she's really asking, what are you doing? rep. young: we were in -- we had a conversation last night on the phone for 45 minutes. i told him, first of all, i opposed the affordable care act. and where there are areas, where things can be fixed, i'm going to do what i can for the people of the third district. we have had some opportunities in the last congress to make some fixes. i want to help relieve the burden to the folks in iowa, but i think it is falling apart. i think you have to start all over. >> mr. mowrer, would you support universal health care? mr. mowrer: good news is that today we have 90% of america who have health insurance which is more than we have ever had. what we need to work on is making the affordable care and trying to make it more affordable. >> how do you address the premium increase that the gentleman, that congressman young referenced? mr. mowrer: the good news is if you look at folks on the

exchange, right now, 3/4 will still have access to health insurance under $75. a lot of people still do have access to quality and affordable health care. we need to look to expand that. the people that are seeing undo premium rises, we need to look at that and fix it. this is the same thing we heard congressman young say in 2014. he went to washington, and then did the exact opposite which was to vote 12 times to repeal or undermine the affordable care act. i think that is the wrong approach. rep. young: i have always been consistent in my position since when i ran in 2014. i was for repeal and for replace. this health care law has helped some people. it really has but it has also hurt a lot more. we are seeing -- constituents about a 30%, 40% increase in their premiums. it is not helping iowans in my opinion. moderator: excuse me, kate. the actual question is, what are you going to do?

if you repeal, what is next? rep. young: sure. i talked about expanding health savings accounts. we need medical liability. we need to have transparency in our health care system. we need to make sure that those have pre-existing conditions are not thrown off. but we need to also recognize the difference between states and innovations going on there already and what can be done. what was happening before was not perfect but where we are now it's become disastrous. >> you mentioned states. many states expanded the people eligible for medicaid with the proviso the federal government would send states money. after president obama is gone, will you under whichever president will take office on january 20, vote to extend that money to states or do you expect states to pick up that cost? rep. young: we want to make sure that safety net is there and the people are taken care of.

i will work with any president, anybody in my party or across the lines, to try to make sure this is handle and away were states have some relief and help, but they are also given power to have some innovation and freedom to do what they think is best for the people in their state. >> one of the goals of the affordable care act was to make health care affordable for everyone. the idea was down the line that the cost of health care at the doctor's office and at the hospital would actually go down at some point. it not just be an insurance program but in actual cost of health care reduction program. that has not happened in any substantial way at all. so, mr. young mentioned liability reduction, for example. are there ways that you see to actually cut the cost of health care? mr. mowrer: that is exactly right. again, we are seeing more and more people that have access to health care into coverage which is a major accomplishment. we should acknowledge that. but when you look at the cost, we do need to look at ways to

reduce the cost and it does, it is going to require fixing it. unfortunately, every time someone tries to fix it, republicans just hold another vote to repeal it. we need democrats and republicans who are willing to get past just the repeal part and get to the good public policy. >> the ideas, let's say you have a democratic congress or a democratic president, what ideas are you going to bring to the table? mr. mowrer: i think we have to look at working with providers, hearing what they are saying. what i travel around the district, i talk to doctors. i talked to medical administrators. what they tell me is they are concerned with the licensing requirements. we have to work with all the stakeholders. i'm open to innovation and working to fix it. again, what we are seeing from congressman young is simply voting repeatedly to repeal it. >> congressman young, there is a

lot of talk about there being a "rigged election." if you are in the next congress, will you feel compelled to vote to extend money to states to improve the voting systems? or even to have some sort of uniformity across the entire country rather than relying on a hodgepodge of state-by-state rules for elections? rep. young: i have talked to a lot of our county auditors and our secretary of state about the elections. we have integrity in iowa with our elections. i want to keep iowans and our state government in charge of our elections. i am not so keen on federalizing the election system. but i will be open to the debate and we will see what happens. i do not believe that we will have any problems in iowa. >> after the 2000 election, the government did send money to the state to invest in new voting machines. that is almost 16 years ago. is it time for there to be

additional investment in more modern voting methods? rep. young: i'm up for the debate. i'm not sure. we have not talked about that in congress and i have not heard about that from folks in the third district. mr. mowrer: it is something that i have heard from -- you are concerned about the rhetoric we are hearing from donald trump, the person that david supports for president. we do need to invest more. democracy is fundamental to our state and our country. we do have a hodgepodge of different voting systems across the country. they are underfunded. we are seeing long lines in a lot of places. people waiting to vote. we do need to fix our voting system. we need to invest in it. we also need to restore some of the provisions of the voting rights act that were struck down at the supreme court. >> such as? mr. mowrer: investing in voting? >> no, the parts of the voting rights act. mr. mowrer: there is a bill on the house right now with john lewis that works to restore some of those provisions of voting rights act.

