first question goes to mr. weiland. >> i think it is about representing south dakota. i challenged my grounds the other night at another debate to vote against mitch mcconnell. i said i will vote against harry reid for democratic leader. i distance myself from the democratic party because i do not think they are interested in someone who is interested in fighting the big money that controls our government. so this is all about standing up for the people here in south dakota, which i have done all throughout this 18-month campaign. >> thank you for your response. now to mr. gordon howie. is this race about representing south dakota or taking back control of the senate? >> i think really it is about both, but i want to disagree with governor rounds when he makes the assertion that the only way to defeat barack obama's agenda is a vote for mike rounds. that is the obama agenda.

here's how that happens. when we compromise our conservative, traditional values, we lose every time. i believe in this race south dakota needs a voice. this is very much about who is going to support south dakota. and in the process, we can be an example to the entire country, and even to the united states senate. i believe the partisan rancor we see in the united states senate is despicable, and the people we are talking around the state to are telling us they are weary of the republican party and a democrat party. they are wary because they have not been telling them the truth. that is why i believe this race is about truth. this race is about trust. in the next united states senator from south dakota must be someone south dakotans can

trust and restore trust and integrity to the senate. >> thank you. mr. pressler, to you, is this race about representing south dakota or taking control of the u.s. senate? >> it is about south dakota as far as i am concerned. i have a plan to start a posttraumatic stress disorder center in south dakota. i'm a combat veteran of vietnam, the only veteran in this race. i very much want to help our veterans. i have a plan for our grain shippers to be able to move their grain and also have a three-point pipeline plan to build two american pipelines in north dakota to move oil to midwestern refineries so we can lower the cost of diesel fuel and distillates by a dollar a gallon. i also have a specific pressler education plan for south dakota to help our students with their student loans and grants. so i'm making this very much a south dakota issues campaign. i started this campaign two years ago and i said i was going to issue a press release on issues twice every week, and i have done that. i am very much working hard for the middle class people of south

dakota, the small businesses who are struggling so much. i'm very proud to say that my issues-oriented campaign has made a difference already. i think we are seeing a better campaign because of my independent run. i am under attack from both republicans and democrats, and do not believe what you are seeing on tv. it is totally false, i am for social security, and what you're getting in your mailbox from the republican party, almost 180 degrees, and it is strange because i was picked one of the best republican senators just a few years ago, and i'm under attack by those in the democratic party merely because they're so afraid that an independent might come, that there will also be an independent from kansas coming, there will be four independents, and that will swing the balance in a close divided senate and we will reform the rules of the senate. >> thank you. mr. rounds, now your turn to senate question. is the race about south dakota

or taking back control of the senate? >> in this particular case, it is about both, because if we want to help south dakota, we have to take that control of the united states senate. one of the first things we would have to do is take harry reid out as the majority leader. we have almost 400 bill on his desk that he is not letting come through. not passing budgets, on time. if you take a look at the ag bill, it was not done on time. it hurt our farmers and ranchers. let's take a look first of all at obamacare. we have to repeal and replace obamacare. it is hurting people in south dakota. this is not something the people of south dakota wished upon themselves. we have 17 different companies that were selling insurance in south dakota to groups. this is been a boondoggle. with individuals that have lost their doctor because of obamacare,

remember the part that he said, we are going to allow you to keep your doctor, you can keep your insurance -- we know none of that is true. now we are not only talking about repealing and replacing it, which affects people of south dakota, but also the keystone pipeline. this president's policies have been terrible for south dakota. imagine what would be like if we had that pipeline built already. we would have hundreds of thousands of barrels coming through south dakota already. this is critical, we got a brand-new corn crop on the ground right now. we were out there last week looking at the amount that is there. our farmers and ranchers do not get paid unless they get their grain to market. his policies are on the agenda. this is on the ballot. this president has said if we like his policies we should vote for his supporters. this president's policies are on the ballot, and a vote for any

one of my competitors up here is a vote for the continuation of those policies. this is about not just issues in south dakota, but the national one as well. they are combined. >> we want to give rick weiland a chance for rebuttal. >> this election is really about the people of south dakota. i am not obama and i am not reid, and i have been out there for the last 18 months talking to people of south dakota. mike rounds likes to tell about keystone, the jobs it is going to create, the same policies he has been giving about other jobs that will be created. if we passed the ryan budget, which mike rounds supports, it is a $6 trillion tax cut for millionaires and big corporations. the average millionaire took a $200,000 tax cut. that means you will pay for it. they will pay for it by cutting head start, cutting the pell grant program, going after medicare and medicaid.

i think that is wrong. it is not about obama, not about reid. it is about what is best for south dakota and the values, and that is what i have been fighting for. >> mr. howie, do you want to respond what you have heard so far? >> yes, i appreciate the opportunity. there is one thing that is certain that this is very much about the policies and the style of people like barack obama and harry reid. unfortunately, republicans have learned it is also about the kind of politics played by those like john boehner and mitch mcconnell. i will not support mitch mcconnell for speaker any more than i will support harry reid. my opponent governor rounds has suggested he is going to vote against harry reid, but he is silent when it comes to the power brokers in washington,

d.c., and mitch mcconnell. with regard to obamacare, to suggest on this program that a vote for anyone other than the governor is a vote for obamacare does not take into account the reality that in the state senate i introduced the health care freedom act. i have been an opponent of obamacare, government-run health care from the beginning, when governor rounds, who now says he is opposed to obamacare, sent his chief of staff to kill that effort to stop obamacare in south dakota. you heard him mention that farmers do not get paid until their grain goes to market. one thing has been certain in this recent administration of governor rounds. he got paid. one of his companies that is owned by his campaign manager and the governor got about -- in south dakota funds while his campaign manager was sitting on the governor's company's board.

that is not the kind of honesty, integrity, and trust we need in the united states senate. >> we need to move on to -- what do you think about the discussion so far? >> i would like to correct governor rounds in one thing. i do not always agree with president obama on very many things. i was against the resolution to impeach him, but he is our president for two more years. i just issued a sharply critical statement of president obama for sending united states troops into africa unilaterally. maybe to fight ebola. i want to see english, german, french troops there, also sharing the burden. i hate to see the american taxpayer to pay all the burden of this overseas military spending. i'm against our getting involved in these civil wars, and i'm for closing a lot of our obsolete bases overseas and secure the border and move to immigration reform.

but for governor rounds to say that a vote for me would be a vote for obama's policies, i have issued press releases that the people of the state note that every week i have been critical of some part of the obama policies and, in particular, in foreign policy. i should not let that pass. governor rounds, i would like you to withdraw that statement. >> if you truly want to see this president limited over what he does in the next two years in terms of damaging policy for south dakota and our country, let's take a look at is what is on the agenda. if you want to make a change, then a vote for anyone else up here besides myself is a vote to allow this president to remain unfettered in the use of his control. he is going to recommend judges that would not be acceptable to the people of south dakota, and harry reid will do it on a 51-person vote in the senate. he talked about the epa, 18,000 people that are out of control. if you want to control big government, you start with the

epa. specifically, let's look at what they are doing to our farmers and ranchers. they have the biggest land grab in south dakota history. they want to control the water quality in our farm ponds and in our backyards that farmers use on a regular basis. this is crazy. at the same time, throughout this program, we are discussing whether or not the government is good or not? these are failed obama policies. i am opposing obamacare, and if we are going to stop it, we have to do it intelligently, we have to repeal it and replace on a step-by-step basis. this is not the way we should be doing business. >> you are talking about big government -- >> mr. howie, we will have plenty of time to talk about this, but we need to move the discussion along. another big issue has been south

dakota's use of the eb 5 immigrant program. we will get to that topic coming up next. >> welcome back to our news special report, the u.s. senate debate. south dakota voters have heard a lot about the state's immigration program. >> our question to the candidates is, will you work with grassley to improve the program, or should the program be eliminated? >> based on what we have seen in south dakota, i am hard-pressed to say i would support the program. we have seen all of the things that folks are really weary of, everything from missing millions to fbi investigations and we do

not know if governor rounds is a target of the investigation. it seems like the $1.6 million that his company took from the committee would be worth looking at. i believe it transcends honesty and integrity. the program itself makes winners and losers, and in south dakota, south dakota taxpayers are the losers and the winners -- the winner seems to be friends and cronies of former governor rounds. i think it is time that we do something different in washington, d.c. that is something different, not send more of the same career politicians, but send someone who has got the record of standing up to powerbrokers and even party officials when they are wrong, and frequently they are. >> thank you. mr. pressler, same question. >> i would favor a new immigration bill and would vote to repeal this. that has not been the issue in south dakota.

