law by the president, children now can stay on their parent's insurance policies until the age of 26. people can no longer be denied coverage for preexisting conditions. insurers, the big insurance companies, are prohibited from rescinding coverage if a customer becomes sick and they can't impose any life-time limits on essential benefits like hospital stays or expensive treatments. you say you want to repeal all of that? >> well, first of all, no one is disputing our health care system before obama care didn't need reform. those are important things that are part of insurance reform, not health care reform. 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 it would make more people insured. recent reports say it's not. it's 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 enact real reform. 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. 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 are victims of true medical malpractice. >> one minute to respond. >> i support the implementation. i think it made significant advances but there's additional investments in the bill to make sure there's coverage to rural areas, by recruiting and training a whole new generation of doctors and nurses, by expanding support for community health centers and by improving the efficiency of our health care system. it makes a land mark investment of $350 million over a decade to try and fight waste, fraud and abuse and increase those savings and there were strategic investments that would allow medical records to reduce injuries to patients and mistaken treatment. all of these in combination i think argue for extending, perfecting and implementing this land mark bill. it's not perfect, there's problems with it.

but rather than turning it back 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. >> we're now into the part of the discussion on it. the issue was brought up about malpractice reform. democrats are often accused of being too close to trial lawyers and republicans say that's why there's 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's critical that folks in this country be able to take on powerful interests and where individuals are harmed, that they're able to go into court and seek redress, whether harmed by someone who misled them in a securities investment product, that they purchased that hurt them, because it wasn't delivered right or a medical procedure that went horribly wrong. i don't support putting caps on liability, because it is only the threat of a significant

recovery that allows protection for consumers, patients, investors. i think that's an important part of the american legal system. i think as i just mentioned, there's significant advances in this bill that allow to make health care safer, stronger, more transparent 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, that's what -- okay, first of all, you say you're concerned about reducing costs but this health care bill has caused costs to skyrocket. >> i don't know what reports you're reading. >> one out of four democrats have gone on record saying they oppose obama care, they realized we made a bad mistake. what this bill does is it gives a massive -- >> three out of four democrats do support it.

example -- you toss that around everywhere you go, but how does this bill put uncle sam into the examination room? and if so, why did the organization that fights for and represents america's nurses, america's seniors and hospitals and doctors all endorse and support this bill? >> many of those branches on the state level, including here in delaware, said 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 and it's cheaper to pay -- >> the state chamber of commerce -- >> this health care bill has cut medicare. >> we're down into the last 30 seconds of this discussion. >> the state hosted a debate earlier today. i was sorry you chose not to join us.

it would have been great to hear the response of the physicians and the hospital administrators, that you're suggesting they didn't support a bill they lobbied for. >> i want to be precise on this 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 make health care affordable. >> here's the question. say someone decides not to purchase health insurance, makes that conscientious decision, even though they can afford to buy it, but doesn't want to. this person gets ill, is 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 and said you made a decision, you're not going to get this treatment. >> if we do the things i said that i'm proposing that will address the issue of health care, then that person can

afford to buy a catastrophic only policy from across state lines. >> what if that person doesn't want to buy it. who should take care of that. >> we have to address that. anything that they do when they have another bill that they can't pay, make them pay it, hold them accountable. but right now -- 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 for people to support this health care bill. what i'm proposing will help address those situations and help alleviate those situations. nobody should be forced to pay for anyone else's health care and that's what obama care does. >> before the health care reform bill passed, all of us who have insurance have been bearing the

cost, paying the freight for those that don't have insurance and coverage. they're getting health care through emergency rooms now. that's partly why small businesses, employers like new castle county, have faced double digit imcreases in our insurance costs year after year, because that's how we provide care now. it's not effective. how are those flat rate boxes working out? fabulous! they gave me this great idea. yea? we mail documents all over the country, so, what if there were priority mail flat rate... envelopes? yes! you could ship to any state... for a low flat rate? yes! a really low flat rate. like $4.90? yes! and it could look like a flat rate box... only flatter? like this? you...me...genius. genius. priority mail flat rate envelopes. just $4.90. only from the postal service. a simpler way to ship. ♪ [ 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

lot's move on to >> >> let's move on to immigration right now. a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. you support that, right? >> no.

