in the course of the public debate over health care reform, we've begun to confuse coverage with care. our goal should be to make health care more affordable. even with obama care, our most vulnerable in delaware are still left uninsured and still left without access to quality health care. when we passed obama care, we were promised that it would make more people insured. well, a recent cbo report say that it's not. it's actually causing businesses to drop their policies because compliance standards are so high. our laws, especially when it comes to health care, should not force businesses to break our laws. second of all, we were promised that more people -- that health care costs would be lowered. it hasn't. it has increased health care costs according to recent reports. so what i want to do is to fight to fully repeal that so we can begin to enact real reform and that real reform would include

allowing policy portability when you change jobs, allowing delawareans to get policies across state lines. right now we only have three options. that's not right. and i would also fight for some sort of tort reform that allowed doctors to not have to worry and practice medicine to prepare for the courtroom as opposed to the examination room, but at the same time this tort reform has to protect those patients who who victims of true medical malpractice. >> you have one minute to respond. >> so much to say. i support the implementation of the affordable care act. i think it made significant advances. and you outlined many of them, but there's additional investments in the bill to make sure there's a breath of coverage to rural areas, recruiting and training a new generation of doctors and nurses and improving efficiency of our health care system. it makes a landmark investment of $350 million over a decade to try and fight waste, fraud and abuse and increase those savings

and there were strategic investments in electronic medical systems that would allow electronic medical records to reduce injuries to patients, mistaken diagnoses and mistaken treatments. all of these in combination i think argue for extending, perfecting and implementing this landmark bill. it's not perfect. there's problems with it, but i think rather than turning it back and repealing and going for another year or two of endless partisan bickering, this was a critical piece of legislation, not a pretty process that passed it but i would stand for it and implement it responsibly. >> well, we're now into the part of the discussion on it so let me just ask you. the issue was brought up about malpractice reform, and democrats are often accused of being too close to trial lawyers and republicans say that's why that there has not been the opportunity for reform in this area and why it was not included in the health care bill. if you were elected, would you work to amend that bill to include malpractice reform? >> i think it is critical that folks in this country be able to stand up to and take on powerful interests and where individuals

are harmed, that they're able to go into court and seek redress, whether they're harmed by someone who misled them in a securities investment product that they purchased that hurt them because it wasn't designed or delivered right or a medical procedure that went horribly wrong. i don't support putting caps on liability because i think in our current system it is only the threat of a significant recovery that allows protection for consumers, for patients, for investors. i, frankly, think that's an important part of the american legal system. i do think, as i just mentioned, there are significant advances in this bill that allow us to make health care safer, stronger, more trance parent, and if i've got a major concern about this bill, it's that we're going to reduce costs without squelching innovation. >> it is discussion. >> it is discussion. that's what i was trying -- okay. first of all, you say that you're concerned about reducing costs but reports have shown that this health care bill has caused costs to skyrocket. second of all -- >> i don't know what reports

you're reading. >> but one out of four democrats have gone on record saying that they oppose obama care. they've realized that we made a bad mistake and what this bill does is it gives a massive government control over health care. >> it does not -- >> uncle sam has no business coming in the examination room -- >> give concrete example -- that's a great slogan. you toss it around everywhere you go. how does this bill actually put uncle sam in the examination room between doctors and patients and, if so, why did the organization that fights for and represents america's nurses, america's senior, america's hospitals and america's doctors all endorse and support this bill? >> and many of those branches on the state level including here in delaware have said that we don't support what the national office has done. it gives the government the ability to say what kind of treatment a doctor can and can't do, what kind it will fund. it forces businesses to have to

comply to these standards where many businesses, especially here in delaware, have said they can't afford to it, and it's cheaper to pay the noncompliance and it's also cut -- this health care bill has cut medicare. >> let's get the point out because we're down into the last 30 seconds of the discussion. >> i was just going to say that the state chamber of congress hosted a debate today. i was sorry you chose not to join us. it would have been great to hear the response of the physicians and nurses and hospital administrators to your suggesting that they didn't support a bill they lobbied for. >> i want to be precise on the specific health care-related issue. you oppose the government mandating that everyone must purchase health insurance, is that right? >> yes, because we're confusing coverage with care. our goal needs to be to make health care affordable. >> all right. well, here's the question. let's say someone decides not to purchase health care insurance, make s ths that conscientious decision even though the person can afford but decides they don't want to.