the issue is corruption at the state level. that is what we have not have had examined and looked at. it may be we will have a weakened senator next year. in the first year, one is vetted by the national press, and governor rounds might find himself as a substantially weakened senator. that is why it is important we should have a complete statement of fact from the governor on this matter. there is great deal of corruption in this program. i recently brought the head of the fbi, the leading corruption fighter in the united states, to south dakota who endorsed me. he said we need to elect honest, able people with honest reputations to the united states senate. he felt so strongly about the issues in the south dakota senate race that he came out here as a volunteer and endorsed me based on the issue of

honesty. he said in this race we have got to be very careful because there are so many unanswered questions. so i would point out that governor rounds in his first year in the senate will be vetted, and it could be harmful to south dakota. >> would you work to repeal this program or improve this program? >> i appreciate senator pressler's support and confidence. senator grassley is a friend of mine. he has been in the state, campaigned for me. i have appreciated that. i have met with him several times. senator grassley is one who looks at all federal programs. this is one which has been around since 1990. every federal program out there should be reviewed. there's nothing different between this one and the rest. they should all be reviewed. that is something we have always done in south dakota. it doesn't matter what kind of

program it is. we have taken up time and looked at and done our best to review them. this one can be reviewed as well, and i would support that. as i have shared with other people, there are lots of federal programs out there that need to be reviewed. just take a look at the failed federal policies that are there right now, like obamacare. that has got to be reviewed, it has got to be repealed, it has got be replaced. look at the failure to allow us to build a pipeline, like the keystone xl. look at what is going on in western south dakota and eastern south dakota because of a federal program that says we cannot build that pipeline. if we could build it, we would have farmers and ranchers that could get their grain to market. they are not able to do that. that is an economic boom to south dakota that is not going to happen. record crops in south dakota, we can't get it to market. why? because of another program. this president should have had that policy overturn a long time ago, and it will not happen when harry reid is in charge of the senate.

this president's policies are on the agenda. they are on the ballot. a vote for anyone up here is a vote for the continuation of president obama's failed policies in south dakota. this is critical -- >> we will give mr. weiland a chance. >> this is a bad program for the country and turns out to be a bad program for south dakota. i would vote to repeal it. one of the first things i would do. this is big money on steroids. this is selling a path to citizenship for $500,000 for wealthy foreign investors. anytime you have an intersection of big money and politics, it breeds corruption. we have seen a lot of that here in south dakota. there are more questions about eb 5 than there are answers, and the thing that i am disturbed about most about mike rounds is he has not been willing to stand

up and take any responsibility. he has not been willing to go under oath and answer the questions. he has not been willing to basically tell the truth. and when i hear him talking about the jobs that eb 5 created, which has been debunked by the south dakota press corps, it is like the jobs he talks about that keystone is going to create. this is nothing more than half truths, trying to convince people to vote for someone -- i agree with gordon howie, because i have heard him talk about medicare and how it is going to be robbed by obamacare, which has been debunked by the national, south dakota press, by this station. i have heard him wanting to talk about closing down ellsworth air force base. i have heard him talk about how he did not know that there was a

deal going on between the private group that was set up. it is time for some truth and honesty. i have been talking to people in south dakota. that is what they want from their next united states senator. i think mike needs to come clean tonight. >> rebuttal on this issue, mr. howie, what do you have to say? >> i believe we have seen an exercise in professional deceit in this whole race, and frankly, i'm not going to vote for rick weiland. that is not a surprise to anyone, but it aggravates me and more south dakotans when we hear a candidate say something that he knows is not true. governor rounds, you know that rick weiland is not going to close ellsworth air force base. while you're at it, why don't you give over the million and a

half dollars that you and your company took from folks of south dakota? are you ready to do that tonight? let's come clean and maybe restore trust in your candidate. >> mr. pressler, on eb 5, what would you improve about this program? >> governor rounds, would you stay tonight why you think mr. -- committed suicide, why his autopsy has been suppressed. the people of the state want to know. that's good to the heart of the matter. he was your secretary of commerce. we have not heard a statement to you as to why you think he committed suicide or was murdered. this will all be dug out next year by the press if you're in the senate, and it will be harmful to our state.

tell us on a personal basis. >> have you been taking responsibility, and what do you have to add? >> this is the kind of trash talking that has been going on for over 1 1/2 years. it has been innuendo and misinformation, and in mr. howie's case, a lie. this is not of the way should we should have handled this. this is trash talking because these folks do not want do not want to talk about the real issues that are important to south dakota such as the failed obama policies. they do not want to talk about it because they do not have a vision for where we go in south dakota in the future. we do not want to talk about the issues surrounding good -- keystone xl pipeline. they do not want to talk about their support for obamacare. they want to take as much time away from the issues so they do not have defend the failed policies of obama, which the president said are on the ballot this november. a vote for anyone of the

individuals besides myself is a vote for the failed policies of obama. >> quickly on eb 5. >> south dakota wants a leader. someone who is more than willing to take credit for the good things that have happened on their watch, who is not willing to take responsibility when things go bad. we have not seen that from mike rounds. he is willing to throw everybody under the bus instead of the willing to stand up and say maybe i made mistakes here and i am sorry for it and let's move on. he talks about the issues. we have several debates that he chose not to show up to because we were talking about the issues. he is sitting at home complaining in his paid television ad funded by big money that we will not talk about issues, all we want to do is trash talk and talk about eb 5. i hope the people of south dakota are listening tonight, because you are seeing the real

mike rounds. he likes to speak, but he does not speak truth to power. they are falsehoods. >> we will switch gears. according to the poll of 800 voters, 60% of south dakotans support building the keystone xl pipeline, and 30% are opposed. >> our question is, do you think the pipeline will benefit south dakota and do support the project? this question goes to mr. pressler. >> i feel strongly that pipeline should be altered and run through north dakota and through midwestern refineries. to haul that oil all the way down to louisiana and ship it back to south dakota and the midwest costs about $1 a gallon in terms of fuel costs. i believe we need to bang -- two american pipelines and

this should be made into an american pipeline. president obama can alter it or demand it to be altered, to go through north dakota, to chicago, minnesota, wisconsin, keep the oil in the midwest. if we haul it all the way to louisiana and then have to haul of all the way back by rain and truck, it will be about $1 a gallon more on your fuel bill. i have a three-point pressler pipeline plan, and i resent governor rounds saying we're not discussing that, because we had all these debates where i presented my plan. he has not attended these. we need to build pipelines in north dakota. it is better environmentally to move oil by pipeline than by train or truck. but we are going to have to haul it all the way back from louisiana by train or truck under the governor rounds plan. i would go to see president obama and say that please alter, please demand the xl pipeline be altered so it won't go across our precious water supply. we have very little potable drinking water, and i want to

protect the ogallala water reservoir, to get all that oil eastward to midwestern refineries where it would stay in the region and your gas bill will be about $1 less in distillates and diesel fuel, about $1.50 per gallon. >> mr. rounds, you support the pipeline. go ahead. >> i do support the keystone pipeline. number one, it is shovel ready. it was set up six years ago to be successful. private industry knew we would have a million barrels a day coming out of north dakota. this president has failed to respond to that. even though his own state department has said there will be 42000 jobs created, direct and indirectly in south dakota, over 3000 jobs, over $20 million in new tax revenue coming in, and this is a company that wants to pay us. our counties and schools in south dakota, western south dakota. this is good for south dakota.

it is good for america because it allows us to continue with creating an energy independent country. keystone xl pipeline brings not just canadian oil done, but also 100,000 barrels of north dakota crude. that is 10 unit trains where we will not be taking oil out of north dakota, and it makes it available for bringing crane at of south dakota. some people will say that is a drop in the bucket. right now we will have more and more oil developed in north dakota. these farmers and ranchers in south dakota will get less on a bushel basis. here's what is happening. all the interchanges going east of here are filled with trains coming out of north dakota that are filling them up, blocking the way so our trains cannot get to where they would normally go to job off corn. we have corn, wheat, soybeans sitting on the ground. in order to move it, it used to take two weeks to get our grain from south dakota to where they

would drop it, and now takes two weeks, which means our producers have to rent cars for an extra week, and that extra cost comes directly out of their paycheck. this is an economic catastrophe waiting to happen. we're seeing it happen because this president's failed economic policies and misunderstanding about how we get this oil to market safely is hurting us directly. this is wrong. >> we need to move on. mr. weiland can respond. do you think it will benefit south dakota? >> i do not. you do your homework. look up the facts. mike is making this up because he is getting his information from big oil. we have everything to lose. this is not a jobs bill for the country, people. we're talking 35 permanent jobs and maybe 1800 temporary jobs. that is like macy's hiring holiday workers for two weeks.

this is not energy security for south dakota for the country. this energy is being pumped through a pipeline down to port arthur, texas, and going overseas to be used over there. it has nothing to do with energy security. this is the new argument went from big oil, has nothing to do with freeing up the rail lines. that is another big oil argument that they are trying to make because they are blocked on jobs and lost one on energy security. the folks of their public out that crude, they want that to go to the east coast, they are not interested in putting the pipeline in. big oil is so desperate and have mike rounds in their pocket that they will say anything to convince this is good. i know 60% think this is a good deal, but the propaganda from mike rounds has gone on for far

too long. it would have been easy for rick weiland to roll over. but at the heart of this, it is talking about a pipeline that can break, it would wipe out the ogallala aquifer. we have a lot of farm families and ranchers that would be out of business. is it worth it for no jobs and no energy? the whole grain thing that mike is making up, is it worth running that pipeline through our state and his country? i do not think so. >> mr. howie? >> i agree with most south dakotans that this pipeline is a net gain for south dakota and for america. but the larger question is are we going to have a united states senate that will work together and develop a comprehensive energy program.