i support a pathway to being here legally. was that your whole question? >> what is your position on a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants? >> we've got roughly 12 million illegal immigrants in the united states today. this is a huge problem. immigration is a federal responsibility, and i think we should look to the federal government to fix it. the federal government has failed states like arizona, delaware, many others. but we need to recognize the situation we're in. there are whole industries that rely on the labor here illegally. the current administration has stepped up and invested millions in additional troops, services, additional support at the border. my path forward on immigration would be, strengthen the boarders, make it much tougher for folks to come here illegally. hold employers accountable by giving them real i.d. that can work, that is much more

difficult to counterfeit and hold them accountable if they violate that. then allow those who are here illegally and do not commit further crimes to come out of the shadows, if they will pay taxes, learn english, pay a fine, say i committed a crime and pay a fine and go to the back of the line behind those who have applied to come here legally, i would give them a path towards legal residence. i respect the tradition of those who go and serve our nation overseas, being offered a chance at citizenship. but the pathway i'm suggesting is one towards legal residence. i want to focus our resources, law enforcement resources on finding and deporting those who pose a real threat. as someone responsible for a county police department, i've seen over and over where neighborhoods are threatened by people who are here illegally. >> again, he's backtracking on

things that he said earlier on the campaign trail, and i would ask you when you say that you support border enforcement, this administration recently stopped the efforts to put a virtual fence on our border. when barack obama is standing with you on the campaign trail this friday, are you going to tell him you disagree with him on his immigration reform efforts? i believe, however, that securing our boarders should be our first priority before we get into any discussion of whether we're going to give social security benefits to illegal aliens. america is a magnet for those all over the country who do believe, ore all over the world who do believe that america does stand as a beacon of hope and justice for the world. and therefore i support a legal pathway to those coming over here, especially for political asylum, to seek a better life and to reward those who break our laws is to cheat those who honor them. and this is not a message that our federal government should be

sending. >> you said you don't want to provide amnesty. >> i don't want to provide amnesty. what i'm saying is we have to get rid of all the bureaucratic messes that make the legal pathway difficult. but when someone willingly breaks our law, that sends a message that says don't worry about the laws we have set up, and we'll grant you these benefits. it's economically hurting us and it's also a national security issue. worker programs, and that's the difference. >> if you can reconcile all those comments, you're even more talented reporter than i think you are, nancy. one of the challenges is getting past the partisan divide on this. senator john mccain was someone who had been a real advocate for

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 who pose real threats to our community continue to grow and we are not taking the actions we need to take to separate 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 those here illegally take responsibility for that or are deported. that way we can make progress. >> he just took a hard line position. again, i would ask are you going to tell president obama that, that you disagree with him and yo to keep in mind that -- it only increased the problem, so we've got to address the issue of securing our boarders and this is something that president obama's administration stopped this

year. we've got to secure our boarders first and then begin the discussion on guest worker programs and how to eliminate some of the bureaucracies that keep the legal pathway to citizenship so difficult.

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. [ man ] save $523. save $345. 16 minutes could save you 16%. come on. isn't it time an auto insurer gave it to you straight? that's why you should talk to state farm. but not yet. first, talk to any one of the 40 million drivers who already have state farm. 40 million. yeah, that's more than geico and progressive combined. by a lot. 40 million drivers, more savings, and discounts up to 40%. where else are you gonna get discounts like that? but first, talk to your neighbors. chances are, they're one of the 40 million. then call a state farm agent or go online for a free discount double-check. they'll find you discounts you didn't even know you deserved. like discounts for having a safe car.

so go ahead. check with your neighbors. then call a state farm agent at 1-800-state-farm or go to discountdoublecheck.com. ♪ 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 pretend to be our friend, it's because they've got something up their sleeve." you also said you weren't privy to some of the classified information i am privy to. i would like, if possible, for you to clarify. >> first of all, i was talking

about when i was working with a humanitarian group that was going to china. we were given security briefs of china's position with some security threats. but we do have to look at china very seriously because 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 weapons. 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 we 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 than 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 -- >> a specific quote that you said china has a plan to take over america, do you know about this plan? >> 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. >> do you want to quickly respond? >> it's hard for me to respond effectively, wolf, to all the different issues that she's raised in previous statements and i'll just let that stand. i don't have any classified information about china or its plans, but what i think we need

to focus on in this debate, on this particular question, is the steady degradation of our security posture in the pacific rim. the australian navy engaged in exercises with the chinese and excluded us. a dramatic shift in the australian policy. they're pushing the envelope on issues from taiwan to trade to intellectual property. sit a profound threat. not just to the vitality of our economy and innovation 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 that in trade war -- >> we're out of time -- >> are you saying that china -- >> i'm sorry, we're going to close out this conversation and move on to student questions. first up, we have a question from a student who brings us the issue of don't ask, don't tell.

