same policies that blake masters is now promoting. these were quality generals and they had reasons to walk away from the exact same policies. host: ok. we are running short on time, but we have got to talk about water. i wish we had more time to talk about this, but senator kelly, starting with you. 45 seconds, let's start there and see how far we can go. we are facing short-term and long-term cuts to the colorado river water. how do we address this issue and it is a major issue? mr. kelly: this is the worst drought that is part of the planet has seen in 1000 years. it's been going on 22 years. lake powell and mead are at crisis levels. and we have got to take some immediate steps. i got money from washington to help farmers keep water up in lake mead. that is just a stopgap measure. we cannot do this all on our own. we are one of three lower basin states with nevada and california. i was on the phone recently with the california governor because they are not stepping up to help. my opponent's solution to this, he wants to privatize our water. he wants to send our water rights to wall street. he was to send your social security savings to wall street, but our water too. that is not a serious approach. host: we are short on time for it i need a response from you and a water plan. can you do it in a minute? mr. masters: i think i can. senator kelly, recently given his interview where he said do not worry, or water crisis in arizona is not existential. well, i disagree. i'm here to tell you that it is. i was shocked and dismayed. a few weeks ago when the federal government cut arizona's water allocation, 592,000 acres up there, for all you water nerds that's a lot of water. that's our water. guess how much california had to cut? zero. guess what senator kelly did about it? nothing. i am tired of senator kelly acting like this senator from california. we need someone who is going to fight for our water the way john mccain called for the renegotiation of the 1922 how river compact. let's renegotiate that. i will, but we also need technology. host: 10 seconds. >> why is california putting a straw into the colorado river? that water should be arizonans'. look at a map, california is on the pacific ocean. the future is desalination plants powered by nuclear reactors and pipelines. host: ok. mr. masters: we can solve this problem with technology and sharp elbows. i will do it. because i want my boys to be able to choose arizona decades from now. host: very quickly. mr. victor: not that quick. i've had very little time during this debate and i would like to give an answer. host: you will not be heard if you go too long. mr. victor: let me say some things that blake said. blake made some good points on this issue and i want to give him credit. we got short-term and long-term solutions. i am here to tell you about hard questions. almost 80% of our water in this state, in the middle of the desert, goes to agriculture. sorry, that doesn't make sense. we can import our agriculture, we can get it from places where they can more efficiently produce these goods. the market price of water should determine -- host: that is it, sir, i'm sorry but we just ran out of time. we've got to get the closing statements. going in reverse order of our opening remarks, we start with mark kelly. mr. kelly: let me just say something. but my opponent said about existential. it is not existential. we can solve this problem on water. i think what folks heard tonight here were starting with different views of our state and country. abortion, my opponent once a national abortion ban, taking away your rights. i'm going to protect abortion. i'm going to protect your constitutional rights. on social security, he wants to privatize it, sending your savings to wall street. in the military i serve in the united states navy for 25 years, i love our military. he has said some pretty insulting things about our military. we have 500,000 veterans that live in the state of arizona. serving in the united states senate has been one of the highlights of my professional life, which has been all about service. i would appreciate your vote. host: thank you. now the closing statement from marc victor. mr. victor: ted, i'm running for senate to leave the world better than i found it. we've been on the wrong course for a long time. we have very serious problems coming. we are at a critically important time in our history. both the republicans and the democrats have given us a stalemate of ineptitude. they are recycling yesterday's ideas. how long are we going to accept their failed approaches? you can't solve these problems with the same old thinking. there is a way out of this mess. let's focus on fundamental timeless principles. nobody gets to force their way of life on anyone else. let's lead and inspire people to be good humans. host: time, sir. mr. victor: it says i've got 15 seconds. i'd like to finish my closing. host: they told us it was over. finally we hear from blake masters. mr. masters: for the past two years, under joe biden and mark kelly, we have been going in the wrong direction. everybody knows it. you are less safe today. your bills have gone way up since mark kelly took over. he's got a bunch of excuses, i think you heard a lot of them here tonight. it is up to you to decide whether excuses are enough. but ask yourself do you deserve , a secure border? do you deserve to feel safe when you walk outside at night? do you deserve to be able to afford your own home if you work hard enough? i think the answer is yes, you deserve so much better than will be have. mark kelly disagrees, otherwise he would not have spent two years packing biden every time. send me to the u.s. senate, if you think you and your family deserve better. we can go in the right direction. host:lter rates the race as sold republican. >> hello and welcome to the idaho debates in the idaho public television studios in boise. this is one of the debates before the general election. the winner of this election will represent idaho in the united states senate for six years as one of two u.s. senators for the state. i want to welcome the candidates, incumbent senator mike crapo, and challengers david roth and scott cleveland. scott cleveland owns an investment and brokerage firm in eagle. prior to that, he was the managing partner of the boise office of new york rise. mike crapo is seeking his fifth term in the u.s. senate. he previously served as representative for idaho's can congressional district for three terms and in the idaho state senate for four terms. david roth was the executive director of the bonneville youth executive council and is on the board for habitat for humanity in idaho falls and idaho falls soup kitchen. i want to introduce our panel of reporters who will ask the candidates questions today. betsy russell of the idaho press, margaret carmel -- i am melissa devlin. i am moderating today's debate, helping us keep time is bridget gibson, volunteer time keeper from the league of women voters education fund. each candidate will be given 90 seconds for opening comments and 60 seconds for close. candidates have 90 seconds to answer questions and 60 seconds for rebuttal. i will allow back-and-forth if i think the conversation is productive and educational for voters, while trying to make sure each candidate gets equal time. we drew numbers to see who would go first. mr. cleveland, you have that honor. mr. cleveland: thank you. i would like to thank idaho public television for hosting the debate. i would like to thank senator crapo and candidate roth for being here today. why am i running for this important office? in my opinion, america is still great but clearly headed in the wrong direction. the reason is this. our leaders, including career politicians like mike crapo, are failing miserably at serving the best interest in everyday average americans and i am resolved to do something about that. i'm here tonight to speak the truth about why i'm the best candidate to serve the citizens of idaho. the fact is mike crapo has betrayed and filled the voters of idaho and should not be elected to congress this november. albert einstein said it best. