moderates a discussion on u.s. global leadership. for is live from the center strategic international studies at 5:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. with the control of congress and questions as election day, see the competition for yourself on c-span. watch the debates from key house and senate races. take c-span your primary source for campaign 2018. in indiana, democratic senator joe donnelly is seeking a second term, but faces a two-way challenge between mike braun and lucy brenton. with election day 29 days away, they met for their first debate which focused on climate change, gun control, and health care, among other topics. courtesy of the indiana debate commission, this is one hour.

>> good evening and welcome to the first of two u.s. senate debates sponsored by the independent, nonpartisan indiana debate commission. we are coming to you live from the dworkin student activity center on the purdue campus northwest in westville, indiana. with me here are the three candidates on the ballot. we have incumbent democrat, joe donnelly, republican challenger, mike braun, and libertarian challenger, lucy brenton. the winner of this election will represent the people of indiana in a six-year term in washington. i'm your moderator. i am a senior lecturer at the media school at indiana university in broadcast journalism. i was on the air at channel 13 for a long time. and i am a member of the indiana broadcast hall of fame. for the next hour, the candidates will debate unscripted the issues, a variety of them. nearly all the questions came from you, the voters. we have members of the public here who submitted questions to

the indiana debate commission. and they are here to read their questions in person. none of the questions, nor their topics, has been shared with the candidates. now it is my pleasure to introduce you to the candidates. brenton ran for the u.s. senate in 2012. joe donnelly, the democrat incumbent, who is completing his first term was elected to the senate in 2012. and mike braun won the republican primary in may. at this time, the candidates can for the introduce themselves and make a one-minute opening statement, starting with mrs. brenton. >> thank you and welcome. my name is lucy brenton and i am the only reasonable candidate for the united states senate instead of the two bickering old parties. tonight, you will hear a lot of

things you have heard before. you will hear that we should keep sticking our noses in other countries businesses. you will hear that they want to build a wall. not me. i want to build bridges. there are three things our country needs right now. first, we need to protect individual human rights. as long as you don't hurt anybody else. second, we need to protect individual economic liberty so that you have the right to earn a living without the government regulating and taxing to death. third, we need to leave this world a better place for our kids. polluters must be stopped. i dream of an america where everyone feels welcome, where you feel free to be yourself. they want to tear this country apart. i want to bring a nation together. please, allow your friends and invite them to follow me at #ilovelucy. >> and now we will hear from senator donnelly. >> i love lucy, too.

thank you for having me here tonight. this election is about who do you trust to have your back in washington. since i have been senator, we have had 70 consecutive months, every single month, of increased job growth. i was the final vote to save health care. if you have sickle cell, if you have diabetes, if you have a child with asthma that needs an inhaler, i saved their health care, not mike. mike increased taxes 45 times while in the legislature, the largest tax increase in indian at his company, the deductible on health care is $10,000, which is completely unaffordable. he has every time try to take away pre-existing conditions coverage and supports a lawsuit today that does that. additionally, he wants to cut the defense budget and he was against a raise for the troops. mike you need to do more than take your tie off to gain the trust in indiana. >> thank you for tuning in.

i am a lifelong hoosier, a job creator and a political outsider. i am running for this because i am fed up with business as usual in d.c. running for the senate is something that you do where you bring something to the table. career politicians say one thing and do another. i moved back to my hometown, took on tough issues like health premiums while covering pre-existing conditions. when i get there, you can count on me to do things. he is running a campaign of negativity because of his record. wrong on the iran deal. wrong on health care. wrong on almost everything, including judge kavanaugh. when you send me there, you can count on i will stand up for hoosier values. you will need to look at leadership and trying to change the dynamic of a broken system. thank you. >> thank you. we start with the supreme court, as you might imagine. but first, i want to preface it.

this question is from the indiana debate commission, this question. division and animosity in washington and around the country is at the highest level that many people can remember. in fact, many people think it has not been this polarized since back to the civil war. so candidates, the country just emerged from a bruising fight, a fight across ideological lines that highlighted the growing me too movement. what lessons did you take away from this battle? i start first with mrs. brenton. >> thank you. and thank you to the indiana debate commission and all the fine stations streaming and carrying this. i learned that it doesn't matter whether you wear red or you wear blue. they want control of you. the division is not over civil rights or any good issue. it is really about who gets to control this country.