we have seen that failed by the kind of leadership that is demonstrated with mitch mcconnell and harry reid. they have both failed us miserably. yes, there is a net positive, but i just cannot stop my time without challenging the governor. he sat here and said it was a flat-out lie that his company took $1.6 million from his committee for his company. i'm asking you, do you categorically deny the press reports? >> we are talking about the keystone xl pipeline. any more thoughts on keystone xl? >> i'm waiting for response from the governor on his assertion that i was telling something that was not true, when it has been reported in the media. >> mr. pressler, rebuttal on the keystone xl pipeline? >> where governor rounds is wrong is you cannot carry north dakota crude in the same pipeline as tar sands oil. that is a lie that has been told to by the oil companies.

the first, original keystone plan was to move canadian tar sands oil to louisiana. now that they are under fire, they say we will put some north dakota crude in there. you cannot. i looked at an engineering report today. that would be impossible to do. our shipper should be told that. we need two american pipelines running in north dakota, two american pipelines taking them to midwestern refineries and bringing it back to south dakota. this is absurd. the keystone pipeline cannot carry north dakota crude. >> with all due respect to senator pressler, i talked directly to the individuals who are building the keystone xl. they are clear they have reserved 10% of the allowable space on that pipeline to bring north dakota crude, which is a light, sweet crude, different than the tar sands. they would not say that if it were not true.

they can set it up. it is not mixed, but set up in separate segments, run through the same pipeline. one of the thing the opponents to the keystone say is this will contribute to global warming, and the message is it will continue global warming because it will reduce the cost to the american consumer by six cents a gallon. then they think we will be burning more fuel. those same petroleum refineries down along the coast are actually right now processing venezuelan crude. this is a replacement for venezuelan crude. we become more energy independent. we're actually processing our own oil with this pipeline. >> a chance to talk. >> 10% demand that they will set aside -- have a talk to the folks that are exploring and pulling out the sweet crude? no.

big oil is a conspiracy here right now going on between keystone and mike rounds wanted to build this pipeline. the folks up there want to send it to the east coast, mike. they do not want to send it through a pipeline down to texas and over to china. it is not about jobs, not about energy security. it is certainly not about freeing up grain cars to move our corn, and what it is about them a friendly, and i will tell you at the end of the day, what is this all about? it is about greed, about making millions and millions and millions of dollars and threatening -- >> thank you. we need to get mr. howie a chance here. >> thank you. yet heard that 60% of south dakotans approve construction of

the pipeline. what that tells us is 40% of them do not. i believe that both the 40% and the 60% -- >> 30% -- >> well, the undecided business had a lot to do with the kind of leadership that we have seen in america and, frankly, in south dakota of late. i believe if we are going to be productive and effective at projects like the pipeline, we need to have leaders that we can believe instead of all the argument about all the information and misinformation. wouldn't it be refreshing if we just had a leader we could trust? >> mr. howie, thank you for your answer. >> more topics to discuss before our conversation with the candidates wraps up. stay with us. welcome back to the u.s. senate debate. >> you rejected a proposal to

put restrictions on assault-type rifles and high-capacity magazines last year? our question for the candidates, do you support this type of gun control? mr. rounds, you get the first response. >> thank you. i am the endorsed candidate of the national rifle association, and that is for a reason. i believe in protecting our second amendment rights. i think the new attacks are going way too far. i will not support those. the idea behind the second amendment was to make sure that our constitutional rights to bear and carry arms would not be -- right now is to take little bits and pieces out. the whole final response on this is you cannot allow the federal government to make a chink after chink after chink into our second-amendment rights. the only people that will not have guns are those that are law abiding. the criminals will still have theirs. this is a simple issue, the second amendment rights should be defended, and in south dakota it is not just about the defense of individuals, it is also about the quality of life we get.

i bought a gun the other day, got it for my kid, because i wanted to pass down that heritage to the next generation. if this continues on the way it is we may not have that right again. some of us have to stand up and say we understand that a gun is a tool and it should be respected, and we have to train young people to do that correctly. we should not be making all these crazy new ideas saying some person suggesting that assault rifle is one thing or you cannot have a shotgun with more than so many shells in it, that is wrong. >> thank you. we will give mr. weiland a chance. do you support putting restrictions on assault-type rifles and high-capacity magazines? >> i believe in the second amendment. i think sometimes democrats get pigeonholed as being against guns and the second amendment. i believe the second amendment should be put on the table. people push back sometimes, and i have to disagree with mike

here. we had another school shooting last week. we need some kind of legislature process that would allow us to do universal background checks, that would try to the best we can with our technology to ensure that mentally ill people and criminals do not have readily accessed to firearms. i do not think that is radical, and as i have traveled, i asked people who've shown up at my meetings, what they think. that seems to be pretty common sense. mike wants to talk about common sense. i think a majority of south dakotans are with me on that. the nra is not your grandfather's or your dad's nra. they become a very narrow focused group that frankly i think is being driven somewhat by big money, special interests, and the arms manufacturers that do not want any kind of common sense legislation, and i think that is unfortunate.

we can do better by our kids, by our students, by our teachers, by our administrators. we can do better by our people. >> thank you. mr. howie, do you support rejections on assault-type rifles and high-capacity magazines? >> the gun owners of america just issued their voting scorecard and rated me the highest of any candidate running for federal office in south dakota. i do not have the celebrity politicians endorsing me. i don't know that i want them. what i found interesting is those celebrities come to south dakota and perpetuate this deception that says somehow governor rounds is the only pro-gun candidate in this race, the only pro-life candidate. my record of support for conservative, traditional values is clear, is crystal clear, and the reason that that misdirection and misinformation is perpetuated is an attempt to keep my record in the back room and cover frankly for a record

on those two issues that the governor is weak on. >> thank you. mr. pressler, your feelings on putting restrictions on assault-style rifles? >> this is where one of the biggest lies is being told about me by governor brown's and others in mailings. i support the bob dole plan which requires some background checks if you buy an assault weapon. that does not mean that you are for stricter gun controls. i'm a hunter, but we need to do something about the killings in our high schools and in our schools. that is the present law. i cannot see why governor rounds and the nra is against it. i think it is a very appropriate thing that before one buys an assault weapon that there be some background check so we are not selling them to people with severe mental problems or a record. almost every case where there has been a problem has been where someone has been able to buy gun who should not have been

able to. but that is a lie to say that i am for gun control and all those mailings and tv ads and do not believe them. i have only $140,000 in my campaign fund. there been $15 million worth of negative ads run against me and a lot of them in this area. i am for the bob dole gun plan, the republican plan, that calls for some ground checks on assault weapons. >> we will skip rebuttals here. we will go to the affordable care act. is it realistic to repeal and replace the law? mr. weiland, your response? >> i came out early and said we can make this better for everybody, give them an option to buy into medicare. medicare serves south dakotans well. 140,000 south dakotans are supported by medicare.

i have been attacked by mike rounds -- to be forced to have to compete with medicare, it might be a little bit problematic for him because they may have to cut the salaries of their ceo's. 97 cents of every dollar medicare collects goes to pay for health care. that is not the same when it comes to big insurance. i think giving people a choice between medicare and big insurance will bring down the cost of health care for everyone. even on mike's website it talks about the need affordable health care insurance. i say, mike, join me, and let's make medicare part of it. i have asked him to debate me with about that, and he is refused to do it.

follow the money. big money did not want medicare as an option because they had the political contributions and the lobbyists, and they killed it when it was being decided on in washington. >> mr. howie, go ahead, the affordable care act. [indiscernible] >> it does not come as a surprise to anybody in south dakota. i like governor rounds' suggestion that we should repeal and replace it. i think we should repeal the entire law and replace everyone that supports it, and, governor, that includes you. government input its proper rolle. -- role. >> mr. pressler, on to you about the affordable care act. >> the aca illustrates why am running as an independent, the absurdity of political debate in this country. this plan was started by governor romney, whom i supported and gave money to, and he is a friend of mine. and it was then carried out by president obama. if romney had won the election, it would be called romneycare, and republicans would support it.

because it is called obamacare, all the democrats support it. it is about the same thing. we need some form of the affordable care act. county commissioners said they needed because they can -- push back on drug companies. >> we have to move on to mike rounds, 30 seconds. >> we have to repeal and replace obamacare. over $2.4 trillion. it has not been fully implemented yet. it will take away choice. it takes away choices for individual patients. using medicare for everybody is a terrible idea, as medicare is subsidized by the private insurance industry picking up the difference between the actual cost and what medicare pays. it does not work. if you do it, you will see medicare go away as it exists today. if you do not want medicare to

exist, and follow what rick is suggesting because it will cease to exist as we know it today. >> thank you. we will be right back after this break. ♪ >> welcome back to our special report. closing statements. mr. rounds, you go first. >> tonight you have heard my vision, my vision for america. i want to start to bring south dakotan common sense to washington. we have to repeal and replace obamacare. we need to get the pipeline in the ground. let's protect our constitutional right. this is critical to south dakotans. we have to take that south dakota common sense and keep it and send it to washington so that some things -- you have heard my vision, my vision tonight, what you have also heard from my opponents.

