tv Campaign 2018 Indiana U.S. Senate Debate CSPAN October 31, 2018 12:08am-1:08am EDT
hubbell, who is running for governor. with election day a week away, c-span is your primary source for campaign 2018. next, a debate from indiana, where democratic senator joe donnelly is seeking a second term against republican mike braun and libertarian lucy brenton. this debate from indianapolis was the last time the three candidates were scheduled to meet before the election. it is an hour. >> good evening, and welcome to the second of two u.s. senate debates of the independent nonpartisan indiana debate commission. we are coming to you live from the toby theater at newfield in indianapolis. joining us are the three candidates on the ballot. incumbent democrat joe donnelly, republican challenger mike braun , and libertarian challenger lucy brenton. the winner of this election on november 6 will represent the people of indiana in a six-year term in washington. i am your moderator, amna nawaz.
i am the national correspondent and primary substitute anchor for the pbs newshour, and i am honored to be here to serve as your moderator of this very important debate. for about the next hour, the candidates will debate a variety of issues. as with the first debate earlier this month, nearly all the questions came from you, members of the public who submitted questions about what concerns you. some of them are here to ask the question in person. none of the questions nor the topics have been shared in advance with any candidate. and now, here are your candidates. next to me is joe donnelly, the democrat incumbent who is completing his first term. he was elected to the senate in 2012. in the middle is republican mike braun, an auto parts distributor of jasper in southwest indiana and a former state representative. he won the republican primary in may. also with us is lucy brenton, the libertarian. a finance professional of indianapolis. she previously ran for the u.s. senate in 2016.
and now the candidates can further introduce themselves and make a one-minute opening statement, starting with senator donnelly. sen. donnelly: thank you, amna , and thank you to all the hoosiers. you know me. i have had the privilege of being your senator for the last six years. i was the final vote to save health care. i fought to secure our borders. i fought to protect social security and medicare, and i have stood up for our troops and for our veterans. but who is mike braun? mike braun has a $10,000 deductible for the workers at his company for health care. they have to pay $10,000 out of their pocket before they can get their first aspirin. at the same time, he gave himself $18 million. but he also wants to go after your health care. he supports a lawsuit that would take away your coverage for pre-existing conditions. and he has supported a tax cut by mitch mcconnell, $2 trillion in debt, and they are after social security and medicare now. mike is after your health care and your social security and
medicare. that's what this election is about. ms. nawaz: next we will hear from mr. braun. mr. braun: thank you for hosting the debate and thank you, hoosiers, for tuning in. i am mike braun, lifelong hoosier, job creator, and political outsider. i'm running for senate because i am fed up with business as usual in d.c. career politicians talk a good game with no action. i moved back to my hometown, creating jobs, starting pay way above the national average. i have done things in the real world. that is the difference between me and the senator. never had a layoff in 37 years. and yes, i tackle big problems like health care, holding premiums flat for 10 years while covering pre-existing conditions, on coverage. just like i have taken care of my employees, i will take care of hoosiers. the senator takes his orders from chuck schumer, has run a negative campaign against me
based upon lies and distortion. wrong on health care, wrong on immigration, wrong on tax reform. a loud supporter of hillary clinton. and voted against judge kavanaugh. i will stand for hoosiers when you send me to d.c. thank you. ms. nawaz: and now over to mrs. brenton. ms. brenton: good evening and welcome. my name is lucy brenton, and i have got great news. only seven short days until the attack as end and we can get back to hoosier hysteria. sugar cream pie and preparing our homes for our holidays for our families. i am just like you. i am a mom, a businesswoman, and , yes senatorial candidate. , ai am here to share solutions with you this evening. first, i will uphold and defend the constitution and fight any politician that tries to take your rights away. i will work to repeal every unconstitutional law. second, we must have economic stability. and that means lowering taxes and reducing spending. our children should not have to face the boondoggle spending
that the old parties have done that only paid off their big business buddies. and third, your individual rights are at stake. you should have the right to do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone else or take their stuff. tomorrow, you should wake up more free than you are today. thank you. ms. nawaz: thank you to the candidates. now, let's jump into the questions. this first one is a quickie. the debate commission frequently hears from voters, like this retiree from arcadia, who wants to know why candidates don't answer the questions asked. in the interest of voters who are watching tonight, i am going to ask each of you to answer with a yes or no. will you pledge to confine your answers to the questions asked tonight? let's begin with senator donnelly. sen. donnelly: sure, i have always answered the questions asked. mr. braun: i will do the same. ms. brenton: my track record proves i am the only one. ms. nawaz: on now to the news of the day. this is a question straight from the headlines today. the president said he plans to
end birthright citizenship through executive order. senator lindsey graham has said he will introduce legislation to support the president's plan. would you vote to end birthright citizenship? this goes first to senator donnelly. sen. donnelly: i am the only person on this stage who voted three times for a border wall. i voted against sanctuary cities. i have stood for secure borders with john mccain, when in 2013 we passed legislation that would have provided an additional 20,000 border agents to the border. in regards to birthright citizenship, that is the 14th amendment of our constitution. and so how this should be handled is by the congress. i heard you say that lindsey graham is going to put legislation forward. we have to take a look at that legislation. as of right now, the 14th amendment of the constitution says exactly regarding this
issue. and so i would want to see that legislation, make sure it was constitutional, and review it first. ms. nawaz: mr. braun, over to you. mr. braun: birthright citizenship -- all of these issues have accumulated over a long period of time. i think the key difference this evening is going to be, are you happy with the way results have happened in d.c.? do you think the people that have been there have fixed these problems? i know hoosiers rank border security of their with the cost and real worries about whether social security and medicare are going to be there. i think finally we have a leader in the white house that is doing something about it. you cannot keep kicking these issues down the road. politicians on both sides of the aisle -- the senator has been there for a long time. he has made a career out of being in the game. he has got to hold responsibility for it.
