we've talked about this week and two days. but it certainly wasn't this is a terrorist act. that came within a week later for them to do it. so if winning point, but not really actually kind of factually correct. another couple things i thought would be interesting. one was obama and afghanistan. we can pay for roads, schools and bridges. we are borrowing the money to pay for afghanistan. it's not true. we don't have a spot of money affair that assist the afghanistan -- it's actually borrowed money. and again, obama is kind of stretching things a little bit i think. >> which happens in these debates all the time. what lois was saying that is interesting is this candy crowley, both in the run-up in post game analysis, to some extent conservatives have a

genuine gripe and that she did interject yourself into the debate at that point in a way that really did help barack obama. so i'm sure that's going to be on fire in the right. >> it turns out to be an arguable point, the way one republican with words but to me it's a sad right there the president rewrote history and candy crowley out the pattern. another e-mail and getting it indicates estevan suggesting that republicans don't feel any sense of momentum like they do as last time. the sums up what people are saying. snoozer, absurd for not, ridiculous questions. that's not someone who just won a debate. >> i thought there were couple great questions. i thought the bush cushion is better than any he moderator has asked to date and i thought the last question asked about how a something you think is a misconception about you was a great question. i don't think you can blame

individuals. the immigration question is a good question. was an answer, but the questions were quite good. >> particularly, their biggest complaint has been that obama has made him the scary candidate. there's all these misconceptions. he hasn't been out there. this is a time for him to define himself, certainly. >> there is where i thought the team was most disappointed. when i go back and watch the tape, he had 90 minutes again today. it looks like 90 minutes today to run overtime, to basically show the american people the other side, but not scarier side, the one who worked in massachusetts of democrats across the aisle. you just didn't see that much of it. i wonder, and you spent a lot of time talking the debate prep team. was that the plan to go rent and civil go fact for fact, blow for blow? or did he just not execute the plan? >> restatement from a coming out. you talked earlier tonight about the x-ray these presidential campaigns house.

what we saw is romney who wanted to argue small points. part of it is as you say how much they dislike each other. he was not going to give obama an inch. but he came off looking a little eddie haskell. he came off looking a little at the tattletale, constantly criticizing the moderator can even seem to dispute the rules. just roll with it. >> if you're just another first couple minutes, in the energy question, mr. president, how many have actually done? obama didn't have a great answer. he could have set up at one time and stepped back a little. >> fewer but better if he smiled you looked shaky at lemon juice in his mouth. >> again, this is all about the independent voters and particularly women. the question -- we should bring you another question about how he handled the question about fairness and how do women

vis-à-vis specifically talked about. he did surround himself with more women in his anybody else. he did make a push to have the thought of women in his administration. his had a binder full of women and i won't hide -- >> why can't you find yourself? fighter jet to go to groups, if women really are qualified, ready, it'll come in positions they should then be a part of your administration commission after the woman screamed in massachusetts to find them. >> it will be interesting to see how that plays again. >> we talked a lot about this since the beginning of the campaign. with the president approaches is very surgical. he cares very specifically about certain sets of voters. hispanics, women, he cares about swing voters in colorado.

if you think about it, all through those groups groups you mention repeatedly by the president. i talked about energy policy, where do they love went? in iowa. it happened in the tossup states. it happens to be no women states that are competitive. did you know that? >> is very surgical. it's always been present at the end of the day her bill to grant it and focusing on the scripts they think would be push comes to shove. >> they said that obama and romney is the ad agency. first night for messages and romney saw macro. >> we have not seen the gun debate. and they had to -- both had some uncomfortable answers because neither wanted to say it won't

play well in the swing states. >> it was extremely organized, has been for the last presidential campaigns because it's almost a nonissue. that's what i love about having different people, other than media folks the moderators. we are not a right. they asked questions that nobody anticipated. >> we jump ahead because we say about guns. >> were there in a month or moments, been chewing through different highlights we thought were memorable, that will be replayed. are there any specific moments i stood up for you? >> if elected next saturday, "saturday night live" was well played. i think is going to be romney and him standing versus sitting. i think this is something that obama was going to come back and

this is going to be a momentous moment. they had a very different style getting in each other's faces and to me was one of the things that stood out about this. >> they were going back and forth about the debate. >> the campaigns are a little spin room here. republican sources say that the romney and journal group of undecided voters give it to that 63 to 38. >> with their own campaign staff. moved about in our favor quite a bit. squib on taxes, improving economy and jobs from reducing government spending to get in the country right type. the other side of what they are pushing out as governor romney saying mommy tried to politicize

libya. if the governor. it was offensive, with the campaign behind the scenes, saying his trying to politicize. >> another smart reporter we've worked with for many years is that the an instant analysis: it essentially a tie. i think the romney people would take a post analysis tomorrow morning that calls it. >> you can see a third is starting to the media wanted a tight race. candy crowley was in the back. she did her job to stay on the debate rules. they're going to be, if it's an event game over after this, they're going to be very happy. >> the key to interpreting and i don't like about them, but i do like focus groups to figure out how people interpret it. at the end of the day, the three of us don't matter. if you're a partisan home, doesn't matter. if you obama it doesn't matter.

it ain't about you. it's about the small group of people who have not made up her mind. and when you look at these focus groups and with the results and talk to a lot of these people, they'll say basically the same thing. were just not that into obama, barroso not that into that romney has been an alternative. each debate is going to be a test. can you prove barack obama that we should be into you for another four years? or inspire us to believe you're going to be possibly better for the next four. i don't know if you're one of those people you walk away saying i got it. the lightbulb went off. >> i think obama had a hard time, too. he didn't say some of the questions, where my life now four years after your isn't any better. he didn't give a well narrative. things are better. he going to return up for him. >> expand a rough four years. one of their promised better

lines was talking about gas prices. the president was talking i see them time to do about what he would do in the next four years. rummy said fine, that's the next turn. what about this term? >> the "huffington post" headline right now is the rock is back. it's indisputable that the base of the democratic party is not going to walk away very excited and believing in their guy again. we cannot emphasize enough how down professional democrats were on barack obama after that. our star pitcher might not be over throw the ball. and now they feel like he can throw, he can throw. that is the spin from the left in the "washington post" is a decent indicator on that. the report above the fold is the length of the foreign apc and it's a tie. you can service either direction the basis of the party will try to push interpretation. >> a little preview of coming attractions. romney focusing on television tonight and tomorrow morning arguing and attacking points

circulating that president abbas failed to connect with the questioners. he repeatedly ignored the questions and concerns have instead went to talking points were you could say the romney campaign, failed to answer questions on energy and the middle class and how hook up the deficit under control. >> a link being circuited unlinked around is that obama got 9% more time than mitt romney. again, complaining it was a scheme debate. which again, working through the metal, i don't think it really works. it gives conservatives fired up like it did last week when he wanted to get liberals fired up. again, you have to look out affects the middle. >> one of the things i wanted to talk about his bankruptcy, detroit. and romney kind of you that i'm not to say i would do exactly what should we do, mr. president. i do want detroit to fail.

