Which provides better answers to todays most political questions. Course, each of us has have always had much to agree upon. Limited government, free markets, and individual liberty are pillars of the political philosophy we both value and appalled. To theave often led us same policy preferences and conclusions. What each of us envision in a Free Society Without governmental and regulatory intrusion often does look quite different. Policy preferences surrounding foreign policy, immigration, sex work,alization, emerging technologies, marriage and family. They create cleavages that emerge from differences between our political philosophies. As we have seen in todays political climate, seldom are these differences laid out through constructive, civil discourse. In recent days, the protection of free speech has been under threat by those who claim the harms of certain kinds of speech outweigh its protection. That there is more sensible approach to the regulation of this kind of expression. Some skepticism and out into the very institutions that have brought absolute power under the rule of law. That have enshrined our inalienable human rights for the preservation of freedom. , onh brings us here tonight this stage, as an opportunity for the exposure in particular articulation of ideas, values, disagreement, discourse. These interns have worked tirelessly this summer to parse out these nuanced policies through fun, logical, and rational debate. Began, i would like to mention a few housekeeping items. After the conclusion of this debate, join us outside in the auditorium for a reception. Also, join the conversation throughout the debate by using our hashtag. We will be drawn your questions during the q a portion from this feed. And if you are on snapchat, check out our special snapchat feature. If you send snapchat to catoinstitute, one word, they will be featured. The opinions are those of the debaters and not the Cato Institute nor the Heritage Foundation. We would also appreciate your participation in our postdebate survey that you will receive by email. In the spirit of debate, another debate on whether capitalism or socialism have better benefited women, will be held here at cato september 16 at 6 30 and i would encourage you to attend or watch online. I would like to express my thanks to our incredible conference staff for putting this event together, Elaina Richardson and Colleen Harmon of the Heritage Foundation, for their hard work, coordination and collaboration, Matthew Feeney and will for their debate preparation. And a big thank you to charles c. W. Cooke for moderating, the editor of National Review online, and the author of conservatarian manifesto. His work focuses on free speech, the Second Amendment and american exceptionalism. Charles is a frequent guest on hbos realtime and has appeared on msnbc, fox news and foxbusiness. He emigrated to the u. S. And became an american citizen in 2018. He lives in florida with his family and their dog, a black lab. Please welcome charles c. W. Cooke. [applause] thank you very much for coming, thank you to cato and heritage for having me and asking me to moderate this debate. It is a pleasure to be involved in an argument about political ideas that doesnt ultimately come down to the question of whether the participants are french or not. I think i keep being invited back to do this because other than boris johnson, it is busy now, because i wrote a book on this topic in which i attempted to tease out the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, and offer a way forward where possible. I was not, i suspect, invited back for my predictive abilities, given that i wrote that americas next president might be a quiet, retiring, humble, noninvasive kind of guy who would remove the celebrity culture from National Politics and reduce the executive branch to the role the founders imagined. Then we elected donald trump, who my colleague Kevin Williamson has described as a man with the sensibility halfway between caligula and liberace. My wife doesnt allow me to place bets over five dollars anymore. This does remain an important debate, especially at this moment. Because we are obsessed with our two Political Parties and the presidency, our political culture has a tendency to flatten all nonleft ideologies into the right. The Cato Institute is often described as conservative when it is no such thing. Heritage is presumed to be on board with every libertarian innovation, when it is not. Anyone who doesnt want to vote for a democrat is put into the same camp. A good example is different jurisprudence approaches and political views, neil gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh seemed to be indistinguishable during their respective hearings. That tendency during the last Supreme Court term has led to complete shock among commentators when they noticed how much they diverged, which is to say we are not here this evening to ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but to ask more foundational questions, such as whether angels actually exist, whether, if they do, they should be dancing on pins in the first place, whether dancing on pins is good or bad for society, whether pins make us safer or we need more robust pin control, whether injuries sustained as a result of pins should be paid for by the pin dancers or anyone else. This is not going to be a pinfree zone. Before we start, please dont clap or boo during the debate. You can share and boo and throw your clothes at the end, and make sure your cell phones dont ring, and if they do, these dont answer them. I have equipped the debaters with tasers, and they will know what to do. The resolution tonight is, is libertarian or conservatism the superior political philosophy . We start with an Opening Statement from the conservative side, followed by an Opening Statement from the libertarian side, followed by rebuttals from each. Thank you all for coming. We are hosted in an an auditorium for economist friedrich hayek. A quote he once said was if man is to do more good than harm in efforts to improve the social order, he wont shape the result is a craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather cultivate growth by providing the appropriate environment, like the gardener does for his plants. He has two choices, he can abandon his plants to subsist alone, shrivel up and die, or number two, the gardener can water his plants, place them in sunlight and give them rich soil so they can bloom. The point of hayeks garden is this, when the government sets the right decisions, the Political Community flourishes. That is not to say the gardener will micromanager engineer his plants cording to a landscape design, but he can create the environment where they produce fruit. Conservatives and libertarians have enjoyed a mutuallybeneficial alliance. We have rallied support for the free market and defeated communism, but in the tradition of the founders, conservatives recognize unfettered liberty must never come at the expense of our society and our humanity. At the heart of todays debate is a central question, what kind of country do we want to live in, and our descendents to inherit . Conservatism is a political philosophy designed to perpetuate the blessings of liberty to the next generation by creating an atmosphere of moral virtue and law, faith, family and responsibility. Unlike the axiomatic no sides fits all ideology called libertarianism, conservatism is a balancing pendulum with order on the one end and liberty on the other. Libertarianism ignores the tension between order and liberty. The end result is excessive liberty and almost no order. In the name of live and let live, libertarianism removes the social scaffolding around our society and the moral compass from our nation. And we see what happens when libertarians try to implement their ideals. Always and everywhere that libertarianism causes societal decay, libertarians said legalize drugs. Entire regions of this country suffered under the opioid epidemic. The libertarians said, the right to abortion is a liberty as fundamentalist property. Abortion became available on demand. And life and liberty was robbed from 60 million innocent unborn. The libertarians said, open the borders. The american taxpayer foots the bill for ilLegal Immigration, either by forfeiting his job or his money to a larger welfare state. The libertarians said, marriage doesnt matter. Children got trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty and fatherless, broken homes. Libertarianism is a utopian ideology that wants to build an impossible society, but the ideal world libertarians want is not worth striving for. It is the farthest stretch from anything our Founding Fathers envisioned. We will set the