big pharma and big insurance. he will complain, but he has done nothing to fix the problem. jim: let's talk about iran. you have expressed your complete support for the nuclear deal. since that deal was signed, iran has fired four nuclear capable ballistic missiles, two of them with the word israel must be wiped out written in hebrew. iran has also held 10 american sailors hostage at gunpoint. has any of this ever given you pause that may be the iran nuclear deal wasn't such a good idea? ms. mcginty: i think this underscores the fact that iran is not a friend of the united states.

that is why it was absolutely unacceptable that iran would be allowed to gain nuclear capability. in my analysis, yes, the agreement on the table was the best way to ensure that iran would not have nuclear capability. however, i've been very clear that we cannot tolerate any violation of either the nuclear deal itself, or other u.n. resolutions, including with respect to ballistic missile tests. i've been very public on the administration for tough sanctions. what we can't do is what senator toomey has done. he missed 90% of key committee meetings and hearings on the issue. number two, when he did show up, he voted in directions that make us less safe, voting against closing loopholes in the visa waiver program, voting against closing loopholes that allow terrorists to buy guns in the country. jim: thank you. we appreciate your response. mr. toomey. you now have the floor.

sen. toomey: unfortunately, we know katie mcginty was dishonest about her family story, she was dishonest, blatantly so about the ads, and now she's being dishonest about my record in congress. look, it was a terrible, terrible failure of judgment to give $150 billion to the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism. as we gather here this evening, the iranian parliament has not ratified the agreement. no iranian government official has signed the agreement. they don't consider themselves bound by the agreement. but katie mcginty thinks it is fine. it is not fine. they are launching ballistic missiles that are precisely designed to carry nuclear warheads. ask yourself, if their intention was to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons, why would they spend millions of dollars developing the ability to deliver nuclear weapons? as i said before, this is part of a disturbing pattern by the administration to essentially grant hegemony to this iranian axis that extends from the mediterranean. they are hostile to the united states. they will have nuclear weapons soon. that will probably trigger a nuclear arms race with a sunni arab country. this was a bad agreement.

jim: i need a response of about 35 or 40 seconds. we are coming to the end. mr. toomey, i watched an interview you did on cnbc in 2007 when you called for the elimination of all corporate taxes. you said, let's not tax corporations. let them compete most aggressively on the global economy. if you had your druthers, would you get rid of corporate income tax? sen. toomey: i wouldn't. that was an inartful way to convey a simple message. the message is this. you can raise taxes on business if you like, but who pays that? they don't have a printing press in the basement. if you raise taxes, it ends up being paid by the customers of the business, who buy the products at higher prices. my point is, we should have a simpler tax code. this thing is terribly unfair. it is loaded with corporate

welfare, the kind that katie likes so she can reward her preferred industries. i hate corporate welfare. i have been the tip of the spear in the senate trying to end it. so much of it runs through the tax code. what we certainly shouldn't do is all of the middle class tax increases that katie mcginty has advocated, including income -- jim: that leads to my next question. ms. mcginty, you called for raising the ceiling on income for social security taxes from $118,000 to $250,000. you are also supporting a democratic bill that calls for a .2% payroll tax increase to fund personal and family leave. you said you would not support an increase in middle-class taxes. aren't they just that?

ms. mcginty: no, i've been clear i don't support any increase in middle-class taxes. in fact, my whole campaign has been about putting forward tax cuts for middle class families. jim: but aren't they increases? ms. mcginty: let me accurately describe my proposal for social security. i very much disagree with senator toomey, who wants to hand social security over to wall street. that would be $1 trillion in fees for his friends on wall street, but would ruin the retirement security of seniors. i say millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share to shore up social security. the senator just tried to change history on his own record. he's on record repeatedly saying he would eliminate all corporate taxes. he's on record pushing legislation that would cut taxes for millionaires by $300,000, while increasing taxes on middle-class families by $3000. and the corporate welfare does not end there. jim: that is all the time we have right now for questions and answers. the candidates will each have 90 seconds for closing statements. i think they have some things they want to say. [laughter]

jim: by random draw, katie mcginty goes first. ms. mcginty: thanks to you and everybody for joining us and tuning in. this country was based on a basic idea. if you work hard, you can get ahead. that was certainly the story in the mcginty family. a total no complaint zone. you pick yourself up by your own bootstraps, all 10 of us kids, but when we were being raised, if you worked hard, you could pursue your dreams. now what i see out there in every part of the commonwealth is that people are giving us their all, with pride and dignity and trying their best. but those bills are tough to pay. you have heard spirited debate here. i will go to bat for working families and the middle class. frankly, it is those very same families that senator toomey has left behind, foreclosing on them in a predatory fashion, while he made money on his own banks. tried to take away hard-earned social security and handing that over to wall street. refusing to stand up to china,

when china doesn't play by the rules, and takes our manufacturing jobs away. this i know. we have a very bright future to give people the tools to succeed, no handouts. decent schools, college that is affordable, job training and apprenticeship programs. when we do that, no one can compete with the american worker. we will compete and win. i am katie mcginty. thank you for having me here tonight. i ask you for the honor of your vote and support in this election. jim: pat toomey. [applause] sen. toomey: thank you, jim. first, let me say, it has been an extraordinary honor to have the privilege to be the u.s. senator from pennsylvania for these last six years. you have heard tonight that there is substantial differences. if you want someone who will be a rubber stamp for the hillary clinton administration, katie mcginty is your candidate. if you want somebody who is going to be independent and will criticize the president when he is wrong from whichever party, i will be that candidate.