whether you are on this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle, the complete focus is on controlling tax dollars that flows from people. what needs to happen in this country is we need to come to a baseline of love and harmony and we need to take away the issue of them trying to control us. it is us versus them. >> mr. donnelly? >> i voted against judge kavanaugh because of concerns about his impartiality and concerns about his judicial temperament. but i voted for justice neil gorsuch because, on the test i have, which is about judicial temperament and impartiality and qualifications, judge gorsuch covered all of those. i have been for 77% of president trump's judicial nominations. 62% of the time i have voted, i

have voted with president trump. so, my job is not only to determine the nominee, but to protect the court, and justice gorsuch met every test. judge kavanaugh had concerns about impartiality and about judicial temperament. mike was for judge kavanaugh on the first day. if president trump put up bugs bunny, mike would have said he should go on the court. our job is to protect the court and to put people on who are qualified. >> mr. braun. >> this will be a clear separator between me and the senator here. when you add a judge with these qualifications, there is no doubt that he will not legislate from the bench. he will not do the things that courts have done for a long time. very well-qualified. but what i think what you should have gotten from the recent spectacle is that the democrats, including joe donnelly, will do or say anything when it comes to their political interests.

it is a blood sport. as long as it is like that, you will have decisions made based not on what hoosiers want, based upon what chuck schumer wants. you need somebody who leads and thinks independently. joe has been there for 12 years, in congress, in the senate, considered the least effective democratic senator because he never sticks his neck out. he blows with the wind. in this case, he made the wrong decision on judge kavanaugh. >> rebuttal is on an as needed basis and the candidates will indicate when it is important to them. >> as a female, it is important that i stand up here and stand for women that we should be believed when we come forward. but just because we are women, it doesn't mean we are automatically telling the truth. what i see here is a lot of partisanship. i have had my me too moments, but when i saw this through the lens of judgment, judge kavanaugh is a co-author of the patriot act.

from dayve been no >> the person who is saying one. anything is you, mike. you say you protect pre-existing conditions. at the same time, you support a lawsuit to take it away. you say you are for lower taxes and you voted for the highest taxes in indiana history. you say you are for the troops, but you are against a pay increase for the young men and women from terre haute and richmond and muncie. i was for justice gorsuch. i was for 80% of the judges. that we are not there is a copy machine. we are there to be a help to president trump to make the best decisions. >> mr. braun, do you wish a rebuttal? >> i want to make this clear. when you have a senator like this to keeps repeating falsehoods, it is the sign of a campaign that is circling the drain. i would never be for not i want to make it clear. covering pre-existing conditions. i have done in my own business. the senator gave us obamacare,

which has no choices and is falling apart. that is what you get from a career politician. when you have a leader, somebody that does things in the real world, you can hold premiums flat for 10 years. my insurance is good, much better than the failed obama care plan. >> i would like to ask that we all try to stick to the question at hand. we will get to a lot of the issues that you just mentioned. just a reminder. that is not against any particular candidate. we do have our first voter here. we're so glad we do. the first member of our audience to ask a question is terry crouse. she is a business owner. mr. donnelly, you will be the first to answer her question. have at it. >> if elected, will you commit to carrying out the will of the people, even if it means going against your own party? >> will i go against my own party?

all the time. i went against my party when i voted for justice gorsuch. i have gone against my party, rounding up all the democrats to be for right to try when there were none for it. and i was able to rally all 50. so we were able to make sure that our children get health care, that we had right to try, that people in difficult medical situations could get coverage and life assisting medication. that is a regular for me. i have been with president trump 62% of the time. that is what we are supposed to do. i don't think it is about party. mike couldn't even name a single democrat when he did a forum in indianapolis. he may have googled a name since then. but at that time, he could not name a single democrat to work with. i passed 45 pieces of legislation. each one had a republican partner. 23 with president trump. so count me in. >> mr. braun. >> very clear. it's his record we are

litigating this evening. when you try to turn attention, you are probably embarrassed about your own record. i want to make it clear. you voted for obamacare originally. you voted against its repeal. he voted for the iran deal. he voted against, tax reform and for any enterprises, that was the one that really made a lot of difference. and then, here, he voted against judge kavanaugh. he says, for other reasons, but he did it because he takes his marching orders from chuck schumer, the same guy that has been running his campaign from afar. and when you do that and you have a record that says you are the least effective senator, my goodness, why don't we give a chance to the people who have done things in the real world. i took on the insurance companies when nobody else would. it may not be the perfect plan, but it is a great plan. i held costs from for 10 years. i will to reform health care know more about what to do than a career politician that gets

briefed from the lobbyists. >> mr. braun, would you commit to carrying out the will of the people, even if it means going against your party? >> i would. the key thing about a leader is you think independently. if you look at my record, i did in the state legislature. i've been in my business. a record speaks for itself. joe has gone there, gotten cozy for the purpose and the pay. he has not led and that is the difference between me and him. >> mrs. brenton, same question. >> it will be an awfully long evening if we listen to them repeat their commercials back and forth to each other. thank you. congratulations on your phd candidacy. let me answer that question. the libertarian party is a set of political believes and ideals and we look at it to the lens of something simple. we demand all of our freedoms all of the time. we demand a return to constitutional values and restrictions because the

