tv New York 23rd Congressional District Debate CSPAN October 23, 2014 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
>> we take you live now to elmira, new york for the debate between incumbent tom reed and his democratic challenger martha robertson. recent polls list this race as epublican favored. >> 18 news presents the 23rd district congressional debate. here's your moderator, jeff stone. >> hello everyone. welcome to our debate between the two candidates running for congress in the 23rd congressional district. this district covers the finger lakes region and the southern
tier ranging from cuyohoga county on the eastern end of the district to chautauqua county out west. let's introduce you to the candidates incumbent is 42 years old, and is a member of the house ways and means committee. he has been an attorney in private practice and co-owner of other businesses. served cratic candidate on the legislature since 2002 chairing it for four years. she is a former kindergarten teacher, small business owner, and raised funds for community service oriented nonprofits. our panel of questioners tonight include rachel barnhart of news 8 in rochester, the assistant managing editor for the leader" and 18 news. we'll begin with our two-minute opening statements from both candidates. as a result of a coin flip at the beginning of our program we'll begin with martha robertson. >> thank you. great to be here.
thank you all for coming. i was raised in my family's small business, literally grew up in small business. that's where i learned about hard work and serving the public. as a former kindergarten teacher, i've been a small business owner, i'm a mother and a grandmother and i've been a leader for a does years in tomkins county where we have the lowest unemployment rate in new york state. tonight this election is a choice, a very serious choice about who is fighting for you, who is on your side. my opponent will sound very reasonable tonight. he'll sound very moderate. but i have to say we have to look at his record and see what he has actually done in washington for four years. i don't happen to think it is moderate to raise middle class taxes by $2,000 to give tax breaks of $200,000 to the wealthiest americans. i don't happen to think it's moderate to make it easier for corporations to shift jobs overseas. i don't think it's reasonable
to ask senior citizens to pay more by ending the medicare guarantee. i don't think it's reasonable to raise the social security retirement age. i certainly don't think it's moderate to ask women to do more in this economy to make it tell women omen and how to make their medical choices. i don't think that is moderate at all. it is certainly not reasonable to shut down the government because you didn't get your way about health care. that's my opponent's record. i'm afraid that is not a moderate, not a reasonable record. my record in tomkins county is about bipartisan leadership, been elected for four times chair with bipartisan support, and we've had a record of getting things done for our residents. i'm proud of that record. that experience to washington, d.c. to represent you and your families. i will always have your back in
washington. thank you. >> thank you, jeff, and thank you to our partners for hosting this debate and thank you, martha, for joining us today and tonight for this discussion so important to our future. i would also like to thank my family. my beautiful wife, my daughter autumn, my son will. without them we couldn't do what we do. i love you a great deal from the bottom of my heart. you know, we started this journey years ago. one of the things i committed to you, to the people of our home here in western new york, that i will always listen. my door will always be open. we've done over 148 town halls. we've helped over 6,000 constituents with cases involving the federal government. because representing you, i truly believe that in order to represent 717,000 people you need to be out and listening to people. that's what we do. because i believe bringing your voice to washington, d.c. is the right thing to do because we are filled with common sense nd reasonable solutions.
as i've heard those conversations and your voices i agree the number one issue facing us in america today is jobs. jobs is not a political question. it's not a political issue. it is the issue we have to solve in washington, d.c. i have been working in bipartisan groups, groups like no labels, go big coalition, members coming together to talk about these issues and talk about how we can create jobs in america. because by creating jobs, you create opportunity. and that is an opportunity where you're going to be able to put food on your table and a roof over your head for generations to come. i firmly believe you can give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. you teach a person to fish you feed him, her, their family for generations to come. that's the philosophy i bring to washington, d.c. i seek your support to continue this fight. >> now we'll begin with our questions. each question is directed to
both candidates with about two minutes to answer each question. the first candidate to answer a question will then have a 30-second rebuttal opportunity. as per the format agreed to by both candidates tonight time limits will be strictly enforced. rachel barnhart has the first question with mr. reed answering first. >> mr. reed, how should the united states handle the issue of undocumented immigrants? do you think more aggressive security at the border is needed? do you believe in providing a path to legal residency and citizenship? >> well, this is a very important issue. i am very much engaged in this issue in trying to get comprehensive immigration reform done. one thing i do not support is amnesty. to me that's the wrong path to go down. i've had conversations with numerous people. legal immigrants have been in our office, i've been in the field talking to them and i say how is it fair that you would get citizenship and you violated the rules? i said i've had people who come here legally say i spent
thousands of dollars and waited years to follow the rules and do this right. to me that's not the right way to go. but there is a compromise that can be reached and we have reached across the aisle. we've worked with people like senator schumer who i have reached out to to try to see if there is a path. as we have talked about not creating citizenship to people who are here illegally, for the kids yes. but for the people that came here illegally the penalty is the loss of that citizenship. i think that's the fair thing we can do and it would solve this problem as we go forward. in the meantime as we deal with the big issue of comprehensive to gration reform we have focus on really what matters to people here in western new york in regards to our farm community. we need to open our farming pportunities for the people so they can have a labor force to fulfill their needs on our family farms across the district. i've heard from those farmers. i've shared many days with those farmers. this is about making sure people follow the rules but there is a work force that is here because that makes sense to me.
