they want african-americans to vote, but they are basically being ignored in this country. they are saying murder is not murder. they are murdering young black men. ok. the only thing they care about is their vote. i feel as though, why should they vote? what is in it for us? they want our votes, but we cannot get any justice. the case has not even been hurt wouldhis man -- heard this man with a shooting in baton rouge. host: our last two minutes. guest: i hear you. black mannnial myself, i will say that frustration permeates through me every day, but it also inspires me to vote more than it does to make me move away from the election process. not thinking about

the presidential candidates, actually. duties, which i was most proud to serve at the white help the president with this 21st century policing task force. wasgoals of that task force to provide best practices and advice from the 18,000 law-enforcement agencies around the country. advice is the active word there. law-enforcement agencies, the mayors who manage them, house, senate, those folks do not report to the president, so he does not have the power to affect how police are being trained, supported, cap say themselves -- kept safe themselves, and keeping the relationships with the community in a positive space. i get frustrated with myself if there is an incident in my

community that frustrates me or breaks my heart like a shooting. do i knowquestion is, who my police chief is? do i know whom i share is? do i know who my district attorney is liable hoping to hold accountable if things go poorly? have i done my homework? how i voted in the past election to dictate who that person is? --i have, it is only to do on me to do my homework to make track with someone in place and is only to be other town halls and call sheets. that is the kind of civic engagement i think will lead us to a place where our local re responsive to us, but also to a place where everyone is safer and feels like

we're supported -- they are supported. host: jesse moorpp.

>> washington journal continues. host: kelly jane torrance is back. she is the managing editor at the weekly standard. and the headline over the weekend -- "dump trump, now, more than ever." with your boss? and if so, how do you make that happen?

guest: i definitely agree with him. and it is a little bit hard not to have been "i told you so attitude. those of us who have been saying from the beginning that trump is not fit to be president, we have been proven correct. i wish i hadn't been, i wish this had gone better light each day you think ok, this is the worst day and it can only go up from here and then something new comes up. and keeping up with the story has been an up-to-the-minute thing. are as may, new allegations were coming up. the landslide of allegations is making it troubling. we even see people like john , hein, who endorsed him finally has withdrawn his endorsement. which he gave after donald trump personally insulted him. host: another headline -- it is

trying to realize which the gop were right about donald trump. leaders do you think were right about trump? and at what point are they allowed to continue to walk away from donald trump and still be right? or does this become political expediency? guest: exactly. -- from the beginning has been and i trump. and it was a danger to himself after he came out against trump. people were upset with him. and you have to wonder, how to ted cruz feel? who endorsed him in the last few weeks and then this comes out -- you think, should you have just waited a little longer? paul ryan, whoe is not rescinded his endorsement that says he will not campaign or work actively

to help but he hasn't cold his endorsement. i do wonder, what would that take? kelly jane torrance. phone lines in this segment. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependence, (202) 748-8002 guest: the weekly standard does not make endorsements. our editor has been one of the biggest "never trump" people. but our cofounder of the magazine, in the past he has been reluctant. he said he needs to go for trump just to not get hillary and. ending most writers have been and i trump but not 100%. host: so there's no editorial

board, emerald can write their own,? guest: it is a diverse group of conservative. we often write our disagreements in the pages of the magazine. and decide for themselves. host: again, if you want to call and, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independent, (202) 748-8002. it is time for me to call in. i listen to your show every day. my concern is for -- i'm a democrat. my concern is for our country. what i'm concerned about is the rhetoric that we hear. and all the things that are going on. that ourody understand monuments are precious to us? our country is precious to us?

everything here, the people in our country are mostly immigrants. and we should be praising our country and not tearing it down. about a lot of fear donald trump as a president. i think donald trump wants his own country. and i don't think we should allow them to take over our country. let's be strong americans. let's fight for our country. and i hope we will have somebody -- i know we are talking to my family. i know what we are going to do. so let's protect the country that we have. guest: a lot of people, democrats and republicans, are expressing those sentiments. people are worried. you have the two most unpopular presidential candidates since they started measuring these things.

way given of sad in a how many problems we have going thishat we are having strange election season, talking about the candidates and the candidates' husbands with sexual assault charges. when was the last time we got deep into the issues? it is shocking. i wish americans had better choices this fall. host: in terms of other options, one of the third-party ,andidates, and mcmullen showing him in a statistical tie with donald trump and hillary clinton, could be the first presidential third-party candidate to get electoral college votes in decades. what does that mean? a very viable third-party option in your mind? for a protest vote?

-- or a protest about? guest: it is interesting. i was talking about the policy director asking him, what is your next strategy? their best shot is to make it close enough in electoral college votes were a goes to the house. if nobody gets enough electoral college votes, it then goes to the house. the best shot -- that is the best shot. it is not only a protest against the major parties, it is a protest for decency and for should -- and for people who we should be proud to call president. guy who wase a good worried about our country like the previous caller. giving people an option people can feel good about.

you can vote for that person and still say that night. a host: let's get an independent voice. caller: shame on these republicans are not standing behind the people's choice. the people choice -- the people chose this man. mr. trump beat all of the other republican candidates out there. are any of these other republican candidates a perfect saint and never said anything that could be held against them? come on, guys. host: kevin makes the same in the opposing page of usa today. guest: there is something to that. we did have a primary contest. how many voters voted for trump? had a primary and caucus.

it was a very small number of people. donald trump did not get a huge majority of those voters. if he had gotten everybody else -- if you had gotten everybody else from all the anti-trump voters, he would not have won. to say all of the gop voters are on trump's side is not quite accurate especially given how only a few people decide the presidential candidates. host: let's hear from a republican, steve, in pennsylvania. caller: i have a couple of different slants on this entire process. for me, the reason why i support donald trump is not because what he says he is going to do, but it has been a political machine has been in control of our nation and so long, the clinton

machine, the bush machine. . during the primary, we may have defeated the bush machine once and for all. the defeat of hillary clinton will be the death of the clinton political machine because who knows where she will be in four years. it would probably put the final nail in the coffin of the bush machine. going forward, if trump is elected, if you going to restore america to greatness? america is already great. he may do something to get him impeached. the fact is america will survive. of aed another four years political machine -- we don't need another four years of the political machine.

through her entire life has been stage from her election. she ran for the seat in new york. they chose hillary clinton because she was groomed for this position by the political machine. been she loses and a primary season to barack obama, and she is hand-picked to be the secretary of state, flies all over the world as if somehow that is a huge accomplishment. carly fiorina, her comment about it was flying around the world is not an accomplishment. it is just a function. host: kelly jane torrance, i will let you jump in. guest: that is becoming the republican line, both for trump, maybe we will get lucky and he will get impeached. if that is the best republicans can say about their candidate, that is scary.