you have not heard a vision from on that. you have heard them trash me. that is because they did not have a vision. they will have to defend the failed approaches and policies of president obama. a vote for any one of my competitors is a vote for this president's policies. south dakota deserves better. the stakes are too high. i am asking for your vote and your support. thank you. >> now to you, mr. weiland. >> i think this election is about a fight for the middle class. this election is about trust and leadership. i have been spending a lot of time talking to people of south dakota, and i know what they're looking for, they are looking for some honesty, for someone who will fight for them every day in the united states senate, someone who is just going to fight and be on their side. this election is about getting money out of our politics and out of our government and out of the politics of people who boast about raising $9 million. there cannot be a starker difference between mike rounds when it comes to this election

and our hopes for this country. i believe in the promise of america. i really do. i believe in equal opportunity for everyone. mike rounds supports that paul ryan budget, which squashes opportunity because it goes after programs that invest in the middle class. we can do better. i believe in the power of the vote and am asking for your vote next tuesday. >> thanks for the opportunity. this senate seat is a sacred trust, and i believe this election is very much about who can we trust. can we trust career politicians? george washington was the example for politicians in this nation. he was not looking for a career advancement. he was looking for an american [no audio] politics should never be a

career. it should be a calling. it is a call to service come to god and country. i'm asking for your support for conservative, traditional values, and i will guarantee if you look at my record you will see i will be -- values that south dakota holds dear, conservative, traditional values. >> mr. pressler, the final word before election day. >> there will probably be four independents in the senate. i was endorsed by angus king who wants me to join him as an independent. it appears there will be an independent senator elected from kansas. those four will challenge the senate rules and get things moving again. the personalities may be changed, but we must change the senate so we actually vote on things so we get some things done. i can take my seniority back to the senate to fight for south dakota.

south dakota has 22 years of seniority invested in me, and i came out of semi retirement as a professor to run out of idealism. for one limited term. i will only serve six years. incumbent senators have to spend 52% of their time raising money. i don't have to raise any money. i can work 100% of my time for the people of south dakota. i can take my seniority, fight for the state of south dakota as far as rail service is concerned for shippers, senior citizens, and i am for increasing social security. do not believe the ads. >> we would like to thank all four candidates for appearing at tonight's debate. watch for more details coming up at 10:00. >> thank you for joining us. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> impotency debate from around

the country. here is ads running. can see debates from around the country. >> hey, there. i am the middle class. nobody listens anyway. until now, you've seen rick weiland south or north of jefferson. he's been out there fighting for me. for medicare, social security and affordable college loans, you know, the things dear to my heart. meaning we don't just have a candidate now we have a voice. , >> i'm john thune, for years i fought for what matters for the people of south dakota, often in opposition of president obama and his supporters. this november, if you can make south dakota's voice in washington even stronger by electing mike rounds to join me in the united states senate. with mike, our state will have two senators working together to get our country headed back in the right direction. please join me in supporting

mike rounds for the united states senate. >> i'm mike rounds and i approve this message. >> i'm larry pressler and i approve this message. i'm here on the farm that i grew up still owned by my brother. and 30 years ago, they know i championed social security. the republicans are attacking me for background checks on guns. they know i supported the bob dole plan. and on the keystone, the pressler pipeline plan is dedicated to south dakota oil. that's south dakota jobs and independence. >> it's time to do something different. on election day, you're going to vote for the candidate you really support, not the one other people are saying it -- is supposed to win. you will vote on principle.

approve this message. with your support, i will be the next u.s. senator from south dakota. >> today, chief of medical operations discusses current navy operations and the future of maritime strategy. movie live from the britain's institution at 9:00 a.m. on c-span three. from we will be live brookings institution at 9:00 a.m. on c-span 3. >> throughout campaign 2014, c-span has brought you more than 130 candidate debates and races that will determine control of the next congress and this tuesday night, watch c-span's election coverage to see who wins, who will lose and which party will control the house and senate. our coverage begins at 8:00 p.m.

and you was the candidate victory and concession speeches in some of the most closely watched races across the country. we want to hear from you with your calls, facebook comments and tweets. campaign 2014 election night coverage on c-span. the 2015 student camera video competition is underway, open to all middle and high school students to crate a documentary on the theme -- the three branches and eu showing how the branches of the federal government has affected you or your community. there are 200 cash prizes for students and teachers totaling $100,000. stua list of rules, go to dentcam.org. >> another debate for new york 24th district.

from syracuse, the debate is courtesy of time warner cable news. ♪ >> hello and welcome to our time warner cable news debate between the candidates in the 24th congressional district. i am "capital tonight" host liz benjamin. i will be moderating along with syracuse reporter bill carey and rochester reporter seth voorhees. this district is right at the center of the state geographically and in each of the past three elections it has changed hands from one party to the other. democrat dan maffei is currently holding the seat. he is participating in this evening's debate along with former federal prosecutor john katko, who is a republican. these are the rules that both have agreed to. each candidate will have one minute for an opening statement and one minute for a closing

statement. in between, we will ask as many questions as we have time for. responses will be limited to one minute each with rebuttals allowed at the discretion of the moderator. there were also be a lightning round about halfway through where answers are limited to a single word, usually yes or no. with all of that set, let's get to it. the order for opening statements was selected by a draw, and up first is representative maffei. >> well, thank you very much, liz, and thank you to your fellow panelists. thank you to time warner for hosting this debate. i grew up in central new york. i was born and raised here, went to public schools, graduated from nottingham high school, and in college i worked at my family's plant just down the road here on burnet avenue, and i saw the struggle firsthand to run a small business, to raise a family, to get to the middle class, and to stay in the middle class. that is why i have dedicated myself and focused to creating jobs, making sure that small businesses can succeed, and to bettering the middle class,

because if the middle-class succeeds, then central new york will succeed. i believe that we do have challenges, but we can face those challenges together, and that central new york is the best place to live and work and raise a family, and as congressman, my job is to keep it that way. >> congressman, thank you. mr. katko. >> good evening, and thank you, seth, liz, and bill, for having me here, and the thank you, time warner. this is my first go round in a debate and i'm very honored to be here. i am excited to take part in this great democratic process. i, too, am from syracuse, new york. i was born and raised here. i am one of seven children. my mother and father lived here their whole adult lives, and i love central new york. it is my heart and soul and what i care about deeply. i am married, i have three children, 15, 16, in 19 years old. my wife and i have been married for 27 years, and we have set down our roots here in syracuse, new york. i am a 20-year federal prosecutor. i have had a very proud and long career as a federal prosecutor

making streets safe for people and families and all of central new york. i am from the middle class, but i am not just for the middle class -- i am for all people, whether rich, poor, black, white, it does not matter to me, and i just want to make central new york better place. that is why i am running. i believe washington is broken, and i am the type of person who cannot just sit on the sidelines where i see a problem. that is where i am at right now, and that is why i am running. >> mr. katko, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> the first question goes to you, congressman. the white house made quite clear over the weekend that it is not on board with mandatory quarantines for health-care workers returning to the u.s. after treating ebola patients abroad. in response, governor cuomo did not actually remove his quarantine order, nor did new jersey governor chris christie, although they did say 21-day period of isolation could be spent in an individual's home. do you agree with the governor's position? do you think that this should be implemented at a national level, and if so, what steps do you think they should take to make

sure that quarantined individuals are comfortable and compensated for their time? >> well, i do think ebola is a very serious situation. we should address it. one of the keys is preventer, and that is where i got together with the county executive and met with all of the hospitals locally, making sure that they are prepared in case an ebola case should actually come to central new york. we are very fortunate to be in a health care system that is as good as it is because i think if that happened, we are prepared for the serious situation. i do think that it is important that we consider things like travel bans and the current quarantine. i have no problem with that. i appreciate that it is being made to be more comfortable for the participants. i see these people as heroes who have gone over to africa to help and ultimately in order to get rid of this problem, we are going to have to solve it in africa.

i appreciate that. i basically think we should leave it to the scientific experts. i do not think politicians should make these decisions. i think we should talk to the doctors, the health care experts both in and out of government. >> ok, just two questions if you don't mind, mr. maffei. the first is -- do you expect ebola at some point to make its way to central new york? >> i do not expect it, but it is possible, and that is why we need to be prepared. >> and in terms of the quarantine, i mean, i just want to be clear on your position -- doctors actually and some experts its have said that this is not necessary and actually could be a problem because it might, as he mentioned, the volunteers going overseas to assist, dissuade them from doing so. so you are or you are not in favor of the quarantine? >> i think the way that chris christie was implementing it in new jersey was not a good way to do it because he was essentially imprisoning these workers. the way our governor, governor cuomo has decided to do it, making sure they can be at home,

making sure they can be visited by their families, etc. but being cautious, i think that is fine, and are our experts who believe that is the right thing to do. >> thank you, congressman. mr. katko. >> thank you very much. with respect to the quarantines, it is just another example of the administration reacting instead of leading. we have two governors, one from new jersey, one from new york, both of whom have presidential aspirations, both of whom got together to try to fill the gap from lack of leadership of washington, and i think that is noteworthy.

>> the centers for disease control needs to have leadership and so does the white house. with a disease like this that could harm anybody in the country, we've got to play it safe. we need national leadership.