>> yes, i think the issue of immigration is a perfect example of what's wrong with washington, d.c. these days. we have a senate compromise bill that was passed 16 months ago. my opponent talks about working in a bipartisan way. i think what we've seen in the senate is a perfect example of really hard compromise, bipartisan solution, and as a former kindergarten teacher, i whole job was about getting people to get along and solve problems and to find a win-win solution. while compromise means you don't always get everything that you want. well, that's the senate bill. people worked hard and two-thirds of the senate voted for that compromise. my opponent has blocked that vote -- that bill even coming to the floor for discussion in congress. he's against even having the discussion on the floor much less a vote. i've talked to farmers across this district.
i've talked to grad students who would love to stay here if they could. i'll tell you, the farmers are frustrated unbelievably frustrated because the system is just completely incomprehensible, unworkable. they just want a rational solution. they want the senate bill to be voted on in the house. now, i've heard from farmers that they're changing their milking systems from people to robots. talk about losing jobs. because they can't get the labor. the strawberries have been rotting in the fields this summer because they can't get anybody to pick the strawberries. this is a critical issue for the american people. where's my opponent? my opponent has been nowhere. we're not going to vote on it. it's good enough for two-thirds of the senate but it's not even good enough for the congress to vote on it to even have a discussion. when i get to congress we're going to talk about the issues in front of the american people and we're going to vote on
them. that's what you're sent there to do. >> well, it's interesting. my opponent didn't raise one of the key issues in this and i want to stress this today that we need to make sure our "banfield & ford: courtside"ers are secure. right now our borders are porous and my opponent isn't even addressing that. i think that is critical as we go forward. the senate bill has a lot of problems. to me that is a form of amnesty. i don't support it and i don't think it's the path to getting this issue resolved. to me there is opportunity here. i'm ready to roll up my sleeves, get it done as i demonstrated working in groups on both sides of the aisle but the bottom line is we have to make sure the borders are secure. >> derek? >> what do you think the overall impact of the affordable care act has been so far? and what changes, if any, do you think need to be made? >> to me this question is about how do we provide affordable health care for all americans? you know, when my opponent has had a career as a medical debt
collector, he knows i'm sure that medical bankruptcy has been the biggest cause of personal bankruptcy in, for all americans. now, i'll tell you a story. the aca is not perfect. i wasn't there to vote on it one way or another. we need to fix the problems. we need stability and to move forward. the american people are tired of the fight about the affordable care act. let me tell you about philip, a friend of my family. philip is a self-employed person. ten years ago he threw up his hands and gave up health insurance at all because he couldn't afford it. it was so expensive. went ten years uninsured. unfortunately, well, fortunately for the affordable care act came along and he signed up right away. got an affordable plan for his whole family. then this spring he fell on a ladder. he broke his ankle in about eight places. if it were not for the affordable care act for that affordable plan that philip got he would have not been able to afford the six surgeries that he's had, the physical therapy,
and all of the rest of it. he's now about to be able to walk straight again. and he's going to be able to go back to work again soon fblet if it were not for the affordable care act my friend philip and his family would have been bankrupt. he would not be able to go back to work. and, you know, he'd be on disability. you'd be paying for him as taxpayers. instead, he is able to go back to work. he's not bankrupt. my opponent voted more than 50 times to bankrupt philip and his family. my opponent voted more than 50 times to get rid of the affordable care act without anything to replace it. i'm sorry. let's fix what's wrong with it. let's move forward. the american people are tired of this argument and i think it's helped a lot of families like philip. >> well, you know, i think this issue really highlights a contrast between my opponent and i. as my opponent has doubled down on the affordable care act, obama care as otherwise known,
and supports obama care, let's just be clear. my opponent also supports a single payor health care system in america. that's complete government run health care for all of us. to me, that's not the right path. that's not the way to move forward. i'll continue to stand for repeal of the affordable care act because i think that is the right thing to do. but at the end of the day we'll have to deal with this law. we have been working in washington. there's been some legislation that we got time in to alleviate burdens on small business owners when it comes to their high deductible plans and giving them more choices business owners and employees that work in their businesses. so there are areas that maybe we can agree upon that we are going to support with the affordable care act. things like preexisting conditions. things like allowing kids to be carried on your parents' policy. those types of reforms make sense to me. but what the affordable care act did is it really focused on health insurance. one of the things i think we
