tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN November 3, 2016 3:00pm-5:31pm EDT
it re- airs live on the c-span networks. network. you can find it online on our website today at c-span.org. >> all week on c-span2 we're showing live simulcast of political greater talk shows. >> congress returns for a lame-duck session on tuesday november 14 previous house on my dinner from 14. the house returns an essay on c-span2 on tuesday november 15 your november 15th.
>> take you live to the george washington university law school for discussion on four businesses in th the u.s., the justice department's assistant attorney general for the criminal division is part of this forum looking at the foreign corrupt practices act. they are just getting started here on c-span2. >> i will hand over the podium momentarily to my colleague susan who will formally introduce our two distinguished panelists but first let me say how thrilled we are to host this discussion of the foreign corrupt practices act.
among our full-time and part-time faculty are many like myself have served as federal prosecutors or defended individuals and entities charged with criminal conduct including under the fcpa. we have a rich curriculum in the areas of criminal law and procedure here at gw law and we produce many graduates who go on to distinguished careers in government and private practice. one such star graduate is the assistant attorney general leslie caldwell. we are so proud of her and excited to welcome her back to her alma mater this afternoon. and although our other distinguished guests karen popp is not a gw law graduate she has a strong connection to the university. i learned just this week that her father once coached football at george washington university. yes, gw once had a football team. and by all accounts he was a phenomenal coach and, in fact,
after coaching at gw and on to coach in the nfl. so in a way you're part of the gw family so welcome back, karen. with that i will hand over the program to our wonderful colleague susan and her associate dean for international law, to formally introduce our guests had to moderate the discussion. thank you again and welcome. >> thank you so much, dean fairfax for the kind introduction. as you just learned, roger fairfax was a former department justice lawyer. we're fortunate to have him along with other prosecutors and defense lawyers on our faculty. the experience they've had in practice brings immense benefits to the student of the george washington university law school. i would like to welcome you to this conversation about the foreign corrupt practices act with the two very distinguished lawyers, the assistant attorney general leslie caldwell who has
the criminal division of the united states department of justice, and karen popp was the chair of the white collar group. but if it is possible to the artwork of a number of people and i would like to thank them at the outset. my colleagues at george washington university law school, dean fairfax, celinda davis and andrew lawrence. and to ms. campos colleagues at the department of justice. so thank you so much for all of your help in making this possible. in 1977 of the united states enacted the foreign corrupt practices act designed to eliminate or minimize corruption of foreign officials by certain persons and entities. the statute has been amended on certain occasions as well to expand its reach. the anti-private section of the foreign corrupt practices act is enforced by united states department of justice.
the foreign corrupt practices act raises a whole host of issues such as the extraterritorial reach of u.s. law, the relationship between practices of foreign countries and standards in the united states, the appropriate penalty to be given for violationviolation s of the act, and the consideration that should be given to companies and individuals that have adopted policies and practices to prevent violations of the foreign corrupt practices act. today we'll have a conversation about these and many other topics. we are honored to have with is our graduate leslie caldwell who on may 15, 2014, was confirmed as the assistant attorney general of the criminal division of the department of justice. in that capacity she works with more than 600 lawyers who prosecute a federal criminal cases around the country. she's responsible to help develop criminal law and formulate criminal enforcement policies. she also has worked closely with
the 93 u.s. attorneys that are involved in investigations and prosecutions of criminal matters and the districts around the united states. her entire career has largely been dedicated to handling federal criminal cases both as a prosecutor and as defense counsel your she's known particularly for her work on the enron task force, which she was director of from the year 2002-2004. she worked at the u.s. attorney's office for the northern district of california and has served as the chief of the criminal division's chief of the securities fraud section of the northern district. she also worked for 11 years in the united states attorneys office for the eastern district of new york, including serving as senior trial counsel for the business and securities fraud section and chief of the violent criminal enterprises section. for distinguished work on the enron task force, she received the attorney general's award for
exceptional service. she's also the recipient of the attorney general's john marshall award for trial litigation and the attorney general's award for fraud prevention. she also had before joining the criminal division, a position as a porter at morgan law office and she was co-chair firm's corporate investigations in white-collar practice group. ms. caldwell, three to welcome me back. you are here in school again, and we are delighted to hear. she's also graduate of another football powerhouse, pennsylvania state university. she will first provide opening remarks, and then karen popp from the law firm of sidley austin will give a response as well. let me also introduce karen at this time, too. she's on the firm's executive committee and as i mentioned she
leads the firm's white-collar government litigation investigations group. that group is recognized as one of the top high profile white-collar groups in the united states with substantial experience to legal, political and public relations aspects of criminal defense come into an investigations, sec enforcement matters, congressional investigations, and the list goes on. care and practice is informed by a wealth of government and private sector experience including serving as a federal prosecutor in new york, and low in the office of legal counsel of the u.s. department of justice, and associate white house counsel to president clinton. she's a graduate of university of north carolina where she earned her bachelor as well as her jd degree. so we look forward to your opening remarks, and after that,
karen will provide some comments to isolation and that we've had a discussion with the three of us will open the floor to questions and comments. so please, let's welcome leslie caldwell back to her alma mater. [applause] >> thank you. i can say when i was here not of this was here. it was a very different physical plant back and it's great to be back at judy biggert i had a lot of good memories, and for me it was a great legal education and i've always valued it. so hopefully those of you who are students are having a great experience. has been said to have years ago i was privileged to be named by the president and confirmed by the senate to become the assistant attorney general for the criminal division. many people don't know what the criminal division does. most people know about the u.s. attorneys offices which there are 93 of them and they do mostly focus on crime in their geographic areas. several of them go beyond their
geographic areas. one of which is the southern district of new york. as an alum, i can't resist saying that. we would be on our area but in any event, but in the criminal division were not limited by geography. so we focused around on geography on subject matter. we've got 17 sections. they do all sorts of things that i'm not going to list them all but ranging from very sophisticated really scary child exploitation organizations that operate internationally on the dark internet, to asset forfeiture and money-laundering involving major international money-laundering cases to the fraud section which does major international fraud cases but did want to look at the vw investigation, the panama papers, a lot of things you read about the cross international borders are being done by the criminal division in the fraud section. because we don't have geographic limits other than the limits of federal criminal jurisdiction, we will have an international and national scope from which we
look at everything in a different vantage point i think and use the attorneys. i think that vantage point has enabled us to really focus on emerging areas in white-collar crime and should our policy in the way we approach things. i'd like to talk about a couple things, there were many others but a couple things about where particularly import when i started as assistant attorney general. and share with you what those were important what we do to try to address them. one is i really wanted us to sharpen our focus on international corruption and international cases. i felt that we were a little too random and what we are focusing on and that we spent a little too much time focusing on her ticket cases before we decide whether something really there or not. i wanted to sharpen that. i want us to work in bigger cases and more impact cases and more important cases. the second major thing i wanted to do and this was borne of my
experience as a defense lawyer at morgan lewis was i wanted there to be more transparency in our charging decision. when we decide to charge a corporation, i'm talking in a corporate context, when we decide to charge a company what factors to reconsider. there are factors that are in justice department publications but if you were an outside counsel as i was you would see what appeared to be inconsistent and sometimes even arbitrary outcomes in what seemed to be similar fact situations. one of the gland was to try to increase transparency. want to talk briefly today about both of those things. international corruption. for a long time that's been a priority of the department. they continued to be. we've added more resources during my tenure. it's important because you can't measure the damage caused by international corruption just by looking at numbers although the numbers are staggering. more than $1 trillion according to world bank estimates is paid out in bribes every year i
corporations trying to get businesses in various parts of the world. that is 3% of the entire world economy. more importantly we see the corrosive effects of corruption. the anticompetitive effects of corruption on our u.s. companies who are trying to play by the rules, and who can't compete against those willing to pay bribes to some of our discoveries pay bribes as well. corruption is destabilizing, destabilizing for comments, citizen to get a device competence in government, undermines competence in the market. it destroys a sense of fair play that undermines the rule of law. it is especially true in emerging economies were sometimes people are getting rich and there's no infrastructure people are living on less than a dollar a day or less than $10 a day. the fruits of corruption we've seen come to see him in his but we see in our cases, can help prop up otter craddock corrupt
regimes. often in poor country but also in some wealthier countries. it also presents broader public safety concerns. we've seen an extreme example of corrupt regimes have career essentially safe havens for criminals and terrorists who can then fan out all over the world and commit crimes and engaged in their terrorist acts. these are some the reasons why it's been a prayer and continues to be a priority. i'm sure that will be continued by whoever succeeds me but i hope that the making of focus that we've had which is to try to focus o focus on the bigger , the cases that have a big impact on the two examples from the last couple years. one is there was a french power and transportation company and in december 2014 they paid $772 million criminal penalties especially the scheme to bribe officials in 10 different countries. that was the highest criminal fine ever paid. one of the reasons they pay that
fine is because they refused to cooperate with law enforcement in any country they were under investigation in several countries. they refused to cooperate. they resisted every step of the way. the bribery was presented and it was directed at fairly high levels within the company. another settlement we had earlier this year was with the company, a dutch telecom company which was paying bribes to an individual in this pakistan to control access to the telecom market in uzbekistan. they paid a large amount of bribes. they paid more than $140 million to get access to the telecom market. they resolve their investigation with an $800 million resolution that included resolution with us, the department of justice, with the sbc and the authorities in the netherlands. that's one thing we are working increasing with other countries sharing investigation, sharing
leads, evidence, witnesses, giving each other tips. some of these cases have, from 10th to our law enforcement from overseas law enforcement and we likewise give information to folks overseas. a good example of that is just last week we announced the resolution of an investigation into bribery pride the brazilian aircraft manufacturer which those of you take the shuttle between new york or boston and d.c., those are jets that you are on. that was the case would work jointly with brazil and would join with saudi arabia which was a company -- country we traditionally have worked in the criminal justice a. a positive more than a dozen for their involvement in that bribery scandal. we also something i'm very excited about in the criminal division that's relatively new which is color asset recovery initiatives to its house with an asset for which and money laundering section. i should've said the ftc is held
in the front section which is our largest section to read about 140 lawyers in the fraud section. that's a big change. when i was in the criminal division before, there was about 50 so that's a dramatic change. the goal of the initiative is to trace enforcement proceeds of foreign corruption. when it's possible to the got away to get that money back to help the country, people in the country that money was stolen. so, for example, we did a year or so ago a resolution that involved former soviet republic and we're able to get our hands on the large amount of money and work with the ngo to find and oversee some youth activity programs in the country that may sound like a small thing but rather than the u.s. keeping the money that we seized that was
total from the country, we got the money back to the country for useful programs and we have an automatic transmission might actually going for the good program that we think we're funding as both a back to the pockets of people who still in the first place. the initiative is fairly new. its work is very painstaking because in order to forfeit money and seize it went to be able to identify and be able to prove the original crime, the original corruption, the original that, richard bribery. and then we have to trace the money from that crime to an account we can get our hands on. that's hard to do because these folks are very sophisticated. they put their money into it's not in their name in an account at citibank. it's an offshore account, and it's are difficult to trace, difficult to prove that the money is supposed of the underlying crime.