the person is critically ill, gets rushed to an emergency room. should we, people who pay for health insurance provide him or her with that kind of treatment or should we kick them out of the emergency room said, you made a decision, you're not going to get this kind of treatment? >> if we do the things that i said that will help to address that i'm proposing, that will help to address the issue of health care, then that person can afford to buy a catastrophic only policy from across state lines. they'll be able -- >> what if the person doesn't want to buy it? >> well, then we have to address that. >> who should take care of that person in an emergency? >> we have to address it. >> would all of us taxpayers have to -- >> like anything they do when they have another bill they can't pay, hold them accountable for that. but right now -- >> before or after they get care? >> right now -- well, that's up to the hospital. but right now we're forcing them to. we're forcing them that they have to give care to illegal aliens, so this is something that we're already doing. what i'm proposing, you're also talking about a very small hypothetical using scare tactics to make people support this health care bill. what i'm proposing, and the

health care reforms that i'm proposing will help address those situations and help alleviate those situations. >> it's just not a small number. >> it's not a small hypothetical. >> nobody should be forced to pay for anyone else's health care and that's what obama care is doing. >> and that's what's happening today. before the health care reform bill passed, all of us who have health insurance who have health coverage have been bearing the costs, paying the freight for those who don't have insurance and who don't haveer

cheat those who honor them and this is not a message that our federal government -- >> you say that you agree to the pathway to citizenship. >> for legal -- >> but you don't want to provide amnesty. >> i don't want to provide amnesty. >> how can you do one without the other? >> what i'm saying we have to get rid of all the bureaucratic messes that make the legal pathway difficult but when someone willingly breaks our laws that sends a message that don't worry about the laws we've set up, don't worry about those would are on long waiting lists for political asylum, break our laws and we'll grant you these benefits. it's sending the wrong message.

economically hurting us. >> it's discussion. >> miss o'donnell mischaracterizes her own position. >> i do support responsible guest worker programs and that's the difference. >> if you can reconcile all those comments you're an even more talented reporter than i think you are, nancy. we to get past the bickering. senator john mccain was someone before this election cycle had been a real advocate for working with the business community working with democrats in congress to find a path forward. as the years and years have rolled by, the number of folks who are here illegally and would pose real threats to our community continue to grow and we are not taking the actions we need to take to spate those who are willing to pay a fine to accept responsibility for coming here illegally and to begin paying taxes and contributing to our community and the benefits that they're earning. i would rather have us begin to provide a path so that those who are here illegally all stand up and take responsibility for that or are deported. that way we can make progress.

>> wow. he just took a hard line position. again, i would ask you are you going to tell president obama that you disagree with him and you think illegal aliens should be deported but we have to keep in mind that when we tried amnesty in the '80s, it backfired. it only increased problem so we have to address the issue of securing our borders and something that president obama's administration stopped this year. we've got to secure our borders first and then begin the discussion on guest worker programs and how to eliminate some the bureaucracies that keep the legal pathway to citizenship so difficult. tough! earlier, she had an all-over achy cold... what's her advantage? it's speedy alka-seltzer! [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus rushes relief for all-over achy colds. the official cold medicine of the u.s. ski team. alka-seltzer plus. [ heather ] businesses need a reliable financial partner.