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. that is exactly what the voters have been doing lately and i'm hoping to change that with your support. once again, i am scott cleveland , your independent conservative candidate for the u.s. senate. thank you. >> thank you so much senator crapo. . sen. crapo: thank you. thank you to you, the voters of idaho taking the time to evaluate this debate. our country is facing unprecedented threats domestically and globally. inflation, economic decline, security at the border, personal safety, even the foundational principles of our constitution are under attack. america is at a crossroads. i'm in the middle of this fight. my record is solid and proven. infighting aggressively and effectively for idaho's principles and values. i want idaho and idaho's principles to be advocated affectively in washington. we must end runaway spending and inflation. unleash american energy, secure our southern border, and stop the invasion of fentanyl and crime. protect our constitution and the principles and freedoms it assures. life, liberty, speech, religious freedom, and the right to bear arms among others. protect parents' rights in schools over curriculum decision and social politics, and yes, safety. restore our national defense strength globally. support our police and stop the defund the police effort and the crime wave it is bringing with it, and protect states rights to assure that their election policies. thank you for listening and i ask for your vote. >> thank you. mr. rock. mr. roth: thank you to the members of the idaho public and idaho public television. i think we can agree in the last six months, we've seen a shift in the view of the midterm elections when it comes to what country expects as an outcome. we've seen individual rights and freedoms ripped away from large portions of the populations and a laundry list of the freedoms to get be taken away. i've been traveling around the state in every community i reached, i speak to women who were concerned about their future. as a member of the lgbtq community, i also share fears of what may be next. as a community leader and in drug prevention, i see first-hand the challenges that idaho faces when trying to tackle the drug problems. i'm concerned about the lack of support from the federal government. we need to do more. as a member of the board of directors for habitat for humanity, i've seen the effects of the housing crisis firsthand. as a single father of two boys, i faced many of the same challenges nearly 50% of idahoans face every day. i work full-time and i still sometimes struggle to make enough to make ends meet. we require leadership with real-world experience. we must have a senator who understands that here in idaho we have real people with real problems, and we require real solutions. now it's time to stand up and ask for those solutions and i ask for your vote this november. >> thank you so much. the first question is from betsy russell for mr. cleveland. >> you are a business owner and investor that have never held public office. you list your top issues as national security, inflation and energy independence and "reckless spending," but how would you fix these problems as one independent senator? mr. roth: -- mr. cleveland: the framers of the country had that in mind and they gave the power of the purse to the legislative branch of government. we are faced with many large problems. you listed most of the major ones. i believe as a united states senator, you have to dig your heels and. you have the power of the purse and that should be wielded. our southern border is being invaded on a daily basis. it is a violation of the oath of office by members of congress and the president and that invasion can only be stopped with the people that have the backbone to do it. you notice every six months, they want to raise the debt ceiling. if i were a sitting united states senator, i would say i'm not talking to you about more -- money until that border closed to my satisfaction. those are the examples you have as powers. one senator from idaho has the same amount of power as any other senator in the country whether large or small. that's what i would do. i would use the power of the person to push back on the out-of-control spending. it's ridiculous. we are at $31 trillion and counting. that is not sustainable. i would use my power of the purse to say no to these things they are doing. >> and if i may follow up, as one independent senator, one of hundreds, how could digging your heels in stop anything, and if elected, would you caucus with democrats or republicans or neither? mr. cleveland: that's a great question. i would most likely caucus with the republican party. i was a lifelong republican until two years ago. that is most likely what would happen. however, the exception to that was when the republicans are doing something wrong and stupid, which they do on a regular basis, i would say no, there are independent people in the united states in it. it's a short list but you need more like-minded people. we can't keep doing this same things, the status quo, go along to get along politics. that has gotten us into the mess we are in so far. >> senator crapo, you have held public office in some capacity since 1984, yet you are not satisfied with the way things are going at the national level. you have made that clear. how can you change things more than you already have already in your political career and why should idahoans continue to trust you to do so? sen. crapo: a very good question and i think the way to answer that is looked back out what we've done before this administration took complete control over the political processes in washington. think to just before president biden took possession and the senate and house went totally democrat. we had the strongest economy we had seen in our lifetimes probably. unemployment at record lows. wage growth consistently growing month after month. 6.9 million new jobs had been added. the middle class was growing to record highs for the median income and we were protecting the strength of america to defend. itself across the globe we also had the border. not under total control but on the way to significant control to stopping its exclusion of invasion right now from fentanyl and crime. one term later under the administration we now see, all of that has been unwound. on his first day, president biden unwound the protections at the border that were protecting us and helping us to control it. we have seen a pressure for literally $9 trillion of new spending. we were able to stop $6 trillion of that, but we need control of the agenda. the solution here is to give the republican party and a republican senate the control over the agenda so we don't continue to see biden, schumer, and pelosi driving this runaway spending, driving open borders and causing the difficulties we are talking about today. >> senator crapo, do you really believe president biden is responsible for absolutely everything that is going wrong in the country right now? >> i can tell you that he is responsible for the inflation, the destruction of our energy independence, for the open borders we are facing, and frankly his party is one that has pushed the processes that have opened our country to crime and the defund the police effort, which they are now backing away from as fast as they can, has caused us to lose a respect for law enforcement in this country. that has come under this administration. >> may i interject for a moment? >> briefly. mr. cleveland: senator crapo, you are responsible for much of that inflation. you voted on the infrastructure bill, one of only 13 people to do so, of a $1.25 trillion bill, and only .18% went to idaho. i find it disingenuous for you to lament the inflation you are causing or helping to cause. >> mr. cleveland, that was a bipartisan bill. mr. cleveland: i understand that but he voted to spend $1.25 trillion and now he likes to lament how bad it is for the country. >> answer briefly and we need to move on. sen. crapo: let's set the record straight. first of all, that was totally offset your the new spending on infrastructure was totally offset, it was not new spending. the bottom line here is that the infrastructure spending is not contributing to inflation. it has not played out yet. that infrastructure and -- infrastructure spending played out with president trump because he knew it was supply-side spending, is counter inflationary spending. republicans have consistently reported counter inflationary supply-side infrastructure spending and we did that spending without adding any new spending to our federal processes. >> mr. roth, while you have been a precinct committee chairman, you have never held public office. you previously ran for a seat in the state legislature. why leap from a state-level race to a federal race? why should voters trust you to be successful? mr. roth: thank you. so it is kind of a jump to go from a state legislature race that i did not win up to the united states senate, but i have to tell you, in the democratic party in idaho, we don't have a deep bench. often we have to look out and see who has the best expanse, who has the ability to launch the best campaign possible to achieve that goal? after speaking with several former congressman, we made the decision that i was in the right place to do that. i have real world on the ground experience working with the problems that every day idahoans face. we talk about the drug problems, housing, these are all areas i have direct experience in and solutions that are working. i think it is important that for idahoans, we have been looking at essentially the same leadership for over 30 years in the state, and what we are doing simply is not working. we have had a republican supermajority for 30 years, yet nearly half of the population is at or below. we need to look at different policies and make sure we are implementing those on the federal level as well as the state level. we are all pushing forward. >> could you explain what you mean by at alice or below? mr. roth: that stands for out -- asset limited income constraints or employed. that is set by the united way, and they do this all over the country where they look at individuals in the state, they look at their expenses, and measures how close they are to being able to meet unexpected expenses. really in idaho, it, varies from county to county but on average statewide, just over 40% are one car repair, one blown water heater or one medical bill away from financial ruin that can affect them for years. this is not a new problem that just popped up. it is a problem that has been continuing in idaho for