WGBH DEBATE _ 06/18/13 MODERATOR: The special election for the United States Senate.

Good evening, everyone, I'm Rd Sol from Boston university's college of communication. This is the final debate before June 25th's special election to fill the senate seat, formerly held by John Kerry. We have seen the candidates on the stump. And if you've been watching television, you've certainly seen them on the air. Tonight, the Boston media consortium welcomes the Democratic candidate, Congressman Edward Markey, and the Republican candidate, businessman Gabriel Gomez. The goal over the next hour is a focused exchange of ideas that will give voters a chance to see where the candidates stand object some of the issues facing the commonwealth and the nation. And we invite you to join the conversation. Join us on twitter, using hashtag Masen. M-a-s-e-n. Our first round of questions deals with the campaign and domestic issues. Here's how it works. I'll pose a question to a specific candidate that candidate gets 45 seconds to answer. And then we'll open it up for up to three minutes of conversation. By coin toss, we'll begin tonight with Mr. Gomez. Welcome to both of you. Mr. Gomez, nice to see you. GOMEZ: Thank you. MODERATOR: You offer yourself as a new kind of republican and point to your business and military experience. Yet you've given voters few details about either. You're running an ad that says it's about trust. How are voters supposed to weigh you as a candidate and trust you without knowing more about your record in business and in uniform? GOMEZ: Thank you, rd. And thank you everybody for watching tonight and especially you get a chance and opportunity to address everybody a week before the election. And it is an issue of trust and it's an issue of character. And I think this election is going to be about who are the people going to trust to actually put the people before party and politics. Because right now what this election is about, is about the future, it's not about the past. It's not about old and stale ideas. It's about new and fresh ideas. And more importantly, it's about putting the people before party and politics. What we have in dc right now is dc is broken. You've got an overburden of cynicism down there. You've got a fiscal mismanagement. And you've got an all-time high of partisan politics, which has led to complete failure down in dc, and Congressman Markey, who I have a lot of respect for, he spent 37 years in congress doing the best he can with his ideas and with his ability down there to do what's right for the people. But the reality is that who are they going to trust to put people before party and politics as opposed to party and politics before the people. MODERATOR: I'm going to come back to the question, because frankly, you didn't answer it. Markey step in, and I'll come back and pose it again to you and give you an opportunity. MARKEY: Thank you, rd. Thank you to the consortium for having this very important forum. Gomez says he's running as a new kind of republican. But it's actually the oldest, stalest republican ideas. He says that the Wall Street reforms are too tough. I think we have to protect investors. He says that he would consider voting for a Supreme Court justice which would overturn roe v. wade. I would not. He says that he thinks billionaires are paying too much. I don't think that they are. I think that they have to pay their fair share. And Mr. Gomez says he would not in fact support a ban on assault weapons, or high-capacity magazines to turn them into weapons of war and that he could support cutting social security. But on top of that, you're right, he still hasn't released who his clients were, who he worked for as he brags about his business career. And I do believe that the people of Massachusetts have a right to know what he did in the private sector. MODERATOR: Let me come back to the question I asked, Mr. Gomez. How are voters supposed to trust you and weigh you as a candidate without knowing more about your record in business and in the military. Help us out here.

GOMEZ: I have been out there every single day, meeting people and having the honor to meet small business owners and people. And they know that I'm a first-generation American. I'm a kid who didn't learn English until he went to school. They know that, you know, I had the honor to serve nine years in the military and navy and be one of only two people to have ever become an aircraft navy pilot and navy SEAL commander. They know that I earned my way to Harvard Business School and that I have had a successful career in the private sector. They know that I worked at advent international, where, you know, we provide and we grow retirement funds, public sector employees, such as teachers, firefighters, police officers. And a lot of other investors in the world, such as president Obama. And they know that we have done a phenomenal job there. So I think the people of Massachusetts have a clear idea of what I've done in the service. They know that I've been a pilot and a SEAL. They know I've been part of one of the most elite teams in the navy. And they know that I've worked for great companies in the private sector. And they know my record.

MODERATOR: Back and forth, 30 seconds, Mr. Markey GOMEZ: Thank you, rd. You know, again, we're still waiting to find out who he worked for. What are the names of those clients? It's important. My vote record is completely transparent. People know every vote that I've cast over the years but with Mr. Gomez, we still don't know who his clients were. Who he worked for. And I think that's going to be important, because we have to know whose side he's going to be on. The voters know which side I'm going to be on. But its important for Mr. Gomez just to lay out his clients, who he worked for over the years, and I think that will give the voters of Massachusetts a real insight in terms of how he will actually conduct himself on the floor of the united states senate. MODERATOR: Question to you Mr. Markey, to set up our next brief conversation here. You just called Mr. Gomez a tired old republican. Are you not a tired old democrat after 37 years in the House of Representatives? And are you not a lockstep vote for the Democrats in the Senate? MARKEY: Well, the question isn't where you are coming from. The question is where you're going. Gomez, he's backing these tired old republican ideas. He brings in john McCain, he accepts financial support from Mitch McConnell. And I think that's a reflection of, in fact, who he's going to be with down in the United States senate. So on the -- on the question of a woman's right to choose, no, I don't want to roll it back. On Wall Street reforms, yes, we need them. On assuring the wealthy pay their fair share, absolutely. In ensuring that social security is not cut, I'm going to be there to fight for seniors in our state and in our country. So this is really a question of where -- whose side you're on. Who are you going to fight? What are you going to stand up for? And I think my record is very clear. And I think in the course of this campaign, we've heard who Gomez says he's going to fight for. And I think that's ultimately what the voters want to know, so they cast the correct vote on Election Day. . MODERATOR: Mr. Gomez, have at it? GOMEZ: Sure. What we have seen in this campaign is probably the most egregious, misrepresentation of somebody as myself from you, Mr. Markey. Let's talk about your career first, and then I'll go into my career for a second. You've had 37 years to lead. So let's go through your record. You think that what we need to do is continue to raise taxes. Over your 37 year career you have raised taxes almost 300 times. You can't name a single time when asked, is there a time you went against your party where you didn't vote to raise taxes. You also think the solution to the fiscal mess we're in is to continue to borrow money into infinity. Since 1976 when you took office, the national debt was $680 billion. And now it's $17 trillion under your watch. Those are the old ideas, congressman, Markey. Now, you continue to misrepresent my point of view. Let's be clear where I stand on some of these points. You spend millions of dollars from your money and outside money, misrepresenting who I am. On a woman's right to choose, just like congressman lynch, I'm catholic, and I'm personally prolife. However, I've said that I'm not going to change a single law down there or vote for a single law that will take a woman's right to choose away. And you continue to put ads out there that misrepresent that. And on Wall Street, you're the one that voted for the Wall Street bailout, congressman, not me. You voted that executives get billions of dollars in bonuses. You're also the one who recently had fund raisers by Fannie Mae and Freddie mac who are the