have to focus on in america again and i'm glad that the health care debate is coming back to the forefront, is how are we going to contain these health care costs? i think there's a broad agreement that we could come together on for some common sense reforms to contain these costs. things like tort reform. things like rooting out the waste, fraud, and abuse. the honest truth is that's not enough. we need to do better. we need to adopt policies in washington that promote things like hospice because we spend our most health care dollars in the last six months of life. we want to empower individuals and doctors not insurance carriers or as my opponent wants with a single payor system government bureaucracy. that's the wrong path for the future of america when it comes o health care. >> you're just saying what's wrong with congress again. i'm not talking about single payor. that was on the table years ago. we're talking about the affordable care act. this is what is in front of us now. the american people want to say fix it and let's move on. he still wants to vote against it. he still wants to just dump it
without anything comprehensive to replace it. that's not bipartisanship. that's not working for your families. that's not looking out for you. it's time to move on. it's time to fix it. we have a lot of people who are depending on the affordable care that everybody deserves in this country. this is a right and everybody deserves that. it's time to move on and just fix the program. >> everybody trying to speak up i guess. people in the back are having a difficult time hearing. your next question? >> this question is from one of our viewers, she writes, i'm interested in knowing the position on federal gun violence legislation, specifically whether the candidates support or oppose prohibiting people convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes from having guns, blocking people listed on the federal government terror watch list
from buying guns and requiring background checks for all gun sales. >> mr. reed, you're first. >> i appreciate christine's questions because this has come up in many of my town halls across 11 counties of this district and talking to people about things that are occurring when it comes to our second amendment rights. let's be clear. i am a life long nra member, life long scope member. i have an a-plus rating from both organizations. my opponent does not. has actually an f rating is my understanding. clear contrast between the two of us when it comes to our second amendment rights. i believe this is a constitutionally individually guaranteed right we got to fight for every day and to me what we're talking about when it comes to gun violence is, you know, i've had the conversations. i've had the conversations with mothers and fathers who have lost children to gun violence. my heart goes out to them. one thing i say is we're all talking about taking away the
second amendment right and that gun. why don't we have the real conversation about the real problem? when you look at the horrific situation like these parents have suffered in connecticut in colorado and your heart goes out to them, what is the common denominator? it's the individual behind the gun. it is the mental health issue that is, has gone undiagnosed and undocumented. we need to improve mental health in america. that is part of health care going forward that i'm an advocate for. that i've been a loud voice for is improving mental health because then you're getting to the issue. when it comes to gun violence for example in our inner cities when you have someone who commits a drug crime with a weapon, you know what? they abuse their rights. they should go to jail. they should lose that right because they violated those rights that they did by committing that crime with that gun. to me, this is something that we stand for here. it's something that's our way of life and it's something i will always carry forward. >> thank you for the question.
everybody wants to know that their family will be safe, that their children will be safe in school. if you go to a movie you're not going to have to worry about losing your life. let me just get something off the table right now. for the state issue, i am against the safe act. i've voted against the safe act. i voted -- signed a pledge to repeal the safe act and anybody who says that i didn't is lying. i want everybody to understand that. now, federally, i think there was a really good compromise, another compromise that died, the toomey bill in the senate unfortunately didn't go anywhere because of the gridlock in this congress in washington, d.c. i believe universal background checks are a reasonable thing to do. it's not anything that threatens second amendment rights. i strongly support the second amendment but universal background checks, if you go to cabela's or walmart to get a gun you shouldn't have to have
a stronger check than somebody out in the parking lot or at a gun show. it should be a common sense -- there are a number of common americans ons that are looking for. i'm a strong supporter of the second amendment and opponent of the safe act. my opponent in this race, unfortunately, has voted over and over again to cut the mental health services that he now says are the answer. he even voted to cut mental health services for veterans. and i think that's, you can't have it both ways. so i just want to make that clear on the safe act and about my thinking on the federal issues. it's about safety for our families. >> well, it's interesting having it both ways. my opponent says she voted against the safe act when she had an opportunity to vote for the repeal of the safe act at the conference she voted to
support the safe act. that is exactly the contrast between her and myself. because that is the record in the tomkins county legislature. >> that's not true. >> i signed the scope second amendment pledge. i was the first one to sign it. i led by example because i don't just talk the talk. i walk the walk. my opponent is saying things tonight to try to misrepresent her position on this. i think it's clear. >> the federal minimum wage is $7.25. many states including new york have raised the minimum wage beyond the federal standard. do you believe an increase in the federal minimum wage is needed? >> minimum wage is an issue that goes right to the core of are we going to have an economy that includes everyone? let me just mention my jobs plan on my website. you can go there. a dozen different ideas, not just a place to start to create jobs as we've done in tomkins county. my opponent's job plan is two sentences. afraid.