decades and getting worse. >> can i respond to that? >> briefly. sen. crapo: i would point out, it is my understanding mr. roth supports entirely pretty much of the biden, schumer, pelosi agenda i just discussed. one of the main reasons i think we have a serious difference between each other is that. i believe we have to return to more fiscally appropriate policies, protect our energy independence, and stop the crime at the borders. that is a critical issue we need to address here today. >> mr. roth, do you want to respond? mr. roth: absolutely. i believe it is important to look at what causes, are causing inflation, national debt and a raise in the deficit. i know the other day in an interview, you spoke highly of the trump tax cuts and the advantages of that. we need to be investing in the community. we need to be investing which is another reason i'm curious how come you did not advocate for any additional spending in the first appropriations bill, the omnibus spending bill earlier this year, when simpson was able to secure large amounts of money for his congressional district, but north idaho and congressional district one receives nothing. we need to be making those investments in our state so that we have -- we are competitive with surrounding states. >> we need to move on. we will have plenty more time to get into all of that. next question is from margaret carmel. >> mr. cleveland, the country is facing record-breaking inflation. what would you do to address the issue? mr. cleveland: inflation is at its 40 year high as mentioned. why is that? the federal government keeps printing money out of thin air. something like $7 trillion. as a sitting united states senator, while the spending begins in the house of representatives, it still has to go through the senate. we have to stop reckless spending and it will take 10 or 15 years before we get our financial house back in order. anything that will add to the federal deficit needs to be said no to. right now, this current congress and administration are sending billions of our taxpayer dollars, those are sacred dollars, being sent to faraway places like ukraine. we have no business spending money in ukraine. our country is rich. it is the most powerful economic engine on earth and there is plenty of money to go around in the country, but we are aiming it at the wrong things. we are aiming it at green energy nonsense like senator crapo those four, and not spending it on people like veterans and homeless people and people that are hundred. people who deserve -- people. that are hungry people who deserve that money are people like united states veterans for example. there's plenty of money, we just don't have the will to a maid at the people. sen. crapo: may i respond to that? first of all, the inflation issue, the when you ask about, is one that is caused by runaway spending. for this administration took office, the inflation rate was at 1.7%, below the 2% target of our country. it is now at 8.5%, may be 500% of what it was when the administration took office. they have done that by runaway spending that causes about, well, it has caused this dynamic, somewhere between $3 trillion and $5 trillion of spending they were able to get through because they could get around the filibuster. i have voted for every -- against every single spending bill in this congress, notwithstanding the attacks of my opponents. in fact, i'm being attacked by my opponents for voting against some of these spending they seem to think was supported. the bottom line here is that we have got to stop the runaway spending. we must not spend beyond our means. >> senator crapo, you are a ranking member of the senate finance committee. you said the inflation reduction act and only make the problem worse. what have you voted for to address the impacts of inflation effectively -- that actively helps constituents? >> there have not been any bills on the senate floor that tried to do that because chuck schumer and president biden and nancy pelosi have controlled the agenda. but the bottom line is that the inflation reduction act did nothing to reduce inflation. in fact, penn wharton, which studied this, and many other analyses, have indicated the inflation reduction act literally did nothing to reduce inflation. what did it do? it put over 350 billion dollars of new taxes on america. it supersized the irs to get the irs $80 billion of new spending. that is five times the annual budget of the irs, with instructions in the bill to go out and get another 200 billion dollars from american taxpayers, so that it could be spent. these kinds of policies are the ones that have caused the trouble. what we need to do is to stop this kind of excessive spending, and to stop the increased taxation of americans, and go back to the kind of economy that we had put into place. we just talked a bit about the t cja, or the tax reforms we did before this administration tried to unwind them. under those tax reforms, we had reduced taxes on all americans, increased capital formation in the united states, and developed those things i talked about earlier. the strongest economy we have seen in our lifetimes was reduced unemployment, and many other things -- i see my time is out. many other things we've done to strengthen. i would look back at that. >> mr. roth, same question i asked mr. cleveland. the country is facing record-breaking inflation. what would you do to address it? mr. roth: we do need to look at how to make investments in supply-side, that is something i do agree with senator crapo with. we need to invest in local businesses and communities. we need to follow through on provisions that have been put forward. these green energy proposals that are included in the inflation reduction act are targeted to build american industry and give advantage to american industry, which is what we should be doing as we try to reduce inflation. we are already seeing in the latest results that inflation in august has slowed considerably. so as we start to see that inflation on a hopefully soon downward trend, we are seeing gas prices on a downward trend across the country, i think it is time to say that these things are a cycle. we are coming out of one of the worst pandemics in 100 years. our country saw things we have not seen since my grandmother was a little girl. we have to expect there is going to be some pains coming out of that. what we need to do is instead of being obstructionist to every single policy that comes through, and then sit back and complain, and say what we are not allowing you to do isn't working, we need to work together and look forward to solutions that will reduce the problem. like i said, you can see the agenda that is being put forward is already lifting us out of the pandemic that we've been in, and is now moving us towards those lower inflation numbers. >> talking about lower inflation numbers, what he is referring to is the inflation went from 8.5% to 8.3%, which was considered by the markets to be a disaster. the inflation rate is supposed to be at 2% or lower. it is now consistently holding at 8.5% or higher. the president and mr. roth are saying we are making progress because we have it down to tenths of a percentage point. the bottom line is inflation is still raging. as we are speaking, the markets are collapsing in america, because they don't see solutions to this. we are seeing gas prices surged today because opec refused president biden's begging to increase production of oil because of the destruction he's done to our production of oil. we continue to see this kind of crisis in our economy, because we aren't stopping these provisions, these policies, and we aren't going back to the sensible kinds of management of the economy that we desperately need in america. >> did you want to respond mr. roth? mr. roth: i will agree it was a small reduction in inflation, but it still was a reduction. we have indicators leading us in the direction we are going to go. once again, i remind you, we are coming out of a tremendous mess left by the last administration, and the mishandling of the pandemic. we also have the disastrous effects of the tax-cuts that added over 1.5 trillion dollars to the deficit over 10 years, and also gave what i like to call for the republicans the cut and run star energy. -- strategy. cut taxes and run out of the local economies and into foreign countries. you have seen companies that support my opponent up here who are shielding 99% pharmaceutical companies, shielding 99% of their profits from u.s. taxes, even though 75% of their revenue is generated in the u.s. those policies move money out of our economy, not into the economy. they don't build what we need to see here to help us lift out of that inflation area. >> we do need to move on. the next question from clark corbyn. >> this is for mr. cleveland and it is about abortion. . when the united states supreme court overturned roe v. wade, the court left the decision on whether to legalize or restrict abortion to the states. idaho had trigger laws that severely restrict abortion which led to a request for an injunction from the u.s. department of justice. my question is for you, what is your position on abortion? mr. cleveland: my position is clearly i'm against -- i'm pro-life. that is except in the case of rape, incest and harm to the mother. sadly our supreme court is not always as consistent as they could be on referring things back to