patriotic view. that is the essence of democracy. that we are willing to do our best, to persuade everybody weekend and turn out everybody weekend. at the end of the day if we lose we are willing to live with the result. that's what democracy means. i think a recommitment to that and thinking about what do we do , well we live to organize and persuade another day. that's what we do in a democracy. it's really hard but if i am concentrating to thing about the democratic values we reinforce and support this election it is

commit yourself to the results of the election without any kind of waffling on whether i myself think it was a free and fair election. if it's determined to be free and fair i will abide by the results even if i lose. >> we have one answer stand on democratic principles. any other reactions. >> i think about times in recent history when al gore decided to essentially concede the loss in 2020 when i think arguably his case was stronger in some ways of winning. i do think there some thing patriotic about an important and vital to democracy to really concede when you lose. i am not at all hopeful donald trump if he loses, that that will happen. i think what we need is we need other actors, whether it is civic leaders, religious leaders, political leaders to acknowledge the results of the election.

especially if donald trump were to lose we need leadership to say look the election has been had, we know the results were fair and free, we need to move on. i don't necessarily think it will happen. i suspect if harris were to lose she will concede similar to what hillary clinton did in 2016. >> john mccain's concession speech i want to recommend as one example of this as well. >> to answer a little bit differently i think we are seeing both parties dug in on mobilization in the last couple of years instead of persuasion. i've been very impressed how shrewd harris has been as a candidate, she has ditched her 2019 position and wiggled through some tough questions in interviews with i think the proper response which is she has been vice president for almost four years and she wants -- she values consensus.

she basically is where the country is and is not where she was on medicare for all, not where she was on trans surgeries for prisoners which are a big bulk of trumps ads during football games. aimed at making men crazy. and saying she is a radical. so what i really hope is that the democratic party will move to where the country is in an attempt to build a bigger coalition to win the next election and they have on immigration and i hope that they will continue to do that in response to the election should they lose. i think republicans lose we will not see that moving beyond their base and trying to move to where the middle of the country is. the middle of the electorate is pride that is too bad because what you're supposed to do after you lose is a party is say how can we convince more people next time because politics is supposed to be addition. what they try to do is intertwine more people that agree with them that they can register to vote.

they are not actually trying to come to the middle to solve problems. i have my doubts about the republicans. i hope if harris loses the democrats will find a way to continue what she was doing which is to come to the center of the electorate to appeal to more people to win next time. if we will have another free and fair election in another four years. >> keeping up my tradition of being the most ironic member of the panel given that my name is joy i will point out that only once in the last 20 years have republicans won a popular vote in a presidential election. and yet they have exceeded to the presidency twice in that time. the demographics of this country are around 80% of nonwhite people vote democratic and around 60% of white americans vote republican on average in

every election and as robbie has pointed out in the survey has pointed out the republican party overwhelmingly is a white christian party. and so the odds are kamala harris will win the popular vote. we have a system in this country taste on the slavery period in which the american people do not elect the president. the electoral college elects the president. so you can lose an election in which hillary clinton got 3 million more votes. and the only way for kamala harris to win the election is to probably get 4 million or more additional votes over donald trump. we already know. i can make two predictions. , harris will win the popular vote and black men will be the second highest percentage of voters for kamala harris. it will not be them if she is not president. just want to fill that out there. behind black women.

so the question i think is framed in a way that only has one side be accountable for standing up and being adults and pretending like the losing side in a football game. only one side is required to do that. we know if kamala harris wins by 3 million votes and yet does not become president she will concede. that is a no-brainer. we also know that if donald trump does not win the election he will not concede and he will proceed to try to bring us to civil war. and try to drag the election through the courts and have mike johnson make him president or have john roberts make him president. we know how this is going and we know where it is going. i think we need to examine the system does not allow the winner of the popular vote to become president. if vice president harris wins and democrats retain house and senate we need to have a serious conversation about the state of our democracy because it is lacking. and then the last thing i will

say is if donald trump does win there will not be a democrats go back and figure out how to get more voters and figure out how to change their position, there will be camps. there will be project 2025. there could be arrests of people like adam schiff, there could be nancy pelosi being hauled off to jail. and if you do not think that that is possible then you really do not understand that there is no american exceptionalism. we are a country like every other country. if you ran against his party went to jail. that happened in my father's lifetime. maduro is putting people in jail if on your whatsapp they find that you are saying things against maduro. that is happening right now in our neighboring country. these are happening in our neighborhoods. there is -- our democracy is

much more like a latin american democracy then it is like england or germany or any part of europe. we are a latin american country so everything you see happening in brazil, venezuela, it could all happen here. there isn't can it be an opportunity for vice president harris to be the bigger party because we will be fighting for our survival as a democracy and some people will be fighting for their actual survival. so i think the question misses the point because if kamala harris does not win it is not clear that there will be another election. that is the stakes unfortunately. >> but also we should say he is going to declare victory regardless. he could win this out right, if it looks like harris is winning it will go on for weeks and he will try to burn the country down for two months at at 7:00 on tuesday night at 8:30 is going to declare victory so everybody needs to prepare for that. >> the veneer of control over

this panel. [laughter] >> i love living in a vigorous democracy. some wonderful discussion, you framed some of the great questions i want to thank joy, maybe, melissa and robbie for his patented wonderful powerpoint. i want to say two things, there's a nutrition book by tim shank looks at the careers of doug and stan, two pollsters. it made me realize why this project is important. i apologized by the way, we wanted to have platinum 15th anniversary coins for everyone who attended today. but we ran out of money once we paid for the pole so we couldn't do that but thank you for joining us. it made me think what tim put in my head, people knock pulls all the time and there are problems with an obsession with who's up and down tomorrow but polls

really are democracies themselves. if you study public opinion you are studying it to understand how people think and why they think what they think and if you disagree with public opinion your job in a democracy is to figure out how to persuade people to change their mind. and so on this question of democracy, one of my favorite book titles was larry o'brien, very close to president kennedy, department chair of the democratic national committee. his book was called no final victories. and when democracy works that's the great thing about democracy because if there are no final victories, there are no final defeats and you can fight again and you can win the next time and you can persuade people the next time. i want to congratulate our panel on this project we have had going for so long and let us all pray for our democratic republic.

thank you so very much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024]

washington at this is about 40 minutes. >> all right, let's transition to our panel we are very fortunate today, if senior leaders from three wrongly commence some of these discussions today and going to focus on innovation, and change keeping the army the best place one of the best places to work pretty and you know we are we are better than we need to get better incident game try to make the workforce better. so we plan to dive into their insights experiences and perspectives on how they are

leading their organization and following our discussion, we will ask not only want to read some of the answers to the questions i just gave you, i'll ask a few more questions and hopefully will be able to have a little bit of dialogue there pretty without further ado, let's get into the panels discussion our panelists today, first of all revenue member. general major general and she's a deputy chief of engineers and commanding general of the u.s. army corps of engineers any event, she on the way to the white house this morning and she gallantly stepped down and thank you for being here today saying that we have this christina freeze, by the way actually also sits on my asa civilian committee and thank you christina for that and she is the deputy chief of staff g1 of the u.s. army matériel command

where many of our department today work across the various the organizations and finally, we have the tumbler was a chief capitol officer army futures command always does things a bit different delete but she is the chief of capitol officer army command. and anyway, i invite you please resend warm welcome. [applause] [applause] >> were going to do two rounds of questions of herself i asked one question, but all three of the panelists will answer them i have some were directed to questions for each of the panelists as cigarette so this is part of around the question is, when recent innovations creative strategies have you implemented the spark excitement, and impacted your

command and several commitment to the mission and with that. >> thank you and get started first will thank you good morning and think for allowing me to join this prestigious panel it's really important that before the corps of engineers authority hundred 40000 talented civilians are key enablers of our team. so overseeing and 95 billion-dollar program and projects either underway in planning, we really rely on her talents to get the job done pretty but every day. he private contracting engineering and construction firms as discussed to recruit the best and talented workforce braided and in most cases, our employees are very well could retired from the prophet police however for me face offers something more, to think about about the purpose and people prayed like the army, we offer

an opportunity to make a difference to contribute it to something bigger and work alongside the best in the business pretty so familial nation infrastructure projects like dams, bridges, hospitals for our veterans, the schools, facilities for the war fighters and families in supporting our partners allies overseas in infrastructure and resource solutions integrating slides and responding disasters and just le the collapse of the francis key bridge, and the rating wildfire knowing today nearly two people other supporting hurricane helene and milton response or mission is to deliver engineering solutions. our human capitol professionals are absolutely related with everything one does missions. this our overall strategy, and

was for the questions proactive talents were saying and it's a big part of how we can continue to be all those mission requirements and so i will break it down into three bullets and innovative approaches, the following to the proactive talent, the sourcing strategy when you want to start with calling out a shout out to the person that is really the forefront of helping us finally develop that strategy but implemented in our director of human resources and she is right out there. [applause] imac. >> she is an absolute rock star passionate about people and passionate about collaborating and passionate about making sure the big best talent on our team to deliver the issues thank you for that and thank you karen because of the three approaches over the highlights from the we're trying corps of engineers to let the first, please these

are our recruiters that the enterprise was mentioned earlier by doctor schaeffer the total recruiting event repairs and we also employ person of expertise the recruiters at special stem recruiting event like providing for women engineers the flock engineer the year conference and they and their ability to school and on for theft tell it quickly he seemed also helps with all aspects of talent and for our leaders not just the career. staffing questions and limiting training solutions recruitment strategies developing those things those regional commands have implemented also reduce their dependency on china and make sure that our leaders and

managers are engaged in until it management prospect in the second innovation is the talent acquisition and something that we have created under karen's leadership but as a platform which enables the cameras to some of the resume database that allows us to quickly couples resumes and for hiring managers to consider them for selection it allows us to fill vacancies happen faster and three talent in the right place at the right time and actually tried it myself it is very easy and so the presenter lever position to just go to the army careers there's an opportunity to submit your resume seamlessly. complicated and right now we have a repository of over 15000 current resumes that are in the

system available in this couple is something that were doing we call people analytics allows us to really take the data and vacancies and really catch up people with right people throwing shopping skills to execute the mission in the third and final innovation that is really leveraging direct hiring authorities this past year be leveraged returning authorities 4500 times bring people on board we increase stream 7 percent and 40000 throwing out the highest we've ever been in despite an extremely competitive labor market that i know all of us are aware of. it allows us to reduce our hiring time to roughly 30 days and i know karen is challenged us all the army with the goal of having right we have 94 percent of our position to qualify for

direct hiring process will one direct versus a different hiring authorities but i think that's going to allow us to get there faster than a really, so please please that is really the key in the competitive market really telling goes fast so you don't act quickly, you'll miss that opportunity one less thing i had a conversation with one of our newer employees recently we were able to bring her board and roughly 35 days. we hired her. and we brought her on board and she's getting calls back for other organizations to just getting around to calling her now and already been working for us the case in point key to success. >> thank you general and special thank you to the entire team hurricane relief and terrible what is going on and you all are

doing great things so thank you for that. >> thank you and it's our privilege. >> yes and without, same question for recent innovations creative strategies have you implemented and impacted if the commands overall commitment. >> thank you good morning everyone and the command is mr. moore alluded to when specifically or civilian organization in the army we have over 95000 civilians in anc, the serve in all 50 states had 150 countries. we have 11 career fields no less than 375 occupational series, the makeup the amc enterprise and so few of the initiatives that we are working on that having a big difference and i will start with our five-page resume, were we have authorities the match for the direct