lawyers, the panama papers case you probably read about employers and sophisticated accounts, a whole network of people whose job it is up other people hide and move the money. it's difficult to penetrate that. witnesses are difficult but because oftentimes they are still in power and so you're not get somebody from the country who knows what happened to come to you if you could go back to the country and give you actual evidence. but we've already seized a lot. we seized more than $3 billion in assets and the last couple of years under the kleptocracy initiative. one of the reasons for the initiative is we don't want that kind to be a safe haven for the stolen money. we don't want the decade of name that country to own the penthouse at the time warner center on columbus circle in new york or to own a huge mansion in washington with stolen money. we don't want to be a haven. some of the assets we seize have been mentioned all over in malibu and apartments in new york.
we seize a hotel in beverly hills. we seize impressionist art. we had a case this past summer that involve the malaysian sovereign wealth fund where more than $3 billion was siphoned off of the malaysian sovereign wealth fund. buying mansions, hotels and also funding the movie after i brought it with this movie that was funded, the will of wall street. we now own the rights to the will of wall street. tonight at one go home and download and you'll be adding to your government coffers. [laughter] or if you don't want to add to the government coffers, don't download. the other thing bridge is transparency. when i was at my firm i was crushed because i felt when you represent a client and the client has a problem and the client is going to to do with the department of justice, the client wants to know what's going to happen.
you usually would not a position to tell the client with any degree of certainty. if you go in and self-report this, here's what will happen. there was no clear roadmap. it's difficult to give a clear roadmap as i found in this job because everything is so fact specific by wanted to try as best we could to make our decisions and actions more transparent and understandable. the transparency is important because it helps not only companies understand what might happen, helps the public see what we're doing and why we're doing it, and i think it also deters future wrongdoers. because being transparent about what will happen to a company if it does something is a good way to deter the company from doing it because they will see the consequences of what they do. one thing come within two things to try to make the corporate charging decisions more transparent. what is in all of our charging
documents except for indictments which there are not that many actual indictment of corporations. there usually resolve with a guilty plea, a deferred prosecution agreement or a non-prosecution agreed to. i won't get into the details here for those of you don't know, but we used to not say in those documents why, why is this to be getting a deferred prosecution agreement and that company is getting a guilty plea? we've changed and now we see why. we say if a company fully cooperative. we say if the company did things, gave us things we could not have found on her own, gave us access to documents, evidence, whatever. it's fact specific dignity go on our website you see resolutions and the kind of language that describes what the company deeper in some cases may be the company self-reported, cooperative, remediated and did much better than the company that didn't cooperate until they switched council, which happens a lot, and then they cooperated but they still look at the full
credit of the sinker as the other companies. we can't do that. the second way is we recently about six months ago start a pilot program in our fcpa cases only. that a pilot program provides guidance to the front section prosecutors were doing fcpa cases about corporate resolutions. it provides benchmarks about if the company does x. it will be certain under eligible for certain things. so the company voluntarily reports and cooperate secure mediates, even when there is a bribe that we could prove, we may decline prosecution of that case. that's intended to be a carrot for those companies. we think it's important they still have to disgorge the profits but in any event the pilot program is something its new. it's only six months old. we've seen is been having an
effect. we've seen an uptick in self reporting. it's two things to say whether that's directly attributable to the pub program on whether that just happens to be what's happening fisher as a posted next to our last you. i think it's giving and pictures to your care in spots, i think it's getting council at least something they can tell the client when the clancy what is going to happen to me if i go in and deal with the government another thing we did summer that dovetails into the pilot program is voluntary disclosure used to be an element of cooperation. we have nine doctor we consider and decide whether to charge of cooperation. they are in a website and in our u.s. attorneys manual. we've added one and separate out self-disclosure from cooperation to self-disclosure is its own factor. in addition to all the other cooperations, self-disclosure is something we also consider. that was intended to urge companies to self-report and to simply an additional reward them if they did that.
so i'm skipping over some of these notes in the interest of time but i really want, i think those are really the main things that we've done in the last couple years that i think have at least been aimed at improving our corporate prosecution that our fcpa prosecutions both against companies and individuals the the idea of the pilot program is to get companies to stop report by giving it incentives for when it comes in self reports it will give us the information that it has because it's commissioned an outside investigation by outside law firm, it will give us the information it has that will in turn enable us to prosecute individuals. we recognize that prosecution of individuals is the biggest deterrent image editing most people would agree that is the biggest deterrent to corporate wrongdoing and criminal wrongdoing. ..
beyond the enforcement of law in the united states. secondly, to give us guidance on transparency and infighting to the pilot program which we will talk about in a few minutes. miss pop, would you like to say a few words in response to miss caldwell's observations?she did t up on one issue directly for you so. please feel free. >> which i know we are going to be talking about a lot today and that's the pilot program. let me say a lot of what leslie said i commend the department of justice for all the efforts being made to be more transparentbecause i think that is extremely important . to corporations, individuals, anyone that comes under investigation by the department is to have more transparency into what's going on, the thought process
by prosecutors and asked extremely helpful for those out there who are attempting to have compliance programs and other decision-making that goes on in corporate america. i also think the pilot program is a good idea and i know that is in large part based on comments today and prior comments from the department is to hold that care out and to make it also then be, have some transparency on the backside as to how those results were achieved. on the other hand, there are some concerns we still have in the private sector in the defense bar and also amongst corporations and individuals and i know we are going to be exploring some of those but one of the concerns is the long arm reach of the us
government out and throughout the world and because this practice and we are focused here today on the fdcpa because the practice when you are representing corporations really is what i like to refer to as a conference room practice. you don't go to court. you don't have a judge arbitrating arguments that the government may make as opposed to the defense and jurisdiction is often one of those topics. that the government has a different view of its reach then the defense so it is an area that is dependent on what prosecutors across the table, you may have a very aggressive view on what the evidence is as to whether jurisdiction exists. and i also, you know, it's difficult and leslie alluded to this, companies and we are
a global economy today. many companies in this country are global, many companies outside of the us are global and are doing business here. and it is, it can be very unlevel playing field throughout the world for corporations that are attempting to do business and i encourage our government to continue its efforts that i know it's been going on for some time now, to encourage other governments to enforce their own laws so that the companies in those countries have to abide by the same rules that us companies have to abide by so there is a level playing field area and then, you know, it's also music to my ears to hear the department of justice is emphasizing big cases. having big impact and you
couple that with the pilot program and this is something i will put two leslie right now enough to answer it right away but it is a question that i know is being asked and that is, is there a threshold that accompanies a company should be considering whether to disclose? in other words, at what point should a company if it has an issue, at what point should it be bringing it to the attention of the department of justice under the pilot program? because it is something that is often faced out there by companies that are doing business globally. and i expect the department of justice doesn't want every little thing brought to them under the pilot program and given their emphasis, i think that's a good thing for us to talk about today and i leave my other comments on my observations about the pilot program, prosecution of individuals, disclosure,
cooperation,etc. for the q and a thank you so much karen and i think we have a question on the table already . i suggest we focus on the pilot program first and the challenge that wasjust raised by karen and i can't have a couple questions on that subject . >> so there's no threshold. we won tell a company if there's a bride for $40,000 at court? we don't usually prosecute. we recognize that any big company can't control all the employees all the time. we recognize that if you are a company operating in certain geographies, you are going to be paying possibly small you will be paying some kind of inappropriate tax, we recognize that. we recognize companies have rogue employees who don't follow company policy so even when there's a strong company policy, it may be the case
that somebody in the company does something off the reservation, that happens all the time. i did work in this area when i was in private practice and i know it's impossible for a big global company to make sure all its employees are following the law at all times so there isn't any threshold but if i were a company and i were thinking about whether i wanted to sell support i would think about a couple things, i would think about if anyone, let's say it's a us company. was anyone in the us involved in this. somebody in the us was involved in this, was it somebody high in the company that was involved in this? somebody i in a foreign jurisdiction was involved in this? the higher you go, the more likely it is that somebody else is going to tell us about whatever happened so i think, i don't like to tell people don't self appoint unless you think you will get caught but there is an element of that so if you've got a serious problem that others are likely to know about and we get reportsfrom whistleblowers , disgruntled employees, competitors who didn't get the bid because they didn't pay the bribe, the chances of us finding out
, and we've got it added to our repurchase both in terms of fbi resources and prosecutor resources, we are working with prosecutors and police agencies all over the world , i mentioned the americas with brazil and saudi arabia and the allsop case, we gave evidence to the indonesian authorities to prosecute the corrupt indonesian public officials so we are all talking to each other. we are sharing information so if you've got something that is a significant issue, you should seriously think about telling us about it and trying to get credit under the pilot program. we don't want to hear about the bride that was paid on the dock in argentina to get your package to leapfrog the other packages. we don't want to hear about the gift to the chinese government official that he was given a big box of cigars on chinese new year. we don't want to hear about those things.