government is best to have a muzzle on it. that is the purpose of the constitution, to allow maximum freedom. please read the ninth and 10th amendments for more information. what i go against my party? yes, absolutely. but i don't believe i will have to. because the lens we look through is not left or right. the lens we look through is one for being fiscally conservative and socially accepting, allowing people maximum freedom with two things in mind -- don't hurt people, don't take their stuff. other than that, you're good with me. >> we have another voter lined up. but you indicated that you would like a rebuttal. >> mike talks about effectiveness. he often talked to the veterans, the veterans of north-central indiana who have a brand-new v.a. health center that we all work together on. the veterans in terre haute that will get a new v.a. center in the next year or two. he ought to talk to laura, whose son jordan has duchenne's muscular dystrophy. we were able to pass right to try legislation.

he ought to talk to justin phillips, who we work together to stop the opioid scourge across our state, that we have gone place to place to end it. that is effectiveness. >> let's go to our next voter. this is william of monticello. he works in customer service and he has a question. >> who is your role model in politics and why? >> for this one, we start with mrs. brenton again. >> thank you. i'm often torn by who is my role model in politics because there are so many people you can admire and not always for the right reasons. i admire president lincoln. why? a woman said to him, mr. president, you have to destroy our enemies. he said madam, i will destroy my enemies by making them my friends.

does that not destroyed my enemies? he had some other issues as well. is there anyone worth admiring? the last politician worth admiring was john f. kennedy. he took a stand and said you know what? we are the greatest country in this world and we will put a man on the moon in 10 years. we don't know how we are going to do it, but we know we will do it. it is that inspirational leadership to which i aspire. >> producers tell me that, mr. braun, you should have gotten the first go on that. why don't you go ahead? >> role models, i am doing this from the outside. when you have some many career politicians, it is hard to find them. tom coburn, a doctor from oklahoma. what i loved about him, he was never afraid to bust the government. the government that joe has been a part of for 12 years has given us trillion dollar deficits on

top of 21 trillion in debt. he was honest. he would speak up. that is what you will get out of me. i signed the term limits pledge. i think the problem with our country is we get people that go there for the wrong reasons. they start calculating their vote to get reelected, like the senator here. and whoever gives them a campaign conservation. ron johnson from wisconsin, thank goodness, outsider businessman. small businesses would have been left out in the cold when we did tax reform. he stepped up. i did not hear the senators voice because he never speaks up. he doesn't want to shake things up. ron johnson i respect. >> senator donnelly? >> ron johnson was my partner on the right to try legislation. he and i were the two senators that president trump congratulated and said what an awesome job we did. and if you would like me to pass on that you like ron, i will let him know. my friend, my mentor, my hero in politics, john mccain. he spent over five years in a

hanoi prison cell, who fought for his nation at every turn, who, when he ran for president, his motto was country first. and that is with this should be about, our country. how to make it so that our children and grandchildren, we leave them a safer, stronger america. and in life, it would be my dad at father a script from the university of notre dame. the father told me joe, when you go there, don't do it's easy. do what's right. and i followed that advice every single time. >> mr. braun, rebuttal? >> he talks about right to try. great piece of legislation. everybody was for that. the tough ones are when you have to stick your neck out on a major piece of legislation and you have to be willing to block your party boss, chuck schumer, who tells the senator on what to do on all important legislation. if you was friends with ron

johnson, why wasn't he speaking out on tax reform. that was the biggest piece of legislation for small businesses and individuals. when you believe in keeping more of your own, that is when you want a senator to speak up, not on something that everybody thinks is good. >> as long as we're on the subject of right to try. let's talk about right to try cannabis. let's talk about not doing study after study. i've got great news for you. it's been studied for 10,000 years in human history. how many people have died of the marijuana overdose? the same number of those being death by unicorn. zero. >> i was against tax reform because it exploded the deficit by $2 trillion that our kids will have to pay for. mike got a wheelbarrow full of cash in that tax reform. he got a huge tax cut.

and the kids in laporte county and the kids in the boys county -- the kids into boy county are the ones who have to pay for. >> we will move on to climate change. we received more questions on this than any other topic. un scientists came out yesterday and said the world has 10 years to get, change under control or face dire circumstances. right here at purdue, researchers have predicted that temperatures will rise five to six degrees. this question was put in by lee. he is a retiree in bloomington. he asks what actions, if any, should the u.s. government take to address climate change and global warming? we will get back on track here. mr. braun, you get to start. >> climate change, steward of the environment. i'm going to bring talent to this discussion because i have been a steward of the environment for a long time.