record straight on the founders vision for america. Looking back to hayeks garden, americans dont want a broken plan of itemized individuals, we do not want weeds and briars to tear up our inherited plot. We want a thriving garden. [applause] good evening, everyone. Thank you for taking the time to come to cato or watch online. I want to thank our moderator tonight, charles cooke, at the Heritage Foundation, for coming to the lions den. As we weigh the merits of these two philosophies, we must consider, what is the purpose of government . Volumes of text may not provide a full answer, but the declaration of independence provides the best answer. Governments are instituted to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is the libertarian vision for government. Libertarianism does a better job than conservatism at securing these most vital rights. Libertarians recognize each adult has the right and responsibility to make decisions about how best to go about their life, so long as those decisions do not infringe on the rights of another. Libertarianism resists that most basic human desire to impose beliefs on another through force. And force is essential to understand. We do not reject the fundamental importance of virtue, but believe liberty is the best means of achieving such a virtue. We cherish the vital role of Civil Society in an old republic, so clearly identified by democracy in america. If the imposition of moral values by force of laws not only unethical, it crowds out the essential roles of Civil Society. If we abdicate responsibility to some conservative in washington who think they know liberty, or some progressive that believes they can transform society, all will be lost. A conservative who believes government can centrally manufacture a Virtuous Society falls victim to the same conceit of a marxist who centrally plans the economy. Virtue imposed by force is hardly virtue at all. Rather, virtue must be inculcated by Vital Community institutions. True liberty, when Civil Society is allowed to flourish, sustains virtue. Thinking about good governance, we hold a lot in common with conservative friends. We believe in the rule of law and a vibrant judiciary that ensures contract and property rights, so fundamental to any free society, are upheld. We recognize a criminal Justice System that ensures those who infringe on fundamental rights face discipline. We believe in a military that provides for the national defense. But we have a different conception about the limits of government than conservative friends. Accordingly, i have one request for the audience tonight. Be wary of what George Orwell would call political language throughout this debate. Consider what the true ethical implications are, when conservatives argue for social intervention to uphold the social order. Smart drug policy means locking somebody up for choosing to put something other than alcohol into their body. Protecting marriage is stopping anyone who is different than i from getting married. Protecting our liberty means propping up a despotic regime like that of saudi arabia. Lets be honest about what certain conservative principles truly entail. Libertarianism stems from a deep intellectual humility that we may not have it all figured out when we enact policy. Rather than unilaterally decide on some policy, libertarians place faith in what adam smith called natural liberty. The natural liberty that emerges when fundamental rights are protected is how best to ensure society prospers. That, not government coercion, is how we preserve life and liberty and give people the best chance at securing happiness for themselves and their posterity. Thank you. [applause] now we will have twominute rebuttals, first from the conservative side. Our opponents talked about moral values, saying that we conservatives fall victims to authoritarianism. But it is libertarianism that backfires and invites the slippery slope of Government Intervention we all want to avoid. The problem is the individual choices that libertarians hold so near and dear sometimes produce largescale unintended consequences that can rot Civil Society and leave ordinary people stock picking up the pieces. Drugs have not just stolen freedom from individuals, they have debilitated entire regions of this country, from appalachia to the rust belt. So when the social fabric starts unraveling, who but the government is called to stop it . That is the problem. It is the state that will get involved to cure societal ills libertarianism created, because libertarianism atomized as individuals to seek meaning in the state. We must ask ourselves, is it really authoritarianism to protect our National Sovereignty by securing the border . Is it unjustified to deter foreign aggression abroad so we dont face invasion or extortion tomorrow . Is it really a violation of Civil Liberties to get people off of welfare and out of poverty by promoting marriage . Is it to radical to want to get drug addicts off the streets and parents off drugs so children arent driven into foster care . The deception of libertarianism is that if we fail to care for our Civil Society and take individual freedom to its extreme and balk at the chance to save our country, the only freedom libertarianism preserves is the freedom to decline and fall. [applause] no matter how pretty the language from conservatives is, fear mongering isnt an argument. This is a debate and we are here to make arguments. You need to keep in mind what is an argument on what is something that sounds great but isnt supported by facts. Libertarianism is supported by facts. If you look at the data we are going to give you throughout this speech, for example in regard to opioids, you will see that by limiting government restriction on drugs, you do see fewer drugs, you see more people not doing drugs. That is hard data. The other important thing you need to remember, none of the conservatives tell you why the government needs to be doing all these different policy decisions. The most effective way of not being addicted to drugs is going to narcotics anonymous, going to church, being involved with your families and communities, to see what they can do for you. At its core, libertarianism is about the belief that freedom is something that is important. By no means is it unlimited. That would be a bad policy that is once again not supported by the data. But when we look at institutions, we believe a society can have pluralistic values. We believe religious freedom applies and extends to jews, muslims and mormons as much as christians. At its core, when conservatives talk about family values, they talk about one type of family. That is why you should prefer libertarianism, because we believe you should be wary of considerations the government makes for you. We dont have a lot of say in what happens in washington, what happens in our government, we do have a say for what happens in our personal lives. And libertarianism is the only political philosophy between the two of us that believes you have the ability and you have the right to make choices for your own life, your family and your and communities. That is why you should prefer libertarianism to conservatism. [applause] we now move on to specific topics, each side will speak for two minutes on each topic and there will be one minute each for rebuttals. The first topic, libertarians will start, does government have a responsibility to restrict citizens from consuming drugs known to cause addiction and harm . Conservatives say drugs do harm. We concede that point. Now what . The question is whether government has a responsibility to restrict drugs, and we respond no. Do you know the most dangerous drug . The Global Commission on drug policy looked at several dimensions on harm at nearly every category, alcohol, a drug aimed by the government to be appropriate for people to consume, was deemed most harmful. The United States tried to ban alcohol in 1920. Prohibition didnt work. Here are the effects it brought. A 24 increase in crime over the course of one year in 30 major u. S. Cities. A 45 increase in drug addiction that spohn the creation of mexicos oldest drug cartel. A burdened legal system, and a 50 increase in deaths from alcohol from 1920 to 1921 and a 66 increase in deaths from alcohol from 1921 to 1926. In the decade prior to prohibition, these deaths had been decreasing. Lets look at today. 