we need a higher federal minimum wage. for one thing because american workers, new york workers right now are paid a little bit higher than other states. and that's not a level playing field for our workers. but the most important reason for a higher federal minimum wage is because, you rnings walmart shouldn't get away with having their employees take federal benefits, take medicaid and heating assistance and foodstamps because they're not paying a wage people can support their families on. that's welfare for walmart. i don't agree with that. a higher minimum wage will be something that will help all of our families. it'll help families who are struggling right now to pay for groceries, to pay for shoes for their kids, to fix the cars they need to go to work. those kinds of expenses, those people are going to put that money back into the economy. it's going to create even more jobs. so a higher federal minimum wage is essential not only for
the economic stability of the families making that but also for the good of the entire economy. and i'll mention that women are two-thirds of the people making minimum wage. this is not about teenagers. it's women who, most of whom are supporting kids. so this is a critical issue. it's one of the things i strongly believe is a key to our jobs plan to create a better economy, economy that includes all. >> you know, i think there is a clear contrast between my opponent and myself in regards to this. when it comes to the minimum wage, i always love to use the term "starting wage" because minimum sounds like a cap. to me we're talking about the starting wage. because i want to create opportunities where people can start but grow. one of the things that i think my opponent who represents an extreme agenda in tomkins county supports a livable wage. that is a $22 an hour wage that
is being promoted and pushed around the country. to me that's extreme. when we talk about raising the minimum wage we have to do it with our eyes wide open. there are reports out that talk about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost by increasing those costs. i'm open to having the conversation because it has been some time since we've had the discussion as to what the federal minimum wage is. i think there may be a better way. i'm a big, firm believer in local control. the government that is closest to the people governs best. so allowing our local municipalities, allowing our states, because raising the minimum wage to $10.10 as they're talking about in washington and as my opponent wants to go up to $22 an hour with a livable wage, why don't we say, let's let the local communities decide because what works in corning, what works in elmira at $8, $7.25 an hour, is much different than what happens in inner city new york city. $10 an hour there is much different than what we're talking about here in elmira.
what a works in san francisco, what works in seattle is completely different than what we have here in western new york. as you increase these costs, make sure we are clear what we're potentially putting in harm's way. that is real jobs. real opportunity for people. and as we have this conversation, which i'm willing to have, and have the debate, we do it with our eyes wide open. >> tom, facts matter. i don't remember any conversation in anywhere in tomkins county about a minimum wage of $22, even a livable wage of $22. you're just wrong. that's just not the number we talked about at all. i strongly support the fact that anybody who is working full-time should not live in poverty. $7.25 an hour isn't even $15,000 a year. you try to raise a family on that, you try to -- i don't know. even raise yourself, even support yourself on that, it's impossible. >> mr. reed, how should we
address climate change while still meeting energy needs in this country? >> you know, as we deal with this issue i also believe this is part of my opponent's extreme agenda. as she has said, in her heart of hearts the number one reason she is going to washington, d.c. is because of global warming. to me this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. but one of the things that i strive to do in washington, d.c. is i try to find ways that we can talk about issues and bring people together. and one of the things that i have found, you know, talking to people like the senator in cup of coffee is you know what? we spend a lot of time arguing about global warming and climate change. but you know what i found? we all agree. polluting our water, polluting our air is not the right thing to do. we care about people. we care about our kids. we care about our grandchildren. so why don't we come together on the issue and say, you know what? let's join hands and say we're going to stop pollution. now as we go forward on this debate though we also have to do it with our eyes wide open
when it comes to the costs associated with this. as we deal with the issue of climate change and global warming and pollution, i'm a big proponent of making sure we do a cost benefit analysis in regards to the regulations coming out of washington, d.c. because it's mind boggling what they're proposing. they're proposing regulations they don't even have the technology to measure whether or not they're even successful. that's in the boiler max standards for example. to me, that's the wrong way to do it. you're going to settle the american economy with billions of dollars of costs with regulation and jeopardize thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs? to me that's not the right way to go. we need a common sense, reasonable approach and we need it grounded on an area we can agree upon. pollution is something we all oppose. let's come together. let's solve it from common ground. >> to me this is a question about jobs and solving a problem at the same time. addressing climate change is possibly the biggest jobs