you know, katie and i differ very strongly on many issues. you heard her defend the iran nuclear deal, which i'm certain is a bad deal for the united states. she's also a supporter of sanctuary cities, which i think endanger us in our communities. our differences are probably as stark as anything on economic issues. i met with families all across the commonwealth. i met with people who wonder why this economy isn't working for them. why is it that some people are doing fine if they are a multimillionaire let katie? the hard-working families in counties all across the commonwealth have been falling behind. it is because of failed policies in washington. too much taxes, overspending, massive deficits, and way too much regulation. is it any wonder we are not getting the prosperity we need? katie mcginty would double down on the failed policies.

i want to move in a different direction that frees up our economy to begin creating the jobs and elevating the standard of living we've been waiting for. i would be grateful for your vote on november 8. [applause] jim: that concludes tonight's debate. we would like to thank the candidates for appearing tonight. we would also like to thank our host, temple university. we would like to thank you for watching tonight. i'm jim gardner for action news. we leave you with these final words from the league of women voters. >> i'm susan, president of the league of women voters of pennsylvania. on behalf of our league members and the voters of pennsylvania, i extend our sincere thank you to the candidates, and to the moderator jim gardner, for providing this opportunity for pennsylvania voters to see the candidates for u.s. senate, and to hear their stance on the most important issues facing our commonwealth and our country. now, it is your turn for your voice to be heard.

election day is tuesday, november 8. make sure you go to the polls and vote. it is your right and civic duty. ♪ [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> c-span's washington journal, life every day with news and policy issues that affect you. day,g up, election democracy project director will provide -- from the partisan policy center. a recent joint report on immigration and micro-communities in the united states and how the current

political debate is affecting these communities and immigration issues overall. in syndicated columnist dan coulter joins us from new york to talk about the election and her book. about donald trump's rise to become the gop presidential nominee. c-span's washington journal live sunday morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. ♪ >> after i came up with this idea -- first of all i did research and this is definitely the case with a lot of pieces that will be done for this competition but mental illness especially is a complicated issue, not black and white will stop it is so multifaceted i had to research to get knowledge about what i wanted to talk about in this these. it is so complicated in and i can't talk about it all in 5-7

minutes i had to decide what i wanted to talk about. >> i had a focal point i wanted to focus on. i decided to interview my parents before i started shooting. i researched this topic extensively. pharmacy, i talked to my mama and colleagues and coworkers. research andernet i actually went to the library. back to and statistics about employment a.m. to see really what was going on. most of the information that i got off of the internet came from government founded websites so that is how i knew that most of the information that i was getting was legitimate. >> this year's same, your message to the tell us, what is the most urgent issue to address in 2017.

our competition is open to all middle school or high school students grade 6-12. $100,000 awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone or in groups up to three to produce a documentary on the issue selected. include c-span programming and include differing opinions. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150 students and 53 teachers. the $5,000 grand prize will go to the student or team with the best entry. mark your calendars and help us spread the word to student filmmakers. or more information, go to our website studentcam.org. day, november 8, the nation decides our next president and which party controls the house and senate. stay with c-span for coverage of the presidential race including

campaign stops with hillary, donald trump, in their surrogates. c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> now, to south carolina and the candidates running for the u.s. house fourth congressional seat. they debated criminal justice reform, immigration policy, and the solvency of social security. it is about 45 minutes. democracyresentative requires deliberation. we'll be talking a little bit more about james madison later in the program. i did give the candidates a head's up that james madison would be on the program. i will catch you folks up to speed. presumably they have already done the reading. we have to be able to have deliberation and substantive exchanges of ideas to reconcile competing views we have in a democracy. we don't all agree with each other all the time or sometimes even most of the time.

and so we've got to be able to have conversations that allow us to explore what's in the national interests, not just what is in our own self-interest. i hope this evening's experiment will help us do a little bit of that. we're happy to have four of the congressional candidates for senate in the fourth congressional district with us. we have mr. chris fedalei. congressman trey gowdy, republican who currently holds the fourth congressional district seat. we have with us, i will introduce them in a little bit, pastor thomas dixon, democratic challenger for the senate race in south carolina and senator tim scott, the republican who currently holds that seat. our format this evening will be 40 minute segments where we have just two house candidates. i will be asking them a variety of questions about issues. then we'll have 40 minutes with the two senate candidates and

then we'll have 20 minutes with everyone all together. we'll try to divide it up a little bit. they have all agreed to abide by same standard i require of my students in class discussion. they can agree, they, i would be thrilled if they agree. they can disagree, do so passionately, but must do so respectfully. they will not monopolize the conversation. i do not have firm time limits here. you don't time each other in a conversation but they will not monopolize the conversation. and under no circumstances will they talk over each other. should they fail to abide by these standards, it will result in stern glares, and warnings, and no doubt a reintroduction of their participation grades for the evening. [laughter]. i will let you know how they did at the end. questions tonight have come from a variety of sources.