i started the ecology club back in high school. that is unusual to hear out of a conservative. i have been a steward of managing land in a way that i understand the real issues. all of us want clean air and clean water. you have to have common sense. you can't do what the democrats did and start picking winners and losers by propping up industries that may be part of the long-term solution but that is the way government works. and when you try to pull the rug out from underneath other industries and, again, that is the way big government and bureaucrats work. when you learn in the real world, you know the way to do it. we now have energy independence. that has got to be always taken into consideration while you are keeping the environment in a healthy condition. i've lived it. that's why i know what to do. >> mr. donnelly? >> you can't trust mike the fight for lake michigan. you can't trust mike to fight

for our environment. i wish you were still in the ecology club we needed now more than ever. i am all for clean energy. our farmers are having huge struggles with tariffs right now and their prices have gone down. we need to make that ethanol market more available and used more. for wind, for solar, for clean coal. if it is made in america, we want to use it and we want to make it so we have a cleaner environment. we have a sacred obligation to our children. to everybody who is watching out there, to turn over to you a plan and a country at a state and a lake and a river in the ohio river that is cleaner today than when we first found it. that's our job. that is what we are supposed to do. >> mrs. brenton, climate change. >> you know, the problem is with corporations and government regulations that give permission to the corporations on how much they can pollute. i have been boycotting nestle

since 1993. why? they are a horrible company. they are actually draining lake michigan and selling it to the chinese. this is absolutely ridiculous. we don't need more of this in washington. we need people who stand up for what is right and offer real solutions. we need a global cleanup effort to get the plastic center at of our oceans. we need hemp. did i talk about this two years ago? why do we need hemp? it fixes carbon. we don't need ethanol. >> >> i think we do need ethanol. >> i think we need hemp. >> did you want a rebuttal? >> i just wanted to say we are , indiana. we fight for our farmers. ethanol is a clean fuel. it is an extraordinarily good fuel. it is something that makes money

go in the pockets of our farmers instead of the sheiks in saudi arabia or the middle east. i will fight for our guys and women on the farm every civil time. >> let's keep it moving. we have some rebuttals. >> when it comes to energy independence, where were democrats and where was the senator? president trump came along and now we are next order of energy. -- we are and exporter of energy. the big difference in this debate is it do you accept the things of the past? the senator has been running for office or serving in it for almost a career. >> that's not true. i have spent lots more time in the private sector than in public office. >> you can interrupt if you want. >> mr. braun, you have 10 more seconds. >> if you don't get people in their that think different become expect more of the same. i'm going there because folks of been there a long time and they have delivered us these results.

he is shirking it. he is part of the problem. >> we are getting off track a little bit. >> i think i may be the only one standing here that has an organic garden and compost and recycles and all that good stuff. maybe senator donnelly does as well -- maybe senator donnelly does as well. i know we have some of the richest soil in the world and we are wasting it on corn. we could have a better crop that is already has decided -- already pesticide resistant. when he to protect the hoosier environment and stop polluting it. >> we have another audience member with a question, a student at the university of notre dame. >> do you believe that the central holding in roe v. wade, that women have a constitutional right to an abortion come is correct? >> of course. >> start with a woman. if any of you read my biography, it is probably not a stretch for you to understand why i am

pro-life. i have given birth to 10 human beings and now i am a grandma, too. so when you asked whether a particular supreme court decision is right or wrong, you have to ask yourself who are we protecting? if we don't protect the smallest, most hopeless individual, then we are on a downward slide into euthanasia and killing off our old people so social security doesn't go bankrupt like it already is because there isn't a trust fund. so the question is should we are actually not have roe v. wade? that is a question for the supreme court to answer. those who are worried about kavanaugh, you should keep worrying about it. he is not strong on the fourth and fifth amendment rights either. >> i don't have a litmus test. i will tell you this. i am a pro-life senator. i have every single time made sure the federal funds were never used for abortion-related services. and i believe in a stance that

protects all life. but i also believe it is important that, for our moms, for our sisters, for our wives, for our daughters, that we have exceptions. i believe exceptions in the case of rape and in the case of insist and in the case of a mom who may lose her life because of the pregnancy. i was on a stage six years ago where they said richard murdoch was extreme. but mike is ask a more extreme because he thinks he should be in the middle of a decision for your wife or your daughter when their life is at stake. and i just don't think we have any place in that discussion. >> mr. braun? >> i am 100% pro-life. when it comes down to just trying to nurture life in general and take us from where we are currently, all i can tell you is i got the endorsement from the indiana right to life, the national right to life, the

susan b anthony group. this gentleman here has an f rating. so when he says he is pro-life, i don't think you can have it both ways. i would never demonize anybody that disagrees with it. i am open-minded in the sense that anybody can have their opinion, but you can't have it both ways, senator. on the one being endorsed by the organizations who really know where your heart is. >> senator donnelly? a quick rebuttal? >> it is not having it both ways to make sure that your daughter or your wife, when they are news and iost tragic , see doctors in the audience -- the most tragic possible news that they could lose their life in this pregnancy. that's not our place to tell that woman or that family what to do. mike, that is not our business. and we should not be in the middle of it. it is the family's decision with their pastor. >> mrs. brenton?