>> you think there's time to evaluate that later. right now we have to focus on controlling the epidemic and making sure the aid workers can go safely to africa to fight it so we don't have more cases coming into america. and make sure if we do have a case, and it's only a tiny fraction of aid workers that have been infected, if we do have a case we make sure it's contained. >> now to the issue of jobs. this region has seen a decline in the number much manufacturing jobs. i want to ask, should we be confident that manufacturing has a future here in central new york? or should the region be focused on trying to attract other sorts of jobs? >> absolutely. i have great faith in the spirit of the folks in central new york. i've been to all the factories here. the factories that are remaining here are lean and mean. they have people doing four

jobs. instead of four people doing those jobs, they have one person doing them. they have built efficiencies into their systems and. we need to level the playing field for them and it part of my jobs plan that we do so. that is to increase vocational training both at the high school and college level because these aren't are dads and moms' jobs any more, they're high tech, you need specialized skills to do them. there are other things we need to do to let these companies compete on a world level. by leveling the playing field through regulation reform as well as tax reform we're going to boom in central new york. >> i think that manufacturing has a bright future in central new york, in fact it's a growing part of our economy. that said, it is different than it once was. when my grandfather in his plant, it was labor intensive.

made in central new york tour, i toured a number of plants, and one of them really showed that it not super advanced technology, but it's very good know-how on the part of the workers. that why we do need worker training, and e i have gotten funding for worker training. i've had several job fairs. we do need a level playing field, national why i intervened with the, to make sure that u.s. steel would be able to sell steel manufactured here in central morning. >> dealing now with wages, you both have indicated in the past that you would sort an increase in the minimum wage above what it is now. i'm wondering if can you tell us how high you would like to see that minimum wage be right now. and also whether you would go along with the idea of indexing the minimum wage so that it continues to rise with inflation

and we don't get workers falling behind. congressman, we'll go with you first. >> i voted to raise the federal minimum wage to 10.10 an hour. it would be gradual raise. and i would prefer that we keep it in a package where small businesses have some help to make sure it doesn't come down on them. we've done this in the past and it's worked well and has not hurt our economy. it's very important that we raise the minimum wage because americans need the raise. it needs to be something that we make a priority as long as we do it in the right way. even mitt romney is for raising the minimum wage. and i just don think it should be a partisan issue. >> how about the indexing part of this? >> i agree, if you index it then it wouldn't be such a big problem every time you had to raise it because it wouldn't be a shock on the economy. that's the kind of shock a trying to make sure we avoid by

making sure that it's a gradual increase. >> the package he voted for to raise it to $10.10 an hour, inorganizations have opined that it would lead to as many as 500,000 jobs. that's cutting off your nose to spite your face. if you did it in the context of an overall reform panel and didn't just include minimum wage but also included real tax reform for business sews they can compete on the world stage, that's a better way to do it. but to impose more costs on businesses, which is going to force them to cut more jobs and as many as 500,000 jobs, isn't the way to go. >> if you cut the minimum wage, if you look at past increases in the minimum wage, those jobs have not been lost in large numbers, they have come back from the initial shock to some businesses. why would this be different? >> the economy in central new york is struggling. we lost 3100 jobs last year, we lost on the 1200 in september,

and i don't want to ignore a report that says you do this, it's going to cost 500,000 jobs. i'd rather have an increment al raise and see how it goes. because if we have this major, you talk about a 40% rise in labor costs for entry level businesses, that is the heart beat of small businesses, if do you that and you lose 500,000 jobs, it's too big a risk. >> my opponent says he would try to do his best for the poor. the best thing you can do for the for is make sure they have jobs and decent wages. americans need a wage increase, it starts with raising the minimum wage. if we can do it in a bipartisan way it will have a low impact. we've been losing jobs in central new york for three decade.

we need to halt that. a raise in the minimum wage is not going to put us on a bad path. it will allow families more money to invest and spend in the economy. >> just if you would allow me, before we move on, in the absence of a federal minimum wage at the state level there's been a proposal that certain cities would have the power, new york city in particular, to raise the minimum wage on its own, at the state level. is that something you agree with, congressman? >> well, it exemplifies why we need to raise the federal minimum wage, because it should be the same throughout the united states. it shouldn't be that new york is at a different, new york businesses have different requirements than businesses in idaho or georgia or new hampshire. so it's very important to raise the minimum wage also because new york's wage is different from some of those other states and that creates an unblefl playing feel. so the federal wagings where i would concentrate. >> i don't think every problem can be. sod in the federal government and it's ridiculous to think that the cost of living in new york city is the same as in syracuse.

they can't absorb it as well. so taking a look at it from a state standpoint on a regional basis probably is not a bad idea. the cost of living in new york is extraordinary compared to syracuse. >> we move onto another national security issue. this question goes to you, mr. katko. in light of the reap shootings and attacks on law enforcement in canada, should the country be taking steps to better secure the northern border? >> i have spent the last 16 years of my life trying to help secure the northern border and it's one of the least recognized threats to our national security. it is scary. on the border with new york state alone we have an indian reservation which straddles both side of the st. lawrence, is a prime smuggling route. it's scary. so the answer is absolutely positively yes. we have whole aspects of the northern border that are not adequately patrolled and we have to do more to do that and we

have to face the fact that canada has more lax immigration standards than we do. so most people, in the smuggle cases we founding get into canada and try to sneak into the united states. and we've got, the biggest fear we had as prosecutors in our district was the fact that maybe a -- >> so what exactly to do? it sounds that you would think more patrol. but it a difficult border to patrol, it quite lengthy and in some areas wild. difficult to maintain. it's not like the texas border. it's a different challenge altogether. what exactly would you do? would there be a high tech aspect to that? >> it's not like the texas border. they're both very vast borders. and the texas border there's a lot more electronic surveillance and a heck of a lot more multifaceted apurchase toes the borders than the northern border. i any that's because nay view

the southern border as more of a threat from an imgraying standpoint, and i don't think that's valid. we have to secure or borders. immigration reform has to start with properly securing the borders. >> mr. maffei? >> i think we should secure all of our borders. but we have to dmoit a way that won't hurt commerce in central new york. many businesses in central new york do a lot of trade with canada, and indeed a lot of canadians come here to destiny mall, to many other local attractions in order to shop. so we don't want to discourage that. but in my science and technology committee we had a hearing on technologist to do so. one possible technology, the sillian use of the aerial vehicle, the remote controlled vehicles, the so-called drones. we were able to accomplish, working with the senators myself and richard hand marks getting an experimental site in central new york to help with that. >> so i'm sorry, it would be civilian use of drones to

monitor the border? like a vigilante sort of approach? >> no, the government. as opposed to military. >> i see, understood. >> it would be the border patrol. >> thank you very much. congressman maffei, this question is for you. agriculture is a major industry in many of the communities welcome back -- within the district. a lot of farmers use my grant workers to harvest their krobs. what would you do to make sure guest workers were still allowed in? >> well, the immigration policies that need to change, one of the reasons they need to change is to allow a guest worker program that will be worthy of the farmers in several counties. because right now they don't have enough workers to pick their crops, and that means they can't employ as men americans either. there are several good plans. one plan that's already passed the united states senate is the senate immigration bill.

it would secure our borders, but it would also make sure that we have enough workers for those particular businesses. and it would make sure that there's a path to citizenship that would deal with some of the 12 million some families that are here. unfortunately, my opponent doesn't important that bipartisan women. that's the problem with washington, we can't get anything done because even when something is bipartisan, we can't seem to get agreement from the hard line republicans who just don't want immigration reform. >> the problem with washington is just how he talks, blame the other side. i want to get solutionings. my since a been 18, my wife has had a potato farm, and i did everything from prepare the -- they want to be here and we volunteer the to stream line the process for them to be here. the process has to be as simple as decreasing the paperwork and

allow them to come in and out of this country quickly and efficiently. when i was prosecuting some of the most dangerous people in the world, a palm print was all i needed to get into the most dangerous prisons. why can't we do that with technology and allow them to work here in a more streamlined fashion. >> mr. katko, do you believe then, as the congressman suggested, that the u.s. senate bill that should be brought to the floor by the house that john boehner should allow that to the floor for a vote? >> of course they should allow it for a vote because then people can decide whether they're at. i'm for complete overhaul of the immigration laws, absolutely. there's vast majorities of that law i'm for, and the only thing i have a concern with is the path to citizenship for people that are here it little let. for people here it little let, i think some sore of resident aian

status might bridge the gap between those who want to send them back and those that want to give them complete citizenship. as far as the overall issue, there are several as peaks of it, the farming is one, student visas is one, those leading nonproductive lives. the last part, the people leading otherwise law abiding lives, i don't think can you ship those people out of here. >> so it's not a perfect bill. do you feel if you were in the chamber you'd vote yes? >> i don't think i could vote for it if it included a path to citizenship. if it included a path to alien status, that i would vote for. >> congressman? >> that is actually the problem with washington is people needing everything to be perfect by their lights before they'll support it. it's not surprising that john painer and the washington republicans have invested so much money in getting mr. cat koa elected, because they know that once he gets down there he's going to be a vote. he says oh no, i'd vote for that