the state rights issue, but they did get it right here in idaho. i think life begins at conception. i think we need to protect the unborn. i know a lot of people don't agree with that, but that is my position. i do think every state in the country should be allowed to make that decision on their own. >> thank you. i want to ask mr. roth. same question about abortion. you have expressed support for women to choose to have an abortion. i want to ask about your position and if elected, how you would work with other u.s. senators who may have a different opinion. mr. roth: absolutely. i believe those fundamental rights, the rights that make up who we are as americans, that define us, are not left up to the states. they need to be the same regardless of where we are. it is completely ridiculous that two people sitting at the moderators table have fewer rights here than they would if they drove in our west. -- one hour west. that is ridiculous. we are one country. who you are as a person should not vary from place to place. i absolutely support an individual's right to choose. what they do with her own body as far as reproductive health and abortion. as far as working with other senators and congress, i believe we would have the support among the democratic caucus, if we can just flip some more of these seats, to secure that right, that individual, fundamental right back to the people of this country. that's what i would work towards doing. we already had the bill introduced once, we just did not have enough support to push it through. you can see that even though my appliance would like to say it is a states rights issue, in 2021, and january, senator crapo cosponsored a version of lindsey graham's current bill to actually impose the nationwide nationwide. at that time at least, it was not a state issue, it was a federal issue. now that the shoe is on the other foot, he would like us to think it is a state issue. >> senator crapo commit same topic but different. does the roe v. wade decision, do you think congress needs to pass national legislation on the issue of abortion or leave it to the states? >> the short answer is no. i do not think congress should act. the reason i supported that legislation then was that it was before the dobb decision that made it clear this is a states rights issue. at this point, the federal government should stay out of what is a states rights issue and allow each individual state to make their own decisions. states rights issues are going to come up a lot today. the bottom line is, here is the first example. i personally agree with mr. cleveland's point. abortion should only be allowed in the case of the life of the mother, rape or incest. i particularly agree that states should each have the right to make this decision on their own. >> thank you. >> next question is from betsy russell. >> senator crapo, you opposed the inflation production act that included drug price reforms including the significant annual limit on out-of-pocket drug costs for people on medicare, the $35 cap on monthly insulin costs, and more. why have you always opposed allowing medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices? what do you believe should be done with regard to prescription drug price reform? >> why opposed the inflation reduction act because it was not an inflation reduction act. it was a tax break, blow up the irs, and spending act. with regard to drug pricing, as you indicated i have consistently opposed another federal takeover of our health care economy. i.e., price controls, price-fixing by the federal government. i have my own legislation that is bipartisan and broadly supported called the lower cost, more cures act, which addresses the issue of the serious and real issue of drug pricing reductions that can be accomplished without having the federal government aid agent price-fixing. price-fixing has never worked in our economy and it won't work here. it is going to drive up the starting cost of drugs and reduce the research and development of important cures in our pharmaceutical world. what does my bill do? it enhances the ability of medicare to facilitate and help the ability to deal with drug pricing in the distribution of medicare. it enhances the opportunities for alternatives and bio similars that will increase competition in the markets. for insulin, it has a prevention -- a provision that extends a trump era rule that reduced the cost of insulin in medicare to under $35. these are the kinds of solutions we need, not federal government market controls. >> mr. cleveland first. >> i would like to point out that the inflation reduction act was passed, decide -- despite senator crapo's boat. that is called political cover. he votes for spending bills when they need his vote, but when it is an election year and a few months before the election, he doesn't want to be seen in a bad light and votes no a bill that passes anyway. >> i would like to talk about, we constantly hear about these price-fixing schemes. what we had before was a price-fixing scheme. we had the largest purchaser of prescription drugs in the world, which was required to pay the price by the manufacturer because they were not allowed to negotiate. that led to us in the united states paying 34% higher per capita than any other country in the world for prescription drugs. it seems to be that at best we were subsidizing direct development for the rest of the world and at worst, we were getting the short end of the stick because we had other countries willing to stand up for their constituents when our senators were not willing to. >> what do you support doing differently? >> i support the fact that medicare should be able to negotiate prescription drug pricing. when you are the largest purchaser of prescription drugs in the world, you should wield some power. isn't that the free market? i also believe that we should have that cap on insulin. i am a type two diabetic, i am not insulin-dependent, but my own medications up until august 1, my co-pay was $74. i went in at the first of august and my co-pay had jumped for over $330, simply because the medication had now been approved to treat a different type of disease. and therefore, demand had searched and the price went up 300%. i couldn't afford to make that. this is happening to people across the country and it is wrong. health care needs to be affordable. we need the support of the affordable care act. we need the support of insurance options and options to reduce those costs for americans across the country. >> senator crapo, 30 seconds. >> the attack i have been voting for spending than hiding it is wrong -- false. i voted against every spending bill in this congress. my record on that is solid. with regard to drug price-fixing, the fact is that drugs are negotiated now in the current system but that negotiation process is not working. my bill fixes that and addresses the problems we have in transparency in the negotiations so that we can get to these results without having the federal government once again take over another sector of our economy. >> mr. cleveland, what would you support? what do you believe is the role of the federal government? >> when you introduce competition into a marketplace you get two outcomes. this is true not only of prescriptions but our school systems. anytime you introduce competition, you get higher quality at lower price. that is what we should do with the pharmaceutical industry and school choice. >> don't we already have competition among pharmaceutical companies? >> it is limited. it is not true competition. much like insurance. >> the next question is from margaret. >> mr. cleveland, the pact act was the largest health care and benefit expansion in v.a. history which expanded -- toxic burn pits. would you have voted for it? >> yes i would have voted for the pact act. our veterans, b.o.e. great debt to them. i understand the dynamics of what was good with the bill and what was bad. i hate to sound like i am attacking the record, but our own senator crapo voted against the bill. i heard his explanation that the bill was loaded up with pork. well, he didn't mind spending 1.2 $5 trillion of pork on green energy stuff last summer, yet this summer when it comes to doing the same thing, he differs and votes against the veteran spending pork. i would prefer no one spend any money on pork, but that is not the world we live in. if i had to choose between green energy or our veterans, that would be an easy choice. >> when you say pork, what do you mean? >> access spending. for irs agents. tax increases. that is pork. at the same time, there were benefits for veterans in that bill. we need to support those people. these people are actually suffering and they deserve to be taken care of. >> senator crapo, on the same topic, why did you about against the pact act? the majority of your colleagues in the senate supported the bill. there were only 14 no votes. why were they wrong and you were right? i national and >> i have been attacked. it puts 380 billion dollars of new spending potential, a slush fund hole in the budget to allow democrats to spend another $380 billion. chuck schumer has been consistent on this, whether it is the pact act or other acts that has been pushed through. when he sees one that has republican support, he adds a boatload of new spending and puts republicans in the position of voting no to things they support or authorizing