authorities that we use but when we use the job system, we have implemented for 23 working for current five pace resume what that means is when the africans go into apply for these jobs, he tells them at the beginning of the job announcement, they door resume should be limited delta five pages and if it exceeds that only the first five pages of the resume will be reviewed at this is really a best practice will not it industry and resumes are dramatically shorter and government resumes for this incident empowers us to see the specialist in the referral list together and they can get to the candidate must more quickly to an early list and that it also enables our selection panels, to be able to do the work. so since the time we started this, we've already seen a reduction two weeks, and the

chara processing time is made a big difference for us. not only has a short in our hiring type it will take everyday we can get it we do 5 percent more, the jobs in the same amount of time it being able to do more, faster, is definitely on the right track. so the command is helpful that it will demonstrate improvement, they can be bridged across the entire army in the near future. another thing we've incorporated into our capitol planning as a tool for global labor markets in supply and demand and cost data analysis. using this tool to help us target our recruiting geographical areas by being able to better understand the marketplace look like. how many candidates have the skills we are looking for exist in that area, and what is the

difficulty of recruiting those candidates and what are other organizations paying them, to help us understand what competitive wages would be. ... it's something we are focused delivery on. we believe it will go a long way in our retention efforts to make sure we keep the right people. the organic industrial base, as part of the army overall modernization strategy paid the organic industrial bases being

modernized to be ready for the signature of modernization equipment as it comes and should be repaired. as the repair parts begin to be worked on. if the people are not also holding the rights bills to be able to operate in the future environment, the army will not be successful. we are endeavoring for the acquisition, the development, the employee and retention of elves employees the next three to five years eventually anticipate the new skills they will need to re- skill retrying that workforce to be ready to do that. so we are really excited about that. i think probably all of us will speak of the underpinning and the significance of data analytics. predictive analytics on helping us to do workforce development. our succession planning and are recruiting. using visualization and dashboard has been a tremendous help across our amc enterprise

for leaders, supervisors and now even our employees to be able to see where we are in an organization. what we do focus on how to better get there. thank you. >> miss miller what recent strategies have you implemented in future strategies? >> good morning to everyone. i am proud to be here today. this is a proud day for the army. and it is an honor and privilege to serve the army as a department army civilian. afc exists to transform the army, to drive world when future readiness. so when we talk about them as valuable asset, that is people. they are our strength. until recently one of things we implemented earlier this year when we had the chance to

implement a new personal system. at the science and technology. and what that is, is the system that provides us the flexibility we need to be able to manage a highly skilled workforce. 65% of our workforce in stem fields. until we need the flexibility to go out and acquire that talent. be able to compete for this highly sought after talent. develop the talents, pay the talent and retain that talent. effectively what we have embedded in this authority give us broad scope for direct higher authority. we talk about the issue with jobs. direct higher authority helps us get out in many ways.

we want to make sure we are optimizing the direct higher authority. truly doing strategic recruiting in the talent we actually need instead of posting and praying. this allows us creative ways to incentivize, and protect hires. for instance we now have the authority to give an 80 hour time off incentive to new hires. think about new civilians coming into the workforce, they are coming in with zero leave on the books. when your new year's zero -- three you are accumulating annual leave for six leave pay. it takes a while to build that up. but, we are able to attract a new challenge by saying hey, if

you come in you can have some time off on the books if you need it. that's a really meaningful aspect of st rl that we have. >> we talk about what makes asc a great place to work it's our flexibility in our propensity towards innovation. also our support to quality of life. we have flexible work 85% civilian teleworking we have some remote workers. it has to focused on a mission needs but we are able to make flexibility. in the last three years 60% of our vacancies were filled with candidates from within. 94% of promotions were internal to afc.

we really do make a concerted effort to look out for our people in their career direction. asc has opportunities across 73 locations around the world. almost anywhere you want to be we probably have an opportunity for you. because of the flexibilities that we have we are able to reward contributions in addition to pay for performance system that we just put in place. we have ever boasted employee recognition program recognizes and rewards significant contributions are made by members of our workforce. we are dedicated to talent management. we are very deliberate or how we have approach that. since my arrival at afc, we've had a campaign we really want to evolve to being strong that howe

manage our talent. until we have put into place our human capitol operating plan that gives us aspirational but attainable and measurable objectives and goals for how we manage our workforce. with the talent management board focus on developing our workforce. we have a strong bench of talent ready to step up to the plate whenever the key opportunities present themselves. and then we are leveraging opportunities to launch new developing programs. earlier i was listening when he was meeting with all the executives. we were talking about how we build the next generation of executives. at afc we are already moving out with the building we are calling afc nexgen executive program. a 12 month internal development program that's going to provide

in experiential opportunity to employees who have demonstrated potential. recognition program and in the performance awards that we tend to go. we have will be called distinguished member of the workforce award. we are recognizing excellence across our workforce. we also have newly established care awards that recognizes spouses and families making differences in the community. then we recognize innovation across the army through the major general harold green award for innovation. lots of reasons afc is the best place to work. let me just take a drink here.

i have one of the thing i want to point out. earlier we saw a tech called out as one of the top five places to work. once water supporting commands we work very, very closely. i want to highlight for the fact they also are leveraging flexible personal system for the part of the acquisition demonstration personal system that provides a simplified howard, flexible compensation through broad banding. and authorities that award contribution. the commander driven emphasis on trading. there also using data to optimize real-time leadership decisions on how they manage the workforce. there is a lot of promise and flexible personal systems that we have available.

where we have to manage lots of stem talents we truly do need to measure flexibility. >> thank you ms. miller. this actually concludes round one. i just want to highlight there were i thought a few common threats there. first of all, levering to the extent the policies and law allow. direct higher authority, i cannot say enough how much it help me in some of my prior jobs. that is something we all probably need to understand and all the different authorities inthe job series aligned. it's a challenge working through that. the second thread i heard is the challenges of working. addison my humble opinion the elephant in the room when you're trying to recruit in a timely

way. i have lost count of the talent i lost because i could not get the job offer over the finish line. knowing they were the right person for the right job could not get there. and then some organization got them. and then as mentioned, your employees so getting phone calls three months later. and then recognizing performance and high retain talent is the third thread that i heard from you all. so thank you for that. moving on to round two will have a few more focused questions. from our command admission perspective how her army army siblings ofthe corps of end in contributing and keeping the army a great place to work? click save for the question. a couple of things are. just like all these organizations and all of your organization do not want to attract time we want to retain the town that we work so hard to

get on the team. to do that we have identified the areas where we can get better at. it's onboarding, off boarding and everything in between. employees can start at the very beginning of their career and a chance to have opportunity to progress throughout their career and get promotions along the way. the workforce today is looking for flexibility. they may not want to retire from one organization. and we meet they be better if they go out and forth to industry and federal government with new knowledge, skills, ability and innovation. until we welcome that and are trying to embrace that in different ways. one of the ways or strategies we are focusing on to retain, we've done a little bit here today is recognize what's.

operationalize is one of our consistent strategies we've been working on for the last number of years. this year in 2024 we have 18000 responses. where the second highest in the army for overall responses appear to be recognized just getting a lot of responses does not mean anything. we have to do something with it and operationalize it. that was alluded to in the discussions and speakers that came up earlier. we are 44 districts, nine divisions multiple labs and centers. all of those have developed implementation and action plan. there are a crucial component of us retaining talent. as talked about, that gives donor turnover. it allows members to be involved in solutions and make improvements at the workplace.

it has allowed us implementing more policy. more developed more developmental details for opportunities. for the mentor, mentee mattress and opportunities to listen to what our workforce is saying. just like today that we said earlier we don't just encourage participation, we celebrate it celebrate it and continue to celebrate and recognizing the command on the members of those commands to operationalize the federal employee survey. the second thing i want to highlight take count to the next level which is training. the men and women of that u.s. corps of engineers serve our nation well as i alluded to, we owe them the best training. the best education the best technology until they can stand up and deliver the full potential. we want them to be all they can

be. we are committed to giving them the tools they need to succeed to be better every day. we have infused energy in is the learning center. also falls under our directorate of resources the periods located in huntsville and most learning center has roughly 500 classes they maintain and review regularly for the curriculum components for training individual engineers, groups and contracting practices. specific disciplines, are really just collaboration and team building and leading teams. they do that physically in huntsville. they can also export that virtually. for training opportunities. to minimize on travel resource dollars.

to hawaii or to europe and his other locations. they've also tailored a bite side training you see online is to somewhat complicate things into the five minutes. there's a couple how to read up odometer, how to do testing of your fire extinguishers. how to onboard people in your organization. 18000 requests last year that were met. training special meant for individual peoples of our teams. we are continuously using our data in a people analytics to look at one of the skills? we bring on new people that are new employees need to be able to advance from new employee and apprentices to journeyman and mark sprints team members. motive looked at their chief of engineer what is the health of

our project delivery teams? these teams are delivering meg up multibillion-dollar construction projects out there. we onboard we do not have the same skill set. the training they need the right time. and then to be all they can be does the army and the department of defense to be all they can be. thank you for that question. thank you, that was awesome. >> it's your turn. >> your question? as you mentioned earlier afc is transform the organic industrial base to better strategically support future army readiness. what new opportunities as a screen for army civilians question how will it benefit the army going forward? >> thank you for that question. many of us we think about

civilian employees we generally think first about our schedule. and so the majority of the organic industrial base is under the federal wage system. we have given specific emphasis and focus on how will be developed in the next three -- five years to do with the need to do? we have developed inside our civilian limitation plan for the organic industrial base, human capitol modernization implementation plan. it is going to focus on the gaps that are in the skills our workforce has today. and those that will be needed in a few years. we are looking for the opportunity to use training, create training to be able to get them ready for that. something you started is a pilot for career mapping.

some of you in the contracting career field and some other organizations are exploring career pathway for your organization. i am hopeful the army will make it enterprise decision on that in the near future. but what we are doing is to develop leaders and supervisors. which includes a gs workforce. logistics arena. standby. thank you. our wage grade in ploy ease of the industrial arts welders, painters, machinists, a lot of electronics. they have special skills are going to need. we are focusing on allowing them to voluntarily go into this talent management to identify with they think their clear

pathway would look like. also explore adjacent pathways. they can see the trainings and skills they already have. the training that would be required and sent to another career area. they are so excited about this. this is the first time they have felt the army has cared about them as part of civilian workforce. we have a huge amount of momentum we are continuing to expand that as we go into fy 25. we will roll out all the occupation series that we develop insists specific sites to use across all across the u.s. another thing we are doing is a targeted marketing campaign plan. the civilian marketing campaign overall. which is great. we are focusing on those industrial arts. we can target using videos and

advertisements, they can see themselves during the skills and advertisements. will move forward. her office for recruitment video that is underway and we are working closely with the logistic functional community as well. also building partnerships with industry, academia, government across the spectrum. federal, local to state governments is going to be part of our way ahead. having additional partnerships weathers for apprentice programs, internships, creating more deliberate pipelines into the workforce is also an important part of what we are doing. as we are developing the training and education or the workforce we are not going to administer traditional training. we do not have the privilege of it taking five years for us to fully develop the workforce.