[applause] high school, where the students? above you? as well as the community college

students -- [applause] and members of our community at large. i hope all of you have come here to listen, to learn, and then to go vote. pleasure to introduce our moderator, political science and history at bucks county community college. thank you. [applause] bill: hello again. breast cancer awareness day. i hope every congressman elected next month across the nation will bring a passion to washington to combat this as well as other devastating diseases. welcome to another in a series

of congressional debates that the community college has sponsored in every primary and general election since 2004. a role inud to play what we repeatedly described as a celebration of democracy. we take the responsibility seriously and we are equally proud of the audience decorum exhibited in the past and the duke we know we will have today. i want to recognize our campus executive director and our director of security, as well as our technical crew for their work in preparation for this event. this debate is being broadcast statewide by the pennsylvania cable network as well as nationwide by c-span. debate questions were solicited and the final

selections and formation of the questions were made by me. after reviewing the long list of potential topics, i have concluded what we really need is a seven hour and the final selections and formation of the questions were made by me. debate. [laughter] however, we will do the best we can with the 75 minute allocated. there will be two-minute opening statements for each candidate with a one minute follow-up and then we will move through the nine follow-up questions with a possible 10th if time permits. there will also be one minute closing remarks. speaking order will be determined by a coin flip. left in a segment, we will see a yellow sign briefly. you can put it down. left, the is no time red sign should go up, in which time you can finish your sentence and close your remarks. comments or be no applause except now as we

welcome the candidates to the democrat steve santarsiero and republican brian fitzpatrick. [applause] i have never seen the low-level of rhetoric we have seen this year. some students and young people paying attention for the first time, i wanted them to know that this is not the norm for presidential politics.

i am confident these two gentlemen we have before us today will demonstrate what meaningful political discourse should be like. firm, tough even, passionate, maybe, but always respectful. in the precious time we have together today, we will focus on issues of substance that may separate these two highly qualified individuals enough so we can cast an intelligent vote. our opening statement is from brian fitzpatrick, based on coin toss. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you. people in the audience, this election is about you and i hope you get involved despite what was said earlier about the vitriol that has unfortunately taken over a big part of the election. do not lose faith because we need you involved in the process, we need your voice to be heard, whatever that voice is, make sure you voice it. my name is brian fitzpatrick and i come to you from a very

different place. 14 years in the fbi but we will get to that in a second. i am a lifelong resident of bucks -- bucks county. my entire life i grew up right and middletown township is where my parents still reside. grew up here and went to grade school here, levittown high school. myent to penn state for degree. i am in either -- eagle here. a certified emt here. licensed attorney here. i had the honor to serve my country, prosecuting violent drug and gun crimes. a very significant national security role with what i consider one of the finest organizations on the planet, the

fbi. it is a job i miss dearly. it is the hardest decision in my that place and i miss the people there and i left for one reason, because like everybody in this room, i love my country and want to step to offernd do my part my background and credentials and experience in what i believed be the two most pressing issues facing the country today, growing our economy and defending our homeland. i made a career of balancing books and budgets and creating jobs. as an fbi special agent, keeping our country safe from counterterrorism and counterintelligence threats, cyber security threats, border security threats, all of the threats that face our nation. i will address them confidently from day one. i look forward to the debate, thank you. mr. pezza: thank you. we are not going to do that today.

i want to thank especially the young people, college students here at the county community college, as well as the high school students. many of you know that after september 11, i decided to switch careers and ultimately wound up teaching social studies. it is one of the greatest career moves in my life. next the promise that generation has and it makes me fundamentally optimistic about our future. saw the great challenges, in terms of being able to get a good job when they get out of college. it is one of the things that has motivated me to seek office.

no matter how this functional it may be at every level, it matters we have people fighting for that future for those kids. to make sure their jobs will be sure they get the benefits. i am very happy to be here and have this debate to have these discussions. this is the most critical election in my lifetime and i all of us toiment vote. [applause] mr. pezza: ok. we got that out of our system. [laughter] mr. pezza: you can respond to

this for -- in any way you like. the word is taxes. mr. santarsiero: we need to make families our working -- i think what we need to do is provide tax cuts for our families and we need to fund it by making sure the wealthiest in the country are paying their fair share and we close loopholes. you probably heard from warren buffett about how he should not -- he should be paying less than his secretary in taxes. just the other night, we had lessd trump more or admitting he has not paid federal income taxes. there is something fundamentally wrong with the system when the wealthiest people in the country can take advantage of those types of access to the loopholes

and not pay their fair share. one thing i've heard from people across the district as i campaign is they think the system's rate, they think every part of our system politically and economically is rigged. it is time we inject fairness into the system and make sure we thing forthe right working families and make sure everyone is paying their fair share. at the end of the day, our tax code should be about fairness. i think that is one of the main reasons, you look at someone like trump who admitted he is not doing his fair share. that should cause every american to be concerned and it should cause the next congress to be concerned about it. thank you. mr. pezza: thank you. mr. fitzpatrick: i agree the system is rigged by politicians. that is one of the reasons i got into the race.

an fbi agent who spent my entire career arresting corrupt politicians, investigating government fraud. these are the things i saw firsthand and that i investigated and pursued. throughout my career. taxes, i started my career as a cpa. cpa's in congress. people who know how to count, balanced budgets, and deficits -- end deficits. it is a convoluted mess. after fashion was cannot understand the code. whereve a system today the wealthy can afford expensive tax attorneys and are the only ones who can gate -- game of the internal revenue code. completely, -- incomprehensible. it needs to end. we have in america the highest corporate tax rate in the free world. 35% corporate statutory tax rate

in the united states. our neighbors to the north in canada, 15%. ireland is 12.5%. taxia is 20% corporate rate. a 35% corporate tax rate in the country and we wonder why we are hemorrhaging jobs in the country. if you -- a few weeks ago, ford motor company announced they were relocating all their manufacturing from mixed -- michigan to mexico. if that is not evidence that our economic system in the country, whether it be taxes or regulations is broken, i do not know what is. for all of our untreated -- unfair trade deals as well. we need to get the economy moving again and make america a fair place and incentivize people to do business in the country. to hemorrhageue jobs. if we continue, the unemployment will continue to rise, which means we will have less people paying into the fish -- the system, lower revenues, and we

will not be able to fund of important programs we need, including national security, at a point in time when we are living in a more dangerous world than we ever have. thank you. one minute to follow. thank you. we dontarsiero: you know, need to cut red tape, especially smallt deals with business because it is the biggest driver of job growth in the country. it is absolutely true that real wages for the bottom 90% of people in the country have dropped enormously over the last 45 years. we need to turn that around and create an environment more job growth and that requires investment in infrastructure, education, and job training. if we do those things, we can grow the economy more -- even greater, and help us make the system more fair for working families.

tosomeone who has fought protect the jobs of thousands in the district, i can tell you from day one, that is exactly what i will do is congressman. mr. pezza: thank you. our second question. it is an increasingly dangerous world we live in. with so many foreign-policy challenges, one barely knows where to begin. the united states navy launched tomahawk missiles yesterday against rebel installations in them and had fired on our nabel -- naval ships. the nuclear weapons in the hands of leaders such as kim jong-il certainlyth korea is worthy of our attention. i raise this north korean issue with both of you six weeks ago hassince then, north korea more.

how proactive should the united states be in preempting the threat? >> need to be proactive by working with our international partners in delivering heavy economic sanctions. they have to be delivered and soon. north korea in our last debate, shortly thereafter, they conducted a nuclear test. whojong-il and, a mad men conducted a nuclear test caused in megaton earthquake in north korea. a 5.5 megaton earthquake. by comparison, north korea, a six-time earthquake. we have serious national security threats emanating all over the world now. north korea was the example provided. iran, and unbelievable to -- dangerous nuclear agreement that paves the path -- paves the path

. even the obama administration $150wledges we handed them billion in assets, previous -- previously frozen assets. because of the sanctions, their economy will grow 12% per year. then we have cash being delivered under the cover of darkness and foreign currency and unmarked airplanes. you have russia annexing crimea with impunity. he continues his invasion. you have china literally manufacturing islands of the south china sea. world, in a dangerous his wife think it is critically in ournt, more than ever country's history, that if we send people to congress who understand the threats, know where the threats are coming from, how to finance and cut that off, that is particularly

true in the area of counterterrorism come boko haram, al-shabab, hezbollah, hamas, all extending their reach , throughout the middle east into africa, they have attacked copenhagen and munich. they have attacked in brussels. mr. pezza: your time is expired. >> thank you. the actions are a serious threat to our national security and globals surety. there is no question about that, as is the fact that the iranians have been working toward a nuclear weapon program. i was publiclythere is no quest, as is the fact against the deal not because of how to was back to negotiate with iranians that because i thought the deal did not go far enough. we asndamental point is

americans need to be engaged in the international community. need to have certain goals that we will pursue. one of the most important is nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. it is amazing to me the republican nominee for president has said he is for proliferation, to let more countries have access to nukes. he did not know that russians had taken crimea, and he said flattering things about vladimir putin, that it makes you wonder, ultimately, what american policy would be were he to become president. is that up until about six days ago, my opponent was voting for donald trump. he thought at that point it was ok to give him the nuclear codes. issue inn important the campaign because it goes to an issue of judgment.