we also don't want to hear about things when you don't have a sense of what exactly happens. we want you to tell us soon enough but we don't expect you to tell us as soon as you get the hotline call or start your investigation because as i know from my own experience, a lot of these allegations turn out to be unfounded or turn out to be what somebody thought happened that didn't actually happen. so there's no threshold but if you're worried about it and it's a serious thing, i think you should tell us about it. the risk of us finding out is greater and the consequences to you if you don't and we find out are fairly evident . >> leslie, could i ask a follow-up? one of the things that happens in private practice is as you know that a client could call you. they've got an allegation. they want you to help. help them investigate it and i often call it what kind of alligator do you have my detail? you got this pilot program out there that's giving you a
carrot to rush in so that you get all the benefits of it and i'm happy to address and be asked what i think those benefits are and what they are not but the question is for a defense counsel is that in advising the company, the company needs to take enough steps to figure out what type of issues and just like you said now, you don't want to hear everything. and so it's a real judgment call how far down the path you go, especially if you don't know if there's going to be a whistleblower to get to you before we decide to come to you. and you are going down that path of taking investigative steps, you are confidently weighing the possibility that the governor could find out before you take those steps. and so like my threshold
question, i take it you also did not have a definitive view as to what point in time a company could come in that you do expect us to take some steps and if you could enlighten us, and i know this is one of my concerns about the program, the program is only as good as the individuals who implement it so i know this question is really your perspective but at what point, what path of investigative steps are you thinking the company better get in? or do you think we should come immediately, i'm assuming that last question i think it's 10, that's a typical lawyer answer itch i will be giving for the rest of the time here but it does depend on the facts. if somebody comes in and they say that the ceo or i'll make that even more extreme, which
by the way is taken from an actual case. we have an apartment in this country whose sole reason for existing is to pay bribes. we have a whole set of books whose sole reason for existing is to keep track of the bribes and we have paid bribes to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. >> you know what kind of alligator that is. you don't need to know more than that and you may want to make sure somebody's not crazy but if there's even a shred of truth to that, if you are thinking you want to take this to court you're going to want to do something before you do much on the investigative process. you've got an anonymous hotline complaint that we've been paying bribes in china to get business from the following five state owned enterprises and we pay even
with some level of specificity, you're going to want to look at that and say whether that's true, whether the real reason that is a state owned process, whether they paid money, whether the people involved even worked on the deals. you're going to want to kick the tires on those allegations and we don't expect you to come running to us when you don't even know if it's true but when you have a good reason to think it's true and it's serious, that's when under the pilot program we would expect you to, if you want to get the benefits of the pilot program, that's when we would expect you to raise the flag with us what do you say to the challenge that this program is largely designed to assess corporations and individuals may be left out there and not getting the benefit of it and they end up perhaps bearing the responsibility and in fact there was enormous benefit to the corporation, i guess the benefit would be getting back but how do you address that concern? >> part of the purpose of the pilot program is to encourage. i know karen has in her files in her firm, the feca
investigations the doj doesn't know about. she's done investigations. she knows what many was paid to what government and these are individual. she knows who paid it. she knows who and the company is responsible. she's not telling us. we want that information because we want to make cases against those individuals. but we don't have that evidence so part of the idea of the program is to give the company an incentive to come in and tell us something and get them some carrots to do that . obviously, just coming in on the pilot program doesn't mean you will get the declaration and you may have to, probably want to plead guilty but you may want to get a prosecution agreement or some other agreement, you may still have to get a monitor. the pilot program has things that can happen but the idea is to get that information we know is out there about culpable individuals so we can make the cases against
the culpable individuals. the company can't go to jail. obviously. and individuals can and as i said earlier, the biggest evidence of wrongdoing is to prosecute the individual so that's part of the goal. we have whistleblowers who come forward all the time in other cases and they may have been in the thick of the wrongdoing and they come forward and tell us things, we often don't prosecute them, the same as other conduct, there are times when we will have somebody from a corporation come in and tell us about accounting fraud and that person was involved but because they come in, we sometimes don't insist that they be held criminally accountable. it's no different than what wenormally do. it's designed to get at the vast probe of information we know is in certain spots . >> if i could do a quick follow-up question here, does that put pressure on the companies then to in effect make a judgment about culpability even if there could be differences of perspective on an issue and
good-faith differences. >> are you asking me? >> i was asking karen. >> i was going to address somewhat of that area obviously i'm not going to comment about any farther abyss. >> any of the 50 files. >> i think this is actually where there's a rob with the dilemma, you turn to this memo reemphasize and put it in place across the process about going after individuals and then of course the pilot program where we are seeing in the declination letters they reference in those letters that the company is most cooperating against the individuals. the rob is that if a company and certainly by now corporations out there in america know you have to have incentive compliance programs and i would say that at least
my experiences that most companies have very strong robust programs so if a company is in fact does, it comes to their attention that there is an allegation of wrongdoing involved amongst their employees or an employee, road employee, the company is set up to handle that. from an hr perspective and to remediate and investigate and remediate. the question is, is the company obligated to tell the department ofjustice so that they can now go after that individual criminally and of course , the department would hope that that would happen and that's where the carrot is because the department has the hammer of coming after the company if it can for that employees conduct. so i think that one of the benefits to the pilot program
is that it does encourage companies to come in and as lesliesaid, significant matters , matters that it too has determined to be significant, to cooperate and to enhance the remediation that presumably they too are making in the form of punishment, possibly termination and that sort of thing. and at the same time making sure that it does not get dragged in and get indicted and especially if it's the trade to shareholders, that will lose that value so i do think that companies may in fact find that it is important for themselves or the corporation to go and disclose even though it has remediated. and taken care of those individuals but not every time you i think that it's
necessary to go into disclose when the company has in fact taken the remediation steps that need to be taken. what sometimes happens and here's a criticism of what has historically happened and what i believe the pilot program is trying to address and i don't think it's been around long enough to see if it's working in this regard is that often when a company went into disclose and disclose this incident or this scheme or this group of people engaged in xyz, often because this is a conference in practice, the lawyer, the prosecutor willsay thanks for that . go off and investigate, come back, we will deal with that but i want you to look at blah blah blind it becomes a sprawling investigation the pilot program , i know
she's got an answer and i want to give the answer right now. the pilot program, has self-imposed. were going to try to get this done quickly. leslie and andrew wiseman, the chief and others have been very critical about not wanting to oil the ocean and that is something that i do think is a very worthy effort and goal for the department because that would scare off companies and has scared off many companies from coming in and disclosing, leaving that not only may we have to discourage profits, pay fines, we may have to send millions of dollars in legal fees to investigate ourselves way beyond the problem and not because there's issues out there but because the department wants us to. >> i think that first everyone should know d the extent you don't already that very few companies have a legal obligation to report
things like an sdk violation to the us government. the only companies you might have an obligation our defense contractors who in certain circumstances might have to report a violation of the law as it relates to their contract. companies that are already under some kind of disposition with the us government like a prosecution agreement that they agree that going forward if something bad happens during the term of the agreement they will report it , they have to report that so they have an obligation but other companies don't have an obligation to report to doj a violation of the cta. theymay have obligations to other regulators but they don't have an obligation to us . on the issue of the type of investigationthat we expect , i've seen over the years a lot of companies that give way to broad investigations and in my experience, that wasn't the result of what doj
told them to do. doj may say person x who paid bribes in indonesia is also the manager in malaysia, did you look at malaysia? but they're not going to say if you have a bride in china, you better look at the entire world. i see companies do that. there's one company i'm thinking of that has kind of a one off situation in china and they did an investigation of the entire world. similar situation of a company in russia. did the entire world. they may have good internal business reasons why they want to do that but we are not going to be the one to tell them to do that . >> i do say that is the change. because i know that there have been times when the idea of the line attorneys go out and look in other locations. and years pass and i do think that the effort and the stated objective to really be more surgical helps companies
in making the decision to disclose the cause it's not going to be so fearful if in fact not only do you say it is cheaper then the chief of the fdcpa that pushed all the way down to the line terms, any us attorney's office throughout the country that you should not be boiling the ocean and you should stay surgical on the issues. >> there are some issues where you have to boil the ocean but those are few and far between. >> should we shift the focus to something you addressed ms. caldwell and that is the relationship with other states around the world? we have a couple of major treaties, the convention, we have the un convention dealing with anticorruption. what is the relationship between these treaties and the departments enforcement of the fdcpa? >> work closely with, we are
a member of the oed working group on bribery, we go to all their meetings and participate closely with them. we brainstorm with them and other member countries. we also work with the countries involved in the un, the un effort. we work and formal relationships in addition to treaties all over the world. we have information sharing, the fdcpa has really helped us across the board because the relationships we formed with law enforcement and regulators in a lot of other countries has helped us investigate a lot of other cases. that's one example what an important example we see every day is cybercrime. the relationships we've developed in the fca and translated into relationships with cyber investigators and i'm not saying a cybercrime seminar but that keeps me up at night as the aeg of the
criminal division and it pervades everything though these relationships have helped. we got formal relationships with the treaties but we have a lot of informal relationships, prosecutor to prosecutor, agent to agent that have helped extend and the other thing that i think our example has led a lot of other countries to take anticorruption more seriously and bring our own actions, i mentioned the saudi arabia and brazil example. indonesia was a big development, they prosecuted corrupt officials based on evidence gathered in all cases so the international relationships are critical both in the treaty context and non-treaty, the successful prosecution not only of these fca cases but a lot of cases that we see. >> leslie, if i could follow up with a couple questions in that regard. the defense counsel representing a company whomay have an issue with another country , one of the questions that is always considered and when you going
to disclose is the government going to find out about it? and so let's say in this hypothetical country, your client sub does have a local investigation going on into the variation. could you tell us and i know that even your predecessors emphasize collaboration with other governments. is there a lot more and is it continuing to grow that prosecutors actually are picking up the funds and calling each other and does it in fact happen that the prosecutor in another country will pick up the phone and call into doj and say we've got this issue with one of your us companies? >> that happens and probably more frequently it happens
that law enforcement in one country will call us or we will call them and that happens in the bill, case, it happened in the case we've recently done involving venezuela and government officials at the venezuelan state on the oil company that were taking bribes and we recently prosecuted several individuals with that case, it happened in the amber case, the all-star case. i think it's probably pretty rare these days when there's a big scp a phase that it's not multijurisdictional and we are not working with two and reaching out to foreign officials so yes, that's just going to keep getting more and more pervasive. >> are there certain countries where the relationship between our prosecutors and their prosecutors are pretty tight where there's a lot of back and forth? >> yes. many european countries but also countries you might not expect such as indonesia. we do a lot of back-and-forth
with switzerland, notwithstanding switzerland's reputation of not wanting to work with other countries. we do a lot of work with the uk, a lot of work with the netherlands, a lot of work with scandinavian countries and there are certain countries we don't really work with, for example russia, china. although i have to say china, very recently has started, it's been much more proactive internally and anticorruption cases, taking it much more seriously and we have a matter now that involves cooperation with china. which is pretty new so we'll see how that goes. >> in the same vein, i think i recall attorney general eric holder announcing the speech that there has been meetings that prosecutors from the various countries that come together and to share strategies, share techniques, that sort of thing. are those meetings still happening?