>> would you support those changes in the voting rights act? or update? rep. young: i do not have the details on them. i want to make sure that we are taking precautions and make sure that we respect the role of states in elections. >> this presidential campaign has overshadowed a lot of this season and also led to a lot of divisiveness. i want to ask you about unity. mr. young, how would you find ways to work with a president clinton should be she elected? rep. young: just like i have done every day with folks on the other side of the aisle in congress. i do not care what party you are in. the successes i had for the third district have been them in a bipartisan way. >> are there specific issues you think you would have in common? rep. young: i hope that we could, i want to make sure that

in the next farm bill, we are making sure that agriculture, the farmers have a seat at the table for renewable energy, crop insurance, conservation, energy independence, those are a few things. >> mr. young -- mr. mowrer: mr. mowrer. >> you guys look so much alike. how would you work with president trump, and are there issues where you could work with him? mr. mowrer: i'm confident it is going to be president clinton, but if it is president trump, i would look to work on any issues i could. i know one of the few things that i agree with donald trump on is i do oppose the tpp. both mr. trump and secretary clinton oppose the transpacific partnership. that is an area where i disagree with congressman young because i know he is a strong supporter of that. i would look to work with any president on any issue i could, but i would also have disagreements with any president, even if it is president clinton. while i do support many of the ideas she has proposed, i'm sure

that there will be things that we will disagree on. moderator: when i came in here, i saw you shake hands and you thanked each other for being here. voters in the third congressional district are hearing your responses to the questions but many of them up to now have been evaluating both of you by advertising purchased by those opposing your election. we have a couple of those ads. one about each of you. first mr. mowrer, an ad about your candidacy. [video clip] >> beheadings, executions, deadly terrorist attacks in the midwest. isis is a real threat. and jim mowrer supports bringing thousands of refugees right here. what's worse, jim mowrer supports a dangerous deal -- a deal that gives iran billions, money they could use to fund terrorism. jim mowrer, risky, dangerous.

moderator: tells me a lot about you when somebody else is saying it. what is your response? mr. mowrer: it really makes me angry because i have a long record of keeping our country safe. my entire career has been in service, serving in the iowa army national guard, serving in iraq. serving as an intelligence analyst as a civilian and going , to the pentagon where i focused on keeping our country safe as well. so, i have been very disappointed to see these attacks come from david young and his allies who have questioned my commitment to national security. and i think i have a very clear record. i'm the only candidate in this race who has a clear, direct national security experience. that is what i will bring to congress. we have the lowest percentage of veterans serving in congress right now. then it any other point in our nation's history. i believe -- while you do not need to be a veteran to be in congress, you bring a unique

experience. i have always been committed to keeping america safe. it is what i have done. i know how to do it. moderator: congressman young, you stand behind that ad? rep. young: it is not my ad. i did not put that ad out. the law says you can't coordinate with it. i agree with that ad. i will tell you why. the iran agreement is very flawed. even the state department said that $150 billion will be likely used for terrorist activities. we've seen the hostage situation, right? you're for that act, that agreement, but sunday night on the regular debate you said we cannot trust iran. and there are a lot of other people who do not trust this agreement. one is the former commander of the iowa national guard. he supports me because he thinks i have a better view on national security. >> how do you know that iran will comply with this deal and

it will not be able to get nuclear weapons? mr. mowrer: i don't know. that is why this deal is not based on trust in any way shape or form. it is based on verification. this deal has stopped iranian nuclear development in its tracks. when i was a civilian intelligence analyst, i was primarily focused on iran. i know great deal about iran. i know about what they do supplying shia militants, the irgc, the force, everything they are doing. i know a great deal about iran. this deal stops the nuclear development in its tracks. the commander of the israeli defense force had said that this removes the biggest threat to israel's future. for the for seeable future what i hear is not an alternative. to the deal but just criticism there are only two alternatives, either going to war with iran or to allow them to continue to develop nuclear weapons.

i would like to hear what congressman young's alternative is. rep. young: people on both sides of this file before this deal was struck said that the economic sanctions were working. now look what is happening. you say you do not trust iran, but you support the agreement. theiowans here in third district are very worried about what is happening and giving iran any more power. we also just gave them $1.7 billion. what does it mean to send americans to war -- mr. mowrer: what the congressman is proposing is invading iran or allowing them to continue developing. wait a second. wait a second. when you look at what has happened in north korea, when we had put tough economic sanctions, we have isolated them, but they still were able to develop a nuclear weapon. rep. young: those are his words. i never said that. >> the other issue raised in about syrian refugees.