the revelations of last friday were necessary for us to understand that donald to have uniquely unfit that responsibility and i hope voters will understand that on november 8. mr. fitzpatrick? mr. fitzpatrick: i am stating your position on iran. when you are in the primary debate, your posted originally, but you supported and limitation. that is exactly what you said on the stage and on tape in the primary. i think that is incredibly dangerous for the reasons i mentioned. to give the extent of those accesses -- it continues to flow and we learn more every day to the point where it is being considered a ransom payment. makes everyone of us less

safe because every american who travels abroad now, now that the amended the long policy, that we do not pay ransom to terrorist, because we have broken that policy, because of the iran deal, everyone of us who travels overseas now has a price tag on her head. haram, areko everywhere. throughout eastern and western europe. they now know how to raise money. i think what is dangerous is supporting a man, up until just last saturday, who is on record saying he is fine with that eventually would encourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons. i think what is dangerous is who willg someone create a religious test for coming into the country, thereby making our ability as americans to fight terrorism and fight terrorism with our arab and muslim allies, that much harder. i think what is dangerous, frankly, is supporting somebody

who has absolutely no understanding of geopolitics. that was your position up until saturday. i will ask a follow-up. with regard to iran, i will allow you both a minute to respond. wasn't that iran's money, the money that the international community and the international courts have old was their money? >> it depends on how you find that. is gained through ill-gotten measures, i do not believe so. component is a lifting of sanctions that will allow the economy to grow. you could argue it is their money but it was money frozen for good reasons. we cannot allow them to continue to enrich uranium, which they are not using for energy purposes. they are using it to build a nuclear bomb. happen.t allow that to

it would be the most dangerous thing our rolled could have, iran having a nuclear weapon. i am telling you the agreement is paving the path to that. there is not a single government official, not a single member of the iranian parliament, not signing on to that agreement. we are abiding by it and they are not and we are fools to do so. options wouldt you feel the united states would if you had a different administration and a congress willing to undo that agreement? what have to retake? we continue sanctions, increase sanctions to cut down on their cash flow. not a said, there is single member of the iranian parliament, no government official that is not in agreement. not a single one. we're the only ones of -- abiding by appear in we have seen violations on the iranian side of the agreement. they are ignoring it and laughing at us because of it. mr. pezza: thank you.

if your comments are that you initially opposed to the agreement support implementation, would you clarify that question mark -- clarify that? mr. santarsiero: one he flowing into iran apart from the money discuss here so far this afternoon. for sanctions to a useful and actually have an impact as they did previously with iran, they need to be multilateral. you need to have all of the major potential trading partners part of that regime. by the time i take office if i were elected, this agreement would have been for over a year. it is not realistic to think we can somehow undo it. i would love to be able to but i do not think it is realistic. what are we left with? we have to do everything we can to enforce this agreement to the letter and we have to keep the iranians, you know, abiding by that.

to say we cannot do it, it is not realistic. -- not realistic. united states could oppose sanctions tomorrow but if the rest of the community does not do that, they will not be effective and that is the reality. they have notk: signed the agreement, they are not honoring the agreement, they are already in violation. unlike steve, i am not learning about the agreement on cnn. i was behind the curtain and understand the threats. iran getting a nuclear weapon, which they are on the path to do, would be the most dangerous thing the world has ever seen or we cannot allow it to have them. there is a lot we can do. we can cut financing off today if we want. iran getting a nuclear weapon, for us to put our faith in the iranian regime that they will abide by an agreement they have not signed, it is very foolish.

mr. santarsiero: i did not support this agreement when it was ghost -- negotiated. i do not know what her in your behind but the truth of the matter is, we are left with this and we actow unilaterally, we will not have that kind of an impact. the sanctions were successful before because it was not just the united states. of thethe rest international community, our allies, the chinese, all of those countries are part of it. now to unilaterally moved to do something, it will not work. believe me, i wish it would. about theconcerns agreement in terms of what it will do at the backend. but we are not in that situation now, unfortunately. we have to do with reality and that is the point. mr. pezza: we will move on. thank you, gentlemen. the next question, recent terror

attacks at home have refocused our attention to the use of electronic surveillance to identify threats from our own citizens. should we engage in domestic surveillance and how to we build in constitutional safeguards while doing so? >> i think to the greatest extent possible, there needs to be transparency, due process, we have to always balance, we always have to balance, the need to protect the public and the united states from these threats with our constitutional rights to privacy. that balancing can be difficult at times, but i think the touchstone here has to be to enable people who are potentially subject to this surveillance. if there is a challenge, that they have due process rights.

i think obviously, we want to ise sure that our government pursuing every threat of potential evidence out there to be able to prevent an attack before it happens but part of that also has to be, we have to make sure we have strong relationships in the communities where the potential terrorists may be coming from. part of that has to be not demonizing muslim americans. we have in donald trump, a candidate who has told the world, he would institute a religious test for the people coming into this country. i have met many times with the muslim community here in bucks county. they are uniformly opposed to donald trump. if we are really going to be effective and law enforcement will get the information it have goodneed to

relationships with the folks in that community. i think trump is a disaster in that regard. opponent was supporting him up until just last saturday. he were to become president, it would put us in much greater peril than we currently are. mr. pezza: thank you. mr. fitzpatrick: once again on this topic he were to become , i am speaking out as a politician talking about it but someone has actually done it, with one of the premier law enforcement organizations on the planet. the usa patriot act, there was section 215, considered a controversial provision, which came to light during the eric snowden scandal. act addressedm the controversial provisions of section 215, a bipartisan solution to deal with precisely what was asked, dealing with

safeguards to keep our country safe and also protecting and preserving constitutional and civil liberties. what the scandal told us is under section 2:15, there were two parts to it, a court order massnent, where there was collection of metadata, and the second was the prison program, the metadata issue dealt with telephone records and what we information, the location of where you are when you make a cell phone call, and the prison program that with e-mails and social media and the like. addressedeedom act the controversial provisions in a bipartisan fashion, something we need to know -- to do more in different areas, not just in the areas of national security. it is a way to preserve the security of the country while still preserving civil constitutional liberty -- liberty's. mr. pezza: thank you.

anything else? you have got another minute. ok, very good. >> i can if you like. [laughter] i could talk about electronic surveillance all day. i will add this. mr. pezza: tell you what, would either of you or both of you just expand on, i am not sure to what extent the general public is aware of checks and balances with regard to the fire the court and when the executive branch is looking to do in the judicial branch has a role to play, would you just clarify that? >> the fbi has three essential components, a criminal component, national security, and cyber component. you have heard the concept of the title iii wire tap. that is a provision of the omnibus crime bill where you go before a magistrate. standard to high

tap somebody's phone line. it is considered a last resort from an investigative standpoint -- standpoint. considered a very intrusive investigative technique. with a five the court, that is essentially the wiretaps international security context. what the second circuit had found in manhattan, when they reviewed the case, specifically prison program and the pfizer court of -- was that they were abusing their authority. i felt like the usa freedom act struck the right chord is a bipartisan solution to preserve our national security and still preserve civil liberties. i think theero: main issue with the court in making sure there is more transparency and greater opportunity to have a challenge with respect to what its rulings are. let's get back to the fundamental point -- making sure we are doing everything we can to prevent acts of terrorism on

our homeland. to do that, yes, electronic surveillance is part of the mix. sure that weing have good relations in these communities, that we can get information in a variety of different ways that will enable us to prevent an act of terror before it happens. the day'se end of equally important and something the next administration and the next congress needs to have foremost in mind. thank you. the idea of a major jobs creating infrastructure program seems popular with all parties. we need to build roads and repair and replace our bridges, grids, allur power needed projects. listening to the two presidential candidates this week, i felt like hours watching a monopoly game. spend $500 will