14 of adults smoke cigarettes. In 2017, one in seven u. S. Adults used marijuana. An estimated 73 of adults drinks alcohol. These users are people, and locking them up for wanting an escape is wrong. If you would not lock up your buddy for having a beer, why would you ask your government to do it for you . There are different ways we consume intoxicants. Downing a bottle of vodka is different from a single glass. Banding substances does not work. It never has. It never will. And when substances are banned, the narrative surrounding the drugs ignores the human aspects of drug addiction, because banning drugs does not address the root causes of addiction. Studies on rats, given the choice between drugs or playing with their friends, rats consistently chose social interaction. Studies on human have come to the same conclusion. When people are engaged with good communities they are less likely to falter drug addiction. We have seen this before. During the vietnam war, soldiers used a literal heroin. When they came home and were no longer surrounded by war, they stopped doing drugs. If people are isolated like in prisons were rethroat drug users, they are more likely to become addicts and experience negative side effects of using drugs. As an escape. Drugs are about human nature. Thus, our final argument is a moral one. If drugs are bad, shouldnt you want people to refuse to use them without anyone telling them to . Dont you want someone to have the moral character to know that drugs are bad and refuse to do them . It is not against the law to cheat on your significant other, that doesnt mean you should do it. Its still a bad thing to do. In a world where drugs are legal, communities are strong and resilient in the face of drug use. If someone finds themselves at the bottom of a bottle, friends, families and nongovernment institutions can help. Many in this auditorium know someone who struggles with addiction. Do you really think throwing them in jail would be the right call . It should be noted that even decades of drug prohibition later, we still cannot manage to keep drugs out of prisons. This argument is about one at its corethis argument is about one thing. , when a wellmeaning person makes a mistake, the answer is not to make them a criminal, the answer is to let things like family values and Community Ethics show them the way forward, because families and communities are better than a detached government. You cannot ban human nature. Governments are incapable of addressing root causes of drug use. The state can only put you in a cage and we have seen how that works out. And thus, the government should not ban drugs. Charles this same question for the conservative side, does government have a responsibility to restrict citizens from consuming drugs known to cause addiction and harm . Physical harm . Caroline because of societal damage drugs cause, the government has a responsibility to restrict them. More died from drug overdoses in 2017 then all the military casualties in the vietnam and iraq wars combined. But it seems libertarians only care about the death toll when it involves the military. Libertarians say drugs are a victimless crime. The author of hillbilly elegy felt like a victim. At 12 years old, and author watched his mother deteriorate from addiction in ohio, in the rust belt. Drugs were the reason he grew up in a chaotic and dysfunctional home and why he lived with his grandparents for much of his childhood. Drugs through his family and town drugs threw his town into a downward spiral of poverty. Look at the documentary seattle and dying to find more victims, half naked people wandering the streets chasing drugs. Currently 2 Million People are addicted to opioids paid 130 average, wonder 30 million americans die every day from opioid overdoses. Drugs inflict harm on entire neighborhoods in cities, and to say otherwise is ignorant. This is not the society the next generation deserves. Drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin have enslaved people, not liberated them. How is an individual free if his sense of reality is hijacked . How can he act as a free agent if his faculties are under attack by substances . Dont take it from me, take it from libertarian scholar walter block. He wrote, drugs are soul destroyers. The very intention of freedom becomes atrophied. Welcome to the libertarians brave new world, where dignity is reduced to nothing. Drugs also hurt children. 70 of abused and neglected children live with addicted parents and have no say in that. Children from drug infested homes are more likely to struggle in school, suffer Mental Health issues, commit suicide or develop addictions themselves. Can libertarians really say legalization will not exacerbate the situation . Of course not. Legalization wont fix americas drug problem, it will normalize it. The rules of supply and demand tell us that will increase a billability and cheapen prices lead to escalating drug use. And therefore as consumption proliferates, so will hospitalizations and fatalities. The government is a social signaler, whether we like it or not, and people will follow the signals if it legalizes and destigmatizes drugs. Our opponents talk about the failure of the drug war and mass incorporation mass incarceration, policing costs, and the blackmarket and how all this points to a reason for legalization. Sure, the war on drugs hasnt been 100 successful. There is never perfect compliance. So because enforcement is difficult do we let a national , purge happen . Are we not going to try to end the drug epidemic . The question our opponents need to answer is will legalization make his communities better or making these communities better or worse . Under libertarian watch america the answer is clear will waste , away. Ask the libertarians how many teenagers need to die from black tar heroin for the government should get involved . 10,000, 100,000, one million . Have any towns need to rot . From drug addiction. This is starting to sound less like liberty and more like a slow, societal suicide. Charles thank you. Now we have a rebuttal from the libertarian. Legalizations will make these communities better. How do i know this . Our conservative friend correctly points out that drugs can harm people. You know what else harms people . The war on drugs. That we have been waging for the last, almost a century they talk about the toll of the opioid crisis. Im not sure they are taking it seriously. We can look at the example of portugal. Portugal in 2001 faced a heroin crisis where 1 was addicted. To opioids. What did they do . They decriminalized all counterintuitively narcotics. , what happened . Death rates plummeted. If United States could reach death rates like portugal, the United States could save one life every 10 minutes. Think about what that could do for our communities. Rather than locking drug addicts in cages, we should give them treatment. Just like we give alcoholics treatment. Legalization will make these communities better. Charles one minute rebuttal from the conservatives. Caroline libertarians can talk about the failure of the drug or war, but they havent proven that legalization will make communities better or worse. They talked about alcohol and the prohibition of that. There is a selfregulating, self audit rating culture in america around alcohol. After work, coworkers head to the bar, will they had to the cocaine vending machine . I dont think so. Gulp, drugs are inherently addictive and the government is a social signaler as i mentioned. Drug abuse spans across entire regions of the country. When drug addiction takes over entire communities, it is not a lifestyle choice. Its a disease. Portland, Seattle San Francisco , are examples of where libertarian policies have led. Drugsave surrendered to they have been crippled by it. And how can they say they have improved . Charles our next topic is immigration. The conservatives will go first. The question is undocumented migrants do not pose a threat to the United States . Will Border Security is a fundamental exercise of National Sovereignty. Any country has the right to decide who and what enters it. Therefore legal emily duration is a an affront Legal Immigration is an affront to the citizens. This is not to say the conservatives oppose immigration. We recognize we are a country of immigrants. We further understand an intrinsic component is the ability to control borders. Undocumented migrants do not pose a threat to the United States. Opponents must demonstrate it poses no threat while we have proven in some cases that it does. IlLegal Immigration presents a threat. Ice apprehends illegal aliens fory year, responsible 80,000 duis, 50,000 assaults. There is an Extensive Network of Human Trafficking threatening u. S. Citizens and migrant families. Gangs run amok because we refuse to enforce our laws. Our opponents will try to counter these points claiming illegal aliens commit fewer crimes. They are using flawed studies. Then citizens. No one knows the full breath of illegal alien crimes because we dont know how many are here. They are far less likely to report crimes because they fear deportation. How can we get numbers when sanctuary wont report them . Every crime committed is a crime that should have never occurred in the first place. This is for people like evan nugent, who was repeatedly stabbed and killed by an illegal alien after forcing his way into her home. It is about the 14yearold girl who was brutally murdered by two ms 13 gang members. Can our opponents seriously say with a straight face that ilLegal Immigration poses no threat . Of course not. IlLegal Immigration poses an undue financial burden. On our country. Our opponents will say that open borders will boost economic productivity. They neglect one important reality. The United States has an advanced welfare system. Illegal aliens tend to be low skilled workers who easily qualify for government assistance. The average illegal alien household receives about 14,000 more in government benefit than it pays in taxes. The estimated net cost on our country or the lowest estimate is 1. 