and i would call on boehner to bring that to the floor. but as it stands, he's standing with john boehner right now, as he collects these, look at those ads coming in against me. so i think it will be very difficult for tom be that independent once he gets to the floor. and i think a better thing would be just to embrace the senate bill, it's a good bill. >> last word? >> sure. i think we should have a discussion on the issues and that's twice now you're trying g to bring up partisan issues and that's why nothing is getting done. it's comments like yours and pointing the fingers like yours. i want to work with democrats, i want to work with independents, i want to work with conservatives, with republicans with everybody. and it's no one's fault and everybody's fault that -- when you talk like that, that's why people don't like washington. let not point fingers. >> we have another issue on which i'm sure there will be plenty of finger pointing. >> this is the issue of social security which has been at the

heart of most of the campaigns that we've seen in the past 10, 0 years. what should we do to ensure the solvency of the system first, and would that include, do you believe, an increase in the retirement age, the retirement age for workers. mr. cat koa? >> well, if i was for any changes to social security and medicare, i have a strong irish catholic mother, 81 years old, very vibrant. i'd be in big trouble, and i'm not for changes in medicare and social security. the only person standing here who has voted for dramatic changes to either one of those program is is mr. maffei as part of the obamacare act. but the bottom line this is. for people in the system now, i would be against any changes to either social security or medicare, because i think we have a contract with those individuals who make career decisions hoping that things would be there. for people coming in to the system i like to sit down in a bipartisan manner with both side, democrats and republicans, and try and figure out a way

that would be different for them to make it solvent for them going forward. social security has about a generation before it will be really, have real financial problems. we have time to plan for this. and that's what i would like to do. how it ultimately turns out, i don't know yet because i want to talk and see what the numbers are for its moving forward. but i'm absolutely positive for it. >> do you need continue crease that retirement age in order to maintain the system's financial stability? >> i would be against it for anybody that's in the system now. >> i mean in the future. you're talking about new people coming -- >> we have to see what we have to do to make it solvent, obviously people are living longer, we have to take a look at everything. but the bottom line is we have to make sure that social security is a safety net it's intended to be and medicare is a safety net it was intended to be going forward and i can't make it more clear that i don't want cuts for anybody in the system

now. >> i would believe mr. katko more about wanting to morning with both side if he didn't keep changing his position. he said that what they needed were structural changes, didn't define what those are. sound like raising the retirement age, but maybe it isn't. he came out in the auburn citizen for considering private accounts. what he does say is that medicare and social security recipient now sunlt have to worry. i find that very sin cam. in parents care about their social security and medicare, but they want it there for their grandchildren. one thing he won't consider is raising that cap right on the social security contributions. right now any middle chs family pays on 100% of their income. but if you make a miami dollars you only pay on 10% of income. if you make a billion you pay on a tiny fraction of your income. that change could put social security in the right place. he won't consider that, so all i can say is that that amounts to

a cut in social security. if he won't consider that or anything else. >> why won't you consider it? >> first of all, what is middle class, how do you define middle class? what range? we need to define what the middle class is. i think that raising taxes -- aim i'm a fiscal conservative. i think ud should be the last resort. when we have a generation to fix social security, we don't need a knee jerk reaction to everything to be increasing fees. we need to roll up our sleeves and figure out a way to fix it without increasing fees and costs. >> i would rather raise taxes on people making over a million dollars a year than see my child not get social security. it's a great program it works. >> may i respond? the bottom line is he's talking about, he uses phrases such as

millionaires, well, that's not what it would be. what i would consider to be middle class people would face an increase. when you have a family with two incomes, they're not millionaires and they would be phasing a large increase at the same time as filings crushing medical costs and costs to educate their children and everything else. so the middle class is the people that would be getting stum with this bill, mr. maffei. >> one final question for both of you. sound like neither of you have a file night age in mind for raising the retirement age? >> i'm not for raising the retirement age. it was already raised in the 80's, that's enough. >> okay, good. mr. cat koa, no finite age? >> that's correct. >> we're going to move onto our lightning round. just to be clear, candidates are allowed to answer yes or no and in a couple of cases it's a

one-word answer. it will be self-explanatory. so we'll start with you, congressman. if elected would you vote for the current leader of the conference you'll be joining, which would be nancy pelosi? >> i will vote for who ever is nominated. >> if it nancy pelosi? >> i would vote for who ever is nop naited. >> mr. katko, it would be john boehner at this moment. >> i couldn't answer that without being in congress, sorry. >> okay. congressman did, you go apple picking in year? >> yes, day, just the other day. in fact -- >> let's stop it right there, if you don't mind. i'm sure after the fact will be lovely to hear. mr. katko? >> yes. >> you did. congressman, did you eat the twinks at the state fair this year? >> no. >> no. >> congressman, do you think the supreme court's hobby lobby

ruling was the right decision? >> no. >> i think -- yes. >> congressman, should syracuse university replace the carrier dome? >> yes, it should. >> i agree. >> have you ever been to the renaissance festival at sterling? >> that's not fair. of course i've been to the renaissance festival everybody knows that i've been there. >> no. >> okay. these should be the easy ones. when your time in congress is at an end, would you rule out joining a lobbying firm in washington, congressman? >> yes, positively yes. >> this requires not a question yes or no, but a title. what's your favorite national cable network? >> my favorite national, oh, definitely espn. >> espn hands down. >> so agreement on that. how about favorite news network?

>> my favorite news network? i any cn -- i think cnn. >> i reab don't have one. >> have you ever called a journalist to complain about a story? >> sure. >> yeah. >> congressman, do you believe the presidents response or lack there of has worsened the ebola crisis? >> yes, i think should it have been faster. >> yes. >> mr. cat koa do, you have a tattoo? >> no. >> congressman? >> no. >> if the giant win another super bowl, i will. >> mr. cat koa, could you support your family while working a minimum wage job? >> no. >> mr. maffei? >> not at the current minimum wage, no. >> have you ever eaten a cheese burger sub? >> oh, yeah. >> yes.

>> have you ever ice skated at clinton square? >> many times, i love it. >> no. >> and i guess this is the last one. the question is where did you take your last vacation? >> to my in-laws' farm for a weekend. >> skinny atlas. >> so the hard part is over now. the next question goes to you, mr. cat koa. we have heard -- i'm sorry. >> i'll pick it up there. >> go ahead. >> we've heard a lot from your campaign on your record as a prosecutor. your close ties to police. we have not heard much on the details of where you stand on some of the issues that under the forefront of this race. the first question is what about being a prosecutor qualifies you to become a member of congress. >> that's easy. leadership mandz down, not even a close call. for 20 years i've been leading

people. for 20 years i've put together task forces. what i did as an organized crime prosecutor was to put together task forces to attack organized crime, police corruption, political corruption, and of course gangs. i could never do that alone, so i had to put together federal, state and local law enforcement and anybody who has worked in law enforcement will tell you that is no easy task. so in order to get those task forces together to work properly, it takes leadership on a daily base is to get them to get along and to held their diverse priorities. i did it in el paso, texas on the southwest border, i did it in puerto rico on their very difficult circumstances, and i did it in syracuse with drug tack forces and gang task forces. >> also on the issue of discussing or not discussing particular issues, mr. maffei has raised that question as the campaign has gone on. questions like freedom of choice. why not discuss that more fully

as part of this chain? >> freedom of choice as far as what? >> as far as abortion. >> i've answered the question every time. to me this election is not going to turn on that issue. that is an issue where reasonable americans are go to disagree, period. but time and again, everyone you talk to ranks that very low on the priority scale. they rank jobs and the economy and leadership and trying to fix what's broke in washington much higher. reasonable people will disagree on the abortion issue. mr. fa fay and i -- maffei and i are on different side of that issue. >> i do believe that mr. katko is not being completely candid with where he's going to be on these issues. for instance with the ryan budget this is the regular republican budget, he said he wouldn't take a position when he was trying to get the nomination. one he got the republican nomination, then he opposes it. he was always a pro-life, but it wasn't until after he got the

republican nomination that he started talking about various exceptions. he even said to the auburn citizen, unless and until i get to congress, i'm not going to start issuing any opinions. so that is a big problem. his prosecutorial record i think does merit examination, a l. good things, but also some things that bring up questions. plea bargains, those sort of things. and if i were to judge him in the same which he judges me, any bad consequence in central new york must be my fault, well, gang violence and all those things he mentioned, corruption, that's all gone up. i'm not saying that's his fault. but again, if you're going to judge me by all that, why not judge a prosecutor by the same standard? >> we'll get back to that. >> may i respond? i have been judged by attorneys general all over the united states for the last 20 years. and three times the attorney general of the united states of america has award me the highest honor can you have as a federal prosecutor, selected me out of thousands of prosecutors for that honor.