>> just a quick note. i faced this decision as a woman. here is what you need to know. it is no one's business but the person whose body it is. we must each have absolute control over our own bodies. if we don't have freedom in our own bodies to accept or reject any medical care, then we don't have any freedom at all. >> our next question comes from candace cole, a warehouse supervisor from wheatfield. she is also in our audience and here to ask it herself. >> my four-year-old son eric was killed at a babysitter's house when they left a fully loaded handgun unsecured and easily accessible to children. my daughter, who was seven at the time, walked in and had to find her brother. we have no legislation to hold irresponsible and negligent gun owners criminally liable in situations like this. it is interesting to note that more than 60% of school shooters got their weapons from their own home or that of a family or friend.

would you support and would you sponsor a bill for safe storage laws, also known as child access prevention laws? >> senator donnelly, your first on this. >> i believe in the second amendment, but i also believe with rights come response -- come responsibilities. the storage law is something that we need to look at. what we also need to do is stop the gun show loophole as well. that somebody who leaves the prison right here down the street in westville, they can go out as a felon and get a gun, go to a show pay $500 and get this , gun or an ar-15. you can come from the big house in michigan city and get a gun. i was at noblesville west that afternoon. i was with the families and the police. we have to make sure that, on

this kind of issue, things like no-fly/no buy, if you are on the terrorists watchlist, you can still get a gun. we have to be responsible, not just rights, but responsibilities as well. and the things you are talking about, we have a red flag -- i'm sorry, it is not a one-minute issue. and we have a red flag law in india is exceptional. ok. >> thank you for not making me use my mom voice. my mom says, that's my daughter says, use your mom voice. you can do that. mr. braun. your chance answer this question. >> any violence or tragedy with a gun tears at your heartstrings. we all agree with that. when it comes to how do you actually solve the problems? i would look at school security being something -- i was part of the state legislature. we have done a good job there. the other thing you have to look at would be whenever mental

health comes into play. we can get a lot of cues and we do nothing with it. when it comes to things like storage and so forth, the places where we have tried to use gun laws generally impact the folks that are law-abiding. i will be for anything that proves effective to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. i'm always going to be there to defend the second amendment rights. because so often, politicians and liberals and of going there, not the source of the problem. i am the individual here getting the nra endorsement and proud of it because i think they want to make sure your second amendment rights i never infringed. >> mrs. brenton. >> candace, as one mom to another -- i'm sorry for your unimaginable loss. i see my own five-year-old flashing through my eyes and i am grateful that my husband and i are responsible gun owners i keep all of our guns locked.

i think that is an important step. with rights come responsibilities. we shouldn't have to pass laws to do this, people. this is common sense. and to have someone as trusted as your babysitter to be the one that created such a tragedy is unbelievable. i will call a little bit of bs on the gun show loophole. i have been to gun shows, i have bought guns at gun shows and they have always done a background check on me. the second amendment is absolutely important. the reason it is there is because it is liberty teeth. never forget the reason we have the second amendment is because the political attitude of the day was one where we were fighting the global superpower of the day. should that ever happen, god for bid, in our country, we need to be able to stand against government. >> senator donnelly? quick rebuttal. >> our children ought to be able to go to school safe, study safe come home safe. , over 90% of hoosiers think that the gun show loophole

should be ended. over 90% of hoosiers think that no-fly/no buy should be in place. think of a terrorist, who is not allowed on a plane, but can buy a gun right here. i am so brokenhearted for you. and i saw your t-shirt with your child on it. boy, just as adorable and as beautiful as your child could possibly be. >> we have another voter lined up. let's turn our attention to international affairs. this is asked by professor of political science, director of the honors program at indiana university south bend. you are on purdue territory. [laughter] >> good evening. in his recent address to the u.n., president trump praised kim jong-un of north korea for his courage and for steps he has taken, including the cessation of nuclear testing, the release of american prisoners, and the return of fall and american

soldiers. do you believe that kim jong-un is prepared to dismantle north korea's nuclear arsenal and engage in unilateral disarmament? and what would be the most successful policy course the united states should follow regarding north korea? >> mr. braun? >> interesting because all the problems laid at our doorstep were problems created over many decades. the senator that has been there for 12 years, the obama administration basically had the policies that took us to the brink in several cases. i think it is very clear that, with a new dynamic, regardless of what you think of the president's style, we have movement on issues where the haven't been any in a long time. my opponent voted for the iran deal. that is where you gave them a huge amount cash, lifted things off of their shoulders, and

thank goodness that that was redone. when it comes to north korea, i think he has changed the dynamic and i'm glad he has. we have never been this close to actually something being done. and that is what you will get out of people that i think think a little differently. career politicians, the folks that have been there a long time, that is the difference between what i hope is a new breed of politician. on his side of the aisle and mine. to do real-world solutions, including fixing things on the forefront. >> mrs. brenton. >> when i look at trump and kim jong-un and what is going on in north korea, does it remind anybody of the austin powers movie where they are putting the nuclear warhead in the volcano and he ended the earth? does anybody else remember that or is it only me and pop culture? we have cartoon characters for world leaders. north korea can do better, we can do better. abdul asked me what i thought about trump.