we have to do it at a much more rapid pace to be ready in time for the army's transform transformation of modernization. we are working through electronic, making sure we have technical skills, training labs. being able to create modern training that's micro credentialing. kenzie administered small time periods using virtual representation of the equipment and the assets artisans are using or will be working on. making sure we have those adaptable to real-time data so we could simulate and do what we need to do to help them be ready. the industrial base is a huge part of our nation insurance policy that underpins what we do with our equipment and our army especially in times of crisis or

surgeon. that some of the things we are focusing on. >> last but not least our final question around too future army readiness as an integrated team. fresh thinking the forefront of innovation to drive continuous transformation across army. in doing that they have essential functions we perform. the first is defining future operational environment. and that is identifying those factors that set the conditions for the future auto field. second, essential function is

research. we have driving concepts, experimentation, billing requirements and also integrating all of those functions. when it comes to innovation, army civilians need to be wherever there is work focused on improving innovation. for instance, and i did not mention this earlier. population of service and civilian just under 18000. 91% are civilians. we have civilians that are supporting all the functions i mentioned. we have civilians working in scientific repertory's and engineering centers. conducting a research of new capabilities.

we have civilians working in concept development. future were fighting concept. we have got civilians working across cross functional teams there working across acquisition lines to be able to coordinate delivery of new capability requirements. and also we have civilians who play a key role testing and evaluating a newly developed capability. the bottom line answer to that question is civilians need to be anywhere work is happening when it comes army innovation and transformation. i think i want to highlight again there's so many civilians working in the stem area.

they achieve the top-five top fe status. that speaks to the fact there is civilians see themselves as part of the army mission. a sense of satisfaction where they sit in the workplace and what their work environment looks like. with the broader part of afc we are young command. we recently implemented were expecting we are going to achieve the level of status just to hit on a few key points. you talked about onboarding and how important that is bringing someone in a way that makes him feel like they are part of the team. i used to always say never

underestimate the power of the culture. because culture will trump many things. i will leave it at that. helping them understand the culture and fit and maybe even evolve over time is important. the impact of that wage agreed workforce. in the functional chief of a career field the logistics i always helically did not pay enough attention. everly discipline credentials that they need. another great aspect and then of course innovation. the stem workforce that really wants to work on the latest and greatest. he got to keep them excited about what they're doing but that is great. these three panelists when you think about it over 263,000 army civilians. not to do math and public, which

is always a dangerous thing. i did it anyway at. [laughter] while over one or 50000 civilians work in the organizations these three leaders represent so wow. most of the army civilians are in your three organizations but with that let's give our panelists around of applause. [applause] i'm too go grab a gift for you all. >> thank you. these are some big steps. we were a little worried about them. thank you so much for taking the time to share these incredible insights. thank you. hopefully there are some pearls people can pick up an exercise in the organization. thank you all. please be careful getting off the stage.ook

political report. this is one hour. >> all right, thank you all for being here. i am orion donovan smith ashcroft said i am the spokesman news reported in washington, d.c. i'm happy to be here in spokane for today's debate in a race to

represent washington state in the senate between senator maria cantwell and dr. raul garcia. senator cantwell what a coin toss backstage and chose to give the first opening statement which means dr. garcia will close last. dr. garcia will be standing at the podium to my right. as drops of my ask a question for each candidate will have 60 seconds to answer followed by 30 seconds for rebuttal or to elaborate on the that response. i'm also have follow-up questions in which case each can have another 30 seconds to respond. because of a lot of credit, i would like to ask the audience to please avoid any disruptions and applied only twice tonight at the end and now as we welcome our candidates to the stage. [applause]

>> all right. senator cantwell, you have been in the senate since 2001. to take it so you become the first woman to be chair of the senate committee on commerce, science, and transportation. dr. garcia, you have worked as an emergency physician for the past 25 years. i would hereby each of you thinks you're the best candidate to represent washington state in the senate for the next six years. senator cantwell. >> thank you so much and thank you to gonzaga, to the spokesman review for the great work that you're doing with the black lens. as of late in the unique model that is being prepared for journalism. i have to say a special go zags welcome to the pac 12. i believe we should send people to the united states senate are going to work in a bipartisan

fashion to get things done. that's what you guys sent me there to do i worked hard of what i thought were our northwest values, to bring the supply chain back, to make sure we were low in cost on prescription drugs and out-of-pocket expenses for seniors, and getting the ability to negotiate on drug prices so we could help lower the cost of all. i know think still cost too much and that's why we're fighting now on building more affordable housing. housing is 70% of inflation. while it's coming down we know here in spokane if we build more affordable housing like don's agates even, more people will see lower costs for the future. thank you. -- gonzaga haven. >> dr. garcia. >> good afternoon. i'm doctor ruehl carsey and i'm running to be our next u.s. senator from this great state of washington. i want to take everybody that had their hands on putting this debate together, to thank senator cantwell preventer at all of you watching, carrying

about the future of washington state. want to give a special thanks to my wife who i call my 75%, who is been in this crusade with me for four and half years and truly without whom this would never happen. [speaking spanish] i hope everyone watching this debate that he sees a new choice, someone that is not a career politician that is a husband, a father, and the scientist that is going to look at every situation according to results and bring true solutions. but most important, represent the will of the people of washington. thank you. >> take you, doctor. senator, which alike respond or elaborate? courtship 30 seconds for its very important in this environment people are doing too much on tv back in washington,

d.c., are spending all their hours on the late-night cable shows. i didn't do that. i got four major piece of legislation passed that i wrote most of their big parts of the chips and science act which help honeywell is going to use here in spokane to build more jobs and bring the supply chain. i'm going to keep fighting for those kind of opportunities. >> thank you. doctor, would you like to elaborate for 30-second? >> my story is very easy. as mr. smith goes to washington i don't like what i see a side my door so i'd like to change it. i don't like the crying. i do like the open drug use. i don't like our kids are not safe. i don't like the fact our families can't afford our lives in washington state. and i'm here to represent the people of washington and bring about true solutions from a science perspective that looks at problems according to results. >> thank you, doctor. the pandemic upended the global

economy and lead to higher prices around the world. inflation in the u.s. has fallen to 2.5% after peeking over 9% in 2022. the federal reserve cut interest rates for federal reserve cut interest rates for the first time in four years. what americans average wages still haven't caught up to inflation. as senator how would you address the changing economy and high costs of the think? we start with dr. garcia. >> thank you. the fact that we have people in washington state that are choosing between groceries and other activities for the children is not a good thing. we can't afford to afford, to buy a house. we can't afford our gas. so the federal government needs to take accountability. we have spent a lot of money. inflation happens because of two things. we increase taxes or we print money.

well, yes what? were doing both. we need to stop doing that. we need to audit the federal government and get rid of ineffective programs and give that money back to the community. because economics 101 tells us if we have more money in our pocket we are going to it in our community and growth is going to happen. that is the solution that i think scientifically would work for our state. >> thank you, doctor. senator cantwell same question. 62nd. >> we all know a global pandemic caused a major inflation by cutting products and services that were no longer provided. and now that we have climbed out of the pandemic i want to make sure we don't ever see that again, that we are bringing the supply chain back to the united states of america and lowering costs. the recent economic report shows we are growing wages and even growing them higher, that i know here in spokane because of talk

to get through all the time that we need more to do to lower the cost of groceries and that's why i oppose the kroger albertson's merger that would gouge people with higher prices if we don't have competition and wife i have fought hard to make sure we spread these same discounts on prescription drugs, now fight of the same $35 insulin for everybody not just for seniors. our ability to negotiate on drug prices is saving the taxpayer about $7 billion in addition to seniors. this kind of negotiating power is what our fight for. >> thank you, senator. dr. garcia you have 30 seconds to respond. >> yes unfortunately our present government voted for inflation reduction act that even economists from harvard wrote to the ap and said would not lower inflation. washingtonians are unfortunately paying so many more taxes to the

pot for the inflation reduction act and getting back little. this is what we have today. we need change. and the right change. >> thank you, doctor. senator cantwell spread the inflation reduction act was paid for and it actually did reduce costs. and the question is, if you buy at costco and you get a discount? facet we insured for taxpayers and for the seniors that were buying prescription drugs for. if we spread those same benefits to a larger medicare population we will save more money. that is one of the key things i want to do is to make sure we are using this ability to drive down costs on so many people with out-of-pocket expenses are so high for prescription drug. >> thank you, thank yo. we have the question now from the editor of the black lens. april everhart. >> my mid april everhart and i am added of the black lens.

today this is my question. according to u.s. department of education students of color more likely taken up federal student loans in order to pay for college and are more likely to report the student that has caused them a high amount of stress later in her life. how would you mitigate this disproportionate burden, and which is about debt relief by the targeted are widespread? thank you. >> thank you for the question and thank you to the black lens, and thank you for being there in the memory of sandy williams. yes, i support student loan debt forgiveness, particularly for public sector jobs whether we are talking about in my office or whether we're talking about the people who go into public service, or even people like drd medicine in rural areas. yes, we should have debt forgiveness to make sure the expense of student loans is not prohibiting us. we could be doing more in this area at a think it's very

important to try to achieve that kind of perspective. i went to school on a pell grant and at the time pell paid for much more of the college education that today's pell but definitely go from working class to middle-class. we need to create those same opportunities today for more young people. i believe one way to do that is to create more opportunities for running start programs for people and target them to schools that would help get more minorities into college. >> thank you, senator. dr. garcia, yet one minute. >> thank you. i arrived in this country as an 11-year-old skinny kid didn't speak a word of english. and was lucky enough to live out that the american dream. and along the way there were people that helped me achieve that goal. so as your next united states senator, of course i'm going to do everything i can to bring the

resources necessary for marginalized cultures to get to an even playing field. we have two responsibilities here. first of all, to educate our country about the fact that these marginalized cultures exist, that they don't have the same resources. and second of all to make sure the education resources are there all these individuals can get that education and get out of that marginalize system that they've been a part of. >> thank you. senator cantwell would you like response? >> i just want at i'm a huge fan of our carl perkins system and did anything you can do to drive down the skills training to our high school level. friendship and the united states of america should be our goal and an information age with are so many technical jobs. literally, six-figure jobs with two-year degrees. but if we teach math and science

in our high schools and help provide running start, some of these can help in the enormous amount of skills that we we n the trend of america. lots of job. >> thank you, senator. dr. garcia would you like to 30-second. >> well, seems that senator cantwell and i are on the same page on this. apprenticeships are the way of the future. you don't have to go to college to have a great job and to support your family and have a great life. and that education is lacking in the junior high level we need to increase that education. and to answer the question completely, certainly i would support student loan relief specifically for public service after that education. >> all right, thank you, dr. garcia. from student that i want to talk about national debt now.

the u.s. national debt has surpassed $35 trillion. in the currents as good of the federal government has spent about $1.9 $1.9 trillion, n it's collected in revenue. we haven't had a balanced budget since the turn of the 21st century. how concerned are each of you about the nation's debt, and what should congress do about it? we will start with the dr. garcia. >> very concerned about the nation's debt. look, i came from humble beginnings and we didn't have a lot of money. but we always learned that you spend as much as you have. right now we are in a situation where americans are putting their groceries on credit cards. and us as a federal government should be accountable to make sure we're not wasting the taxpayers money. that's why i propose an audit of the federal government. and i'm not proposing a big

bureaucratic group that comes in and audits the federal government. i am proposing a single account with a pencil behind his ear that gets down on a table and says you know what, this is an ineffective program and we need to eliminate it so we could bring that money back to the community. >> thank you. senator cantwell. >> it's, the debt and deficit are an issue. in the pandemic we had to do some things that took care of people slides and help sustain economies for the future. in fact, the united states has come out of the pandemic with more resources and ability because we did that. but what we don't want to do now as former president trump is suggesting is tariff, tariff, tariff and put back the 2017 bill that would as economists are saying at summer between seven and eight, $14 trillion to our debt and deficit. i believe in pay go.

