tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 3, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
that is of course our number one priority. >> still seems that the regime is not a threat to u.s. national security, therefore the objective is not to go after the regime -- >> what is true is that the political failure of the regime to effectively govern that country has created a chaotic situation that only benefits extremists, and incites violence that fuels extremism. so we're deeply concerned about the political situation in syria, both because of the humanitarian situation we are discussing before and also because of the instability that this adds to an already volatile region of the world, and we know that extremists seek to capitalize on the instability that threatens the united states. so, we have acknowledged all along that while there is great military might that is being used inside of syria to take out extremists and protect the american people that the solution we need inside of syria is a diplomatic one, political
one that results in achange in leadership in syria, and the path to that kind of political transition is hard to see right now. >> have you given all the daily carnage and horrific things that happened there hospitals destroyed, you transcribe -- describe it very graphically. the president does not yet see a reason for humanitarian intervention. >> the united states has offered significant humanitarian assistant. 5.6 bill in humanitarian assistance to the situation in syria, and to countries in region thatter having refugee -- >> -- humanitarian mission. >> i'm not going to get ahead of what sort of discussions the president and his national security team are having, but the president's been quite clear about what our goals in syria are now, and the president has also explained the lessons we need to have learn from the situation in iraq ten or 12
years ago, chit that a full-scale, prolonged ground combat operation, mobilized by u.s. troops, is not in our interests, either short term or long term, and the president's conclusion about that tactic has not changed. but the president's going to continue to be in conversation with the members of his team. what i also anticipate there is will be some aspects of the contingency planning we can talk about publicly and some we won't be able to talk about publicly. but that's the nature of the situation in syria. one other thing i would point out, sort of goes back to your initial line of questioning, is it's not just the united states that is insisting on a political transition inside of syria. president putin acknowledged the same thing. he has acknowledged that the failed political leadership inside of syria has fomented his chaos and made the situation more dangerous for everybody, including russia, and so
president putin acknowledged a critical transition inside of syria is necessary. maria? >> yes. thank you, josh. wondering if the president -- the digs today -- [inaudible] -- of his legacy with the immigrant community? what is his reaction to that? and also, followup question on colombia. just to be clear, you have said that the u.s. is committed to continuing to support president santos and the peace process. so is colombia on or off the table? >> with regard to the immigration ruling of the supreme court today their united states is -- the administration is disappointed that the supreme court has once again denied the department of justice's petition to rehear this case. there's no practical impact in terms of the implementation of this policy. and that of course is a double edged sword.
the enforment priority of the administration has laid out in terms of focusing our effort on felons north families, has moved forward in a way that we believe has enhanced that safety and security of the communities across the country. we're focusing our en-for-ment effort's on recent border crosser and those who pose a threat to national security and those that are criminals. and that has proved to be an effective way for the united states government to use our limited enforcement resources to protect the american people. and this disappointing decision from the supreme court is -- does pat affect those pry priorities. however there are other aspects of the president's executive actions that the supreme court was unable to hear, and earlier this year the supreme court did
announce they were unable to reach a verdict in evaluating the constitutionality of the president's executive actions and i think it underscores the need for the republicans in congress to do their job. republicans in the senate need to confirm a ninth justice of the supreme court so that the business of the american people can be conducted at the supreme court. the inability of the supreme court in this situation to reach a decision and put forward a ruling has negative impact on millions of people in the united states. the american people deserve better from their representation in the united states senate. president reagan, back in 1987, made a similar observation, that the best interests of the american people are not serve if there's a prolonged vacancy on the supreme court. he was right. president obama made the same observation, and it's hard to think of a better example than
the supreme court being unable to reach a decision on a set of immigration reform proposal that would have a postimpact on the united states and our economy and our channel security. wisconsin regard to colombia, the united states remains committed to the process that we have laid out before. in including a commitment to continuing to support the colombian people and the colombian government through the peace initiative, and the process will move forward as we continue to support the colombian government in pursuit of a negotiated peace. >> -- when president obama made the decision and what prompted him to make the doing that russia -- the calculation that russia was unable or unwilling to go further with a place plan? >> secretary kerry was the individual that was tasked with trying to broker some kind of
diplomatic agreement with the russians around cessation of hostilities help was tenacious and dog net those efforts. and the president was relying on his advice in determining when it was no longer fruitful to engage in conversations, and i think you can -- i think pretty much everybody had concluded after the behavior from the russians over the last couple of weeks, that there was little if anything to be feigned from continuing to talk to them about this. they were not serious about living up to their commitments and that has tragic consequences for the situation in syria,. >> this a recognition that the policy of reaching a political agreement in syria has failed? >> well, no. primarily because the -- again,
as i was mentioning to ron, everybody is looking at this situation, i think, just about everybody -- has acknowledged that there's no military solution to this problem. there's a role for the united states military to play in terms of countering extremists and certainly taking off the battlefield those who use the chaos in syria to then the united states. so there's an effort to pro ticket the american people but addressing the root cause of this chaos inside of syria will require diploma si and a political transition not just the united states that believes that, the rest of the international include, including russia, acknowledge it that the case. so, the tactic, if you will, that the united states was attempting to employ, was to capitalize on one area of common ground, the united states believes it's a political transition inside of sirways necessary. russia beliefs a political transition inside of syria is necessary.
both countries also acknowledge that the threat from extremism and the hope was that the russians use their diplomatic influence with the assad regime to reduce the violence inside of syria, allow for flow of humanitarian assistance inside of syria and create space for diplomatics solution or political solution inside of syria, and -- >> if that failed, that spire calculation was wrong -- >> and in an exchange the united states would be in a position where we would offer to coordinate our efforts mill tear live with the russians to strengthen our focus on extremists. from the beginning, there's been skepticism about whether or not russia would live up to the commitments they made in the context of apply that pressure to the assad regime, and unfortunately it's a situation where the healthy skin temp turned out to be right. but does not chang anybody's view here in the administration
that for all of our military efforts moved syria to keep the american people safe, the up mat solution to the situation in syria is not one that can be solely military in nature. we're going to need to see a negotiated political transition inside of syria. the russians themselves have acknowledged this. and that's what will be necessary to bring an end to the violence and the terrible humanitarian situation we see in that country. >> to be clear, with the suspension and withdrawal of the personnel from future military coordination, that this suspension are you not saying that the obama administration is done trying to seek a diplomatic solution with russia in syria. >> i think what is clear is the obama administration concluded that russian has no intention of living up to commitments they made in context of negotiations around the cessation of hot
stilts and once you reach that conclusion i'm not sure there's much to take about. aisle not papering over the tragic consequences this has for syrian this was our reasonable, thought-through strategy, for applying pressure to assad regime in pursuit of aims we were seeking to achieve. we're going to have to pursue an alternative approach. i don't have much to say about that right now. >> do you not -- the russians or administering put out a number of statements this morning, vladimir putin himself and you talked about the suspension of the dough instruction of plutonium they previously aid degree to and talking about destruction of any trust one the u.s. and russia. it would seem that tension with russia is escalating here do you president in see these statements and pledges from vladimir putin as him trying to exert some leverage on the united states? do you not see that as linked in any way to this failure?