i really appreciate the fact that he is a cowboy. when you think about america -- there is a great book called "culture code" and it talks about america and cowboys being independent. i do think that the implied threat is there. i have been working with foreign exchange students. some from predominately muslim countries. that has given me absolute hope that teenagers around the world are working for a better world . this is the perfect reason you can't trust mike braun. in regards to iran, they were one month away from a nuclear weapon. they had the materials.

they had the technologies. we pushed them back over 10 years. if iran had gotten a nuclear weapon, we would have wound up in conflict with them. and you know who would had to go? young men and women from terre haute and richmond and westville. my job is to protect this country and stand for it every single time, make sure that every threat is turned away. i can't believe it. >> the league of women voters are doing my job for me. >> in talking to hoosiers, the iran deal was right up there with voting against tax reform. when you take a country that has been belligerent, that its mission is to destroy israel and to export terrorism, and you deliver them $1.5 billion in cash and give them concessions up to $150 billion, that's not a good deal. how can you trust people who have never been trust within the

past? that dynamic is changing. the senator says he is for what was done before -- >> you need to wrap. that was quick. thank you. senator donnelly, you want a rebuttal as well. >> about what might just said. iran is now 10 years away. they were one month away from a nuclear weapon. if they had gotten it, our kids, our kids would have had to go fight another war. that is why the iranian -- the iran deal was done, to make sure our children did not have to go to war, to make sure that our kids could stay in terre haute and in muncie, instead of having to take after tehran. >> what you just told me is they are one month away and they are now they are 10 years away. so the have kicked the can down the world. our children will still be dealing with this. that is not please me at all. we should be keeping american

troops in america. while we are defending the borders of other countries, our borders have holes big enough to drive semi trucks through. the security theater that i recently experienced at the airport cannot ridiculous. sorry, homeland security, that i am getting really sick and tired of "may i have your papers please?" >> i too have a question on foreign affairs. let's talk about american leadership on the international stage, including our relationship with our allies. how would you define where we have been, where we are, and where we are going? >> i think the first thing we have to do is go right to the founding fathers playbook. friends to all, allies to none. it is the entangling alliances that brought us into world war i and world war ii and the vietnam war. is the entangling alliances that put our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters at harm. american troops should not be fighting those wars. why in the world are we giving money to foreign governments so that they will be at peace?

what is it, $10 million a day to israel and $10 a day to palestine? how to even do that when at home, we have people who are not eating. food security and our country is absolutely an issue. we should be talking about feeding our own people first before we start handing out money to foreign governments in the name of peace. it has certainly brought us know peace. >> senator donnelly. >> i support president trump's efforts. i wanted to be successful. when the president is successful, the united states is successful. that is what this is supposed to be about. i was found by the lugar center, senator richard lugar, a hoosier icon, to be the most bipartisan senator serving in the united states senate. we want to work together so that president trump is successful. but i would also tell you this. we have to make sure that our military has everything they need to be successful at every turn, that they have the

equipment they need to be safe, that they are never, ever in a fair fight. you can't trust mike because he wants to cut defense spending, directly against what secretary mattis says. the first and biggest pay raise in nine years, he would've been against it. we want to stand our men and women who if they do go into conflict, that we have their back. >> it is clear that it wasn't very good leading up to it. one reason it wasn't is because they weren't doing their fair share of the burden. president trump came along. where have you ever heard the discussion about their paying their fair share, the 2%, that they were supposed to do? that has changed. thank goodness he is taking on some of this stuff that others were either too politically correct or unwilling to do. i think what we've got is a new dynamic, but it is based about

somebody thinking outside of the box. when it comes to military spending, we've got more veterans per capita in the county than other place in the state. i will always be for making sure the military has what it wants. and what about the v.a.? where has the senator been? where has the devotion bit to take care of our veterans? >> check the new facility in northern indiana. >> check we have done and to this point. now you are getting common sense done, like not having to travel 150 miles to you basic checkup. you have been there for 12 years. you can take credit for it. but you have not had an original idea in the time have been there. >> you are really struggling with this one. i served on the veterans committee for six years. we got a new facility in northern indiana. we have a new facility opening in terre haute. we have another in west central indi as well. i've been to all of these