generator that we could imagine. unfortunately, my opponent stands with the climate deniers. he's funded very heavily, hundreds of thousands of dollars from the oil and gas industry, and they are the ones who stood in the way of making progress on this issue. my opponent has voted against the epa even being allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. you know, my opponent has scientists 95% of are wrong. i disagree. i think we'll believe the scientists. i think that's how we'll create a new economy. we're going to solve the problems for the world. we have the possibilities right here. when, as chair of the legislature in tomkins county i convened a group of scientists a couple years ago. i said, what can we do? here is this grand proposal we found out about to create new green energy solutions. within two weeks we had a
dozen, two dozen people around the room. they each had the best new idea that could create new technologies, new jobs, solutions we hadn't even thought of. well, you know, that's the energy we need, we can bring to this problem right here in this district, creating whole new technologies that actually solve problems. you rnings and maybe if we took care, if we got rid of the oil and gas industry subsidies, maybe once upon a time they were, you know, smart. not anymore. that is the wealthiest industry in the -- on the planet. unfortunately, my opponent stands with the oil and gas industry. he stands with the climate deniers. they don't need that subsidy anymore. if we put those investments instead toward research and development, toward energy efficiency, insulating every home and every business in this country, that's how we solve the problem and create jobs. >> mr. reed? >> well, in all of the above
energy policy to me makes sense but my opponent doesn't want to support that. as she talks about blocking the development of natural gas and adamantly is opposed to the development of natural gas and hydraulic fracturing that has made it possible to unleash those resources i have been committed to that but there needs to be an energy policy that has a short term, mid term, and long term. that's why i remain committed to the alternative and renewable energy sources out there. we have supported and our record shows our support for all of the above energy policy that i believe is the future for america. with natural gas we are cleaning up our environment. >> marisa? >> our next question is from another viewer. he's from watkins glen. he wants to know your position on senior >> thank you for the question. my mother worked until she was 85 years old because she was worried that medicare would not be therefore.
-- be there for her. i am proud to be a part of three organizations, not just because of my strong support for these issues for seniors -- not the programs, but the senior soup paid into the programs all of their working lives. but because of my opponents disastrous vote. the vote to end the medicare guarantee. we vote to end the -- racy social security -- deal vote to raise the social security age. there are votes to make things sustainable long-term, such as negotiating for drugs under the medicare program. we give away billions because we do not negotiate for medicare drugs. the pharmaceutical industry has a lobby and they are supporting my opponent. that is one of the things we can do to solve the medicare problem.
on social security, we could lift the cap. most people do not even know that you're not paying social security tax on anything over $117,000 of income. if you're making more than that, you're paying the same as a millionaire. that is wrong. we can create a fair system that will be sustainable for not just a man of 63 but for our children and our grandchildren. promiseto preserve that of retirement with dignity for all seniors. >> when it comes to social security and medicare, let's be very clear. i record is very clear that we support social security and medicare. about isre talking recognizing that social security and medicare is on a path to bankruptcy. 2033 is when they go bankrupt. to say, as my opponent does,
that we will not do anything about it, that is the wrong thing to do. d.c. too washington, solve problems, and social security and medicare going bankrupt in 2033, it is wrong not to deal with that proactively and present the catastrophe if we are doing in washington, d.c. and kick the can down the road. we will keep working hard to proactively solve the problem. because this is personal. as many of you know, i am the youngest of 12. i have 11 older brothers and sisters. my father passed when i was two, my mother was looking at a situation where there were six of us in the household and she was raising us as a single mother on a social security check any military death benefit check. cannot deal with this problem is the wrong path to go forward. let's be very clear. when it comes to any reform that i have been supportive of, we
cannot impact senior center on social security or in medicare. that is a promise that i have made and a promise i have kept, and i will continue to do that has been move forward. what we are talking about is changing the system for those who are outside of a generation of retiring into social security and medicare, because in order to solve this problem, there is going to have to be a conversation as to how to reform the system in order to save it. my opponent wants to engage in political rhetoric by saying that we are trying to kill social security and medicare. i am trying to save it. >> unfortunately, tom, you say you support medicare and social security, but that is not actually what your votes to. fear mongering about medicare going bankrupt in 2033, untrue. .acts matter it would not change anything from now until 2033, any income, any benefits, the difference is only 15% that we would not have