5 trillion. This is why Milton Friedman famously said you cannot have open borders in the welfare state. If you follow the libertarian logic of Free Movement of labor and open borders you are , advocating for the expansion of welfare. Our opponents may say get as a rid of welfare. As a conservative i find adding rid of welfare appealing. But i dont live i understand in i understand a libertarian fantasy. There are political realities. Welfare is not going anywhere soon. Another is build a wall around welfare. Dont give assistance to noncitizens. This is politically unreasonable and morally cruel. Countries like the uae that immigranttance to workers became an economic oferhouse on the back immigrant workers. Policy created a defect of secondclass citizens rate. Conservatives will not allow it to happen in the United States. If you truly believe there is no threat associated with illegal gratian, if you want open borders how do you reconcile , that . With allowing criminals how many citizens and migrants alike he killed before you believe the government should do something . With an expanded welfare state, or do you want to deny immigrants government assistance . Will a few issues. As prone to rampant misinformation and misinformation the human brain as an aggression policy. Seems hardwired to crate us versus them dichotomy. Our president and conservative friends know this all too well. Lets declare undocumented immigrants do not pose a threat to the United States. To understand why, the gross lets ask misconception. On the our conservative friends immigration debate. Our conservative friends correctly note that the vast majority of firearm crimes are committed by a small number of people. So i trust they will welcome a similar truth in immigration premises statistics and conduct policy according they. It is often alleged that undocumented immigrant are exceptionally violent and pose a National Security threat. That is not true. Texas is the only state that tracks statistics for crimes by immigration status. Texas is hardly a state known for its treatment of undocumented immigrants, the homicide conviction rate was 44 below that of native born americans. Nationwide, undocumented immigrants are 40 less likely to be incarcerated. The native citizens. Theres not a correlation between we have to be honest crime and integration. About the statistics. Fear mongering is common. One study was twice as likely to report on a crime committed as by an immigrant as compared to a native citizen. Nevertheless, the chance of dying by a foreignborn terrorist, including 9 11, which accounts for nearly 93 is one of all the terrorist yes in this data set is one in 3. 8 million. Car risk of dying in a crash is one in 103. You would be a fool to suggest banning cars because they offer obvious benefits. The same logic applies to two society. Undocumented immigrant and immigrants in general. This rings us to our second misconception. That undocumented immigrants hurt our economy. The truth is just the opposite. The economic literature consistently finds that immigration has positive impact on longrun Economic Growth and little to no effect. On the wages of native born americans. Most estimates find a positive impact overall on nativeborn americans. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for welfare so they means tested welfare. So they hardly pose a threat to entitlement spending. From 20022009, immigrants as a whole subsidized that a care making 14. 7 of contributions but only consuming 7. 9 of expenditures. A third misconception is undocumented immigrants wont assimilate. If you can compare todays immigrants from the ones from ireland and italy, you will see two groups that nobody would call a threat to American Culture today, they assimilate at the same rate. Three generations in, voting patterns and self identification are identical to nonrecent immigrant families. One important fact should be emphasized. Assimilation does not mean adopting Heritage Foundation values. Yet if we want to protect our heritage we must continue to allow for robust immigration. With the exception of the blatantly chinese exclusion act of 1882, the very conception of an illegal immigrant did not really exist in our country until 1924. Almost everyone in this room has descended from someone seeking better opportunities or fleeing persecution. Those same people wouldnt make it to america under current law. When you hear conservatives to get to the back of the line, we remember there is no line. Our Current System lacks any sort of meaningful due process. We lock children in cages away from their parents. We demonize people trying to provide for their emily. Our policies create criminals out of good people. Undocumented immigrants are not a threat unless we make them one. Charles thank you. Rebuttal from the conservatives. Wellington we have to have ever remember we are having this conversation within the context of the status quo. Award what we have Border Patrol and agencies like ice. What do you think will happen if we remove the security measures. Contrary to what our opponents we will see an influx of crime have said, car deaths are not the same as ms on the border. 13. Should we not try to stop criminals from crossing into the country . Our opponents contend with ms 13 killing how long do we have to men, women, and children wait to , do something . I have yet to hear an answer about how we should handle the welfare system. It is not only affects the federal government. It affects state governments as well. 26 states give Welfare Benefits to noncitizens. If our country is unwilling to build a wall around the border what makes you think it is , willing to build a wall around welfare . We let 1. 75 Million People legally came into the country last year. If we allow more, think about the additional people. The government as mesa current 11 million illegal population would cost us 1. 5 trillion. What would happen to that if we add 50 or hundred million more people i never thought i would hear libertarians argue for the expansion of the welfare state. [laughter] just to explain the welfare state. Immigrants are not eligible for welfare. If you look sweden, we saw the at a country like influx of immigration led to people in the home state the citizens voting against welfare programs. Because they did not want immigrants to get it. Is it xena phobic . Might it lead to decreasing the welfare system. Yes. Take your pick. When we look at what happens in regards to policybased decisions, we are not saying there is no threat at hand. From immigrants. We are saying it is not worth it to say we will not allow anyone in. We will overextend what the threat actually is instead of addressing the data area we get clear data we gave you clear data that undocumented immigrants are less of a threat. There is 50 thousand homicides a year from undocumented immigrants, how many are there from nativeborn americans . A lot more. When we address the question at hand, it is important to remember that we dont identify all immigrants as ms 13 members. Just as we dont identify all christians as members of the Westboro Baptist church. In a country with a closed border from an economic perspective. Charles your time is up, thank you. Third topic. The libertarians will start this one. A larger Defense Budget will not enhance american National Security . Sam to understand the impact of a larger Defense Budget on american National Security we should look at what we are getting with the 716 billion requested by the department of defense. Nobody really knows where the unfortunately money is going. , the pentagon failed an audit this past november that cost the taxpayers 400 million. In markle statement, deputy secretary of defense Patrick Shanahan noted that we failed the audit but we never expected to pass. Anyone who believes in a Strong National defense should find this deeply troubling. Equally troubling are the many areas of our budget that do nothing to enhance national ready. Youd be hardpressed to convince me that the air force spending 1300 on coffee cups or 14,000 on a toilet seat makes us safe. The department of defense spent 294 million the equivalent of four u. S. Air force fighters on erectile dysfunction medication. Seriously, you can look it up. The Washington Post reported the pentagon buried in an internal study on 125 billion in internal waste, a met a fear that congress would use the findings as an excuse to slash the Defense Budget. If we were talking about the department of education, failing and audit and calling it a success conservatives would , not be calling for increasing the departments funding. We are spending more to get less. The deleterious impact for the spirit of break this proxy is stark. As former secretary of the Navy John Lehman notes, it now takes 22. 