he didn't cover that issue, right, there is going to be legislation on it. i think we will see how that pans out. it is the accumulation of many years of neglect, of neglecting border security. thank goodness we are finally attending to it. ms. nawaz: before we move on, mr. braun, the question was about legislation about birthright citizenship. would you support it or not? mr. braun: i will wait and see what the discussion is on it. if lindsey graham is introducing it, it will be something i take a look at. i will not say if i will support it or not until i read the legislation. ms. nawaz: ms. brenton, to you. ms. brenton: mike talks about the leader and washington, d.c., but what if your leaders are doing the wrong thing? should you support them or blindly follow them? i would say no. we have the 14th amendment to make clear what the laws are in our country and what the master contract is. no one is above the law. no one makes unilateral decisions in this country. we got rid of king george for a
reason, right? can we at least agree on that? king george is gone. we are not replacing him with king trump. no one is going to make unilateral decisions in our countries. if there are more laws brought forward, will you even be surprised? what is the politician's answer to everything? we have to make a law. part of that is their ego, they want their name on a law. i'm not into that. what i want to know is, is the legislation good for our country or is it going to violate the constitution like so many of our laws have? let's use that as the standard once again. the constitution. ms. nawaz: senator donnelly, you said you would like to rebut? you have 30 seconds. sen. donnelly: the reason it has been around a long time is because it is in the constitution of the united states. it is the 14th amendment, the guiding document of our nation. i voted three times for border wall security, but here is the thing -- this is an issue you have to have bipartisan support for. i have passed 50 pieces of legislation with a republican partner. every single time. and mike can't even name a
single democrat but he would work with. ms. nawaz: moving on now to another question about immigration. the conversation around immigration has flared up recently, it is fair to say. it has been a divisive topic recently. a number of voters this year submitted questions on related issues, such as the proposal for a border wall and the protection of dreamers. one of those voters is here with us. patrice widener, a retired career coach and i.t. manager from carmel. patrice? >> what would you do specifically to encourage positive u.s. policy approaches to immigration? ms. nawaz: the question goes to mr. braun first. mr. braun: first of all, we are a country that has welcomed people. we have been based upon immigration. i think the key is we need a system that is going to have some decorum to it. when it comes to legal immigration, i think we need to stress that. there are a lot of places in our economy that need people to come in to fill jobs. but when it comes to border security, i rest the
responsibility on the shoulders of politicians that have been there. until we actually build a wall and secure the border in an absolute way, you are going to have all these issues keep coming up. when it comes to sanctuary cities, when it comes to be so lotteries, -- when it comes to these a lotteries, all the problems associated with it. finally we have leadership that will attend to it. the senator says he will vote with the president. he never votes with him on other things like health care, tax reform, and so forth, so i don't know that you can take that to heart. ms. brenton: -- ms. nawaz: mrs. brenton? ms. brenton: positive policies on u.s. immigration. that is a great question. thank you for asking it. america has been the melting pot, at least it was in the cartoons i watched growing up. maybe you remember those, that you could sing along with and learn about the constitution? and the bill of rights? we are the greatest country in the world because we welcomed
the greatest minds in the world to come here and make a better life. the reason we've got problems right now is because the incentives are skewed. because we are welcoming people, in some cases, that think they can come and freeload off the country. unfortunately, that casts a bad light on the people that are willing to bring their time and their talents here. they may not have treasure, and that should not keep them out of our country. it should not be like winning the lottery. $5,000 to come into the country might as will be $5 million for someone from a poor country. if they are willing to work, they should be willing to come here, and we should be willing to accept them. ms. nawaz: senator donnelly, the question again is what would you specifically do to encourage positive policy? sen. donnelly: the trees, thank you very much. i have taken action. i was part of the group the president asked to put legislation together. and we did. it provided that our daca theiren, who came here -- parents did not come here the right way, but they are two or three years old -- that they could stay, and we would provide funding for the border wall.