i don't know the backweb words, they definitely pivoted. >> i came across this over. of course that romney is not a normal person. anybody voting for president probably isn't. but similarly with the distinction of private lands versus federal lands. i don't really get that. if i don't, the waitress mom who strive to reach maybe a little little puzzled as well. >> was briefed on a specific sample, which was to get pushed on the lack of specificity and how you'd pay for these tax cuts across the board. they romney's proposal a 20% reduction in rates across the board for every taxpayer. he said in essence all pay for the by getting rid of deductions. he never specified which deductions of the polls. candidates are never want to take politicians. >> they don't talk about specific things. and this debate he clearly was ready for it and said one thing

we could do hypothetically is capped at $25,000 in total deductions for taxpayers. do they think he made progress in using at least a specific number on my paul ryan who didn't use anything specific in his debate? >> to me, the questioner asked what about the home mortgage debate or deduction. he had five or so actual specific deductions. $25,000 doesn't mean -- you can't grasp on and take it back. that affects me and my tax return. i don't know if that's more specific, but it doesn't come with regular people. >> it's hard to know how it applies. he actually has a very fascinating story to tell about what he would do. this shows the sort of moderate bit. he's going out of his way to argue these are really cutting taxes. these are really cutting government. in fact, is not what you're supposed to be doing? in the senate close fundraiser where he taught about getting

rid of a department of the government. that would start to save actual money. >> was look at the clip about the question everyone cares about, whose pension is bigger than his. let's take a look. >> mr. president, the literature pension? popular figure pension? mr. president, the literature pension? >> it's not as big as yours. i don't check about often. >> when they give you some advice. look at scheuer pension. you have investments in china, outside the united states. >> were way off topic, mr. romney. >> if i were talking about immigration. >> affected every sit down, governor romney, thank you. >> president bush and i are different people and these are different times and that is why my five-point plan is so different than what he would've done.

for instance, we can have the virtue of new technology actually get all the energy we need in north america without going to the arabs or venezuelans anyone else. that's why my policy starts with a very robust policy to get all that energy in north america and become energy secure. number two, trade. all crackdown on china, president bush didn't. automatically expand trade in latin america. it's got about 12% of a long period of time. i want to add more free-trade agreements to to have more trade. number three, i'm going to get us to a balanced budget. president bush didn't. president obama was right. he said that was outrageous to have deficits as high as half a trillion dollars under the bush years. he was right, but then he put in place deficits twice that size. for every one of his four years in the forecast for the next four years is more deficit almost at-large. so that's another way in different than president bush. the last one, if championing

small business. we've been focused on big business too long. i came to small business. i understand how hard it is to start a small business. that's why everything i do is designed to help small businesses grow and add jobs. i want to keep taxes down on small business. i what regulators to see their job is encouraging small enterprise, not crushing it. but then i find disturbing about obama caricom is a long list, but one of the things i find most troubling is when you go out and talk to small businesses and asked them what they think about it, they said it keeps them from hiring more people. my priority is jobs. i know how to make that happen in president bush had a different path for a very different time. my pack is designed in getting small businesses to grow and hire people. >> i would pay big money to have votes a polling and focus groups done on just his answer to that one question.

because if nike pointed out from e-mail, republicans hated the response because they felt it was a rejection of george bush. i'm sure the former president was sitting at home cringing himself in and listen to the answer. but i do wonder if independents would've liked it. there's a huge concern among undecided voters about is this going to be returned to the bush years? remember, those run popular gears when he left the presidency on his favorable rating was low. people blame him for the wars. he started them. they blame him for the deficit. they blame him for% the economy. >> the president makes a point in every speech. >> so his response was amazing and that he has literally a five-point -- >> he certainly had out about it, right click >> the sun goes to 11. and needed to be modulated because you have to keep the folks and bush voters, evangelical voters heard that.

they didn't like it. like you suggested earlier, could've started by talking about bush's personal problems. then put down the hammer. >> in some ways he was an indictment of his entire presidency, trade which actually had several trade deals. there were things he did that if you're a republican you like. >> not to over think this, but a lot of republican base voters who have been wondering, is mitt romney one of us? this makes it clear he's not one of us. and still even after this debate, sort of the constant refrain as i understand why people are authentically confused about both of these men. how would they actually govern? once again there was so much focus when they were criticizing the other. neither of them really shine the moments where they said no, in the next four years this is precisely what i'll do.

they do not and rummy might've done better because he's able to cut taxes. you know he's going to do that. he's going to try to do something on spending. surprisingly, was there any talk about entitlement reform? >> you didn't miss it. mr. entitlement reform himself, paul ryan had sent an e-mail that said that crushed it and then he asked me for a donation. >> is ready. >> so let's fast forward to tomorrow. what you think the analysis or maybe shops will be? they say will be sad. as a matter that much. outside of the echo of fat, as john harris pointed out earlier in the program, can be hugely powerful if the consensus among everybody is chattering tomorrow shows that obama won decisively. that's going to have an effect on the polls. >> the headline says it all.

and when you're talking to your wife, the expression when you're explaining you're losing and republicans are the ones in spending. >> you think they'll be the analysis? >> i think that for romney, he's in such a better position than he was. at first he was so i guess, maybe he didn't get as far. he may need a little bit below obama, but it's not like he stumbled and fell off stage. >> and i think that's a good point. even if as for the coverage is coming a 50/50 country at eight or nine tossup states in the polls in each and every one have been essentially tied give or take for many, many months now. i don't think anybody thinks going it's the polls on election day to virginia's not going to be a tossup, that florida is not going to be a tossup, but colorado -- >> you can stop there. there's no way to know. and there's nothing tonight. even if you take the andrew sullivan area huffington view of

this debate that it was a great triumph for barack obama. i don't think there was enough to really move the needle in any way, other than to say folks, we've got a really interesting election with two men of great achievement. they're clearly both have done amazing things in their life. they're both richer, better educated. and i think that they're both residential. they're going to say i don't know, try to study the details. >> that ronnie was well headed. people are starting to talk about whether he was bob dole to leave around the 1996 raised. after the first debate, democrats were telling me today that offended then followed a couple days later, the race might have been over. we don't have any dynamic on either side. >> you spent so much time at capitol hill. it's not just the presidential race up for grabs. the concert house is going to send republicans control. no one knows it can happen in