main reason we had the Wall Street failure. And on seniors, you continue to mis-represent my point on seniors. I've said from day one that if you're a senior receiving Medicare and social security, or if you're approaching retirement age, nothing is going to change to what you're receiving right now. And yet you continue to put out these -- congressman lynch out here before -MODERATOR: let me interrupt -- we'll continue with the give and take. You've had a good long stretch here. Mr. Markey, your response. We'll let this segment breathe a little bit. MARKEY: Well again, Mr. Gomez, you said that you could consider voting for a Supreme Court justice who could overturn roe v. wade. Those are your words. So I'm not misrepresenting your perspective. It's what you said yourself. You say that you think the Wall Street reforms are too tough, and that they have to be rolled back. And then you misrepresent my position. I've -- I have voted for $1 trillion worth of tax brakes for middle class families over the last 15 years, even as I fight to take away tax breaks for oil companies, tax breaks from multinationals that ship jobs offshore and ensure that billionaires pay their fair share. Yes, for them they should pay higher taxes. For me, I think it's pretty clear whose side each one of us is standing for. And you can continue to try to wiggle out of what you said in some of these preceding debates, but I think the record is very clear. MODERATOR: All right. Time, Mr. Markey. Let's move to a question for Mr. Gomez. The national security agency, the NSA surveillance programs. Do they go too far? Would you vote in the senate for limits on them? GOMEZ: look, I have a unique perspective on national security. I had the honor to serve in the navy, both as a pilot and navy and I have a lot of friends serving on the front lines. And I think there is a fine line between, you know, our national security and our personal privacy. And what's concerning to me is that you've got all these scandals down in DC. You've got the IRS. You've got the justice department. You've got no answers on Benghazi. And you also have an NSA which on the surface, unless it's an imminent threat or it's a national security level at the highest level, has gone too broad. And the problem is that people up here in Massachusetts automatically distrust DC? Why do they distrust DC, because you have career politicians that politicize everything down there. If this was a republican president, I guarantee you, the congressman Markey, from his actions the last 37 years, would be jumping up and down, asking for massive investigations and trying to figure out exactly what happened. MODERATOR: All right. Mr. Markey, NSA surveillance. Too much, too far, long arm of the government? MARKEY: We've got to be tough on terrorism. Very tough. But we can't trample on the constitution. As the NSA and other agencies gather up information about innocent Americans, we have to make sure that there are protections that are put in place to ensure that innocent Americans don't have their privacy compromised. I'm the founder and co-chair of the privacy caucus in congress. I care about privacy. But I also know that there are terrorists out there. There are criminals out there that want to hurt our country. And we have to make sure that law enforcement officials have the capacity to gain access to the information which they need in order to protect our country. Mr. Snowden, I think he should be prosecuted. But at the same time, we have to have this debate about where the line is between security and privacy. And I think that is a debate that our country is now in the middle of and I believe that we can do it in a way that protects privacy while ensuring the law enforcement officials have the information they need to protect our country. MODERATOR: Is Snowden a traitor? MARKEY: Mr. Snowden, by his own words, broke the law. MODERATOR: Is Snowden a traitor? GOMEZ: Mr. Snowden broke the line, he needs to be prosecuted fully. And if he put anybody's life in danger, he's absolutely a traitor. MODERATOR: Let me move on. Jobs, a major issue for Massachusetts and around the country. Our unemployment rate in the commonwealth is below the national average, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Despite having one of the best educated work forces in the country, job creation over the last 12