one who can stay in sync with their moves. my job at ge capital is to get bobcat all the financial and business support they need. we provide financing for every bobcat dealer in north america. together, we've rolled out over 100,000 machines to small businesses all over the country so they too can grow. ♪ ge capital. we're there for bobcat every step of the way. ♪

i just want to clarify one thing on the national security front on china which is a huge issue right now. in 2006 and correct me if i'm wrong you said that china has "a carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over america and if they pro-tend to be our friend it's because they've got something up their sleeve." you also said "you wish you weren't privied to some of the classified information i am privilege si to." i'd like if possible for to you clarify what you meant. >> i was talking about when i was working with a humanitarian group going to china.

we are giving security briefs about china's position with some potentially hostile nations and some security threats that my clients would be facing. but we do have to look at china very seriously because we -- they own so much of our debt, it prohibits a lot of decisions that we need to make in regard to our foreign policy. number one is iran with nuclear weapon, china stands in a big way there. these gasoline sanctions that we have are not enforced as strictly as they could be because we have allies like france and italy participating in the gasoline embargo but then china comes in and swoops up all that business, we need to be putting sanctions on those chinese companies because right now when it comes to iran getting nuclear weapons is our biggest threat to our national security and when woe go to china and we say, please stop these companies, they probably smirk because we're not economically in a position to

really hold them to that. china could be a bigger ally with us in north korea, but they're not. they're not putting the pressure on north korea that they could. so first of all, we have got to tackle that national debt. we've got to stop these things like these reckless spending bills coming from washington that only contribute to further our national debt because it is putting our national -- >> on the specific quote you said china has a plan to take over america, do you know about this plan? >> well, they misquoted me at the time i believe but look at what's going on. right now monetarily china could take us over monetarily before they could militarily. >> you want to quickly respond because i know we want to get to the students' questions. >> it's hard for me to respond effectively, wolf, to all the different issues that my opponent raised in previous statements. i'll just let that stand. i don't have any classified information about china or its plans. but what i think we really need to focus on in this debate on this particular question is the

steady degradation of our posture. we engage -- a drat matmatic sh pushing the envelope from issues on taiwan to intellectual profit. pro-found threat not just on economy and manufacturing businesses but also to our safety and security. to have widespread counterfeiting of everything from pharmaceuticals to aircraft parts to garments, going on in china without our standing up and fighting against them -- >> we're out of time. >> so are you saying -- >> we're out of time -- >> are you saying that china -- >> we're going to close out this conversation and involve the students. first up a question interest a student of don't ask, don't tell. >> i was wondering if you were

planning to bring back up the issue of don't ask, don't tell and its possible repeal. >> mr. cones? >> i would move swiftly as a senator to repeal don't ask, don't tell. i think it's discrimination plain and simple. i've met with and spoken to veterans who served for decades but who could do so only at the expense of denying who they were and the relationships they wanted to have. in my view we should be making progress in this country towards recognizing the full range of human experience and repealing it is important. >> a federal judge ruled that we had to overturn don't ask, don't tell. there are a couple of things we teed to say. first of all judges should not be legislating from the bench. second of all it's up to the military to set the policy that the military believes is in the best interest of unit cohesiveness and military readiness. the military already regulates personal behavior in that it doesn't allow affairs to go on

within your chain of command. it doesn't allow if you're married to have an adulterous affair within the military. so the military already regulates personal behavior because it feels that it is in the best interest of our military readiness. i don't think that congress should be forcing a social agenda onto our military. i think we should leave that to the military to decide. pearblossom highway? it's just outside of lancaster. sure, i can download directions for you now. we got it. thank you very much! check it out. i can like, see everything that's going on with the car. here's the gas level. i can check on the oil. i can unlock it from anywhere. i've received a signal there was a crash. some guy just cut me off. i'll get an ambulance to you right away. safely connecting you in ways you never thought possible. onstar. live on.

a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. and celebrex is not a narcotic. when it comes to relieving your arthritis pain, you and your doctor need to balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, including celebrex,

may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, including celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. do not take celebrex if you've had an asthma attack, hives, or other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor about your medical history and find an arthritis treatment that works for you. ask your doctor about celebrex. and, go to celebrex.com to learn more about how you can move toward relief. celebrex. for a body in motion.