>> seven, think for -- to discern that the actual motivations and intentions of president vladimir president puu have to ask him yourself and determine whether he is being true to you. it is clear russian is more isolated than ever been before and they have been subject to rounds of international condemnation because of either action that's have taken directly or actions they have aided and abetted inside of syria that have led to widespread death and destruction among civilian populations. and that might mean some people to start making increasingly outrageous claims to try to avoid that isolation or to try to avoid that international condemnation. so, again, for russia's true intentions you have to consult
with them directly. but, look, there's disappointment that russia has not -- was unwilling to live up to the commitments they made. the agreement that secretary kerry worked tirelessly to try to reach acknowledged russia's inherent and healthy self-interest in this situation. russia acknowledged a political transition in sirways necessary. russia has acknowledged they face a serious the from extremeis in syria. russia has a lot on the hook. russia has a lot on the line. and right now they don't have that much to show for it. are they going to continue to pursue a strategy where they bomb civilian populations into submission? and over time will that allow them to make more progress? it might. we'll see. but a whole lot more innocent people are going to die, and the
russians will be increasingly isolated, and they'll be an international price to pay in term oses weakening standing in the international community. >> because of that kind of mass murder you're talking about, some people do feel that there is this sense of urgency or should be oneful right now what's the consequence for continuing to care out what other countries call war crimes in ahelp 'o? is the u.s. considering sanctions again russia? it looks like the -- there's a lot of tension with russia on this issue and many others. what is the white house thinking when it comes to actually perhaps taking any kind of action to stop the humanitarian catastrophe inside of aleppo if you can't bargain the russians out of it. >> there was a lot of tension around this relationship even in the midst of these forks. think what is also true us we have acknowledged previously, i've acknowledged previous hill, that there are a range of tools
available to the united states, including the use of sanctions that have proved be to an increasingly effective and powerful tool, but, look, the united states also worked effectively with our european partners to implement sanctions against russia because of their violation of ukraine's territorial integrity and we haven't seen the kind of change in strategy in ukraine we would like to see yet either. so, the president is going to consider a range of options and the president is regularly being update i would by this national security team about the options available to him, and this is something that they certainly will be talking about more frequently in the days ahead, considering that the united states is no longer engaged in talks with the russians. olivia. >> a couple on the russians and then -- will the united states
continue to implement the blew toneam even if the russians have drop out. >> we just heard the announcement from the russians today so the united states has been serious about keeping our commit. s all along, and we certainly would like to see the russians do the same thing. i don't have any changes to our posture to announce aft this point. >> the russian conditions for resuming -- i think the sanctions some kind of compensation being drawn out of nato, i'm going to guess you don't embrace these with open arms but what is the administration's position on these conditions. >> i haven't looked at them in detail. i think what i would just point out is that the united states and russia reached an agreement in the last decade that has been in force for five years. we kept up our end of the bargain and they should do the same thing i'm now shoot what goal of forking an already agreed to agreement would make. >> i am going to read this from the new york interview with the
president. you can see over the horizon a situation without congress showing much interest with energies waltz will broad -- you end with a president who can carry on perpetual wars around the world without any accountability or democratic debate. what certainly was over the horizon? feel's to me like potentially the situation where we're in now, libya wasn't authorized or our core vert actions around the world. -- covert actions. what is -- the kinder state of affair and the over the horizon. >> what the president was referring to in that quote is he was talking about the situation he inherited. in the early dives the administration, he was considering the tools that had been made available to him and considering the way they were being used, and he was considering how over the horizon was a scenario in which there what be sufficient transparency in place to constrain this extraordinary authority that based on new technology could be wielded by the president of the
united states, and what the president and his team worked to do is to try to impose greater transparency and impose con trains that would address those concerns the president had from this earlierest days in office. >> i hadn't read it all as a state of affairs inherit enstayed of down the road. >> the weight of the story was set up is that the president was sort of ewall saiding different opinionment is n his president sit that may discussions with long-term consequences and he went back to his additiontake ma this apriority. >> -- hurricane mag threw and partially evacuated person knoll from guantanamo, is there any concern about the storm having impact on at the operations there and what's the plan? >> thank you are asking. i would contemplating doing that at the very end. i appreciate you bringing that up. with regard to the situation at the u.s. military facility at guantanamo bay, i refer to my
colleague test department of defense. that are engaged in planning to ensure the safety and security of all personnel on the base in advance of the storm. i can tell you that the president was first briefed over the weekend in the aftermath of the unexpected and rapid strengthening of hurricane mathieu. the president expected to continue to be upgaited as -- up dated necessarily on the forecast track of hurricane matthew and the latest analysis about potential impact on the united states and the caribbean. there are actions which have already been taken. fema is deploying officials to state emergency operations centers in florida, georgia, south carolina, and north carolina. it's my understand smooth be completed by the end of the day today and may actually already be personnel in some places already. fema also has incident support bases in georgia and north carolina. in order to preposition response supplies.
this is a relatively new strategy that you have seen from fema, which is that they will look for locations that are just outside the track of the storm to preposition supplies so that there is a shorter distance for those plays to be transported in the immediate aftermath over the storm that can -- the impact of the storm is not expected to be felt in the united states for self dave but we encourage anyone in the states from florida through the mid-atlantic to take steps to prepare, and information on what to do its ready.gov and on the fema smart pop an and the usaid office of us foreign disaster assistance has deployed two disaster response teams to haiti and jamaica in advance of the storm's arrival. these disaster experts are actively monitoring the storm's track in real-time and communicating with officials in jake, haiti, cuba, dominican
republic, and bahamas. usaid has strategic prepositioned usaid has also -- pre positioned some relife supplies in -- relief supply. the concern we have with regard to jamaica and haiti in particular is that these are countries that are based on the current forecast likely to talk a pretty significant hit from the storm, and these are countries that don't have the kind of infrastructure or the professionalized response operations that we do here in the united states. and given our long-standing relationship with both donees there the united states is prepared -- at least is making preparations to ensure that we can assist in those recovery and response efforts. the president is also being briefed on those efforts but something he is also going to continue to watch closely.
and there should be a lot of people saying prayers for anymore care beep right now. >> in validity to a daily mail piece that the president offer to get sect clinton a medical checkup at walter reed? >> it's not seen that report but i'm not aware of any such request. jc in. >> follow up on what olivier was talking about over the horizon. what is really not clear is what is the end game for mr. assad? he is not going just walk away and live in a villa in the south of france like a deposed poet ten tate -- putin was -- >> atribe but to john christopher in your pieces. putintate. >> the fact that assad is putin's guy, and it seems like putin women not allow what happens to gadhafi to happen to
his boy, assad. the question is is -- what is te end game? what i this thought here? >> well, that's a provocative question. don't think anybody knows exactly how this gets resolve. everybody including the russians have acknowledged a political transition is necessary. >> a. -- >> everyone has stated that. and what is clear is that president assad, putin's guy, as you describe him, has gotten putin into a mess. you recall that syria used to be the -- still is -- the only country outside of the former soviet bloc that was home to a russia military base. so the strategic significance of syria for roush was significant.
-- for russia was significant, and as a result russia had invested pretty deeply in that country because of their military presence that was tolerated there. the stability of the country has been shattered. and russia is now investing significant resources to try to protect the previous investments they made there. russia has, re know, sent significant quantities of military equipment, military personnel, they're spent significant funds they don't have -- we have talked at some length about the declining strength of the russian economy -- as a result of their actions inside of syria, russia is deeply isolated and has earned the stern rebuke of the international community for their actions. russia has also gotten themselves knee deep into a sectarian quagmire that fuels extremism and only increases the risk to russia's security back home.
all of that because president putin is looking out for his guy. so, that being the state of affairs that's the hope that the united states had previously had that russia would be willing to broker some kind of diplomatic agreement and the could use their influence with the assad regime to reduce violence and increase the flow of humanitarian assistance and sharpen the ability to go after extremityist but evident that's an agreement russia was unwilling to live up to and it's unfortunate when you consider russia's national security interests but also when you consider the lives of millions of mobility syrians that are still trapped in that country. >> so assad has it both ways, being protected and being allowed to continue his ways. >> well, he allowed to remain in
power because he is being propped up with the russians and iranians and the question really is, what are the iranians and the russians get out of it? and we know that they're paying some significant costs, and we know that the russian economy is such that they don't have as many resources to pay those cost as they used to. but we'll have to see what from here. >> i want to follow up on the about the detain yeahs at gitmo begin the trajectory of matthew. the president would still have a hand in determining whether or not those detainees were removed from gitmo and where the might be placed. is that true? >> well, the department of defense officials will take all of the necessary steps that need to be taken in order to ensure the safety of everybody at gitmo. >> including the president's determination before the definition -- [inaudible] >> well, i'm not quite sure what
you're getting at. >> it's his call where they good. >> who who is commander in chief but when it comes to something like the safety and security of the military installation, there are people a little further down the chain of command to precautions to ensure everybody's safety and security at major military facility. >> ask you about obamacare. open enrollment four weeks ago. read a report over the weekend about rates income minnesota, 57%. there are now four states with just one single insurer, couple in the south. we talked about that. arkansas and alabama. the others are oklahoma, and wyoming. what is the president's assessment of where obamacare is at this stage of his presidency? does it need a fix? and if so does he have one he has proposed? >> well, kevin, the.isite proud
that obamacare as it's been dubbed by many is one that expanded health care coverage for 20 million americans. millions more americans who already had health insurance now benefit from the kinds of consumer protections included in the obamacare legislation. things log allow you to get a free annual checkup every year or give you the comfort of knowing you're not going to get thrown all your health insurance i was you get sick and wind hey to go through bankruptcy court if someone in four family gets sick. now every american hat health insurance enshows those protections and those why you have herd me say on many occasions that obamacare is here to stay expats why the president is so proud of that domestic accomplishment. what i would also say is that since the very first day the president signed the bill into law, he acknowledged an openness two, with democrats or republicans in congress to further strengthen it.
