. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

this is your first time running for public office. >> it is my first time running for public office. i have spent my office in business and community service. i have run companies, worked with working families, been responsible for employees and their families. i have spent a lot of time in community service and in idaho. i have been involved with education, conservation and culture. on the bass museum board. i have served in my church,

worked with people who are struggling to make it on social security. i have worked with people that are homeless, refugees and families that have to suffer with suicide. i'm angry for those families. government isn't helping those families. government has failed to help those families in idaho and elsewhere. i think people are just fed up, fed up with government. i think they are fed up with the fact that our politicians have allowed themselves to become compromised by massive sums of money that have flowed into their campaign coffers. i started this campaign and had to raise money. you started with $5 million, i was told. people told me it would be impossible to win because of the amount of money that you had in your campaign coffer. i thought, that's a good reason to run. that just doesn't seem right that regular people cannot

engage and serve in government because incumbents who have been there for as long as you have have so much money to fend off the opposition. >> you have spent your career in the legal sector and also in the banking sector, most recently at head waters. a few years ago, three top executives were fined and suspended by securities, over issues related to regulatory documents. you talk about being related to the everyday person and being able to get big business and money out of campaigns and out of d.c. are you going to be able to make policy that doesn't benefit the people you have worked with your entire career. >> i'm not sure i understand what you are referring to. if you are referring to sanctions affecting my firm, head waters, those were minor,

minor violations. i had nothing to do with that. frankly, it is a result of the fact that we do investment banking and are regulated in a way that affects larger banks, not smaller banks. in is, to me, another breakdown in our regulatory system. the larger banks are regulated across the board and there is not a separation between the regulation for big banks and small banks. there is not a distinction made between big business and small businesses. so small businesses are crushed with regulation. >> could i respond? >> if you would like. >> on that specific p issue, i agree. i am fighting hard to reform dodd/frank so there is a discontinuing between the regulatory burden we put on our small banks, credit unions and

others. they are getting literally swashed by the regulatory bureaucratic more r bureaucratic morass that is upon them. because i have been successful in raising support, that somehow means that i am changing the way that i advocate. the fact is, na i do have support across broad segments of the economy, across this country and here in idaho. i have thousands of contributors and supporters. >> you have thousands of contributors and support yours but matt jort of your money does come from securities and banks and quite frankly, businesses that would benefit from deregulation. >> but look at my record. the fact is na you can say that. my support is broad across the economy. the reason that the support comes from all parts of the economy gets back to what i was talking about earlier. that is, there is a huge issue in the country today about what direction we take, whether we have more of the government or

less of the government. py many one of the advocates for limited government, for lower taxes, for strong focus on individual freedoms and for a strong national defense. you can say these things but you can't point to anything in my record that shows anything other than i am fighting to protect the small businesses and fighting to protect the small banks. i am literally leading in washington on the effort to reform dodd/frank so that we can create that distinction between our large banks and our small banks. >> are you in favor of more regulation for the large banks? >> we have a very aggressive set of regulation in place. we are now looking at increased regulatory decisions related to the larger banks. i believe that will come in the way that will help to strengthen

us. that favored consumers and protected banks and created an environment where we suffered from the mortgage crisis and the great recession, which has caused the largest transfer of wealth in the history of our country. >> that was a vote that took place in congress years and years ago. frankly, i understand the argument of folks that would like to blame the glass-steagall legislation on this current crisis. what happened, the housing market collapsed and fannie mae and freddie mac were base xli operating like large hedge funds for unsecured mortgages or low quality mortgages and ended up costing $180 billion bailout by the federal government. again, i disagree with congress making fannie and freddie do those things, because congress

grove a lot dro a lot of those decisions. i disagree with the government controlling our financial system. we need strong regulatory for safety and soundness and consumer protection. i don't believe the answer to all of our problems is more government. that is the solution promoted by your candidate for president and your side in the senate. >> how do you know who my candidate for president is? >> well, maybe we should talk about that. >> i would like to talk more about the banking committee and about the. >> since it has come up, who are you supporting for president? >> well, i'm not supporting donald trump. i agree with you on that. i do understand the anger people feel that has brought out the voters to favor donald trump and bernie sanders.