like anything, it is a compromise and it is everybody working together. there was approximately 10 democrats and 10 republicans. i was one of the 10 democrats that worked with the president on this. that legislation was sent to the white house. later that night, they decided they were no longer for it. the next day, we had 57 votes and it did not make it. but in 2013, i stood with john mccain for legislation that provided the opportunity to have 20,000 additional border agents , and we worked on getting immigration policy right. 70 -- over 70 of our fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants. over 25% of nobel laureates are immigrants. we can make this country greater together. ms. nawaz: our next question from the live audience comes tonight from cory holland, a pharmacist from indianapolis. corey? >> good evening. my question is now that the health care mandate has been removed, what specifically will you do to ensure that health
care insurance premiums remain affordable for middle and lower income families? ms. nawaz: the question goes first to mrs. brenton. ms. brenton: thank you. it is a good question. how do we keep health care affordable for middle income families? i think the first thing we can agree on is that government does not work. and when government gets involved with things, it gets more expensive, less efficient. costs go up, care goes down. by removing government and taking government out of the position of being in between the person receiving the care and the person providing the care, we will be able to remove all the costs of government that are associated with it. second, there is just a short vignette from my personal life. i have had 10 children. when i had a midlife-assisted birth at a hospital with excellent insurance, because i worked at the sun company, it was over $14,000 for a nonmedicated birth with no ob/gyn and not a single aspirin. that same birth at home for a different child was $4000 with a midwife.
you see, when government gets involved in health care, insurance companies have to take a profit. we have to take the levels of administration out of it. ms. nawaz: senator donnelly? sen. donnelly: thank you for the question. i was part of a group of senators that put together legislation, just waiting for a vote right now. hopefully when we go back we will have it -- that puts in place cost-sharing. the funds that the aca produces in the black go over to the insurance companies. it lowers premiums for everybody. in addition, it involves reinsurance to lower costs as well, which would significantly lower premiums. but here is what we don't want to do. mike braun supports a lawsuit today -- today -- that would take away pre-existing conditions coverage. that would end the opportunity to not have lifetime caps, so that young person who is on an indianapolis ips bus with asthma and their chest is tightening, and they need the inhaler, if he
has his way, those pre-existing conditions aren't covered anymore. same for diabetes, same for multiple sclerosis. that is how important this election is. ms. nawaz: mr. braun, one minute. mr. braun: great question. this should be the one thing you take away from this debate. there's only one person here that has actually done what you are talking about. it was called the affordable care act, which joe was all four. it is the un-affordable care act. it was doomed to fail because you had big government get in cahoots with big health care, specifically big health insurance. i took on the health insurance companies 10 years ago. and regardless of what his democratic talking points are, i would never be for any replacement that doesn't cover pre-existing conditions and no cap on that has
coverage. you will get that out of me, and i did it on my own. joe blows in the wind on this stuff and you can't count on him for what you are going to do to actually lower costs. i'm the only one in the real world that does it. you can go to joeblowsinthewind.com and get the particulars out of it and you will see on my -- you will see all my particular solutions on holding health care down. ms. nawaz: ms. brenton, you indicated you want to respond. ms. brenton: solutions in place there are already free market for health care. liberty share, medishare. these are organizations that have tackled the affordable care act. it really is the unaffordable care act. because the insurance companies were allowed to write the laws, of course they wrote them for themselves. of course they hurt the american people when they did it, because they wanted to line their pockets. that is what politicians do and have done and you can't expect anything different. let the free market to decide. you making decisions for your family is the best way to go. ms. nawaz: senator donnelly, you
have 30 seconds as well. sen. donnelly:. is what mike knows. what he said is not true. mike supports a lawsuit that would end the affordable care act. that would end pre-existing conditions. all of you watching out there tonight, if you have someone in your family with diabetes, with arthritis, with asthma, their coverage goes away if mike's lawsuit is successful. as i said, that's how important this is your those are the facts. he can't deny that. ms. nawaz: mr. braun, i know you wanted a rebuttal. the question again was if you could name a specific thing you could do to keep health premiums low. mr. braun: first of all, as a republican, you get swept into the fact that you would support that lawsuit. that is not the case. the proof is in the pudding. i did it in the real world. we have done things like health savings accounts, we have done telemedicine where you can actually get health care when you're on the road,
transparency, consumer driven. that will knock the cost down because my policy costs one fourth of what his obamacare policy costs. there is no disputing that. and i have done it in the real world. he has crafted something with big health care, doomed to fail. ms. nawaz: we have another question now. moving on to jill, joining us here. a fundraiser for a local educational institution from indianapolis. over to you. >> hello. easily accessible and free or low-cost contraceptives have proven to be an effective way to reduce unintended pregnancies. what is your position on providing low-cost or free contraceptives to reduce abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies? ms. nawaz: senator donnelly, that goes to you first. sen. donnelly: contraceptive coverage is included in the affordable care act. i voted for the affordable care act. and it helps, as you indicated,