and we have seen a sustained commitment on the part of runs to tear down they law. they voted some 50 times to repeal it. they've gone to she n supreme court to try to have itself invalidated, all of those efforts have been unsuccessful. basically every day republicans promise to offer an alternative and haven't yet. that's an indication that republicans have not been interested in having the serious conversation about what can be done to strengthen the health insurance reform. ...
and that means there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of americans that could have health insurance right now today, paid for almost entirely by the federal government that aren't just because of the political differences that some republican governors with the president of the united states. it's petty, small minded and having a consequence for the lives of millions of americans and it's rather unfortunate. the president has also put port an idea to the original legislative debate under it-- around the affordable care act, which is implementing a so-called public option allowing essentially a public funded health care plan that would compete with private sector proposals and it would have the affect of encouraging more competition in the marketplace and limiting the growth in health care costs. republicans have been resistant to that, unfortunately.
so the president has some ideas. the president is under no illusions that those kind of reforms to strengthen obamacare will be initiated while he is still in office, but he is hopeful that may be under the leadership of a new president and a new congress that those kinds of reforms will take place. >> can i also ask about some issues going on today, skyrocketing costs for consumers for example, single insurers in those states that i mentioned. that's not what the president promised when he promised that obamacare-- or the affordable care act would not only expand healthcare opportunities, but drive down costs. >> what we have seen is that for the vast majority of people who do get health care coverage through their employers, so about 15% of americans that turn to the marketplace you are referring to. there are encouraging statistics about the way that growth of
that employer provided health care has been limited, but the president believes there is more that can be done. its route-- important to remember that before the affordable care act went into effect we saw every year the significant skyrocketing of healthcare costs, so this is not a new phenomenon and the question is to what extent has the portable care act been affected in limiting the growth of healthcare cost and what we have seen is that they have been affected in limiting some of the growth, but there's more we could do to make it more effective and we will need action from congress to get that done. >> is the administration concerned about julian astonished and his planned video appearance tuesday and what the white house's view on the allegation that he canceled his original plans for. >> i have no idea what he is talking about.
>> in some leaked audio from a fundraiser earlier this year, she expressed some doubts about the administration's nuclear modernization efforts saying the last thing we need our sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear armed. does the white house have a reaction term-- to her expressing doubts? >> i actually have not seen the authenticity of those comments verified, so i will let secretary clinton and her team discussed her position on those issues. president obama has spoken at some length about the priority he has placed on nuclear security, limiting nuclear proliferation. also, preserving the kind of nuclear deterrent that protects global stability.
until we reach a point time that we can live in a world without nuclear weapons and the president has made important progress in the pursuit of those goals including some commitments we have seen from other countries to secure and in some cases even dispose of loose nuclear materials. the president convened a summit every two years with world leaders to consider what countries around the world could do to make commitments to enhance nuclear security in a way that benefited the entire international community, so the president's record on this is strong, but this is also-- this falls in the category of long-range policy planning and the president has certainly done his part, but there will be future presidents that will need to do their part to improve our nuclear security and eventually envision-- to make real the vision of a world without nuclear weapons.
>> i also want to ask you about something the president said in a radio interview with steve hardy-- harvey's morning show. he said-- [inaudible] >> earlier this year he said we are the only democracy in the world that makes it harder for people to vote and we put up barriers to make it as hard as possible for citizens to vote, so does he believe it's the easiest it's ever been to cast his ballot? >> i think he was shorthanded and bit, making a case that it's never been easier to make a decision about who you should cast your ballot for, but yes, it's unfortunate that into many states republicans have made it more difficult than it needs to be for people to vote. >> do you have any information
about how much it cost, who paid for it or if there is any sponsorship or anything like that? >> we can get you more information. i don't have that off the top of my head. benita, i will give you the last way-- one. >> i don't know if you can hear, but there is screaming outside. >> they are cheering for me, aren't they? they are living this answer and enthusiasm from the crowd. >> tomorrow there is a vice presidential debate and i know the president and senator mccain have gone back. i wonder if you knew if he talked to him on if he gave him any advice picked this is probably the biggest political moment he has had in his career, tomorrow. >> the president does have enormous respect and admiration porridge senator cain. senator cain was one of the
first statewide elected officials in the country to announce his support for president obama's presidential campaign in that kind of courage and loyalty that senator cain has shown a something the president deeply values. senator cain did that at a time when that was not an obvious political decision to be made. in fact, the rather obvious political calculation was to not announce your vocal support for then senator obama's presidential campaign because it than he was pulling in the teen, as i recall, but senator cain to his credit showed courage and made eight support up president obama's campaign. he respects that political courage that is all too rare in the current political environment.
i'm not aware that they have had an opportunity to speak recently. president obama saw senator cain at the convention in philadelphia and i know they had opportunity, but i don't know if they have had a chance to talk since. i don't know that they talk regularly, particularly now that senator cain is keeping a busy schedule with his running mate. i know that they do not talk regularly. i don't know if they have spoken since they were in philadelphia together. >> you mentioned that-- i think last week you mentioned we would see president obama doing a couple events a week for hillary clinton. are we at that moment since it's october? >> the only campaign travel and i am aware of for this week is president obama's trip to south florida wednesday. i'm not aware of any part-- additional political travel this week, but stay tuned and we will
keep you updated on travel for the rest of the week. i'm actually reminded of a conversation i had with him trouble before i cannot hear, which is the president is traveling to chicago this weekend and will be engaged in political activities there. obviously, i do not know that illinois will be eight battleground state. i would expect at the president would engage in activities that would be helpful to secretary clinton's campaign. [inaudible question] >> we will keep you updated on the president's schedule. as the president's schedule is determined for chicago we will keep you posted. thanks, everyone. we will see you tomorrow.
>> donald trump is gathering his supporters for a rally colorado the second. c-span will be live from the convention center for their rally, which is set to start a fight him eastern. hillary clinton is on the campaign trail in akron, ohio turk voter registration event the scene that stayed a week before the start of early voting there. you can see her speech live starting at 5:45 p.m. eastern on c-span2. as you know the vice presidential debate is tomorrow and c-span is one of many news outlets setting up for it. here's video of the many-- venue in farmville, virginia. ben o'connell treating: one last view of the debate hall before we get kicked out for a few hours. >> the next president making appointments to the supreme
court of the united states will be president donald trump. >> with hillary clinton in the white house, the rest of the world will never forget why they have always looked up to the united states of america. >> c-span campaign 2016 continues on the road to the white house with the vice president shall debate between republican governor mike pence and democratic senator tim kaine tuesday night live from longwood university in farmville, virginia, beginning at 7:30 p.m. eastern with a preview of the debate. 8:30 p.m. the predebate briefing for the audience and a 9:00 p.m. live coverage of the debate followed by viewer reaction. the 2016 vice presidential debate, watch live on c-span, live anytime on-demand at c-span.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> in missouri, the senate race has democrat jason kander trying to defeat for blood.