i believe in making sure like inflation reduction act as we do policy and we pay for it as we go. the reason i'm so enthralled over our make opportunities on apprentice is because you can grow the u.s. economy and help pay down the debt if we trained and skilled americans that on americans and they will do the rest. >> thank you, senator. i would note the discretion spending congress approves each year accounts for about a quarter of the nation's budget better spent on programs like sosa to come medicare, a big portion of that. dr. garcia which is like 30 seconds response? >> yes. americans, we don't do well when they take our rights away. medicare and social security are things that at the end of our life, at the end of our effort we expect to get. so i will be a senator that support those programs and finds the funding for it.

my answer to reducing the debt is stop spending money that we don't have for ineffective programs. >> thank you. senator cantwell would you like to respond? >> i'm going to fight to protect salsas good and medicare, and project 2025 taking aim at some of this is disturbing to me. but i do think that there are things that are state is done in healthcare that should lead the way to help build a value-based healthcare delivery system and help us look at costs in the future. if people would do more of that and reward good delivery of healthcare i think there are things we could do in our system today. >> thank you. i like to turn now to abortion. one of the biggest topics in this year's president election certainly. for nearly half a century the supreme court guaranteed a nationwide right to abortion with states are not restrict the procedure later in pregnancy except when a pregnant woman's life or health was in danger.

since the court overturned those protections in 2022 some states like idaho have restricted abortion. what should congress do in response to this new reality after the dogs dobbs decis? senator cantwell. >> i fully support restoring our rights. this is something that should be between a doctor and the patient, not people in washington, d.c. this is 50 plus years of a right that was upheld by our courts that were stripped away with the decision of the supreme court. and it is affecting the state of washington. i produced a national report that shows how people here coming to our state and people from idaho are literally creating a demand on our system that's hard to serve. i want women to have the rights back and and i will fight te roe v. wade restored as the law of the land when i am return to the united states senate with your help. >> thank you, senator. dr. garcia, you've one minute.

>> washington state is a pro-choice state dictated by the first the washington state. and i as your united states senator i'm going to represent the defendant that every day. i agree that the reversal of this law has caused burden in washington state from having patience from other states come to have abortions here. going back to america it's not like taking a rights away. in my experience i have been there with the mother whose daughter was raped by her uncle. i have been there with the husband whose wife is dying of an ectopic pregnancy or demise or other ob/gyn emergencies and it had to send them to the operating room to terminate the pregnancy or the woman would die. this is who i am. this is my experience, this is how i'm going to represent you as your united states senator.

>> thank you. senator cantwell, would you like response? >> avs said people are losing their life over this as a saw in georgia. we need people who are going to stand up and fight for this right to be restored. the challenges we face is that the republican party except for key people in the united states senate have basically decided they want this to be up to individual states. i am saying this is a right that women should have added national level. that i'm going to spend my time advocating for it to pass into federal law. >> thank you, senator. would you like response per? yes. the dobbs decision to create a lot of anxiety and discomfort throughout the country. i want the women of washington to understand my stance. i'm not asking you to trust every republican just as a as a wooden ask you to trust every democrat. i'm asking you to trust me.

i am going to defend the state as a pro-choice state everyday as a u.s. senator representing washington state. >> thank you, doctor. i'd like to ask one follow up on this topic. there's of course been proposed legislation that would restore roe v. wade style protections at the federal level. you both have spoken to that. senator cantwell, would you vote for a bill that restores those protections that allows for state restrictions, , states to enact their own restrictions after people live in the? >> we have laws on the books to do that now, and the confusion and management in washington about this, in idaho, is a perfect example of why i wouldn't support that. please put roe v. wade back into federal statute. this issue now is how the woman week being transported from idaho to washington. she may want to keep the pregnancy. she's walking into a facility and asking for help, and they're

saying, because they're worried about their cases against them, are saying please get on on e and go to seattle. and so even though people would say they have exemptions or they have specifications, the confusion that this year today is not tolerable. evil should not be losing their lives over it a people shouldn't be losing pregnancies that they want to keep. >> thank thank you, senator. i want to note the clock, give you 60 seconds and we'll do the same for dr. garcia. i will not ask of another follow up on this topic you but dr. garcia usage you saidd not vote for federal legislation that further restricts abortion nationwide. would you vote for the kind of legislation senator cantwell is talked about that would restore those protections? >> as a physician and representing the state of washington of a cbs2 at your question. and let me explain that. i think that there should be a safety net in our country to make sure that women have access

if they choose that, up to fetal viability. this is the law in washington state. so being the senator from washington state and being a physician with a lived experience in situations that need that termination, yes, i would support it. and i would add this. i would sit with my republican colleagues and explain this, and i would ask you who do you think those republican colleagues are going to listen to more, the doctor with lived experience or a democrat? >> well, -- >> thank you, dr. garcia. we need to move on. we have a lot to get you here. we are going to turn back to the screen again. with a question from a contact a student. >> my name is anthony tomorrow, and i'm a student at gonzaga

university. and here's my question. what role do believe the federal government should play in combating climate change, and what is your plan in reducing carbon emissions and promote clean energy here in washington state? thank you. >> we will start with dr. garcia, you have 62nd. >> we are lucky to live in one of the cleanest faces on earth. and we should all bind together to make sure our children have the same clean place, not only here but anywhere in the world. so i am a big proponent of keeping our environment clean. i am a proponent of clean energy. i have of the fact we have hydroelectric energy and our state at chernobyl that 70% of our energy. i am a proponent of nuclear energy in our state, the ones we have, and more that we could go after. but i want to also bring up that

if we are the cleanest place on earth, i am in support of bringing our manufacturing and our industries back to america where we care about the environment, and stop outsourcing our jobs to places that really don't care as much. >> thank you. thank you, dr. garcia. senator cantwell, you have one minute. >> i i was at his responsibly because physicians, they don't support establishing roe v. wade. i really like my colleagues susan collins and lisa murkowski but they haven't convinced me of the people in their caucus either. so for the fighting. can you believe we are fighting over idf? but that's forwarding because we believe in letting families have ivf treatment. i believe climate change is real. i believe that as passing the climate reduction act set this up into state of washington to

not only innovate here and diversify our energy sources but we are leaving the world and some of the most innovative energy, whether it's a hydrogen hub for smart grid or battery technology in moses lake, or some of the innovation that is being done at the p&a lap we are on the next generation of energy front that is great help us meet these climate call. >> thank you, senator. dr. garcia would you like response? >> yes. first of all of what you want to know that have participated in ivf so of course i some support it. i'm also in favor of hydrogen, and we're lucky as senator cantwell stated to have at&l here in our state. what are the only 13 labs in the country. we want to be in the forefront, the leaders in climate change in the country and as you're nice to center i will be your champion of it.

>> thank you. senator cantwell. >> with these devastating to do everything i can to prove to people that this is impacting our taxpayers. so in a bipartisan effort susan collins and i asked the government accounting office to give us estimates just two weeks ago came up and said it's costing us billions of dollars. our state, setting up people on innovation to solve the thorniest problems, like how to get battered technology to last longer, how to transfer a charge faster, how to fuel airplanes which i authored the language of all things that are going to help us diversify. >> thank you, senator. now as the country transitions to more renewable energy sources the columbia basin has become an increasingly important source of hydropower. dash of northwest tribes ate existing infrastructure like the lower snake river dams and new developments like the goldendale energy storage project damage the natural world in other ways

and violate the treaty they signed with the federal government. how should congress balance the countries energy needs with the rights of tribal nations? senator cantwell. >> it's so important that we do everything we can because we now need about 30% more power than we have to do. that's how much our state is going to grow. i want to do everything we can to keep the historic low energy electricity costs that we've had as a state. it has build our economy over and over and over again. but we have to live up to our treaty obligations for abundant salmon and that is why i fought hard against bristol bay, goldmine alaska have destroyed salmon sockeye. probably some of the largest runs in the world and yet people were going to build a goldmine and destroy the period . and what i fought here for record amount of salmon funding to remove barriers and to build our hatchery fish so we can take

some of the pressure off of the system. >> thank you, senator dr. garcia one minute. >> well, i pay a lot of electricity in my house with five children. so i understand that. there's never enough and this is why i am very much in favor of new ideas. and expanding our nuclear program even here in washington. ..

there culture that keeps the culture alive sorry we are out of time. i was very involved in something that was bipartisan and brought together the how did we get the water farmers, environmentalists, all got together and agreed to build more capacity for our region that was an exemplary way to make progress in his issues. >> i agree as long as we depend on energy for higher culture estate, we need to find a balance and make sure which they

work really hard to preserve seven state. >> would like to turn. >> one year since hamas and other militant groups killed offenders some people and fairly 100 remain in gaza thinking 40000 people and also while are provided 18 million and military age. all of the united states is

condolences for everyone. it's always been a strong ally of the united states from terrorist activities and united states so we should support our allies. the i do agree or support of our allies are purpose but not only

cost just the citizens. we need to do everything we can to bring hostages back home. united states supports israel because it's a democracy in the middle east and we should stop read that is five is outlined achieve his father and us we need to do a very good states. >> would you like to respond or elaborate? >> stark difference between the seller and i she voted to

release assets to iranians which in turn iran used october 7 is your u.s. senator iran is an organization will that doesn't work that of world peace of the u.s. or leader of will. >> that is inaccurate, give 100 billing to iran. i did some of the agreement i would have said the united states and other partners of the security council to go to iran and say the were not developing nuclear weapons and yes, i left of to do she will help us figure that out so what we did do is

say we will have patience on iran, oil and show why that is helpful. >> talking about ukraine and russia it's been a decade now with crimea two years the full-scale invasion of ukraine. congress prorated or 75 billing response including 100 billion government what should our role and would be support the deal to and work to give the territory? >> basically in an effort to attack ukraine, we need to stand up to that aggression. we are not only protecting ukraine the euro, we are protecting our nato allies it is

important continue to help ukraine and for standing up to ukraine. we have 2000 refugees that live right here and we are sending with them because democracy and aggressors stop democracy. >> i came from cuba which was a tyrannical government. that is the only way to live that experience settled with the ukrainian people see an aggressor did a tyrannical government tried to take them over in the united states was correct supporting ukrainian people. he says she doesn't believe in laundering the money you're

sending to ukraine, my colleagues are asking for our accountability and transparency. want to make sure the money we are using with taxpayers money to help with to succeed we have transparency and accountability on. >> i know what rand paul is up to. he wants to be an isolationist. i believe we should join more sanctions trends nancy india and china is the way to go as the government all of our citizens

seeing all this money go out or we have so many problems in our backyard we need accountability and transparency about the other side favoring auditing this money because shorts going to the proper places in ukraine. >> you mentioned federal and we will get to that in a moment. congress failed to pass major immigration reforms and as a result of law has not kept up with changing reality on the ground and estimated 11 million people live in the country in the u.s. economy and agriculture. record number people have crossed the border beginning take legal process the

particulars. if elected what would you do for the rest immigration? >> any other country should have the right to bed comes in and out of the country and when we lose that right, we lose that sovereignty. not only that he who comes in and out but allowing drugs and crime to come in as. we know who's coming in for the cartels do know exactly who's coming in and a lot of them hold money back. this country was created by immigrants to find the best place in the world other children created the best country in the world of always support immigration but we need better leadership and discipline

at our border so we remain a sovereign nation. >> i have voted for probably four different bipartisan bills. literally the partners are left. john mccain and ted kennedy, every time of the or 80 votes out of the u.s. senate would be by conservatives who just didn't want to do anything to allow for a legal process to be established for the workforce we depend on in washington so do not support immigration policy that will allow us to bring people from mexico is and i will

do what we can to fight for appropriations the border. >> thirty seconds to respond. >> i want to talk about certain topics may not come back to. i'm in favor of the dreamers not having 18 years of age. to the other people who have been here for years and have been profited people people, i'll give of presidents but if you come to commit crime, you are out. >> a lot a follow-up question and thoughts on former president trump running the false rumors about haitian immigrants and an ohio town.