we have another student question on the issue of embryonic stem cell research and this goes to mr. cone. >> my question, what are your views of the federal allocation of funds for stem cell research. >> i would support stem cell research. >> we're talking about embryonic stem cell research. >> i would support it that includes embryonic stem cell research. i think there are critical advances that are being made in addressing some of the most difficult diseases that affect millions of americans and frankly think if it is possible to do so we ought to be investing in making progress in this critical area of research. >> i think if we took an intellectually honest look at the research that's been put out there you will see that there's incredible advances with adult stem cell research, not as much with embryonic stem cell research. that's where we're on the private sector, that's where investors would put their money. second of all, the government, the federal government should not be in the business of creating life simply to destroy it. when it comes to the issue of so-called medical waste, i would

point to a program called the snowflake babies where they've had incredible success adopting these human embryos that are going to be discarded for medical waste where they've given millions or i'm sorry, hundreds and potentially thousands of infertile couples the opportunity to have babies. it's the snowflake program. it's a wonderful program and i suggest everyone take a look at it. >> our next student question brings us the issue of abortion. >> what is your stance on abortion including in cases of rape and incest? >> it's for you. >> i believe there's been a profound loss of respect for the dignity of human life and that's reflected in a lot of our policies, whether it's cutting tax exemptions for disabled low-income citizens in new castle county or with abortion. i respect the human dignity on all levels, the unrepeated precious human dignity on all levels and my opponents and others use the scare tactic of

rape and incest when is that less than 1% of all abortions performed in america. >> mr. cones. >> i strongly support a woman's right to choose. it is settled constitutional law and i personally am opposed to abortion but i don't think it is my place to put that view on women. i think abortion should be safe, legal and rare. >> let's get into some of these issues and then we'll go back and get more students' questions on the issues of gays serving openly in the united states military. almost all of the nato allies allow gays to serve openly in the military. israel, which has a fine military, as you know, allows gays to serve openly in the military. why specifically do you believe gays should not be allowed to serve openly in our military? >> because it's a military policy that our military set forth. i the same thing as i said in my remarks about adultery not being allowed in the military. it's a military policy that they regulate because they believe that is in the best interest of

unit cohesiveness and our effective military. >> so if the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says he believes gays should be allowed to serve in the military, would that be good enough for you? >> if all four heads -- if the heads of all four branches of the military said that it would be up to them not me as a u.s. north to impose my social agenda whether for or against it. >> what about that? what if the chairman said we'll do whatever the commander in chief tells us to do but we don't think it's a good idea because of thee issues that miss o'donnell raises, unit cohesion and those other issues? what would you say then? >> one of my real heroes is harry truman. ari truman made a very difficult decision to compel the racial integration of the united states armed forces at a point when most of the leadership, most of the generals said for exactly the same sorts of reason, unit cohesion we should not have a

racially integrated military. that was a brave decision, it was an important decision and the ultimate long-term impact has made our united states military one of the most progressive in terms of promotion advancement opportunities for racial hurt minorities of any organization in our country. as you said earlier most of our nato allies long ago realized we are giving up on the service of thousands of potential volunteers who could be serving our nation at home and abroad, i don't think it makes any sense because of a narrow social agenda to continue to exclude them from open service in our military. [ female announcer ] the healing power of touch just got more powerful. introducing precise pain relieving cream. it blocks pain signals fast for relief precisely where you need it most. precise. only from the makers of tylenol. ♪ [ engine revs, tires screeching ] we give to you the all-new volkswagen jetta.