i have actively asked for groups on campus a variety of student groups and groups in the community to send me their questions. i have encouraged individuals to send me questions. i have received numerous emails from folks in the community, suggesting questions. i have been accosted by lovely elderly ladies in the grocery store who told me what i needed to ask them. i will not be able to ask all of these questions but i have tried to get ones that seemed most relevant to congress. so no, they're not going to tell you how to fix potholes in south carolina. sorry, that will stay for another day with state legislators but we will see how many of these issues we can cover this evening. so welcome to our house candidates. thank you, gentlemen, for being here. >> thank you for having us.

>> moderator: as i mentioned there are a variety of topics i want to cover. i want you two to focus on something your campaigns told me are important to each of you. the campaign sent me two issues that were important to each campaign. i trust that your staff consulted with you on this and this won't be a surprise. if it is you can feel free to call them out right here and now. all right. mr. fedalei, i will start with you. one of issues you're concerned about, trans-pacific partnership agreement, with 12 nations and u.s. and particularly the impact on american workers. tell me a little bit about your concerns there and what you as a member of congress would do on this issue. >> that's right. thank you again for having us tonight. good to be all of you. trade is hot button issue. a source of agreement between two presidential candidates. they're both united in their opposition against the trans-pacific partnership. this deal is one that was negotiated in secret, and was negotiated without the interests of american worker at heart. to me that's a fundamental flaw. because of that you have a trade deal less about free trade between countries and more about special interest gifts embedded in very large, very complicated trade deal.

because of the trade promotion authority would go through congress without one minute of debate on extremely consequential trade deal. to me that is fundamental flaw at a time when people trust their government and less satisfied with congress than ever before, it is incredibly important we actually have debate in the people's house on such a complicated, important trade deal. it is one that would hurt american wages. it's one that would allow foreign companies to sue the american government because of issues they don't like because of our own congress's efforts to protect our people and it undermines our sovereignty as a result. it's a bad deal and one i'm not supporting. one we should not be

supporting. moderator: i'm assuming if were elected to congress you would vote against the tray deal? >> that's correct. moderator: would you like to respond and i have a follow up if you don't want to follow up. >> thank you, professor for doing this chris, thank you everyone who is here tonight for participating. i would be remiss if we had an event at fuhrman university discussing civility and substance and public discourse without acknowledging the man for whom the government school is named, governor dick riley, who has personified civility for his entire time in public service. with respect to tpp, chris and i agreed. tim and i voted for it. pa because we wanted you to read it. pp. now that you read it, which surmised reached same conclusion the two of us have reached it is not in america's best interest. but i would caution you to keep this in mind. we are in one of the most trade investment districts in entire country. think.

we have the general counsel of tonight, a law classmate of mine. bmw. ge does not sell gas turbines in spartanburg. they sell them overseas. we're a trade intensive district. we benefit from trade. it has to be fair for the american worker. tpp is not. why both major presidential candidates are opposed to it, which it will not come before the house this year. if it did i would vote no. moderator: let me play devil's advocate for a minute. two things. one, if we don't do tpp does

this affect us negatively in terms of our political influence in the region? is that a risk, a cost we're willing to bear? is that a cost we're willing to acknowledge? >> well certainly a -- well, i don't want, i am nervous about getting a bad grade. [laughter] >> you're fine. i will give him a chance. go. >> go ahead, congressman. >> yes, which is why you negotiate these trade agreements in the first place because, nature abhores a vacuum and if the united states is not trading with our, with our friends in the pacific, then china will. that's why we rush to negotiate this trade deal, is because if we stand down, china will move in to our place. so there are trade considerations. there are geopolitical considerations. but the first rule of thumb should be, even separate, apart from the geopolitical considerations, is it in our workers best interests? they did renegotiate some of the textile provisions. i give them credit. textile is still alive and well in south carolina. they renegotiated the yarn rule. it is still not good enough to support. maybe we need to go back to the bargaining table. i don't want china to establish relationships to exclusivity of the united states but i'm also not willing to sign a trade deal just because of a fear that china will step into the vacuum.

>> yeah, and certainly one of the important things to remember is that most of these countries are already, our trade partners. the majority of them have already signed into the world trade organization which requires member countries to abide by a series of free trade principles and policies. that is why tpp is not what it is billed to be and not factually in the interests of the american worker because it is not again about necessarily improving our trade relationships but it's about a series of special interests write-ins. this deal was negotiated in secret by a bunch of corporate attorneys that don't really care about the american worker and that is why it is not in our interest. moderator: i will resist the urge to talk about why the deals are made in secret. the constitution was written in secret but i get your point. i'll give you that one.