how many refugees should the u.s. accept on a yearly basis and are you comfortable with the process whereby they are quote unquote "being vetted"? mr. mowrer: i have always been committed to keeping america safe. when you talk about refuges, the number one priority has to be that vetting. the process we have in place for vetting refugees is a post 9/11 a post 9/11 process. it was put into place by president bush. it is over a year long process that includes comprehensive interviews. it includes fingerprints, scans, primarily women and children. we have accepted 10,000 refugees in august. congressman young says he opposes those refugees. my question to him would be, does he want to send those 10,000 families, women and children, back to a war zone and to their deaths? moderator: i will give you a chance to answer the question. rep. young: the head of the national director of intelligence, the head of the fbi, the secretary of homeland security says we do not have the

proper process to deal with what we are dealing with from syria and iran. i'm going to trust their judgment. mr. mowrer: so, you want to send them back? rep. young: i want to protect america. to sender: so, you want them back? rep. young: i want to protect america. when i was sworn in to protect the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. i am not going to take a chance. they want to and for trade our refugee system, i'm going to take it seriously. mowrer: i lived it, i know what it takes to keep america safe. moderator: we are going to reverse direction. congressman young, this is a commercial hoping voters understand you. [video clip] >> donald trump says he will defund planned parenthood. david young voted to do it already. five times. and donald trump says this about women who have abortions. mr. trump: there has to be some form of punishment. >> david young has already voted

to make abortion a crime. and even though donald trump brags about sexually assaulting women, david young continues to support him for president, and now we understand why. mr. mowrer: i'm jim mowrer and i approve this message. moderator: congressman, we have "i approvesaying, this message." it ties you to the republican nominee, donald trump. what is your reaction? rep. young: first of all, i want to make sure that folks know i have voted to increase funding for women's health care. by $7.8 billion this last year. that goes to our community health centers. we have over 200 in iowa. i take women's health care seriously. also being a member of the appropriations committee, voting for cancer research for women, cervical cancer research as well. you may remember a time about a year and a half ago, a year ago, there are some videos out there talking about unfortunately the

sanctity of possibly selling baby body parts. that's a big deal, right? we should pause that. i am not for taxpayer funding going to pay for that. i am pro-life. it is a matter of faith for me. moderator: donald trump was cut in there alluding, insinuating that you have the same view as the republican nominee. is that true? rep. young: he'd like everybody to think that. listen, everybody has their opinions about the presidential nominees. i disagree with both of them in many ways. some of the things donald trump has said, i've said they are disgusting and they are indefensible. but these are our choices right now. they're both very imperfect. we are all going to be voting for flawed candidates. i would let folks know, regardless of who the president is, who the nominees are, who leadership in congress is, they are not my boss. i answer to the people.

moderator: just to be clear, i think he said in the past, you do not endorse but you will vote for donald trump. rep. young: i did not endorse him in the primaries. i said that. between the two candidates, i would support my nominee because of policy, because of things like, my opponent here is for -- with what the epa is doing. president obama vetoed the repeal of that. i think the next president, if it is the republican nominee, will allow that to go in. and fund the keystone pipeline. it is a matter of policy for me. moderator: that ad was tagged, i support this ad. mr. mowrer: that is correct. i do, absolutely. >> even after you heard him explain? mr. mowrer: he supports donald trump or president. he does not want to say his name. but he supports donald trump for president. their views on these policies are the same. he can bring up videos that had been debunked that, people who made it had been indicted they

have been proven false. i support planned parenthood. growing up with a single mother, my wife chelsea, i understand that women can be trusted to make their own health care decisions. they should be empowered to make their own health care decisions. his votes are clear. he has voted to defund planned parenthood and that is donald trump's position as well. >> mr. young, you have said there are aspects of what donald trump proposes that you probably won't agree with. dino particularly what you would not agree with -- do you know particularly what you would not agree with? rep. young: trade. tone. that's certainly one of them. >> we'll talk in a minute about trade, but are there other aspects of his proposals, not necessarily about his comments or his rhetoric. rep. young: i agree with trump to make sure the border is secure. we have a real issue. i agree with wanting to make the border secure. a young lady was killed by in illegal immigrant. and got away. i introduced a bill in a

bipartisan way called sarah's law. >> you would support building an entire wall along the border and try to get mexico to pay for it? rep. young: we need to secure the border. you can do it in different ways. i have been down to the border. i have been down to the area near san diego, cochise county, in arizona, and texas. you're going to have different needs and different sectors. you will need more department of security boats on the rio grande. you will need more folks on horseback border patrol and aerial vehicles in the sky. more coast guard in san diego. different needs for different sectors. commentowrer, you can on immigration as well, but i wanted to ask you about the specific things that hillary clinton has proposed, if she becomes your president, what would you not go along with? mr. mowrer: as i mentioned, she is running for president and i'm running for congress. i do not know if it is useful to point out areas where we might disagree but i promise you that there are things that we will disagree on. i believe there is only one --