we have one more surprise for you. fifteen-thousand nine-hundred neunzig dollar? [ sobbing ] [ camera shutters clicking ] ♪ whoo-hoo, yeah ♪ whoo-hoo, yeah

our next student question comes on the issue of campaign finance reform. >> what is your position on campaign finance reform and what is your reaction to the recent supreme court ruling allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns? >> mr. cones, you're first. one minute. >> i think the citizens' united decision was an unfortunate and ill-decided decision, one that opens the floodgates to increased corporate contributions that could have the unintended consequence i think unintended in the decision of significantly distorting our electoral process here in the united states and i would support reforms that further disclose who is behind these shadowy groups whether individuals or corporations that are trying to influence our

elections by pouring money into it. sunshine is the best disinfect tapts. in politics it's best to disclose as fully and broadly who is making contributions. >> and yet the legislative efforts to do exactly that have failed to do that. the disclose act that, you know, harry reid which he's called my opponent his pet has put out there to do just that has exempt the major corporations from disclosing it instead what these efforts do is only serve to infringe on the first amendment right of private citizens, i'll use my own campaign as an example. from our fec reports my supporters have been getting harassing phone calls not from just reporters but all kinds of people who oppose my candidacy and using intimidation tactics because we are forced to disclose who is contributing to my campaign so this so-called campaign finance reform is

exempting the corporations whether on the left or the right. it's those who are in washington already, those who are over 10 years old who have over a half a million members and already playing in the back room deals so this is ace misguided attempt -- >> do the american people have a right to know where all this money and coming from? >> yes and no. i believe there are ways to do that to support to the fec but we don't have to make them public unless there is a question of corruption and then that would prevent a lot of the harassment that my supporters are getting. that would prevent a lot of the discussion about our first amendment rights. we can disclose that to the fec but they don't have to put it up on a website that makes anyone vulnerable to further fund-raising calls i mean over and over that's a repeated violation and many campaigns not my own but even my own party said go look on someone's fec report and call them up for a

donation and i said absolutely not. that's against the law. so these are being abused. >> there's so much there, wolf. i don't know -- frankly, i support full disclosure of campaign contributions. as i said before i think it is the best way to ensure that we've got fair, open and clean campaigns, folks should know who the folks are who are contributing to campaigns. it's an important way to hold candidates and elected officials accountable. >> we have another student question on the sensitive issue of religion in america. >> in the light of the events in the past decade, islam has been viewed as a religion for extremists and terrorists where muslims including myself can attest that islam is far from that. recently there's been much controversy over the mosque being built in the vicinity of ground zero and also the florida pastor making outrageous remarks about the koran. now, my question to you is as senator, where is the line between the freedom of speech and the respect of other religions, both of which

freedoms are found in the first amendment of the constitution? >> mr. cones? >> a great question. and i difficult one. the florida pastor who caused a lot of outrage by threatening to burn the koran showed a pro-found misunderstanding of the difference between the islamic terrorists who genuinely attacked america and i think deserve our condemnation and the vast majority of muslims who participate in a religion whose fundamental principles is commitment to peace and embracing the rest of humanity. if that pastor wanted to make the right point he should have threatened to burn the readings and teachings of osama bin laden or of other folks part of the extremist groups. it is an important challenge, key role for the supreme court to draw the line in the first amendment between those who would do the equivalent of calling fire in a crowded theater who would be inciting to attack and riot such as osama bin laden has in some extremist in hateful writings and those who have scripture, religious traditions worthy of broad

support. that's a central role that the supreme court plays in our democracy. >> well, i would agree. the supreme court has said that there are restrictions on our first amendment rights, again, you know, you can't as you said go into a crowded theater and yell fire or stand up on an airplane and yell hijack. however, where the question has come between what is protected free speech and what is not protected free speech, the supreme court has always ruled that the communities, the local community has the right to decide and in the issue with with the 9/11 mosque, that's exactly where the battle is being fought, by the community members who are impacted by that and i support that. >> but the community members have -- at least the city council, the mayor and the representatives, the elected representatives support this mosque, community center supposed to be built near 9/11. >> and a lot of the people on the ground do not and they'll have a lot to face from their constituents and maybe the

re-election is going to be jeopardized. >> should this cultural center and mosque near 9/11 be built? >> there is already culture -- there are already mosques in many locations this manhattan. and as you mentioned, i would defer to the decision of the local land use authorities elected by that community to make digs about where, when and how things should be built. i don't think it was a wise choice of location but i can't stand here and say we should prevent folks from practicing their religion anywhere in the united states. to say we will say you can't build a morph here, violates one of our most fundamental principles. ♪ [ e. clark ] i'm an engineer. i love my job. i can see what's it's doing for the community on a day-to-day basis. natural gas is cleaner burning than most fossil fuels and it's vital to our energy needs.