>> that is our job at representatives to make sure. moderator: let's go to different issue. congressman gowdy, one of the issues your staff told me was very important to you is criminal justice reform. what should congress be doing on that? >> we have a good head start. we've been meeting about a year in secret, i'm afraid to say. [laughter] but i'll tell you why it has been in secret. it won't be a secret anymore. cory booker is someone that i have tremendous respect for. i consider him to be a friend. it is not easy for democrat senator from new jersey to admit to being friends with a republican congressman from south carolina. so we go to dinner and we discuss it. tim scott is sitting right there and hakeem jeffries and bobby scott. been to the white house twice, which is not in either president obama or my best interest to admit to but i've been to the white house twice on criminal justice reform. important?

because we have incarcerated young black males bawls of a acre yo between cocaine powder and cocaine base that defies any rational explanation. the punishment for cocaine base, known as crack cocaines was 100 times severe than cocaine powder. you know the difference between cocaine base and cocaine powder? baking soda. what is it about baking soda is 100 times more deleterious, currently 18 times? i'm a big -- i spent 16 years in in the criminal justice system. overarching of state government is public safety and overarching of the federal government is national security. i will take a back seat to know one on safety and security of our dellow citizens. what we're doing in war on drugs is not working. people lost confidence in the criminal justice as evidence nightly news almost every night. which is why i'm proud of this friend on the front row decided, let's get faith leaders, faith leaders and law enforcement all across south carolina together to see what we can do as a south

carolina solution. we're doing it nationally, professor but as you know the overwhelming majority of crime is state, state crime. when i was a state prosecutor we had 10,000 cases a year! as a federal prosecutor they gave you award if you did 100 a year. overarching majority of the crime is state. which is why the remedy ought to be state but fine for us to look at it in congress. that's what we've been doing for 12 months. moderator: response to any of that or offer? >> i absolutely would love to, criminal justice reform is the number one issue of our campaign. there is a reason for that. this is a massive injustice that has been going on in our country for much longer than a year. since this has been going on for decades where we disproportionately incarcerate millions of black and brown men for crimes they don't need to be in prison for first place and sentence them under mandatory minimums causes them to essentially have a life destroyed for something you shouldn't be in prison for in the first place. that's number one. number two, it is the fact this has been going on for so long, you know, it really shouldn't be a surprise.

i'm surprised that 12 months ago was the first time you decided to work on this, this has been going on in our country for decades. this is not the first generation to suffer from disproportionate sentencing, from disproportionate incarceration. if you have an ear to the ground, if you understand people here, you know this has been an issue in the community for decades under democratic and republican president with tough on crime bills. increasing escalating war on drugs. that does not help anyone an cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year and we don't get anything for it. we don't get safer streets. we don't get lower drug use rates. what we do get is a massive

source of government waste and a massive injustice perpetrated across this country for generations, not just one and not just in the past 12 months. [applause] moderator: go ahead. go ahead. >> i agree it is not a new issue and in 1997 is the very first time i said no to mandatory minimums in drug cases. you may have been in elementary school in 1997. no offense to you. i was wish i was young as you are. i was a federal prosecutor. it wasn't popular back then to be opposed to mandatory minimums. with respect to what we've done over the last year, i will remind you, democrats had the house, senate and white house from 2008 to 2010. they did not lift a finger on criminal justice reform for two years. not a single bill was introduced, for two years when they had the control of all the years of government. it is only been in the last year that the president invited us to the white house to discuss criminal justice reform. so i'm not a johnny-come-lately to the issue. i am a johnny-come-lately to the white house. that is when i was invited. [applause]

>> congressman referenced two years the democrats were in control of the house. but how about the six years since then? not like been in position of disadvantage when it comes to the power and ability to introduce bills. if congress wanted to make this a priority they would. simple fact congress made nothing done a priority. there is reason 13% approval rate for this congress. one that is well-deserved frankly. you have a historically unproductive congress with historically low approval rating. and you know, let me put it this way. there aren't a whole lot of jobs where you can work 2/3 of the year, not get anything done, collect six-figure salary. moderator: i will interrupt you. we're coming that issue later in the program when everybody is on stage. i want to hold off. >> that is perfect illustration. moderator: hold that thought. all right. i want to follow up a little bit, i'm looking at my watch, trying to figure out how many of

these issues i can fit in. this is one a lot of students asked me about, so still in criminal justice vein of things and i heard so many students expressing frustration with this i want to raise it with both of you. students right now have been talking to me a lot about concerns about institutional racism within the criminal justice system. and particularly where we're hearing most about that from their perspective is the high-profile cases where it appears that there has been disproportionate use of force by police officers, particularly against african-american young men. and so i want to know from you, is there anything that congress can do in addressing that issue, understanding that a lot of law enforcement is done at the state level as you pointed out earlier? is there a role for congress to play as we look at some of these

kinds of issues of police training and community policing that congress or the national government could help encourage or direct? >> well i would start off by saying that there is a lot that the congress can do to address this issue. if they wanted to make it a they could have would have done long ago when we knew it was issue. it is troubling to me because on one hand we ask police officers to do too much. one of the common things i hear when i talk to law enforcement officers they have to be not only a cop, but they have to be a social worker, they have to be a psychiatrist, they have to be a guidance counselor, all rolled into one. and part of the problem with that is that we have failing schools. we don't educate, we don't treat our children well enough for them to get on the right track and stay on the right track. also we slashed mental health care funding. gowdy was insman office.