hundreds of billions of dollars of new spending. i didn't do it because that was the strategy chuck schumer was pushing. as far as veterans come in the pact act, one of the lead pieces was my bill. three or four of the other pieces were legislation that i cosponsored. the veterans in idaho an that consistently on this issue and many others, i have been one of the strongest advocates for veterans in the senate. i have gone all over idaho and met with veterans across the state. they get it. they don't want to be used as a foil to drive up access spending. my opponent mr. cleveland has attacked me for voting for extra spending and he just said he would vote for $380 billion of more spending. that has to stop in washington. i have voted against excess spending in washington. >> mr. rhodes, same question. >> i absolutely would have voted for the pact act. it is important we are looking out for the veterans. and yet we know that in the senate and congress, bills are often compromised. not everybody gets everything they want and sometimes things go through that they don't want. we cannot allow veterans to continue to wait for much-needed critical care simply because there something in that bill the senator doesn't agree with. as far as spending, i understand we need to control spending and make sure we are directing it these types of cut and run strategies, or this idea that i can vote for anything because there is excess spending, that is the reason he gave for not voting for the inflation reduction act. because he didn't like the overall act, so he voted against that amendment. had he voted for that amendment, people on private insurance today would have a $35 insulin cap. because he voted against the standalone amendment, which he would have done -- could have done, we saw that cap go out the window. we need a senator who is able to strategically look at the bills, waving the good and the bad and realize that not every bill is an ideal bill. just because it was ok to have 1.5 trillion dollars to the deficit to cut taxes for the wealthy, it's ok if we have to spend three to 50 billions to give veterans health care. >> the next question is from -- >> mr. cleveland, i wanted to ask about extremism. the rise in extremism and divisive political rhetoric we have seen in idaho across the country and the world. recent public opinion surveys including a 2021 survey from the frank church institute at boise state university showed that 20% of survey respondents believe violence is justified if people don't think the government is acting in their best interests. i want to ask if you agree with that or if you think as a candidate for office it is your responsibility to push back against extremism? >> i think we live in a very polarized society. i see that continuing for the for seeable future. however, i do not ever condone violence. the 20% figure you mentioned, i do not condone any sort of political violence. there is no place for that in modern society. i think people that do break the law, for whatever their pretext is or they think is a just cause, should absolutely be dealt with fairly young under the terms of the law. new process needs to be brought forth and i think that -- we don't need that in our society. we are advanced enough that we can settle our differences without resorting to any form of physical violence. >> thank you. what is your reaction to the rise in extremism and violence in political discourse? how do you push back against it? >> i think we are all concerned. anytime we see groups of people attacked. many people across this country watched in horror as what we saw -- and we have seen sitting legislators calling for the execution of particular groups of people in this state. that is extremism. we should never ever be asking for that. we should never be singling out a group. it starts at the top. we have religious leaders, state legislators, our own former president saying a member of his own party has a death wish. we have all of these examples of that filtering down. when you like at someone who was the president of the united states who is saying that is ok, it sets the tone for everyone else. i think it is very important that as a statesman we push back at every opportunity and we look at ways to protect our citizens. beyond that, we need to look at how extremism grows in the first place. one of the main ways it grows is that people are very unhappy. in idaho, they have been living under a republican super majority. nearly half of them cannot afford to make ends meet. they are very unhappy and we need to make investments to try to improve those situations and starve out extremism so that they do not have that fertile bed to lie in. >> senator crapo, same question. how do you tone down the temperature? how do you push back and fight extremism and calls for violence? >> the violent extremism you have discussed has no place in american society. it needs to be investigated and prosecuted where it crosses the line. i do not disagree with my opponents on that principal. the point is well taken that one of the best ways we can deal with it is to strengthen people's lives. people today are frustrated at what is happening to them with inflation. when they go to the gas pump and they are paying double or triple what they used to pay. they are frustrated at what is happening at the border with the fentanyl and all of the problems we see you an open border. we need to address that. i want to take the rest of my time to respond in this context that an attack mr. dash has made on me three times, saying the tax reform that we passed in 2019 has resulted in 100 -- i can't remember, whatever the number was of deficit spending. -- tax act generated more income in the treasury and grew our economy phenomenally, built the strongest economy we have seen in our lifetimes and reduced inflation and reduced the deficit and put us into a posture of building incomes of individuals across the country in all income categories beyond what it was before. i will make this last point. the growth in personal income, medium income for people across the lower and middle income categories went up. that was the one time in the recent past we have actually seen the difference between the wealthy end of those lower income categories diminish because we were growing opportunities for people across the country. >> mr. ross, 30 seconds. >> the congressional budget office came up with $1.5 trillion estimate for what it is going to add to the deficit. that is not something i just pulled out of thin air. that is the stated estimate from the congressional budget office. when you look at what the tax cuts did, it did affect income tax at all levels. however, it affected the wealthiest the most. we are just looking to see that income gap increase over time. that is something we need to look at addressing. how do we bring that back down and close that gap? >> the congressional is wrong. >> back on track. >> real quick follow-up, because he has a unique perspective. you were serving in the u.s. senate, you were in washington on january 6 during the riot, how would you characterize what happened that day? given your unique perspective. >> i was there. i have stated publicly, i rejected the violence that occurred and said that violence should be investigated and prosecuted. the department of justice, the fbi has been doing just that. over 900 people have been identified and i don't know whether they have all been prosecuted but they are being identified by the department of justice. that needed to happen. we should never see that happen in the united states. >> betsy russell, mr. cleveland. >> mr. cleveland, you have said publicly that you do not support the last election process. what changes would you propose to secure elections if you were elect it, and would you support the bipartisan electoral count act? >> i would not support the electoral count act. we clearly need reform. the subject of the integrity of the 2020 election goes across this country and the latest poll believes 52% of americans believe they are somewhat likely that the vote count was not counted correctly and it would likely have affected the outcome. we are not talking about a small group of tinfoil hat people who see the election results with a fair amount of question. election integrity is not an easy issue to solve. it starts with cleaning up the voter rolls. the voter rolls in iowa are not clean. i worked with a group called election integrity idaho has 500 members and we have been doing a deep dive into the election process in idaho. it starts with cleaning up the voter rolls. i don't like the way some of the machines work. i spent three hours with a county clerk. after learning about how the machines work, the tabulator's and the software, i asked him to his face, do you control that software and hardware as the county clerk here? or does someone else control it? his answer was, i don't control that software. the people that sell the software control that. until some of these things are cleared up, voters are not going to have trust in these soups -- systems. >> why would you not support the bipartisan act? >> it is going to change how the electoral college is working. >> what do you think is wrong with our voter rolls and i'll -- idaho? >> people voted in the state that don't live in this state. i went out canvassing with a friend of mine who runs this election integrity group. we went