the money to pay for in 2033. it is not bankrupt, it is a 15% cap. .e can makes -- gap we can make small changes. why do we start by making people who are on fixed incomes -- >> you are out of time. pushed schools to change standards. should congress play a role in keeping or repealing the common core standards? >> i wholeheartedly stand against the common core standards. to me, it is a government, a solution fromall washington, d.c., that is a clear contrast between me and my opponent. when it comes to educating our kids, i think the best people to make those decisions are the parents. my wife and i, sitting down with our sons and daughters, if you show that they are doing
homework and having that conversation and making sure that that is done and getting a solid education. making sure that local governments, school boards, or in a position to make those determinations. making sure that our teachers -- i have had conversations across beheld those as 148 town halls, and the teachers are come up and say that the common core standards are just killing us. because it is one-size-fits-all, teaching to the test, it is not acceptable. on the federal level, we will continue to be opposed to common core. we will continue to empower parents to be in position to teach our kids -- in a position to teach our kids. and we will allow local to makents determinations. what works in elmira and works in jamestown does not work in san francisco or chicago. it does not work in 2015. need theers
flexibility to make sure that their lesson plan is designed for their kids. .> i was a teacher my kids went to public school. this is about quality education for every child in america. we do not to say, if have some kind of basic core, basic educational standards, then the kid in california or alabama or nevada or texas, they into thee able to get gray colleges and universities that we have right here in this district. this is about quality education for every child. the common core implementation was bad. the resources were not there. the materials for teachers were not there. the expectations game on top of highars of how stak -- stakes testing that disrespected teachers and did not do anything to help kids. i have lost weight many times in
my life, and i can tell you, you do not lose weight by standing on a scale. high-stakes testing does not teach kids. that is what we started with when we got into the common core, and teachers were fed up. we need to respect the standards that were developed by the state government. this is not a federal program, the state governments pull together and develop these standards. they need to be examined closely. we need to put the resources behind the teachers and a school so they can actually implement the programs. value for me,ical this is how we raise the next generation of entrepreneurs, the next generation of workers and inventors in our society. education is a part of my jobs plan. we need to invest. the common core has some great ideas but we need to implement it right. we need to get the teachers time and resources. that the state has
delayed the evaluation part, because it was not ready. teachers are saying that they're interested in the curriculum, but they need more time and resources. >> i think this is a great example of the difference between my opponent by. i opponent clearly -- opponent and i. my opponent clearly supports common core, i do not. my opponent believes that the big government solution is the right future for america, i do not. i trust you. i trust individuals. i trust parents. and the local government, those are the ones that are better suited to make these determinations. do you think that we should restrict travel because of the ebola crisis, and are we prepared to handle an outbreak here? >> can you say that letter? -- louder. restrict travel because of the ebola crisis and
are we prepared to handle it here? >> the ebola crisis is basically about keeping americans safe. we absolutely have to deal with this problem. it is critical. i am not a- physician, i am not a physician, i am prepared to listen to the physicians. when they decide, when the nih and the cdc decide, that a travel that is the right thing to do, i think we have to listen to the experts on that. we need to keep americans safe in so many different ways, and preeminent.h is unfortunately, this is a part of what we see in washington dc -- washington, d.c.. mindless cuts. myopponent has got to -- opponent has voted to cut the cdc, the nih. it is sad but true -- let me find this. "this week, the nih director says if we had not gone through
a ten-year slide in research support, we would have had a taxi than time for this that would have gone through clinical trials and would have been ready -- had a vaccine in time for this that would have gone through clinical trials and would have been ready in time for this." running my a part of small business, i've watched my family pay the bills. do, if youu have to cannot make ends meet, you do not make mindless cuts. you have to think carefully about what is going to happen. you're to think about what is important to keep americans safe. have to think about what is important to keep americans safe. we have seen an international coalition come together, and that is critical. but we need to keep our nurses and first responders safe. and we need the support of research and development that goes on at the nih and cdc. that is the backbone of this country. >> that is a great question.
this,have been looking at it is a dangerous situation, and a serious situation. at this point in time, i do support the travel ban in regards to people traveling from the hot zone. i think that is appropriate. if the president does not want to do that, i would support the president to support a strong detention-type policy from the flights that are coming from a hot zone area or the passengers that are coming from the hot zone area. to me, that is a reasonable time to make sure -- reasonable way to make sure that we are protected. my opponent is trying to say that these cuts led to the inability to fight ebola. as my opponent says, fax matter. -- facts matter. funding that went to fight this disease went up in the most recent funding we have provided to the cdc.