it is not just your party or my party. it is the whole government. i think the poison in government has to do with the fact this our current government has allowed big money to flow into government and control decisions and you can say you are objective but you have collected so much money, sfepecially from the financial sector. >> you have been on that committee. that committee and the consumer finance protection bureau brought in wells farg beo. you have received money from wells fargo. >> i want to step in and get the conversation back to regulation before we move on. would you bring back glass-steagall. do you support more regulation for the big banks? >> i support efforts to regulate the banks and protect the consumers from the fraud that has occurred at wells fargo. the point is, regardless of all these issues, the point is that big money has been allowed to flow into our government. how do we fix that? >> i want to move on to a point

that you brought up when you were talking about your concern over who gets to be in the white house and pick the next supreme court justices. you brought up the second amendment. this is an issue you have highlighted on your page or a plus endorsement from the nra. so far this year, more than 11,000 gun deaths in this country. you said we shouldn't create law that is would burden law-abiding citizens. how are citizens burdened already and are there any more burdens that would be worth saving more lives from gun violence? >> when you say burdens, you mean more gun control at the federal level? >> from your website, you said, we shouldn't be burdening law-abiding citizens. >> by restricting their second amendment rights further. let me int kate, first of all, i believe we need to get back to the question of hillary clinton. i have been asked many times and i have said clearly where i stand with regard to both donald trump and hillary clinton. i will answer the gun question.

>> obviously, both candidates is sad. it is sad that both candidates are flawed and that they are so unpopular. the fact is that we, the people, are angry about the way our government is run. i know from having run for office for six months, i know how hard this is. thank you for serving. but i know how hard this is. it's a process that drives people away. good people are driven away from government. i support hillary, because she is the better alternative to donald trump. she has experience. she has shown that she is willing to serve in the m causes that matter. at the same time, i understand the anger that people feel. >> you said -- >> that brought out support for donald trump. >> you said you support hillary

clinton, getting the conversation back to the second amendment. do you support more gun regulations? >> look, people accuse the opposition of trying to take away guns. i support the second amendment. i grew up in idaho. i hunted as a kid. frankly, i support the second amendment. we have plenty of gun laws on the books but we've got to keep guns out of the hands of bad people, of people who are emotionally disturbed. >> how would you do that? >> and suspected of terrorists. >> how would you do that? >> i would certainly keep people on the terrorist watch list from being able to get guns. >> i am going to answer that and further answer the gun question as you have asked it. i voted recently in the u.s. senate with regard to the no fly list issue to support an

amendment that would allow the fbi to focus specifically on those suspected of being terrorists on the no fly list and not allow them to purchase a gun. so i agree to that extent. but the no fly list, itself, has hundreds and hundreds of potentially millions more people on it. even the aclu has said that they thought the ability of the president, single-handedly to put names on that list created a huge danger. they support more gun control. their point was, giving the president the ability to establish a list that then the president could put names on it is the wrong solution. to prove that, right now, president obama is directing his agencies to look at ways to put people's names on the national and criminal background list to get them away from purchasing guns. who is he looking at, veterans who have head injuries, senior citizens who have difficulty doing their finances.

>> what would you do to reduce gun violence? >> what i voted for is on the gun issue, is to allow the fbi to step in and stop the gun purchases of known terrorist suspects. i voted for that. i actually have voted for legislation to also allow law-abilaw- law-abiding citizens to get their name off the list. the solution to gun violence focuses on things such as developing a much stronger economy for our country. a lot of people do feel abandoned by what's happening in america. they feel left out. they feel like their shot at the american dream is being taken from them. we nooeed to strengthen our economy, build jobs and build the economy. we need to recognize that some of our policies with regard to refugees could be allowing those that are not adequately vetted