to make sure that we don't wind up in a situation with an abortion. i am pro-life. i have every single time voted to make sure federal funds could not be used for abortion related services. but i also have exceptions in inceste of rape and and wife of the mom. if your daughter happens to be raped, mike thinks the government has a role and a position in the middle of that. i don't. incest occurs,if i don't think it is our business to be part of it. if your wife or daughter gets a terrible news that they may lose their life in a pregnancy, mike thinks that the government has a role in that. i don't. that is about your family and your prayers. ms. nawaz: mr. braun? mr. braun: this is another typical case where the senator tries to have it both ways. when it comes to contraceptive
coverage, i think everybody is on board with that, but when it comes to the sanctity of life, you cannot say you are pro-life and have your voting record. i'm the one that is being endorsed by the indiana right to life. susan b. anthony has knocked on 500,000 doors for me. and the national right to life is endorsing me. they give joe an f grade. so i think you got to be clear about not trying to have it both ways. i would never demonize anybody that disagrees with my point of view. i was raised to respect the sanctity of life and i'm proud of that. i will never disagree or -- or i will never demonize anybody that disagreed with me. it is as simple as that. ms. nawaz: mrs. brenton. ms. brenton: thank you. i have 10 children. so, the idea of contraceptives is something that i'm very much interested in. [laughter] ms. brenton: are there days i want that to be retroactive?
if they have not done the dishes? probably. of course contraceptives should be affordable, of course they should be widely available. let's make sure they are safe and effective and make sure that people know how to use them properly. and if you choose to have 10 children, as my husband and i did and that was our goal, then great. but if that is not the choice that you want to make for your family, then you simply make a different choice. but let's also make sure there are not unintended consequences and that there are some sort of common sense rules. i have a 14-year-old daughter. if she is seeking contraceptives, i think i have a right as her parent and the responsible party to know about it. so i don't want to become a free-for-all. we should inject hoosier common sense ms. nawaz: senator, a response? sen. donnelly: i believe in the sanctity of life as well. i believe in the sanctity of all
life, and that includes your wife, your mom, your daughter. if your wife gets that terrible news that she will lose her life in this pregnancy, mike, it is not our business to be in the middle of that. that is your family. i can't think of any reason the government needs to be involved in that decision. that is your family. that is the life of your wife or your daughter. that is the sanctity of all life. ms. nawaz: mrs. brenton, you have 30 seconds. mrs. brenton: i hear a lot of politicians talking about the sanctity of life. i don't hear them talking about the children and the wedding parties that we have drone bombed, so sad. i don't hear them talking about the death penalty. you see the politicians are all pro-death when it plays great on the news, but when it comes to protecting life and that they are happy to send our sons and
daughters into endless foreign wars like afghanistan. do you know why we are afghanistan? because there is lithium in the mountains. ms. nawaz: moving on to the deficit. our next question comes from a retiree in columbus who wants to know your plans to balance the federal budget, more specifically, would you support increasing revenue through raising taxes or cutting spending for defense or entitlements? mr. braun: this is another defining issue. when it comes to the federal government, the career politicians that have been there, why would you want to send someone back there that has been there 12 years and we now have $22 trillion in debt and running nearly a trillion dollar deficit. it doesn't make sense. in the real world, it's not a revenue problem, it is a
spending problem. we have not lived within our means for years. rand paul has a bill called the penny plan. 1%. who would know if you are missing that? the president asked all agencies to cut back 5%. any business, you would do it. the senator has been part of a system that has given us all these bad results and the other thing i would do, anybody that has been there does not deserve a congressional pension or a fancy health care plan, they ought to be on the same thing that everybody else's. is.verybody else that is where you would start. mrs. brenton: blah blah blah. reduce spending. lower taxes. what does all of this mean in the context of the last 150 years of republican and democrat domination in our society? it doesn't mean anything. they talk about this, but as soon as they get elected it doesn't matter whether they are in a red or a blue shirt, they
still vote to raise your taxes. do you want to actually hack at the roots of evil? you've got to end the biggest part of our budget which is just going out the window. interest on the federal debt. end the federal reserve. we must abolish the federal reserve. and repudiate the debt. repudiate the interests that we are paying on money that they create out of thin air. it is a complex issue, but here's what you have to know. it doesn't matter how much we reduce our spending, how much we increase revenue if we are paying interest to a group of bankers that have controlled our country since 1913. ms. nawaz: senator donnelly? sen. donnelly: thank you very much. as you look at this, what happened is mitch mcconnell had a huge tax cut. he gave all the money to his richest friends. mike walked away with a wheelbarrow full of cash. it could been used to shore up
social security or for medicare. it increased the deficit by over $2 trillion. we couldn't afford mitch mcconnell's tax cuts for the wealthiest. $37 went to the wealthiest for every one dollar that went to regular families. i will fight for regular families. i will protect social security and medicare. we do it by making sure we grow our gdp, that grows up to a point where it meets spending, which has kept very tight. -- two meet,e approximately 20% of gdp on revenues and expenses. that is where we had our last budget surplus. that is about the neighborhood it happens in. we can't have tax cuts that only help the wealthiest. thank you. ms. nawaz: mrs. brenton, you have 30 seconds to respond.