5 years to deploy new weapon instead of the four years it took during the cold war. Contrast china and russia are that producing fifthgeneration ships and fighters in four years. Why is this . It is a bloated budget. Inhibits innovation. The world we will fight in the future will increasingly depend on innovation. We need more advanced technology. A bigger budget will not improve but our National Security if we keep providing adverse incentives. To keep projects slow and extensive. Incentives are important. A larger budget would do nothing to streamline the pentagon bureaucracy. I have one final question that conservatives must answer to make an effective augment. If our current levels of spending arent sufficient what , level is . And why . How much more do we need to be taking from future generations to ensure Adequate Security . I will help them out. On may 15, the Heritage Foundation stated we needed a 3 5 growth. In spending each year. Do the math. By the end of trumps third term that would be over 1 trillion. How much safer will that make us . Our defense spending is almost equal to that of the next eight highest spending countries combined. Five of those countries are our allies. Would additional spending make so the average american any , safer . One of the best things america ultimately, candy for its National Security is to remain is to remain the worlds , economic powerhouse. Over funding and elaborate bureaucracy is certainly not the way to do that with an. Admiral Michael Mullins remarked that the biggest threat to our National Security is our debt. We are not advocating to cut, we are just saying dont spend more. In all of this there are important points. Is it beneficial for american National Security . To engage in unconstitutional wars the cost billions. Should we be spending american tax dollars on drones to kill civilians in the middle east . Because we are not making friends when we bomb weddings in pakistan. How spending money supporting places like saudi arabia makes america civilian safe. Our military has no grand strategy. Accordingly we do not know what a successful cap on military spending looks like. Spending infinitely is not the answer. Charles thank you. And now an Opening Statement from the conservatives. Wellington George Washington once said to be prepared for war is one of the most effective needs of preserving peace. His words ring true today. The United States is a global power with global interests interests like protecting the international freemarket, navigation on the high seas, and regional stability. We cannot protect these interest without a robust military and a capability of deterrence and a , Defense Budget to support it. Why must we project power . What with the world look like if we shrink from our commitments. China has taken over the South China Sea jeopardizing asia allies. Will china stop at the united will china stop if the United States withdraws from the region . They would expand. Will iran stop if the United States withdraws from the region . No. They would sponsor terror and complete the nuclear program. North korea and russia clearly wishes to proclaim soviet influence. Will they stop . North korea would consider an no. Invasion of south korea and russia would continue its aggression. United States Military deterrence works. Seas openave kept with the straight of her muse. Our Ground Forces overseas have deterred invasions of countries like taiwan, south korea, and the ukraine. Our airpower has disrupted terrorist operations. Abroad. United states must project power. We are currently handicapped by budget constraints. The Defense Budget is insufficient. Our opponents have said what do you mean . The united dates spends so much more . When compared to other countries. This is true. However aggregate expense is not a measure of power. We have commitments around the world. Which our military must meet. We are not concentrated on one unlike other countrieswe are not concentrated on one region. , the United States navy as a take china for example whole may , be larger than chinas but our navy spans the globe. Where is chinas is concentrated in their backyard. The Pacific Fleet has about 50 ships compared to chinas 200. Are we able to effectively deter chinese aggression when we dont have Regional Power . Parity in the South China Sea . Of course not. We need a military capable. Of deterrence. To do otherwise is to ignore the reality we live in. The common libertarian argument is it would exacerbate the military complex. Yes, there is waste the defense in budget. Which is why conservatives post policies like rollover and closure programs. Eisenhower warned the country of the military complex, when he was president , he represented 9 defense spending represented 9 of the economy and 52 of the budget. Today represents 3 of the economy and 16 of the budget. Conservatives want to spend our tax dollars effectively. But the mere potential for waste does not negate the underlying principle of a military deterrence driven by a robust military. I have to ask our opponents, how could you seriously plan to provide for common defense . Do you believe a diminished budget and military will keep united dates safe . One of the reasons we could have this debate is because of our robust military budget. Dont sit here and tell us you do not like waste in the budget. What is your plan . How much should we be spending on the military . Anyone could offer criticisms and have no solution. Charles thank you. One minute for each rebuttal starting with the libertarian. Will i hear the threats raised by the conservative. Im reminded of a quote who said from frederick the great of prussia who said he who defends. Everything defends nothing. Lets address some of these threats and why spending more money is not the best way to address them. Our conservative friend mentioned iran. I would like to would be nuclear mind him that the biggest threat proliferation. We had a deal that barred them from acquiring nuclear weapons. They talked about how iran sponsored terrorism. We are aligned with the saudis newsflash. We are aligned with the saudis who are waging a war of aggression in yemen. And ive also been sponsors of terrorism in the region. Why are we destabilizing the region further by aligning with such a despotic regime . They raise the threat of russia. Our nato allies are more than capable of responding to the threat of russia. Russia possesses an economy the size of italy. Im not understanding how all of finally these movements around , commitments around the globe make us safer. Our 18 year war in afghanistan for example is not how we , improve readiness. Rather than dumping more money, perhaps we stop waging the war in afghanistan. To improve readiness. Thank you. Wellington despite what my opponents might say, this isnt like a game of risk. Where you can just pick up we the pieces and restart. We are dealing with realworld threats. We are a global power with global interests. We need to play a role in the world stage. If we dont we leave ourselves vulnerable. You expect russia, china, north korea, iran, jihadi groups to , declare war . Now that the u. S. Has withdrawn its military presence, we can just live in peace and trade with them. That is ridiculous. I want u. S. Ships in the South China Sea so there are not chinese ships off the coast of los angeles tomorrow. I want u. S. Planes to strike Islamic State targets today so theyre not tomorrow. I want u. S. Soldiers in europe today so there isnt a russia invasion of the ukraine tomorrow. What is our opponents plan . Hope people play nice. How do you protect the free markets when the United States navy isnt there to deter iran. We cant maintain global interest without a robust military and strong Defense Budget. [applause] before we move on to our final topic. Want to remind you that the hashtag behind me, i will pose questions to both sides during the q a section. The conservatives will go first on this one. The final topic, is the decline of marriage necessarily a bad . It is an existential threat in principle and practice. 