billion, another says i will double that and spend $1 trillion. i assume you support and infrastructure program, for many reasons. can we have a discussion about how you pay for it? term --. fitzpatrick's turn to go first. >> i view this as an investment and not an expense. in criticalnvest infrastructure programs in the country. it is not just roads and bridges. it goes to the electrical grid -- grid, underground pipes. in many respects, we have an archaic infrastructure program in this country. i think we need to fund it significantly. it is an investment, not an expense. it all comes back to growing the economy. the problem we are in is we criticalford to fund

infrastructure programs, the environment, fund education, so we can have the best educated youth in the world. reason is because we have a terrible economic situation in the country. we have $19.5 trillion in the entirebt when value of the economy and our entire gdp is about $18.5 trillion. alone wasst component i believe the fifth-largest spending program in our country. that is with historically low interest rates. it will soon become the third-largest. the debtust to service we have to we're hemorrhaging jobs, as i gave the example most recently with ford motor company to mexico, and you have regulations that are literally strangling his missus. the overall economic climate is strangling distances in every single company i visited in the district is telling me the same thing. they cannot grow or hire new employees because of

ever-increasing regulations, burdensome tax rates. a program ofreate economic environment, we could afford to fund things like infrastructure, which is critically important. mr. pezza: thank you. mr. santarsiero: it is a critical issue and one of the things i care very deeply about. i have of the things been involved in as a member of the state legislature. we were able to pass a major transportation and restructure funding bill a few years ago. i see my colleague, frank, in the audience. he voted for that as well. seelook around now and roads and bridges being repaired, it is because of that and because a republican governors bill and equal numbers of us on both sides of the aisle made it happen. i think the act that was passed in congress in december was a good start, probably about one third of what needs to be done. we need to invest not just in roads and bridges, but in our waterways and here in the eighth district, we have a river we are

blessed with. we need to invest in i.t. of the structure and to invest ultimately in our energy grid infrastructure as well. that will help us invest in renewable energy sources. how do we do that and fund all of this, the central part of the question. infrastructure bonds are one way to do it. secretary clinton talked about something solely geared toward raising money of the capital for infrastructure. congress -- wecan put people to work, can thereby create more jobs and grow the economy while at the roads andmaking our bridges safer and ultimately making us more competitive in by having a first-class, world-class infrastructure. it needs to be a priority. mr. pezza: we have another

minute each. mr. fitzpatrick, your do -- your view is we would find the infrastructure programs through economic growth. as the economy grows, we have a funny to do it. steve, thatcating, we pay for it with bonds, predominantly. reactions to either one of those plans? want to growck: i our way out and steve wants to add debt to the problem. you will see that between the two of us. mr. santarsiero: four decades in this country, we have funded was donelike this that by republicans and democrats. i would love to grow our way out of things but that will not happen overnight. if they are having rates rising, we need to have a working-class

infrastructure. thing in lab economy is debt is not an answer. we need to make sure it is a priority. the good news is it happen on a bipartisan basis in harrisburg and it could happen in washington, d.c., as well. mr. pezza: thank you. moving onto the next question. have not noticed, it is rare that the democratic president of the united states and the republican leadership of congress, agree on economic issues. on the, they did agree transpacific partnership agreement. ryaner of the house paul explained five jobs in america is based on foreign trade. in this campaign, both donald trump and then later hillary clinton, said they opposed the agreement. problem for me, how can a

highest ranking democratic figure in the country and a highest republican figures in the country, agree on a plan and say this is good for america and the two candidates for office for the two major parties say it is bad for america? , in your view, is the proper balance between free trade and protectionism? do you support the transpacific partnership, as an example? just a general concept of free ande versus protectionism, specifically, how do these trade agreements impact your potential constituents in bucks county? mr. santarsiero: it a critical issue but i think it is a false question, a false trade-off. it is not as if the alternative to these agreements is protectionism. we need to have trade agreements that are fair. the fundamental problem with the ttp is that it is not fair.

it does not equal the playing field. leaves american workers and american jobs at risk because in the othere potential signatories to the agreement, systems where they do not have the same environmental protections we have in the united states. the same worker safety protections we have five for over 100 years in the united states. agreement would ultimately subject those regulations in the united states to potential litigation and challenge. the issue is not so much whether it be protectionism or the trade agreements. the issue is whether we will have fair trade agreements that attempt to level the playing field so american workers and can actually compete with these developing countries. that is what we ought to be fighting for. lose that if we think it is just the old question about whether we should gate -- engage in protection. we're done with that era. we need to make sure china's

being fair when it comes to how they treat american companies doing business there, and how they deal with, you know, trying to deal with our infant -- intellectual property and espionage against american company interests. those are things we need to deal with in separate agreements. trade policyy, our has to be governed by the concept of fairness, 4 -- first and foremost. i'm opposed to: the ttp for a simple reason. we cannot afford any longer to engage and enters the trade agreements that are bleeding jobs out of the country. it crosses party lines. it was a bad idea with nasa under president clinton, and with a free trade agreement under president bush, and it is a problem now with tpb under president obama. the trade agreement would encapsulate 40% of the world posse gross domestic product. 40%. theave a bad history in

country of entry into trade agreements because yet again, this year, we will have a massive trade deficit. everyone of the trade agreements are bleeding jobs out of the economy. i have seen it firsthand, perhaps more so than anywhere else in the district. is beingacturing base decimated and the middle-class is being crushed and it is due part of parcel to these trade agreements. 12 member countries, approximately one dozen. idea to like a very bad me. what we haveon is seen and learned from history is when you enter into trade agreements with countries that have lower labor standards than countries that manipulate currency as a matter of public policy, it is time and time again a loser of the deal for the country. stand up against that. trade is good and necessary.

we live in a global economy. but it has to be fair and it has to benefit the united states of america. you both have a follow-up let me interject before you do. i respectfully have a concern with what other of you have said so far. i want to reiterate, the democratic president of the united states and the republican speaker have supported it. what were they thinking? are we pandering to populism? i'm speaking nationally now. i understand the frustration among the american workers, jobs are leaving, we need to blame it on someone and something. thinking, the leaders of our country, who negotiated the deal and said good deal, let's support it. i think theyro: had good intentions but just because they were not against it does not mean pandering. at the end of the day, they have

come up with an agreement that is not good. they were trying to create this trade block that would also be a counterbalance to china. and that makes sense strategically, but the terms of are reallynt make -- important as well. just because that makes sense and just because president obama happens to be in favor of it does not mean it is the right thing. i would not vote for it for the reasons i stated. it is not balanced, it's not fair, and ultimately will cause more american jobs to leave our shores at a time when we can ill afford that. mr. pezza: thank you. mr. fitzpatrick? mr. fitzpatrick: we have a track record. nafta was a bipartisan agreement, cap that was a bipartisan agreement. apparently this is a bipartisan agreement. i don't care who comes up with the agreement, i am a numbers

guy. i am a cpa. from what i've seen i don't like it because it follows the same exact path. if we don't learn from our past lessons, shame on us. mr. pezza: thank you, gentlemen. .et's discuss health care without the tired, old, protectable rhetoric, we know the problems and the benefits. let me summarize them. your positions moving forward. on the upside, we know that millions of additional americans now have coverage of the affordable care act. on the downside, we also know that costs have risen well beyond expectations. how do we continue to expand coverage while at the same time bringing costs under control? please be specific. mr. fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick: the way to expand coverage, and we all want everyone to have health insurance in this country. i believe health insurance is a right, not a privilege.