the senate. a lot of people think whoever wins the presidency probably wins the senate. that's huge. >> people are very nervous. you talk to people downtown on k street and on the hill and there's no real sense. three weeks of democrats alike they were going to loosen the tie they can akin happened in the republican. i think it's very, very close and no one has any real sense where this and it's going to be. >> we are going to go to lois romano who is at the debate site who has been spending the day talking to officials from both sides in the spin room. there's probably 10 or 20 officials from both camps. usually the top officials, stop strategists to explain how we should interpret the world, at least the world for the last 90 minutes. give us your take here puts the sense of the room? >> the sense that the room is

bad obama knocks it out of the park. romney held as valid, but that the president came back. i mean, that was always the storyline. the obama people are only slightly defensive. you know, they're talking about how the governor made a lot of very good comments in terms of how bad the last four years have been. and the obama people believe that they scored their points by the president being very precise and talking about how the governor's numbers don't add up, how things are quite right about how things in the primary and now it seems something different. and they feel very good about that, but they called them on a lot of things on the whole issue, on taxes, on contraception. so they're still here. some of the rummy people about, but obama people are not leave until they have the lights out.

>> are there any areas where republicans feel it though be able to really pound on tomorrow areas where they feel like obama was wobbly or particularly strong in this performance versus his first one? >> i just think it's the same narrative that were going to share, which is not a bad narrative. and that is, what is he done for you lately? you know, he's made a lot of promises. in fact, one of the questions from the debate from one of the voters said they voted for your four years ago, but now things improved. as the thing they're going to keep emphasizing, that the president did not say what he was going to do for the next four years if he is reelected. he did not say why we have a better economy and i think that's what we're going to do. there were a few moments early on in the debate, where i think

even the democrats would concede that rummy looked very presidential. they looked it up there together. they were equal. i think that mr. romney probably wasn't expecting the president to come on this strong. he didn't have it. that would be my opinion. the governor didn't have it as well. we saw obama was performing differently and he did a lot of the same things he did in the last debate, which is talking over him, talking over his moderator, which were very effective last week in denver, but not quite as effective today. >> lois romano, you can save that our opinions don't matter. someone whose opinions matter badly, working-class moms. we just got results of the dialer group and milwaukee wisconsin. there were obama by four points.

that's real and that's notable. >> thank you very much they joined us on "politico" news channel eight in c-span 2. we'll have coverage throughout the evening and into the morning on "politico" and we'll be back here for the next presidential debate. >> i told you i'd cut the deficit. i said that i would end the war in iraq in a day. ♪ and we've gone after al qaeda is leadership. >> coming up tonight on c-span 2, the district debate between incumbent

i'm not ..

>> hoping to return to washington after a 30-year hiatus. this 15 minute debate is curtesy of kstp-tv in st. paul. ♪ >> the 8th district race where democrats want to win that seat back, but the republican incumbent is fighting for a second term. the 8 #th district extends from north eastern minnesota, the furthest reaches of minnesota and stretches to just north of the twin cities metro area. joining me now, republican incumbent seeking his second term in congress, a former airline pilot and navy veteran.

republican rick nolan, elected in 1974 and left office in the early 80s to pursue a business career. gentlemen, thank you for joining us here today. most voters are getting information about the two of you through television commercials so i want to show you each a commercial and then have you respond to some of the things said about each of you on the air waves. this season an add that targets chip. >> chip went to washington and brought back strange ideas. instead of town hall meetings, you had to pay to seem them driving a thousand dollar a month suv at taxpayer expense and voted to end the medicare system making seniors pay more while millionaires get more tax cuts.

chip was supposed to take minnesota values to washington, not the other way around. >> moderator: it is a catchy tune. can't get that out of your head, but dough yo stand by that rick nolan? nolan: there's more important issues in the contest than car allowances. it is about taxes. it is about spending priorities. it is about medicare and how we go forward in this country. i, for one, i don't like these attack ads. they really add little to the debate and, you'll notice my ads that i'm responsible for are all positive. they are telling who rick nolan is and what i believe in and the direction i want to see the country go in. i think that's the way campaigns should be. >> moderator: i would guess two of the things in this ad you probably don't think are important. the suv car allowance and the issue of whether you have to pay

to see him in a town hall meeting. nolan: that was just wrong. that's not true. you don't have to pay anybody to see chip. just call him and he's available. i compliment him for that. >> moderator: i imagine the criticisms about medicare and tax breaks for millionaires, you agree with that in the ad? nolan: yes, i do. yes, i do. more importantly, you know, i've life, grew my business there, raised my family there. between our children and their spouses and grandchildren and aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews, you know, and community, you have a lot a friends and develop a measure of respect for you even when they disagree with you, and then outside money's coming in from sheldon or the koch brothers, you don't even know. you spend a lifetime building a reputation, and people are there trying to destroy it, and i have nothing but respect for chip. we just have a difference of

opinion as to the direction, and i don't want to see people running ads attacking a good man and a gentleman anymore i want him attacking me and my family and my reputation. >> moderator: there are voters that see this and they think yor spend money on suvs and you have to pay money to see you. unfortunately, people, this is where they get the information are just from the ads. >> the ad today was pulled because it was so wrong. one thing, for example, it's illegal for me to take any type of contribution to see me. that's illegal. the ad for the vehicle for a thousand a month, we did a cost analysis on that, and they invest gaited it and discredited it. because we have over # 00 mobile offices in the distribute, done 9 town halls in the first month, it cost $3,000 to pay mileage. we get a tax break. we gave $94 # ,000 back to the

u.s. treasury. we're the only member of the u.s. house to do it. >> moderator: an ad that now targets rick nolan. >> remember the 70s? disco was king and nolan was in congress raising his pay attacking medicare. back then, nolan voted himself for pay raises pushing a bill to eliminate medicare. that's right, eliminate. he admitted he's become more radical. wow! now nolan supports a plan that slashes medicare by $700 billion. defeat rick nolan, he's still a radical and still wrong. american action network is responsible for the advertising. >> moderator: disco was king in the 1970s. [laughter] as for the rest of it, you have brought up on occasion in the last debate that rick nolan did vote to raise his own pay. fair game? cravaack: he raised the pay four times in six years, close to 50%

than what it was before, but during the same time, congressman nolan didn't show up for work at the same time regarding $716 billion out of medicare. that's true. the obamacare -- >> moderator: that money's not coming directly from beneficiaries. cravaack: robbing seniors to pay for obamacare. with medicare, we have a plan, but the democrats don't have a plan other than let it go bankrupt in 2022 so the ad was accurate. nolan: wait a minute. the fact checkers, wcco, npr, all the fact checkers said that that ad was misleading, false, untruthful, it was nonsensical, ridiculous. that's what the fact checkers said about that ad, and they were accurate. unfortunately, you know, it's