72 of americans were married in 1960, only about half are married now. It doesnt take statistics to understand marriage is one of those things that give life meaning. Some kind of marriage has existed since the dawn of civilization. The support system to build a life upon. Not only that, it is the Building Block of society, bedrock of civilization, and the vehicle by which we care for the next generation. It turns out marriages americas greatest weapon against welfare dependent and child poverty. Because of the lack of economic stability and the psychological in act of single parenthood , erosion of marriage is detrimental to children. The poverty rate for children in the United States in 2009 was 37. 1 . While the rate for married couples was 6. 8 . Children with one parent are less likely to finish school. More likely to commit violent crimes. Over half of incarcerated youth are from singleparent home. We must ask, is this the future we want for our children . Of course not. Children need parents. Where else do they expect to get the innovators without parents to guide them . Marriage is the best model for raising leaders and good citizens. How can we justify denying children tried and true effective upbringing . Why are you so eager to experiment with childrens livelihood . Not to mention marital decline through a larger welfare state. The overwhelming majority of benefits of families with children go to singleparent household. As a result of reliance on government assistance has deprived children of the love and ready they would have received. Michael brendan dority argued it is the culture of fulfillment and convenience that replaces traditional meaning and eventually led to his own identity crisis. His story showed average is not just a lifestyle choice or a contract for a tax break. Children depended on it. Conservatives understand how to Balance Limited government and the crisis of marriage. Our opponents will say we want to micromanage marriage. Just the opposite, we dont want welfare to take the place of the family bread winner. We want people married to each other, not the government. A good step in the right direction is removing the penalty against marriage inheritance. Given all this evidence, we cant give up on marriage. We simply cant afford to. There is a rich and vibrant history of conservatives lamenting the decline of marriage. At various points, conservatives have stated the right for women to own property, womens suffrage, interracial marriage, and samesex marriage would institution. Here we are, the institution of marriage has survived. Nevertheless, conservatives, who are always quick to note the support for limited government are as steadfast as ever for the support for marriage. The question when considering the decline of average is necessarily a bad thing is what the government should do about it . Lets examine conservative policy. As we do so, which passed era of marriage would conservatives wish to return us to . Conservatives often implicate the legalization of samesex marriage as a key factor. Why should two adults not have the liberty to marry and raise a child . There is nothing ethical about preventing such a marriage. The academic literature says they fare just as well as traditional averages. Look at kenneth faried, an nba player who was raised by two mothers. The alleged decline of marriage is limiting nofault divorce. It allows a spouse to terminate a divorce without showing fault. Some have proposed ending nofault divorce for married couples with children. Such a repeal would be hurtful to the mothers and the children it aims to protect. The social Science Literature has shown that children born to high conflict marriages are worse off than those born to single parents. Although marriage may be preferable on average, only when blissfully divorced from reality could they argue that it is better for parents to remain together in a conflict ridden household. Mothers would invariably be hurt. Research by the economist, says states that introduce unilateral divorce saw female suicide decreased by 8 15 . Domestic violence decreased by 30 . The repeal of nofault divorce laws will lead to the deaths of mothers. Such a proposal as a textbook case of the treatment being worse than the cure. Other proposals such as strong tax incentives are equally full fool hardy. Consider the marginal marriages. Wood links by financial incentives provide healthy spots for the children . A cursory glance at history illustrates why governments have no business interfering with such score social values as one choice of partner or religion. Conservatives would benefit from absorbing this wisdom. It is not the role of government to regulate marital choices. That is the domain of private individuals and associations including churches that favor traditional marriages. The state should play no role in distorting one of the most fundamental choices. It is wrong for the state to choose your partner for you. Thank you. First rebuttal. Our opponents measured alternatives to traditional marriages. The arrangement of traditional marriage is the best known environment for raising children under every metric. Biologically and psychologically speaking, children dont need parenting, they need mothering and fathering. They claim that the alternatives are probably superior, i find that interesting. The logical extension of parentsianism is that shouldnt be obliged to feed the road children let alone raising them. I think the familial structure is irrelevant to libertarians. Its not to us. The libertarian rebuttal . Disavowed her last year. He has horrible ideas. I would like to remind you throughout, think of the children is not an argument. Why is the decline of marriage happening . People are getting married later in life. They think it is an important divorce rates are going down. While divorce rates peaked in the 1980s, we are seeing them lower now. There was no nofault divorce. Which is when you saw the bad side effect will told you about in the Opening Statement. Marriage today is about love. It is fundamentally different, it is probably good for children. At its core, marriage shouldnt be involved at all. You know what is best for you. You know what is best for your partner. You should feed your children together. Thank you. We are now at the q and a section. I will post the first question to the libertarian. Two minutes. You said in the segment on drugs , both that liberalizing drug willwould help in that it lead to fewer people with problems and attics, theres also a moral case made for doing that. Not mocking people in cages. Lets assume that we dont see the response you propose and we see horrors. Where does that put the moral case . I love morals. They are great. It would put us in a difficult situation. There are some cases where drugs can destroy agency. At its core, if we look at the data on what is most effective way to get not addicted. We have seen good success regarding aa and na. There are systems put in place not run by the government that help us determine what is the best solution for combating addiction. An addiction is something really difficult. There is no one disputing that. When we look at what the policy prescription should be, it is important to remember that ethical and effective policy goes handinhand. We are saying what is the best way for the government, and institution with a legitimate use of force, has a monopoly on it. What happens if we put the government in charge of something . What would the government realistically do . Not sure. It would probably involve some penalty. When your choice is taking away, it might be your first cigarette was something that you chose, but your third or fourth probably wasnt. The government said they were going to penalize addiction, thats about policy because you are now penalizing people for something outside of their control. The response will always be the real and engaging communities. As you look about at the data, it helps people to be involved with communities. No matter what way you tried to spin things, the government is not a community. A related question. Given what you said about the effects of drugs, how strong is the case for banning alcohol or cigarettes . Alcohol, given that there is they are addictive, why should we ban marijuana but not alcohol, given that there is some