we need everyone insured. the question is how we do it. what we have seen with the affordable care act, five years if youmplementation, look at a three component to the affordable care act, individual mandate, corporate mandate, and state-run exchanges. what we have seen five years after implementation is that health care costs have gone up and not everyone is insured. alone, fiverict years after implementation, we have roughly 35,000 people in our district that still don't have health insurance. mainly by choice. the way the affordable care act was set up, similar to the social security model, the younger, healthier population would subsidize the cost of the older population. what we have seen, however well attended it was, it collapsed under its own weight take of the younger population are finding it more cost-effective to pay the fine than it is to ensure themselves.

the employer mandate, i have spoken to so many businesses district, the especially in the restaurant district, especially in the restaurant industry, which is interesting. a lot of them were told that the affordable care act would only apply to organizations with more than 50 employees. what they did not know, many are filling out the aca compliance sheet for the first time, and you have to aggregate part-time hours. that is putting a lot of these restaurants in a position where they either have to lay off employees or pay a fine, which puts their business in jeopardy. state-run exchanges, what we're seeing time and again is that so many of these exchanges are falling out because they cannot afford it. to answer the question from the start, the way we expand access is to reduce cost. there are ways to reduce cost if we allow out-of-state competition. competition breeds excellence. competition, costs will go down. portability from one employer to the next, medical liability reform, which mostly tell you is

. significant cost driver ordering tests that are unnecessary. there are steps we can take but the model has to be reduce cost. if you reduce cost, you expand access. mr. pezza: mr. santarsiero? mr. santarsiero: there are two. your fundamental problems, one of them is making sure that people are insured. that is more a respect for younger and healthier people. the cost issue takes two forms as it has played out under the aca. one is the cost of policies. the other is the cost of these highly adoptable policies at -- deductible policies that are out there. as a practical matter, many families who have insurance are paying very high out-of-pocket cost, and we had to do something about that. we have another issue we high cost of project -- but in drugs. there are a few things we should do. -- prescription drugs.

one thing is the public option. even speaker ryan supports the public option. the public option would give yet another opportunity for competition with the big insurance companies to help bring the costs of those policies down and ultimately to also bring down the cost of the deductibles. but we also need to look at on the prescription drug side doing things like medicare negotiate for prescription drugs, to bring those costs down as well. we have an aging population in this country. it is not acceptable that the cost of prescription drugs keeps skyrocketing and many are having to choose between their medication and being able to feed themselves. i think those things are changes to the aca that need to be made and i think it have a real impact ultimately both on the scope of coverage, and the cost of bringing them down. mr. pezza: thank you. follow-up? a follow-up,

public option. mr. fitzpatrick: i think more competition is good. mr. pezza: malpractice reform, defensive medicine. mr. santarsiero: matt trackless -- malpractice reform is largely a red herring with the cost of health care. it has not been driving up health care cost. the fact of the matter is, those jury awards are not making health care more expensive. i think we have to be mindful of the fact that what is driving it, frankly, is the lack of competition right now, and the fact that we need to make sure that people have another option. that is why the public option is a critical piece of this. mr. fitzpatrick: i think defensive practice of medicine is a cost driver. steve, i know you are supportive of the trial lawyers, why you have your position, it is a cost driver.

there are not many that look at a problem and don't think that as to the cost of health care. when you're ordering tests as a position to protect herself from liability and your medical malpractice insurance premiums are through the roof, that factors into the cost of health care, absolutely. mr. pezza: what i will say is that when you are injured, you want to make sure you have recourse. mr. santarsiero: at the end of the day, that is an important policy point as well. if there was evidence that this issue was really driving health care costs, we could have that discussion, but there is not the evidence for that. that is just the reality. mr. pezza: thank you. .sis is an amorphous enemy while centered in syria and iraq, it's also in northern africa and parts of the middle east. i would like to think voters are tired of bombastic rhetorical nonsense and finger-pointing on this topic.

they want to hear something of substance. can you identify three specific steps you think we should take and do theyis, include american forces on the ground? santarsiero.. mr. santarsiero: they do not include american forces on the ground. what they include r, one, working with our arab allies in particular, to make sure they have a coalition that can effectively defeat isis. the good news is, that effort has been proceeding and has been effective. we need to make sure we are working with those allies and not offending them, as donald trump has in the course of his presidential campaign. secondly, we need to make sure that we stay engaged. one of the reasons why i think isis came into being in the first place was that we were less engaged than we should have been with the iraqi government,

which at that time, because it was dominated by shia, was doing things in iraq that was targeting the sunni minority, which provided fertile recruiting ground for isis. isis is the problem today. there may well be an likely will be other met -- radical groups to come in the future. oureed to make sure engagement is constant and consistent so that that does not .appen in the future the last thing we need to do is make sure that we are working , making ouries allies outside of the region, particularly nato allies, to make sure we are doing everything we can to combat the threat not just in the middle east, but making sure it does not become terrorism that gets exported first to europe and then through the united dates. other things,ong having the absolute best screening process for people

coming into this country and making sure the europeans do the same thing so there is not a conduit there for the united states. mr. pezza: mr. fitzpatrick? mr. fitzpatrick: i know the problem well because i was in iraq myself and i interrogated the precursor entity to isis, it , theeferred to as isi islamic state of iraq. the problem started, frankly, by the initial invasion into iraq which was not the best decision, followed by an even worse decision to precipitously withdraw without a status of forces agreement. when you create a vacuum like that in a dangerous part of the world where dangerous people live, it should come as no surprise that isis has risen up. what can we do to solve the problem? fight we were engaged in, i was engage in in a long time up until this year. the first and foremost measure we can take is cutting of the illicit international money laundering which is funding not just isis but virtually every

terror group on the planet. there are ways to do it, we know where the money flows through, we know the culpable countries. those countries do business with the united states. we can use our leverage as a united states government to force these countries to work with the international law enforcement community, which was an- i was a part of investigating international money laundering, to cut down on funding isis. just like any other organization or company, just like any nonprofit, terrace are no different. if you cut the funding off, you cut off the head of the snake. if they cannot purchase the tools they need, they dry up. second is working with our arab allies, in particular the kurds, who have been affected in helping us fight back. third is effective law enforcement. that is something that has taken a hit in recent years. we need to support the national security community, department

of homeland security, fbi, i.c.e , to fight these terrorists here and abroad, as well as our military. i am hearing a lot of agreement between the two of you. is there an area where you more strongly disagree? don't know,ero: i we will see in the course of the debate but there are lots of things that we have not discussed. mr. pezza: [indiscernible] mr. santarsiero: what i will tell you is this. the other thing we need to be doing here in the united states that will help make our communities safer his passing reasonable gun safety legislation. that is part of the equation, too. it will not solve it all, but there is no reason why we should not have universal background bills and a no-fly, no by -- buy bill. the republican congress has not even entertain that legislation.

we need a congress that will bring that up for legislation. it will not solve all the problems but there are reasonable steps we should take in the federal government. .r. pezza: mr. fitzpatrick your level of agreement between the two of you or perhaps the spots to the gun issue. i agree, weick: need to take reasonable measures to end gun violence. the fight against terrorism has a foreign policy component, a counterterrorism component, counterintelligence component, cyber security component, border security component, and a gun safety component. but it is not just guns, all within the terrorists use. guns are certainly on the list and we need to take measures to make sure guns stay out of the hands of dangerous people, including background checks. i've been clear on that. mr. pezza: working with our muslim allies, cultivating allies, keeping our eye on the ball and remaining engaged,

working with our nato allies, stopping the flow of illicit ,oney that funds these guys giving law enforcement the tools it needs seems to be what we are saying. let send a letter to washington today to clear it up. [laughter] the question. i have stood on the stage for 12 years and asked congressional candidates their view on the millions of undocumented immigrants in america. i have heard tough talk about sending them all back and compassionate talk about creating a path to citizenship, but little of substance has changed in that time. can today be the day that we hear a proposal that is pragmatic, workable, and still respects the rule of law? we start with mr. fitzpatrick. the first part: of any immigration problem is stopping the illegal flow of