a book to know about the rhetoric of immigrants. >> i'm going to be a champion of immigrants, i am one. i came to this country searching for the american dream and everyone in this audience, it may not have but you but it may have been your ancestors that have the same fire is my mother so i can succeed. always going to be a champion of immigration in this country. we have a large bureaucracy of legal immigration suppressing we have to do is come into this country legally.

washington state depends on our economy. >> you have one minute on the rhetoric. >> about every minute of national news is donald trump saying immigrants this problem, this problem, this problem demonizing the back burner is. they don't necessarily get it. and by colic.

competitive. and they killed about 75000 americans. washington. what you do differently? >> a national commercial like the one the press.

more money on the border for detection. >> so we can stop it low. i do support treatment and 50% reduction is. >> and four seconds.

this is a crisis. senator cantwell and i, the felony charges for the election and involuntary rehabilitation. as a doctor i can tell you it will tell them to lie, cheat and steal. despite has to be voluntary. >> i'll tell you how i do it of

the university of washington and the program is the best way democrats, for that. >> listening to cantwell, i put down in the attics and be organizers. and an iron fist, to the. >> we are going to turn back to the videos.

it if elected, what steps would you take? >> doctor curcio. >> the homeless problem custody triple base. i can tell you that you have to go to the root of the cause. the first step is drug rehabilitation. the second is the adult the third step housing. housing first, this is why the program has been so effective state is the same with house productions, we are selling as

little here are the deals, here's the pipe here's the foil. here is globe. housing so you can do your drugs. while it's a step in the right direction, it is not decimation. we need a true solution. take these individuals out of the environment and the homeless crisis, we need to do it in that order. >> to think everybody who's on this is on drugs, i know a woman from my town for literally loss her apartment because i have mold, she had to leave and didn't have a place to go and literally lived in parts of his about building supply. a study shows for every 2300 units, who drive down the cost

about 2000 dollars annual rent cost. we need to build more supply. that's why places are done, i worked in a bipartisan basis in the u.s. senate the bill that will help us build affordable units. >> you have 30 seconds. >> again, we need to go to the root cause. those mothers who lose their house are out there with the child, offers those are the first diary but the people in the streets of do not want to get out of the street be taken out of the environment and given resources to be brought back to the family. we are going to perpetuate behavior we live in today.

>> if anybody can look at the perfect example, it reunited families became homeless and. reporter: part in the whole mission to give access to childcare and back to their education system so they can be trained and skilled productive members of the should be followed. >> i like to talk about healthcare. americans spend more on health. person than any other country in the world. the worst of times among those countries including life expectancy mortality. question congress could do to improve? >> i mentioned value -based purchasing and what we were able

to do with the inflation reduction act. billions for american consumers just saying the federal government like prospero negotiate so why don't we have the same ability to negotiate just for the care? millions and the national system and why i fight and advocate for it. >> i am deeply into this situation where you live in a state where i couldn't, who length 50 is so healthcare is a big issue but we're not talking about «-left-guillemet in the room.

the person from washington state should have the right to get a quote from insurance from alabama. i'm not sure insurance company should be in wall street. i have patients that needed approval on an mri and don't get it. >> this is something we agree on their taking over restrictions drug boxes, the third of force

work so much are. >> also need the reimbursement to be higher. in 2811 and told her reimbursement in the country we need to bring up. her answer to me was we are going to bring everybody's reimbursement down to our level so we are on an even playing field. this makes us lose resources washington.

americans are not protected by national law governing how we can collect and use is no data. this makes data privacy for years that the only major developed country in the world without a nationwide standard. what should congress do to regulate? day when you share our information.

i do think congress has a place in the coming spend regulate the privacy for the benefit of our citizens. that is our job. >> value -based purchasing is how you get money for washington. i'm fighting very hard to pass a federal privacy act of they are

misusing information to have the ability to take action against them. it's time to pass a law. so far we are not keeping up. americans deserve the spike. >> i apologize because we are short on time. >> thank you in the selection could be more important about the future of our country.

what we have been able to do for seniors and spread about a possible larger population. are we going to build more affordable housing and leave with low income housing clinic? you've made the right investment and i'm asking for your support. >> thank you for giving me this great opportunity. my intent was to instill the confidence and hope together we can have a better washington. change his heart but senator

cantwell will not have star four times to give her another chance of making it right. i'm asking you for one. wanted to bring true solutions to our problems. we could keep voting the same way and keep having the same problems outside our windows and doors are take a leap of faith in this skinny cuban kid that fought hard to achieve the american dream and i promise you is your next united states senator every step in every action, every breath i take everyday will be to represent the will of the people of washington to one of the greatest country in the world and pay her back for everything it does for us. [laughter]

tonight live conversation, not a

debate. >> she's a one-woman economic wrecking ball. and spotlight spotlight is this trying to bring civility back to the election cycle. democrats andy kim and republican curtis deaton are the candidates are vying to fill the seat of the convicted former senior senator bob menendez. we are going to take our campaign and message as a political outsider. we sit down to hear why they think they deserve your vote on november 5. it's a challenging and difficult race and one that has frankly changed new jersey politics forever. an open discussion talking about all the issues that impact you and a conversation with the candidates with the only u.s. senate seat on new jersey's ballot begins now.

tonight mj decides candidate conversations presented in partnership with the university. ♪♪ live from the steady in newark this is mj decides 2024 conversations with the u. s. candidates. good evening and thanks for joining us. >> will come to rely conversations with the candidates for the senate. we are calling it a conversation because this is not a traditional debate. there'll be no time for responses and the goals to talk about the issues impacting you are an exchange of ideas by david and i believe the discussion and direct the questions the candidate. we welcome our guest democrat andy kim and republican curtis

bashaw. welcome to you both and thanks for doing this. we will start off by having you talk about the economy. we will start with you mr. bashaw. everyone agrees that affordability is what's on the top of the mind for voters today. what do you think is driving this crisis and what specifically can you do from your seat in the senate? >> affordability is a huge issue. i run a small business that has grown to 1000 employees. we know our utilities are more expensive than we know the food that we buy to serve in a restaurant is more expensive and in all 21 counties in this state i have heard that issue loud and clear from new jerseyans. to me, the way we fix that is to cut back on our government spending. we had to do with the cobra crisis and we kept doubling down by doing more and more expensive

bills that have caused inflation. i believe the blessed with the curate is to spend more money -- isn't to spend more money or to price caps and it isn't to try to mandate for subsidies but to unshackle our businesses, let them grow trust our business people, grow the economy and make it bigger. >> what you think is driving this issue or this crisis? >> like we want to make sure we are growing our economy but we want to grow for everybody. right now the corporations in the world are growing exponentially and we are seeing a lot of small as this is really struggling to add aitkins made in seeing a lot of people not invested in over half of our country is not invested in the stock market. we have a huge racial wealth gap in new jersey. it affects the black communities nul communities and latino

communities. that's why took steps to lower prescription drug costs one of my biggest legislative wins. out-of-pocket cost for seniors when it comes to their prescription drugs. capping insulin caused a $35 a month to do that for all americans. all the things we did child tax credit cuts child poverty in half. these are proven tools that the republicans in congress got rid of all these different efforts that we are trying to help people with. these are some of the things return to fix. sankey seemed to be ready to unleash business and have regulation what's the difference between you two on what role government can play in stimulating the economy are making things more affordable? >> look we live in an america

that's a free enterprise country. we trust our citizens here and our businesses and that's how we created this american dream. i don't think we can spend our way to prosperity. i don't think we can tax our way to physical health and i don't think that we can regulate our way to innovation and growth. new jersey is one of the most expensive states for taxes and one of the most unaffordable state, one of the most highly regulated states. ironically new jersey is 49th and what we get back from the federal government out all the other states so i don't believe these old 20th century habits of price caps of subsidies excess spending, those are failed policies socialist policies that we tried to force the hand of the market. we need to let her businesses thrive. i lean against too much intervention but i understand that we need to take care and

make sure that everybody has a shot. >> one of the things we have found in our reporting with pastor particularly is a lot of people we talked to about affordability .2 of affordable housing as a driver of this crisis. the estimate is that there needs to be about 200,000 new units of affordable housing built in the state. water barriers to meeting that goal and what kind of federal legislative remedy is there? >> i think barriers currently are inflation and making houses unaffordable for people and high interest rates that we need to make sure we control inflation. i don't think that's by spending another trillion dollars as a way to solve it. if people think we solve inflation with the inflation reduction act i don't think anybody believes that. now are spending trillions of dollars. it was a policy that was a

partyline vote. >> how do you remedy affordable housing? >> we need to get inflation in check and we need to make sure that interest rates come come down and two we need to make sure there is permitting reform. it takes ages to get permits particularly in new jersey but you can't just go out and build a house. it can take years to get a permit so that's the second thing and thirdly we need to make sure we have a trained workforce. this is where i think the trade and the trade schools making sure that young people understand there's a living to be made in the trades and we need more workforce. >> i think this is an example where there's a difference here. for me i look at the bipartisan infrastructure law that we did, something that's putting billions of dollars back into new jersey and helping to rebuild our roads, bridges tunnels and our public transit but that will lead into the ability for us to build more.

we need a decade of building to offset the steep challenges that we face right now. >> how does the senator make something like that happen? mr. bashaw said he opposes the inflation reduction act. that's a perfect example of where government is investing in private sector in the market that creating an unbelievable response in surging anatiere -- energy innovation in the country. we can send signals to the market and then devise building. the market is not clearly doing this on its own. we need to make sure we are building diverse types of housing. not just luxury housing. government can play a role in incentivizing that. >> let's look at some numbers living on from affordable housing.