to five houses on a sunday afternoon with people who actually voted in the primary. at one of the houses, we showed them a list of who voted from that residence. there were six people who voted from that residence but only one of the persons had lived there. i saw it with my own eyes. our voter rolls is not as clean as our secretary of state would like us to believe. >> you voted to certify the election but right now, there are a lot of people who don't believe the last election was valid. the leading contender for the republican presidential election repeatedly says it was not valid. would you support a 2024 presidential candidate who denies the legal and valid election results? >> the bottom line is that there are allegations there was significant fraud in the last election that was not identified and corrected. i agree with mr. cleveland that that could have change to the outcome. but that is not the issue. the issue is your first question which is, what should we do about it? i will get back to my point about states rights. the states should have the opportunities to operate the kind of elections that the constitution gives them authority for rather than the florida -- federal government. this includes voter id requirements. it includes supervised ballot drop boxes, rather than ballot harvesting and let people who didn't even cast a ballot be the one who put the ballot into the dropbox. it includes cleaning up the voter rolls and allowing the states to basically take those who have passed away are those who have moved out of the state or others who are not citizens or are not residents to be removed from the voter rolls. all of those things are under attack in washington right now. >> senator, do you support the bipartisan act? >> i do not. states have the right to control the election and it is the states, through the electoral college, that elect the president. we have a constitution, the 12th amendment plays out the procedures. we have an electoral count act of 1887 that further lays out those procedures. those procedures i believe we should follow. the electoral count act is an effort to go one step further in facilitating congressional engagement on vote counting and literally the management of the electoral college. i do not support that. >> it also makes changes to specifically avoid what we saw on january 6 with the efforts to push the vice president to reject the results. do you think we don't need any changes there? >> no. the 12th amendment and electoral count act deals specifically with those questions. when i talk about facilitating federal takeover of states rights, let's look at senate bill number one. the bill that was what the democrats wanted to pass. that was a bill which prohibited voter id requirements for mail-in ballots. mandated that the states allow unsupervised ballot boxes. prohibited states from doing the cleanup of their lists, and many other things. that was a federal takeover of what is a state right. i don't want to vote for any legislation that would support any step towards facilitating or legitimizing federal engagement in setting election rules. elections are state responsibilities under the united states constitution and they should stay that way. >> mr. roth, how would you restore trust in election results? what is your position on the bipartisan electoral count act? >> it is absolutely critical that as any elected official, when we are in an election, that we accept the results as they come out. win or lose, the confidence starts with us at the top. part of the reason we have seen so much widespread belief in election allegations is because you have several years later the former president still -- those theories even though he has not been able to find any amount of widespread voter fraud, and certainly not for lack of trying. we have seen audits. mike lindell came here and audited butte county. to make sure there were no irregularities. it starts from the top down. we, elected officials commit need to instill confidence in the system win or lose. i will support the electoral act, mostly because i think it is absolutely important that we protect something like january 6 from under -- from ever happening again. it is absolutely critical that we do not have our capitol overrun and that process eliminated. this time it was stopped because we had people willing to stand firm. if we do not have protections in place, who knows what might happen next time. considering that we are constantly hearing of violence in the streets of something happens to this person or that person, it is safe to assume we have those types of discourse to look forward to in the future. >> mr. cleveland, 30 seconds. >> i watched the election live. i had a watch party with 30 of my friends. i never sat through an election where they stopped counting votes at 10:00 at night in the critical swing states. at a minimum, at least, there should have been a call for an investigation and there was never one. that is an injustice. >> mr. roth? >> that there was never an investigation? we saw huge investigation. >> i am talking about a federal investigation of the entire election. >> when you look through them, the states are the ones that have to say what has happened in that aspect. i realize that seems contradictory, but states run the actual election, the federal government should set the guidelines. the states are the ones that have to say their results are correct or not. they also provide their results. even when you had audits afterwards, none of them found any widespread fraud. >> we have to move on. >> i want to change gears. this question is going to be from mr. cleveland and it is about famine. i am more -- what did you think about simpson's plans surrounding salmon which includes preaching four dams, what representative since -- [indiscernible] >> i think his plan is bad. those dams provide valuable, clean, hydroelectric energy at a time when we need it more than ever. i am a fisherman myself. i have been up on the south fork of the boise river and had bright red salmon swim between my legs. i love fish. it is amazing they make it from the pacific ocean to redfish lake here and beyond without having breached that the dams. i think his idea that that is somehow going to drastically increase the population of the salmon in idaho is a mistaken belief. i don't think his heart is in the wrong place, it's just a bad way to go about trying to in these fish populations. >> is there any action you would take regarding salmon? regarding their dwindling numbers and increased and -- expenses that -- is there anything you would favor taking or are things ok as they are? >> i think things are ok. it is a complex issue. you can't start shooting all the sea lions. >> i want to ask mr. roth the same question. your reaction to the proposal surrounding the salmon, what do you think of the idea and whether you have proposals for addressing the issue? >> it is a complex issue and there's a lot of moving pieces. i would like to think there is more information available than what has been made available to me to make those decisions. however, one thing we are seeing is critical declines in salmon populations. we need to take action. just because some salmon are making it up to the lakes does not mean enough salmon are making it up to the lakes. i would ask you to look at some of the other reservoir issues we have in this country. we have a severe water shortage. it is likely that in the coming years, those hydroelectric dams may not be able to produce the current amount of electricity they are currently producing. rather than waiting until the last minute to figure out what to do, we should be looking at ways to offset that. there's plenty of opportunities to have clean energy that would replace that electric offset and i can guarantee you the people dependent on lake powell and lake mead are wishing someone would have taken those steps years ago before it was too late. i do think it is possible that we can stop waiting until the last minute when we have catastrophe. we can be proactive and say in the long run we will lose those dams anyway and we need to look at other proactive solutions that will -- salmon as well. i think we need to do something and i would look at any and every option to save salmon and replace economic impacts. >> senator crapo in july, you said you opposed breaching the four lower snake river dams. i'm wondering if you have alternative proposals and whether you are worried about the loss of the salmon population. >> no. i do not support proposals to have a congressional cramdown of dam breaching. salmon are an icon in the pacific northwest and we need to preserve and strengthen them. i have been engaged in this battle for years. the bottom line is that even senator murray and governor inslee in washington evaluate this and said a congressional cramdown is not the best for us to pursue. why? there are multiple interests across the pacific northwest to have very different positions on the issue. what we need to do is the thing i have been advocating for a decade. get the various stakeholders together and work out a compromised solution, a consensus plan that can reach the kinds of solutions we want to achieve. i did the same kind of thing in the wilderness. i did the same kind of thing in different parts of idaho with regard to our natural resource management. we can do it. when we get people together, people