years in Massachusetts has been near the bottom. You took a stab at it with telecom city. In reaction to the stories that have appeared over the last couple of days, you blame a lot of people for that, Mr. Markey. Do you bear any blame for that, not producing 7,500 jobs? MARKEY: Well, the three mayors, Malden, Medford and Everett, banded together to take 200 acres, polluted acres, acres that weren't really producing jobs, gave up their sovereignty, and right now there are three times more jobs that are there than before we began the project. Four times as much tax revenue coming in to those three cities. But moreover, that was a partnership with bill weld and Paul Cellucci and Jane swift. And Governor Romney and Patrick. So it was mostly state money. MODERATOR: But you were in it. It was -MARKEY: Absolutely. But there were two recessions that occurred during that time. And moreover, we now have a biotech firm there. We have the regional headquarters for Marriott. We have the Tufts boat house, we have a huge residential project, and more is coming. So all of those mayors now have three times more jobs and four times more tax revenue going to those cities than before this project began. MODERATOR: Mr. Gomez. GOMEZ: You know, I think this is a great example of somebody who has never had private sector experience, who has never had a job up here in Massachusetts. You know, analyzing an opportunity, and not realizing that it wasn't going to create what he said it was going to create. There hasn't been a single job for the internet created out of that project that you claim that was going to be created. Now, you know, you stand up here and you -- you give all these great answers and you say that you're going to be doing x and y. But the reality is you've had 37 years down in the congress. To get something done. You know. We still don't have immigration reform done and you've had 37 years to do that. No comprehensive tax reform done and 37 years to do that. We could have reformed social security and Medicare. And you've had 37 years to do that. What makes you think that over the next 17 months or over the next 37 years you're going to be able to do something you haven't done in 37 years? So you can continue to tell the people of Massachusetts that you would have done this, this and that. But the reality is, sir, you've to get these important things done. MODERATOR: Very quickly. GOMEZ: I'm saying, I'm asking the following -MODERATOR: try and keep this moving. GOMEZ: Give me 17 months and I will keep my word and I will do what I say. I don't need 37 years to do this. MARKEY: Again, Mr. Gomez keeps mentioning his private sector experience. You've asked him. Who were his clients? How many jobs were created? Is he's running as a businessman. And you asked him the question, and he did not answer it. We need to know Mr. Gomez, who you worked for. What kind of jobs were created. And we still haven't received that answer. MODERATOR: One more chance. Markey: Mayors -MODERATOR: Mr. Gomez. MARKEY: They are glad for the jobs that have been created. GOMEZ: If congressman Markey wants to compare resumes, I'm more than happy. If you knew what private equity was, we don't have clients. It's that simple. They're public service employees. Hundreds of thousands right here in Massachusetts. Firefighters, police officers, teachers. And even President Obama

is an investor at Advent international, congressman. That's who our investors are. We don't have clients. If you want to compare resumes, let's compare resumes head-to-head. I'll compare my military record to yours. And I'm more than happy to compare my last 16 years in the private sector on exactly who has created value and who has created jobs that compare to you, sir. And I'll tell you one thing, sir. President Obama would not be an investor if we racked up 17 trillion dollars in debt MARKEY: again, we still don't know what Mr. Gomez did. We don't know which clients specifically he worked for. We still don't know which results he specifically got for any of these people who he has just mentioned. He still has refused to make his own private sector record public so that we can determine whether or not all those things you just said are, in fact, true.

GOMEZ: Rd, this is exactly -- he's mirroring exactly what his ads are, and they're misrepresenting because you don't understand. We don't have clients, congressman Markey. We have investors and we have done fellow well with investors. President Obama wouldn't be an investor in our fund if we weren't one of the best investors over the last ten years. If you want to name some companies, sure, lulu lemon. Ask anybody out in the state of Massachusetts, how many stores we have opened, we made Canadian company into an American company, congressman. We went from less than a dozen stores here to over 200 stores. Thousands of jobs. MODERATOR: I think we've worked this over. Four minutes left in this segment. I want to even out questions to make sure you each get one more. Let's keep the answers short. On affirmative action, the Supreme Court is about to rule on an affirmative action case and there is a debate whether it should be race-based or economic based. Do we need affirmative action, and if so, should it be race or economicbased. Short answer, please. GOMEZ: Sure. I think that everybody should have equal opportunity to achieve the American dream. That's why I'm running. I am a kid who didn't learn English until he went to school. And I think that if we continue down the path were on, and under Congressman Markeys path, not everyone is going to have a chance at the American dream. And I think people not as socially demographically -- they're disadvantaged, should have a chance. And I think that we need to do, make sure they've got a chance. And if that entails giving an extra benefit, yes, I think we should give them that chance. Because there are people right now that are in schools, failing, and shouldn't be destined to failure. And I think there are a lot of kids out there, a lot of people out there, that don't have the opportunities that other people have. And if we continue down this path that Congressman Markey wants to continue down, they're not going to have these opportunities, irrespective of whether we have affirmative action or not. MARKEY: I don't think we have reached the day yet where we can say race does not play a role in whether or not people are able to advance. That the language of the country they came from does not play a role. And how far they can advance in our society. We haven't reached that day yet. That's a day that we should aspire to. These people, their accents may be different, but their aspirations are the same. And they're working very, very hard. But to say that race is not a factor, I just don't agree with that. I think we have to keep affirmative action there so that we ensure that we do get protections to those racial groups that do, in fact, need a little bit of help so that they can maximize their God-given abilities. MODERATOR: All right. You've had three topic areas. The third topic area for you, Mr. Markey, taxes. You released eight years of tax returns that show an effective tax rate of less than 20%. That's not much different than Gomezs 21% rate over six years. Typical rate for somebody in your category would be about 30%. Gomez for not paying his fair share. Have you paid your fair share? MARKEY: I have paid my fair share. Most of the reason that my taxes are low is the mortgage deduction, that's the way in which my rate goes down. Gomez says that he had put the mortgage interest deduction on the table. To be cut. And I think that that is just a huge mistake. Millions of Americans, about 3 million here in Massachusetts alone, benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. That's the way that most Americans are able to afford a home, are able to protect their family, are able to move up a rung in our society. And I disagree with Mr. Gomez in his willingness to consider repealing or, in fact, reducing the