running four or five times an hour, and fact checkers are a one day story. we have been running ads, setting the record straight, telling the truth. when you voted for that ryan budget plan, you voted to cut $716 billion out of medicare, and you used that money to provide tax cuts for billionaires. that's what you did. we used that money by all the fact checkers have said we put it back into medicare. we extended the life of medicare eight years, and we did not cut one single benefit to the seniors, and, n., we increased benefits. cravaack: i'm going to protect and preserve medicare. you would have to agree with me that in the house plan, if you were 55 or older, nothing changes for you; correct? nolan: you know what, i'm trying to think of a delicate way to say this, but the thought that medicare was good enough for our

parents, good enough for us, and somehow it's not good enough for our children, we're going to throw them under the bus eliminating medicare as we know it and you know, congressman, no less than the economists and the "wall street journal" said that you and ryan and others voted to do away with medicare as we know it. >> moderator: congressman -- nolan: it was good enough for us, grandparent, and our kids. we're not going to throw them under the bus. cravaack: in 2022 it's bankrupt. if you are 5 # 5 years and older, nothing changes. if you're a current senior, nothing changes, 54 and younger, like me, something's got to change because unless we do something, we'll have nothing. this takes leadership. leadership is when you go -- when i went to congress, it takes leadership to make tough decisions. you have to make decisions, not

voting yourself pay raises. >> moderator: is this plan a voucher system in your mind? nolan: not in my mind. tom, all the fact checkers said it's a voucher system. it's -- >> moderator: you say it is a voucher system? nolan: of course. it turns seniors back over to the private insurance industry in the same way you proposed to take social security and turn that over to wall street. cravaack: that's a fallacy. the house plan doesn't address social security. social security's something different than the house plan. >> moderator: is the ryan medicare plan a voucher plan? cravaack: absolutely not. show me where it says that. paul ryan -- moving forward in the saving medicare because if we do nothing with medicare, it's insolvent so the current seniors

depending on medicare, when it's bankrupt, they get less services. >> moderator: one more topic, obamacare, even the president adopted that term, okay with people calling it "obamacare," and do you believe it's a government takeover of health care, and would you vote to scrap it in the next congress? after that-- cravaack: absolutely. plowsly brought it to the house floor, two hours later, previous congress votes on it. 2700 pages. no one read it. voted on it. the bureaucrats going through it now, half way threw it, created another 30,000 pages of rules and regulations. it is a takeover. the un-elected unaccountable board making medical decisions making decisions for seniors. >> moderator: scrap the coverage? cravaack: that's in the models already in the insurance plans.

>> moderator: what happens if obamacare is scrapped? nolan: it would be a terrible mistake. for one thing, we have assured that people can want be denied because of -- cannot be denieded because of preexisting conditions, parents can keep children covered up to the age of 26. there's some non-tax related measures in there that the insurance industry said that may save up a trillion dollars by streamlining the whole reimbursement process, and that's not to say that, you know, somewhere down the road there might not be changes as we see this thing implemented, and the same is said of medicare. of course, we have things to do to fix medicare and social security, but the answer is not to do away with them and turn seniors over to the insurance industry and -- cravaack: nobody's turning them over. nolan: you do when you eliminate the program. arve: we're not. if yoir 55 and older, nothing changes for you. the future plan with rivlin and ryan, there's a choice.

if you want traditional medicare, you can. >> moderator: on pre-existing conditions, before obamacare, there were companies who would not ensure you. cravaack: correct, but there are ones that will. this gives seniors and american people options. the thing is to have options and competition is the key in bringing down lower costs. nolan: talk about giving options to a program that we like for our parents and grandparents, and it's good enough for us, but not for our kids? you know what, people work for those programs, paid for them, earned benefits, and they have every right to expect them. we'll fix it. we're not doing away with it like you propose and turn it over not insurance industry. >> moderator: we'll come back in a moment to talk about the jobs issue, the mining issue, those two obviously intertwined in the 8th district coming up next as this debate in the 8th district congressional race continues in a moment. >> moderator: we're back. you stood in front of a georgia

pacific plant holding a conference saying congressman cravaack did nothing to save the plant while it was closing. could you have saved the plant if you were in congress? nolan: i think we can. one of the things we have to do is change tax and trade policy. congressman cravaack voted to extend the tax cuts that help facilitate the companies moving the jobs and manufacturing offshore. those are the tax cuts that i think we have to eliminate. we can use that revenue to balance our budget, and then we have to start using our tax and trade policy to incentivize domestic manufacturing. keep the manufacturing here where it belongs. >> moderator: job of government to save individual companies? cravaack i: i was honored by national association of manufacturers. incentivize the small business owner to expand and create jobs, have a progrowth tax reform to

ensure they get the break needed along with all americans actually in have a complicated tax code, it's how we get back to work. seven out of ten people employed by small businesses. that's higher in the 8th district of minnesota because we are small towns. >> moderator: the mining industry. therefor every mining job creat, there's another 2.6 elsewhere to support the industry. what would you do to push the number of jobs? nolan mpt -- nolan: i grew up on theñmó rang, always be for mining, but i'm a small businessman. i understand balancing budgets and meeting payrolls and getting things done, and wrn what stimulates business and jobs, and it's not more tax cuts for the super rich. right now, the american corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars. the banks are sitting on trillions of dollars. they don't need more tax breaks, but what they need is demand for the product. i know that as a businessman that when there's demand for the

product, you can invest in equipment, personnel,ñhr and get demand for the product rebuilding this middle class. that's where demand comes, not tax breaks for the rich. >> moderator: business experience help him create jobs in the iron range? after thatafter that-- cravaack: i have the amendment to help the industry, american steel and american projects. expediting permitting process through the streamlining effect, but, you know, in all fairness to the congressman here, he's had challenges in the own perm -- personal experience with business, and in addition to that, with the world trade center, quite frankly, a complete failure. governor rudy backed away from it, unfortunately, and didn't even attend the ribbon cutting ceremony, and the interim time period, respectfully, gave himself a raise, the highest state paid employee, $200,000 golden parachute taken away by

carlson who said enough, sold it at a terrible loss to the minnesota taxpayer. >> moderator: a chance to respond. nolan: they said it was a good project in retrospect raising $100 million generating the facility, creating hundreds of jobs. many of the tradesmen who live in the driblg, and i worked for project as a volunteer chairman helping minnesota companiesñ&r expand exports. in those years, 328,000 new jobs were created and they contributed to the enormous amendment of them. after that>> moderator: we -- nolan: you considered it a failure, but the men and women in the 8th district who got good jobs building it, the companies who --

cravaack: those are not my words. >> moderator: 30 seconds for a closing statement, use that to rebut what you hear. let's begin with chip cravaack. cravaack: privilege and honor to serve the men and women of the 8th district, and we have two very different courses seen here today. one course is one of prosperity and solvency. looking forward to the best interest of the next generationñ of americans. the other course is just what more we've seen for the last four years. more debt, more doubt, and more decline. i believe in a smaller government, more freedom for the american people, country gets back on track. thank you very much, i ask for your vote to continue on with the great people of minnesota. nolan: i'm a businessman. i have created jobs. you create jobs by dhand. not voting like the congressman has by giving tax breaks to millionaires, not ending medicare as we know it, not

giving companies tax loopholes. i know how to create jobs. i've created jobs.ñhr the way you do it is building a middle class. this trickle down economics doesn't work. that's what got us into trouble. we got to build the economy back up from the middle up. >> moderator: rick nolan, chip cravaack, three days -- three weeks until election day. á