the race is tightening and joining us on the phone is eli yokley. is a political reporter from missouri. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having made. let's talk about the polls that show this is a surprising race and many that rory blunt would walk away, but that's not case now. >> many see jason kander is a compelling candidate, but along with the environment aspects of the cycle set whenever jason kander announced last year, he's a young guy, a democratic elected in a tough year. is a military veteran and he has not been in politics forever and if you were to design in a lab a candidate that has the opposite of everything that rory blunt as you might come up with a guy like jason kander, but in the last few weeks and months and in some of the other races this one has gotten a lot more attention in the polls are getting closer. although, there is sort of a
small lead back in missouri, but this race is shaping up to be a big one especially as states like ohio where rob portman is doing a lot better than expected and where out of florida marco rubio seems to be holding on and in states like missouri and indiana and north carolina? host: are there lessons for the victory a few years ago and does she have a that would help jason kantor in his bid to defeat the incumbent republican? guest: she is helping him raise money for senator blood and senator mccaskill have a pretty long history together. the-- their parents served together in the state legislature and they have been friends and been together quite a bit. rory blunt harley campaign against her back in 2012, and she has not campaigned it too much against him. obviously, she wants to win this race. she would love to serve in the majority. this race will be a big
part of that, but it was so different from some other senate races and the fact that we had the issues of todd akin back there that shifted that race in a way that this race in 2016-- of course, we have dynamics in politics where senator blunt is having to answer for things that donald trump says although he's trying not to and trying to take the mitch call approach and focusing on the senate and his work there. key is focus a lot on the supreme court and what the senate can focus on whoever the next president is. this race is a race of its own just because of the different things having to share especially with trump at the top of the ticket. host: how much outside money is pouring into the state on both sides? >> a lot. a lot of the money that
had been pegged for places like ohio has been pulled out. just this week they moved to $20 million for some of the states where they thought there would be more competitive for races shaping up and like north carolina and missouri. one of these outside groups dropped another million dollars in missouri to focus on some issues about rory blunt's family and the lobbying they do. all three of his adult children are lobbyists or two back in missouri and one here in dc for the auto industry. his wife that he married in 2003, is also a lobbyists and so democrats are really digging into some of the connections where she has lobbied or his kids have lobbied and officials actions that he has taken tried to make the case that he is washington. host: friday's debate, the only one schedule between jason kantor and senator rory blunt, will there be more and also the
negative tone of the ads airing in missouri your home state. guest: they are trying to do more and typically there has been more. this was an issue that came up in 2010 when rory blunt was first running for this seat when he was a congressman from southwest missouri running against another secretary of state. he did not want to debate and one of the campaign ads against him was a mock debate with a cardboard cutout of rory blunt to make the point he did not want to show up for debates, so jason kantor is trying to do more debates. at the campaign friday he was able to push his message and rory blunt tried to focus on everyone but jason kantor. there was one point where he said me and my four other opponents will be asking for your vote this november. no one has a herd of the other three opponents, some part of that is because of the money fueling some these negative ads. one of the most famous ads from the cycle with jason kantor putting together a rifle and
talk about background checks and his military service and putting that up against rory blunt. one of the things he said in the debate is that he put his army marksmanship badge up against rory blunt's political rating to try to take away from rory blunt's nra rating, but it's not just that. one of the things that senator rory blunt's campaign has tried to do is tie jason kantor as close to color clinton as they can. she's as unpopular as donald trump or maybe even more in my home state. jason kantor, like a lot of democratic politicians is one of the cochairs of her campaign, so they are banking on that of their key line of attack. host: ads now married in missouri, what are they been likely to they have been rough. the jason kantor campaign has not shied from taking shots at rory blunt or his family
and their lobbying. one of the shots they have the upper right now is a picture of his wife and three kids talking about the lobbying projects and one of the things that the majority pac is gone after was that in 2002 when they were forming the department of homeland security rory blunt tried to get in a provision of salt-- health. they are trying to say if his relationship in washington and taking advantage of people back home. it was such a move that dennis pulled out rory blunt provision there and it sounds like the democrats will try to find more of these as they try to make the case that carnahan failed to make back in 2010 that rory blunt has some qualms. host: missouri native and plug a reporter for morning consult, eli yokley, joining us on the foam. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> good to be here. >> some of the ads now on the air in that
missouri senate race and we will follow that with friday's debate that took place in branson missouri. >> i met jason kantor, senator rory blunt has been attacking the young guns. in the army i learned how to use it respect my rifle and in afghanistan i volunteered to be an gun in the convoy of suvs and in the state legislature i print support the second amendment rights and i also believe in background checks so that terrorist cannot get their hands on one of these and i approve this message because i would like to see senator rory blunt do this. >> some people can put together a gun blindfolded. some do it really fast. some really really fast, some do it upside down and blindfolded, but only one of these is a hillary clinton national campaign chairman. only one received a f or sell your to defend the second amendment and supports amnesty for illegal immigrants. when it comes to the u.s. senate, missouri
voters know what is important. >> i'm rory blunt and i approved this message. >> this is what afghanistan it looks like when your next or gun in an unarmored suv. i'm jason kantor. i listed after 911. i was an army intelligence officer rooting out corruption in afghan government and when i came home i worked to reform state government, state tax dollars as secretary of state and now i'm right person and i approve this message because there are to me politicians in washington who only care about themselves. we need more leaders willing to sacrifice for their country. >> republicans and democrats disagree on lots of issues, but when bipartisan solution solve real problems i'm all for your car work with senator brown of ohio to pass manufacturing jobs bill senator sabado of michigan to pass a mental health registration and sarah kunz and i led them hyper victims of child abuse and senator maria -- and i.
from jobs to alzheimer's, it's about getting things done. i'm rory blunt and i approve this message. >> thank you, dennis and again, welcome to the 2016 candidate forum hosted by the missouri press association. earlier today candidates drew numbers to determine the order in which they will be making their opening remarks. closing remarks will be made in reverse order. i'm going to introduce you to the candidates in the order of their opening remarks took first green party candidate jonathan mcfarlane. democrat jason kander. libertarian jonathan dine i'm a constitution party candidate and republican roy blunt. after their opening statements, i will ask the first question and then we will proceed to questions from our three panelists. our three panelists today art can newton of
the saint joseph news press. carol stark and bill miller of the washington missouri. candidates will have one minute to answer each question. after each has had a turn, i will decide whether any rebuttal-- but all time is necessary. if so candidates will receive an additional 30 seconds for rebuttal, but rebuttal will be reserved only for those candidates involved in an attack. if a candidate fails to answer a question i also reserve the right to prod him to try again. signs will be held up in the front row showing the time remaining during the remarks. candidates, please adhere to the soft assigns an audience, please hold your applause until today's events are over here quick that, let's begin. opening statements first for green party candidate jonathan mcfarlane. >> thank you very much
for having me. i appreciate you allowing me to speak today. first come i would like to thank god and the great creator for having us exist today and i would like to thank my wife for her supports and i would like to think that volunteers who helped get the green party on the ballot across the state of missouri, and the missouri press association for having us here to speak. i am here because i believe a leader should have good ideas and not just big pocketbooks. i think representatives should always show up for work and i also believe that we need real change and i would also like to thank my son abraham for allowing me to be away from him today because otherwise he would be right here in my arms because he is two years old and he
would not know how to compromise. thank you. >> jason kander. >> thank you, david, and to the members of the missouri press association and to my fellow candidates. my parents were probation officers. my dad worked at night as a police officer and later ran a secure a complex-- company. they taught my brothers and i that it was important courage and doing what's right and it would not always be the same as what's easy and that's why when i saw the planes hit the towers on 911, and i felt felt called and i would join the army, so that's what i did. i enlisted and later became a military intelligence officer in volunteered to go to afghanistan to do anticorruption investigations and i learned a lot, but it was not easy. there were times when i was alone in an unarmored suv, which is a translator and no backup or with two or three other soldiers on the streets of kabul, dressed in street close gathering information. it was the first time in my life that i had been
on the receiving end of decisions made by people in public office when those decisions were negatively impacting my life because they were more about politics than about the people on the receiving end. we did not often enough have the proper equipment, didn't have armored vehicles and i thought what i saw was very clearly wrong and after a few years i came home-- a few years after i came home i felt the need to take on corruption in missouri state government and that's what i did. is a state representative i worked with republicans to pass the first major ethics reforms in missouri in about 20 years and is your secretary of state have worked to ban special interest money and gets to politicians. washington is broken and we are not going to change washington until we change the people we send their end of the time has come for the next generation to step up and take the lead in shaping the direction of our state and of our nation and with your help that is exactly what i'm going to do a jury united states senator. thank you. >> jonathan. >> welcome.