to me, this is what my opponent is trying to articulate, that we need to throw more money at the problem in washington, d.c. we have an $18 trillion national debt. every child born tonight owes the government $56,000 in regards to their portion of that national debt. that is a real threat to the future of america. and we need to make sure that we do not just a money at the problem. -- just throw money at the problem. we need to hold bureaucrats responsible, stretch dollars as far as possible, and that is what we have been doing. the budget, through we have highlighted $14 billion abuseof waste, fraud, and reedit that should be the easy, low hanging fruit, they become together to solve. we have 57,000 federal employees that are paid to stay home. .hat is not right that is a waste of taxpayer dollars, and i do not find it acceptable. >> this is the nih director's
quote. he thinks that the dollars are stretched too far. every budget is about priorities. i do not understand why my opponent is so eager to start by cutting where the american people need it the most. why don't we start by closing tax loopholes? when we start by asking the wealthiest people, like my opponent, to pay their fair share? for tax hikes on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest americans? best way fore congress to help create more jobs and this congressional district -- in this congressional district. points that we focus in. we need to tackle the debt problem, reform the tax code, lenient regulations out of washington dc that are killing the job creators, and we need in all of the above energy policy in order to promote and produce
jobs. when it comes to thing like itural gas development, provides the feedstock for the rebirth of american manufacturing on american soil. the aisleked across on legislation, the revitalize american manufacturing act. reached out to joe kennedy from massachusetts, a good friend. we have worked on a center that is a priority for the white house. the white house, in the state of the union, recognize her efforts and said that is part of something they want to support. this part of the bills that are stacked up in the senate because harry reid will not take them to before to have a vote on them. as we get back to the lame duck, that will get taken up by the senate and get taken into law, because that is what we are talking about. a manufacturing renaissance that the advanced manufacturing brower presents, the energy policy represents.
if we fix the tax code, we will make it here to sell it there. there are huge opportunities in western new york when it comes to manufacturing, because of our rich legacy of manufacturing in our area. we also have a blossoming agricultural arena. that is why i supported listening to farmers across our area at the town halls. we are seeing opportunities. we have a blossoming at great growing industry, a winery apeustry trade -- gr growing industry, a winery industry. createbsolutely need to economic opportunity for everyone, but -- i have been listening to the voters in this district, and they have questions about fracking. they're looking for where to get the right answers and i am not a scientist, my opponent is not a
scientist, but he does have the talking points for the oil and gas industry. frankly, i do not see where we can believe anything that my opponent says about whether this is the right thing to do. i could debate fracking all day, but i only have a couple of minutes. my opponent thinks fracking is great, except in his own backyard in the finger lake, because he happens to have a home there. there are other ways to create jobs. go to my website and see the 12 point jobs plan. and yes, we have to tackle the debt. --
>> we're having some trouble with the feed from elmira. we will try and get back to the last few minutes on the debate between the congressman tom reed and martha robertson, the democratic challenger. a the meantime, let's take look at some of the ads that voters have been seeing in this race. i am tom reed, and i approve this message. >> martha robertson's extreme agenda is already hurting us. powerposed refitting the plant with natural gas, and when she did not get her way, her sued to shut it down. she is going to sacrifice our
utilities bills. that is why her extreme liberal agenda is wrong for us. are politicians that put the communities first. tom reed put himself first for voting for tax breaks wealthy people like him. martha robertson will vote to cut middle-class taxes and protect jobs outsourcing. it is time to put these people first, again. >> i am martha robertson, and i approve this message. >> i am tom reed, and i approve this message. >> we know that martha robertson is ago liberal who supports obamacare and nancy pelosi. she is going to double your property tax and spend that on pay raises and a desk for
herself. why should we take her vocal -- word over her votes for it? martha robertson is too radical for us. ttackingeed is a martha robertson. raise theed to retirement age for social security, another fact. why? to give tax breaks to millionaires like himself. that is a sad fact. >> i am martha robertson, and i approve this message. i will protect the promise of retirement with dignity. that is a fact. you a debateinging in the 23rd district, but we are having trouble getting the video from elmira, new york in the last 10 minutes or so of the debate. while we try to fix the problem with that video, a look at the debate in the louisiana fifth district.
we will bring this to you tomorrow night. here are some of the absent voters have been seeing during this campaign. >> life is filled with ups and downs. >> but a man's character depends on how often he gets back up and stands again. >> i am lucky to a been blessed with a great family and a christian wife. ownsd i'm a husband that up to mistakes and always fights for the good people of louisiana. >> i am vance mcallister. and we approve this message because some things are worth fighting for. >> vance mcallister, 100% the louisiana. washington, d.c. is broken, and it is only getting worse. promises anden that is why we need harris brown, a job creator knows the value of a full day's work. in congress, he will create the
-- protect the promises for generations to come. it is time for real leaders, not politicians. >> i'm harris brown, a proud conservative, and i approve this message. >> washington has led us down and politicians have let us down, and it is time to fix it. we're going to repeal obama care and replace it with a plan that works. number two, we will tap into energy resources and create thousands of jobs. number three, we will protect our borders. finally, we need to tell the government to respect our christian values. this is the most important thing. morning,sat here this in this room, thousands of women and children across the border of the united states -- crossed the border of the united states on the rio grande. this is going on every day trade where is border security? do we have a border?
a country without a border is not a country. i am at tarpley, and i approve this message. tarpley, and i approve this message. [no audio] >> where are going to head back now to the race in new york in elmira. we were having problems with the feed that we now have it back and will join the last few minutes. >> it was seven women senators that came together and brought a compromise package to the leadership and said, this is what you should vote for to solve this problem. my opponent said no, no, no.