mortgage interest deduction for homeowners in our state and our country. MODERATOR: All right. Short answer, please. GOMEZ: Sure. MODERATOR: Response. GOMEZ: Sure, I'm sorry, but this is about as height of hypocrisy if you think you're paying your fair share and you have a lower rate than your assistant but you want people that make more money than you to pay a higher rate than your assistant, congressman. You should -- if you really do believe in the Buffett rule, then you should be willing to pay a higher rate than your assistant. And it sounds like you think you've paid a fair rate. You don't believe you need to pay a higher rate than your assistant, congressman. I think we should have a fair tax system out there. I think the more you make, the more you should have to pay. I also think we need to have a comprehensive tax reform. I think we need to reform the corporate tax rate. We also need to reform the personal tax rate. Close all the loopholes, congressman. I say you put everything in there, carry interest on the personal, everything in there on the corporate. Oil subsidies, oil breaks, corporate jets, Hollywood tax breaks, everything in there, congressman, and then what we do, we take the best ideas from both sides. MODERATOR: Quickly, Mr. Gomez. GOMEZ: And obviously the mortgage tax deduction at the very bottom. I go in with an open mind, congressman, knowing the way to have a notion and this is what you do in the private sector. MODERATOR: Please. MARKEY: Mortgage interest deduction would not be on the table for me. It's on the table for Mr. Gomez. I would not cut the mortgage interest deduction. Gomez makes ten times more than I make per year. And he paid pretty much the same tax rate. So we do need tax reform. We have to make sure that those who are in that wealthiest category do pay their fair share. MODERATOR: I have to say follow-up, Mr. Markey. On your tax returns, your home address is redacted, blacked out. We can understand why you would not want your street address, perhaps. But can you tell us tonight what state is listed? Is it Massachusetts? MARKEY: Oh, it is Massachusetts. That was just the accountant who made a mistake. But its 7 Townsend Street in Malden. I've lived in the same house for 64 years. So it says 7 town street of Malden. Its been my life-long residence and it will be for as long as I live. So make no question about that. It is, in fact, Malden, Massachusetts. MODERATOR: Let's call that the end of round one. Thank you both. Round two of this evening's conversation gives the candidates a chance to question each other. 45 Seconds -- 30 seconds for a question, 45 seconds for the other candidate to respond. And up to two minutes of discussion. We will begin this round with a question from Mr. Gomez to Mr. Markey. GOMEZ: Sure. Congressman, you've been down there for 37 years, and you continue to believe that we need to keep taxing everybody. And over the 37 years, you've voted to raise taxes almost 300 times. Can you name a time when you've gone against your party and not voted to raise taxes? MARKEY: Thank you for that question, and my answer is quite simple. That I have voted to reduce taxes on middle class residents of our state and our country by $1 trillion over the last 15 years. And I have voted to increase taxes on oil companies, multinationals that ship jobs overseas, on billionaires. The point is we have to keep the tax system fair. That's what -- that is what I have tried to do throughout my entire career. And I have done so in a way that ensures that we don't allow for huge tax breaks to be put on the books, that then result on tremendous pressure being put on Medicare, on Medicaid, on education

programs. That then Republicans, with a core, say must be cut, because of the revenues which have been drained out of our economy. So, no, I did not vote for those Republican tax breaks that we're going to the rich and the oil companies and multinationals, because our country could not afford them. MODERATOR: All right. GOMEZ: So just to be clear, in 37 years -MODERATOR: This has to be very fast. Try to be equalized time. GOMEZ: You can couldn't find one time to go against your party to not raise taxes. But you have voted to raise taxes on the medical device companies here in Massachusetts. And you have voted to raise taxes on the senior citizens on their Social Security benefits. MODERATOR: All right. Quick back. MARKEY: Mr. Gomez is the one who says that he can support chained CPI. Chained CPI is to Social Security what a chain saw is to a tree. He says he can support that right now on Social Security. And on the issue of who stands where on these tax cuts, Mr. Gomez is the one who says that he would not consider raising taxes on billionaires. That's all you have to know, because it's the programs for the people that then have to be cut, because billionaires are not paying their fair share. MODERATOR: Point made. GOMEZ: That is once again, absolute misrepresentation. MODERATOR: Were trying to equalize time here Mr. Gomez and make sure you each get two questions to each other in this segment. Mr. Markey to Mr. Gomez. MARKEY: Mr. Gomez, you oppose a ban on assault weapons. You oppose a ban on high-capacity magazines that attach to those weapons that turn them into weapons of war. Those assault weapons could have upwards of 100 bullets in them that could be shot within a two-minute period. Where would a civilian need a weapon where they could shoot a gun with 100 bullets in it in under two minutes? GOMEZ: Congressman, you know that here in Massachusetts we have a ban on assault weapons. And I respect that. And I think that's fine. We have a ban on assault weapons. But you also know that you've been completely misrepresenting my view on gun control. You continue to have these ads out there. I support expanded background checks, Congressman. I'm the one thats gone against the NRA, and I'm ashamed only four Republicans out there that voted for this expanded background check bill, ToomeyManchin. And we both know that only one of us here can go down to DC and actually get this bill passed when we get down there because it's going to take bipartisan work to get the Republicans on board and to get the conservative Democrats on board. And yet you continue to try to scare -- and you're also the only person here who is craven enough, the only political candidate to use the Newtown massacre for political gain. That says it right there. You'll do anything and say anything to get elected, Congressman. That's what you've been doing for 37 years. MARKEY: Mr. Gomez, you haven't answered the question. Where would a civilian need a weapon that you could shoot 100 bullets in just two minutes? You say you support background checks. Well, that's a conservative Democrat from West Virginia and a conservative Republican from Pennsylvania who have that bill. We're from Massachusetts. We're not the laggards. We're the leaders. We want one for the whole country because they come from New Hampshire or other states into Massachusetts. So where? Tell the voters where could a gun like that be used by a civilian that could shoot 100 bullets in under two minutes? MODERATOR: Mr. Gomez.