into the country. finally, we need to address the question of mental illness. a lot -- if you look back at some of the really serious gun violen violence that has occurred in the past few years has been a result of our failure to identify early and deal with those hoff mental illness problems that causes them to then be violent. we need to look at the causes of violence. >> we are looking at the causes of violence. the majority of these firearm deaths aren't caused by refugees. while mental illness does play a part in that. the economy and refugees, aren't those red herrings? >> we will not solve this by taking the right to bear arms away from law-abiding citizens. >> one of the issues facing the west is wildfires, the longer,

hotter, dryer seasons. >> what exactly would you do to reduce the fire season and make this more manageable for the states? >> this is one of those bipartisan efforts i am involved with, senator ron and rich have worked together to put together the right approach to the fire issue. the problem is, we have multiple fires every year-round the nation. about 1% of the fires costs about 30% of the fire fighting and what we have learned that it is these catastrophic fires that are the problem. so our bill addresses that. we need to recognize that a catastrophic fire, just like a hurricane or a title wave, is a catastrophe and natural disaster and we need to deal with it quickly and promptly out of the natural disaster fund that we have. let me say, the dynamic that we have to break here, the cycle that we have to break is na our federal managing agencies, the

blm and the floor service don't have the ability to fight the fires quickly and efficiently without being able to have this support and they stopped their management of the land. we have to break that cycle. >> mi want you to respond that. >> i think transferring public land to private control is the wrong approach. congratulations on this latest legislation. it seems like a lot trying to accomplish trying to accomplish a lot that is very late in the cycle. we have already allowed the forest management by our forest service to be underfunded. so we're trying to catch up for underfunding these important forest management services in the first place. >> i think the point that i would like to make is that this is really -- this election is a choice, like senator crapo says.

it is a choice between the people hoff been in government for going on a quarter of a century and other career politicians. people who are newcomers. if donald trump and i can agree on one thing. it is time for change in our government. our government is broken. big monty hey has has been allo to control our government. you have collected massive sums of money from special interests and banks than you have gathered from people in idaho. i would say you have been more of a senator for the special interests than you have been for idaho. you can talk about the fact that puff made these decisions but how can you explain the fact that you've received so much money and that you can be objective? >> so i didn't hear a fire answer besides keep teeing in federal hands. what would you do, very briefly, because we are running out of

time. what would you do to fix that? >> i agree we should spend money to manage our forests in a way that permit us to avoid fire fires in the future, wildfires in the future. >> last question. this is one that we wanted to get to. you have both talked about veterans health care, the importance of that but we get veterans when we go to war. looking at the current international climate, that is a real possibility that some might consider soon. what would you consider if that vote comes across your desk, a vote whether or not to go to war? >> i would certainly look to diplomatic solutions first. i would never go to war without exploring every possible diplomatic solution. we have put too many people at risk in unthoughtful ways in unfounded places, unfounded

wars. we have spent a lot of money. that's happened while you have been there. we have fought wars in foreign places and spent a lot of money. if we have spent monty and incurred national debt, a lot has to do with the fact that we have fought these ill-advised wars. >> you have voted on wars. >> the vote on an individual decision has to be very specific as to the circumstances presented at the time. i agree. we should look at every other option than military intervention and we should frankly not intervene militarily unless our national security requires it. but if our national security requires it, i believe that we should take the necessary actions to allow our men and women in the armed services to defend our nation effectively. >> thanks so much. that's all the time that we have we will weigh in at idahopgt.org. thanks again and have a good weekend.

presentation has been made possible by the laura moore cunningham foundation of building the glat stareat state idaho . c-span brings you more dedates. this evening at 7:00 eastern, live coverage on c-span. the indiana governor's debate between republican lieutenant governor eric holcomb, democrat john greg and libertarian rex bell. wednesday at 7:00, live on c-span, democratic congressman,

chris van hollen and republican kathy shilega. at 10:00, a debate for the florida senate. between republican senator, marco rubio and democratic congressman, patrick murphy. live thursday night, republican senator, kelly ayotte and democratic governor, maggie hassan debate for the election seat. watch key races on the c-span network and listen on the c-span radio app. c-span where history unfolds daily. knew, now, a debate from washington state. this is courtesy of the washington state debate coalition and seattle city club.