>> it starts as an economic argue. men are having a harder time adapting to the economy, and women adapting easily. i don't know why. there's periods of time where men adapted easily. just staying in this peer. the economy is fast changing, who knows what it throws, women get the skills and credentials at a faster rate than men, and they are nimble filtering down in society. in the book, i talk about how that changes marriage and notions of fatherhood and what men and can't do in the families and how young people have sex and make decisions.

that has an influence in our culture. >> tucker carlson discusses the end of men, saturday night on "afterwards" on c-span's booktv. >> a look at the most competitive senate race this year in north dakota. representative rick berg faces heidi heitkamp. >> julie from "the national journal" looking at the senate race in north dakota, a tight race there between the republican and democrat, and this is a state where president obama's fairly certain to lose by double digits. why is the senate race expected to be so close?

>> guest: for sure obama is expected to lose by double digits in north dakota, but heidi heitkamp, people agree is the one candidate that could have made this a race for democrats. republicans are expected to win this seat in the beginning, and it would have been a republican pickup, but she's kind of crafted the independent persona. she really, you know, touts her sen credentials on the trail. this race has been a dead heat for months. >> host: they met at a debate last night, c-span's airing that debate tonight on c-span 2 at eight o'clock for those who want to watch that, but talk about the strategy of nationalizing this raise on berg's part. >> guest: sure. i'm what he basically needs to do is president obama's unpopular in the state so

there's been a lot of tieing her to the president. she's said that she supports his health care bill so the republicans have made that a big issue. she's said she supports parts of it, and she wants to fix what's wrong with it, but she's for repeal. the debate was an issue that she pushed. he's trying to tie her toçv' hay reid and the fact that, you know, a vote for heitkamp is a vote for democrats to pull the senate majority so in a state that's aç÷r red state where mitt romney's going to win, where people win republican, he's tried to emphasize that, you know, look at the big picture and who controls the senate and voting for heitkamp is like her, maybe seems like a good person, but focus on the really, you know, big picture, national issues. >> host: her job is to localize the race? is that the strategy here?

>> guest: it is. also, she, you know, she certainly distanced herself from the national party and from president obama on certain issues. one being the keystone pipeline which obama opposes and she has, you know, repeatedly said she supports. she's emphasized that she would try to protect north dakota farmers from over regulation which is something that people worry about with democrats being in power, and cap-and-trade is another area where she differs from the democrats so she's focused probably more on where she differs from the national party than where she, you know, agrees with them as well. >> host: willing to go out and criticize the obama administration if she has to in this race? >> guest: yep, she definitely has been. >> host: talk about movement in polls. is this stuck in a toss up for a long time? is this more volatile race or influenced by tonight's debate? >> guest: you know, it could be, but the polls have been

consistent for awhile. for a long time, there were not independent polls out in the race. there were a lot of internal democratic polls that tended to show pretty much a dead heat or heitkamp maybe up a few points just with a slight edge over rick, but, you know, recently a mason dixon poll came out showing a tight race. this could be one of the races that on election day no one knows what's going to happen until late at night. >> host: talking about taking the senate, is this a must-win for senate republicans if they have a chance of taking the senate? >> guest: i mean, the field is looking so volatile nationally at this point that it's hard to say what's a must-win, but most people do consider that narks, a seat they were supposed to win, it would be surprising if they couldn't win given mitt romney's

big advantage there and it's pretty much just close to a must-win as republicans have on the map this year. >> host: we'll watch that. thanks for joining us this morning. >> guest: thanks so much. now the debate for the senate seat between rick berg and heidi heitkamp. they rate the race a tossup. this 25-minute debate is curtesy of prairie public tv in fargo. >> moderator: welcome to public's continuing coverage of the election. this my guests today are the republican nominee and north dakota congressman rick berg and democratic nominee heidi heitkamp. welcome to both of you. thank you so much for being here. both candidates have a one opening opening and closing statement.

debate. based on a coin flip, representative berg, you are # first with the opening statement. berg: thank you. i thank prairie public, aarp, you're r yourself, heidi, and everyone watching. this may be the most important election in our lifetime. if we don't get the country back on track, my son, our children and grandchildren, won't inherit the same country that we did. as senator, i'll fight against barack obama's policies that north dakota, not washington should make decisions about family, their money, and their opportunities. i was raised in western north dakota, serving in the best citizens legislature in the country working together to craft policy that's made north dakota the economic envy of the nation. washington likes to make it complicated, but it's simple. we balance our budget by living within our means making the tough decisions, not tomorrow, but today in our time, in our

watch. that's the north dakota way, and that's what i'll fight for in washington. >> moderator: okay, heidi heitkamp, your opening. heitkamp: i got in the race because like many of you i believe washington was a place that was badly broken. the politicians in washington seem to care more about their party than they did about the people. they cared more about their own self than moving the country forward. two years ago, congressman berg sat at this table promising us to end the gridlock in washington,ñ&r that he'd end the partisanship moving the country forward. that didn't happen. in fact, on important pieces of legislation like the farm bill, congressman berg said i'm willing to cut $180 billion from the farm program and cut crop insurance 20%. he was willing to change the medicare system that would eventually cost retirees $6400 extra a year.

he was willing to give tax breaks to millionaires and tax breaks to companies ships jobs overseas. i think that's the wrong direction. i am -- >> moderator: that is one minute. first topic. a lot said in the campaign so far between the two in tv ads, some with out of state money, and to start off, i just want to have to opportunity when you are face-to-face to set the record traight if you want to on ads running, and then we'll move on. heitkamp: when i was in the office of attorney general, we had a case called buckly was a supreme court case saying money equals peach. it was the beginning of the end of civil campaigning in my opinion, the beginning of all this outside money. to fight the outside money, i asked for seven debates on various topics. i only got three, and some short like this one.