GOMEZ: Sure. Once again, Congressman, you take an issue that is emotional and divisive, and you know that we should be focusing on what actually -- what I want to do, Congressman, I want to ban all weapons from the wrong people. And you know that's the way to actually solve the problem and make our schools, our communities and our kids safer, Congressman. But yet you want to be craven enough to go out there and use the Newtown massacre for political gain. And you understand that there's only one way we're going to make our schools, our communities and our kids safer, and that's to pass the expanded background check and tie it to mental illness and to go down there. And you know that were going to need to get more Republicans and more Democrats on board. And only one of us is actually bipartisan by experience to actually go down there and work across the aisle and get both sides to come together. And that's how we're going to make our communities safer, Congressman. If you go down there, Congressman, nothing changes. It's going to be the exact same vote and we're not going to have expanded background checks. MODERATOR: I want to make sure you each get one more question here. Mr. Gomez to Mr. Markey. GOMEZ: Sure. Congressman, you've been down there for 37 years, and I mean, the President's got term limits. Don't you believe that Congressman and Senators should be term-limited?

MARKEY: Mr. Gomez, You just had John McCain in campaigning for you three weeks ago. Did you ask John McCain to leave the Senate? You have Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, the Republican leader in the Senate raising money for you across the country. Did you ask Mitch McConnell, tell him it's time for him to leave the Senate as part of your ability to get support from them, to help you in this campaign? No, Mr. Gomez, you did not. GOMEZ: Yes, I did. MARKEY: No, you did not. You did not tell John McCain that you don't think he belongs in the Senate anymore, as you were praising him at that press conference. That did not happen. GOMEZ: I did, actually, congressman. MARKEY: So from my perspective, this just becomes a question of whether or not you understand what's going on because we're both running for the Senate for the first time. We're both going down there for the first time, to the United States Senate, whichever one of us wins. So the only issue should really be what are we going to be doing in the United States Senate in order to advance the interests of the people of Massachusetts. -GOMEZ: You didn't answer the question. And just to be frank, I did tell Senator John McCain that he should be term-limited. And you wish that you were running against Mitch McConnell or Newt Gingrich or even Gerald Ford, who was President when you first got down there, Congressman. But the reality is, you're running against mea new kind of Republican, a first-generation American, one who is not afraid to tell his party when they're wrong. They're wrong on immigration right now. They're wrong on gay marriage right now. Theyre wrong on the expanded back ground checks right now. Theyre wrong on the environment on global warming right now. Im on the right side of that and I've told my party they're wrong. And what I'm going to do when I go to DC, Congressman, which is going to be different than you, sir, is I'm going to go down there and Im going to try to make my party better and Im going to look across the aisle and I'm going to work with the Democrats, as well, because there's more Democrats than Republicans. And the only way we're going to get this country working and moving forward again, is if we have somebody down there who will respect the other side and work together. Just -- I'll say one thing. Nothing is going to change if Mr. Markey wins this election. Were going to have the same DC down there and were going to have the same dysfunction. MARKEY: RD. RD. Mr. Gomez did not tell John McCain, this should be your last term. You should just leaving right now. As he came. That never happened. That conversation did not happen. I think everyone here knows he did not tell McCain right now he should be finishing his career at the end of this term.

MODERATOR: Gomez just said it happened. Are you calling him a liar? MARKEY: I'm saying that did not happen. But I'll say this. Let me go further on this, okay? He says that he's a new kind of Republican. He's going to go down there and change business as usual. Well, the Republican Party -- the Republican Party supports taking away a woman's right to choose. Mr. Gomez says he could vote for a Supreme Court justice that would do that. The Republican Party wants to reduce Wall Street reforms. Mr. Gomez wants to do that. The Republican Party does not want to tax the wealthy any further. Mr. Gomez does not want to do this. MODERATOR: We have covered that. MARKEY: So that's not a new Republican. That is an old-fashioned Republican with the stalest, oldest Republican ideas. MODERATOR: We've covered that territory. Very quickly, did that conversation happen or didn't it? GOMEZ: It absolutely did happen. If you want to call me a liar, that's fine, Congressman Markey because that's effectively what you have been doing with all these TV ads. I know Congressman Lynch was up here before and called you a liar and I think you were only lying a little bit back then compared to what youre doing now. MODERATOR: We need to move on. Mr. Markey to Mr. Gomez. MARKEY: Thank you. The "Boston Globe" had a big story. It said that Mr. Gomez was on the board of directors of two companies, including one which was in Peabody, Massachusetts, which laid off people and then sent those jobs overseas. And that then federal assistance had to come in and help those workers. So my question to Mr. Gomez is this: were those the only two companies that he served on their board? And wasn't there a way to keep the jobs here in Peabody, Massachusetts? GOMEZ: Congressman, this is another example of somebody having private sector experience and actually doing something here in Massachusetts, sir. But you know, that company that you mention, the one in Peabody, Synventive. It serviced the automotive industry, and during that time the automotive industry here in the United States was going through a depression in the cycle. And there was a lot of growth over in the Far East. So that's obviously where the operations grew. If you look at it today, now that the economic cycle has turned around and the automotive industry has rebounded, is doing better here in Peabody. And if we wouldn't have done what we did, that company wouldn't be around today, sir, which is in our state of Massachusetts. We preserved the jobs, grew the retirement funds of the police officers, the firefighters and the teachers, hundreds of thousands right here in Massachusetts, Congressman. And also for President Obama. So you should ask President Obama, he was here last week with you, if he was happy with what we have done over at Advent International. And like I said, I think if we had accumulated $17 trillion in debt, Congressman, I don't think he would be an investor. But now I know that -- I'm just going to put your words in your own mouth. This isn't math, sir, it's arithmetic. MODERATOR: Mr. Markey. GOMEZ: Sure. You know, the "Boston Globe, a couple of reporters were just chasing Mr. Gomez last week to get answers to these questions. And he just slammed the door on them. In his car, not answering the questions from the "Boston Globe" but you can't slam the door on the voters of Massachusetts. Not giving them the answers. You know, everyone knows this business plan, this 3 x 5 card that just says lay off people here, ship the jobs overseas, and then have the federal government pick up the tab for those people who are left behind in Peabody. Everyone knows that business plan. And so the real question here is, what other companies, what other board of directors, did Mr. Gomez serve on? Were there other jobs that he shipped overseas, and wasn't there a way to keep those jobs here in Peabody? Because many companies fight very hard to keep jobs here in --