mrs. brenton: yes. let's talk about how much federal debt there is out there. we're not talking about unfunded liabilities. of economic slavery to everyone born and not yet born. which of you would give up your favorite federal program if it meant that you could abolish the federal income tax? i have a list of them i would give up. this is what it would boil down to. you can take every asset in the country and give it over to the federal reserve and it still won't pay off the debt. mr. braun: this was an issue the democrats gambled on. they thought tax reform was going to be a class divider. all i know is in my own business when tax reform passed in december, we lowered family health care benefits by $1400 per year. that was after holding them flat for 10 years. we gave company bonuses. we enhanced 401(k) pay. this is the hottest economy we have had in years.
under the obama regime, 1.5%. unemployment never got to where it is. that is a failed policy. let's give something a new chance to work and i'm glad we are part of it and we have shared the benefits with our employees. ms. nawaz: senator? sen. donnelly: since i have been senator, we have had 70 consecutive months of job growth. that is every single month. the truth about your health care plan, mike, is your employees have to pay $10,000 out of their own pockets before they can get their first prescription. that is not health care. that is something completely different. we stand to make sure that we have the opportunity to get to a balanced budget by being smart on spending and on revenues. ms. nawaz: mr. braun you would like a response, this is your second one so keep it to 15 seconds. mr. braun: this is what happens when you have to be briefed on
this stuff and you haven't lived in the real world. what the senator fails to mention is that the premium cost is the only thing that is for certain. my premium cost is $70 per month. his obama care plan, the reason it is going broke is four to five times that much. my employees get into their deductible far less than you would on a obamacare plan because we have incentives to lower cost. that is a failed system that is falling apart. mine works in the real world. ms. benton: everything that they just said is smoke and mirrors. they are trying to distract you from the real problems. we are talking about what we are going to do to balance the budget. we are taking interest from our lives all the way back to 1913. stop the evil. ms. nawaz: senator donnelly, 15 seconds. senator donnelly: mike never
denies that it is $10,000. think about it. if you are making $25,000 or $30,000, how do you ever get there? on top of that, what we are trying to do is -- i have been told to stop. ms. nawaz: that was 15 seconds. next topic, foreign policy. president trump has made the alliance with saudi arabia a cornerstone of his foreign policy. intelligence concluded that they were directly involved in the murder of jamal khashoggi. he has failed to condemn the bombing. more than 60,000 civilians in yemen have been killed. do you support the president's stance? ms. benton: why are we still playing footsie with murderous regimes? what is really at stake here is how we end our dependence on foreign oil. we have more oil in alaska than they have in saudi arabia.
why are we not drilling for it? why are we continually allowing our country's economy to be dependent upon a foreign power and staying in their good graces? let's end our dependence on foreign oil. it is not just about solar, although that is a part of it. it is also about wind. it is about biodiesel. it is about alternative forms of energy. in order to make this happen, we have to get government out of this. as soon as government gets involved in something, it gets more expensive and requires your tax dollars to fund something they think is a good idea. ms. nawaz: just a follow-up, you do not support the president's stance? ms. benton: that is correct. i do not support president trump supporting the saudi's. senator donnelly: as soon as we found out about this we tried to
get more details. i read the classified materials on this. we have contacted the white house about this to get more information. here is what is clear. the saudi's murdered a journalist, jamal khashoggi, who was simply trying to make sure word can get out as to what is going on. he is an indiana state graduate. he is a sycamore. he lived in virginia, and they murdered him. i said we should put a temporary halt on arms sales to saudi arabia until we find out what happened. but lucy is right. we need to stand for ethanol. the president signed an executive order. that was my legislation. we worked on that to get it done. we need to do clean coal, ethanol. fight for our farmers because when money stays here instead of the middle east, it not only helps our economy, but it helps national security. mr. braun: when it comes to what happens in saudi arabia, horrific. i think the president was out
front early, and you need to be. that is behavior that cannot be tolerated. when it comes to foreign policy in general, i think we have seen something that is different. with the senator and the obama administration, we were not respected across the world. in north korea, there was a discussion going on. in iran. the senator was for the iran deal. $150 billion worth of concessions. $1.5 billion in cash delivered to him. we have now regained respect because it is based upon strength. if you draw a red line, you stick with it. the president has changed the dynamic to where we will see these problems fixed because of leadership. ms. nawaz: so yes, you do support the president? mr. braun: i support his leadership and the way he will
handle the saudi's will be to hold them accountable for the horrific act that was created. he will take the big picture into consideration while he is doing it. ms. benton: i see the partisanship in the answers here. i have to agree with senator donnelly. we have to fight for our farmers. more choices are better than less choices. i was talking with someone from the hemp industry. i found out there are businesses in indiana that are importing -- one single business in elkhart is importing 100,000 pounds of hemp fiber every single week. why are they not walking across the street and cutting a check to a hoosier farmer? senator donnelly: the question was about saudi arabia but might brought up -- mike brought up iran.