i first went to give a big thanks to the missouri press association for hosting this debate and inviting all of the candidates to purchase pay. second, i want to ask jason and roy to please make this debate about issues and not insults turk as many of you know we are faced with an incredible time like many of you, i'm concerned with the direction of our country we have all seen the commercials played nonstop, the negative ads and for the first time ever i have to agree with them both. and they are both bad for missouri. lori, and 2010, you promise the great people of missouri standing up here on the stage with me that you would go to washington and you were going to repeal obama care. you were going to restore our freedom, lower our tax burden, but the fact is you have done none of that. the only thing you have done successfully is vote yourself a raise every single year. i truly believe the biggest political problem in america is
the career politician. and i think we need change now an across-the-board term limits is the answer. if elected for senator, my first priority would be to pass legislation enacting term limits for congressmen and senators artist and should be restricted to six, two year terms and six, two-year terms. politicians are like diapers and they need to be changed often and for the very same reason. if elected, the libertarian senator i promise to stand up for your economic freedoms and your fiscal freedom of us. to me, they are one in the same of a two-sided coin. please stand with me this november, and vote libertarian. the time for voting to the left-- a lesser of two evils is now over. >> fred. >> our founding fathers had a dream.
a nation of free men where power resided with we the people. yet, at the same time they understood human nature. they understood that to secure the blessings of liberty, they had to create a government that would protect us primarily from our own government. every man who seeks to expand the size or power of our federal government betrays those founding principles. the mere desire for a strong centralized federal government shows either one's ignorance of human nature or one's wicked intent. the job of a us senator is to represent the interests of his state, to protect states rights , to restrain or even rollback the ever-growing-- i am
running because i don't think senator blunt has done a good job at that job, but we cannot hold the senator blunt accountable by electing someone from the party who is even more subversive of those founding principles. i want to thank the missouri press association for having this forum and allowing us all to be here on equal footing. it is the one time where we will all have an equal voice, the same voice and so i sincerely want to say thank you. >> roy blunt of. >> they do, david. thanks to the missouri press association for hosting this opportunity for us to talk hopefully about the issues. in the 1150 year history of the missouri press association, suppose every time there was an election, politician
said this is the most important election we have ever had. i do think when you look at the facts you put on the table this time, you can put more of those facts on the table that might suggest this is exactly a time where we are going to make decisions that will impact us for a generation. there are lots of opportunities out there, world food demand will double in 35 or 40 years more american energy, what can help in healthcare research and our state what can happen in transportation, actually in all of those areas we are particularly well positioned to take advantage of what could happen and we need to be focused on better jobs for stronger families. so much of the time the biggest obstacle is the out-of-control government regulators. obamacare and the disruption it has created in the healthcare system, regulators that pass a regulation with no real apparent interest in with the impact is. a foreign-policy where our friends don't trust
us and our enemies are not afraid of us and this is a time to move forward away from all of those things. on the fifth-generation missourian. outage has a few days ago to speak at a high school. first place i had a job teaching high school history, the first job and he and my family forgot that you had to have a college to plummet to get the job. my grandfather's last job was janitor at that very same building. that's a pretty good story, but in our country there are a million stories better than that one. the promise of america something we need to hold onto. i have been listening to missourians and fighting for missourians and trying to find solutions. hope to continue to have a chance to do that, but that's what voters get to decide on election day. >> we will now go to questions and i will ask the first one. whoever wins this election, they will have to work with senator claire mccaskill to represent missouri. senator mccaskill recently complained that
the senate was scheduled to work zero days this year than any time in the past 60 years. do you view this as an indication that washington literally is not working, that it is not addressing important issues or do you believe that this is a laudable display of limited government that less is actually more in this case? echoes verse two jonathan jonathan mcparland. >> i like senator mccaskill. i sat across her in many rooms. i think as a senator that i would like to work more days because being in the government is a lot of responsibility with a lot of work to be done and so to negotiate with people, to work with people to get some kind of agreement and come up with some kind of compromise is the best way we can do anything. so, i would like to like
you know, be more involved in the governmental process and working with everyone i can to achieve those goals. >> jason kander. >> it's been 60 years of the united states senate worked so few days and i don't think it is because they are getting so much done, clearly not. we just-- the senate congress just got done with a seven week break. they decided to give themselves a seven-week break either to campaign or for those who were not up for reelection to take a vacation. the interesting thing about that it is not as if they had all their work done. had plenty left on the table. they just the other day finished funding the government and they had to hurry to do it when they got back in prior to that everything from the zika virus to the fact that they had not updated at all even seriously debated updating the authorization for use of military force against isis, the greatest force we face, so in missouri what happens when
someone does not get their work done and takes a seven-week break is that they get fire. senator blunt is a member of senate leadership and sits at the table where they come up with a schedule and apparently senator blunt did he see fit to raise his hand and say since we have not gotten her work done that maybe we should not go home? >> jonathan. >> america's founder did not see career politicians as a full-time job. serve a few hours, return to your regular profession and be a real representative of the people. today, most are lawyers. they are the only ones really represented in the times they do work together is usually to steal our freedoms or our money. look at the bipartisan saudi arms deal that they just decided we would sell them a $1 billion with weapons. i don't believe that our government should be in the process of destabilization and weapons sales. the less you guys were probably the better. >> fred ryman. >> you were days work,
would say that it's not only depends upon the senate schedule, but also depends upon the senator. whether i am in washington dc, or whether i am back home in missouri i suspect that i will be working almost all of the time. you cannot simply go to washington dc and serve in stay there and when you are off duty you are off duty. you are always listening. you are always tried to get feedback from your constituents and time not in washington dc should be spent working here at home. >> roy blunt. >> i think he had a good sense of what you do in this job, which has you both places a lot of the time. i have had over 6000 meetings in this state, meetings that people knew i was coming, they knew i would be there, they were recorded while i was there and people knew what was said while i was there.
i have been in all 115 counties in the last six years at least three-- six times their carbon all over the state and listening and doing the things that need to happen here, but also how much you work is not always the sense of how much you get don jerk as far-- sr senator mccaskill and i are concerned we almost always figure out how to find a solution we can work on together. we were able to work together to get a major national security side, the national geospatial agency looking for a new place to go after 70 years in st. louis. they are keeping that great workforce in our state. i have been working with lots of members on both sides of the aisle to get things done and i will be glad to talk about those as we have time. >> the next question comes from ken nugent. >> thank you to all the candidates for being here today. during the next six years the senate may be called upon to confirm more than one member of the us supreme court, plus others in the
judiciary. can you please tell us about how you would approach your review of those nominees connect jason kander, you are first this time. >> i would start by actually meeting with the. senator blunt has refused to meet with the president's nominee to the supreme court and it's interesting because when he was asked why he has not, his answer was that he did not have enough time. now, when i was in afghanistan, there were meetings that i did not want to go to an dangerous places, but i went because it's my job no matter who is elected president of the united states in november and then no matter who they nominate i will pledge that i will meet with them and consider the qualifications for the court. >> doniphan. >> i would look to someone like judge andrew napolitano who is a staunch defender of your economic freedom and personal liberties and i would look to someone who would really believe in the constitution and what it stands for. for far too long the
supreme court supposedly defenders of the constitution have sided with the state and to me examples to list your for the moment rights have been violated by both the nsa, government. we need someone who is really going to not just plays lip service to these things, but stand up for your rights work so, those are the types of people i would look for and it's a rare quality. judge andrew napolitano is one of the best examples. >> fred ryman. >> obviously and looking to confirm justices we look at their prior rulings. we want to make sure their constitutional and i think your question maybe did not go far enough because it's not simply about approving justices that we believe will rule constitutionally. we have justices and judges that are reeling from the bench in such a way that they are creating new law. the senate should be working with the house, frankly, to impeach and remove justices that are
going far beyond the bounds of what they should be doing. i can give you several examples, key helpers of the city of new london and eminent domain lawsuit where the courts basically substituted public benefits for public use in determining whether property could be condemned and given to another individual, private individual. south dakota versus elizabeth dole on issues of denial of funds. again, so we need to remove those that are not ruling a quarry to the. >> roy blunt. >> i think the next senate and the next president will have an opportunity to reshape the court that you probably won't see happen for two or three presidencies. there is one vacancy and you have to assume in all likelihood there will be two possibly three and there could be for and so one of the things voters ought to be thinking about is who is going to be nominating judges to the
courts and who's going to be confirming those nominations. there is no hop-- house of representatives role here. it's the senate and white house and i think we need judges who read the constitution and try to figure out what the constitution says rather than look at the case and try to figure out what they think the constitution should have said. this is a big moment. voters get a chance to be heard on this moment. there was no reason to confirm judge garland. he's a perfectly nice man with a perfectly bad judicial record. >> jonathan mcfarland. >> i think that the constitution reads that the president is to select nominees for the supreme court and there is not like much like left imagination and so president obama is the president and so therefore, if he chooses someone to the supreme
court i would-- i feel i would have no choice but to honor that choice and then, you know, make my decision. i strongly feel no matter who the president is, no matter who that president chooses that would at least entertain that idea, you know, making the choice so we could continue with our democracy. >> next question comes from carol stark. >> we get numerous reports that come across her desk every day that show a nationwide epidemic of prescription opioid abuse. how do you hope to stamp the tide of prescription opioid abuse especially your own state, the only one without a prescription drug monitoring plan? >> jonathan. >> first thing i would do is end of the drug war. drug use is a health issue, not a kernel justice one. far too many people are addicted to drugs, but
the statement persecution makes it hard for them to seek treatment making them live underground harsh reality. people are sometimes forced to do illicit drugs out of the unintentional effects of prohibition, one example that k2 spice that kind of kids have been doing and how to get people brain damage, but if there was not this prohibition on marijuana kids would not have to be forced to do other things. people who are truly addicted to drugs deserve treatment, compassion, not to be persecuted and incarcerated, half of what we spend on law enforcement, police and courts is nonviolent drug-related and to what end? we have the largest prison population in the world and half are in there for nonviolent drug offenses. from a conservative issue it makes sense. our resources and money could be better spent treating violent criminals in real crime and not wasted on these things. >> fred ryman.