the fact we lock up peopl ewho tod reatment makes it harder assess danger in any given situation. blind eyeturn a and it's notrocess situation.able the best and most effective officers are those who are liked and not feared. >> i know we're not getting that until the last segment but i can't help, we're talking about education which is a state matter. we're talking criminal justice system 90% of which is a state

matter and mental health, the bulk of which of the funding is provided for the state level. i get congress is not popular at a get there's a tendency to want to blame us for everything but state and local law enforcement is not a function of congress. the fbi yes. atf, ea yes. there's only one person on the prosectuted aever enforcement officer. that would be me. there are bad apples in every profession. they are even bad lawyers, chris. believe it or not. they are bad everything which is why we are going around the state-run to get people safe, states a law-enforcement to work together. i find it interesting, i assume

by lawe greeted enforcement when you got here bw enforcement when you got here tonight. i know i was. we trust them to provide security for us at every level of our life from the moment we got out of our truck tonight until the moment we leave this campus, we trust law enforcement. the last time i was at a firm in was to bury a law-enforcement officer, alan jacobs field with your, and thank you to ferment to opening their arms to him and his silly. so yes, i support law enforcement. i think there are to be more training, but that's a state issue. it's not a congressional issue if you're not talking about federal law enforcement. >> i want to fall but because that is, i asked the question explicitly is there a role for congress. you seem to think it is but what exactly do you think congress should be doing? >> congress's biggest and most brought power is the power of the person believe it or not congress does put a very large role in education it was a great role in mental health care. you have to keep in mind the importance of the federal government leadership on issues. we've had many times in history where it was the federal

government was able to take the role instead of for something that's right in the principles we really stand for as a country. empower and law enforcement, we can provide more mental health care funding and better turning. we can provide grants and to send programs to local enforcement for extended training, more in-depth training that will empower them to do their jobs in a way that is beneficial to both their own safety and the communities and relationship with the communities they work with. [applause] >> i'm looking forward to that portion of the discussion where we talked about the debt. we are $20 trillion in debt and everything you just mentioned is involving money. i will agree with you that the federal government has led in a thousand most significant issues in our culture. i will tell you south carolina has led, too. when nine of our fellow citizens were murdered in charleston it was those nine family members, those nine families that led the nation in grace and humanity and

forgiveness. so south carolina can lead. it doesn't always have to be the federal government. every once in a while it can be a state. when it comes to race relations and law enforcement, what happened when walter scott was shot in charleston? he is charged with murder which is the most serious thing you can be charged with in the state of south carolina and that was exactly the right choice. so south carolina can lead. it doesn't have to be the federal government. every now and again it can be a state. [applause] moderator: i want to shift gears a little bit and turned to an issue that's been largely absent from the presidential campaign, though it has been a persistent issue for a number of years, and that is a long-term health of social security.

i looked these up yesterday, the latest projections are that if we change nothing about our current system, the government will be able to pay only about 79% of benefits beginning around 2034, 18 years from now, in time for me to retire. i have a vested interest in your answer. are there specific measures, not asking you to solve all of social security right now, but are there specific measures that you would be willing to support to provide for the long-term sustainability of social security? >> social security is a program that helps millions of americans and we need to make sure that we do everything to preserve and protect it. we are not going to cut benefits and we not going to raise the age to qualify for social security. this is a promise we made to our fellow citizens. what we can do is remove the caps on the payroll taxes that fund social security which if we did would make us solving, it solvent,e

period. considering how complicated the problem is, it's amazing to me that to me what seems like a logical sensible thing to do, that's just and fair to the promises we kept our seniors, and yet congress has still failed to do. six years as longtime to not do anything and considering so many millions of americans are asking the same question, will social security be there when i retire? that congress has not made it a larger priority, given organizations have advocated so firmly and i've met with these people that volunteer their time to protect this program that they're planning on, relying on.

rep. gowdy: chris, if you think six years as longtime, how about 8? that's how long the president has been in the white house. he's never proposed any remedy for social security. it's politically not popular so i'll do something else that's political not popular. i will tell you the truth. a government big enough to keep its promise for seniors ought to be good enough to tell young people the truth and the truth is this. when social security went into effect there were 16 workers for every recipient. 16 workers for every recipient. by the time the students at fuhrman become eligible for social security there will be two workers for every recipient. so i'm fine raising the cap, but you also have to raise the retirement age. you're so the good news. we are living longer. we should celebrate that. when sociasecul ty went into effect the life expectancy for black males was less than their eligibility age. talk about allows a retirement plan, you were going to die before you are eligible to draw your retirement. thank god we are living longer. life expectancy for women is 80 years. so i would ask the young people, are you willing to work six more months, nine more months? are you willing to make am unwilling to work another year. i'm willing to work another year if it means it is solvent for you.