>> i was wondering if you're planning to bring back up the issue of don't ask, don't tell and it's possible repeal? >> i would move swiftly to repeal don't ask, don't tell. it's discrimination, plain and simple. i've met with and spoken with veterans who served our nation for decades, several with top secret clearances but who could do so only at the expense of dying who they were and the relationships they wanted to have. in my view, we should be making progress in this country towards recognizes the full range of human expense and repealing that to me is an important next step in the civil rights movement. >> a federal judge ruled we have to overturn it. 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. it doesn't allow affairs to go on within your chain of command, it doesnso the military already regulates personal behavior because it feels it is in the best interest of our military readiness. i don't think that congress should be forcing a social agenda on our military. i think we should leave that to the military to decide. receiving the bronze star, that was definitely one of my proudest moments.

i graduated from west point, then i did a tour of duty in iraq. when i was transitioning from active duty, i went to a military officer hiring conference. it was kind of like speed dating. there were 12 companies that i was pre-matched with, but walmart turned out to be the best for me. sam walton was in the military, and he understood the importance of developing your people. it's an honor to be in a position of leadership at walmart. i'm captain tracey lloyd, and i work at walmart. ♪

we have another student question on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. >> what is your view on federal

allocation funds. >> i would support stem cell research. i would support federal funding for research that includes embryonic stem cell research. there are critical advances that can be made in addressing some of the most difficult diseases that affect millions of americans and i think that if it is possible to do so, we ought to be investing and making progress. >> i think if we took an intellectually honest look at the research that's been put out there, you will see there's incredible advances with adult stem cell research, not as much with embryonic stem cell research. so if this were on the private sector, this is where the investors would be putting their money. the federal government should not be in the business of creating life to destroy it. when it comes to 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, where they've given hundreds and potentially thousands of infertile couples the opportunity to have babies. it's a wonderful program. >> our next student question brings us to the issue of abortion. >> what is your stance on abortion, including in cases of rape and incest? >> i believe that 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 unrepeatable precious human dignity on all levels. and my opponent and others will use rape and incest when that's less than 1% of all abortions in america. >> i support a woman's right to choose.

it is an important part of our nation and its freedoms. i personally am opposed to abortion but i don't think it's 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 we go back to this. on the issue of gays serving openly in the united states military, almost all 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 our military set forth. it's the same thing 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 chief of staffs says he believes gays should be allowed to serve in the military, would

that be good enough for you? >> if the heads of all four branches of the military said that, it would be up to them, not me as a u.s. senator to impose my social agenda, whether it's for or against don't ask, don't tell. >> what about that? what the chairman of the services 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 these issues that ms. o'donnell raises, unit cohesion and those other issues, what would you say then? >> one of my real heros is harry truman. he made a difficult decision to compel the racial integration of the armed forces at a point when most of the generals said, for exactly the same reasons, unit cohesion, performance on the battlefield, we should not have a racially integrated military. it's made one of our militaries

the most progressive organization in our country. as you said earlier, most of our nato allies have realized that 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. [ male announcer ] "dear focus... "be careful out there. "as you know, we have more standard safety features "than you. "10 airbags... daytime running lamps... "onstar automatic crash response. "in case ya didn't see it, that's probably why "msn autos called the cruze "the class of its class right now. that seems pretty clear, doesn't it?" the all-new chevrolet cruze. starting under $17,000. get used to more. ♪

[ female announcer ] last year, the u.s. alone used over 39 billion plastic bottles of water. ♪ that's enough to stretch around the earth over 190 times. ♪ each brita filter can take up to 300 of those bottles out of the equation. it's a small step that can make a big difference. look for our coupon in this weekend's newspaper. "be careful out there. "as you know, we have more standard safety features "than you. "10 airbags... daytime running lamps... "onstar automatic crash response.

"in case ya didn't see it, that's probably why "msn autos called the cruze "the class of its class right now. that seems pretty clear, doesn't it?" the all-new chevrolet cruze. starting under $17,000. get used to more. ♪

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. coons, you're first. >> i think the decision to which the student is referring was an ill-decided decision, one that opens the flood gates to increase corporate contributions that could have the unintended consequence of distorting our electoral process here in the united states and i would support reforms that further disclose who is behind the shadowy groups, whether individuals or corporations that are trying to influence our elections. sunshine is the best disinfecttant. >> yet the legislative efforts to do exactly that have failed to do that. the disclose act that harry reid, which he's called my opponent his pet, has put out there to do just that, has exempted 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 reports, my supporters have been getting harassing phone calls, not just from reporters, but from all kinds of people who oppose any candidacy. they're using intimidation tactics because we are forced to disclose who is contributing to my campaign. so this so-called 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 500,000 members and who are already playing in the back room deals. >> do the american people have a right to know where all this money in these campaigns is coming from? >> yes and no.