i think what the american people and what people in this state hoped would happen was they would have an opportunity to see us sit across the table and talk about the issues allowing for expansion. the ads are not ads that any of us paid for at this table, but we're stuck with them and people's attitudes about them. get money october of politics and get back to having discussions like this with the american people and with the people in our state. >> moderator: rick berg, your response? berg: the ability to debate is the right thing. the ads, certainly from the third parties, that's a flurry of ads. i believe north dakota believes in meeting people one-on-one, talking issues, and the issues could not be more clear in the campaign. it's an issue of government solutions or individual solutions. i'm obviously looking forward to this debate, and as we move forward to the campaign, i think the facts will set themselves straight, and the people in

north dakota, the election is decided by the grass roots, the people who know the truth, come out on election day, and i'm on the mistake that, you know -- optimistic it will be a great november. >> moderator: moving on to the farm bill. there's no bill now, there's back and forth why there's not a farm bill right now. the question in debate is why is there not a farm bill currently? what are the prospects after election if you are elected to pass a farm bill. rick berg, you start. berg: agriculture is important to me, the backbone of north dakota. my family homesteaded in north dakota. my dad a veterinarian, i grew up working on farms. the challenge we have right now, and i pushed leadership, and, in fact, not only drafted bipartisan letters, signed a discharge petition, but pushed leadership in the house to bring the house bill to the floor. we need a farm bill based on crop insurance, and the senate i workedded hard to get it in

conference committee. there's challenges in the house bill, tieing wetlands into crop insurance is what they are concerned with. it's unfortunate that agriculture is the one issue that's bipartisan. i mean, for the last two years, up until the last two weeks, and, of course, there's an editorial that, you know, attacked you for attacking me on the farm bill saying i'm one of the hardest working people to move the farm bill forward. there's a lot of people in congress who doesn't know where food comes from, but that it just shows up in the store. that's the challenge we have. boehner said he would bring the bill up before the enof the year. i'm taking his word for it. heitkamp: there's no better example at all on the failure of this congress than the farm bill. congressman berg stands here, a member of the house of representatives. the senate was able to pass, all be3w- it, an imperfect farm biln the senate. went over to the house of representatives, waiting for that to pass the house. when we talk about gridlock, the

gridlock we got was within the republican party.ñ&3 it was the fightñ&r between canr and boehner to move it forward. berg talked about the effort to move the farm bill forward, and i liken that to waking up in the 4th quarter, shooting the ball, but you're 50 appointments down. you didn't sign up for the ag committee. you said you would sport the bill. there's no evidence you tried, and when we talk about the discharge petition. how many votes were republican signatures on the discharge petition? there was nine including yours and over 40 democrat votes. you cannot look at any kind of activity that you had on the farm bill and claim any amount of success or any amount of legitimate effort. the number one job of someone in the united states senate of someone in the congress is to pass a farm bill. now we have an uncertainty because of the gridlock in the house of representatives and not in congress. >> moderator: a response.

berg: certainly the form says that's not accurate. the last farm bill expired as well so your accusations of me, and i hope they don't apply to the former senators and congressmen, strong advocates for farm and the farm bill. you know, my cousin farmed our familyñ&r homestead farm. heñ&r died suddenly last spring. his high school son is taking over that farm. he won't be able to farm if he doesn't have crop insurance in place. he needs a farm bill passed. this is personal to me, and i'm doing everything i can, and i will continue to do what i can to get the bill passed because it's important for north dakota. >> moderator: heitkamp? heitkamp: i come from a farming community, i grew up on a farm, grew up picking potatoes, and i know how critical that safety net is, but you cannot escape the fact that you don't even know when you come back that you're going to be able to solve

the gridlock in the house of representatives. you promised, congressman, the fargo forum, that you could get things done for north dakota because you could, had special relationships, a relationships with the majority leader, relationships with the speaker. none of that has come to fruition, and i don't think you can lay the blame for a lack of farm bill on anyone's doorstep other than the house of representatives of which you're the member of the majority party. >> moderator: rick berg, a response. berg: realm, again. there's a lot of things to get into. a good example. -- a good example of the problem is no budget. we have a storm wall problem, and the house republicans' leadership is a problem with the farm bill. this is a problem and a challenge, and i've worked with others in the bipartisan way to pull votes together. there's no question what needs to be done. i have the word of the speaker to take it up before the end of the year. you know, that's the hope, that's what we have to do. we always passed a farm bill,

but our challenge, our challenge in agriculture is one of the problems out in washington. they don't follow regular order, and as i said, with the senate, the same problem, no budget in three years. i think the deficit is one of the biggest problems facing our country, and not so to even have a budget, this is a problem. >> moderator: your response, and then we'll move on. hit: the senate farm bill cut $23 billion. in fact, it was in excess of what they were required to do real reform. you know, to say just bet on me, bet on me that i can get the job done, i think at this point, you know, we've seen what happened. we had a chance in july. we had a chance in august. had a chance, again, in september with no activity. i don't see that the gridlock and house of representatives is solved by an election, but just adds to the gridlock, and we'll

debate farm policy because of the failure of the house in the middle of the debate about sequestering and balancing the budget. that's not food for north dakota, crop insurance policy, or moving forward to provide a safety net for the farmers in north dakota. >> moderator: that's the last word on farming. the next issue. heidi heitkamp starts on the next issue. what proposals regarding medicare and social security being discussed in washington are of most concern to you, and are there any you favor or support? heitkamp: it's obvious most concern to me is the so-called preup or providing a voucher for medicare into the future. we know that what that will be is an arbitrary line. we'll say everybody under the age of 55 who for years paid into the system gets handed a voucher. congressman says, well, but, yes, they canñ&r stay in traditional medicare, butñhr we know that only has those among

the elderly who are the ciggest, we've got real problems in making sure that system is solvent so i would tell you creating premium support for medicare. the second biggest problem is how are we going to keep the medicare system solvent? congressman berg talks about 12 years of solvency but doesn't tell you those same people giving you 12 years say it's only four if you repeal the affordable care agent. there's huge risk. we need time to get the medicare system back working. my solutions include negotiating prescription drug prices, which i think the president was wrong when he took it off the table, getting fraud and waste and abuse out, which would be $70 billion or $80 billion going into the future, and looking at what we can do to promote wellness. you know, i have a long history of working to promote wellness in north dakota, especially in the tobacco area. i didn't get help from berg when he was in the legislature in that regard, but we have to keep

people healthier in north dakota and in the country if we are going to solve the medicare crisis. >> moderator: a response. berg: i'd like to start out that you are incorrect on the numbers. medicare's not bankrupt in four years without obamacare. it goes bankrupt in 12 years. now, there's a shuffling of numbers in a double counting of numbers is a point saying it's four more years, not fourç÷r yes and 12 years. there's two solutions. backing up, 12 years, it's bankrupt. it's -- that's bad for seniors. that's bad for people depending on medicare. that was a promise to people. let's get the facts straight. 12 years it's bankrupt. there's two proposals. obamacare, which takes $716 billion out of medicare, sets up an unelected board called ipab making decisions for seniors, rationing care for seenons. that's the challenge and core.