>> yes, they happen all the time. i'd be surprised as we're sitting here right now there's not somebody from the cross-section or money-laundering section sitting here in brazil or some other country . one good example of that kind of situation is not an spca case although it has s cpa elements is the people investigation. the world soccer government. that is something that involves countries from all over the world and a lot of collaboration among prosecutors and investigators. another thing we try to do is when we are doing something where there are multiple jurisdictions, we try to make it so the country that's under investigation as one big resolution so they are not paying us 100 percent of the penalty and switzerland 100 percent of the penalty. we tried to divide them and we think of it like a pie. we tried to make the pie the right size and divide the pipe as opposed to giving everyone their own individual pipe. we can't always control that
but we like to control it. we had control controlling that with us state regulators. >> as a defense counsel, when we are trying to assess disclosure, obviously we are assessing whether the government may find out about it and if we are in another country trying to figure out are those local parties going to learn about it, are they going to pick up the back and call the oj? or scc, is the press going to find out about it? i know the us prosecutors often look at the newspapers and figure out, i remember that when the eastern district of new york, in fact i learned it fromyou when you were my chief . but what do we have, are you using a mechanism to monitor foreign newspapers? >> yes. we follow foreign reporting just as we follow us
reporting. we recently learned about a cool app that somebody had at the geneva airport for our initiative and the app monitors details of private jets that land at the geneva airport and identifies the owner of the tail, looking at the tail number identifies the owner and we learned last week that one of our democracy targets whose the current vice president of equatorial guinea, i'm telling you all this in public, we've seen a lot of his acts including, one of my favorite cases, the united states versus one michael jackson bad tour glove. he was collecting michael jackson memorabilia and one of the things he had was a little white glove. he did a video last week and was there for about an hour and we know about that because of this act that somebody saved . so be at basically records the tail number and it says a dictator from maine that countrylanded in geneva , the
dictator is the country of geneva. geneva is lovely but normally it takes more than an hour. >> in that vein, we offer a course on money-laundering and they have a game, the prepared, how do you go about chasing these assets because for the next generation of lawyers, learning these tools, i don't think that app is in the game but that's a wonderful revelation. can i ask you miss fowler are there situations where you would simply differ to a foreign prosecution, say they have the resources and it appears there's a lot of activity that occurs in a foreign country, we trust them to get this right and the vigorous in their prosecution and therefore not allocate our resources that way? >> we do that all the time. what we said is a lot of countries don't have vigorous or fair anticorruption receipt regimes so we may not
have confidence that anything is going to happen in other countries area we also don't want countries to form shops to go to a country that doesn't have one anticorruption enforcement and try to use that as a shield against us doing something when we have jurisdiction and have a state in what was the underlying criminal conduct but we do differ all the time and in rare cases of these individuals being prosecuted by saudi arabia and brazil so there was no reason for us also to try to prosecute those individuals. we in the case resolve the case with the netherlands where they did part of the case, we did part of the case so we do that all the time. >> i have been reading in the press just concerned about the enforcement not just in the fca but other areas of us laws abroad and the perception that perhaps the united states is delving too far into foreign legal systems which could well be hurting business activity in a profound way.
the notion that tonight has now become a world release, how do you address that allegation left a mark. >> we don't have time to be the world police. we only focus on things that affect us. one example where we were accusedof being the world police , when i first started the department was negotiating a resolution with a french bank and the ntt was very vocal to the degree of taking out newspaper articles and having president along tray to raise the issue with president obama that we were prosecuting the ntc and targeting french companies and there had been french legislation posed to try to thwart us from doingthat . germany, they think we are doing the same thing. but we are really, it's an ongoing investigation so i won't say more than what's said in the press but gw sent cards to the united states
knowing that they violated our environmental laws, lied about it and put those cars on the road, hundreds of thousands of cars so should we be prosecuting that? the ntp was dealing with iranian and sudanese clients and they had a very large business line dealing with countries that were sanctioned by the united states and they were dealing with those countries not outside our borders but using our banking system and using our banks and they had internal compliance on those where people at the ntp would write emails which we have same this violates us sanctions law, this is illegal. they saw opinions from two us law firms, is this illegal and those law firms said yes and they kept doing it and decided it was more important to get that money from that business than follow what they viewed as a political us law with the sanctions regime though i think we try to keep our focus on cases where it does affect our system.
we don't want our systems to be used to evade sanctions. we don't want our system to be used for dirty money as a haven for dirty money. we don't want our companies to be disappearing into other companies or paying bribes all over the world so i don't think we are out there prosecuting ends that we rarely have jurisdiction over. you are trying to focus on things that we have a real interest in i will say from a defense perspective, the jurisdictional questionis one that you need to stay focused on . whenever you are asked to assist a company and look into an allegation of wrongdoing. because you know, if there's conduct a broad, no us folks are involved, it's very little touch to the us if any. it has been my experience and also my understanding of others that that kind of argument really, in today's s
cpa groupresonates. and it should . for the reasons leslie just said. the department of justice should not be but global police and, but especially when you aredoing a thorough investigation, it can be tedious . from, in terms of finding evidence that there's no jurisdiction. it can be very difficult because you're basically trying to prove the negative area but i encourage folks who are in this practice to, from the very beginning to focus on the jurisdiction or lack thereof because it can really make a huge difference. in the end results. >> thank you. we have about 25 minutes and have ample time for questions
from the floor. i have additional questions as well but i think we have students from around the world who are here. i know members of the press that are here and of course members of the government agencies and from private law firms so brian has a microphone so if you have a question, please raise your hand and she will get the microphone to you and we would appreciate that. go ahead. >> we work shy so don't be shy. >> i am with the department of investigations review. were you able to talk about the cooperation you were talking about with the china case in terms of what kind of case is it, and sca case, could you talk about what that corporation involves? >> i can't talk about specific cases but we have cooperation with china in a couple different cases.
we have cooperation with china in a club corruption case area i have to feel cooperation with china in intellectual property case and we have cooperation with china in a soccer case. so it's spotty, it's early. we can't say whether this is a new crazy world where were going to be working hand-in-hand with china on a lot of things but we have , there's a lot the chinese economy is a huge economy as his hours and we have a lot of mutual interests in protecting intellectual property and preventing bribery so we are starting to do a work with the chinese . >> it's also been my experience that the chinese government has become more aggressive in enforcement of laws. aba, i was on the planning committee for aba hosted its first white-collar conference conjunction with the bar in china . and this was last fall, last november in shanghai. and a number of prosecutors
and judges anddefense bar from china were there . and there was a lot of talk about how aggressive is the government now and how do they expect to continue to grow which i do think that means there's going to be more collaboration with us authorities and given how the us economy and us companies are going there and are there , i certainly think it's prudent as a member of the defense bar to be counseling clients to make sure you have very good compliance programs in operation which includes ratcheting up issues at the headquarters so they get addressed. i see situations where rates can happen and headquarters doesn't know about it for a while. >> are you talking also karen in the context of international companies from china and so doingbusiness around the world? >> yes .
>> i did have a question about the chinese. >> introduceyourself please . >> so. >> please introduceyourself, where you are from . >> i'm from china and international law, i'm a student here. my question is, regarding the collaboration between america and the chinese government about the cooperation, you especially internet ftp eight. i know the chinese government has become more aggressive in enticing those corruption issues but on the other hand, so many people talking about how the chinese government has corruption and their campaign is to attack this among the students and maybe
that's another part of the chinese government, some government officials so the question raised with xi jinping, so why don't you review that information to you, especially given the aid ? the question is whether you should charge those contributions, but if you do well in the fdcpa, if you can reach a reasonable consideration. >> not just in the ftp a case but in corruption cases we generally see other countries accusing people of corruption, sometimes people who live in the united states are accused of corruption in the country where they came from and we have to see
whether we get for example there might be prosecution of that person in the other country and the country navy seeking extradition for that person to be sent back to china or whatever for example that country where we have a lot of extradition going back and forth and we have to see whether, i will use mexico as an example because we have a lot of extradition activity with mexico. is this a political case or a real criminal case before we even extradite a person to face charges so we definitely kick the tires when we hear an allegation that somebody is corrupt. we've seen an evolution in china in the past few years from nonenforcement of anticorruption to arbitrary enforcement of anticorruption and sometimes in the way you are describing to i think we are seeing now a more evenhanded, still not perfect but more evenhanded enforcement of anticorruption and i think, i'm not an expert on china for anticorruption efforts but i think part of the reason we are seeing that is in china
we are keeping aneye on that, was to be a leader of the global economy . it has to be more transparent and less corrupt. >> very interesting because it does raise the issue of having skills in your offices to deal with political issues and understanding the politics of the country so yes sir. >> just a follow-up on last question, china is a country that people are tortured in detention, particularly, sometimes political opponents have trials that are bogus. it's, obviously from a us perspective a very flawed justice system.how do you make sure that if you are sharing information with chinese authorities on corruption investigations that it's not going to end up being used for types of activities that would frankly , like violate us standards or be embarrassing for the
us? >> i don't know that we had an example where, if we have, i don't know about it, an example where we shared information with china or any other country and they used that information to essentially persecute somebody or torture somebody. in this corporate context . and i think that you know, we , our relationships with our foreign counterparts, investigative counterparts and law-enforcement counterparts tend to grow in baby steps and they tend to grow, it has to be a matter of trust. i'll give you an example. we had a very contentious relationship and lack of trust relationship with of all entities, the uk regulators. we were fighting uk regulators, we didn't trust them, they didn't trust us and we gradually because we worked together on a bunch of cases with the uk, the ethics case in other cases, we developed a really good working relationship with the
uk to the point where we are considering and batting one of our prosecutors in one of the uk law enforcement agencies to help those relationships. so with these other countries that we don't have a long-standing relationship, we have to develop trust and confidence that, whatever enforcement action they might take is going to be a real and appropriate one and a fair one. we are not interested in feeding political dissidents to china or any other country can be abused inappropriately. so i think we were cognizant of that. we really want to understand what's going to happen and what the system is before we ourselves actually providing evidence that can be used in a trial to another country. including the uk. >> that i follow up with a question with karen on that, is this an issue , in your day-to-day practice? nothing specific but the kind of political ramifications
that were raised in the question? >> i certainly think that companies in establishing and operating their compliance programs and dealing with allegations of wrongdoing and then making the kind of disclosure decisions that we were talking about earlier all need to factor in those issues, you know, the issues that are swirling around that particular country and enforcement climate. >> i want to move off of china a little bit and go back to what you are talking about. the recent settlement papers have all included the calculation when it comes to penalties which i think a lot of people appreciate that aspect of transparency but what i've noticed a lack of is a discussion of how the number that represents the
times has been arrived at and the same thing when it comes to captivating discouragement. i was wondering if you could talk a little bit about how that number gets captivated and arrived at. >> again, speaking like a lawyer, it's case to case but i think the discouragement amount is due process so if you pay a bribe, you get a $2 million contract and your profit is 1 million, you are going to have to disclose that $1 million. there's also in many resolutions you are talking about criminal signs and penalties which are in addition to whatever you made off the contract, those depend on the right factors, all of which are in the guidelines. how pervasive was the kind, who was involved, there are a lot of factors considered in every case that our case specific. when we reference the guidelines, we should be
referencing whatever application notes of the guidelines be considered but we may not say this is the third time the company has done this or we may not say this is that the ceo level but we will reference the notes and if you want to look them up you can see what those are referring to. we're trying to be as transparent as we can without making the documents to revealing. >> can i make a comment about the transparency point as set forth in the documents? earlier i said i had some concerns with the pilot program and that the detail that's in some of these declination letters causes me to have concern from the perspective of, it may actually deter some companies from wanting to disclose if in fact they think their arm is going to get twisted by the department of justice to have to agree to the publication of that letter. and i know there's already been talk in the defense bar and within corporate america