i believe there are ways where we can report to the scc. but unless there's a question of corruption, we don't have to make them public. that would prevent a lot of harassment and a lot of discussion about our first amendment rights. we can disclose that but they don't have to put it up on a website. over and over, that's a repeated violation in many campaigns, not my own, but even my own party has said go look on someone's report and call them up for a donation and i said absolutely not. that's against the law. >> i just there's so much there, wolf. frankly, i support full disclosure of campaign contributions as i said before. it is the best way to ensure that we've got fair, open and clean campaigns. folks should know who the folks who are contributing to campaigns. it's an important way to hold candidates and elected officials

accountable. >> we have another student question on religion in america. >> in the light of the events in the past decade, islam has been viewed as a religion for extreme itse ists and terrorists. recently there's been controversy over the mosque being built in ground zero and the florida pastor making remarks about the koran. as a senator, where is the line between freedom of speech and the respect of other religions, both of which are found in the first amendment of the constitution. >> mr. coons? >> a great question and a difficult one. the florida pastor who caused outrage by threatening to burn the koran showed profound misunderstanding of the terrorists that attacked america and the vast majority of muslims who participate in a religion

whose fundamental principles is to peace. if that pastor wanted to make a point, he should have threatened to burn the teachings of osama bin laden. sit an important challenge, a key role for the united states supreme court to draw the line in the first amendment between those who would do the equivalent of calling fire in a crowded theater and inciting attacks and riots, such as osama bin laden has. and those who have scripture, religious traditions worthy of broad support. that's a central world 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 can't as you said go into a crowded theater and yell "fire." you can't slander and libel someone. however, 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 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 support this mosque that's supposed to be built near 9/11 -- >> and a lot of the people on the ground do not, and they're going to have a lot to face from their constituents and maybe re-election is jeopardized. >> should this mosque near 9/11 beability? >> there's already mosques in many locations. i don't think it was a wise choice of locations. but i can't stand here and say that we should prevent folks from practicing their religion

anywhere in the united states. to say we will say you can't build a mosque here violates one of our most fundamental principles. [ j. weissman ] it was 1975. my professor at berkeley asked me if i wanted to change the world. i said "sure." "well, let's grow some algae." and that's what started it. exxonmobil and synthetic genomics have built a new facility to identify the most productive strains of algae. algae are amazing little critters. they secrete oil, which we could turn into biofuels. they also absorb co2. we're hoping to supplement the fuels that we use in our vehicles, and to do this at a large enough scale to someday help meet the world's energy demands. - hello! - ha! why don't you try a home cooked meal... with yummy hamburger helper? oh! tada! fantastically tasty, huh? ummm, it's good.

what would you guys like? hamburger helper. what?! one pound... one pan... one tasty meal! you'll never go back to your old duster. [ funny voice ] hey, duster! wanna attract dust like swiffer 360 duster? then try the magnet hat! ♪ whoa! wow! [ female announcer ] sorry, duster, but swiffer 360 dusters attract dust with over 500,000 fibers and lock it away to clean better than a feather duster.

swiffer's built smarter to clean better. ♪ she blinded me with science 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 of, but i'll put

it up on my website, i promise you. >> we know you disagree with roe versus wade. >> she said of late. roe versus wade would not put the power -- >> since then, any other supreme court decisions -- >> about roe versus wade, if that were overturned, would not make abortion illegal in the united states, it would put the power back to the states. >> but besides that decision, anything else you disagree with. >> there are several, when it comes to pornography, when it comes to court decisions not the 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 that there are a lot of federal judges legislating from the bench. >> which supreme court decisions do you disagree with? >> the most recent one, we've talked and it, is citizens united. i think that case takes a

logical extension in the law, but takes it to a ridiculous extreme. corporations aren't entitled to the same free speech rights as people. and in delaware, america's corporate capital, you would think we would be fighting for the rights of corporations. 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. i would act to try and find ways to limit it or over turn it. >> anything else? >> that's the most important. >> another question from a student on energy. >> where do you think funding should be placed in order to move towards the united states decreasing its carbon foot print? >> mr. coons? >> the most effective investment in reducing emissions of co-2 and other things that cause greenhouse gas forming is energy efficiency and conservation.