immigration, which is securing the border. a number ofnt for reasons. it is no longer just drugs and guns come across the border, it's now people that want to do was harm. we saw this all too frequently in my days at the fbi. once you secure the border, next question is how to deal with the undocumented immigrants in this country. i believe they need to be dealt with humanely, that are becoming of american values. immigration is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. we are a nation of immigrants. i'm a grandson of irish immigrants. i think most of us can trace our lineage back somewhere else other than this country not too far back, but the guiding principle must be that we must not reward bad behavior ahead of rewarding good behavior. people that have done things the right way have come in through the front door, waited their time, and need to begin priority status. said, mass deportation is a silly idea,

should not even be discussed. it is not workable or humane. we can deal with them in a humane manner that is becoming of american principles and make sense for the economy. mr. pezza: thank you. mr. santarsiero: this is an important issue and one i feel strongly about as the descendent of immigrants from both italy and ireland. , yes, wel you absolutely have to secure our borders. but the idea that we will deport 12 million people is, one, not workable, and two, not humane, ripping families apart. the good news is, by the way, we came very close a couple years ago to a bipartisan bill to resolve this issue in the congress. it fell apart at the last minute but i believe the next congress will have an opportunity to get it done. what we need to do is make sure those people who are here illegally now who play by the

rules, who pay their taxes, who do all the things that citizens need to do as citizens of this country, have the opportunity to legal status and ultimately citizenship, and that those who do not, those who commit crimes, should be deported. but i think that should be the basis for an immigration reform that we can pass in the united states that can keep families together and ultimately will make our economy stronger, too. because we are bringing these into out of the shadows, the economy, being productive members of our country. one of the greatest things about the united states, what sets us apart from other countries, is our rich history of immigration and the fact that for many we have become one. it makes our culture so much more diverse and makes us stronger as a people. that is something we should embrace. mr. pezza: would you like to extend your comments? anything else?

thank you, gentlemen. a person who is 21 years old today would have been in middle school when the great recession hit in 2008. since then, they have known nothing but a sluggish economic growth, uninterrupted war, gridlock in congress, and a painful absence of civility from many public officials, present company excluded. it is not surprising if they are turned off by the two-party system. what can you say to them today about you, your candidacy, or your political party, to perhaps renew their faith? mr. santarsiero. mr. santarsiero: like i said at the outset of the debate, when i was teaching at ben salem high school, i saw the promise of the next generation. i know that they are fundamentally optimistic, even though they are concerned about the challenges that face them.

what i would say as a former history teacher -- and i used to say to them all the time -- we have faced challenges before in our nation's history and we have overcome them when we come together to make that happen. when we divide ourselves into red and blue, into different groups that are either for or against you, it makes it nearly impossible to get those things done. and that, frankly, is what is so disturbing about this year's election at the presidential .evel with donald trump because his campaign has been all about division. it's been all about setting people up against each other and not about bringing everyone together. if we are going to solve these problems, we need to do it together, and we can solve our problems. we can invest in education, invest in infrastructure, we can , we can country safer reform government, which is something else we absolutely

need to do. whether it is campaign finance, taking money out of the system, whether it is gerrymandering reform so that politicians do not choose their voters, voters get to choose their elected officials. whether it is overturning the citizens united case which is something that i have fought for as a state legislator and i will make a priority as a member of congress as well. all of this we can do. what i would say to them is half faith. look at past generations. it is incumbent upon us who are on the stage now to make sure that we are doing the things so that when we pass on that baton to the next generation, we are putting them in the greatest possible position to succeed. mr. pezza: thank you. mr. fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick: sounds like steve read a lot of that off of my website. to the younger generation, my words to you, don't lose faith.

we cannot allow you to lose fish because the future of our country and you are only have right now and this election is about you. ,s far as fixing the system watching that presidential debate tells us all we need to know about the brokenness in our government right now, watching the gridlock in congress tells you all you need to know about the brokenness of our system right now. what we have seen, we have this great divide in congress, the likes we had never seen before. part of the problem is dedicated after decade of gerrymandering following the 10-year census where you have politicians drawing the district lines and self-preservation is a strong human instinct, and these elected officials by and large will draw the line to benefit themselves and their incumbency. what you have after decade after decade of this politically motivated line drawing is a situation where you have 435 seats in his country, congressional districts.

there are only about 15 to 20 that are legitimate swing districts. we are lucky to live in one right here, things in large part brother mark who wanted to keep the county home. when you split counties, you don't have what you have in these other districts where you have 70% of one party registration of one party or another in these districts. when you have that, these representatives, their main election is in the primary, not the general. so they legislate to their base. so you have his growing divide in congress. that is what needs to end in terms of fixing the gridlock in washington. i didn't have time to address the others but i see my light is on. mr. pezza: follow-up? let's be clear, the eighth the district was gerrymandered to some extent after the last elections. i voted against the maps. that was -- those of us who were

opposed to it were shut down from any objection. northeast philadelphia was taken away which was more democratic. the northern part of the camera county was added, a more republican area. the fact is it is still pretty balanced, but there was that attempt here, too. we need nonpartisan commissions and draw the maps, not elected officials. there needs to be national rules that cover that throughout the united states. it is a serious problem, but so, campaign finance reform. citizens united has allowed all of his dark money to enter into these races. it's been a disaster for our democracy. that case needs to be overturned and we need to have campaign-finance reforms that take the money out of politics once and for all. mr. pezza: thank you. i hope someday in the near future we could have a symposium devoted solely to congressional reapportionment and gerrymandering. we will have to figure out a way

to keep the audience awake well we do it but it's an extremely important topic that shapes our congress. we are fortunate to live in a district that is balanced and is competitive. i giveto say, before these gentlemen opportunity for their final questions, their thinkstatements rather, i we are very fortunate in bucks county to have two outstanding individuals on the stage today conducting themselves in a professional manner, sharing issues, sharing their information and being informed. it is refreshing to see that. i wish you both the best of luck, and i will ask you before your final comments, the question i always close the debates with. return to, will you this campus in 2018 for another debate? mr. fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick: only if you are the moderator, bill. i give the same answer every time. mr. santarsiero: i will

absolutely be here. i would also like you to be the moderator. i would hope those of you in the audience can be there as well. we ought to have more of these debates. one of my real disappointments in this campaign so far is that we have had so few debates. it's important for people to hear where we stand on the issues. today, frankly, there are still a number of issues we have not talked about. we have not talked about gun safety, the issue of choice, we have not really talked about what we are going to do more by way of political reform, which is critical, something we should be dealing with here in the united states. i think this has been a great debate but i would also think that those are things that the public needs to hear about. we really ought to be having more of them. yourself theve trouble of telling the moderator what he did number bring up today, he knows. we did not discuss russia, cyber warfare, military spending, veterans, energy, job retraining, education.