MODERATOR: 30 seconds left in this segment. MARKEY: Especially since -MODERATOR: Mr. Gomez. GOMEZ: As I said -- You should have asked President Obama what he thinks about Advent International, Congressman. And Ive served on the board of Synventive. Ive served on the board of Keystone, served on the board of American Radiology, served on the board of Kirklands. All these companies that have done phenomenally well. And we have done well for the public sector employees here. Now if you want to talk about jobs shipping to China, sir, evergreen solar, a company you used taxpayer dollars to fund after the stimulus bill. Shut down and shipped 800 jobs overseas to China. 8123 Systems, Congressman. Another company that you funded. MODERATOR: You've got to have a quick response to this. MARKEY: Evergreen was a company funded by state money, not by federal money. Okay? So on that, Mr. Gomez, it's just wrong. MODERATOR: We need to end here. You each have two questions to each other. Were running about equal on time. For round three, were back to the original format, my questions. As the springboard for a conversation. Our focus in this section is defense and foreign policy, and we'll begin this round with Mr. Markey. Syria is the topic, Mr. Markey. The U.N. now says the Syrian civil war has cost more than 90,000 lives. The U.S. has concluded that Assad used chemical weapons. The U.S. is now sending small arms and ammunition, basing planes in Jordan. How do we know we're sending guns to the right people, and are we on a slippery slope in Syria? MARKEY: That's a great question. We have to be very careful. As we enter into this Syrian thicket, we have to make sure that there has been a very careful vetting of any insurgent group that the United States starts to help. We want to back democratically-oriented groups within that country. We don't want to help those elements that might come back to haunt us. Both in that country and around the world. So from my perspective, under no circumstances should American troops be on the ground in Syria. That would be an historic mistake. If there is going to be a no-fly zone, it has to be totally in concert with all of our allies. The United States should not be acting unilaterally. And with regard to these small arms, we just have to make sure they don't come back to haunt us the way our support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s came back to haunt us as the Taliban in the 21st century. MODERATOR: Syria, Mr. Gomez. GOMEZ: Sure. Syria is a critical part of the Middle East right now. They're Iran's last ally. And Iran is the biggest threat to the Middle East. It's acquiring capability for nuclear weapons. Its the biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world. And what we need to do right now, we need to make sure we align ourselves with the rebel group that is going to best promote democracy and peace in the middle east. Because that's going to isolate Iran. Because right now you've got Syria receiving fighter planes from Russia, you've got Syria receiving men, armament, intelligence from Iran. And what we need to do is make sure Assad falls. And I think we should be providing arms and humanitarian aid to the rebel group that is going to best promote peace and democracy in the Middle East. I think the last thing we would ever do is put troops on the ground. I know that first-hand and Ive got a lot a friends out there. I have got a unique perspective on making sure we don't commit troops carelessly. But I do think we need to have a no-fly zone and I think we need to have as many coalition partners as possible, ideally itd be with the U.N. But that may not be realistic. But we need to make sure that we try to have as many partners as possible. But we can't have these -- the rebel group not armed with the capability to fight back against Assad, because otherwise they're just going to be left to slaughter.

MODERATOR: You brought up Iran. There is a new elected leader in Iran, said to be a moderate, said to

be open to discussion. Do you believe it, a new day? GOMEZ: Well you know, I've read about him and he's obviously come out and said the right things. So but just like President Reagan said, you know, it's best to test I mean, you know, trust and then verify. So we'll see what he comes out with, but I would be skeptical. You know, we have not had good relations with Iran since 1979, obviously. And their mission is to annihilate Israel. And so you need to take it with a grain of salt. But I'll let him, you know -MODERATOR: New Iranian leader? MARKEY: Well, they say he's a moderate. But that's in an Iranian context. And we always have to remember that it's the ayatollahs that run the country. And so what kind of discretion, what kind of autonomy this new leader might have, that still remains to be seen. But we should be very skeptical. We have to continue to tell Iran we're not going to allow them to have a nuclear weapons program. We don't want them helping Syria. We don't want them helping Hezbollah, destabilizing Israel. We have to continue to put the pressure on, but we should be talking to them, just to make sure they know that we're serious and that if they ended their nuclear weapons, and their other weapons support into the region that there could be a basis for an agreement to be reached. MODERATOR: Ok. Mr. Gomez, 48,000 Americans have been killed or wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's killed and wounded. The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars on these two wars. Has the sacrifice and lives and treasure been worth it? GOMEZ: Look, I don't think this should be a -- made into a political question. You know, I've had a lot of friends that went over there and fought. Some of them got killed. A lot of them got injured. I think the last thing we need to do is make this political -- make a political issue here. You know, we went into Iraq with the intelligence that we had back then. It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback. But with the intelligence we had back then, Senator Kerry, Senator Clinton, they were all for it initially. So to turn this into a political question afterwards, I think is just the wrong thing to do. I think it desecrates the effort and the sacrifice that our men and women made over there in Iraq. And so given the intelligence we had back then, it was the right thing to do. But it's easy to Monday-morning quarterback. MODERATOR: Mr. Markey. MARKEY: We know the war in Iraq was now premised upon a lie. Dick Cheney knew that there was no nuclear weapons program in Iraq. That was the premise for going in and they knew there was no nuclear weapons program. Now, with regard to whether or not it was worth it. Well, I think it's going to take years to know that. We can already see great destabilization in Iraq. We can already see a huge Sunni-Shiite friction exposed, and hopefully they can work in a way that does it have true democratic involvement for all elements, including the kurds in unified government -- that remains to be seen. There has been an announcement that the Taliban is now going to be negotiating with the government in Afghanistan. We still don't know how that is going to turn out. Whether or not these will become places of real stability or just the middle of a civil war that had an American involvement for a brief period of time in their long histories. But that still is history yet to be written. MODERATOR: A follow-up question. What have we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan? GOMEZ: I think that we have learned is that every country out there and every culture has different histories and they're different than the Americans. So they have got a different view and different beliefs on what democracy is. I think we have learned we can't instill our exact idea what democracy is. No one is going to line 100% with us. Now where I think the administration has gone wrong in the Middle East is that I believe that we should have pulled out of Iraq and I believe we should be pulling out of Afghanistan. But what I don't agree with, is that weve set a timetable. And that you have effectively shown your hands to the Taliban and to the other groups within Afghanistan. That is the worst thing you can do. I believe we should be pulling out. But you don't televise and telegraph our intentions. It only makes it -- they're just going to hold out and it's going to turn back into the area of instability that it was before.