across idaho support the salmon and many of them support the dams. there are win-win solutions we can find where we can build the political consensus to move forward. if we just have a congressional cramdown, whatever happens commit is not going to be permanent. there will be political opposition, court battles, continuous warfare over this issue until we get together and build consensus-based solutions to the issue. that's what we need to do. >> the next question comes from market. >> would you have supported the chips and science act which offered federal assistance for microchip processing in the united states? >> yes. we are at a disadvantage in our chip department. you have seen supply chain shortages all over the past 12 to 18 months where you literally had to wait six months to get your new pickup. not because for it couldn't manufacture it, but they couldn't get the chips. we have a beautiful facility out here, macron announced an $18 billion expansion. i would have supported that and senator crapo did not. yet he was gracious enough to show up to the ribbon-cutting. to answer your question directly, i would have supported it. >> thank you. senator crapo, why did you vote against it? you applauded the announcement but you are not one of the yes votes. >> i was one of those -- there were two key pieces of the chips act. one was an investment tax credit and the other was a grant program. i was the drafter. it was my bill. i worked very hard to get the ships revisions in that legislation moved forward. senator schumer did the same thing he did on the pact act and another -- a number of others, he put another $200 million of spending into the bill. the folks at micron that i am a longhorn sip -- longtime supporter of theirs and this would not have come to the forefront had i not drafted the legislation. they also know the reasons i voted no. i am not going to support an extra $200 billion of spending because they hijacked my issue. the bottom line is this, my opponent is criticizing me, yet also criticizing me for voting for spending programs in washington. you can't have it both ways. this is a standard practice that senator schumer is following on issue after issue. finding bills that have republican support, piling them full of extra spending, than expecting republicans -- he's got us in a bind. either we vote against it and get these kinds of questions, or vote for another $200 billion of his spending spree. i voted against the spending spree. if we had defeated the bill with his spending spree in it, we would have got it moved forward and still gotten it passed. >> mr. cleveland, a chance to respond. >> sounds like a lot of could i would've should've. >> mr. roth, same question. would you have supported the chips and science act. >> i have saw -- i have said multiple times the way we are going to build our economy and lift ourselves out of inflationary pressure and decrease the number of idahoans not making ends meet is further investment in our state. the chips and science act is a great example of that. not to mention it starts to put us on a level playing field with other countries such as china, which is currently one of our largest suppliers of chips and microchips. it puts us on a more even playing field. you've got the national security issue. once again, what i am hearing from senator crapo is that he is unwilling to compromise no matter what the level of good is. if there's anything about the bill he doesn't like. that level of refusing to compromise as part of why we have so much obstruction and so little getting done in washington. we need to look at ways to compromise to get those investments in idaho, to get those investments into other states in the country. the grant program that will push out into science and expand other ways will level the playing field. it seems to me when you look at the inflation reduction act, one of the things that was complained about was the fact the credits were geared more toward american companies for solar panels. that affected china negatively. in this case, we have another instance where this bill affects china negatively and seems quite curious that often we have bills getting -- not getting support from our sitting senators who affects china negatively. >> dr. russell. >> the overturning of roe v. wade has led to fears from some americans that same-sex protections afforded by berger felt could also be overturned. bipartisan legislative efforts in the senate to codify same-sex marriage have been delayed until after the midterms. would you support, senator crapo, the federal codification of protections for same-sex marriage? >> i will not support the legislation proposed in the senate. what it does is requires every single state to agree with whatever any other state decides is a marriage. that violates states rights, which is something the states, under our constitution, have the right to determine. i am thinking about the potential risk here that this presents to what will happen to organizations that do believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. i got a letter from the catholic council of catholic bishops saying they are very worried that their religious beliefs about what is a marriage will threaten their tax status. what -- or threaten their activities in certain ways. we are aware of how people in the private sector have already been threatened by the administration with regard to bakers who don't want to particularly recognize a certain thing, or others a certain type of marriage, or others in the society who wants to pursue their own beliefs about this. i believe we need to let the states have the right to make these determinations rather than the federal government. this is one more example, i told you there would be another -- a number, of the federal government trying to step in and have a federal rule that forces all states to follow its law. we cannot do that. >> in idaho, we have a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. and yet, same-sex marriage has been legal in idaho since 2014. would you roll back the clock? if so, what happens to those existing marriages that have been lawfully recognized since 2014? >> you made my point. the state of idaho has addressed this issue and it is the state right to determine this issue. i support the state pot outcome. i support the state's right. it is who is in charge. if we had a law that said that every state has to agree, has to follow what any state sets up, then you are going to see a push around this country for rules. think of what california or new york might do. and idaho has to follow that? no. i support idaho's approach which does recognize same-sex marriage and i am fully willing and aggressively willing to protect idaho's right to make that decision. >> but idaho only read -- only legalized it because of a federal court decision. if this were only up to the states, would you support telling all of those legally married couples in idaho that they are no longer married? >> i would not support that. i would support the state of idaho making the decision about what they will recognize in this area. >> mr. roth? >> i am a member of the lgbtq community. my position on this is probably obvious. earlier in the debate, i talked about how we are talking about fundamental rights, what makes us up as an to and americans, those should not vary from state to state. if i am at a state that allows same-sex marriage like massachusetts and i decide to take my family to the wonderful idaho wilderness and something happens to me while i am here, i should still be married in idaho even if there is a constitutional amendment against it. it shouldn't change in a matter where we are. if i am married and one state, i am married in any other state. if you had a state that went the opposite direction and said if everyone is not going to recognize same-sex marriage, were not going to run into marriage at all. and then you drop into another state and find you have a medical emergency and you don't have those rights and protections. it goes both ways and it is absolutely terrifying to many of us. it is another instance where we are targeting a specific group of people and you are seeing this not only with the marriage issue, you are seeing it with the transition to and what just happened in ohio where a mean-spirited group of students nominated a sophomore to be homecoming princess hua strands as a mean, practical joke. none of the boys in the class would stand up and be -- and take their role as homecoming prince. it is mean-spirited and it comes right from the top. we need to stop it. >> mr. cleveland, what is your position on same-sex marriage and whether or not the federal government should codify it? >> my position on gay marriage and gay couples is i am ok with it. i have been around the workforce where he worked around gay coworkers. i know personal friends that are gay. i do not think they should ever be discriminated when it comes to employment or marriage for their work life for their family life. they are good people. there is no reason they should be treated any different. i will say this, while i think gay people are different, i don't think they're special. i don't think they deserve their own special months. i don't think they need a special flag. if we are going to reduce discrimination, we need to treat everybody the same. i don't like it when the gay agenda is pushed on children. you