as to, does the department require you to agree? is it part of the settlement discussions? even if they say you don't have to agree, is it expected and are you going to feel pressure? and as a result i do think that type of transparency that is public could be a good turn because you necessarily would not see all of that detail in a public document, especially say for example if you are a privately held company and you otherwise wouldn't have an scc type soldier and the one thing i would encourage our justice to consider doing and i'll ask leslie on the spot if anyone thinking about this and that is to,
obviously transparency, when you are negotiating a settlement is very important so that for the lawyer across the table, for you to have a robust and truthful and transparent conversation on how to arrive at these numbers so you get a fair settlement . that is very important and very good. then they take the next step and go down into the public so the rest of the world can see it area i see some good to that if in fact you're not twisting their arm at the company to do it. and obviously it tells the rest of us how doj has arrived at something. but if there's undue pressure, what i would encourage the department of justice to consider doing is as they do in advisory opinions often is do it on a no-name basis. publish the details, publish the information as to what happened. the outcome but don't necessarily give the information about what company is at issue and that would still serve the purpose of being informative and also
could attract the disclosures the department is seeking. >> i think we've had this conversation within the department about how much detail should be included under the pilot program if there's a declination. i think the cases you are talking about, we recently had declinations with two prior companies. normally when we do ftp a, most that we do our public companies and we do most of this with the scc. so in most cases where we've declined, the scc will file an action in which the company will probably neither admit nor deny liability but they will expect agree to discourage how much money and there will be detailed factual representations by the scc in those documents that will describe in great detail, for more detail than what we've been putting in our documents what the company did, how they
violated the provisions and why they are paying this amount . that's the public document. when the department gets discouragement from a company it's because and this is the case with the puppies recently, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the scc but we feel strongly under the private pilot program, we can't let them keep the process they got through an admitted bribery but we also don't want to have have these discouragement arrangements with companies where the world doesn't know that a company has entered into a disgorgement agreement. so karen being a skilled professor wants to have full transparency of what the result is likely to be but doesn't want anyone else to know that. or at least client had the result which is what i would say to if i were in her shoes but from my perspective, a big benefit of the pilot program is we can put out there in detail, much less detailed in the scc would,
much less detailed than we would if we were entering some resolution like a nonprosecution or deferred prosecution agreement but still enough detail to show that a crime was committed and that brides were paid and businesses as a result of those bribes and that notwithstanding the fact that this company violated the ftp a by paying bribes, because they did everything they were supposed to do under the pilot program they will get a benefit. they can decide whether they want to participate, they can decide it's not worth it to them to have their name out there in a two or 2 and a half page letter as opposed to a long agreement but from our perspective it's very important to be transparent. not just to the company but with the public about what we are doing and why we are disgorging money from the company and i can also tell you that in the wake of those two recent resolutions, we've gotten quite a number of calls to companies because we laid out the fact that i don't have the details in front of me, but i believe in one instance there was $5000
in bribes paid and we gave it a declination and that resonated with a lot of companies thinking, i didn't think we would be able to get declinations if we had $5000 in bribes. we think it's a good thing. i understand why companies wouldn't necessarily want it but the benefits of the pilot program are relatively mild pain and you have to compare it to what you would get in and scc resolution if they were the ones involved in the case. >> leslie, are you saying it is in fact a requirements? that a company must, or you do even ask for the consent? >> our resolution is that the that should be public that the company is going to be required to disgorge , we do not want that done in secret area that we want that to be public and we hear all these
different voices. we hear people say you're extorting money and there are companies out there who would be willing to pay money if we would just keep quiet and go away. that's not how we operate. we want to show there's a basis why thiscompany is paying money. there's a basis , o'brien was paid. the law was violated but the company made everything we asked them to do under the pilot program and now they're getting a benefit and here's why. we think it's important that they bepublic . and so i don't know enough about the dynamic in these cases to demand they do it again, we may have. because i think it's appropriate for them to be public's what leslie just said from a defense counsel perspective, what's going to happen then is what happens anytime you are negotiating a deferred prosecution agreement, that they're going to be debating the language. so the declination letter is
turning it into something between what we used to get to the declination when there wasn't disgorgement, the one thing the pilot program has brought to the table is the idea that there now has to be disgorgement even for privately held companies always. so previously we could get a declination without the short sweet letter, that would never be made public. and so now we've got the pilot program that's given us something between that, what used to be like and the non- profit where you've now got a letter that is in fact going to be made public, that has language about the conduct and it's important as defense counsel that, this is what you do with the doj and the nonprofit, is that you try to really address how the language is going to read because the impact that you have on your brand, it can have a tremendous impact on your company whether you are
publicly held or not reared so it is something that companies, when companies are trying to evaluate whether to voluntarily disclose and participate in a pilot program or not, these are factors that they should consider and would consider. >> my name is dan dealer and i'm a law student here and my question is about disgorgement and if there was a violation of the ftp a and then there was a prophet and the company has paid taxes to the government on those profits, how are the taxes affected under the disgorgement and what's the rationale behind that? >> sadly, most companies don't pay taxes on income that they earn overseas. or they pay very little taxes but we would not take that into account. we would require disgorgement
of the entire profits but i honestly have never seen that scenario because those companies operating overseas don't pay taxes attributable directly to that transaction. >> i'm coming from millage over there, the question i have is to disgorgement as well as the pilot program is that to what extent can we assume that the real historical declinations, following this sweet and short letter nowadays will pretty much be cases where there's very little evidence of an actual bride and the reason i say that is because it means that if you hear about a case and the company let's say refuses to purchase paid in the program and refuses to disgorge, you do not allow them to have a short letter of declination anymore so i'm trying to see the line . >> i think we still do declinations in cases where
for whatever reason we can't prove our case so you may conclude that a private gets paid in that jurisdiction so we may decline prosecution for that reason. we may think that the circumstances were very suspicious but we can't, we could prove a bride at the end of the day so my issue with declinations and those would be short declinations, the ones that we were talking about. it's only when we conclude that the company has violated the ftpa and are reaping the benefits of the pilot program that we feel, if we conclude they have violated the ftpa and should disgorge, example, if we don't have jurisdiction we are not going to ask for eightdisgorgement. if we don't think we can prove there was a bride , if the money went missing and we don't know where it went, it could be corrupt employees or embezzlement, were not going to ask for disgorgement.
what if we can prove there was a bribery and we are going to decline prosecution because the company did everything we asked in the program, we think it's important to lay out that there was a crime and because of the companies conduct and the way they address the problem, we are going to decline prosecutionbut they're going to give back their profits. >> we have time or one more question . >> my name is for shay ... >> i have a question about restitution. the last conference of the unc 80 countries, in essence they were asking that the developed countries make available part of the proceeds in ftpa and in particular i believe some of those countries were going to be able to participate in settlements as they were being negotiated. as that issue come to the four in the department and what is the department's view on that?
>> i haven't heard that exact issue in the ftpa context. we see that issue or variation of that issue in the hypocrisy context where for example when we seized $800 million in bank accounts that belonged to the corrupt use becky official in the silicon case, there was one claimant to that money, the government of pakistan.so we see that. that's obviously something that the people who were involved in the wrongdoing were associated with the government of pakistan so we wouldn't necessarily be willing to agree to give the money back to them because they might put it back in a different pocket. in the cartography context, that's a typical thing where whatever government, whatever the constitution was, that government was claimed to be interested funds so we do deal with that. we generally fight that.
we recognize the entire government is not corrupt and that the government itself was a victim in some way of the corruption of this official but we try to work to get the money, to the extent we are giving money back to the company, we worked to get the money back in a different way so we can be sure it's not going to be used either corrupt officials just to be put into a different swiss bank account. >>
[inaudible conversation] tonight our state race coverage continues featuring three debates beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. new york's 22nd congressional congressional district and a debate between claudia and kim running for the new york seat. the texas 23rd district, rematch with term incumbent with the man he beat two years ago. that is in southwest texas. and i was first district, at
ten, another first-term republican debate. the district includes cedar rapids and dubuque. election night on c-span, watch the results and be part of a national conversation about the outcome. be on location at the hillary clinton donald trump headquarters and watch victory and concession speech is the governor races starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern and throughout the following 24 hours. watch live on c-span. in illinois temp congressional district race, incumbent robert dold and brad schneider debate immigration reform, gun gun control in the opioid abuse epidemic. congressman robert dold one brad
schneider's seat four years ago. >> hello and welcome to the debate for the tenth congressional district. we have robert dold and brad schneider. >> the candidates what one minute to answer each of our questions. canada answers first will get a chance for a bottle. in addition, each candidate will have a chance to ask a question of their opponent. they will also have the opportunity to rebut. things will wrap up the closing statement. we begin with opening statements. a coin flip held earlier to figure out who will go first. congressman robert dold, we
begin with you. >> thank you, as a small business owner and father of three, my priorities my priorities making sure our communities safe, healthy and strong. to do this with a break to the gridlock. i have broken with my party time and again and i think they're wrong and i work with side when i think they are right. that's why every nonpartisan organization that's actually looked at my record has ranked me as one of the most independent bipartisan and effective governors of the united states congress. by every newspaper that is endorsing this race have also endorsed me over my opponent. other organizations have given me praise from those trying to reduce violence to protecting our environment. the endorsement i'm looking for is yours. on november 8, we look for your vote. >> i'm asking for your vote on november 8i can go back and
continue the work we started four years ago. i want to protect the legacy of president obama by making sure we have an economy that is growing for everybody, not just a portion under fortunate few. i want to fix the healthcare problem make sure every child has the opportunity for quality education. i want to work to help all those working there lifetime to be confident they will have a secure and dignified retirement. i will address the challenges of the environment, tackle i change in gun violence afflicting our nation. this is why i'm asking for your vote to go back to congress. thank you very much. >> we turned our first question dealing with the tone of politics in this country. it has been a very hostile presidential campaign season.
the final debate, they didn't didn't even shake hands. you think lack of stability is hurting our country, cannot it be fixed and who are you supporting for president? >> i think the lack of civility can be fixed which is why i have been ranked as one of the most bipartisan and effective members of congress. every piece of legislation we move forward has been with bipartisan support because i realize as a small business owner, that's the way before it and get deals done. i believe, if we can't get democrats on board with the legislation, then we are doing a good enough job. we have been able to demonstrate and move forward on key pieces of legislation that will have a huge impact on people's lives at home. let me give you an example she lost her brother at the age of 22 with a heroin overdose. we worked with her and drafted legislation with bipartisan
support. >> i have to ask you, who are you supporting. >> i'm going to write someone in because i was the first party to say we would not support donald trump. >> thank you this is a very important issue and i think it has been an election where seen a decline of civility. it appears there is no floor. as i look to the young people and talk to them about getting involved with the political process, i'm very concerned about what were hearing this election. both of us had been ranked in the top 15% and i think that's a reflection of our district and how it works. working together across the aisle to tackle problems and introduce legislation to train our workforce and protect our relationship with israel.
this is how things get done, working together. i have always that i will work with anyone who has an open mind and a good idea and a willingness to work together. >> where you supporting for president. >> i have supported hillary clinton since she announced i think she will be an excellent president. it's been disappointing to see my opponent campaigning against hillary clinton. >> thank you. your rebuttal. >> i think it's comical actually and frankly the same lines he was putting forth of the same lines in the chicago times, the tribune, the daily herald calling it laughable. my my position has been very clear since december 2015. i came out against mr. trump based on his comments about women and muslims and latinos and the disabled. service to our country is absolutely heroic.