we will do it after this. take a quick break and then we will stay for a couple of hours. closing statements, one minute, starting with the surface patrick. you,itzpatrick: thank bill, thank you, steve, for participating. thank you all for coming. chester member what i set up the outset. stay involved. whatever your voice is, let that voice be heard. i wish this debate could go much longer. mr. pezza is a fabulous moderator. there are so many issues and problems facing our world today and we all know what they are in this room. thattch to you would be when we are selecting the next representative in this district, to me, there are two critical issues. number one is who has the experience in the critical areas that are facing our country. economic growth and national security. i spoke at the outset. my experience as a cpa and

financial services background is very helpful in growing our economy. second, working in the fbi both nationally here, coast-to-coast and globally around the world, working counterterrorism, counterintelligence and cyber security is incredibly important. and i believe this to my core. the only way we fix our problems is for people coming out of the system. our problems cannot and will not be fixed by career politicians who represent more gridlock and the perpetuation of the status quo. we can fix the problem we have from economic and national security standpoint but we are running out of time. we need to fix them now. mr. pezza: thank you. mr. santarsiero. mr. santarsiero: my 90-year-old dad used always say talk is cheap and you can say just about anything as a candidate but what matters is what you have done. there is one candidate on this stage that has brought jobs into this district, one candidate on this stage that has protected

thousands of jobs for our people. one candidate on this stage has protected a woman's right to choose. one candidate on this stage who has fought for reasonable gun safety legislation. one candidate on this stage the time and again has taught for our community, whether it is flooding, power outages, or even the problem with halfway houses here in bristol township. that is me. we can talk about career politicians and the like, who is an outsider and not an outsider. the fact is, my opponent is as much an insider as anybody else. he would not be running in this race if you are not. were not writing fitzpatrick, let's say brian wilson, he would still be living in a beach house in california. the fact of the matter is, we can talk about these labels and theans, but at the end of day, what matters is what we have done, what our record is fighting for people in this

district. i have that record of a competent. i will continue it as a member of congress. i ask for your support, thank you. mr. pezza: as was agreed upon in the rules prior to the debate, if there is a reference to the other candidate and a closing statement, the other candidate may have more time. mr. fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick: it is unfortunate. i will say there is only one candidate that has put their lives on the line for this country and it is not you. i will also say it is highly insulting to criticize someone who leaves their hometown to serve their country the only time they are out of their hometown to serve their country in a national security role to protect everyone in this room, to protect you and your family, to criticize me for that is really unfortunate. make noarsiero: mistake, i'm not criticizing you for your service. i'm criticizing you for being part of the system -- and i have talked to many people in this

community -- who feel it is rigged to there is one set of rules for most people in a different set of rules for people who are connected. brian, the reality is you would not be running for the seat if your brother were not the congressman. you would not have been given the republican nomination. that is just the reality. it has nothing to do with your service. we can applaud your service, as i do. but at the end of the day, it is about who is working in this community year after year. who has been living here and who has -- knows what people are feeling and the problems they face? i think when people go into the voting booth on november 8, they have to think about who has been doing that, who has been working for them, and who has that record. mr. pezza: we are going to give another 30 seconds each. we have made it up to things giving this hash things giving dinner, and now we have dessert. if you want to:

know the biggest difference between the two candidates on the stage, one is a career politician, the one -- the other spent his career arresting politicians. number two, steve, again, i have seen the rhetoric throughout the campaign to it i wish you would stick to the issues, stay away from the other stuff. don't attack me for my service. i am from this area. i was born and raised in this area. not only have i lived here longer than you, it is twice as long. i am not raising any residency charges with you. i left my hometown to serve the country that i love. mr. santarsiero: if there is a mark of who is a career politician or who is the politician, it is somebody who comes in to a district like this to run, and then, at the 11th hour, jenna since his presidential candidate to save his own political skin. those comments from donald trump

that came out last friday were wasnsive, but so, too attacking a federal judge because of his ancestry. so, too was attacking a goal our family. so, to saying he was ok with nuclear proliferation. it is awfully convenient now when we are getting close to the election to say now i'm not with him anymore. is aboutelection consistency. i think voters need to remember it. [applause] mr. pezza: i want to let the audience know that the press will be meeting with the candidates down the hall privately. i am sure they may want to pursue this discussion further. thank you very much for your attentiveness. please vote. gentlemen, thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its

caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] statewill have another race later today here on c-span. this evening, heading to north carolina for a u.s. senate debate. republican incumbent richard burr faces democrat deborah ross. that will be at 7:00 eastern time. this afternoon, a discussion about the economic policies of the presidential candidate hosted by the national association for business economics, live at 2:00 eastern. and attorney general loretta lynch will be speaking at georgetown university talking about criminal justice reform, live at 6:00 eastern also here on c-span. watch live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on wednesday night. live debate. from the university of nevada las vegas starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. the briefing for the debate studio audience is at 8:30 p.m. eastern and the debate is at 9:00 eastern. stay with us following for

viewer reaction including your calls, tweets, and facebook postings. and watch the debate live or on-demand using your desktop, phone, or tablet at www.c-span.org. listen to live covered with a free c-span radio app. c-span, created by america's television cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. next, considering whether the consumer financial protection bureau's structure is unconstitutional after a ruling by a federal appeals court. this is from today's "washington journal." is a financial regulations reporter at the "wall street journal." joins us to discuss the history and future of the consumer financial protection bureau in the wake of the federal court ruling this week. let's start by explaining what

the ruling found and why that case was important. guest: it was a very complex case that raised questions about federal key aspects of the consumer bureau's operations and structure. areas thatit had two were handled. one was whether the bureau handled properly the specific enforcement action against a mortgage lender in new jersey. the other aspect of the case was whether the bureau instructor in itself was constitutional or not. that theny asserted bureau's instructor was not constitutional so the enforcement action against the company should be thrown out. host: what is the structure of the cfpb?

has a fairlypb unique structure. it is by a single director other independent agencies like the securities and exchange commission also have commissions that are made up of commissioners from both parties that are confirmed by the senate. this agency is headed by a single. host: why was it set up like that in the first place? guest: it was determined by the. after the financial crisis, and there was a lot of back-and-forth, and that is how it ended up. host: this ruling has since found that estrogen to be unconstitutional so what does that mean for the future of the cfpb? guest: future of the cfpb, that agency, let's put it this way, the president, the

white house will have more control over the agency. -- iously, the director was the president could fire the director only for cause. in its, theling director could be fired at the will of the president. it will become more of a sort of political entity that will be influenced by the political environment. host: yuka hayashi is our guest of the "wall street journal." if you have questions about this high-profile ruling this week or what it means for the consumer watchdog, phone numbers. as you are calling in, let's go back to the cfpb. why was it created in the first place? what was the void that members of congress were looking to fill when it was in the dodd frank

legislation? guest: the consumer bureau was established in 2015. it was set up by the dodd frank act. the reason it was created was a lot of lawmakers felt the financial crisis showed there was no single government agency that was responsible for looking after consumers. previously the consumer finance was overseen by a number of different agencies in fragmented ways, and that created some gaps. people felt there should be an agency whose only goal is to protect consumers, and that p the balance of power away from the financial industry to the consumers. host: explain who richard is, where he came from, and why president obama first gave him a

recess appointment and then why it took so long for him to get confirmed by the senate. guest: this agency is actually a brainchild of senator elizabeth warren. she was initially playing the role of the leader of the agency. i guess she was hoping to get a job as a permanent director, but because of strong opposition in congress, the president decided to go with somebody else. that was richard cordray, who was the attorney general of ohio , who had record of fighting against banks and getting money back. host: why did it take so long for him to be confirmed by the senate? remind viewers of the fight in congress over his confirmation. guest: this was before my time, but after the president obama nominated mr. cordray, it took

about a year until he was ofally appointed because very contentious fight in congress with strong opposition from the republicans. host: what does it mean financial institutions that richard cordray and the cfpb have targeted since they had been doing the enforcement actions? guest: the cfpb has a very broad mandate. it deals with a wide variety of financial institutions, starting with the country's largest banks. with credito works card companies, mortgage lenders, student loan lenders, that collectors, payday lenders. a very broad mandate. host: yuka hayashi is our guest with the "wall street journal" covers the consumer financial protection bureau and other

regulatory issues for the "wall street journal." you have questions about the cfpb and the ruling this week, now is the time to call in. rst in is up fi connecticut on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. whatcurious to know exactly is the ruling that came down? when you say a ruling, is this a vote in congress? congressit a vote in is what you are asking? caller: yes. host: yuka hayashi, if you can take us through what court this was and what the decision was. guest: yes. thank you for the question. the ruling this week was handed by a panel of judges of the d.c. appeals court. it was a court case, not a vote in congress.