>> voters might find it useful to find you where you disagree. mr. mowrer: i think there is only one real choice with one person who is qualified who has a clear record and who could be president and that is secretary clinton. and i think that david supports donald trump, who is unfit to be president, whose comments about demeaning women, attacking veterans and gold star family's have proven he is unfit to hold the office. moderator: just a minute. if she is president and sends something to congress of a proposal that you know right now you could not support, what would that be? mr. mowrer: again, i do not think it is useful to look for individual policies we disagree on. >> then let's turn to a policy he just raised. sarah's law. do you support sarah's law? it made reference to sarah roof, it was killed by an undocumented immigrant who ran into her in a high-speed accident in omaha right after she had graduated from college. mr. mowrer: absolutely, we do

have a broken immigration system fix it.o have to number one is securing the border but we have to do it and a comprehensive way. i supported a bill that came out in the senate with 68 votes, and overwhelming bipartisan majority. that would secure the border, it would have the 11 million people who are here without a legal status register, go through a corrective process, pay a fine, learn english, background checks, etc. over that time period. we have to fix our immigration system, top to bottom. that bill that came out of the senate was never brought up for a vote in the house of representatives. so, we have to have a representative who is going to look to fix our immigration system in a comprehensive way. >> are their components of that legislation that you support? the senate bill? rep. young: it is hard for me to believe that he would not support sarah's law. he did not answer me yes or no. mr. mowrer: we need to fix our immigration system. we have to pass comprehensive immigration reform. the farm bureau, the chamber of commerce.

i think we need to fix it in a comprehensive way. we can look at the individual pieces that need to be addressed, and it absolutely is broken. the only way to fix it is in a comprehensive way. top to bottom. >> congressman, i will give you a chance to answer right now if you want to. kay, you asked about immigration. the borders are important. i do not like the 10,000 page bills that are out there where who knows what is shoved in there, right? i want to implement practices because when they are smaller and more transparent, you can really see what is in there. reforming our legal system, 40% of those here illegally are -- have overstayed their visas. so, look at that. i want to do targeted approaches and i think that is the way it is going to be. moderator: you mentioned earlier

the transpacific partnership, one of you brought that up. congressman young, tell me, generally farmers and agricultural interests support that. labor unions do not. do you support it? rep. young: i had a great opportunity to visit with the farmers and the agriculture industry and manufacturing folks throughout the last two years. yesterday, i did my harvest tour. i do it annually. i was in red oak, clarinda, atlantic. we can have the best yield out there, right? the booming yields, record busting yields, but if we have no place to sell our grains, what is it all about? moderator: what do you say to the labor union people in your district who say, "this takes our jobs?" rep. young: uh, the provisions within the tpa that we passed before the tpp, the trade promotional authority, which dealt with labor and environmental guidelines and

sovereignty issues. and there is always the piece that goes -- called the trade adjustment assistance in case there are repercussions in our employment. there are some funds to help our workers in those times gain new skills as well. but there is an area in the pacific rim that is hungry for our goods and services. 95% of the world consumers are outside of america. if we want our economy to do ll, we need to start selling our goods and services to others. china -- we can show strength there. we will have respect there. moderator: mr. mowrer, you previously expressed support -- no, i'm sorry, opposition to the transpacific partnership -- what do you say to agricultural interests? southwest iowa is a big agricultural area. mr. mowrer: i think it is remarkable that the one area that the secretary clinton and trump agree on is a

opposition to the tpp, because they know it will ship american jobs overseas. it is something that congressman young supports. it is the one area they agreed that they know it is so dangerous for our future -- he does support. so, i grew up on a family farm to it i talked to farmers, they understand that we have trade deals that get our products to market but have appropriate protections. the tpp does not have proper environmental and labor standards in place. it would continue to ship jobs overseas. what i do support our number one, good trade deals. they do have appropriate provisions in place. but also the export import bank. the export import bank helps small businesses get their products to market. and move them overseas. the export import bank supports 1500 jobs in iowa. it cost the taxpayer nothing. it actually returns $1 billion to the treasury every year. and david young opposes the export import bank he voted against it, to shut it down. moderator: congressman young, a response? you oppose the export import bank? rep. young: it came up for reauthorization. it had been fraught with fraud,

people went to jail. and the majority of it went to the biggest corporations in the country, some that do not pay taxes. g.e., boeing. we reformed that and had it targeted to smaller businesses need to help your i do not think g.e. and boeing need the backing of the export import bank at all. mr. mowrer: even the governor said that iowa supports the export import bank because it does cost taxpayers nothing and supports 1500 jobs. >> i want to ask you, is there a trade deal that we currently have on the books that you think was a good examples or making sure that american jobs are protected? have we ever had one that is good enough for you and for american labor? mr. mowrer: again, we have to look at the protections in place. we have to have the negotiations that do ensure that the countries we are dealing with are paying their workers fairly, so that american workers can

compete. that there are environmental standards in place, so they are not polluting and americans have to shoulder that extra cost. again, we have to have good trade deals in the future -- >> but you have when you like, nafta, cafta, or would you agree with donald trump those are bad deals? mr. mowrer: they have their pros and cons. we have to do the cost benefit analysis to see if they will benefit more than they cost. when we talked about the agriculture provision of the tpp, there is some analysis that shows that it will provide short-term gains for some agricultural interests. but the cost comes with continuous ship american jobs overseas. that is not a good deal for americans. >> mr. young, the next congress will be reauthorizing the farm bill. the farm bill will likely include subsidies for the purchase of crop insurance. should there be some effort among congress members to sort of link that to environmental stewardship.