social security disability, and the disability has gone up exponentially in the last 20 years. i want you to think of this. there is an advocate for the claim that in the hearing room for the no advocate in the hearing room. which is why certain districts in west virginia there's a 99% approval rate. for social security disability. 99. that's where i think you can see some waste and fraud and abuse

reductions. i am fine with raising the amount, the capital what i contribute to social security if it will make it solvent for the young people out there, and i'm sure they will be willing to work six more months to make it solvent for their kids and their grandkids. [applause] >> i'm relieved he said was only >> i'm relieved he said was only six months that we would have to work. i was afraid i would have to work until i was 80. all right, let's talk a little about immigration. that has been an issue in the current presidential campaign. the senate has passed or had passed in 2013 i think the last time we saw this really comprehensively addressed in congress, the senate tried to pass bipartisan immigration bills that had a substantial resources for border security and a pathway to legality for most of the 11 million undocumented workers in the u.s. at that point. it had a lot of other stuff in as well. it passed the senate. it got to the house and the house definitely started discussing it. i know you are part of some of those discussions so i'm going to start with you on this. the house wasn't able to reach agreement on bills, and they want to know in an ideal world, this question left to park and you're both getting both parts but we will start with part one.

in an ideal world what would you like to see on immigration reform? whatever you want, you can get it through congress and the president will sign it. >> that will require a different form of government but i'm willing -- >> ideal world. i didn't say was anyone's ideal. it's your ideal world. you're ruling it. you have given me a promotion i will never get, so i want to take advantage of it. the first objective is let's assume the 11 million to the first objective is to make sure the number 11 million doesn't go up.

means if there are 11 people come 11 million people undocumented in this country, i think obligation never one to us as a country's make sure that number doesn't go up which meant border security comment by the way we have to borders, and interior security. over half the people who are not here legally did not cross any borders. we invited them. they just did leave when they were supposed to leave. so make sure the 11 million doesn't go up. border security, interior security. that is not an immigration issue. that's a national security issue. i don't think a sovereign country should have to apologize for knowing it was coming and going from its country. so security number one. number two, number two, with the 11 million you have to come forward. you have to let us know who you are. and if you cannot pass a background check, one of the problems with the senate bill is you could have committed an act of domestic violence which south carolina by the way fleets of the nation in men telling women, you can commit an act of domestic violence and still be on the path to citizenship. so no, i'm not going to support \s no, i'm not going to support that. i will support a rigorous

background check and, and i need to know that you're willing to assimilate the you don't have to be, uniform much up to assimilate into our values. so with the 11 to make sure the number doesn't go up. border security come into security. pass a background check. you have to come forward. if you have been convicted of a crime, you have forfeited your right to stay in this country. willen get countries tha not take back heir foreign nationals to take them back or cut off the foreign aid. you will be stunned at the number of countries that will not take back therefore national that we want to deport because of some removable proceeding. so security first, then we will deal with the 11 billion. fine with a path to legal status but i'm not going to jump people ahead of others have

waited in line. i'm just not going to jump ahead of them. [applause] >> i think it's funny because you asked in a preferable if we were able to do something about it, the president will sign it and everything, one of us has been in a position to do something about it, a very powerful very consequential position for years on end, and that is to be the chairman of the house subcommittee on immigration. i mean, it's amazing, you don't get that on the back because we are in power and we didn't really think the senate has raised the bill that the menus for for president marco rubio before you supported donald trump. we had company is immigration reform. the fact that we're still talking about this issue today is not, is because people in congress failed to do their job, failed to chill work on these issues that really matter to people. the same provisions that we talked about. obviously,about. obviously, we need to secure the border nobody disagrees about

that, but the real question and the bigger question is how and what of the going to do with those 11 million? i think there needs to be a path to legal status. i've and lifelong soccer with the happened to interact and grow up and become friends with many people who are undocumented. these are some of the hardest working, the most dedicated in the most intelligent people that embodiesembody everything american ideal that we ask of our citizens. [applause] >> people that want to work hard, they want to come forward, they want to go out come out of the shadows but until we pass comprehensive immigration reform they will feel locked away to isolated. they were not able to join like they want to unlike we should want them to because at the end of the day this nation was founded by by immigrants. gowdy's ancestors, my

all came from somewhere else. for us to turn our back on our legacy and value at this but because of fear and division is not who we are as a country. [applause] rep. gowdy: with all due respect i would substitute for fear and division, respect for the rule of law. that is the foundation of this country. so for all the folks who did it the way we asked them to, for you to subvert them and suffocate them and put them behind people who broke the rules and came unlawfully, not going to do it. and yet you can talk about my stitches in congress. you can talk about all you want to in just under chairman of the immigration subcommittee. i wish we had had the need of fewer hearings on oversight of this administration failure to remove people. i wish we had not that taken so much time having to figure out