here is the fact about the iran deal that was made. iran was months away from a nuclear weapon. that created incredible danger for the middle east, and we would have to be involved in the middle of a war. i will fight for our country every time, but war should be the last option. they are 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. our sons and daughters from terre haute and evansville will not have to go to war in tehran. mr. braun: i think this is an issue about leadership, and if you are happy with the old dynamic. what we had leading up to this point were problems across the world were laid on our doorstep. if you are happy about that, the brinksmanship it created, fine. i think the president has had a strong case for fixing those things, including having our allies be accountable for their fair share of defense, which no one mentioned before. ms. nawaz: we have a lot of topics to cover so i want to move on to domestic matters. we are joined by emeline, an
attorney from indianapolis. >> there are nearly one million hoosiers in risk of hunger. more than 6000 residents rely on snap benefits. half of all indiana students receive free or reduced lunches. if elected, what will you do to alleviate hungry in indiana? senator donnelly? senator donnelly: thank you for the question. i serve on the agricultural committee. we are very, very close to having it concluded. it has great provisions for our farmers, making sure we have good conservation practices. but also, we have good nutrition programs. nutrition programs that make it
so that they run responsibly, that they encourage people to work. that they fill a need. i have been to our schools to see the nutrition programs in action. i have seen our families. it is a critical part of what we do in creating a farm bill. i have been part of that from the start. as i said, we are close to getting this completed. we should be able to meet the nutrition needs of our families. ms. nawaz: mr. braun? mr. braun: in the case of someone going hungry in the state or this country, it is sad with the plenty we have here. i think it has a lot to do with government. if i were trying to fix the issues associated with hunger, i would not look to the federal government as much as someone from the -- someone like the senator would. those policies have not worked the way they should. we have to make sure that we fixed these plans to where they work better. and i would trust what we do
here in the state more than what i would onto the federal government that is running $1 trillion deficits. why would you expect a government that has been dysfunctional when it comes to solving hunger issues, solving anything that has been so lacking results? the senator has been part of it. until you send people there to think out of the box that has done things in the real world, you will not be satisfied with taking care of something like hunger, which is a big deal, if you are relying on the federal government to do that. ms. benton: thank you for feeding indiana's hungry. i feed a lot of hungry people too. i am a mother of 10 kids. if you think about what each meal costs and can i stretch that money for the month, it is horrifying to think that anyone in this country should go hungry for even a single meal. we're the best country in the world, the land of plenty.
so if we have a lot of resources and they are not getting to the right people, what is the problem we really need to fix? let's look at farm bills and nutrition. who here knows that you can go and use snap benefits and buy things with high fructose corn syrup? what is that? that is a gift to coca-cola. it is a gift to big businesses to allow funds that should be set aside for real nutrition and real food to just go down the drain with doritos and pop. i cannotonnelly: believe you when you ask what role the federal government has in nutrition programs. mike, you should see the faces of the seven-year-old kids who come to school hungry. you laugh about it.
it is not funny. we have seven-year-old children who come to school hungry. the meals they get are at school. those children are not responsible for the bad choices their parents might make. they need to have a full stomach and the chances that every other child has in indiana. mr. braun: my point is about the effectiveness. we need to solve hunger wherever it happens. but if you want career politicians and bureaucrats to keep controlling the show, send him back to washington. if you want someone who has done things in the real world and makes things effective and efficient, you have to change the dynamic. we have been doing this thing for years. we need entrepreneurs, folks who have done it in the real world, not career politicians. ms. benton: about doing things in the real world, i have done that in my home, i have done that in my budget.