>> we have to move on. >> mr. schneider, in 2015, 42 people people lost their lives because of a heroin overdose in this county. how will you convince your colleagues in washington that more funding is needed for prevention and rehab programs. >> absolute, you had a crucial point. we are are seeing an epidemic of opioid addiction overdose and death across our country. progress was made in taking some steps but when president obama signed that bill he highlighted the fact there was a refusal to his call for $920 million to treat people. >> how you convince your colleagues to get the money needed.
>> we have to sit down and have conversation and explain the fact that so many people across the spectrum of economic age who are falling prey to opioid addiction, becoming addicted to heroin and other drugs. they are alone and dying because it is no one to provide themwhah infrastructure -- also, infrastructure puts people to work right away in building it. andlso spruces up a place it sets the table for private enterprise. i was the chair of the chamber and spent nine years on the chamber board recruiting businesses and looking at what it takes for businesses to be successful. one of the things they look at, one of the top things they look area add on or come to an is the infrastructure. i will look at roads and bridges, i would look at flood protection systems in cedar rapids and many other communities up and down these
rivers. a bridge over -- that connect illinois0 from iowa to has the needed for a long time and i would get right on that. i know that there are a number of projects up in waterloo and waverly. we have a lot of broadband for everywhere. it is easy to live in our charming little towns in iowa. moderator: your time is up. being a businessman, i understand and appreciate the difference between investment and expenses. infrastructure spending by our government our investments. expenses occurred one time and the benefits are short-term. when we invest in a road or bridge, i would expect a useful life to the 20 years to 50 years, that is an investment. i see it as an economic development issue and if we do not have great roads and bridges
, and i live on the mississippi , were locks and dams built for a 50 your life and now in year 80 and we have a lock fail on the mississippi river, there is an amazing amount of commerce that goes up and down the river and a lot of it is grain and egg related and with the market oil reserves taking of our train cars, it is critical that we keep the dam system going. the thing i like about infrastructure, not only an investment that pays back, they are great paying jobs. i know a lot of people who built bridges and roads and they have great benefits and good paying jobs for their employees. those are jobs that cannot be exported to mexico or china. thates without saying infrastructure is important and that is why i voted for the service transportation act which is infrastructure bill that just passed in congress and signed into law long-term bill to give more predict ability for our state and county officials in
building bridges and building roads. it had an increase in funding. moderator: our final question, what would you say to young college and high school students who are told during this hot election time, a question from our audience, that their future is pretty much looking like the worst. how would you inspire them? mr. blum: that the future is looking like the worst? moderator: a question from the audience. be concerned,uld when i went to college, we had multiple job offers when we were graduating because the economy was good. i think the biggest -- there is college debt which is an issue and specifically, we did not talk about it, the number one issue people want to talk about and that is the economy. this economy is limping along at 1% growth this year. the economy over the last eight years has averaged 1.6 21.7% growth per year. growth to 1.7 percent
per year. young people, we need to get the economy reignited and it is not rocket science how we do it. cut the highest corporate tax rate in the world and eliminate corporate welfare and crony capitalism. reduce regulations and reduce uncertainty and reduce our deficit and balance our budget. we need to fully exploit american energy resources and we need tort reform lawsuit abuse reform. if we do that the economy would grow by 4% to 6% at 12 million more americans working and the average family of four would have another $500 a month in their paychecks. the reason you are going to college is because you want a job in your field you are studying. you did not go to college to be working at a gas station, not that there is anything wrong with that. we get the economy going again, your jobs will be there. moderator: your time is up, mrs. vernon. [applause]
mrs. vernon: what i would say is i believe in you. i believe in your generation. i think anything is possible. this is the best country on the base of the earth, we have wonderful people and i hope you will stay in northeast iowa with the rest of us. we have problems no problem we cannot solve it i would tell them that the way to deal with that is to get out and vote. get involved. you can determine your future. a smart man once said people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be. you would be successful as you make up your mind to be. we have a great country and take advantage of all that is there. most of all, about. -- most of all, vote. get to know the candidates and learn who will be accessible to you. find out who you trust your find out who will answer the phone
and who will be there in their offices, who will be there for you. do not vote for someone who will talk about reform as my opponent has done repeatedly talked about reform. reform in congress, reforming this and that. yet, he made a promise to get paycheck andhis broke the promise upon election. when you break promises, you destroy trust. i think it is important to say that. moderator: thank you so much for joining us for this debate. we are out of time. vote on november 8 and follow all of us on our website. [applause] >> gop leaders are campaigning on behalf of congressman blum, paul ryan was in the iowa first
district just today and majority whip steve scalise tweeted about joining congressman blum touring the cedar rapids flood project, saying it will save lives and deserves to be a funding priority. againhe debate from iowa tonight on prime time on c-span2. kicking off prime town on our companion network, live coverage of a debate in new york's 22nd district between republican claudia tenney a democrat ken myers at eight eastern here and i :00 in texas will heard -- hurd faces the man he beat and 2014, pete gallego in a debate for the 23rd district. 8:00, be iowa from the first district. -- the iowa debate from the first district on c-span2. >> all week on c-span2, live simulcast of political radio talk shows. friday, from 9:00 a.m. until noon, a conservative political perspective from my gallagher live from new york city.
-- mike gallagher live from new york city on c-span2. + the having to post -- >> having to post reporting bernie sanders campaigned in the new york 19th district race, calling it the most important congressional race in the country as a battle between a super pac billionaires and the working class. senator sanders will also be campaigning with hillary clinton tonight in raleigh, north carolina and we will take you there live at 7:45 eastern on c-span. >> election night on c-span, watch the results and be part of a national conversation about the outcome. the on location at the hillary clinton and donald trump election night headquarters and watch victory and concession speeches in key senate house and governors races starting live at 8:00 p.m. eastern and throughout the following 24 hours. demandive on c-span, on
at c-span.org or listen to our live coverage using the free c-span radio at -- radio app. >> more coverage from one of the state races now, a debate between candidates in new hampshire as governors chris sununu -- race, debated colin van ostern, and ran about 15 minutes. -- 50 minutes. debategeneral election for governor, chris sununu and colin van ostern battling to succeed maggie hassan. i think we need to make it permanent. colin van ostern it implies i am against extended medicaid is a lie. >> to their high-profile executive council votes. >> big issues that our next
governor will have to tackle and we have had different points of view on those. >> even the resumes. the candidates do not see i to i. >> to my desk to compare my background to his is comical. -- to compare my background to his is comical. debate night in new hampshire, let's welcome the candidates and thank them from coming. -- thank them for coming. the ground rules, the candidates will be given a question and they will have one minute to respond. then the candidates and uv viewers will hear an audio cue. a 32nd rebuttal allowed. at the finish -- a 30 secon rebuttal allowed and then at the end, closing statements. we are partnering with the open debate coalition, a group set to make debates better representative of the people.
tonight's debate will feature the top questions posed and rated by more than 100 and 20 -- 120,000 voters in new hampshire and around the nation. let's start with charges we have seen in this contentious campaign in recent days. , in a newnu advertisement running now, you state that you created hundreds of jobs but today the state democratic party and your opponent citing a recent published report that said the resort has lost a job since you and your family took over theytions six years ago, called your advertisement misleading and urged you to take it down. i would like you to respond. mr. sununu: thank you for hosting. the fact that we have created jobs and our success at waterville valley is undeniable, we bought the country from a california driven company and
moved the administrative jobs back to the state. andeveloped restaurants sold a lot of the aspects off and developing a workforce housing project that tomorrow will be closing on to provide closing just quality workforce housing for our employees. we relocated our adaptive program which helps those with disabilities partake and recreation activities on the mountain, used to be run by a vermont group now we have written localized. when it comes to grading jobs, i have created hundreds and our success is undeniable, the only resort on the east coast expanded. newvested $2 million in trails and hiring people to create new trails and put in the list come all new hampshire contractors and workers. the democrats like to play games and talk about anything they can to avoid real issues of what will be important. moving your hand report but our css isn't about -- but our success is undeniable and i am proud of my team. moderator: how would you like to
respond? mr. van ostern: this race is about moving our state forward. there are elements of his management at waterville that i think would the detrimental to us in new hampshire. when chris and his family purchased waterville about five years ago, since then they have lost market share and cut jobs, not created them. whethere 62 less jobs, new hampshire business review our public radio, you can google sununu waterville bally and find out yourself. my concern is it is one thing to have someone who runs a resort oppose a minimum wage but when you have a governor opposes state minimum wage, that is bad for the people of new hampshire. when a resort owner wants to hold people's hours back in order to not give them health care, we see that but when you have a candidate for governor that is voted to cut off funding for drug control and cancer screenings and annual exams with thousands of women, that does
harm to the people of the state and we need to focus on what we need to do to move our state forward together. mr. sununu: our success is undeniable, we are the only resort, not just in new hampshire, but on the east coast investing and growing and creating jobs and moving the ball forward and creating a whole new experience from our employees. he likes to reference the internet and data points, he does not understand, that is something to look at, clearly he does not understand how business works and entrepreneurship and how to truly grow jobs. politicians like to talk about creating jobs. they do thetour -- they do the tour of the factory, i grow jobs , that is who we need in the corner office. ,oderator: colin van ostern counselors and new has brought your years as a political operative but it is something you do not talk about on the campaign trail, why is that? mr. van ostern: i focused what matters to voters.
and what we can do to move our state and state economy forward. i am proud of my background, like governor jeanne shaheen, early in my career i worked in politics, governor lynch did as well and senator kelly ayotte advise the governor before she ran. background, most of my professional experience since i moved to new hampshire has been in the private sector. when we talk about creating jobs, i think about helping starting southern enhancer university college of new hampshire, a dozen employees at the time and now almost 400. i do not define success for how many jobs i create, i define it by what i help others succeed, thousands of students getting an accredited college degree without debt because of the program we built. that is something to be proud of and i am proud of that work just like my work at stonyfield. it isn't stark contrast to holding back people from getting health care and the mismanagement we have seen at waterville. mr. sununu: he has avoided the question once again.