MODERATOR: Point made. I'm trying to equalize time. What have we learned? MARKEY: Well, we have learned how hard it is to impose any kind of democracy upon any country. They're going to make their own determinations. And I think that that lesson should be learned by us, especially with regard to sending ground troops into Syria. I will repeat that. But from my perspective, we now have to make sure that we do pull out of Afghanistan. We do have to make sure that we then take care of all of the veterans who have come home. There are many of them who are still not being served well by our medical system, by our job retraining programs, by the kind of care, which we owe to those veterans. So no, I think we should be out of Afghanistan. And I think we should meet the timetable that was agreed to between the Afghan government and the United States. It's time for them to figure out a way of making their own country work. MODERATOR: All right. To you, Mr. Markey. China is apparently conducting cyber espionage against the United States. The report says there's actually a special cyber espionage unit that has stolen details of some key weapon systems. What should we do about it and should the revelations undercut the U.S. bargaining position? MARKEY: China and their army are trying to penetrate our american industry and military on an ongoing basis. I past through the house of representatives a key bill just three years ago to harden the electricity grid of our country against a cyber attack from china. Because I was told by top nsa and other intelligence officials that they were probing our electric grid and it could be catastrophic in our country. The same thing is now happening with the chinese stealing intellectual property in our country. They are now taking what it is that is developed by the creative community in our country and they are, in fact, making those products on their soil with labor, which is not paid what american labor would be paid. And similarly, we have to make sure they don't steal our military secrets, our nuclear secrets. That's a big advantage which we have over every other country in the world. China is at the top of the list of those that would seek to use cyber capacity to compromise the security of our private sector and of our military. MODERATOR: China and cyber security. GOMEZ: Cyber security is going to be the biggest threat that we're going to have, other than an actually armed conflict going forward in this world. And that's why the military has now established a cyber command. And china is the biggest perpetrator of cyber warfare. They've gone out there and they're penetrating our military installations, penetrating our businesses and penetrating our commerce, and they're stealing a lot of our secrets here. And from our perspective is that we need to have even more fund ing going into our cyber warfare and into the department of homeland security, as well. You know, Congressman markey here, you know, he says he's tough on national security, but he doesn't like it when I talk about his national security record. He's the one that voted to not even fund the department of homeland security. He's the one that -- which is obviously a big part of component of keeping our homeland here secure here. Now, I obviously think china is the one we need to focus on. But we need to focus on the rest of the world because china isn't the only one out there that has cyber warfare capabilities. Youve eastern europe and youve got russia, as well. So It's not just china. MODERATOR: Homeland security first and then I want to come back to the question. What -- go ahead. MARKEY: Mr. gomez keeps saying I did not vote for the department of homeland security and I keep telling him I did not vote for it because that bill was going to take away the right of the first responders who worked for the department of homeland security to negotiate for the health care benefits, for the wage benefits, for the employees of the department of homeland security. If they're going to be running into buildings to protect us, if they're going to be heading towards bombs, they should have a right to negotiate for their own families to protect their own families. And with regard to other homeland security issues, just last week I worked with michael grimm, republican, from new york, to pass an amendment to ensure that knives are not put back on passenger planes, and that passed on the floor of the house. And with regard to china, yeah, I'm the one who passed the bill through the house of representatives, it was