what the president but prosecutorial discretion not you had the congress and the white house from '08 to 2010. can you find immigration reform bill that the democrats introduced? do you know what where it is? it doesn't exist. from '08 to 2010 to i'll tell you why, professor. they don't want a solution. they benefit. they benefit from this question. if the president wanted a solution, he had from '08 to 2010. was dodd-frank he aca. he didn't lift a finger on criminal justice reform or immigration reform. [applause] moderator: let's stay focused please on what you will do in congress. we've got a whole nother race going on about what we will do with the president. >> yes, ma'am. >> second part of my question, this issue can contemplate will but because you ideal world is now gone. you're back in reality. you've got to do with the other party, whichever party budget got to do with the other party. you may even have to deal with a

president of the opposing party. so whatever you pass us to get through the senate, which is a matter what happens this year it's going to be divided. you may have to deal with the president of the opposing party. what compromises are you willing to make on immigration that might get passed the senate and the president? complimentwant to chris. chris actually departed from the democrat mantra, which is citizenship to decent pass legal status. when secretary castro testified before the judiciary committee, he said immigration, period, even if they don't want it. that is a political answer, think about that. we're going to make people don't want to come to the united states citizens who sold what legal status, we we're going to make and become citizens. that is a political answer. so the middle ground between citizenship and merely a work permit is legal status.

frankly, i'm not going to bargain border security and injury security i'm not going to come from is because those are the preeminent function of government. quite frankly you shouldn't have to negotiate when comes to border security. that should not be a bargaining chip that you use in a broader immigration debate. that is what sovereign, i think there's a fence around for but a sovereign entity should not have to apologize for who was coming and going. >> an excellent question and get back in a minute, is border border security issue and in tulsa could issue them is this a matter of resources? >> it's a matter of will. let's go with these overstays. >> i'm asking because of the senate bill of which would provide a tremendous amount of resources in terms of increased border personnel, and that was a sticking point and now for some people, but for others it was a question of passed the legality versus round them up and send them home. >> they propped it up with an amendment at the very end and it

was an effort to give republicans votes and it worked. but that's half the analysis. the other half our visas, overstays. so unless you do with the injury security, there is a list of who -- so unless you're dealing with security, there is a list of who is overstayed their visas but dhs will not give it to anyone. so into your serious about not just the border crossers the people of overstayed visas, they also are not here lawfully. so until we know who they are, then no, it's not a question, it's a question of will not a question of political resources. >> i couldn't agree more. it is a question of will. with a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill came down from the senate, negotiate and agreed upon by both democrats and republicans detail in the house with you as chairman of the subcommittee on immigration. at some point the buck stops with you. if you're in such an immensely powerful and important position and you the opportunity to fix a problem that millions care about and want done, you have

to do it. keep bringing up the presidency when you had six years inbetween when the republicans were in conrol to do it. it's just amazing, the abdication of responsibility when we talk about such an important issue and people are sick of the partisanship in congress right now. and rightly so. people would rather see rather than the win at all cost mentality, a reasonable compromising functional legislative body running this country. why would they have any faith that's not. why should our citizens have any faith in congress when we

continue to fight the battles we don't even fight with and when there are areas of agreement, if we disagreed on four out of five things, that's all right the we should be taught but the one thing that we do agree on and off the four things we disagree on. >> we will get to madison at the very end but there's a senate but there's also a house and we stand for election every two years. we represent smaller districts. the house doesn't want to do a comprehensive immigration bill. comprehensive is latin for lots of bad stuff in there, chris. what we wanted was a step-by-step process. what's wrong with that? what is wrong with proving to that we're serious about border security before we move to the next step? what is wrong with that? that's what the house wanted. improve the border security. quite frankly you ought to be skeptical because both political parties have promised to border security since i was a kid, and neither of them did it. injury security, prove it. output it in a congress a bill or you're giving about the citizenship before you provided the security. and instrumental step-by-step process is what the house preferred and i don't apologize for that. the fact that the senate did something, that's great but it doesn't mean house has to go along with it. we face the voters, too. spent thousands is getting nothing done and forgetting something bipartisan done which is a classic example and very representative of the past six years.

[applause] moderator: i'm going to throw in the political side for a minute, since i am one, entities that the congress for a living. just to answer his question about compromise, unending going to address it in the context of to address it in the context of immigration but why'd you have to compromise or a comprehensive bill as opposed to single pieces is a fundamental problem of party a doesn't trust party be. -- party b, so sometimes party a would like to go with what, let's take this first step and it will go to the next one if this was a successful but i going to get party b on board you've got to give them their step. i thanks that's where the senate comes to because it's a different beast. you don't have quite the majority rules you do in the house. your political science lesson for the day, why even the most

of our elected officials don't like the concept of compromise. it's required in some cases. [applause] and we have not always got more border security right or we wound';d be having his convesation. goten border security right or we wouldn't be having this conversation. but the overall picture is you don't do both coming up to be one before you can do the other. i know she will ever get congress to agree to do any of it. we end up with the status quo. free lesson for the day. all right, are we done with that? all right. i'm down to the last question.