in other words, restrict the amount of farm chemicals that can be applied to farmland? rep. young: i don't know if we are going to get to the point where we are linking environmental stewardship with crop insurance. that debate will come. i know it is a big issue for the iowa crop insurance. last fall there was a budget deal i oppose that took $3 billion over the crop insurance program. farmers were depending on that, that was opening up the farm bill in the middle of it all -- i introduced a bill in a bipartisan way to get that restored and it passed as part of a five-year highway bill that i voted for and was signed into law. in the next farm bill, we want to make sure that we analyze the crop insurance system. we want to make sure that farmers do have skin in the game because taxpayers do as well. water quality initiatives are something i have been working on. being on the agricultural subcommittee, there is an equip fund, environmental quality incentive program. i worked to increase funding for that.

i also have a conservation bill that is bipartisan coming out. so, i don't want to dictate what happens here on our land from washington, d.c. when it comes to environmental quality and the water issues we have. the one-size-fits-all approach. but i do want there to be some resources because i care about this very much and i have the most population dense county in the state and police populated county in the state, adams county. we want to make sure we work together on this and i am at the table. >> mr. mowrer, there are democrats and your party who do think that voluntary approach is no working and it is time for the federal government to regulate farmers. do you agree? mr. mowrer: agriculture is a very important to me. mowrers have been farming since the mid-19th century. i think when you look at conservation, the ability of my two sons to fish someday, to hunt, to fish, to have clean

drinking water, these are important things. when you look at the farm bill as a vehicle to provide a safety net for farmers to invest in agriculture and invest in conservation techniques, it is a very good vehicle to do that. i think we do need to link incentives to you know, behavior. the farmers that i talk to when i travel around the district here is they want to do the right thing, they are trying to do the right thing, but they are also trying to run a business and make a profit. moderator: just to distill what you're saying, you would use the farm bill to leverage behaviors that might improve water quality? mr. mowrer: i think that funding of efforts for farmers to put in nitrogen removal, buffer strips, etc., the farm bill is the appropriate place to do that to the farmers i talk to want to do those things but they come at a large cost. providing that assistance to farmers to do the right thing, i think is the right approach and the appropriate use of the farm bill.

>> but would you support or oppose federal restrictions , which would regulate the amount of nitrogen, for example, that a farmer could put on his or her land? mr. mowrer: if farmers had been provided the ability to invest in all these areas and do those things, then they should be able to meet those criteria. moderator: go ahead, congressman. rep. young: if you wonder why we are losing so many farms and iowa, it is because of the heavy hand of the federal government. the rules and regulations that are choking farmers. i have a bill, beginning farmer loan program that is gaining headway. i want to make sure that the current farm loan program is extended to allow for environmental quality initiatives on their farms, as well as purchasing unused equipment. but another thing, the way we are losing our farms is through the death tax. i want to make sure that the family farmers passed on from generation to generation. my opponent supports the death tax. moderator: we will let you respond. mr. mowrer: first, let me say

there is no such thing as the death tax. it does not exist. now, there is an estate tax in place to ensure that billionaires like donald trump , who can go decades without paying their taxes, do pay their roads,are to ensure our military -- moderator: my point is about changing. we are talking about the death tax. an estate tax at a certain level. mr. mowrer: the estate tax, i do not support any changes to the current estate tax system. > you would oppose hillary clinton's proposal? mr. mowrer: i don't support any changes to the current estate tax. >> what tax priorities would you have if you were in congress, mr. mowrer? that you thinkes are really important to help with the economy, to get it going to help with job creation. mr. mowrer: absolutely. i think we need comprehensive tax reform. we need to lower the rates, we

need to broaden the base, we need to close loopholes for big companies -- like giving subsidies to big oil companies. when you look at the tax expenditures we have there passing the, buffet rule which ensures that people who make ensures that people who make more than $1 million a year through capital gains, for investments, more than $1 million a year pay taxes on that. it is called the buffet role because even warren buffett understands this is a huge loophole that the wealthiest folks take advantage of. >> the goal is to have more revenue coming in to the government or less? mr. mowrer: i think right now we have massive inequality. the economy is doing better. unemployment is lower, but too many people are not getting had ahead. yet, wall street is seeing record levels. we are seeing the richest americans do even better. and so those folks do need to pay their fair share so that every single american -- >> will revenue go up or down under your priorities? mr. mowrer: i think that revenue for the wealthiest americans would pay more of their fair share to make sure we have affordable education, they have access to the resources they need, that we have a strong

national defense and are investing in a future. >> mr. young, your top tax priorities. rep. young: i'll work with anybody. the president open the door on lowering corporate tax rates. if you wonder why so many companies are going overseas and not paying taxes here, we need to stop that. i want to stop that. so, lowering the corporate tax rate. bring it down to 15% to 20%. in return, you have to get rid of a lot of those credits, incentives, reductions. -- incentives, deductions. >> in what way? rep. young: the oil production tax credit. i do not think big oil needs that. there are 75,000 loopholes in the tax code. in the end, and there might be some that we keep, such as the interest yo deduction on mortgage, charitable giving,