i have invited other children into my home to eat. i have to admit, mike is right partly on this. do not quote me. but it should be a state's right. it is up to the state to feed its own people. the bigger we grow the federal government, the bigger the bureaucracy gets and the farther away from the people it helps. let indiana feed hoosiers. we can do it together. senator donnelly: we were able to pass the nutrition program in the senate 86-11. an incredible number of republicans as well. here is what they knew. a seven-year-old child does not know the difference between state rights and federal rights. they know they are hungry. ms. nawaz: let's move on to a question a lot of people are talking about in the country, and that is sexual assault. a student in bloomington asks,
in the wake of the kavanaugh confirmation and the me too movement, how will you fight to protect the rights of sexual assault survivors? more specifically, what can you say to the women out there, one out of every three of whom will experience some sexual assault in their lives, what can you say to them to encourage them to come forward? to braun: when it comes sexual assault and sexual harassment, there is no place for it in our society. as we have seen over the last few years, it has been there. and thank goodness it is being flushed out. i have daughters and women who work for my business who would never tolerate that. whenever there is an alleged issue, it needs to be fully vetted. i think there needs to be a process to do it, but there cannot be any tolerance for sexual harassment in this day and age. i am glad it is coming to the forefront and we're finally
addressing it. ms. benton: i am one out of three. i am a woman. i had my me too moment. it is up to us to raise good people. it is up to us to create a good culture where victims, male and female, can come forward and be believed. it is up to us to remove the shame and stigma. society is sending the message to these victims that it is not ok to have been assaulted. until we deal with that problem, that cultural problem, we will continue to have people who are too ashamed to come forward. i have another problem, and that is allocation of resources. thousands of rape kits sit untested while people who are nonviolent are in jail for drug crimes. that has got to stop. society must say enough is enough. we are going to make sure these
rape kits are made a priority so that others can be protected and put the right people in jail. the violent, not the nonviolent. sen. donnelly: mike, i thought i heard you say that this issue has been dealt with. the women of indiana would not agree that this issue has been dealt with. there is sexual assault, and there is sexual harassment, and we need to fully enforce the law at every single turn. we need to put all of the effort we can behind this to make sure that our sisters and our daughters and our wives and our , we need to make sure our state a safe place at every turn. mr. braun: you clearly did misquote me.
i said unequivocally that it cannot be tolerated at any point, whether in business or government -- anywhere. any of us who have daughters know that is the case. that is my statement. senator donnelly: i don't think i did, and you can check the record. i am glad we agree that this cannot be tolerated. ms. nawaz: moving on to another topic, and that is the topic of diversity. this question comes from the debate commission. if elected, how will you commit to bringing diversity into your staffing, and senior including african-americans and other underrepresented groups? ms. brenton: it is a really interesting question to ask of a libertarian, because i do not see color. i do not see the differences in people that are shallow. i want to quote martin luther king.
he said he is more interested in the content of your character or. character. people of color do not want to be given some sort of bone because of the color of their skin. they want to earn the right to be there just like anyone would. there is no way that we should be making value-based decisions simply based on someone's exterior appearance. have we not moved past that as a culture? can we not look at what their skills are? let us not look at a bar graph to see if we have the right number of this or that. look at the individuals, themselves. ms. nawaz: senator? senator donnelly: we want everyone in indiana to have a chance. my office reflects that on the campaign and senate side. our state director is indian-american. he does an amazing job.
our director of constituent services is african-american. she does a more incredible job than you could imagine. it is not their race or their religion. it is the incredible person they are. but it the same time, they have to have a chance. they have to have an opportunity. that is my responsibility, and i have done it in every office and campaign i have had because my campaigns and our senate office should reflect the face of indiana. mr. braun: i think lucy hit it on the head in the sense of equal opportunity. make sure there is no discrimination. you base things upon merit. it should be colorblind. i built my own business over 37 years. we would not tolerate anything where there would not be complete opportunity. when you come there, you work
hard and are able to advance. always be on guard against discrimination. i think when it comes to diversity, it should be a natural thing. if you are inviting and open, and i have done that my entire life, i built my company and always had the policy that anybody could come to work there, create jobs year after year. it has been a place of opportunity. i would never tolerate discrimination. ms. nawaz: several voters indicated that they were not satisfied with your answers to a question about climate change in the first debate. the commission would like to give you another chance. this question comes from carolyn ellis. what will you do, what specifically will you do to
combat climate change if i were to vote for you in november? that question goes to senator donnelly first. senator donnelly: i have worked very closely with our utilities to reduce the carbon footprint in indiana. when we do that, it helps to reduce greenhouse gases. it ensures that we can reduce the temperature of the planet and help to reduce climate change. we have to work continuously on this. that is why i am so in favor of ethanol. our farmers grow right here in indiana, maybe one of the very finest energy sources, one of the cleanest that we could possibly have. we have wind and solar. when we do this, it helps us clean up our lakes, like the ohio river and lake michigan. what we're working on every day in climate change is to make it cleaner.