>> these were specific and personal letters to you, martha. they visibly ask you to respond and let us come together to stand for those jobs in that lansing powerplant. i think the fact that you think that those were form letters, i do not think that the hundreds of jobs think that those are form letters read that is a real issue and i care about those people -- letters. that is a real issue, and if i cared about those people, i would've responded to those letters, like a due in washington. >> tom, it seems to me that you are a part of the war against women. [laughter] please, everybody. >> you supported continued wage determination against women by blocking the paycheck fairness act. you voted against women's rights of jews even in rape and insist. -- right to choose even in cases of rape and insist. you have been a bill collector
and a lawyer and a washington politician. please, tell me what gives you the medical expertise to make these decisions for women. >> you know, when i hear this question, martha, i just have to say, it is false. this is political rhetoric at its worst. i have eight older sisters. i had a single mother. i am trying to do is that i will stand for women. when people have questions on equal pay and there is a discriminatory act were somewha -- where someone is not paying someone because there is a woman, they should go to jail. we have always fought for equal treatment under the law, that is the right thing to do. my opponent want to continue to go forward and bring up this issue of the war on women, it is just not accurate. it is just not the truth. we're going to make of that there are opportunities, because one of the things that i heard
of these town hall this we travel to listen to people and women in particular, they are worried about the future of their kids. my wife and i talk about the future of our kids in western new york. this is what we should be focusing on, making sure that kids -- so that mothers to make sure that their kids have the best opportunity to succeed in america. i believe in the american dream and it is what i was raised on, and i will continue to be committed to it. and to engage in the rhetoric of the war on women, to me, that is offensive and not accurate. [applause] folks.se, >> please start the clock again. >> you have 30 seconds rebuttal. .> this is about your votes he would like us to think one thing, but your hotel or something else. you voted against the violence against women act before you were for it, he voted to block the paycheck fairness bill.
you voted against the right to choose even in cases of rape and incensed. the rightto support to take birth control away from women. .ou may think it is rhetoric if you're in favor of women, i would love to see that in your votes. >> is time for closing statements. as a result of the coin flip, martha robertson will go first. >> i am proud of my record in tompkins county of bipartisan leadership in getting things done. the evil and only the best have elected me four times. know me thee that best have elected me four times. the people that know tom the best have only voted for him one time when he ran for mayor. the people do not need that. fight for them, that i will be a tireless fighter for the middle class, for jobs for everyone, for
retirement with dignity, and for keeping jobs here in this country. for a level playing field for american workers. i will fight for teachers, for students -- student loans, we did not talk about. it is important that everyone has access to higher education. i will fight for veterans, for farmers, for older americans, for moms and dads trying to just get through the month and pay the bills. tom reed tries to sound reasonable, but those are not his votes -- >> i'm sorry, it is one minute for closing statements. >> thank you so much for coming out and engaging, because these article issues. i believe our brightest days are ahead of us. i believe in the american dream. i believe that if we at least the private -- unleash the private sector, support policies that are like the extreme ones my opponent represents, there are opportunities in the future. i will continue to fight in
washington, d c to make sure that you are brought to washington. that is why i do the town halls. you have to be out listening to people. that is something i learned in a household with 11 older brothers and sisters and a family that taught me the early on. we are going to continue to do is make sure that your voice is heard in washington, because it is our voice. this is our home. i love it. moved, they will have to carry me out in a box, and hopefully that is many years to come. time i move, they will have to carry me out in a box. [applause] joining us forr this debate in the 23rd district. never to get out and vote. -- remember to get out and vote. >> be a part of the c-span 2014 coverage. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook to get videos,
debate previews. than 100 when you more senate, house, and you can share your reaction. the battle for the control of congress. santos and engaged by following us on twitter and liking us on -- stay engaged by following us on twitter and liking us on facebook. then an hour, the date for -- debate for the west virginia third district. list thells race as a tossup. tomorrow morning, steve silverman talks about the criminal justice system and individual rights. then a look at recent rules to increase lending. plus, we will take your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets.
local washington journal" tomorrow morning -- "washington journal" tomorrow morning. iowa, in the debate between steve king and jim mauer. -- mowrer. this race is listed as safe republican. jim pursuing a goal that six previous candidates have missed -- defeating republican steve king to represent northwest iowa in the u.s. house of representatives. hour, they are debating campaign issues in a >>cial edition of iowa press -- press. i will bank knows that you want hones