because but for certain public policy reasons we want to promote things. whatever it is in the end, we have to make it permanent. we have to bring certainty to the tax code because there is over $4 trillion sitting on the sidelines were people want to invest in the economy and create jobs, and when you create jobs, you will create more tax revenue. i want to use that to drive down the deficit. >> so, you said your overall goal is to reduce or increase tax revenue? rep. young: bring certainty and i think more revenue would come in if there is more certainty and people are investing in the economy. >> what did you think of the warren buffett role? rep. young: i agree with my opponent on this. >> both of the presidential candidates have been talking about the need to invest in the nation's infrastructure. things like roads, but also things like airports. would you, mr. mowrer, vote to raise the federal gas tax or do you have some other tax in mind that would finance those kind of construction projects? mr. mowrer: i think we do need to look at the different revenue

streams available, but i absolutely believe we need to invest in infrastructure, roads, bridges, schools. when you look at america, when the greatest generation came home, they invested in our roads, bridges and schools. they invested in the big things. that is why america is the greatest nation on earth. that will require us to continue to invest in those areas. that sometimes means we have to have the revenue to invest in those areas. but it is very important. i was very disappointed that congressman young was the only member of the iowa delegation, one of only 64 members of congress, to vote against the highway bill. all along while iowa has the third most efficient roads and bridges and the country. i will ensure we invest more in infrastructure in iowa. moderator: congressman young? rep. young: my opponent knows that i voted for the five year highway bill that extended for five years. that was funded by president

obama. mr. mowrer: he can try to explain why he voted against it before he voted for it. >> the underlying question i started this discussion with is , how do you finance infrastructure projects, like fixing roads and bridges and the nation's airports? do you raise the gas tax or find other means to pay for those projects? mr. mowrer: with this economy and the folks i talked to in the district who are barely getting by, some of them, i do not think it is a good time to raise taxes. rep. young: i am on the transportation subcommittee. we have to make sure that there is equity and equality out there with new vehicles out there on the roads. i think you have to make sure that everyone is paying into the system. pay to play. nobody should ride for free. moderator: you were holding your tongue. mr. mowrer: one bill in particular i do support is a bipartisan effort presented by

john delaney that has 22 democratic sponsors, 19 republican cosponsors. it has the unique funding mechanism that would allow american companies that have profits sitting overseas to repatriate that money, putting into the infrastructure fund. the congressional budget office predicts with this would spur tens of billions of dollars of new investment. moderator: we have more topics than we have time. >> a bunch of states have started to legalize marijuana in one way or another. but the federal laws are still on the books. and they are not being enforced. would you going to congress and vote to repeal those laws and let states manage marijuana however they want? would you enforce those laws and rollback the marijuana -- you know, laws that states are doing, or would you continue to just look the other way? mr. mowrer: well, i think this is a states rights issue. i think it should be up to individual states. if some states want to legalize, if they want to have medical

exceptions, i think that should be up to the individual states. i think we need to update the federal law to reflect what is happening in the country. i think a run approach is to continue to throw americans in jail for minor drug offenses. that is why we are seeing so many problems that we have with our criminal justice system. i think it is a states rights issue and i think it should be up to the individual states. >> do you agree? let's ask about sentencing reform. would you roll back some of those nonviolent offenses? rep. young: i would. i am on a bipartisan bill to do that. nonviolent offenders who maybe do some dumb stuff in their early years, or however old they are, i believe in second chances. i would put the drug kingpin's away, but the occasional user who may be busted for something, no. because that -- >> would you take those marijuana laws off the books that are being ignored right now? rep. young: that is the thing.

we have these laws that are not being enforced. i think they should be enforced. i would like to have states have more jurisdiction over these things. it should not be happening unless you repeal any kind of federal law. i am for moving marijuana from the schedule i to schedule ii of controlled substances because i think that there can be some great research involved there to help with medical marijuana. i am for oil, because i have met many families looking for treatment for their loved ones. that is why am a big supporter of the 21st century cures act. >> how would you deal with the >> how would you deal with the border issues that arise when you go from state to state? rep. young: i think there should be agreements between states, a permit, some kind of waiver for that because there is not potency within dial oil anyway.

mowrer, what sort of gun restriction would you enforce, if any, to be elected. on aowrer: i grew up family farm. gun owners hunting, i am a gun owner, i served in the military and slept within assault rifle in the -- a war zone. i am very comfortable with guns and i believe in the second amendment that we have to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers, and we need to have universal background checks. every single gun purchase in this country, that person should undergo a background check. we need to pass know by -- .o-fly, no buy it is a common sense approach. -- when he when was was in iowa, said he was in favor. he voted 27 times in congress to block it from coming to a vote.