there was a bill in getting local governments, the private sector to invest in efficiency and conservation. those reduce emissions and develop cutting edge technologies to reduce not just the emissions but not the operating expenses. in new castle county, we took $3.8 million in grants and retro fitted 20 county buildings. we ultimately put folks to work here in ore own community. as you look at those investments, they have the most impact of anything you can do that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. there's many more things you need to do to -- >> the minute's up. >> i think the best way to address it that is most relevant is to talk about the issue of cap and trade. the winner of this u.s. senate race can be sworn in and serve in harry reid's lame duck

session and vote in cape and trade. i believe 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, nobody wants this bill. this bill is a national energy tax that will ration energy use, and increase our utility bills. 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. i would have to ask my opponent, speaking of cap and trade, your family business stands to financially benefit from some environmental legislation under bush. would you business -- >> a fascinating question that makes no sense yet, so if you would like to let her ask the

whole question. >> i would like to know if your family business stands to have a financial gain if cap and trade is passed. >> no, there is no direct benefit and i think it's important for folks to be transparent and account an for decisions they make and for votes they cast. make and votes they cast. i am someone who thinks greenhouse gases are a concern, a problem for the long term. i think we need to take steps to rein them and and deal with environmental consequences they might present. >> let me ask miss o'donnell, what evidence you have any family business he has would stand to gain from cap and trade? >> because they make fuel cells -- >> who's they? >> w.l. gore. they make some of the stuff that will be required by businesses to regulate cap and trade. so -- >> is that true? >> that's quite a stretch.

gore makes over 1,000 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 membranes that are component parts that go into systems that go into fuel cells. fuel cells are not fielded broadly in the united states. it's a cutting edge technology that someday has promise of being a significant contributor to making a more energy efficient cleaner transporation future. the impact is so distant from any particular proposal on cap and trade, it took a couple minutes to understand what she was talking about. ♪ another dollar ♪ daylight comes [ dogs barking ] ♪ i'm on my way ♪ another day ♪ another dollar ♪ working my whole life away

♪ another day ♪ another dollar 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.

this is an issue i think that can really illustrate the differences perhaps between the two of you. that is what specifically would you and could you do to actually help end any of the bitter bipartisan nonpartisanship in washington? 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 extents ale still fighting my party. 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. what i would do is i would stand strong on legislation that benefits the interest 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've lost their way and given in to partisanship, so much that it has caused several stalemates. as to why this is in the best interest of their constituents? i would stand firm regardless of what kind of pressure was on me from either party to stand firm in doing what's right for the people of delaware, not the interests of washington. >> i don't think my opponent can or has pointed to one single example where she supports the current administration or initiative of the democratic party. >> that's not true. >> i have a real practical record of met bipartisan solutions in county government and here. working with the republicanses that serve with me on county council. i have a real hands-on record here in the private sector and in my service and partnership with the private sector. of reaching out to folks from different political backgrounds, from different experiences, and from different world views. to work with them to find solutions. i think that's the kind of record that delawareans will

look at in judging whether or not i have the capacity to address some of this endless partisan -- >> on this specific issue, and miss o'donnell raised it earlier, i'll give you a chance to clarify to explain, she says harry reid, the senate majority leader, 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. i have a significant amount of support from independents, republicans, from democrats, from all three counties. i have a record of independenci. i would continue that in washington. >> just to clarify another point from earlier to make sure we tie this up, earlier you said you didn't want 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." >> put it to rest. >> what were you thinking? >> to put it to rest, to -- >> didn't you realize that if you do that in a commercial it

would revive it and everybody would be talking about that? >> we're moving past that and talking about the issues. i'd like to address what my opponent said about being a bulldog for delaware yet in a fund-raising letter he promises to support the reid/obama/pelosi agenda lock step and barrel. that's not nonpartisanship. again, 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 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's recr t recruiting terrorists on american soil who's hiding in yemen, i support the decision for our intelligence agencieieso do whatever it takes to take him out. there are things i proudly support when it's in the best interest of delawareans. i believe 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 your final comments. we'll begin with miss o'donnell. >> thank you. once again, i'd like to thank the host of this debate and nancy and wolf. i hope now 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 then only breaks his promises after he's assumed office. my opponent will rubber stamp the same famed policies that have caused unemployment and our national debt to skyrocket. he's in lock step with barack obama and harry reid and that's why harry reid called him his

b pet. i'm not a democrat. i know what's happening in this country now is not what my democratic friends voted for when they voted forh