in the short 15 year career, 10 years was spent as a paid political operative, as a professional trained in being partisan and divisive than crafting those messages that we see on television every time, the negativity, that is the kind of politics we do not need. when he worked for jeanne shaheen come i was cleaning up landfills and downtown nashua, when he was working for the democrat party, i was developing for a resort for families with disabilities. -- question i want to ask is when he was working for john edwards, how do you explain to the people of new hampshire and to the women of new hampshire being the spokesperson of the likes of someone like john edwards? these are the things that need to be discussed in an open and honest transparent way? moderator: what you like to respond? mr. van ostern: voters care about their lives and what we will do for them. what i say to the women of new hampshire is that i am only candidate who has 100% of the time supported planned
parenthood and did not go successfully to shut off birth control and cancer screening and annual exam funding and who over thepast year was not making wait list at the health center extend after funding was shut off. this is not about politics, it is about people's lives. i was raised by a single mom and know what it is like without health insurance and this is not about politics, it really matters. moderator: you sit next to each other on the five member executive council and i was there early last month when it was a unanimous vote in favor of a $36 million state contract to staff new hampshire hospitals. thatlater, we learned there could be largely also the end of this year. since then, you have called for an investigation and for a rebid. colin van ostern -- counselor
sununu, you brought up the fact receivedn van ostern $50,000 in campaign donations from employees that work there and you seem to question whether those contributions may have influenced his original vote and also his stance since then. what matters to me is doing right by the patient's. the contract we both support and i assume chris supported it for the same reason is become it does because it means more doctors and nurses and does available to our most vulnerable population. folks at the new hampshire hospital, 7000 enrolled in three years most there because of a mental illness that makes them a gander -- danger to themselves or others, that is not a statistic to me. one of the stove or linings to the drug crisis is that we are breaking down the stigma and bringing addiction out of the shadows and we need to do that with mental health. i have seen it with my family, my stepfather struggled with
mental health for years and hit in his final months, he was found to be a danger to himself and others. when i was a sophomore in high school he took his own life. carents and health professionals and loved ones and doctors and nurses, that is reality they face every day. they need a governor who will put what is right for patients ahead of political attacks. mr. sununu: he has avoided the question. i have been calling for this contract to be read it four months -- rebid four months. we have had employee resignations, when we were left with little choice, we did move forward, only the next day to find out there were potentially 450 layoffs coming. follow the resignations and red flags. i learned this morning we have 40 plus thousand dollars of contributions directly from that organization, directly to colin van ostern. i have wondered why is it that the governor and he are so
hesitant to do anything, they sat on their hands while the rest of us that stood up and demanded accountability. this is mismanagement at its worst in the mental health are sensitive constituents that need our utmost count ability and need the checks and balances and need to make sure we are providing a system that is working for them. the governor and colin, the commissioner have completely failed on this issue. you can try to sidestep it but eventually the truth has to catch-up and we do need answers. we need accountability. we do need more investigation that i have called for an we need to look into these issues because it is not about us, it is about the sensitivity and quality of service for a mental health patients. mr. van ostern: for the first six months of this year we had a new psychiatric care wing that set unused. despite the fact that we had dozens of people with serious psychiatric conditions waiting in emergency rims and waiting lists across the state everyday. 30 to2 50 a day -- from
50 a day. we have hired more doctors and nurses since the contract and beds are full of. what counselor sununu is proposing, remember, one month ago he voted like i did and all the counselors to move forward with this contract because it means better care. what he is suggesting that would mean less doctors and listeners is. we would struggle to have that wing open and i will not let political attacks stand in the way of what is right. mr. sununu: we had one person dead because the commissioner and the governor and yourself would do nothing to provide more choices -- one person bid because the commissioner and the governor and yourself would do nothing to provide more choices. we need that in every contract and the fact you have taken $40,000 brings into the question of ethics, morality, and checks about dozens. will we have a governor that always put politics first and the dollars in his campaign first?
i say apple is not, we need to do it the new hampshire way, not what we see in washington with the big ugly political attacks and the big money going into people's pockets. we need campaign finance reform and count ability. -- and accountability. mr. van ostern: favorite political attacks in the middle of that. he has taken tens of thousands of dollars from the biggest utility company in the state while we have sat together on the council against every solar energy project, he said wants come see did not want to penalize the electric utility. this brother has run a lobbying and public affairs program and he votes in favor of their clients. happy to cite chapter and verse of when i sat there. mr. sununu: another lie. my brothers are not lobbyists and if you will compare my brother -- the power lines to the mental health stability in our state and taking $40,000 it is deplorable. moderator: thank you.
we have a lot of issues we want to get to but i would remiss if i did not ask one more political question, a presidential election like we have never seen. donald trump making some big news a few weeks ago with at audio recording of him from 11 years ago. with lewd comments directed for women. counselor sununu, we have talked about this, you call the comments repugnant and disgusting. you continue to support donald trump. how do you separate the comments from the man? mr. sununu: the comments are discussing, repulsive, no place for them or an attitude like that in the public discourse. i said that for many other comments he made. i will support the nominee i always said and i will. looking at the options, this election on the presidential site is not about one person, it is about the fabric of our country, where we'll be go over the next four years, eight years, about public trust.
hillary clinton -- public trust is one of the most important aspects of public service and hillary clinton has not. we have to look at what we will do over the next four years, eight years, where our country is going when you look at the potential on the supreme court, the potential to finish horrible programs like obamacare that have failed. finish the big washington government and big washington spending that has pushed its way into new hampshire, invaded our state, you wrote it our local control, those are the things that matter and will affect people's lives in the state. as individuals. policy affects people, it affects their lives and that is why we need to stand up strong in new hampshire. moderator: your answer? hasvan ostern: chris sununu failed a leadership test every single day that he supports donald trump. while donald trump in stock -- insult mothers and religions and nationalities, women, pows because they got captured and lately ever democracy itself.
chris says what is more important to him that all of that is his political party. what is more important to him that doing right for the people of our country and the people of our state is sticking with his own political career. sometimes leadership takes backbone to say -- by the way, of the 31 republican governors across the country, one of three said they will not support donald trump. it takes being independent-minded. it back he will not put what is right for the people of the country ahead of what is right for his own politics speaks poorly to the kind of governor he will be. mr. sununu: this is about our country not about the party, donald trump does not define a republican. hillary clinton is the epitome of the revoked -- democrat party. questions, answered what she has done with her e-mails, benghazi, the list goes on. she has violated the public trust and she truly defined the democrat party. to say that donald trump defines
our party, we know that that is a foolish statement. we need to make sure we create the best government possible, not just in washington but here in new hampshire. i believe we need to push back on washington. i do not trust a lot that goes on and we need a government that needs to stand true to our values. mr. van ostern: the reason he defines the republican party because politicians like chris sununu stick with an even after everything he said. that simple. moderator: time to talk about the drug crisis, governor hassan and the executive council which you serve on approved $600,000 in contracts to provide substance misuse for us recovery services. -- recovery services but more people expected to die this year than last in new hampshire, can we spent out -- our way out of this problem and do you predict next year, if elected, fewer people will die? mr. van ostern: we have to overcome this crisis. our way ornly spend
arrest our way out, we have to be honest with the back of five years ago we did not have a fair when crisis but the second highest level of prescription drug abuse in the country and the second lowest treatment per capita. i suggested we need to put forward a plan that comes with both resources and also more investment in prevention, treatment, and recovery services. i support the successful bipartisan expansion of medicaid up which i voted for and chris voted against. the nonprofit nonpartisan group that is dedicated the leading crisis, newkle this futures, has a five point plan which i endorse and chris is not. one of the key points this making medicaid expansion from that because thousands of our citizens are getting addiction treatment services. we need better prevention treatment in our schools, the age-appropriate and evident as, we need to make sure that folks with private insurance do not have barriers between them and getting the treatment they need and to make sure our law enforcement has the tools because they have been stretched thin on the front lines to the crisis. mr. sununu: it is a crisis of epic proportions.
a lot of great jobs at miami international airport, a lot of good jobs at the seaport, different ports the south florida. we worked with the white house when the most radical elements of the democratic party wanted to deny president obama the authority to go out and negotiate trade deals with our allies. we worked in congress to make sure he got that authority and that can lead to more wonderful good-quality paying jobs in south florida. >> do you support tpp, the trans-pacific partnership? >> i support the concept. anyone who lives in south florida and is against free trade and by the way, this is why my frustrations with the presidential candidates. they're both against free trade which is absurd. we have so many good-quality jobs, small businesses that depend on free trade in this
area. we need more free trade. do the deals the to be negotiated in a responsible way that protects american workers? absolutely but to be against trade in south florida is to be against jobs. >> what about tpp? >> i have to tell you i'm not -- i'm a believer in fair trade, not free trade. we have to hold people accountable. all these trade deals have strong provisions and we have told them accountable whether it's labor standards, environmental standards. when you're competing against nothing on the other side it diminishes wages across the board. that's why i'm a big believer in moving forward on investing in the country because that's here. those are jobs hear the we move forward. that's what education is so important. when he talks of being for the tpp, i understand the concept from a trade concept but the truth is if we are racing to the bottom which is what does happen with many of these trade bills, all we do sort our country. >> what about renegotiating after? we've heard a lot about during
the presidential race and we've seen people in the rust belt states who, in fact, lost jobs and never got anything back. >> look out on community. tomato growers have been wiped out, seasonal crop in in the sr no longer as productive. that's what it's key. people fail to understand this district is one of the great agriculture resources of the country. we produce more winter crop in any place in country, the most valuable per acre land in florida. absolutely we need to enforce the provisions of the streets to make a difference for our farmers to make a difference for our workforce. >> let me say because this is a critical issue and there's a lot of cowardice on the trade issue. the political winds are blowing in a certain direction and has weakened the way up to presidential candidates and, of course, bernie sanders who was out of before trashing trade. so many south florida families depend on these jobs. i cannot under any circumstance turn my back on these policies
because i know fundamentally they've made our community more prosperous. south florida as a major trade up. people from all over the world come here. they bring their products and we are more prosperous for it. don't be fooled about trade. we need good trade deals but we can't turn our back hundred. >> this is important because the default that the. the rail is we have to engage in those discussions that's why we need someone who will work with the white house to make a difference, who's going to work with secretary clinton has a history of working. we know who the next president is going to be. he is not supporting either one of them. >> we don't know. i think government eighth we will know. >> hold your point and we'll be back with more of the candidates for congress and between six congressional district in just a moment. >> welcome back. we are in the midst of a debate between the candidates for the 26 congressional district in south florida. that is westchester county key west.