facilities. we just passed new legislation that provides that our veterans, if they are more than 40 miles away, can get coverage right at home. just send the bill to the v.a. i was a sponsor to say that, if there was any problem with the bill, it would not affect their credit at all. >> we're moving on now. we have another voter question. this one on education. to hear from lisa kovacs, a technology specialist with the office of the registrar for university northwest in hammond. >> what, if anything, can congress due to increase higher education degree attainment while reining in excess of student loan debt? >> senator donnelly, your first up. >> one of the first things we can do is make sure we protect our pell grant's, which have a maximum of $5,920, and are extra -- and are extraordinarily helpful for middle class families. you can make all the difference for mill class families.

i'm also a sponsor of a bill. iu, take great school in our state, they send you a letter at the beginning of the semester and tells you exactly how much you have borrowed, tells you how much you will borrow, tells you what your payments are and what they will be after you finish school. student borrowing dropped my -- dropped 20% after they did that. that is a phenomenal idea that we are working to get into law right now. when mike was in the legislature, that was before he quit the legislature and went home. he voted against an in-state tuition freeze. what could be more important to middle-class families than knowing tuition will not go up? that is about as important as it gets, to know that your kid can finish school without tuition increasing. >> career politicians speak in platitudes. i want to cite a specific example of miss daniels. when i interviewed him on ways and means, this is how you fix the cost of education. it's now going up at a higher

rate than the cost of health care. that's sad. i asked mitch. i'm glad that you have frozen tuition and purdue. will you do to try to keep costs down? like somebody that has done something in the real world, he rattled off three things that were impressive. make sure that we buy things right across all locations. that is what some in business would do. make sure that we look at our benefits program, to make sure it is sustainable, that you are not only getting good coverage, that you are also able to afford it. and then he said i want to make a four-year degree a three-your -- a three-year degree. that will be the difference somebody like me and somebody that is part of the problem. >> mrs. brenton. >> can we talk about from market solutions and take out the government involvement? everything government does makes us poorer. it's just insane.

government is currently picking winners and losers in our higher educational system by guaranteeing student loans again -- loan debt that you can never bankrupt out of. it is an absolute scam and a gift the banks, that they can be so profitable on the backs of every single one of us. i have been doing mortgages since 1996. you think we had a crisis in 2008, 9, and 10? when i try to get young people qualified who wanted the american dream and be homeowners, they cannot qualify because their student loan debt is higher than a mortgage. it is absolutely insane. we need free market solutions. i often tell my own children to consider trade school, as they are not outsourcing electrical jobs to china. >> you indicated rebuttal? >> mike had a shot to help every family in indiana, but you could not trust him to do it with an in-state tuition freeze. i want just to finish in three

years, too. i think that would be awesome. but the fact is not everybody , does. if you freeze tuition for all of them, it helps them in year one, year two, year three, your four. and maximizing pell grant's does as well. it's your pocketbook. it's our kids' pocketbook. it is saving money. >that is what we should do. >> you are up for the next question as well but rebuttal? >> the cost of education, we want to be great service and low cost. the difference is going to be the senator has been part of a , student debt that is now eight $3 trillion -- that is now at $3 trillion. can you really trust somebody that has been there and do you really deserve a shot at it when you have been part of the problem? if you want more of the same, joe is your guy. if you want people who will fix things, who have done in the trenches, you want to try something different.

>> pre-existing conditions, they were mentioned right off the bat. we have a question from the debate commission. there is a court battle to take away coverage for pre-existing conditions. do you think insurance companies should be required to provide such coverage? if so do you believe they should , be able to charge higher rates for people with those >> great question. i have spent 10 years of my own as nests taking on the issue of the high cost of insurance. 10 years ago health insurance companies came on going up five to 10% a year. i did it before obamacare. i want to public to be actually clear about this. i would never before any replacement of the affordable care act unless it covered pre-existing conditions. it did not have any cap on coverage.

done and beto be sustainable, you have to do things like we did. we broke the cost curve. my insurance cost less then obama. government always wants to do stuff. but the never worry about the cost. until you get entrepreneurs and people that done it in the real world, i would not count on career politicians to do it. the problem with health care at is that we're disconnected from the cost of it. >> there is an unseen hand and force moving in our markets. we want something changed and new. to vote for me and support me because i am the only one who got rid of all of this crack. the government inserted itself in the 1970's. we had doctors coming to your door. now we have out to control

costs, aspirins the cost $1000. of course it's difficult to have a conversation where's the word about $1000 aspirins heard the whole system must be overhauled. it is clear the government is not want to do that. individuals in the free market must make decisions about their own health care. the must be no government force in this. who wants that? i stand here probably before you and all the people of indiana to tell you i was the deciding vote that saved coverage for pre-existing conditions. for that young girl who was asked -- and the bus in fort wayne and needs a inhaler. for the child as diabetes and needs insulin. i can hardly believe that you can sit here or stand here and

tell everyone you are for coverage of pre-existing conditions. there is a lawsuit right now. states,rsus united trying to take away coverage for pre-existing conditions. trying to take away green posed caps. all you will denounce that lawsuit. vote to makeiding sure that the child in lawrenceburg who has arthritis can get the -- they need even they are part of a single family. the medication is $2000 a month. everybody gets a shot on my health care. you got riled up in the reason is obamacare. if -- it has got to last.