we are up for by 1% and inflation is at 2.8 and 250,000 new jobs created according to the last report and 1,043,000. how is this not a good economy? >> look because leading indicators move but i think talking to new jersey voters in 21 counties everyone realizes how much more expensive things are than four years ago. i mean what has happened in inflation over the last four years is not solved when you look at what groceries cost four years ago to what they cost today and what the fuel and heating oil and all those things cost. this is a burden for new jersey families. the solution isn't i don't think to spend another trillion dollars but i don't thank you can force it by saying we are just going to cap prices and give away things here. i know i have 180 of our employees where affordability is a very important think that

these don't get solved in the halls of washington and think tanks but i think they get solved by unshackling our business people and making sure they can get permits to do the building, making sure interest rates are low and we are not living beyond our means of the country. i think political outsiders and business people will make a difference in these issues. we can't have more of the same. hasn't worked. >> it used to be could get a blue-collar job and earn a living raise a family in the current minimum wage in new jersey is 15 bucks, about half that on the national level. you are an employer curtis. do you paid your folks, are you a union shop at your place? >> we are not. we have had hotels in atlantic city but they are very few that make minimum wage of our 1000

employees. we understand the affordability issue and there's a supply and demand issue with labor. we need workers and we pay well. >> i think this is an example of the differences here. i too think we need to make sure we are investing in our unions and their workers. mr. bashaw could increase the federal men on wage from $7.25 an hour. i disagree about. when you talk about something that would pay what, 16 or $17,000 a year no one in the country can live off of that. >> the m.i.t. living wage calculator says in new jersey and this is almost like the first case scenario a family of four, to a parents both working, two kids it's not much of a gotcha question because most people probably don't know this. guess what the wood -- living

wage should be according to m.i.t. living wage calculator? >> in new jersey or the country? >> in new jersey. >> i would say 65 or 70,000. in terms of per hour. >> oh per hour. living wage i would say it's probably around $8.20. >> i would say probably 19 to 21. >> $30.19 according to this calculator. are those jobs out there for people without a college education? >> we are struggling right now. we have seen a challenge and that's why we need to address the fundamental inequality in our country right now. we have billionaires and huge amounts of poverty and challenges here. >> let me tell you what i'm doing but i created 1100 jobs. i have hundreds of people that make way more than $30 an hour because we started in enterprise

that worked. we started with 20 employees. now we have 1000. i make payroll every two weeks. i have given them health insurance for 35 years. i understand. >> how do other employers get that $30.19? >> we paid minimum wage even before we race before we raised it in jersey. we have been ahead of the curve because that's where the market is my experience. >> i have about 30 seconds for each of you. the deductions or something that both of you assume want to have restored, right? so the brookings institute called it a massive tax cut for the rich saying to 1% are the ones who benefit. in 30 seconds what other tax deduction for removal would you

support that would work for the other 99%? >> anybody -- i need 30 seconds. anyone who pays taxes in new jersey, income, all the taxes in new jersey are deductible up to $10,000 so anyone who makes more than $10,000 would get a benefit if that cap was removed. i will say this when we are 49th and what we get back from the federal government and third and fourth in what we contribute there's a big gap. new jersey is a donor state selecting getting that money back to our state and it's important. >> i would start facing the salt isn't the case when it comes to our state. we have people here who are struggling with this but we should keep the standard deduction double what it was before and i think that was a good move. the effort to give 20% offered

to small businesses in an effort to raise the state tax on $30 million? what we saw in terms of the taxes and dropping the taxes for wealthy americans of the biggest corporations those are things we can do. >> this weekend a couple of surveys came out kaiser family foundation being one of them has said for young female voters apportion not, not the economy abortion is a top issue and you both say you are pro-choice. what specifically does it mean to you when you believe in a woman's right to choose and is there point in a pregnancy where you believe there should be a restriction on having an abortion? i believe the woman has the right to choose her medical care and i do think we need a federal law to codify that. that should be worked on in a

bipartisan way and i think that process will bring us to reasonable commonsense common sense reforms. when we had rowe the number of weeks where the camera and -- determined based on viability from years ago and there will be that conversation that happens. i think new jersey has a pretty good position going all the way into the night. as we work on this to find common ground as a country which i think is long overdue. we've been fighting about my entire lifetime do we need to roll up our sleeves and we will find common ground. i believe most people believe parental consent is an important right for a family with minor kids to have a life-altering procedure done. i think when people get down to business which is why i want to go to d.c. to work.

>> let me ask you what would you like to see in a federal bill that would codify its? >> i think we need to codify a woman's right to choose in all 50 states. i think a reasonable restriction would be that there is a viability determination based on factors and the conversation. >> you aren't willing to say at what point? >> i'm not a doctor. >> it's a process we need to go through to come to common ground. >> let me ask you this then lets say you get elected to the senate the federal abortion bill comes up for a vote. would you be willing to say that you would break from your party to vote in favor of that bill? >> when my party is right i will defend them and support them and when my party is not right i will stand up to them. i am curtis bashaw and i'm

running for the senate seat to run new jersey. i'm my own person and i don't agree if my husband and everything so i'm going to be that person i think the people that know me understand that. >> was the difference if you are pro-choice, do you support abortion without any restrictions? do you support on-demand abortion without restriction? >> the number one difference between us is that i believe that abortion is constitutionally protected. my opponent mr. bashaw does not end a woman's right to choose and make decisions about her own body or fundamental about what it means that freedom in this country and we shouldn't have government telling us what we can do with our own bodies. that's the fundamental difference and that's why i take a position to mr. bashaw saying he's pro-choice.

when you talk about that you are talking about the fundamental freedoms about the constitution. right now we do not have a choice right now. both states are fully banning abortion and six of them are banning this including no exception for rape and the other question about where does this go? what i will just say this is something that a woman can decide. what we have seen when there are restrictions that have been put into place they've been weaponized in the states. alabama you can go to jail for 99 years if you perform an abortion. they are going after dockers and dockers are worried about doing anything even when it comes to miscarriages and other issues out there. they are worried about legal repercussions so mr. bashaw said he thinks there's a commonsense approach that we can come together as a country on this issue. i'm not sure what you have seen

or how the debate has gone on in our country right now but it's very toxic and it's very. i do not see how you going to the u.s. senate is going to single-handedly change everything that we see. you have a party -- let me finish. >> you are going to support a senate majority as a republican and look at the other people there. your party is on the extreme side of it and you endorsed all time to put three justices on that overturn roe v. go wade. >> how do you balance the supreme court's decision in? >> i understand what happened in dobbs. that doesn't take away the fact that i am pro-choice. dobbs with separation of powers they didn't find it specifically a constitution in the process would be to go to the legislative branch and be codified.

to your question about what i'm going to do down there and how it can single-handedly try i'm trying because i think i can make a difference but the fact is you've been there for six years and you voted 100% with your party. you wouldn't understand how i like you to stand up for my because you never set up for mine. that's a difference between us. i'm a political outsider and i'm not behold and to anyone in. i've had a great career provide a businessman that is created jobs for the economy and i'm my own person. i'm going to go down there and defend a woman's right to choose because i believe that in the same way a plea but have a right to be married. i will talk about our freedoms all day long and i'm happy to move to that conversation. >> do you want to respond? >> i will respond by saying look god says constitution does not afford the right to abortion and

he agrees with adam i just disagree. i will say look everyone in the state has seen me stand up to my own party. in the senate race i got her a very contentious primary standing up to some of the most powerful political leaders in the state in my own party. i'm willing to stand up for leaders my own party. i vote a fight to codify a woman's reproductive rights. think i care you say the position you have on abortion and affording reproductive rights to women is extreme and i take issue to that. so let me ask you both this question talking about the legislative branch branch. with either of you support suspending the filibuster to help restore a national right to abortion and how would you get it done through legislation otherwise? >> i think the whole point of

america was to have checks and balances and separation of powers which forced us to have conversations and find common ground. we don't want to back and forthwith a majority of one and that's what the senate is the place where there were longer-term and staggered terms and the filibuster is a tool for that. i think they should be verbal. i don't think it should be a filibuster but i think that's a tool to support 60 vote so why not? that forces people to talk to each other. >> allotted votes don't even come up to the floor for a vote because of needing to have that supermajority. but you are saying you don't see room for it. >> i think the filibuster is a

filibuster. so make it -year-old but i get nervous about this only don't get what we want, freedom is a little and our structure sets up a process to make sure we don't whip back and forth so much. it's hard to amend our congress -- our constitution. >> where do you stand on the filibuster and either funding it on this issue for reforming at? >> i think reforms are needed. the house of representative i helped pass the women's health reduction act only to see it fall short in the senate. we passed universal background checks. something that 94% of americans favor and be passive in the house and it failed in the senate. the john lewis voting rights act a critical effort to protect our

right to vote in our democracy failed on delivering the senate. we just see weaponization of this. i understand mr. bashaw what you are bashaw what you're saying but we also see the weaponization of that over the last few years and the last 10 or 20 years. it got to the point where we are able to make a decision. just let us vote. >> if you see abortion cares health care should the federal government be on the hook to pay for it through medicaid? >> i think that they could. we passed legislation that said people require medicaid. think mifepristone known as the abortion pill is used in 63% of abortions in the os. should that remain on the market? >> i don't think people

should -- government should tell us the medicines that can be prescribed by our dockers. >> absolutely but the problem is when the dobbs decision happen now women are not able to decide on medications and so my different things. >> when you two were last together curtis bashaw you said there were 900,000 illegal aliens, your terminology in the state and their presence here is making people feel unsafe. should people really feel unsafe and why and where did that number of 900,000 come from? >> i will try to answer all the questions but the number came from a report from the new jersey assembly and i know they are other reports that were four or 500,000 so let's say somewhere around half a million illegal people living in new

jersey. i will say this having driven 75,000 miles on my car is january 15 to all 21 counties and talking to so many of our citizens, people are concerned. this and affordability are the two issues. i don't understand and i want to know congressman kim do you think the border policy has worked for new jersey? we have all these people and i don't think the citizens are telling me an untruth that they feel less secure. it's a level playing field issue. our immigrant communities are the ones most upset about this because there's an open backdoor into our country where you can cut the line. such a commonsense fairness issue. the rank-and-file trade are upset about the fact that you can come to our backdoor. i locked the backdoor of my house at night. that's okay. that's not a big deal and why we have holes in the border that

people walk through but i stood there and watched people three months ago between 12:30 and three in the morning from all over the world. it was an absurdity and you realize talk about politicizing an issue we should decouple border security from immigration policy. it's okay for a country to have a boundary with ports of entry. the costs to our state and the concern to our state impacts immigration policy. let me finish my thought here. i support that 100%. that's another issue we need to resolve in a bipartisan way. one third of my workforce are second-generation americans and one of the great highlights of my life was sworn in as an honorary judge for a day to swear in the police when they naturalize but i love the

migration and making it work. having a secure border to say we can have an orderly process without that and vote against seven bills that would have the least tried to address the border security issue. i'm passionate about this. the candidates had introduced themselves at a more republican rally and a woman said to us no one product into now. so afterwards i walked right up to her and she said i lost my daughter. i'm raising her child. why aren't you talking about tantamount and we just hugged. we can't ignore the fact that this is an issue and i think think that's why lot of voters are going to vote for me. >> you got your point in there. how much of that do you want to agree with or disagree with? >> let me go backwards because i

feel it's disconnected. i'm also concerned about centinela centinela. i lose a least one person a day every day to 03 i'd overdose. this is catastrophic but so much of the sentinel challenge we have we a prescription drug challenges allow the sentinel coming into america's brought in by american citizens. the fact that he raised it so nonchalantly. it adds to the sense that migrants are there reason for the sentinel crisis. i disagree but i disagree when he said we should separate border security from me job. of course i want to keep our country safe and the believe that's a solemn nation we can have control over all of our land air and sea and that's why it supported border security

measures. when they are not weaponized in a way to attack president biden and things like that for the lot of legislation he raised these are pieces of legislation that poison pill elements and them that are trying to take away resources from children to come on their own and things like that. i think they are all sensible approaches and why is it that we have such a large margarent challenge in our country right now? it's not just border security that we have only 682 federal immigration judge judges in the country. they have 3 million immigration cases and would take 10 years for them just to get through those cases. so yes we should surge the number of immigration judges we have an increase the number of asylum officers a bipartisan bill that came up in the senate is addressing some of these. those are the things that will help us get it under control. >> decoupling a little bit

mr. bashaw, what does that mean and how does it work? and who takes care of immigration who takes care of border security? >> i just think it's more common sense stuff and that sound like a d.c. insider to me going through other reasons and rationales while there is a hole in the wall that people are walking into every single day. they are coming to new jersey and maybe it's not all sense now but you are trying to say no fentanyl is coming through the holes in the border? closing the border and having a portal that's lockable enforcing our law wise that a big deal? why hasn't biden kamala harris and you'd done? new jerseyans want to know. it doesn't make any sense to them. >> we have invested significant amounts of money and bipartisan ways to try to address the issues of fentanyl coming in.

love that is happening with drugs. that's why we need scanners and technology. that's something i will continue to do. >> have you've been there to see the holes in the wall? >> have lived in there? i've been working on a lot of national security issues. >> have you've been to the border and. >> no i haven't gone to the border to look at it in that way. >> my point is when you see at congressman it seems that we don't fix the holes in the walls. it's just and voters see that i'm just telling you. >> what i would say is i have supported barriers in right places but we don't need what you're proposing which is a wall