>> hero, i would kind of agree with the premise of your question in that you said missouri does not have a way of tracking opioid use and abuse and i think possibly they should, but that is a state issue and i don't really feel like this issue rises to the purview of the federal government. some may disagree with me on that, but i would disagree that that is something that the federal government should be involved in work that they state issue and states should show responsibility and covering that, definitely. >> roy blunt. >> carol, this is a place where listening matters. i talk to someone who reads your paper everyday who has a daughter who has a huge problem with this. we had this discussion some months ago and i had just taken over as the chairman of the appropriate committee that deals with these issues and before this became a big national discussion we cut other programs to triple the commitment we had to opioid abuse.
our teaching hospitals in this state now are all looking at how we prescribed pain medication in different ways to her cry sat with three of them in st. louis, kansas city university in kirksville, to talk to them about how they are doing this differently. previous question was working with senator mccaskill. now, we only vote together about half of the time, so i do not suggest that claire mccaskill and i agree on everything, but he was a case where that in the bill that we just pass to make a more defined approach to this, we put a special provision in their, so our counties could link up together and have their own prescription drug monitoring system. >> jonathan mcfarland. >> like my friend here jonathan said we need to help alleviate the problems like of nonviolent offenders in jail, but i know a lot of-- i have met a lot of
opioid abusers and i don't believe that we should penalize everyone because they are doing drugs. i think we should treated as a health care issue and is very important in a very important distinction because we need funding to do that and as opposed to bring people in jail, which we also use funding for, so that would help alleviate a lot of our problems. as it relates to like too many people in prison and needing to build new prisons because we would be able to remove those people from prison and put them in healthcare facilities that would help them in the long term because prisons are not help. they are not made to help and we need to change that, not change prisons, but the fact that these people meet healthcare. >> jason kander. >> we deem need prescription drug monitoring program am in no question we need it and we need good leadership at all levels of government to get it. it's a state issue, but
we need it at every state level. there having good steps taken, but we need to do more. i sat down with folks who deal with us on the front lines of a say they appreciate the gesture of what has been done, but they don't think it will do near enough. i think we can do more. we need a new generation of leadership folks that will focus on solutions instead of letting this become partisan so often, but we also need to recognize that some elite drug of every type tends to follow economic concerns, so at a time where we have folks in congress who are protecting tax breaks and send jobs overseas and backing bad trade deals that send those jobs overseas, that does not make sense and does not help at a situation including a situation like this one. instead, we need to focus on the middle class and making sure they have more economic opportunity and traditionally when we have done that we have seen problems like this take downward. >> next question comes from bill miller.
>> in this campaign, nationally there has been talk about a free college education for every student and i would like to know how you feel about that? i would like to know if you think it's economically feasible to do something like that by the federal government without a huge raise in taxes. >> fred ryman. >> bill, to go back to a carol was talking about, no, i do not believe in giving away free college. we have seen what a free public education has done for a public education. i used to be a teacher myself, so i'm not speaking from complete ignorance. but, free college, let me tell you i went to college for two years and maintained about a 3.2 gpa. when i went back to school at the age of 30, and had to pay for my own education i maintained a 3.8 plus and when i went back again at age 40, i maintain a 4.0 with 2 degrees going back to
college and putting myself through school. you appreciate what you have to pay for, but more than that it's the general philosophy that is developing in this country where we look to the feds it to solve all of our problems and i'm sorry, but the federal government is not the solution to most of our problems. the federal government is the problem most of the time. >> roy blunt. >> well, i think the sort of fast talk about free college education without meat-- without any real idea how to pay for it is foolish and one of the things i have tried to do what i believe we will get done this year's return to the year-round pell grant, the grant you get if you truly are qualified economically to get not a loan, but a grants. if you get the year-round pell grant to that means you can go to school in the fall and spring and stay in school in the summer and particularly if you are the first person in your family to finish college like i was. not doing anything that disrupts that pattern
makes a big difference. if you are going back to school as an adult, not having to take that semester off and if you get full pell in our state there is no community college that it does not pay for all tuition, all books, all fees and a couple of our four-year schools it pays were all tuition, all books and all fees returning to year-round pell which we had till 2008, would be a big help to students struggling to get college. >> jonathan mcfarland scenic i believe free education is a great idea. i believe the american people could be much more intelligent through such a device and that we could, you know, work on it's like getting there economically. like jill stein has put together a whole good plan for getting a free educational system and if we just allow our tax brackets to be-- if we allowed our taxes to go without loopholes and
allowed it to, you know, allow rich people to be taxed fairly we could actually see an increase up to like $4 billion in our funding of the free educational system. >> jason kander. >> i disagree with those who say we should make it free. it's too expensive, but we can make it where people who have student loans can refinance the same way they can a homeowner autoloading limit the interest they pay per those would be to real concrete things we could do to help. i personally was amazed when senator blunt said something along the lines of the recent folks are graduating with so much debt is because of their lifestyle during school as if that extra bowl of prominent microwave with students graduate with $26000 in debt and it's interesting to hear senator blunt talk about programs because senator blunt voted to cut pell grants five years ago and what is talking about is a situation where he has voted now to work to restore that
funny back to where it was. that is what happened. is just taking a back to where it was before he cut it. senator, someone who sets a fire and then puts it out is that a fireman. they are an arsonist. >> you think college is expensive now, with till it's free. let's get the government out of the loansharking business, easy to secure government loans that artificially inflate the price of college. if the government wasn't giving out all these loans it ridiculously high rates, colleges would be forced to lower the rates to let people in a glad business. it's the same concept that went to the housing market-- that count-- cause the housing bubble. we are in an education bubble. i think we need to reevaluate our education system. we have these kids for 12 years already and we can't get them ready to join the workforce? they should be able to graduate with a high school degree that should be able to get them in a job.
of the idea that you have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for a piece of paper to say your now ready to earn money doesn't make any sense to me. i really think we should heed the widest-- wise words. give a man a fish you can for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. we didn't get back to job training and actual skills training, plumbers, technicians and things of value. i see i'm out of time. >> senator blunt, yet 30 seconds of rebuttal. >> i think everyone knows when programs were eliminated in 2009, president obama was in the white house and democrats win control of the congress and returning to year-round hell would make a big difference. if you think that student spending has nothing to do with student borrowing, ask anyone at any community college ready for your school what one of the elements is that they are most concerned about when they talk to students about the money that students are borrowing and eventually have to pay back. >> jason kander, would you like 30 seconds? >> i don't think i
mentioned jason kander. >> senator blunt, it's interesting, they have it on video where you pointed out that it's actually student lifestyles causing it and that's clearly not the case i'm not sure if maybe that's what you had in mind when you voted to double to interest rate, allowed to double that students pay on their loans. this is not an issue just for students. it's a middle-class economic issue and as you go around the state and talk to people i meet people that it's affecting three generations in their family with grandparents have suspended their retirement to help kids pay for school. this is affecting people all over our state. >> we are going to go to the next question, ken newton. >> where do you stand in regard to undocumented residents in the country and giving them a path to citizenship and along with this, how much do the nations resources should be committed to strengthening border security? >> roy blunt.