those were procedural votes and did not have the duke ross s -- due process. i am for taking people on the terror watch list, taking away their guns. only if there is due process that there are americans on that list that should not be on that list. the second amendment is important, the constitution is important to me and the district. then? disagree, rep. young: i don't listen to them. i look at the constitution. we ran through the judiciary committee. ago you expressed the belief there should be something that could be done to make sure people who are suffering from mental illness do not get their hands on a gun. a year later, what should congress do in that regard? mentalar about the

health issues all over the district. it is a big issue for islands. a bipartisan bill that has made its way through the house already that addresses , takes a multitude of health programs and puts them under an umbrella. we talking about gun violence. we want to make sure those who are not mentally capable of understanding a weapon and what it is for, they shouldn't be allowed to have done. that should be taken away but they should also be given the right to petition if they get better. >> we have talked about a lot of issues in the last hour but congress has been so dysfunctional that voters may not believe that anything you say you would like to do is going to get done. how do you break through that dysfunction and make sure the things you propose are actually possible? this has been a divisive

election and we need folks to go to washington in a bar partisan way -- bipartisan way and get things done. as the army's lead representative to the council of governors. i oversaw business transformation, both democrats and republicans on those committees. caucus -- a post-9/11 caucus is made up of democrats and republicans and they have found it bipartisan way, they are folks who worked in a bipartisan way. using bipartisan, and recorddon't think your or your proposal, who is to believe you will work in a bipartisan way or your record reflects that.

everything i have done has been in a bipartisan way. we've got amendments passed in a bipartisan way. my bill to fix the veterans 357 yeas.e has i know how to get things done. you have to work across the aisle to do that because if you just pick up partisan fights, you can't override a veto. young isr: when david in iowa, he says one thing. when he goes home to washington, d.c., he does another. he says pay no attention to my record, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. of results and a bipartisan way working in the executive branch to get in stunned and that is what i will do in -- get things done and

that is what i will do in congress. rep. young: check out my record. i am proud of it. i know enough to not promise i am going to get things done in washington, d.c. because i have seen what has happened there and those who promise too much break promises and that white -- that is why we have the frustration. >> we are out of time. thank you both. we will be back next week with another edition of iowa press. roundtableeporters at that time on the final weekend before election 2016. that is iowa press on iowa public television, 7:30 and again on sunday. for our crew at the art center of iowa western college, thanks for joining us. [applause]

>> c-span's washington journal, life every day with news and policy issues that impact you. this week we are focusing on presidential battleground states leading up to election day. coming up this morning, it is florida. susan mcmanus, political science professor, talks about the latest developments in the state in the presidential race and t statewide races. at past voting history and why political races are so competitive in the state. then, the chairman discusses the , aston strategy in florida well as advertising, voter enthusiasm, and other down ballot races.

trumpe gop and the campaign strategy, messaging in florida and how this election differs from previous ones. watch c-span's washington journal, coming up this morning. join the discussion. with the supreme court back in session, we have a special update to help you follow the court. , selectw.c-span.org supreme court on the top of the page. you will see a calendar for this term, a list of current justices , supreme court on demand, watch arguments we have aired and c-span appearances by supreme court justices at www.c-span.org . now, a debate in the race for u.s. senate in florida. marco rubio takes on patrick murphy. sen. rubio: to race in june, following an unsuccessful presidential bid.

this race is rated a tossup. this is a special presentation, live from the campus of broward college. , mades. senate debate possible by the financial support of leadership florida, the florida press association the black alliance for education , florida realtors, southeastern credit union and affiliates, and the children's movement of florida. now, here is your moderator, todd mcdermott. welcome.vening and to our national audience on c-span. .ur panelists tonight first, the rules tonight and

they are quite simple. each has 90 seconds to answer a question. all follow-ups are 32nd responses at the discretion of the moderator. and that is me. my coin toss, congressman murphy, you have the opening statement tonight. rep. murphey: thank you very much. i decided to get involved in public service because i was tired of the name-calling. i am proud of what highest accomplished in washington. one of my greatest achievements was work thing with republicans and democrats to authorize $2 billion of funding for everglades. i worked across the party lines to assure that we prevent cuts to medicare advantage. i am proud of legislation i passed to help lower flood insurance rates and help our citrus farmers. inse accomplishments are stark contrast to my opponent who doesn't even show up to work. sen. rubio:'s the worst voting

record in nearly 50 years. and has gone to endorse donald trump. a man who he does not trust with the nuclear codes. that is why florida's main newspapers have endorsed me. including his hometown paper because they know i will show up to work every day for the people of florida. for rubio: thank you hosting this debate and i appreciate the opportunity. here is the choice in the election. elections are about clear choices and this is a clear choice. between someone like myself who is proud of his service in the senate and florida legislature. i have things i have been able to do on behalf of florida here for example, the central everglades project has been stuck in limbo and has passed because i was able to convince colleagues of mine to become a supporter of it. foreign aid is