increasingly we're finding gas in hard to reach areas, but now we've developed technology that enables us to access gas in hard rocks so we can bring more fuel to homes and help provide a reliable source of energy into the future. ♪

personal pricing now on brakes. tell us what you want to pay. we do our best to make that work. deal! my money. my choice. my meineke.

obviously a united states senator has the opportunity to determine in a way the makeup of that court. so what opinions of late that have come from our high court do you most object to? >> oh, gosh, give me a specific one. i'm sorry. >> actually i can't because i need you to tell me which ones you object to. >> i'm very sorry. right off the top of my head i know that there are a lot, but i'll put it up on my website, i promise you. >> we know you disagree with roe versus wade. >> yeah, she said a recent one. she said of late, yeah, well, roe versus wade -- it's 30 some years old. >> any other supreme court decisions -- >> but let me say about roe versus wade, it that were

overturned would not make abortion illegal in the united states but put the power back to the states. >> but besides that decision, anything else you disagree with. >> there are several when it comes to pornography or court decisions not just supreme court but federal court decisions to give terrorists miranda rights. there's a lot of things i believe that this california decision to overturn don't ask, don't tell, i believe there are a lot of federal judges -- >> that wasn't the supreme court. >> i said in california. >> which supreme court decisions if any do you disagree with? >> the most recent one i've been engaged in is citizens united. it takes it to a ridiculous extreme. corporations respect entitled to the same free speech rights as people and in delaware you would think we would be fighting for the rights of corporations but in terms of political contributions, the free speech rights of corporations i don't

think deserve the same protections as the free speech rights of real living, breathing, voting humans so i would disagree with that decision and try to find ways to limit it, overturn it -- >> anything else. >> that's the most important one. >> let's take another question from a student on energy right now. >> my question is, where do you think funding should be placed in order to move towards the united states decreasing its carbon footprint? >> mr. cones? >> well, the pose effective investment in reducing emissions of co2 and other things that cause greenhouse gas warming is energy efficiency and conservation. there was a significant investment in the stimulus bill in getting municipalities, local governments, the private sector to invest in efficiency and conservation and those are investments that reduce emissions, put people to work and can develop cutting-edge technologies that make our systems operate better and reduce not just the emissions but also the operating expenses. in new castle county, we took

$3.8 million in eecbg grants and combined with 4 million of our and pretty tree fit 20 buildings and reduced emissions and put folks to work in our own community. as you look at those kind of investments around the country, they're the most important, they have the most impact. of anything you can do that will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. there's many more things we need to do -- >> the minute is up. >> excuse me if well, i think the best way to address it that is most relevant to this u.s. senate race is to talk about the issue of cap and trade because the winner of this u.s. senate race can be immediately sworn in and serve in harry reid's lame duck session and vote on cap and trade. while i do believe that we have to be good stewards of this earth, we don't need to do it at the expense of our citizens and cap and trade will do that. whether it's farmers, senior citizens or realtors who are concerned about its green compliance standards nobody wants this bill. this bill is a national energy tax that will ration energy use

and increase our utility bill, senior citizens are concerned about the cost of their utility bills going up. farmers are concerned about the green compliance standards and the raised utility bills shutting down their operations and realtors are concerned about the green compliance standards hurting an already hurting housing market. but i would have to ask my opponent speaking of cap and trade your family business stand to financially benefit from some environmental legislation under bush. >> the minute is up so let's toss this to him. >> would your business -- >> a fascinating question that reel hi makes no sense yet so if you'd hike to ask her the whole question i'd be interested in hearing what she's talking about. >> i'd like to know if your family business stands to have a financial gain if cap and trade is passed. if so would you recuse yourself from voting with harry reid. >> a fascinating question. no, to the best of my knowledge there is no direct financial benefit and do think it's important for folks in public