>> will, in terms of border security i think securing the border is the fundamental question dealing with this it issue. there really three questions, how do you secure the border, what are the legitimate workforce needs of the country and what do you do about people who came or state illegally and that's about 50/50, 50% of the people not here legally came across the border illegal and about 50% came into the country legally and just stayed. the first priority has to be securing the border and i think once that happens people will be pretty forward leaning about trying to find solutions and the other two, at the same time i was absolutely opposed to president obama's executive embassy and fortunately, a federal judge in texas agreed. i had a lot to say about that at the time and i still have a lot to say about that and i am not for citizenship for people who came to the country illegally. >> jonathan mcfarland.
>> as it relates to mexico, relates to us helping mexico rebuild the economy. i was down in mexico in 2011, and a lot of people there say that after nafta was passed like what they have as resources was taken away and then owned by a large corporation from the united states and i know that's kind of like no one knows about it because we keep pushing this agenda of the mexicans have any drug cartels or whatever and i just happen to know what heights, so i believe that we need to help mexico cannot punish these people who have been continual-- actually historical migrants like before 500 years ago people from mexico came to the us what is now the us and people went down to mexico and we need to honor that system that they had because for all
i know and all i see america is a place in which is more or less taken from other people. >> jason kander. >> error immigration system is broken and we need comprehensive immigration reform. had i been in the senate at the time, i would have supported the bipartisan legislation that was put forward i senator rubio and had it passed it made the distance we would not be facing the problems we are facing now because we desperately need conference of immigration reform and i would have supported that bipartisan effort. i know personally the promise that legal immigration hold in this country. my wife came to the us from the soviet union at the age of 81989, and i've seen the contribution to the community she has made in the mike in-laws have made, but in order to address our immigration system we will need a new generation of folks focused on solutions and not so incredibly disagreeable that they can't move forward on important issues like this.
that bill that i would have supported had it been in the senate, senator rubio's bill increased funding for security at the border and that is where we need to start. >> jonathan dine. >> our resources should be used to protect us from people attacking our country, not from people who want to be a part of it. immigration needs to be reformed, streamline the process took many immigrants are coming here to work. if we make it as easy as possible to get a work visa people would line up at the law. come across, give them a social security number and they can pay taxes. it's happening whether we like it or not. we might as well make them a useful resource. the idea that all immigrants are bad stems from the war on drugs and the propaganda. if we end the war on drugs we would not have to worry about the drug cartel and people like colorado and other things who are making money hand over fist where they are giving money back to their citizens. immigrants play a
valuable role to the society, many in hospitality and agriculture industries would be devastated without migrant workers. in alabama, they pass harsh immigration laws and fruit was riding on the vine. they provide a resource. tax them. make them citizenship or after a seven-year period give them a background check so we know who they are and who is entering our country picked the spring up from underground to up top. >> fred ryman. >> i have been hearing about conference of immigration reform since i was a teenager and that's about 40 years ago and i'm sorry, but never wants has congress acted to secure the border. it has not happened in 40 years and i don't look forward to it happening any time soon as long as we have the same crowd talking the same language. one of the things we have to do in order to secure the border is not just build up all across the board appeared that is something politicians do to make it look like they're doing something and all they are really doing is wasting our money.
we need to turn off the magnets that are dry people across the border in the first place, the real criminals are not the people crossing the border trying to feed their families. the real criminals are the companies hiring illegal immigrants against the law, underpaying them and we are taking no action at all against them. almost no action at all. i would say we need to beef up the penalties, but only enforced what laws on the books, but beef up the penalties. ..
i was wondering what was taking so long with handling the zika virus at least one case in the state of missouri. on being that being that my wife is pregnant with her second child was disheartened about what was happening and how we were going to handle it. the future americans and those been born now.
with those who weren't up for reelection. and i think that was the best use of their time. so that is something that was pretty urgent. it goes back to the makeup of congress. we don't have enough of this. the people who have this with a personal opportunity for career advancement and actually work together which some folks from different backgrounds and places who come together and they get things done they rally around the mission and they know it's getting it done. getting it done on time was a mission but they don't seem to have the ability around that. i believe in each case like this has something to do with
us too few people who have served on the military and congress. how many viruses has the government cured. i think it'll be a waste of money private industry should be doing the research. there's plenty of research institutes. colleges some individual has lobbied the government. i do not believe that the government has ever been a good steward of our tax dollars at the get is the unintentional consequence that is worse. the government shouldn't be in the virus solving industry. >> the issue is another one of those that i see that crosses over the line between state responsibility and federal responsibility. we do have the center for
disease control the could that could speak to such issues as was said i don't think we are going to find a cure certainly not in a matter of weeks so that becomes more an issue of controlling the spread of the virus which has to do more with killing mosquitoes the controlling disease. again that's something i believe the state or local municipalities are better equipped to do with. could it be coordinated possibly. where is the where's the federal jurisdiction beyond that. i don't see one. it is not going to get into pest control. >> and the administration saw crisis and overreached and tried to make the most of it but even though they ask for 1.9 billion dollars and
85 million of it was for two new buildings that clearly were not good to be built as part of an emergency and hundred 75 million or to transfer to any other agency of government for any other reason and then 500 million of the money had not been used. we came quickly to $1.1 billion they came up with that compromise. they voted for it. i wanted to get it done before we left in july. we did get it done when we got back. it was a very blunt effort to get it done. talk about trying to find solutions and not trying to be disagreeable when you can find ways to agree and even hillary clinton one of the cochair of said what they should do is pass the blunt murray compromise and we did. >> with time for one more question and this will come from you bill miller. we had been giving it quite a
few tv ads where they are taking it apart and putting it back and so on i have heard comments from missourians that they really feel like that's an insult to their intelligence to think that being able to been able to handle a gun and shoot a gun is proper preparation for serving in government. >> i support the second amendment. and here is a clear difference between myself. i used learned how to use a gun in the army. i'm concerned i'm very concerned every time i see a school shooting or any other time where citizens are not safe and i believe one of the things and what we need to do is we need universal background checks. expand it to include suspected terrorists. now senator blunt is about to
talk to you about his and air are rated and i would put my marksmanship badge up against him in the day of the week. i believe that there is no conflict in a supporter. one of the ways to protect the second amendment. the terrorists and criminals don't have the same access to guns that you and i have. you can't turn on and watch the television show. of the world is quinoa and if you vote for this guy. instead of telling me why i shouldn't vote for the other guy i really wish you guys would give me some commercials and tell me why he should vote for you. what are you gonna do and not just slander the other guy. it's indicative of our entire system but he just proved my point when he said we worked on this zika virus together to
build two new abilities and expand the scope of government but had little to do with actually finding the cure for the zika virus. as the only problem i have. i don't feel like it is a good steward of tax dollars into me politicians should encourage gun ownership in responsible while armed citizenship is the best defense against domestic tyranny. i am a strong supporter of the second amendment and i do not believe the second amendment is there for us for sporting or hunt and it is more for our defense not only with our family but also with our self defense against our own government if you want to read that. but i have a long-winded explanation of my support of the second amendment on the website i want to say with the
remainder of my time that i'm disappointed that we never got to trade because i think trade is a hugely important issue with respect to jobs here in the united states. they would do that. we have the trade with relatively equal countries but the way this works i get 30 seconds to respond to the comment and 362 respond to the fast track comment and in a minute to respond to the question. >> the question on gun control nobody wants terrorists or criminals to have guns.
what a foolish line to try to draw. they want to be able to have a gun but he is not nearly as concerned about what other people can have or not. not easily done. fewer than 10% of the members managed to get an. he can stand here and say i'm a defender of the second amendment but no one watches these issues and believes that to be the case it does matter. frankly all the amendments matter. it's why the supreme court is so important. all of the amendments had impact and how this senate deal with the court a big difference whether we are able to secure those freedoms or whether they are taken away from us.