>> i am saying fix the holes right now. just do it. you're in charge. >> on the question of mass deportation do you support that proposal by the former president and how would something like that work and what would the impact of that be? >> i don't think that's doable personally. i think it's really impractical. i do think we need to know who is here and it's why, because there were more people coming every day and it just makes sense to secure the border we have. let's not make the problem worse. >> what about the people who are here? >> getting to know who they are and if they are criminal or have a criminal history coming from their country to our country that's a reasonable to ask them to go home. i think we need to have a compassionate conversation and work on some citizenship in my

opinion. on think it's possible to support people. >> not only would it be impossible to do but it would be for our economy as well. when i talk to people across new jersey i talk to lot of businesses who say look we need the workforce right now. we can make sure people coming in they can get a work authorization and things like that. i think it makes economic sense and mr. bashaw we want to make sure there are pathways forward. we passed the dream legislation for the daca dreamers. that's something we want to make sure we are correcting funds for. >> when she deportation be announced? >> way we have on the books already that if somebody is convicted of a crime such as a violent crime drugs and things

like that those are means by which to deport. we have had that in the law already and those are actions that would before. >> there is a time when the gang of eight which i know you both read that reference, it was close to an actual deal on immigration. if something like that were to ever happen again without partisan divide we are experiencing now but what would need to be a national immigration reform bills? wondered two things, pick them off. >> i think we need that the process that is legal and we need to have a secure border to be in force. you can't have a process if there's a backdoor or shortcut. that is one in two we need people like me. i believe political outsiders

and not career politicians in d.c. insiders down there rolling up their sleeves to work across the aisle to bring people together around this issue. i agree we need workers. one third of my employees are first and second generation americans. >> people will say let's do this on the partisan way that is easier said than done clearly. how do you with these folks into shape? >> should i not try? i'm just saying we need people to be willing to try and that's the conversation that will start in their senators down there that do want to work in a bipartisan way. we are going to solve our problems with the extreme. we will solve them from the middle and we don't need people who vote one under% of the time in washington with their party. we need people that will cross back and forth and pull people together. everyone said it was impossible,

everyone. >> we have 45 seconds on that question. one or two things that might be in ability could vote for? >> i think border security is an important component that want to make sure we take the steps to ensure we have legal pathways and we should be increasing the numbers of legal pathways. these are people who want to come. people want to innovate and build businesses here in right now we are shutting the door on them. i hope we have that pathway forward for daca dreamers and others to show them that they are welcome. >> yes or no a pathway to citizenship? >> yes. >> another crisis as we sit here tonight we are all aware that the u. s. is preparing to deploy a defense system along with 100 troops to israel. this is what the biden

administration says to help israel after iran's most recent attack. do you support putting specifically american boots on the ground in this conflict. >> i will start by saying i'm familiar with the technology. that is something i'm supportive of and i believe in israel's right to lead the charge every single year in the preparation process for efforts to provide that defense. we saw with iran's direct attack these are unprecedented after such a dangerous adversary. if you want to make sure we will be there. i think there are due with this and that's going to be safe for our troops. i worked in these situations in and i worked at the pentagon and

afghanistan at the height of war. they are types of system where we have strong oversight. >> you put support putting american defenses they are? >> mr. bashaw. >> it sounds like a d.c. insider talking. you just keep calling me a d.c. insider and bureaucrat. they are people who have served our country people, i pressed my life for this country and i do not appreciate the label. you are trying to serve in the senate so have some respect to public servant. >> i do. >> no you don't. kurdish--- curtis bashaw.com. this is a scary moment and i

hope i bring the expertise and experience that i have. >> let me respond to that if you don't mind. i have taken two years and ran the reinvestment authority for democratic governor state. i served 12 years on reopening the task force. i also go the distance in the distance starting with 24,000 employees over 35 years for public service. i work for the people that work for you. we have an economy that covers 800 families mortgage payments rent payments car payments tuition and we pay our taxes to fund the government. i would appreciate career public servants police fire emt schoolteachers. we have all affirmed military.

i get skeptical of bureaucracies that are and inefficient or they lose touch with -year-old life, with being on the front lines on the economy and knowing what it is to deal with the one-size-fits-all regulation cooked up in washington d.c. office building that they don't understand the unintended consequences. i have respect for the urge to serve and we all have put the citizens and i respect that service. any confusion there i apologize for because i don't disrespect it. i believe all of us are citizens and has to be in service to our country. >> let me verify the question of american boots on the ground. >> we have allies we have enemies in the world and i believe we need to support our allies but we need to support israel not only to help defend itself but to be a will to win

the war. i don't think we have should micromanage the world. boots on the ground i'm not sure the people they are proposing to send there are because they are the experts in the missile system that we are giving them to defend themselves against an attack. all i know is to me there would be greater clarity if we weren't releasing sanctions on iran appeasing iran on one hand letting them near hezbollah and hamas. these terrorist groups that then attack israel and talk about maybe we'll call for a cease-fire or we won't and what is at the signal giving the terrorist? i get nervous about creating moral equivalency to a terrace at organization. >> to clarify these folks are needed and multi-personal to operate it. let's take a wider view because

you support israel's right to defend itself in the biden administration on sunday sent a letter to the israeli government stating essentially we need to be in check with regards to the humanitarian crisis and human rights violations. is it putting the atu us in jeopardy? should israel have the right to defend itself without conditions on weapons? i will ask you first. >> i think you have allies for a reason. they are your friends in a custom and i don't think war is the type of thing you can micromanage. israel has a right. >> even with its with a regional powerhouse like iran another proxy or? >> israel has a right to defend and when and i ran has attacked them. >> mr. kim. similarly have allies around the

world we should have a single -- to hold accountability and when we are a partner we work with them and understand what it's going to take for them to win and what defense equipment they need. when it comes to access to the military and aid we need to make sure it's going through the proper way. we do that for her own troops. we hold our own troops accountable that way and it's something we should hold everyone to. do you think the bike demonstration should use the law by the vermont senator senator which supplies of standards and conditions with the biden administration so far, should the demonstration be enforcing that? >> yeah we should enforce those standards all over the world. i believe they should be held to

account because those are the same laws that we have for our own troops. i think we should hold anyone to that same standard. >> you have endorsed former president trump. do you think they trump white house would be better equipped to handle this conflict and what do you think? >> i'm not going to try to speak for president trump on what he would do with form policy. i would say i do believe any peace through strength. one of the greatest foreign-policy moment in my life was when arnold reagan said mr. gorbachev tear down that wall and there was moral clarity and not. there were shots fired. i do think we need to be supportive of our allies. i don't know what the president specific intentions are but i thank you can see from polling lot of people seem to trust him

on form policy. >> what about you? do you trust him? >> he is their leader and i think he would talk to people. >> is anything you think the biden administration should have done differently to keep this war from escalating? >> i think there should have been more direct dialogue and diplomacy. the separate one may look back on it this effort of using intermediaries that slow down the process and d bharata is the return of the hostages. a number of the families of hostages with their loved ones being away for over a year is. that should be a greater priority. as this war has unfolded we have seen that diminished and we are seeing the intensity we need to when it comes to diplomacy. that's something we should address.

>> if an appropriations bill comes for markup which would be the first opportunity as he was senator to have a say on this type of aid would you support restrictions on anything? i've supported aid to israel in the last fundamental select traditional debate there traditional debate. through just to through start in to support our allies and trust them and we can micromanage a war. standards of warfare are appropriate to hold each other accountable with our allies. water who is the biggest foreign threat to united states your opinion? >> i think china is a pretty big issue. i don't think fundamentally

there isn't a level playing field. we are in this new realm of technology that can be exploited in weaponized. it's unknown to us and all the impact there. the trade has been imbalanced and isn't really a level playing field. keeping a big focus on china's important. >> what's the biggest threats to american's? there's a law that they are doing that i'm worried about. i hope we can agree that we don't want to find ourselves in a great power war. it's certainly very complicated but when you look at russia and their brand these are adversaries. these are opponents that.

>> if he had to pick one. >> i would say russia would be your biggest threat. we have seen hurricanes destroy parts of florida and north carolina and new jersey has its own problems with weather related catastrophes over the past decade. how can the federal government best manage the cost of flooding for instant and what priorities should congress focus on his new building resiliency fighting climate change by regulation. i represent ocean county for a number of years. the work we did with the bipartisan infrastructure law to make our communities more versailles and i passed a law to

make sure people have a the safe route and things like that. the inflation reduction act is our effort. we need to mobilize across the entire world but in the meantime we should do more to do with being response and resilience and infrastructure. that will save a lot of money on the backend. >> we will go to different question. fema said this morning you brought it up door-to-door outreach for areas that were hit specifically by hurricane helene. fema had to pause because threats made against employees that stem from the situation. specifically about money diverted to immigrants and migrants in folks at the border and the victims of these hurricanes. in the last debate despite fema

debunking not you repeated that claim of $750. why? i think mayorkas said himself their limited funds in his own office and that's where the whole thing started. it's grown from there. >> do you feel responsible for spreading any of this information? >> no. that's why reported in the mainstream media and then it got picked up and goes viral in different ways. but i will say this. governor kristine barack obama work together hand in glove on superstorm sandy was an incredible example. if ever we need to come together as a country it's a disaster. so they have it be politicized and heard those victims more

than they are suffering or to put them in the middle of a political election cycle is wrong. if there's ever a time to show my resiliency it's a disaster. >> quick answers from both of you if you can. we'll start with you mr. cam can you remember a time when you changed your mind about an issue or policy where you were once a yes or now in our vice versa and what changed her mind? grandsons this came up when i was in congress about medicinal marijuana and psychedelics. they were talking to veterans and saying they wanted to deal to have access to some of these kinds of drugs. for them to be able to recover

from traumatic brain injury and things like that. i thought it was very powerful. veterans going to mexico to get access. originally you were against the? >> i woodsen paper legalizing marijuana but when it came to these more schedule one drug's. that's something initially opposed. >> that's funny because i was going to say the marijuana thing myself the reason being i employ a lot of people i was very nervous because with alcohol with marijuana at the 30-day test. you don't know in that meeting nervous. at the end of the day it hasn't been an issue and i change my

view of it and talking to people and so. >> there's one thing and want to end with a no start with you mr. bashaw can you name a democrat anywhere here in the country could support and vote for? i've contributed to joe manchin through the years an example of somebody who is willing to work across the aisle and i appreciate it that. i think. >> i'm going to leave your answers there and mr. kim is there a republican he would vote for either here in new jersey? they are sensible moral leaders from both parties. >> gentlemen thank you both for

coming in. that's going to wrap up our 2024 conversation with u.s. senate candidates. thanks to row in university for partnering with us and to curtis bashaw and andy kim for participating you can watch the entire thing on line. for david cruz of the entire team thanks for being here. good night. i am john

keller.

president bill clinton for my efforts the court date of 2022 and 23. 500 people suspected, a national security crisis. learn what the migrants are going through, it's extreme on

this. she supports open borders and voted no on the border fill. don't let it get in the way of good our healthcare system and education system and housing and get up and demonize as many as you can. they are trying to the our dogs and cats but most important, don't fix the problem because it works as an election issue.

that's what happened in 16, 18 and 2020 and 2022 and 24. certainly doesn't refer to immigrants and dogs and cats but taking the same page of the same flavor. we need reform. the only way is by cutting off extremist republicans and coming together and fixing it. >> vicki has a follow-up. >> former president trump, his promises to execute the largest mass deportation in history, is that something you would support? >> of course not, 2,030,000,000, no a small level deportation has to be part of it. obama deported 3 million. let's go back, no one in this

race running for office can identify with these poor migrants for the me. i listen to my mom on the nights we didn't have food to eat but it is 12 million. 99% of these people want a better life. 1% is 120,000 potential bad guys and report says 445,000 have felony convictions, 15000 rapists, 13000 murders so the benefit of the doubt still a national security risk. >> they have a little face on it but the same edge, election issue, demonize the other group and talk about rapists and criminals like that's the only issue in the debate.

republicans believe they will win on the and they've done it over and over. border security, work permits, money for our states and a pathway to citizenship believe strongly if we negotiate comprehensive immigration reform plan, we need to make certain states are fully reimbursed. what they are spending on migrants, questions about immigration, the federal government should pay for migrants here to support them. we need to work together.