the most recent one was four weeks ago, a full eight months archi left the office and was a democratic attorney general who did so. and he did so because of my gang work in the city. if they ever thought that i did any of the things you thought, you're trying to infer in your commercials, your attack adings, i would never had those. and i wouldn't have this the top secret security clearances. i would have never stepped one foot in any baseman sit if any the things you're flying to allege i did actually happened. >> i think we're going to get back to the ads, so you'll have another opportunity, unless you feel the need to respond at this moment. >> our next question is for you, congressman maffei. plan 2014 deals with water levels on lake ontario. from there are many residents and officials who live on the southern shore of the lake who worry about the impact of raising and lowering water levels, saying it could have a devastating impact on the

shoreline. some of the town officials have also criticized you for not coming out with a clear position on plan 2014. where do you stand? >> i met with town officials and i met with people who are pro and against this. plan 2014. it is a difficult issue because we're going to see some sort of rise in water levels, according to the scientists, no matter what we do. and as a matter of law, the congress doesn't decide. it the governor, it's the state department. what i'm focusing on is making sure that there's fund fork remediation, whatever happens. so that those towns along the lake will be able to fix any damage that happens again, on any of these plans, there's some projected issues. that's the most important thing, doesn't have to come out of the taxpayers because there's power generated by the regulation of lake ontario. but the most important thing for me is to try to represent all my

constituents, and as i said in is an issue which divides them. >> so having said that you haven't taken an official position one side or the other? >> again, my role in this, i believe, is to get the remediation fund. congress does not have a say either way. one congressman or state is not going to change it, but i can help make sure that money is there. >> i'm against and it here's why. for example, in wayne county alone 67% of their property tax revenue comes from the shoreline. by any statistical model that they're talking about with plan 2014, which for everyone at home, it is basically deregulating the lake levels more than they already have. it's going to have a negative impact on the southern shore of lake an tar -- ontario. and there's no provisionings for recome pence for that property damage. part of the reason for plan 2014 is the wetlands restoration.

i think we can accomplish wetlands restoration as well as continue what we've had for the last 60 years as far as lake levels, and that's a more prudent way to go. because after 60 years of lake levels being a certain way and developing land that way, we're now going to change it? it doesn't make sense. >> we're going to move back to national issues. mr. katko, this question goes to you. there have within conflicting report regarding your position on the affordable care act, also known as obamacare. at one point in the campaign and this has been highlighted by the congressman's campaign, you said you did not believe the law could be fixed but more recently you suggested it had some great principles. so please clarify your position. >> i think i've been consistent saying the system need to be repaired or replaced. but either way we can't go back to a time where millions of americans don't have held

smoorns. so i would like to everything we can to try to fix affordable care act. mr. maffei agrees that there are parts that need to be fixed. the medical at the vice act, that needs to be repealed. the health insurance taxis krausing, causing a dramatic rice in insurance. let take the best aspects of obamacare including port ability for a existing condition, having kids on your policy until age 26, having wellness provisionings in there, those are all great things, and of course having health insurance is a great thing. but the i think there's just too much government between the doctor and the patient. >> do you believe though, given the current tenor in washington, and particularly also if the republicans are subject fm in their quest to take back the senate, will it be politically possible to sit down in a bipartisan way and hammer out

some kind of agreement are call me a cock eyed optimist, but i believe can you not give up you just because of the current political climate. you have to believe in change, because the moment you think you can't we're over as you a country. we have to get past the gridlock and show true leadership and we have to reach across the aisle. i'm confident we can do it. the republicans are getting pounded with the gridlock stuff. >> yet they keep bringing up all these proposals to repeal. would you vote yes or no? >> out in without a fully in place replacement, no, i would not. >> congressman? >> that's another example of mr. cat koa got the republican nomination, he had choice words to say about the affordable care act, certainly never talked about good portionings of it, i think he called it abominable at one point, but now he's for parts of it but not other parts of it. again, it's playing politics. it's very important that we try

to work on things that do need to be changed by the affordable care act. i've crossed party lines to vote to make sure people can keep their plans, to reduce the, to get rid of the device tax which i reduced when i was there. but we need to get rid of it. and for other important changings. but it's important that we acknowledge that it isn't going to be repealed. and we're not going to wholesale replace it. let's work with what we've got, let's build from there, we can improve the women and make sure it works for all americans. >> i think having a discussion on what works on it is great. if we can fix the problems with it, great. but remember some of the fundamental problemses that mr. maffei and others in the democratic party promised us when he ran this bill through on a bipartisan basis, if you had your insurance you could keep it. if you have your own doctor, keep your own doctor doctor. all those things are not true. and we've got to figure out why

that happened and we've got to figure out why the middle class americans are getting killed with health insurance costs. i absolutely want to fix and it i think we can, but we have to do it in a bipartisan manner without pointing fingers. >> there's a quote in than early story from mr. cat koa that the affordability care act, quote, cannot be fixed. and yet now of course he's changed his tune because that's not popular. i agree that we have to get the cost of insurance down. it's why i've written the state insurance commissioner to make sure that insurance companies couldn't raise the rates as much as they wanted to. so i do believe that. but long before the affordable care act, rates were going up. we can make this work, but we need to work together bipartisan in order to make it work and not just say things for political

gain. >> next question is to congressman maffei. very early on in this campaign you staged an angry news conference in which you pointed out that your family had been drugged into the campaign by mr. katko. reviewing his comments prior to that event, what he's seen to be pointing out was that at some point you had purchased a home that to many much us seems expensive, in virginia, at $700,000. that your wife worked at a nonprofit organization in the washington area. and that when it came time for the birth of your child, the child appeared to be born in the washington area hospital through the parents' choice. that combined withes in reports that we've got in recent weeks that 08% of your campaign funding in recent weeks has come from sources outside central new york, all of this feeds into an ongoing narrative that's been raised by republicans in past races as well that you are more connected to washington d.c. than you are to syracuse.

how do you respond to that? >> let me be perfectly clear. central new york is my home. it's where i want to be, it's where my family is, it's where my entire family is. my family does back back and forth with me when i have to be in washington, and we've rented parps for the last couple of terms. but we felt for our own financial security that we needed to have an investment. a small townhouse. where my wife works, frankly, is irrelevant to this campaign, and i don't think, frankly i'm not going to answer any questions about that. and where my baby was born, you know, she was born in washington and that allowed me to make every single vote for this congressional district, while i was also being a good father. now she's here, of course. but frankly, to use those things, my wife's employment choices, and my daughter's

health care, i think that should be out of bounce. and if it's not out of bounds, then maybe politics is as broken as everybody says. >> mr. maffei you issued a press release when your daughter was born. you can't have your cake and eat it too. when you buy a $700,000 house in washington, you sold your house here for $240,000, you bought a less less than half that price, and i know you're not there much because i was out canvassing door to door yesterday and happened to be in your neighbor and your neighbors told me that sometimes they don't see you for months on en. so you're not here that much. you do live in washington and your money has come from washington. 82% of your money has come from washington d.c. over 80% of my money has come from donors in syracuse and central new york. you are where you get your money from, mr. maffei, and you are washington. >> $2 million in outside ads have run on mr. katko's behalf. so national the system.

i'm a sponsor a bill that would put campaigns back in the hands of citizens u. would be funded by a tax on lobbyists. people, professional lobbyists, so it wouldn't take taxpayer dollars, as mr. katko says. and i cosponsored an amendment to the constitution to make sure that these big special interest groups running ads on either side are not allowed to equate running a negative ad with free speech. he is not in for any of this. >> it's something that we hear day-to-day. this is one of the few years when i've been told by voters that i've talked to that the most important thing that strikes them about these races is not the issues, but the campaign ads. that they've grown sick and tire tfd negative ads that they've seen on television. do either of you feel any res for whatsoever about the tone that this campaign has taken? >> i'll take that first and i'll tell you exactly how i feel. i did not start running ads

until he had already started slamming me for six weeks with his negative atds. he never once talked about his accomplishments and that speaks vom foss someone who is an incumbent. so the first three ad west ran were positive admy career, first one from a colleague of minor who was a former federal prosecutor. second one was a person i've been mentoring who is a wonderful young lady. the this third one was my wife and while i was doing this i was getting pounded with attack calling into question everything from my, the fact that i hate women, heavy en though i have five sisters and a mother and a wife, to call me a prosecutor. at some point you have to respond, but the difference is i'm responding to factings. mr. maffei lives in washington, that's a fact. it's a fact he gave $200,000 in bonuses to his staff the last time he left. and those are the types of things i'm talking about. the but the problem with him is

he takes my career, for example, and takes normal facts in a normal plea agreement and try to insinuate that both myself and the federal district court judge, who was never in the 40 years on the bench had his integrity called into question. i think that's wrong. >> i this we need to get rid of all these negative ads. this is miff fifth campaign, so whatever mr. katko thinks he's been accused of, i've been accused of far worse, falsely. the way to get rid of the negative ad is to support fundamental campaign finance reform. >> isn't the way to get rid of those ads for you two gentlemen, the candidates, to say stop running these ads? >> absolutely. absolutely. >> well, i'll tell you this. i issued a challenge to mr. cat koa early on in the campaign, saying let's at least not have these outside groups, the shady outside groups that don't publicize their donors, let's get rid of them. he refused to respond at all.