see that going on in the school system despite complex -- the issue of gay marriage should not have been decided by the united states supreme earth, it should be left up to the states. i will be consistent on that. if it is not in the constitution, it goes to the states. >> would you support turning back the clock and on marrying all of those couples who have been legally married in idaho under the existing law and u.s. supreme court decision since 2014? >> that would be a bad decision. i would push the state to grandfather existing same-sex couples. i am a christian, but i am not here to judge what people do in their personal lives. if two consenting adults want to engage in a loving relationship and a marriage, who are we to judge? that is a bit ridiculous and old-fashioned. >> this or roth -- >> i want to respond specifically to the issues about children. one perspective that i can bring his growing up as a member of the lgbt population. people think that when you're 18 or 20 you all of a seven decide you are gay. you have those feelings when you are a child in our society is not set up to affirm that. we have struggles and growing pains as we figure out the best way to affirm that. singling out groups and preventing them for trip -- for participating in sports, there are likely more laws preventing trans people from participating in sports than there are trans-people trying to participate in sports. >> the next question. >> i'm going to ask senator crapo first, the question about guns. 19 children and two adults died in texas this year when an 18-year-old came into an elementary school with a gun he had legally purchased. in the aftermath, some family members of the victims called for raising the age to purchase an ar-15 from 18 to 21. my question is, what should our country do to prevent these school shootings and other mass shootings that repeatedly happen in our country but do not happen another developed countries? >> first and foremost, i do not agree that expanded and enhanced gun control is a solution. we tried that in the past in united states it has not had appreciable effect on gun violence. there is a second amendment right under the constitution to bear arms. that being said, there are things we can do which i support and i am championing in the united states senate. we can harden our schools. there are a lot of technologies and a lot of actions that can be taken to protect our school so that the things that happened in your faulty would not have happened. if we have the right kind of protection in place at that school. we can recognize the cause. there are multiple causes of this violence, but one of the most significant ones that everyone acknowledges is mental illness. i am engaged with senator ron wyden, chair of the finance committee where i rank, to develop a mental illness piece of legislation that focuses beyond guns and beyond violence to many other aspects of mental illness but does focus on guns and violence. if we can focus on the cause and find the ability to identify those who are potential risks and help them get assistance, we can make much more progress in dealing with the violence in our society, particularly this type of gun violence we see in schools, then just bypassing something which i think is a feel-good piece of legislation for those who are anti-gun. >> i want to address mr. roth, do you agree with that response? what do you think we need to do in america to reduce and prevent the types of school shootings that routinely occur. >> i would agree that -- actually, i would love to see more investments in mental health. across the spectrum that would be important. however, the shooting in uvalde, they went into a gun store on the day after their 18th birthday and bought an air of 15 and 500 rounds. we saw surveillance footage of the police cowering outside the classroom while you could hear gunshots and kids screaming because they were outgunned. if that person who purchased that gun at 18 would've had to wait until they were 21, there is a chance that would not have happened. he purchased the gun through legal means. he didn't do it before his 18th birthday, he did it on his 18th birthday. it is safe to say we could have seen a different outcome had that happened. we need to do something. we had an assault weapons ban during the clinton administration. we did see a decrease in deaths and gun violence related to assault weapons. that is something we need to seriously look at again. to simply not do anything and say we make our schools look like fortresses, then we can solve the problem. that is not going to solve the problem because we have a fundamental problem in our country with gun violence and access to guns and we need to address those issues otherwise we will just see the gun violence switch from schools to grocery stores, churches, funerals, places of worship, movie theaters, country-western concerts. we need to take action and we need to do it quickly. >> i want to bring mr. cleveland and to get your reaction to the calls from some family members of the mysteries the age to purchase an ar-15. i also wanted to get your thoughts on the school shooting epidemic we have. >> i'm a big fan of the second amendment. it is an important part of our constitution. those rights are given to us by god, not the federal government. it is the right to self protect oneself. you're not going to legislate away people from society. many of these young people out shooting up schools have a pattern of being on special medicines, psycho anthropic drugs, and it is a mental health issue. no sane person would shoot up a school full of children. the second part of the solution is, let's harden schools. if life is so valuable you've got to go through seven layers of security to get in an airport, why not have security to protect the most valuable resource, our youth? that is a very doable solution and if it takes a little bit of money to do it, let's spend the money there. i don't think you should be taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens, people that don't have mental health issues, and make their lives harder just because of some of what has happened. >> i want to follow-up, why do we see this so often in america compared to other countries? >> keep that short, we are running out of time. >> most countries don't have the guns we do in america. >> one or two more questions. >> mr. cleveland, the finance association 2021 state of homelessness report found that over 8000 idahoans sought help for -- to address homelessness last year. what you think the federal government should do with the responding need for -- if anything? >> the issue of homelessness is complex. it says in the bible, the poor will always be amongst us no matter what we do. there are several social safety nets for people but i do not think the federal government is the answer to everything. the answer lies in some sort of balance between places like the boise rescue mission which is building affordable housing for homeless people. you have medicare and medicaid. but certainly there is a big difference between what goes on here in boise. we do a very good job here in the valley compared to many other states. my wife and i are originally from new mexico. we visited there about a month ago and the city of albuquerque, not tobacco my hometown, is like a third world country. it looks like an episode of the walking dead. part of that has to do with not securing the border. they have legalized marijuana there. i would hate to see our area go down that path. >> i want to ask you about your mention of boise rescue mission, that's a homeless shelter that is meant to be temporary and people cannot stay there long term unless they adopt a christian faith. that doesn't qualify as housing. >> i don't think it's the federal government's job to build houses for people. >> thank you. >> senator crapo, what do you think the federal government's role is in addressing the affordable housing crisis? >> we do have an affordable housing crisis. it is significant. it is a tremendous problem. i have been involved in this fight for years in congress. i have been an advocate for the low income housing tax credit and we need to expand and strengthen that so that it and help to further facilitate the incentive nation -- incentivizing capital to come into the construction of affordable housing and i am working on an endeavor right now with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to just that. we need to get more capital committed in the united states to construction of affordable housing and that is exactly what that affordable housing -- it has a wonderful record, that tax credit. that is one of the most critical things we can do at this point. >> thank you. mr. roth, thoughts on affordable housing? >> i spend a lot of time with this issue. i sit on the board for habitat for humanity. what you really need to tackle this problem is more partnerships between our government, local communities and private businesses as we come together to build projects and looking outside the traditional box of how we might address the issue. single-family homes in this state are not going to come down in price enough to become affordable with the wages that we have. we are going to have to look into investing more housing stock and raise those wages by investing and incentivizing more companies to come into our areas. i look at organizations where we