>> extremism, absolutely. pay attention to what they do. it was on the table. she rejected it she said harris will bring back.bill and she voted against it. how do you object 2500 a day? i went to the border and learned women are given plan b because they get raped along the way. senator warren will say national security crisis and you are racist, insane. >> this is the republican playbook, the same playbook over and over and over.

when it comes time to fix it, donald trump said i want to keep it as an election issue and see what you can do to make the problem worse and make everybody suffer so they can run again and again and again and i played out the four elements and what we need to negotiate for. >> there's only one extremist on this stage tonight and it's elizabeth warren. on the common sense and that it. it's bankrupting the state. billings on the migrants but can't save dorchester carney hospital. senator warren does not want immigration reform. she had the chance and she rejected it. >> one more time.

>> back in 2013 but i did not buy a ticket on a boat donald trump already soaked. by the time we voted on this one we knew republican support it. what position do you want to be in as we negotiate for real immigration reform? for me we need a pathway to citizenship and full reimbursement for states housing migrants. >> you can return to this later but we do want to move on. politicians like to talk about bipartisanship but the records show senators to vote with party leaders that the vast majority of the time it's hard to see how rhetoric promotes support for bipartisan behavior so how can voters trust you will put their

interests ahead of partisan politics? >> i'm honored the people of massachusetts simply to washington to fight for them and that's how it is put over 12 years of been the sponsor and 44 pieces of legislation and 27 of those pieces are bipartisan. i have a cosponsor who helped me get to the finish line. i broke the hearing a monopoly with help from charles grassley. reassure you get your money back when the cancer your flight. those bills do not include 100

pieces of cotton into the authorization bill every year many on a bipartisan basis. >> she's past one bill in 12 years but you have to pay attention what they do know what they say. she's been out there, when will a republican state up to donald trump? defend and protect a woman's right to choose her own health issues? that republican is here, i've been taking on the leadership of the republican party and what did she do? to she welcome that? no, she lied recall the name of the extremist when she knew i was even more critical of president trump and she has been.

she's one of the most extremist people in the senate and we could go over how she was to pack the supreme court, antibusiness lynch is partly responsible for the hospital. amazon is a big company and hundreds of jobs were lost. she's extremist, i'm the moderate. >> this is why people don't trust john. he said i only passed one bill. he's been fact checked all not publicly and that's not true. i have passed the 27 bills on a bipartisan basis than the doesn't count the changes in our military bills that pass every single year many of which are on

a bipartisan basis. there is a lot we can do on a bipartisan basis. one thing, helping veterans who have traumatic brain injury. i've been working on this for years now. it may be throwing or holding ammunition. i want to say, a part of that is right here in massachusetts. joni ernst storm iowa. >> i said primary sponsor.

lied about who i am ignore that. my daughters asked me not to run. they said don't run because politics is ugly and they might lie about you and try to make you look like the bad guy when you're not. want to know what i said? 75-year-old grandmother when she sees i believe strongly in reproduction and when she sees a take on donald trump or anyone else in the republican party, we should welcome that in a policy debate in the first thing he did was like about my daughter saying i told you, my friends are texting me and e-mailing me. senator warren doesn't only anything but she pose my daughters an apology. you should not lie like that is. >> finds out republican and run

a coordinated and pain in the republican primary debate for republican control of the senate is unhappy when he gets called a publican. this is about senate control and will be about abortion republicans controlled the united states senate, there will be zero opportunity on a roe v. wade law of the land but also education policy will be controlled by people who don't leave in public education. climate alessi control by the who are deniers. our judges will be carefully streamed by people who will make sure they are antiabortion gun policies will be set by people losing thoughts and prayers are all that we need.

republican control of the united states senate is bad for massachusetts and for our people. >> she still avoids it and she just misled the voters again because i said i had a victory from, i was trying to get state legislature people elected because one party system is not working. lives in this hyper partisan political world where she defined by party. democrats are great, republicans are bad. i've got news, all of you saw in congress, a broken system. senator warren worries about control when she was asked, what's wrong with the policies? all of the crypto people like them she said. learn to not lose control of the senate, that's it, she's worried

more about customers nurses and doctors and patients and amazon employees. >> pro-choice republican and supports codifying roe v. wade roe v. wade so what is the difference? >> this is a matter of trust. we watch one after another republican nominee to the supreme court walked in front of the u.s. senate and swore until the world level there with respect president which was supposed to be code for not a

return roe v. wade and then the first opportunity they got set roe v. wade on fire and burned it to ash. and what happened, don date and comes and swears until the world looks level that is a pro-choice candidate. it's the same john deaton said to have a chance he would have voted for heel for such. one of the justices set roe v. wade on fire and burned to the ground, he also went on that republican stage and bragged about the candidate helping raise money for republican control of the senate. we talk about abortion, we are potentially talking lives of our daughters and granddaughters and when that's on the line, we cannot trust john.

>> don't talk to me -- i'm a father of three daughters, and capable of supporting a law that would restrict freedoms and privacy of my own daughters. saying pay attention to what they do. senator warren was in the senate june 22 when that decision came down. they had the presidency, the house from of the senate i demand we vote on this and put every u.s. senator on notice. where they stand? you want to do that. why? it might the democrat uncomfortable. guilty of what she said donald trump was guilty of what they don't want to settle abortion issue. they wanted it divisive, and election issue. otherwise she got on the senate

floor demanded be voted on. she didn't been and will next time. >> i appreciate mr. deaton has daughters. roe v. wade and burned to the ground, collectively have $10 and donald trump has two daughters that we know of. this is a question of trust. right now, 40% of all women live in a state that effectively bears access to abortion in the donald trump and j.d. vance make it to the white house, it will be 30%, it will be one 100%. they are coming for us everywhere including states like massachusetts. if they have the opportunity and republican control of the senate, you better believe they are going to try to ban abortion everywhere. they told us that through

project 2025, j.d. vance has written a letter to the department of justice during the help students do it. donald trump breaks, house and senate republicans say they are going for nationwide abortion ban, believe them. >> we have to break. >> it's not just new for such fingerprints on the niels dobbs decision. encourage harry reid to drop the filibuster rule on lower judges formed by which mcconnell if you do that, we will go with the supreme court. it was honored like it was for 100 years, she wouldn't have pushed to ended the supreme court with different today and i know it is her to say the truth.

>> the u.s. senate to restore roe v. wade and it was blocked by a filibuster led by republicans so we do have a problem with the filibuster. we need to get rid of the filibuster and i think we will have enough democrats in the united states senate to do that. the only way we will be able to vote roe v. wade and nationwide law of the land is to have a democrat in the white house, democratic majority in the senate and democrat majority in the house, that is the only way. >> because she went first. >> senator warren is out there telling people we are going to end the filibuster and connect roe. he got 51 votes no, let's do it now. you have the presidency and vice president running for president, do it now. john deaton is not loyal to a party or person or agenda.

he will be loyal to you to the country is already served in, not a party or agenda. >> we will continue in a moment. ♪♪ >> welcome back to the boston globe. you painted a different so says she wasn't into the currency and security and you have criticized her what you claim is regulation. what is the right balance? >> what i found bitcoin, i

thought my mom is my mom was on welfare and food stamps and she couldn't keep an account because she couldn't keep the minimum balance and we needed the money. she had to go to to check-cashing and they would charge her bacon, so we have the money for food and i went to college and i would send her money from college and western union would take 15% it made a difference. i was like great we can cut out the banks and the middleman and help one banks people like my mom but the better question here, illegal immigration bankrupting the state that crisis in foreign wars taking place wake up one day and say

with all that, i'm going to build into crypto because it's so important to her. that's a question she needs to answer. >> that's great. i just want to make sure the president has to say follow the same rules as every credit union and make sure it's not open for terrorists and human traffickers and the like but i want to be really clear about what's really an issue here. who are you going to represent in washington? there's one candidate standing here to get 90% of the funding to keep the campaign going -- the crypto industry. one candidate has said quite openly his personal work is 80% tied up in crypto.

fight working people. if he has a chance to go to washington, his crypto buddies are going to force return on their investment. he will be there to fight for crypto. >> if you look at what i did, i did her job. the banking really, i exposed this regulatory former sec chair appointed by donald trump said there was an ig report, i am responsible for these conflicts so i have upset more crypto billionaires than anyone blocked me on social media but her bill stands corey in america she's allowing face.

a busy investor 85% of the american population. i got into this race to give for people in our full voice. >> i'm just trying to understand what you're saying here. he say is made crypto folks so that the campaign to try to take back the senate seat to try to take it from me. i'm having a hard thing for no space us to get a but i will say it has failed for a lot of people and part of the reason i fought so hard to get consumer financial protection in place the saved american consumers $15 billion, companies that had to return to those consumers so i'm

in favor of more restrictions but for me it's physical after the overdraft fees. jp morgan chase in the billing year people struggling to make ends today. i had to follow the same rules as everybody else. >> i wish she would attack during the for the way she's focused on crypto. so focus on crypto, she had the ceo of j.p. morgan chase and they financed the largest trafficking operations with jeffrey epstein. she is so hyper focused. i know that because i was raped as a child. i might be more sensitive to the child rape victims. why would you not ask one question, j.p. morgan chase $200

million to victims, virgin islands. former democrat president, her dollars are involved. loyalty to an agenda. i comment and i want transparency on everything. >> i have done everything i humanly can to get more families into our financial system. what is the return on investment crypto investors expect to put millions of dollars in place? i'm all for crypto some, the

rules should apply to all the institutions. >> i can help -- let me finish. the entire industry but the rules are already there. notice she didn't answer the question about the rape victims. a warrior for women you have to elect the woman you are willing to protect. >> i have pushed thanks and regulation banks accountable every single time they step out of line. i get it, i take my money from

people who work to support the campaign. -- >> i've sued the government because the sec had done something really bad the judge agreed with me, i've done all pro bono. and last week the dope billing or millions vice president harris campaign. it would not have happened. >> i would like to move on.

we will go to you first again. >> turning our attention to the rest of the world support of the bill, the beach to congress, would you care to vote in support of all policies or where we draw the line? >> my vote in the senate will have to -- the worst act since the holocaust. last time he said it doesn't run

so. calling for the death of every jew in israel, she boycotted netanyahu. she has taken, she's going to speak at a pro- hamas event and word got out and she bailed out. it was her policies that got us in this situation. now they are shooting down the missiles and that is the foreign

policy. >> i'm very concerned continuing to spread. israel has a right to defend itself. drag the united states to work. i think it's pretty clear, we need to de-escalate in this area and get the hostages home. i've met them over and over we need to push the parties to negotiate. the two state solution and it is determination and insecurity. >> i wish senator warren would spend as much time trying to ban