blocked by republicans in the senate, to ensure that our electricity grid in our country was, in fact, hardened against a cyber attack from the chinese on our country. MODERATOR: Understood. That's in the rear-view mirror. Let's look through the windshield for a moment. What do we do about what china is doing? What's the policy? MARKEY: Our policy has to be that we put this at the top of our negotiating list with the chinese. MODERATOR: To we have any leverage, given the nsa revelations? MARKEY: We have a lot of leverage. We have military leverage, we have economic leverage over the chinese. They need our help. They need assistance. They need partnerships as they go forward in the years ahead. And we just have to make sure that we begin negotiating tougher with the chinese to extract from them protections for the american economy, for the american security that are right now being compromised by the chinese. MODEREATOR: Mr. gomez. GOMEZ: It obviously needs to be at the top of the priority list. But it's been made harder by congressman markey, because china owns more debt in the US than any other country out there. And the fact that we have grown the debt from $680 million under Congressman Markey to $17 trillion, enabled china to basically own more than half of the united states, makes it a hard negotiation to go with china. So I think obviously one of the ways you have to do, we need to reduce that debt so china has less leverage on how we negotiate with them, but if we continue down the path of congressman markey, china is going to continue to remain and have an upper hand at this point right now. MARKEY: RD, Honestly MODERATOR: 15 seconds and then 15 back. MARKEY: The budget was balanced by bill clinton in 2001. George bush and the republicans took over. Two huge tax cuts, two wars that were not paid for and the casino was set up on wall street with stock options, derivatives, credit default swaps that then led to a collapse of our economy and a huge increase in our federal deficit. He wants to take us back to those very same policies. GOMEZ: Where I come from, from the military, you either lead or you get out of the way. You've had 37 years, congressman. To take this debt. What you have done is taken it from almost $700 billion to $17 trillion. You want to keep blaming somebody else? That's no want to keep blaming somebody else, that's no accountability and that's why people are tired in the DC. In the military, you lead or get out of the way and you get things donor get out of the way and let someone else do it, sir. And you cant sit up here and say that its somebody elses fault. You've had a chance to lead for 37 years, congressman and the fact is you haven't led and youve just showed an example that you blame other people. People don't want you to blame other people and they want you to take accountability for whats happened during your record of 37 years. MODERATOR: Point made. MARKEY: We want to know which side youre on, cutting social security, cutting medicare, cutting programs for ordinary families is not the way to make up for MODERATOR: Point made. I want to make sure -- I want gomez will, equalize the number of questions. Drones is the topic. The president has promised tighter controls and rules on drone strikes with decision making at the highest levels of government now. What are your rules for drone strikes?

GOMEZ: Look, I think overseas, the president will have more discretion. I think if somebody switches sides they're absolutely targets for drones, and I think the president has done a good job of targeting those people overseas. I think within the united states here internally, I'd be very hesitant, and I would be very, very cautious about even using citizens here. I think that rand paul made a great point when he did the filibuster a few months ago. And as a result, he got the president to disclose more of what his intensions were in respect to drones within the united states here, but as i said, overseas, absolutely, if you change sides and if you're an american and you're a vital target. MODERATOR: Drone strikes, what are the limits. MARKEY: Drone strikes, overseas we have to make sure that our national interest sat stake and we have no other way of apprehending the individual except killing them with a drone strike, and here domestically there are going to be 20,000 drones that are licensed over the next ten years here, within our own country and we have to make sure that as those drones take off that they're accompanied by privacy protections for every american because that could be the spy in the sky on americans here domestically as well. MODERATOR: We have two minutes left in this segment. Go ahead. GOMEZ: There's a rapid advancement on technology on drones and you've got more and more law enforcement agencies using drones within the united states here. And just like anything else, you've got to be careful about exactly what they're going to be used for and the nsa is a great example of how overbearing, overreaching this can be, and I would be hesitant for the use of drones within the united states left. MODERATOR: One minute left. markey, any further comment on drones on privacy? MARKEY: As new technologies are deployed we have to make sure that we accompany those new technologies with human values. They must be animated by what america believes technologies should, in fact, do for our society. By themselves these technologies have no values so that's why we need the debate in our country on drones, on domestic spying so that we have insured that the privacy of american, that the values of americans are protected even as we welcome new technologies into the mix. MODERATOR: All right. We'll leave it at that, and that will end up our three rounds of questions and answers and we'll end this evening with time we've reserved for each candidate to make a closing statement, one minute by each and that's by a gomez, you are first with the closing statement. GOMEZ: Sure. Thank you, RD. I'm running because I want to serve. I had the honor to serve my country as a navy pilot and Navy SEAL. I've got four young kids, and i want to make sure that my kids and everybody else's kids have a chance at the american dream. If we continue down the path that we've had for the last 37 years our kids are not going have a chance to achieve their dream. I believe this election's about the future, it's not about the past. I believe it's about fresh and new ideas, not old and stale idea, and I believe that we need to start putting the people before party and politics because right now our country is much better than its politics, and I want to go down there and make our congress as good as the american people. Each generation should pass off a better america than what it started for. I think 37 years is enough time. I ask you to give me 17 months and see if I've kept my word. And if I have, you can re-elect me, and if I haven't then vote me out, but I think that congressman markey has had 37 years to prove something and look down there and look what we've got down in d.c. We have dysfunction, failure and discord. MODERATOR: One minute, mr. markey. MARKEY: Thank you. gomez is running on the stalist, old republican ideas. That's what differentiates us. He opposes an assault weapons ban and opposes a ban on high-capacity magazines. He says that he can vote for a supreme court justice which would overturn roe v. wade. He says he believes the wealthy

are paying too much, but we know that puts tremendous pressure the social programs that then have to be cut in order to protect the wealthy. He says that the wall street reforms are too tough, but we know what happens when wall street does not have a cop on the beat. gomez says that he could cut social security for seniors in our country. I don't think that we should be doing that. I want to run for the united states senate. In order to make sure that the 21st century is more educated, more healthy, more prosperous and more fair than the 20th century was. I think every family and every child in every family should be able to maximize all of their god-given abilities. I'm going go down to washington to protect a more fair society to ensure that every american, regardless of income or race can maximize all of their human ability. MODERATOR: Thank you, edward markey and gabriel gomez. That's it. The final debate, a reminder, election day is one week away, JUNE 25th, YOUR VOTE COUNTS. Turn out. We'll be counting them for you on our stations around the boston media consortium. I'm r.d. saul. Good night.