joe garcia, and carlos curbelo. mr. curbelo, i've heard you and i think the editorial boards and newspapers have described you as a moderate republican. when i mentioned that the other day when i saw mr. garcia he said he's no moderate. he is undergone a metaphor for this year because the district lines have been redrawn, it is a district with more, slightly more democrats than republicans and the real carlos curbelo, you are a conservative in sheep's clothing. what you see? >> mr. garcia has a long history of launching these types of attacks try to confuse people. i've always been the same person. you've known me at the community has known me since i've been on the school board. i was a consensus builder. i have my principles, my ideas. i fight for the but i know at the end of the day what most people in this country want is for republicans and democrats to
come together, figure out the big issues and get things done. that's what all of the bills i passed in congress which by the way i have past seven bills as a freshman. that's very rare. mr. garcia passed one bill to name a post office while he was in congress. i passed bills on transportation, the environment, education. and abetted by working with my democratic colleagues because in divided government especially, the only way anything gets done is by working together. i've always been the same person. look, i didn't jump into the race, i didn't change my tune when the district changed. mr. garcia did. the district change. he jumped in. the statute of limitations expired. he jumped it and that's what they said in this program. this is not something i'm making a. speedup we will get to those, it is mr. curbelo a moderate? >> thank you because you restated what -- don't think moderate about carlos curbelo is
his rhetoric. when you look at his voting record, or some devoted for a 48 hour waiting prefer a woman who's been raped. someone who is consistently vote against women's rights, voted against every single gun control bill went up to the house. this is a guy who voted to close down the government to defund planned parenthood. there's nothing moderate about except the district change. when the district change suddenly we got a new carlos curbelo he was moderate, talking about these issues. let's be clear. the only difference between donald trump and carlos curbelo is a donald trump doesn't have a record. carlos curbelo has a rhetoric standing against women, standing against minorities. this is a majority hispanic district. he voted four times to keep the presence of stockport which was change the lives of over 100,000 people in this community, legalize them, put and four in the system, increase salaries. didn't do it. >> there's a litany of attacks anand accusations.
he says by rhetoric is moderate. his rhetoric is all lies. listen to him. you know i have two little girls ages six and 40 pieces on against women. does anyone believe that? mr. garcia islam. do know what? i respect women and you don't. you know what you said about hillary clinton. for someone who said she was stupid because you said she can't outthink you because thank you because you think very highly of yourself. secondly, you said you would want to have sex with her and she wouldn't have to seduce you. i want to go after you think about -- the women out there but also the men who are watching to think about your moms, your sisters and imagine some guy in some room saying that woman, i would want have sex with a. she can't seduce me. she's not that smart i want to -- you are disrespectful to women and you should apologize to dave for that nasty rhetoric that you used. >> everything you just said is completely false. i said -- >> the record -- [talking over each other]
>> hold on just about it. let the people at home here this for themselves. this was recorded secretly in key west and number of weeks ago at an event mr. garcia held. so if we have that tape ready we'll just run this little clip that was recorded secretly and this is mr. garcia speaking. >> and hillary is under -- -- [inaudible] >> so maybe you can explain. what we talking about? >> i was talking to a guy. there's no question about it. my remarks, the words i chose. i was speaking t to a guy who sg sexist things about her. that's why stop them when you start saying that. the reality is what we're talking about is someone who extreme the confident, because that's what -- they were stupid but you know what is offensive? when you talk about it. some of the votes against the interests of women time and again. if you think about carlos who said we should of mike pence at the top of the to do.
this is a guy who voted legislation to make women have -- voted every single time he's gotten a chance against abortion. made women wait 24 hours after a rape. this is clear and my position has been always to stand on the side of women. make a difference. >> real quick. he just said that he combat sexism with more sexism. what i would've told that man if he was being sexist to say hey, i have two daughters. i married. what you think is offensive and you know what, which is it is offensive. and that of two girls come as a husband of a wife who works as a teacher, i find it very offensive and i was disgusted by what you said. >> i'm a father of a girl who just left to college and the reality is that he is twisting the words because of course he can't talk about the issues. he can't address the fact he will not address the issues about women. he's against choice and has addressed --
[talking over each other] >> will get you to explain your position and choice, both of you when we come back. so take them in and we will be right back. >> -- take a minute. >> welcome back. were in the midst of a lively debate between the candidates for the 26th congressional district, carlos curbelo the republican, joe garcia the democrat. let's get this on the record on abortion, on choice. where do you stand? >> i am pro-life. i don't apologize for that. i think that we have to value all human life. now at the same time i understand the law and i think that we need to respect the law and we should do in this country is find a consensus on this issue and that's why support legislation says that after 20 weeks, which is the period of time after which a lot of doctors and experts believe a baby can feel pain, that we should have no more abortions after that. the that's what he voted for and about a record. the way, we have two little
girls and we are raising them this way to value human life. every abortion is a tragedy. it's tough of a woman and, obviously, there's a life lost no matter what your views on that. we should work together to levitt, to reduce the number of abortions. >> mr. garcia, tell us where you stand. i think i know. >> this is what of the most intimate decisions a woman makes including the government should not get involved. around is that it is a tragedy and an abortion occurs but the fact that you write legislation to stop anyone from having an abortion after she's been sexual abuse or rape is just dangers. it's out of the norm of thinking of a country and what makes sense. when you think about women, you think about health care practices award was voted seven times to repeal or rollback without replacement obamacare which, of course, the first thing it does is it doesn't discriminate against women. that allows women to be treated
the same. this as a health care provision that, of course, took what it got a preexisting condition you can get insurance and negative. in this community that are hundreds of thousands of people who have benefited. what we have to do six obamacare and that's we're going to work to do. it's important for women and david in south florida. >> thank you. congressman, what about obamacare question of voted against it. if you don't like it what would you replace it with? >> at th israelis the law does d to be reformed. we get the calls in her office the people complaining saying yes, they did sign up but then they went to the doctor and they couldn't afford the high deductible. this law provides a good talking point for politicians who want to show off about the number of people who are injured but what they don't want to talk about michael is the number of people who actually have access to quality health care and a lot of these people who sign up for obamacare, they end up in the emergency room just with used to go before. missile has to change.
this last also wreak a lot of havoc in our economy and a lot of employers are struggling with a. some effectively people off. others have limited work or -- workers ours. this was done in a way, written by hospitals, by health insurance companies and by big pharma and is designed to protect their interest. that's what it needs to at least be reformed. >> bottom line using don't repeal it, simply improved? >> if we can improve it let's improve. if we can replace with something that puts patients and doctors and control and that is written for insurance companies, this is not a laughing matter. a lot of people are struggling out of there. >> he has been in congress to use. the republican leadership has been talking about a replacement. when they can when you took place and understand medicare would've had the problems obama ticket in which he did at the beginning of carlos would have been in congress because he believes medicare is a ponzi scheme and he's on the record saying that. this is a law that has changed the lives for the better of millions of people, 20 million
people. think about jackson memorial hospital which is on the verge of collapse because you obamacare today, that hospital is thriving and expanding and reaching out. just like with medicare windows put in place, just like expansion of better when george bush was president, work with this is a to make a better so that covers more people, more affordable. employers -- >> he likes to talk about this but he has proposed no solution. there's a fact, both with social is good and medicare. if we do nothing, we will not keep our commitment to younger generations of americans. it's a statistical fact. i have proposed reforms is also skewed and medicaid are i have proposed means testing to make sure that those who need it most get the most benefit. he has not proposed a single change for social security and medicare to make it stronger. this is very dangerous. and by the way, this is mr. garcia's record. he got nothing done in congress. why?
because he can work with others. at the height of the government shutdown -- [talking over each other] >> hold on, please. before we run out of time, just briefly have to ask you, you introduce a bill that draws a decision between cubans who come here to our migrants for economic reasons and those who are political refugees. why did you introduce that? because there's been tremendous fraud in the system and benefits going to people who didn't deserve the? >> that's exactly right. this is a generous country and now community knows that more than the cuban community. so many of our families have come over the years to hard-working, people could return to cuba for political reasons. they were being persecuted. now the problem today is that every cuban who comes to the united states automatically no questions asked its welfare
benefits up to $1500 a month in direct cash payments, food stamps and housing support. some of these people come, they qualify for benefits and then they return to live in cuba while they continue receiving these benefits. seniors who arrived in cuba after the age of 65 get social security for life despite never having paid into the system. some of them yet more than people who been working in this country for 30 or 40 years this has to be reformed. so our bill and by the way, about 30 democrats are supporting it, 120 total cosponsors, what it does is assess if you're a refugee, then you receive the benefits but if you are coming up like anyone from anywhere else in the world, then you get a work permit and you can start country bidding but we cannot allow for our country's generosity to be abused by anyone the matter where they're from. >> it's again targeting segment. if there's abuse let's write a law to stop the abuse. i'm the first to do but you and i both know, they're pretty because southold received
haitian and cuban refugees everyone and cuban refugees everyone with a plan for or not. it was a huge drain on our economy. many years ago -- speed but only cuban refugees get these benefits [talking over each other] >> let's be clear. what is important is we have to reform the entire system and a relationship with cuba. something mr. curbelo doesn't engaging. he plays with the rhetoric, its people against each other giunta versus a record for all these laws. we have reform the cuban -- microphone the relationship with cuba. something so to against every single time. there is no committee honored that will benefit from a series relationship both in human rights in cuba, and people's lives and building the country forward in this community. that requires a serious look at this. not coming at the edges eyed readers abuse in the system by a law to stop the abuse.
>> before we get to zeke or anything else we really are at the outer limits of our time. before you go i want you to both to make a closing statement and mr. garcia you go first. >> michael look, i think from trump to mr. curbelo can people are tired of these attacks. there's a record. with a record of standing up for this to win and making difference. whether it brings hundreds of millions to an everglades restoration, investing in our economy and workers are standing up against the gun lobby where mr. curbelo is called a lapdog for the nra by the brady campaign. what is clear is our history is working with the people of south florida and with your support, and god's favor on november 8 we will go back to washington so south florida has a voice in washington. >> michael, this is a roll call. this is one of the two new papers that gets published every day. everyone rita, republicans and democrats. these are the numbers who have
been embroiled in scandal for corruption, members indicted, convicted a mr. garcia's picture is up and is for a reason. he gave this committed a terrible thing in washington and for the past two years i've been working on cleaning up our communities. people people ask, they seem to come from the corrupt district? because his campaign and the republican campaign to be fair perpetrated some terrible crimes in our community. it's a shame. every day in washington i have worked with republicans and democrats to try to help the committee whether it's transportation, education, the environment. i've been recognized by editorial boards, by independent groups for wanting to build consensus on these issues and that is what i think every voter in this community ultimately wants. ..
>> moderator: we'll see what happens november 3th. all right -- november 8th. all right, stay with us, we'll be back with the round table. ♪ ♪ >> live now to georgetown university law center in washington, d.c. for a discussion shortly on a lawsuit by the city of miami against banks. the city alleges discriminatory lending, a violation of the fair housing act. we'll hear from a group of lawyers about what the case means for future access to the court system. the hosts of this discussion, the supreme court institute at georgetown university law center and the constitutional accountability center. the event should be getting