office to conduct themselves ethically and be trance parent and accountable for decisions they make and for votes they cast. i am someone who thinks that greenhouse gases are a concern. are a problem for the long term and i think we need to take steps to rein them in and deal with the environmental consequences that they might present. >> well, will et me ask miss o'donnell, what evidence do you have that any family business that he has would tan to gain from cap and trade? >> because they make fuel cells. >> who is they? >> w.l. gore. they make some of the stuff that will be required by these businesses to regulate cap and trade, so -- >> is that true? >> that's quite a stretch. gore makes over a thousand products. it was difficult for me to understand from her question what she was talking about. gore is a company that makes lots and lots of products from implantable medical devices to dental floss to some membrane tass are component parts that go into systems that go into fuel cells. fuel cells are not currently

fielded broadly in the united states. it's a cutting-edge technology that someday has the promise of being a significant contributor to making a more energy efficient cleaner transportation future. but to me the impact is so distant from any particular proposal on cap and trade it took a couple minutes to even understand what she was talking about. >> on this issue of energy and let's wrap up this section with this, yesterday the obama administration announced it was lifting the moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the gulf of mexico. do you support this kind of offshore oil drilling? >> well, that has raised the issue of whether we support it here in delaware because that move would allow that, no, i don't want to see oil rigs off the state of delaware, however, it should be up to the states to decide and if the governor would pass legislation for that -- i shouldn't as a congressman overstep a state's rights. virginia wants it and not only

that, we have got to begin to wean ourselves off of foreign oil. we are dependent on potentially hostile countries like russia and venezuela while our own homeland is rich with natural resources whether it's oil or natural gas and there are states that do want to begin exploration. alaska, virginia, we as a government need to support those states who do want it. >> you agree or disagree? >> i opposed. the president's proposal to open the outer continental shelf off delaware to oil drilling when it was first made months ago. i frankly think that delaware's world class beaches shouldn't be at risk of being spoiled by oil spills, we depend on tourism, on our fisheries, lots of reason i i think why it doesn't make sense for most of the atlantic coast. i do think there are natural energy resources in this country we can and should begin to explore it more fully but would also prioritize them. the university of delaware has long been a world lower in solar power, for example, and has a key role to play in making wind

power real. offshore wind power, solar power, these are the sorts of areas where i'd prefer to see federal investment and new innovative opportunities that could create good jobs for the long term. on your next business trip,

pack your marriott rewards visa card. get triple points every time you use your card at marriott. apply now and earn 22,500 bonus points when you use your card and enjoy a free night stay. so, before you know it, work time becomes well-deserved downtime. apply now at marriott.com/freenightstay. you've got staying power.

this is an issue that i think can really i will trait the differences perhaps between the two of you and that is what

specifically would you and could you do to actually help end any of the bitter bipartisan nonpartisanship in washington, so what would you be able to do as an individual once you arrive in washington? >> well, i've had to fight my party to be here on this stage, to win the nomination and to some extent i'm still fighting my party. so my -- when i go to washington my allegiance will be to the voters of delaware, not any special interests. my whole campaign has been about returning the political process back to the people of delaware and to me that's a great thing. so what i would do is i would stand strong on legislation that benefits the interests of our citizens, not the special interests in washington, d.c., and i would stand there and not just vote against a piece of legislation but make the floor speeches that would try to convince my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have lost their way and given in to partisanship so much so that it has caused several stalemates as

to why this is in the best interest of their constituents and i would stand firm regardless of what kind of pressure was on me from either party to stand firm in doing what is right for the people of delaware, not the interests in washington. >> i frankly don't think my opponent can or has pointed to one single example where she is supports the current administration or an initiative of the democratic party. i have a real practical record of having reached bipartisan solutions here in county government of working with the elected republicans who have served with me on county council and on council while i've been executive. i have a hands-on record in my service in the sector of reaching out to folks from different political backgrounds and different experiences and from different world views to work with them to find solutions. i think that's the kind of record delawareans will look at in judging whether or not i have the capacity to address some of this endless parts lesless --