so he can say now, oh, you know, this is terrible, by the way he's running a negative ad on me that call mess corrupt, says all these things, and my home is central new york. and i do spend over half my time here. and i will say this, mr. katko also said that nobody was ever in my auburn office. he will say anything to get elected. >> okay, mr. cat koa, i'm sorry, i would like to move onto another foreign policy issue if you don't mine. are you okay with that? >> sure of course. >> the united states is still bating the militant group known as isis or the islamic state. the conflict shows no signs of stopping any time soon. or engaging in air strikes, but so far no boots on the ground. question for you, mr. katko, you shed you would have voted yes on the mesher to let the white house arm some syrians, syrian rebels. can you explain why? and the second part is would there be any situation where you would consider sending american troops to engage in direct

combat? >> first i want to say that isis has made it clear that hey want to destroy the united states. and they've made it clear because they we headed american citizens and sent that message to us again and again. so we have to take that threat serious and we have to take it to them before they get to our shores, that's my primary goal. how do you do that? the president issued a bipartisan bill in congress to do that, that authorized air strikes against isis and to support troops on the ground there. not our troops, mind you, not our troops. they are the rebels fighting against them. it's not a persuasion and sometimes they turn out to be our enemies down the road. but right now we don't have the luxury of finding the perfect solution, and we have to try and top the flow of isis before they get to our shores. soy supported that bipartisan measure. as far as having our boots on the ground, absolutely positively the last resort. and i say that with a heavy heart because i have a son who is a sophomore mo is in the army

rotc program and i know most lineally he would be send over there in two years, so i don't want that to happen unless they absolutely have to. we're a war weary nation, but we can't turn a blind eye to terrorism. >> what would that scenario be? >> if the military leaders and the president of the united states said for the safety of our country, we need to do this now to prevent them from being over here, boy vote for boots on the ground. but you can cannot take it off the table at the beginnings because you don't know where it's going to lee. i am against it unless it a last possible alternative. >> congressman? >> well, i do believe that we have to fight isil and to make sure we are screur from terrorists. but we have to, we can't get drawn into a land war. i disagree with the president on this and i voted against arming the syrian rebels for two

reasons. one i'm not sure if the moderate syrians really exist, and trying to get them armed at the same time our enemies will be able to recruit far more people. and secondly we don't need more arms going into there, because what we found with 'test past in iraq, the more guns we bring, in, more they get used against us. i'm for avoiding a land war. there are other things we can do. we have to cut off till legal oil trade that's funding isis. we have to build a better coalition. so there's a lot we can do, but we cannot allow ourselves to get caught in a land war. >> we'll turn to an issue that impacts younger voters, congressman. you have lamented the high burden of student loan debt for quite some time now. the problem has not yet been addressed in washington, although certainly the administration is trying.

some say the real issue is not loans at all by the skyrocketing cost college. so do you degree with that assessment and if so what's the best way to combat that problem? >> well, it's both. we have to make sure that collegation forrable and we have to make sure that other kind of post secondary education, trade school, et cetera, are affordable. not just for ourselves but for our economy. i supported spell grant, that's one thing we can do. i've crossed party lines to support the opportunity tax credit and i supported the pay as you earn, which does help kid pay it off over time. but we do have to work make collegings more affordable. research funding has been cut a lot by the republicans and then slightly more under president obama. so i've been a big add volunteer cat for that.

>> when i went to syracuse university law school i think the tuition was under $10,000. it's now $50,000. and i'm old, i no that. the fact is the cost for college education has risen well above the rate of inflation since i was in college. we have to find out why that is and i have, i love syracuse university, i bleed orange, i don't want to just use them as an example i. don't understand how it cost d62000 for some people to go to the schools. it's checking an individual's desire to go to school. we have, enrollment at law schools is down 40%. we have to take a look at what the costs are. and i agree with mr. maffei about trying to help students. interest rates are student loans are more than double what it costs to buy a house. >> massachusetts senator elizabeth warren has a plan that would allow people to repay private loans through government loans at a lower rate, yet the

republicans are not allowing a vote on that despite the fact the president has said they should. do you support that proposal? >> i absolutely want to take a look at that. we have to make it a forwardable for people. i don't think whether it's a republican proposal or democratic proposal, do i, i don't care. i want to see what we can do to not have students have crushing debt when they get out of school. a lot of them have to go elsewhere to find opportunity. apartment of that is the student loan death. >> thank you. congressman, briefly? >> just again, it's john cat koa having more than one position. just the other day at the syracuse editorial board, he see he would cut the department of education. it depends what audience he's talking to, that's what i find disturbing.

>> from an expense standpoint what would you cut in government, i said block grants to give to the states for education and just cut down the beur rock reation. i said nothing about cutting the fun and that's a misrepresent is, mr. maffei. >> we are out of time. we have a minute for each much you for closing stawments and congressman you get to go first. >> thank you very much. i want to thank all the panelists for having this debate. it is important that we have a good debate on all the issues. unfortunately my opponent continues to dodge so many important issues, eve than on something as serious as syria he started by criticizing the president, then he criticized me for not holding the president accountable and now he agrees with the president's plan. that's not leadership. what we need is to make sure that we have focused, and the best thing to focus on for a member of congress from this district is the economy. i've been laser focused on creating jobs and strengthening the middle class. because when the middle class succeeds, central new york will

succeed. we've accomplished a lot. we've helped create jobs and save jobs. and the new test site is going to be a big boon for jobs in central new york. we do have our challenges, there's no question about that. but one thing is for sure. i will, one thing is absolutely for sure, i will not give up on central new york. and you shouldn't either. i ask for your vote on november 4.

he lives and works in washington and i'm the opposite. i can get a lot more out of talking to people at wegmans than in washington d.c. i appreciate your time. i ask for your vote. >> thank you. that does conclude our debate between the candidates in the 24th congressional district. it was lively and spirited. i thank congressman maffei and mr. katko for participating. thanks to you at home for watching. election day is around the corn esh, please remember to get out and vote

>> on c-span.org can you see debates and ads from races around the country. here's a look at some of the ads in the new york governors race. >> one, two, three, four, five, seven. six. >> ten, nine, eight, seven. three, two, one. these are the steaks. do we reelect a governor had may end up in jail? >> can we trust ultra conservative rob as treeno? when he ran for executive he promise told cut property taxes 20%, then he broke his word. and vetoed a property tax cut.

under astorino, westchester as the highest property taxes not only in new york but in the nation, the highest property taxes in the nation. if you can't just them to manage taxes in west westchester, you n never trust him as governor. >> the governor is supposed to represent all the people. but andrew cuomo only represents elitist liberals in the city. cuomo doesn't care about you. his arrogance would wipe upstate off the map. that's why cuomo forced extreme gun krom. quoam e banned popular rifles, and andrew cuomo took constitutional freedom as way from you. take the governor's office away from him. >> trust is everything to me. that's why for all we've accomplished to fix state government our job is not done until we've cleaned up the legislative corruption in albany. so i'm appointing a new i believe commission led by top

law enforcement officials from all across this great state to investigate and prosecute wrong doing. the politicianings in albany won't like it, but i work for the people and i would be stop fighting until we all have a government that we can trust. >> andrew quoam e is spending -- cuomo is spending millions of dollars on ads that are not true. cuomo's new york, has the highest property taxes in the nation. cuomo's new york, worst state to retire, most people leaving the state. you got it. cuomo's new york. andrew cuomo's poms have new york last in too many categories. and no amount of taxpayer ads will change that. >> new york has a proud history of fighting discrimination, that's why it's shocking rob astorino has violated antidiscrimination laws for years. he's the only county executive

in the nation mo refuses to comply. the "new york times" on as treen oh, die-hard resistance to civil rights laws didn't work out for the south and it won't work now. rob as screen oh, so far right, he's wrong for new york. >> on the next "washington journal," final predictionings for the mid term electionings. you can join the conversation with calls calls and comments on facebook and twitter. today a discussion on the technologist and biomedical research to create an h.i.v. vaccine and other treatments.

dr. fauci, director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases takes part in an event hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> throughout campaign 2014, c-span has brought you more than 130 candidate debates from across the country, in races that will determine control of the next congress. and this tuesday night, watch c-span's live election night coverage to see who wins, mo loses and which party will control the house and senate. our coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern with results and analysis. you'll also see candidate victory and concession speeches in some of the most closely watched senate race as cross the country. throughout the night and into the morning, we want to hear from you with your calls, facebook comments and tweets.

>> the international foundation for electoral systems held a forum on monday looking at elections around the world. next, election law advocates discuss regulations requiring certain times much i.d.'s to vote in the u.s., this is an hour.

he has testified before committees of the u.s. senate, the u.s. civil rights commission, state legislative bodies and federal and state courts. he also presented before the mexican electoral tribunal. and he has served on several campaigns including the 2008 national voter protection council. and to my immediate right we have mr. hans von spakovsky. he's the manager of the election law reform initiative at the heritage foundation. he's an authority on a wide range of issues, including civic rights, civil justice, the first

amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform. and as the manager of the think tank's election law reform initiative, he has studied and written on campaign finance restrictions, administration of elections, voter fraud and of course voter i.d. and he's very well represented on a number of the tv and radio outlets, including a prolific author of a number of commentaries in the nationwide media. so thank you very much for accepting to be a part of this panel. the setup we're having here today in order to maximize the amount of exchange between the audience and the panelists, i've asked them kindly to restrict themselves to 10, maximum 15 minutes of introductory remarks stating their case and where they think the issues are when it comes to voter i.d. in the u.s.