leveraged to make sure we are taking on human trafficking because of the girls town act that i passed. jacksonville and riviera beach are under investigation because of the pressure i put on them. time again, i have proven i can get things done and encourage voters to compare that to congressman murphy's record. he cites examples of achievements that aren't true. he has been there for four years and no one even noticed. this is a clear record and clear difference. toare two important estate have a senator who does not know how to get things done. i do and i will. moderator: senator, thank you. gentlemen, each of your campaigns has been targeted by a criticism. we begin by allowing you to address that directly. congressman murphy, i will begin with you. you have been attacked during this campaign as someone who has padded his resume. we know you never became a

cpa in florida and you ran a cleanup business with your father for less than six months. explain why this experience qualifies you for the work in the u.s. senate. you for this thank question and i am grateful for political, and independent fact checking agency that has gone through these and independent ft checking agency that has gone through these accusations and the last seven claims of mr. rubio have been debunked. rated is false. got my license in 2009, 1 of nine cpas in the house of representatives and if elected, the second cpa in the history of our country to serve there. use a few mored cpas. i am proud of what i was able to do to prevent some of the oil that was coming down our west coast. would be quite

willing to put up my experience in the private sector as a cpa and small-business person against my opponent, who has been a career politician his entire career. we need changes in washington, d.c. and mr. rubio has been nothing but do the bidding for interest groups. we all know he never shows up to work but when he does, he has a 98% voting record with a right-wing special interest group. i believe we can do more and am proud of my accomplishments. i have been able to bring home money to help with research for citrus farmers, to help the everglades. was able to work just recently to help our veterans. i will continue to reach across the aisle to solve these problems in the senate to help the people of florida. moderator: thank you. sen. rubio: you said that you would serve a full 16 -- six year term in the senate,

willing. you used that qualifier four times in the debate. you were convinced that this senate race was one you needed to even though you had said he would not run. is god willing a way out in case prayer issues a way to change your mind western mark sen. rubio: -- change your mind? sen. rubio: god willing is something i always say. no matter what happens on november 8, november 9, the sun will rise and the creator of the universe will be on the throne and everything will be ordered by him. --is not a qualifier, it was it is what i truly believe. i think congressman murphy is living up to his reputation as an embellish her. told people his experience as a cpa was going to make him a

good congressman. the problem is he doesn't have any. in florida, he does not have a license to be a cpa. you cannot work as one without a license. he still does not have one. he talked about helping clean up the oil spill. he did not. independent fact checkers confirm he did not have a contract to do so. he makes them up because he has nothing real to point to. he talked about $2 million he was able to raise for the everglades. no he didn't. those were suggested by the army corps of engineers along time ago. he had nothing to do with it and they would have passed without them. he did not do anything but sign onto a letter. he did not save medicare advantage and has no record of achievement. i encourage people to compare that to what i done in tallahassee and over the past six years. there are sanctions on has blocked because of a bill i passed.

on and on. thank you sir. if you voted as much as you live, you would be a decent senator but you continue to throw out these lies that have been defunct by political act. i am proud of what i have done and am willing to put that up to your record. we were just asked this questions about your comment about not running for office. let's rewind. you said 10,000 times, that you were not going to run for senate again. the day before qualifying, you through your name backing. months toou four admit to voters you want this job. all of the sudden the polls are dead tied and he tells you he is going to spend a full term. florida deserves better than that. he keepso: the reason bringing this up about me changing my mind is it would have been easier for him to win

if i hadn't. that is why he is upset i decided to run. we are 10 minutes into the debate and you have been given two chances to talk about your experience and you happen. florida is not -- is the third-largest state and may become the second. a key state in our country. every issue before america has a presence here. we cannot afford to have someone in the senate who has never gotten anything done. i encourage people to compare that to my record of getting things done bill after bill, law after law. and being if i could, a referee is difficult. we have so much to get into. the next question is social security. year youarlier this would increase age for social security, 67 to 70 the required age. you are telling people they will have to work three extra years.

is not correct. as the law stands, the ages going up incrementally. 45 -- andt me, who is i would say that for me, instead of retiring at 67, i would have to retire at 67 and a half. nothing would change for people who are retired or about to retire. on socialrelies security and medicare for her sustenance. i don't want that to change. but yes, for younger workers there is going to have to be smaller changes or it won't exist. these programs are going encrypted. anyone who tells you we can leave it as it is is lying to you. the likelier it is going to be that we have to disrupt these programs for people who are retired. i don't want to see that happen. is critical to my mother and people in my

family, i want this program to survive and thrive and be there when i and my children retire. but it won't be if we continue on the corset is on now. >> congressman murphy, you said you would oppose cutting limits or reduce benefits based on income. what will you do to protect social security? moderator: there is the stark contrast when it comes to -- rep. murphey: that is the stark contrast. i believe these are the top achievements in our country. they have brought more people out of poverty than anything else. money, my opponent has taken millions of dollars from special interest groups that want to take -- dismantle these programs. which explains why he said social security and medicare have weakened us as a people. two -- senator rubio wants to turn medicare into a voucher program.