you cannot try something with that weren't about how to make it sustainable, cost wise. i will always cover pre-existing conditions with on coverage and i'm the only one here to of the nerve to take on our insurance companies. you delivered obamacare. despite of us doing good things come is not lasting. >> what is this about? whether we are red check your blue jacket, trying to force and make you do something that may not be in your own best interest. should we even have a government that is able to use government demandingn your face they buy health care. it is a slippery slope. we have take back our power as voters and voted out the people who is still from her pocketbook and force you to buy things. >> we have a final question that we need to get to. you get to start.

clearest difference, want even then as a lawsuit to take what coverage for pre-existing conditions. i am a person kept the final vote to make sure your child with asthma can get their inhaler. >> final question. this is a 32nd question. your best elevator pitch am i think you've earned the vote of your fellow hoosiers. >> promises made promises kept. fighting free health care and others want to take it away. fighting for your job. 70 months of increased job growth. fighting for of veterans. for our mia. for our country.

faith, family, community, country. it is not about red or blue, it is about the red white and blue. what you to take away from this is do you want more of the same? if you are happy with business as usual, here is your man. look at our records closely intelligent a chuck schumer. the guy says and running his campaign a negative advertising and lies. look at our records from when we started years ago and what we have accomplished. i have done things in the real world. i'm the only outsider. >> i'm not part of the 1%. if you want something that changes in washington, d.c.. if you want someone who is for the constitution who demands all of your freedoms, all the time. someone who has never raised taxes on you and never will,

that is not much track record. these two gentlemen a part of the problem. here is the problem. we can other drain the swamp or send in another alligator. we want to think the candidates for being here and auditing the audience and our voters in those of you home, tomorrow is the last day to register to vote. some the issues we cannot get to but there is another debate on october 30 from indianapolis. >> we want to thank you moderator. [applause} thank you and on behalf of the indiana debate commission, tonight. [applause}

♪ with election day 28 days a way, c-span is your primary source for campaign 2018. tonight, bringing you the first and only televised debate between former republican presidential candidate mitt romney and democrat jenny wilson. the two are running to succeed retiring senator orrin hatch. live at 8 p.m. eastern. at the same time on c-span2, like massachusetts for the first debate between republican governor charlie baker and his democratic challenger. later, more debate coverage with democrat and kirkpatrick and leah marquez peterson in the second congressional district. they're looking to replace rep. mcsally:, who is running for u.s. senate. live from tucson here on c-span.

♪ pc send buses traveling across the country on our 50 capitals tour. we recently stopped in indianapolis heard looking for to the november midterm elections, we're asking folks which party should control congress and why? >> the democratic party. not just because i support the democrat -- values, i think their voting property -- republicans on the executive branch. in addition to legislation, certainly they responded -- responsible congress. we have not seen that. the asiana presidency run amok. >> i believe i will be impacted. i am a college student is that getting out of school entering the workforce.

tax breaks and financial matters that get decided in congress will directly affect me in my future success. i am a african-american woman. those who are fighting for my rights and my civil rights are very important. this will be impacted if there is a change in congress. >> the elections, if by some chance that congress should change over to another party, we would have some impact here. generally, in indiana, we are independent. as with our infrastructure program, we moved ahead with whatever congress does. upgrade and are responsible. so you pass a major infrastructure built last year.

it is great. if they don't, we will continue to march. we are working with water also. i think the democrat should control congress because i believe our country consists wing more left or progressive. i'm interested in the issues pertaining to women. ability to choose and women's right for a safe workplace. voices from the state, part of c-span 50 capitals tour. live in hartford connecticut for the 44 stop of the c-span bus. 50 capitals tour. -- secretaryircuit of state will be our guest during washington journal. on friday, live in rhode island for the 45th stop which rhode island education commissioner canada wagner at 8:30 a.m..

next activist and author talks about racism in america. the work with the black lives matter movement. posted by the atlantic in aspen institute. it is 15 minutes. >> hello. welcome. i want to go in the moment four years ago when your life turned a corner. you were in your 20's. you are he had a great job. earning six figures. pack it inided to and go her whole life, to ferguson to join the protest. why? >>