evidence . Libertarians site marijuana as the winner case. I get it. Its a leaf. It does shrink the size of your brain. A call, the fdr administration deemed it essentially the cost of prohibition exceeded the benefits of prohibition because we were fighting a war and as we mentioned earlier, it was a part of American Culture to drink alcohol. That is not the case with heroin or meth. You could argue that alcohol has imposed greater societal harm. If you look at traffic fatalities, hospitalizations. It takes the cakes. This is about aggregate harm. If you add hard drugs to that equation, if you legalize those two, what will the aggregate harm be . We acknowledge alcohol imposes great harm. What else will happen if we legalize meth, heroin, cocaine . This is a question for both. Should social Media Companies be permitted to sell user data . Libertarians first. Yes, they should be, it is a market operation if users consent. Thats the key. Social Media Companies are private companies. The government shouldnt tell them what they can or cannot do. If you read the terms and conditions, you did agree to it. There are Market Forces that prohibit the most egregious uses of data. People push back against them. Conservatives conservatives . I have to agree. These are private companies. They are allowed to do what they will with people contracting away the information. They are allowed to sell it and increase ad revenue. It is the general rule of thumb. What you put online will stay online. Companies right now are not poaching data. That is unreasonable. It is stuff we put on there. We should have the expectation it will stay there. For the conservatives. What would you say is the most serious social problem the state is incapable of successfully addressing . That is a very good question. [laughter] blame the hashtag, not me. [laughter] i would say the decline of marriage, whether we like it or not, no nation is meant to endure forever. This is an existential threat to our civilization and the united dates at large. Marriage rates are really low. I talked to my parents, talk to their parents, it is a situation we havent seen before. We have to ask why is there this culture so pervasive . This culture of convenience and selffulfillment. Should we reassess that looking forward . For the libertarians, what nongovernmental institutions do libertarianism need to exist for this to thrive . Is it a freefloating ideal . There are lots of different types of libertarianism. A virtue libertarian would say the church. That is what those people happen to have. The ideas happen to be in accordance with your average church. If you ask a libertarian that is more of a classical, they might say some sort of education system. It might not look like our Current System but it might be someplace where you go and maybe it is a Charter School or private school. It is not an easy question to answer directly. There is a lot of diversity within the Libertarian Movement about what sorts of institutions are good. A question for both sides. Should the government regulate pornography, conservatives first . The government should most definitely ensure that adult pornography is reserved for audiences 18 plus. The government should clearly be forbidding child pornography from entering the marketplace. It would be corrupting minors and people are unable to give consent. The government does have a role in assuring that type of pornography does not enter the marketplace. We will concede on child porn, its bad, it causes harm to children. When you look at the larger question about pornography, it is really complicated. A good case study is the United Kingdom and see what they are doing. In 2014 there was something called a face sitting protest. The u. K. Used a bad piece of legislation from the 1970s to ban a lot of different sexual acts. You had members of the porn Community Come out and enact face sitting in order to illustrate it was not functionally different from other pornographic act that were allowed. When it comes to whether the government should regulate pornography, i would say in theory you might have reasons why the government should. In terms of Something Like revenge porn where it is a contract violation, when you look at the practice of pornography overall, it becomes really difficult. The government is not super equipped to handle a lot of data. The second reason is when you look at what banning corn does, it is normally not an overall ban. Normally, specific types of pornography that affect minority groups. Certain sexual acts are not allowed on women. That is something that should not happen. The externalities involved are really complicated and any government should think carefully. Probably the first debate in the history of the United States in which we have named Milton Friedman and face sitting within 10 minutes of one another. [laughter] [applause] another question for the libertarians, what is the proper role of americas military in the world . The difference between being isolationist and being interventionist. The key is to provide for the national defense. To do whatever it takes to provide and respond to threats. You were accused earlier of wanting to put people in cages. Is mass incarceration of problem in america . What is the primary solution you propose . The reference about putting children in cages. At the border, the reason why that is happening it was happening during the last administration. That is because of a loophole in our Border Security laws. What that did is essentially mandated children be separated from their parents at the border. As a result, they are separated at the border and put into separate facilities. If we close the loopholes we this incentivize migrant from making that journey through Central America and mexico, buying children along the way because they know it helps their case to claim asylum or get admitted through other claims. Do we have too many people in prison . What should we do about it . Crime deserves incarceration. It depends on what the crime is. I dont believe in mandatory minimum sentences personally. In terms of greater crimes, more severe crimes, what are the alternatives to incarceration . Punishment is due for crimes, that is the legitimate recourse. Should the u. S. Support the organization of nato . The United States should definitely support nato. Weve been able to deter not only the soviet union but russian aggression. I know there are concerns today about certain nato countries not meeting military expenditures, that doesnt mean we should withdraw our support. Nato is a force for good. It is a corner piece of u. S. Foreign policy. We should support it. Libertarian . I agree with our conservative friends. Nato has had an Important Role in the 20th century with the soviet union and continues to do so with russia. Over the subsidization where we are subsidizing much of the defense, we might disagree on what nato should be used for. Libya, that created a failed state. A propagated terrorism. That was a nato operation. We might have points of disagreement there as well. The final question is a tough one but important, especially given our present debate. This is for both sides. Should the United States government via taxpayers pay reparations to the descendents of slaves . There is no easy answer to this. You are not going to get a great one from either of us frankly. This country was built on the back of slaves. There is no way around that. The way we have historically treated people of color is awful. There is probably something we morally need to do about it. When you look at the issue of reparations. It breaks down to how do provide reparations in a way that addresses all facets of the complicated issue. There is not a good way to do that. There have been certain things proposed in regard to giving all descendents of slaves a block grant. If you want to know why this might be a good idea. Robert now zach supports reparations in this way when he talks about stolen property. If you want to read anarchy state and talk about this, the way property gets exchanged rightfully. He might give you an answer to support that. There are other ways we talk about supporting institutions. I have not given a lot of thought about what my personal opinions on this issue is. There is a lot of disagreement and a lot of really good points raised. One thing i can say with certainty is that our country needs to think about the way you treat all members of everyone that lives inside its borders. Regardless of circumstance. We are all here together. We could treat people better. Slavery, obviously condemn it. It is terrible. It let left many people does it vantage. At the same time, unfortunately it is not the role of government to fix every historical