i'm getting my queue for my timekeeper. so we're going to end on a bank because i got more in those on this than anything and in of some of the folks that want and address were not able to be in the room. they did not get tickets as i promised that i would get to at least one set of the candidates. campaign finance, a number of -- [applause] some of you are here. all right. a number of folks are worried that big money donors and corporations have become too powerful in our political campaign, special in the wake of the supreme court citizens united ruling that permitted super pacs to spend unlimited amounts separate from the candidates, independent of the candidate. and political parties. is there anything either of you would do in congress to change current campaign finance laws and try to address the concerns that voters have about big money blanket much of a role in this. start with you this time. >> voters should be concerned about campaign finance because just like you should be concerned with a congress who doesn't do his job and while give anything that will change if you don't have millions to spend, millions to content on national campaigns? if moneyed interest are able to exercise more influence than the average citizen then we have a broken system. we have a democracy that is fundamentally undermined.

and i mean, this is something that really bothers me because i'm very passionate about getting young people involved in the political process. and so many young people right now to an out and they don't identify with either political party. there's a good reason for that. not only do they feel like they're not represented by either party but if you like their influence, their potential to exercise, to stand up and participate as citizens in this country is completely swept out from underneath them.

because they're not coming in with a big box in the big inflows. they shouldn't have any confidence when people like the koch brothers on the number one contributor as we've heard in the news this year, this week, to trade down these campaign. to if you want to know who he is working for, check the receipts. >> what would you do to change it? >> we can and must have robust campaign finance reform that includes their reporting, editing congress to fight citizens united ruling that says money equals speech. because our rights are inalienable and their individual to us. the right for us to speak and to be involved in this and democracy does not come down to a piece of green paper. it comes down to who we are as human beings, exercising our voices and our right to purchase the end is a democracy. if we don't change that, they continued to -- don't expect

anything to change if we don't change it. [applause] >> disclosure of that also includes unions. disclosure, sunlight is the best antiseptic. so disclosure, including the super pacs, and to the extent that the supreme court considers speech to be tantamount to a donation, there are limits to what everyone in this room can give him a political race. there's a $2700 limit. so if it should be a limit on this young lady in the first will contribute to a member of congress, there can be other limits, to. so i don't agree with the whole thing was citizens united that puts me in a small majority of republicans but by want, let me just say this to you. i'm going to let the koch brothers, go for this reason. i've never met either one of them. i have met bono twice. i've never met the koch brothers once. i met the president six times. never met the koch brothers a single time.

that youre notion yourr of congress or senator can be bought for a single donation from you should categorically reject that. i'll tell you what matters to me. the opinion and advice of someone i trust that i work for in the upstate of south carolina. never met the koch brothers. i get that it's a talking point that they to all of y'all to mention the koch brothers every chance you get. i have met -- look, chris. they are just saying no. that's the difference. keep this in mind. your opinion, your perspective matters more to the people that you represent, so if you want an e-mail, text me, call me, you don't have to give me a cent. but the notion that amount of

-- but the notion that a member of congress can be bought by single donation, we either need a new form of government or y'all got to start rejected that because i don't know a single person on either side of the aisle, on either side of the aisle who can be bought by a donation. and maybe it's just i'm not hanging out with the right people -- [booing] >> if you know a member of can't that be bought for $2700 to turn them into the fbi. turned them into the fbi. because i don't know them on either side of the aisle. [applause] >> this is a fun place to end this segment. we are out of time with our two gentlemen, turn your microphones off. [applause] drugs seized lands route to the white house coverage continues monday when donald trump speaks

at a campaign rally. will have coverage at 9:00 p.m. eastern. then it noon, democratic prevention of hillary clinton speaking at a campaign event in cincinnati, ohio. c both events here on c-span. in this week's address, vice president joe biden discusses houseogress of the white cancer moonshot and their goal a difference. representative john radcliffe discusses the republican alternative to the health care law. vice president biden: hello, everybody. this is joe biden. i am going to deliver for president obama, laying out how far we have come with the cancer project, moonshine. that was back in in january.

we are laying out a real vision for where we need to go in the future. to do in five years what would otherwise take 10 years, to inject urgency in the fight against cancer, and reimagine the system. you know, when president nixon declared the war on cancer, he had no army, and no clear strategy. but after 45 years of progress funding research, training sciences and physicians and trading so many patients, we now have an army. we have tools, powerful tools, and at moonshot we may have a clear shot for the road ahead. it matters because there is a consensus now that we are at a point with medicine and technology, we can offer new promise. but we cannot play by the rules of 1971 when we did not have that working for us. we cannot play by the rules in 1971, we did not have this working for us.

there is much more we can do. five years ago, using the immune system to kill cancer cells or protecting healthy ones, was not research havey.decades of committed is not shared -- that data is not shared. we are in a position to break down these silos and share them. we have an enormous capacity and computing capability to take pieces of data i and analyze it. we can do a million billion calculations per second now. my wife and i have learned about literally thousands of cancer patients, advocates, physicians, researchers and philanthropists from all over the world. to care. access forging an international commitment to fight cancer.