to make an american like ethanol and to make sure we are standing up for our farmers and growing our economy. mr. braun: when it comes to mother earth, i have been a steward of the land since i moved back to my hometown. we have to have clean air. we have to have clean water. we have to take care of mother earth. the big thing i have done over the years, because again so , often when you go to washington, they lose sight of what really works. i have been a tree farmer since moving back to my hometown in the late 80's. i have been someone there who is a conservationist. i think our own party -- if you are conservative, i think you should be a conservationist. i will always be attentive to it. i know the things you can do, because i have done it for all of the years i have been back in my hometown. that is a key difference you need to pay attention to between people who have done things in the real world versus people who made a career out of politics.
i will always have the interest of what is good for mother earth because i lived it that way. ms. nawaz: is there a specific thing you might do? a specific step? do stuff like promoting -- you know, i do it on my own when it comes to being a tree farmer. when it comes to energy, which is the thing i think you are getting at. we need to be energy independent. in the long run, if we do things right, it will be the cleanest fuel and the least expensive that will rule the energy world. when we get that right we're , going to make sure we take care of mother earth along the way. ms. brenton: i feel like this question was directed at me. so all of you with your senate debate bingo cards, maybe you get it this time. if not, alligators, unicorns, and chuck schumer's puppet. i hope you filled in some squares there. global effort to clean the oceans. we are killing mother earth. we are just decimating her.
i talked about this last time. clean oceans. fixing carbon. this is where hemp comes in. this is where biodiesel comes in. this is where ethanol needs 128% input. it is not the miracle fuel from corn. you can mash-up corn or hops and make alcohol and run a vehicle on it. hemp can be used for biodiesel. just google it. everybody has google. oh, and by the way, it gives farmers more choices than just corn because there is more than corn in indiana. >> it is time for the final question of the evening. i am sorry we have to move on. brad carpenter, a chemist, asks this. if you are elected, what single issue would you make your top
priority to address or fix during your time in office? each of you will have 30 seconds to answer, no time for rebuttals. this question goes to senator donnelly. sen. donnelly: every hoosier must make it home to their mom and dad. for every hoosier can come home to their husband or wife. i just had legislation passed that president trump signed that would provide us with advanced fda approval to end the opioid scourge. it will make it so that eli lilly can get advanced fda approval to take the place of opioids. that is leadership. that is standing up for our families. mr. braun: the big difference this evening is that you will get a guy like me who has done it in the real world. the first thing i did is what i did when i got to the statehouse. i want to lower the cost of
health care to where it is affordable. you are not going to get it out of people who have been there, and were actually for big health care in big government. i have done it in the real world. covered pre-existing conditions. no cap on coverage. lowered family costs $1400 a year. i will take that to the senate, and you will see real results. ms. brenton: would you mind repeating the question? >> will be your single priority of what to fix while in office? ms. brenton: reducing the size of the federal government, putting a muzzle on it, and making the federal government stay to the simple constitution. the reason we have this craziness, a reason there are favors to hand out and billions of dollars to hand out to big businesses is because of the size of the federal government growing.
i saw an ad with senator donnelly chopping up would and it reminded me of this. the forest dwindled, and yet the trees voted for the axe because it was made of wood and they thought it was one of them. >> candidates, thank all of you for watching or listening. we give special recognition to television station wfyy in indianapolis for producing this program. we will miss him. the debate was brought to you thanks to underwriting from the indiana chamber and aarp. we also thank the league of women voters for keeping the time clock, and last but not least, vote on november 6. ♪
>> with the midterm elections days away, watch the competition for the control of congress on c-span. see for yourself the candidates and the debates from key house and senate races. make c-span your primary source for campaign 2018. >> here's a look at our live coverage wednesday, on c-span, john bolton speaks to the alexander hamilton society about his role as a way has national security adviser and that eight, ar continued coverage with has to be from new jersey's third congressional district between republican representative from macarthur and democrat andy kim. on c-span 2, the equal employment opportunity commission holds a public hearing to review its sexual harassment policy. that is followed by a discussion on potential threats to
democratic institutions with former intel official james clapper and michael hayden among the speakers. later in the day, president trump campaigns in florida on behalf of republican candidates ahead of next week's election. on c-span3, the national council on arab-u.s. relations hosts of annual conference in washington starting at 845 a.m. eastern. >> sunday on "q&a." >> seven years ago the people of the united states embarked on what they thought was a great liberal campaign. somewhere along the line, we lost the objective. >> two-time pulitzer prize winner david levering lewis on his biography of presidential candidate wendell wilkie. here was a internationalist, here was a man of civil rights convictions that would have matched, say, an obama perhaps.
here was a man who was a liberal, and at the same time accessible to the rule of government -- the role of government in the economy to a great degree. i thought all of the things were about him were appealing. there is a part in the book where we have roosevelt asking wendell wilkie to consider being his vice president. he is going to overthrow henry wallace and he wants someone else. typical fdr and wilkie says no. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> during an interview, vice president pence was asked about the idea of ending birthright citizenship as suggested by president trump. other questions had