>> i'm glad that's what they said. i don't think they have anything to do with the requirement to be a politician. and also i know people who have gotten there conceal and carry licenses and they feel cheated by the new rule that allows almost anyone to carry a gun now. i think it's kind into our lowest nature. what he said about that. we have a great opportunity emissary to really understand trade in the midwest missouri is on part to be a great producer of solar panels. especially for the midwest and we could do a lot to approve our economy later. >> there were a variety of issues there.
jason if you want an extra 30 seconds we could do that. >> the major difference between myself and the senator on this issue is i believe that my second amendment rights are important enough that if somebody comes from syria and there is a suspected terrorist that we shouldn't should give them the same opportunity to buy a gun like you and i have. he can call it foolish all he wants. they would come from all over the world to hurt us. >> of course you shouldn't had suspected terrorists coming from syria is the big difference in president obama's view in my view of the issue. i think i was clear. we did not build any additional buildings. we don't give didn't give them $1.9 billion. we looked at this carefully and agreed to do 1.1 billion
dollars and arrives in time. they provided what was needed until the extended has not been held back but if it would pass the bill that we passed this week several weeks ago it would've been a better way to deal with it. >> we will move now to the closing statements. roy, you are first. again. thank you for doing this. there is a clear choice in the selection you had five different alternatives to me i spent a lot of time at home i understand the state in ways that it takes a while to do. a lot of opportunities. i had been fighting for missourians. a lot of discussions about
disagreeable things in the congress. i'm able to reach out and find solutions. we got legislation passed for advanced mini faction that well have an impact on manufacturing jobs. the senator and i from michigan we have the excellence in mental health act passed. many people say is the biggest step forward in 50 years. it will allow eight states and maybe as many as 23 in the big pilot project to treat mental health like all other help we've let the law enforcement in the emergency rooms in the country to become the de facto mental health system. we were able to get the victims of child abuse a lot extended even when the obama administration for reasons that we could never understand did not want to extend it. the increase in healthcare research after zero increase
we've a 6.6% and i think we will get that again this year. we have to eliminate over two dozen programs that were ineffective. everything is a priority and then nothing is a priority. they deserve a congress that will set priorities and look at their money and spend it in the most effective way possible and try to make not take any more of it than absolutely necessary. it's a great honor to work for missourians. i would be pleased to have your vote. and get to serve you for another six years. the desire is to just be left alone. as long as we don't bring harm to anyone else.
they say it is a wasted vote. then to be cast yet again for the two parties that have given us $20 trillion in national butt. when they step into the voting booth i want them to understand how wasted the vote was last time. listening to roy appear try to defend his record. when he was elected in 2101 of the biggest problems is was
that he was in a repeal obama care. in the last year he only sponsored two pieces of where he is a liar that doesn't want to get anything done. i'm concerned about the direction our country is headed. they are us versus them mentality is hostile. it's counterproductive. and now becomes more important than solving americans problems. the time to stop voting for the lesser of two evils is over. but the republicans in the democrats are to blame. neither is serious about balancing the budget. restrain their freedoms limiting the economic involvement we have an opportunity here to make history if you really want to break up the stagnation's of the two parties send out libertarian up there i will fight tirelessly as your
senator i will sponsor legislation for term limits illumination of federal income tax the power should be returned to the people. vote libertarian just one time if you don't like peace prosperity and freedom. you can vote tierney and next time. see who well best represent. >> thank you david. i've spoken to them all over the state. i asked them what they would do over and over again is that they just want folks in washington to work together
because the status quo has been great for him his family and has special interest owners. over that time he has allowed companies to ship jobs overseas to continue to get tax breaks way before families would get them that's one of the things that i'm going to the senate to change. senator barn has voted to raise his own pay 12 times. meanwhile middle-class families in missouri are continuing to struggle. he only visits missouri when he has to because he's not the same person who is a history teacher or the green county clerk or even have my current job as a secretary of state he used to be a reformer. with get money out of politics so that they can get a fair deal. but after 20 years in washington he has changed and he no longer believes that. and i signed up for the army i
did out of a sense of duty to our country. i was excited to do the job. that is why i have never hesitated as a state representative to stand up to my party to donors to do what is right for missouri. i had spent my entire adult life serving our country and fighting for in fighting for our values. and now i am ready to go to washington to fight for you. thank you. >> i believe in democracy. i believe it works and it needs ideas i don't believe that they have that. i know president obama ran on a platform of we are change but, i really believe that we do need change. we need real change. it only comes from the bottom up. everybody in every american
has about to they possibly have an idea we could collect we can argue about them we could throw them around and see how they could really work for us. that's what i believe. i believe the american people and hope you believe in me. >> let's give our candidates a round of applause. >> the roads to the white house coverage can tissue. it will be holding a rally under colorado with that rally
scheduled to start at 5:00 p.m. eastern. hillary clinton well be in akron ohio and the democratic party buddy renders registration. it starts next week and you can see her speech life starting at 545 eastern here and c-span two. they're getting set up for the vice presidential debate happening tomorrow night and the main gene editor tweeted out these pictures this is where steve scully is hoping to host the washington today program tomorrow at five eastern. a picture now of the spin room where the representatives from both campaigns will appear tomorrow after the debate to talk with reporters. this is where c-span will interview guest before and after tomorrow's debate in the view from the state looking out at the audience. you can see more behind-the-scenes pictures and
videos by following ben o'connell on twitter. ahead i head of tuesday's vice presidential debate we will took take a look back at the candidate. they are using the video library . >> i have seen the story before i've seen the bad news of a shooting or whether emergency or a famine i've seen the stories and there will be more like that but there was something in the story yesterday that was different even in a dark day of optimism in community and hope. >> it is the most visible threat that runs through the tapestry of the american government. more often than not for good or for ill it sets the tone for the other branches. in its first the expectations of the people. its powers are vast inconsequential. its requirements it's requirements from the outset and by definition possible for
mortals to fulfill without humility and consistent attention that is set forth in the constitution of the united states a look at the vice presidential debate tonight at eight eastern on c-span. watch anytime and look at and listen. listen anytime on our c-span radio app. campaign 2016 bus is traveling throughout new york this week. asking voters. i am the president of the assembly. i would like to see it addressing in the campaign. what you can do to ensure that
they are not only addressed but at there at the table. the most important issue in the election for me it's a plan for economic growth and for america's place in the world. it's the most generous government and history of the world and i think these are the kinds of issues that we need to discuss. >> my name is jonathan peters. during this election my biggest concern is who is can take care of our foreign policy. on the allies of russia and china. i dishonesty a strong leader be able to take care that effectively.
>> they recently talked about the republican party's proposals on immigration healthcare tax policy and he spoke about 20 minutes. it's hosted by the aspen institute. >> good morning. i think the question everyone in washington is wondering where did you learn to hammer a nail and are you considering that course. i grew up doing it when i was young. now you can buy a tree stand i grew up doing all my life. another thing you spend a lot of time constructed is the better way document. our house republicans if you keep the majority are you committed with moving forward on that this is a six and big
solutions to big problems facing this country that we obviously believe is much easier to do with unified republican government but look at the issues were trying to tackle let's go after the root causes of poverty. not by input are just throwing money at problems. i would like to think there is a lot of space for the kind of welfare reforms were talking right here no matter who is in what office clearly we think will be easier if we unified government rebuilding a military that has been controversial unfortunately between the two parties. regulatory reform those are things that we have profound disagreements on. obama care is imploding. it's a very comprehensive
occurrence. just because the law is imploding. inevitable must have to happen. they are you losing losing the competitiveness so quickly. losing the home-grown business. let's walk through those priorities. >> on the other hand only 9.1 percent of americans are uninsured. would you say it's a matter of principle. that should have to meet the test of reducing the number of americans. we should always have a plan that helps people who are uninsured get health insurance. there are far better ways. we can have a system in this country where everyone has
access to affordable health insurance including people with pre-existing conditions are beastly for people who are low income without having a costly government take over i think they just put out a study that said 31 percent of our nations counties only offer one plan were going from a monopoly and it's basically public utilities where people are getting no choices in such high premium increases the law is imploding. they just pulled out they should provide universal access. there can be people in this country they will choose not have health insurance. with the complex. he may not choose have health insurance.
there can be those people but for those who want it and need it clearly we can have a system that can do that and by the way that's what we propose. >> let me ask you on the tax side. reagan cut taxes and has a big job growth. they raise taxes. over eight years. george w. bush cut taxes. president obama is now past 11 million jobs after raising taxes. what is it in that record. to accelerate job creation and growth. >> he raised taxes and has ten times amount. we are averaging one to 2% growth.