>> i'll give you a chance to clarify. she says ari reed has called you his pet. >> i don't know why harry reid said that. i'm nobody's pet. i'm going to be a bulldog for delaware. i'm running to represent all delawareans of whatever party, not just the democrats and i've got a significant amount of support from independent, from republicans, from democrats, from all three counties, i've got a record of independence and of fighting for the public interest as county executive and i would continue that in washington. >> just to clarify the point from earlier, just to make sure we tie this up, earlier you said you didn't want to have to talk about comments you made years ago about witchcraft and stuff like that. but in this commercial that's so widely seen you begin the commercial with the words "i am not a witch." >> to put it to rest. >> what were you thinking? >> to put to it rest. >> didn't you realize if you do that in a commercial it would just revive it and everybody would be talking about that. >> well, we're moving past that and talking about the issues. i'd like to address what my opponent just said about being a bulldog for delaware yet in a

fund raising letter he promises to support the reed, obama, pelosi agenda, lock, stock and barrel. why is the democratic party pulling out all the stops to get him elected? because they see him as a rubber stamp for their agenda. there are many things that i have publicly said that i support the obama administration on. i support obama's decision to send troops to afghanistan. i support obama's decision for drones. i support obama's decision to treat the american who is recruiting terrorists on american soil who is hiding in yemen, i support the decision for our intelligence agencies to do whatever it takes to take him out so there are things i would proudly support when it is in the best interest of delawareans. but i believe that a lot of the policies coming from this administration are not in the best interest of delawareans and most of them are the failed stimulus bills where we've been promised one thing and then

received another. but breaking promises is something that my opponent is very comfortable doing. >> we will begin the closing statements. both of you will have a chance to make final comments. we'll begin with ms. o'donnell. >> once again i'd like to thank the host, nancy and wolf and i hope now that the delaware voters better understand the clear choice we face in november. my opponent has a record of raising taxes. and a record of wasteful spending. like so many career politicians, he says he'd do one thing and then only breaks his promises after he's assumed office. my opponent will rubber stamp the same failed policies that have caused unemployment and our national debt to skyrocket. he's in lockstep with barack obama and harry reid and that's why harry reid has called him his pet. i'm not a democrat. but i though that what's happening in this country right now is not what pie democratic friends voted for when they voted for change in 2008.

what washington needs now are new voices and new ideas that look to the people and not to the government to the solutions to our economic problems. my opponent is addicted to a culture of spending, waste today and abuse whether it's spending tax dollars on men's fashion shows or to pay off his cronies with sweetheart pension deals and special interests. we already have enough politicians in washington like that. i want to go to washington and be the voice of the people of delaware, not any party or special interest group. i want to go to washington and represent the people had put me on this stage tonight and who are willing to work hard to get our country back on track again. it's not going to be easy. but i do believe that america is the greatest force of good in the world and i have never questioned whether america is a beacon of freedom and justice. we will get our financial house in order. we will cut spending. we will reform our government and we will defeat our enemies

and see triumph over freedom again. so with that said, i hope that you will support me and cast your vote for o'donnell for u.s. senate. god bless you and god bless delaware. >> i appreciate your attention to tonight's debate. thank you for the tough questions you've had and the open conversation we've had. i think you've heard there is a real and clear difference between my opponent and me in our values, experience and in our approach. ms. odom has experience at running for office but to the at really running anything. at delivering catchy slogans but at not delivering on any real solutions and frankly at sharpening the partisan divide not at britaining it. she's focused too little on the issues that really matter to delawareans and too much on the issues that make for good sound bites. i think what delaware needs, what delaware deserves is someone as their next united states senator who has real hands-on experience, experience solving problems, fixing what's wrong, here with our community and in washington and tackling the real problems that face us in