injustice. A better way to address the issue is to try to get communities who are affected off the long cycle of government dependence. One of the greatest reason as to why the Africanamerican Community has had difficulties is because they have become reliant upon the government based on old policies from the jim crow south. Reforming the welfare state is a far better decision then redistributing wealth from a generation that did nothing to inflict slavery upon. We are in the final portion of this evenings debate. We will start with a four minute conclusion. We will have a four minute conclusion from the conservatives. Throughout the debate we have said we should all be conservatives. [laughter] we should want to be more like friedrich hayek. The libertarian ideology is focused on the short term. Demands the economy and the present. A conservative thinks in the long run. He looks to the future because he does not subscribe to the position that in the long run we are all that. A narrow view of the present yields disastrous results in the future. The same is true for our politics. Drug addiction will enslave you. It is harmful substances that have laid waste to entire regions of the country. Drug legalization would be a surrender, not a victory because drugs condemn not only you but your children in your community. Our opponents, they told you ilLegal Immigration poses no threat to the united date. We know it undermines sovereignty. It presents a real threat and open borders will burden us with an evergrowing welfare state. If we dont secure the border in interamerican cannot call themselves a sovereign nation anymore. Our opponents told you, the world is safer through american leadership. Deterrence upholds international norms, protects free markets, and ensures the security of the nation. Only through a strong Defense Budget can we maintain a military capable of making the challenges. Our opponents told you that the decline of marriage should be no cause for alarm but we know it is a Building Block of society getting ripped out from under us. The dismantling of marriage inhibits the prosperity of children and denies them a stable upbringing. Single parenthood encouraged by the welfare state levied a tax and handicap on our children. We should promote the family unit. Future generations will be helpless against unraveling social fabric and deteriorating civilization. The libertarians lead to a future where the torch of liberty will be snuffed out. Conservatives understand that absolute autonomy does not yield absolute good. It could harm the ultimate preservation of liberty. Conservatives believe government exists to serve society. It is guided by fundamental liberties. We are not born from individuals. We are born into something greater than ourselves. Family, community, country. Conservatives want to fight for the Civil Society so our children exercise liberty and pursue happiness. If we blindly follow absolute autonomy than we do so at the expense of our Civil Society tomorrow. I encourage my libertarian colleagues to think about how we need a Civil Society. Western civilization depends on its traditional and moral practice. In order to preserve our fundamental liberties, we must uphold Civil Society. Family, community, country. Only conservativism can guarantee the torch of liberty will burn brightly for generations to come. Thank you. [applause] this is a debate about political philosophy. Above all else, the best political philosophies are consistent in the application of moral principles. Family values and preserving institutions, what does it look like to apply those . As we have seen throughout this debate, not all families are considered it for conservatives. There is obviously not going to be a bright line for we need to do away with it. You have heard how conservatives cried wolf on the destruction of marriage. You have heard how conservatives criticized certain intoxicants while giving alcohol an exception because it makes more economic sense. You have heard conservatives say the department of defense is above reproach when it comes to government waste. The real world needs Real Solutions. Sometimes these Real Solutions require compromise. That is a fair point. As we have shown you, the conservative inconsistencies breed harm. We use data and we dont continually strongarm our conservative friends. The liberal world and conservative world, the main difference is the libertarian world gives you a choice to be conservative. The conservative world would deny libertarians. In the libertarian worldview could preserve family values in religious titian. Institutions. The conservative world imposes conservative belief on citizens and uses force. Heres why. At its core, libertarianism breaks down into features. A strong belief in the importance of equal freedom and skepticism surrounding government institutions. Equal freedom is the idea that i am free to do whatever i wish as long as i do not violate the freedom of other individuals. Skepticism surrounding government is just that. There are cases where the government can ethically engage in policies to preserve freedom. However, our modern government is so much more than that. In doing so, it often infringes on equal freedom. Conservatives have missed the point. They have declared us isolationist who want to see communities fall and advocate for policies that have an existential threat to america. That is not libertarianism. Libertarianism empowers individuals and communities to decide what choices that fits you. Our legal system is founded on the idea that people can be held accountable. That people can choose to do the right thing. It makes sense in establishing a political philosophy. Freedom is more than the pragmatic value. Whether it be supporting a church, or even something as ridiculous as making it your goal in life to walk and alligator across i95, it is important that people pursue it freely. We do not want people to do the right thing because someone told them to. We would find it incredibly concerning if the only reason people didnt torture people was because it is against the law. Torture is wrong. People should do the right thing because they want to be a good person. When you place all of your trust in institution you diminish personal responsibility. Out of all the political philosophies, this is the only one that prioritizes communities. That is why you should believe in libertarianism as a political philosophy. [applause] as a new floridian i just want a day where i dont have to take an alligator across i95. Its actually against the law. Right to the end. [laughter] if we could have a round of applause for both sides. [applause] we have heard some sharps agreements this evening. I think that in true conservatory in fashion, they will come together to deal as one with the existential threat posed by my threeyearold son who is currently auditioning to be head tyrant at the irs. Whenever he takes away the his toys, i say dont still, he says, i am helping him not have them anymore. There is nothing that raises the hackles conservatives and libertarians alike than talk like that. If you head outside, you will be supplied with alcohol. [laughter] [applause] please give it up one more time for our debaters. [applause] and another huge round of applause for charles. [applause] there are libations outside the auditorium on the first and second floor. I hope to see you all there. Thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [inaudible] former fbi director james comey violated Agency Policies when he retained and later leaked memos he wrote documenting meetings with President Donald Trump early in 2017. He pointed out, james comey writes, he goes on, james comey reacting to the inspector generals report. The white house reacting to the news releasing a statement that reads in part, you can read the full doj report , all 83 pages, on cspan. Org. The u. S. Senate comes back into session on monday, september 9 with two important issues on their agenda. Passing federal spending bills and antigun violence legislation. Before senators return to washington, get a behindthescenes look at the senate with cspans History Program the senate conflict in compromise. Heres a preview. Liveis government under we was created in the spirit of compromise and mutual concession. Thomas jefferson questioned the need for a senate. Lets follow the constitution. The framers established the senate to protect people from their rulers. And as a check on the house. The fate of this country lies in the hands of congress in the United States senate. Senate conflict in compromise, using original interviews. Cspan Video Archives and unique access to the senate chamber
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.