the other alternative is there's no change for anyone at or near retirement. if you're 54 and under, you can keep medicare. that's the plan. now, there's two options. the difference is choice. in the premium support, there's two options at no cost. if you want to add some, you have the choice to add policies or one that fits into what you'd like. you know, clearly, these are two very different solutions, and it is going bankrupt. heitkamp: don't trust me or any partisan source. go out and take a look at the keiser family foundation website. it states clearly that if you repeal the health care law, the solvency date is four years, and so i'm not buying your facts on that. the other point that i want to point out, you talk about the $719 billion. it is -- it is thee biggest fib in this whole campaign, and everybody who looks at it says

it is a big fib, and, you know, honestly, there's just one person at the table who ever voted for that cut, and that's congressman berg voting for the ryan plan. both times he voted for it. cut the nonsense. health care and medicare is too important to play politics with the numbers, to play politics with this policy. we need to fix the system, and there are long term ways to do that like negotiating prescription drug prices, long term ways to do that like cutting the fraud and abuse and start facing the facts of what's happening with medicare, and we don't need to prieftize the system the way you recommendedded in the ryan plan. >> moderator: time word on this, rick berg, and then we move on to the next issue. berg: it's $716 billion. cuts money from hospitals and physicians in north dakota. it cuts hospice. these are real cuts. $716 billion from medicare. you know, i talked to a lady

that moved to north carolina to be with her kids, and she said she went to north carolina, had to go to 23 different providers before she could find someone who would take medicare. that's the problem. when you cut $716 like president obama did to fund obamacare from our seniors, people are going to quit taking medicare patients. now, the other thing i want to make clear is in the house budget, it did take $716, but you know what it did? put that money back in medicare to strengthen it. it didn't take it to pay for obamacare. we have a crisis on our hands. with we have to do, and this is the problem. there's too much rhetoric. dig in the facts, know your numbers. know your facts. come up with solutions. solutions to help the seniors and deliver on the promise of medicare. >> moderator: is segue into obamacare, what parts of the law do you favor? which do you not favor? if elected, what's the direction you take regarding the

affordable care act? rick berg, you start this time. berg: i would vote to repeal obamacare. this is the one clear distinction in this race. my opponent will not vote to repeal it. this is a $1 #.7 trillion takeover of our health care industry. we taked a little bit about medicare. $716 billion coming out of our seniors. the worst is it creates a board of unelected officials, an ipab board, making decisions on what's covered and what's not coveredded. that puts government between a doctor and their patient. this is a big government solution that's wrong. i remember seeing my wife, a family practice doctor, and she said this will be a problem. it puts government between me and my patient. my son and i were having breakfast several months ago, and the gal was busing tables,

working her butt off, and she said, rick, i wish you luck this fall because i don't know what will happen if obamacare stays. we started with one restaurant, and now we have several. if this kicks in, i don't know what we're going to do. olive garden and red lobster said they are going to part time employees because we don't understand the impact. this bill creates a cloud of uncertainty and is hurting the whole economy, hurts the economic recovery, and it's hard on small business. >> moderator: your response. heitkamp: let me tell you about someone i met in a restaurant. she was on crutches, and i looked down and asked how she hurt her foot, and i looked down, her foot obviously was not hurt, she had been crippled. her face was smiling,ñhr and she said, no, i had polio as a young girl. i'm one of the famous pre-existing conditions. she said to me, thank you. thank you for fighting for me. pre-existing conditions,

absolutely critical we keep it. absolutely critical to eliminate the lifetime cap and critical to continue to close the donut hole so seniors have their prescription drugs when they need them. it's absolutely critical to keep kids on health insurance. that's all part of the health care law. the most significant reason exactly addresses the issue that congressman berg raised earlier which is paying our providers what they are due. it's called the frontier state amendment, a hard fought state provision equalizing medicare payments back to our producers. that's who our providers -- so that we are not all paying the cost of medicare. let's take a look at that. congressman berg, when in the legislature, voted against the frontier states amendment and continues to vote against the frontier states amendment. i would submit that if he was really concerned about whether, in fact, we had providers willing to provide medicare that

we need to redeem the frontier states amendment. >> moderator: a response. equal time. berg: i want to set the record straight. we did have a vote in 2003 on the frontier amendment. there was a resolution that came in that was not fair for north dakota. we passed another resolution that passed unanimously, republicans and democrats, that says we support the frontier amendment. i want you to look at this because this is what i did. this is where i'm at in 2003. we've got to get facts strait. that's the frustration with the campaign. you know, obamacare, which the president and harry reid supports, we pass the 30 bills trying to change obamacare. my opponent fully enforced the amendment, hen he will not take one of the changes workable. i agree with the frontier

amendment. we have to deal with that. the lifetime cap. pre-existing conditions done at the state level. the donut hole, and covering kids until they are 26. you know what? obamacare is 2700 pages long. you know what five things are? there are ten pages long. this is the clear difference. opponent says for these ten pages, let's keep this 2700 page bill that has 21 taxes. it's the biggest tax on middle america, and quite frankly, it does not lower cost, but increases cost. >> moderator: a final response. heitkamp: the only reason he says repeal and replace rather than amend and fix the problem is because it's a good political slogan. it sells on main street when you say people don't like obamacare. i'll talk about repealing it. it's like taking your car in to get it fixed, and when they offer you a replacement car, you say, no, i don't need that, i'll walk. it needs to be fixed. i have said there's good and bad in the health care law. it needs to be fixed. there's absolutely no reason to

not amend the law as it currently exists. the only reason we hear the argument over and over again because too many politicians play politics with our health care, and that needs to end. it's too important. >> moderator: i want to get a quick oil industry for some brief 40 second responses and then we have to move to closing statements. oil industry, if elected, how would you manage the oil industry and regulate it and monitor it. heitkamp: i have a great western north dakota plan. i put together a plan which began to address the infrastructure which takes some of the money that the federal government is now earning as a result of this and reinvests that in infrastructure like a property tax payment. we have to get infrastructure out there. we need to have affordable housing. we need water systems that boric. we need to have a plan that provides better roads out there that we need to better balance, i think, our agricultural industry with our oil industry, and i think we can all live

together as long as we do the investment. i think congressman berg walked away from great opportunities in the legislature to make those investments, and as a result, we're behind the eight ball again here in western north dakota. >> moderator: a response and then moving to closing. berg: we have to support energy, it's the hope for the future of the country.ñsr we need energy independence, republicans and democrats brought together, had renewables and traditional energy. here's the problem. the problem is that the senate majority leader harry reid who you have put in power, agreed to support him, even though you know he's bad for energy said coal and oil make us sick. this is what we're up against. we're up against regulations and taxation against our energy industry that shut down the coal industry and with fracking, they threaten that. >> moderator: i need to move to closing statements. it goes by fast. one minute.