host: talk about how congress reacted to this vote because this is something that was closely watched by members of congress because there has been this is a monthly cfpb. a criticism of the cfpb. guest: it has been part of a debate over the past several years and republicans have been wanting too reduce -- reduce the power of his agency and the democrats starting with president obama with the poor support of this agency. when the ruling king outcome of the republicans were very happy -- when the ruling came out, the republicans were very happy. it chairman of the house financial services committee sent out a statement in which he said this is a good day for democracy. we got some comments from the

democrats. among them was senator warren. bureau ishat the going to appeal this case, and it will be overturned. even if the case stands, the only thing the bureau needs to do is make some technical change. it would just keep operating. host: can you explain more about the lines of disagreement, why the fight over the cfpb? guest: republicans have maintained that he cfpthe cfpb symbolizes the overreach of the government, the expansion of the government power in a financial industry after dodd frank. the obama administration sees corefpb very much as the of its achievement. this is an agency that is to protect the

interest of consumers, so they are determined to protect this agency. they want to strengthen it. host: compare the size of this agency to other agencies in the federal government. what is its budget? about how many people work at the cfpb? guest: it has grown quite a bit, but compared with other agencies, in is still fairly small. it has grown rapidly because as i said earlier, it has a mandate to cover a number of industries. still, it is relatively small. of the agency is a new agency, so it is not a household name among the public. they would like to have the public be aware of who they are and what they do and how they

could help the people. host: we will get into a little bit more about how it is going about making the public aware. mark is in reno, nevada, an independent. caller: good morning. i was wondering about why the bill has not taken stronger action with payday lenders, some charge 5% annual interest. guest: thank you for the question. actually, the bureau is in the process of putting together a very comprehensive set of rules to govern payday lenders and auto title loan lenders. proposed a anden the comment period for the vote ended last week. there was a contentious nature of the rule.

of your own received one million comments, which was my part largest number of comments this wasau has received -- which by far the largest number of comments this bureau has received. they say that this rule proposed by a bureau is so strict that a large part of the industry may be wiped out. host: who is on the side of this rule of making this rule happen? guest: this rule has very strong support from consumer groups. loansall, some of these charge interest rates that go as high as 400%. a lot of their customers are lower income people who have no limited access to banks. once they start taking these loans, a lot of them fall into the cycle so there is a very strong voice from consumer

groups asking for very tough rules from the cfpb. it will be interesting to see where this rule is going to end up. host: we are talking about the cfpb, the consumer financial protection bureau, for our last 20 minutes or so here on "washington journal." apple valley, california, sally is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. you are on with yuka hayashi. caller: good morning. i am wanting to make an opinion on this that the government needs to stay out of payday loans. untrue.ry we the people, voters, americans, so on every disability like myself, i have breast cancer, so i ended up on early disability. we have signed petitions to keep

government out of small businesses like payday loans. there is no reason. they are shutting these places of business down. people need this because we need to $150 i this month. i will go to pay day loan. other smalln with businesses like this. they will be shut down. host: you use payday loans yourself? caller: yes, i do. i sign their petitions. onre is great opposition government staying out of american business. they are shutting them down.

when we found out about this, they started having people sign petitions for this reason. .here is really no reason it is up to the people's choice if they want to borrow the money. if i borrow $100, i pay $17 and loan.r that it saves me. i know it saves a lot of people. as far as the car loads, you through veryery strict advancement credit checks. i have never done that, and i am glad i haven't, but there are people, we are talking millions of people, that really need payday loans. host: thank you for talking about your situation in california. some of the arguments on the side of less regulation in this sector. guest: sally, thanks for your

call. you raised some important questions. as i mentioned earlier, there are a number of people whoquest. have comments like yourself who are opposing these new rules. , butt just the companies these comments came from a number of customers who have used these services, and there are a lot of customers who take out these loans, spend it where they need it, and pay it back when they get paid the next time and use these products very successfully. the people who are opposing the rule say that they take away the option for people to go to these lenders. they would have no place to go to. maybe they which are into illegal loan sharks.

maybe they will just not go to so there is a very strong argument that this , this five days a very important role. the locate and of taking away the choices from the people who need them. host: in california, anthony is waiting on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, i read a little. good morning to c-span. i watch your show all the time. there is a good reason that the cfpb took action against this mortgage lender. they are owned by an insurance carrier. i work for the insurance industry for about 15 years now. these mortgage insurance

premiums tend to get hefty. , you a couple years increase your equity in the home above 20% or so. restrictive, and they do not allow you to modify your loan to get it removed. you ultimately have to find a better lender and refinance your way out, losing the payments you have made and the timing you have made the payments against your mortgage loan. the action was -- warranted. insurance carriers are seeking earnings on their reserves. this is one way that they can get it with these additional fees that they charge these mortgage premium candidates. host: yuka hayashi. guest: thank you, anthony, for your call.

i believe this case did not have a lot to do with the current mortgage of the insurance industry and their products. the questions that were asked at the courts this time with whether the cfpb had the take the rule that have been used for many years in this case, over 20 years, and that was previously managed by then changedy and th and applied retrospectively. phh -- thee, the receivedsed the phh

what it called kickbacks from mortgage insurance companies in exchange for referring customers to the insurance companies. that was practice actually quite common in the industry for a long time. it was permitted by the housing regulators who were previously in charge of this industry. thatfpb came in and said the rule has changed. now, the company has to pay the penalty for what it had done for the previous 20 years, way before the cfpb was created. the court said no to that. host: bernie waiting in new carlisle, ohio, on the line for independents. caller: beautiful morning to c-span.

i am a c-span junkie, and i want you all the time. host: i appreciate that, bernie. caller: you are welcome. the last gentleman talked about mortgage insurance, and that is one of the areas i am very aware of, but i am wondering if she me the service with ay, we started out bank that went bankrupt in 2005. our mortgage went to another bank, and now it is with a company. if you google the company, you will see so many stories. it is unbelievable. they have 2500 employees in india. when you call that communism but you can barely understand. host: what is your question? caller: is there any regulation of the market service industry by the cfpb? if not, how do we get that to

happen? my understanding is banks give the mortgage servicing to the servicing organizations because -- are we still there? host: yes. yuka hayashi. guest: i believe the cfpb has actually taken a number of steps overrengthen oversight mortgage servicing companies, not just mortgage lenders. host: individual actions against individual companies? guest: individual actions and also by using broader rules. there is more scrutiny on how these companies interact with customers. bernie, you mentioned the company. i believe one of the largest enforcement cases that the cfpb has ever conducted was actually against this company. the cfpb is quite active in this space. host: kelly is in florida. good morning. caller: good morning.

i would like to make a quick political comment and then ask a question. we have now,dates when is a dirty old grandpa, the other is a lying will grandma -- old grandma. supportseet journal" hillary, and i was a wall street said that if hillary clinton and elizabeth warren as her vice president, they would not support hillary. elizabeth warren was very critical of hillary clinton two years back about her position with the banks and not allowing consumers to file bankruptcy in many ways. i am just wondering, when you say rules for the consumer will this agency, affect elizabeth warren's role in some way by the powers that be? wast: the ruling indeed actually not good news for elizabeth warren. as i mentioned earlier, she

issued a statement sort of trying to downplay the ruling itself. but elizabeth warren and her support for the consumer financial bureau is very strong. she has a lot of supporters who strongly support the cfpb. she is not going away on this issue only because of this ruling. host: we talked about the debate over the cfpb. it is not just happening in this building behind us, but a lot of groups with interes on the the, even some ads against cfpb. i want to show our v

for starters, they built themselves a lavish office building complete with a waterfall. the bellagio hotel was cheaper to build. they even treat their female and minority in these horribly. so far or surface that a division with many african-american employees was nicknamed the plantation. dozens of official complaints have been filed in a nearly tripled in the last year. to top it off, they even set their own salaries with the average staff are making $10,000 a they do agree on one thing, the reformed so ite can go back to helping the american -- forum --st of today's fi a