heitkamp: i'm running to put partisanship aside, running to represent north dakota interests. i don't care what reid thinks about oil and gas because i have a point and view and history in the industry that i think is a history of protecting the industry. the bottom line, the question that i get often is how do you make a difference? you know, we believe you want to go there and change things, you want to stop partisanship. there's a story about a guy i met trying to get folks on board to stop domestic violence, and the old cop came up to me, put a finger in my face and said, listen, girly, men always beat their lives and you can't stop them. i said, boy, i hope not. i don't think that's true. i won't live in a world where we don't try. we have to try to stop the partisanship and move this country forward. that's why i'm running for the united states senate. >> moderator: one minute closing, rick berg. berg: thank you for everyone watching, aarp, matt, and heidi.

teb talked about the challenges facing the country, and a school superintendent said every day i see children, and i worry about their future. he said, rick, you've got to get this fixed. that's why i'm in the race. my 12-year-old son, for our children, and our grandchildren. i'm running to stopño' washingtn from destroying our economy with debts we can't afford to pay back. i'm running to stop obamacare from making our medical decisions for us. i'm running because we can get this fixed. we can restore the promise of the american dream to our children and future generations if we take the north dakota way to washington. i'm asking for your vote. i'm asking for your support to change america. we can do this. thank you and god bless. >> moderator: thanks to both of you for coming on prairie public for the debate. november 6 is election day. thank you for watching prairie public's continuing coverage of election 2012. so long.

>> moderator: second in the tv debates on some of the most important issues and candidates in elections voters december. tonight, san diego's 52nd race between bilbra and scott peters. this is one of the several district races on the political test board in the battle over control of the house of representatives where republicans currently dominate. as such, it's drawn national attention and campaign cash from both political parties. the district's stresses the north through central san diego in the coastal areas down to the

city of coronado in the south. mr. bilbray represented the district for several years. he's been in congress for a total of more than 12 years, a former city councilman, served on the board of supervisors, and he's been a federal lobbyist. mr. peters is on the board of commissioners of the san diego unified port district, a former member of the city council and servedded as the panel's president. he's an attorney. the debate format is simple. each participant will begin with a 2-minute opening statement, and i will ask questions keeping a lose eye on the clock for each response. there will be commercial breaks. the first opening statement will go to scott peters. scott, you're on the clock. peters: thank you, michael, and thanks for tuning in. congress is broken. do we really want to send the same people back? i'm running for congress because i'm concerned about the country, and i owe a lot to it.

my parents raised me and my three sisters and sent us to college on a minister's salary. they did what families did back then. they savedded money, borrowed against the house. my mom took a part-time job. i did my part working hard. i got good grades, i qualified for some grants and financial aid through low interest loans to pay back over time, and i worked through school with a work study job at $2.65 to clean cages in the psychology department. the point is i had a chance because america made an investment in me, and i'm concerned that kids like i was are losing that opportunity throughout the united states today because congress can't get its act together. last summer, we watched a debate over the debt ceiling, a debate over whether america should pay its bills. we then got our credit downgraded as a nation for the first time in the nation's history so the 40 crepts out of every dollar that congress borrows and spends is that much more expensive to borrow.

now we have the fiscal cliff, massive cuts, and tax increases that raise the average family's tax bill by $3500 a year and threaten 30,000 jobs just in our county. that's not solving problems. my approach in public office whether it was as a lawyer or the city council member or as a port commissioner to work to solve problems which is how we built a ballpark and downtown developments that created a lot of prosperity. that's how we cleaned up beaches and bays reducing suer fills and beach closures by over 80%. that's how weñ&r finished highwy 56. that's why we are expanding the convention center building a new water front to be a great amen(h' for tourists and visitors and for residential life. we do that all by working together not by bickering and fighting. i know we can do better in congress, and i ask for your help. >> moderator: thank you,

scott. bilbray: thank you very much. thank you for holding the event, for watching, and i appreciate the debate. one thing. i was born and raised in this community. i've actually spent my entire life here. my father was a naval officer, worked up through the ranks. my mother was an immigrant from australia. my dad met my mom in general mack arthur's head quarters in world war ii, and yet in the hills of san diego, and i spent time surfing the beaches too, but as a local, i know that san diego is so much more than beautiful beaches or great weather. san diego is not only the center of military power on the pacific, but it is a hub of economic growth through high-tech and biotech. the fact is we've got a community that's willing to do extraordinary things if government will just work with us. that is why i'm very proud that

those high-tech and biotech people made me the go-to go in congress, someone to work across the aisle again eat things done. that's important when you work with the life sciences too. this was a real privilege for me and great to be recognized by the no labels organization, an organization headed by a democrat, that recognized me as the go-to guy in congress to work across the aisle. in fact, 90% of my legislation has been bipartisan. 90%. i've even got duncan hunter working together to do right things for san diego for america. that is not just bipartisan, but practically bipolar. thank you very much. >> moderator: thank you, brian. we hope to cover a wide arrange of issues, fiscal issues b and social issues today. i want to start on something on

everybody's mind. in january, the nation faces the culled fiscal cliff. that's when bush era tax doesn'ts expire and $1 trillion in cuts to defense and domestic programs over the next ten years begin. tens ofñ&r thousands of those in san diego may lose jobs experts say. if you had total control, no congress or president, what would you do to keep the country from taking the plunge? bilbray: first of all, assure seniors we will take care of them. we should not start doing things mr. peters has done by scaring them saying twice on camera that he would cut social security and medicare. we have to take that off, bring a degree of security for the seniors. we have to talk about that commonground, and make priority decisions on the budget like families do all along. so many people in washington spend time looking for reasons rather than first looking for those agreements and things to agree on and building relationships.

that is why i have been recognized for the bipartisan effects. that's why i'm recognized as a moderate members of congress, but i think the biggest issue we got to do is remember that all of the revenue crisis is spending too much and not allowing the private sector to grow enough to be able to pay a decent revenue. >> moderator: thank you, brian. we have to toss it to a break, and plft peter, we'll have your answer after the break. thank you. ♪ ..

to decrease subsidies on oil companies that have never been more profitable. that's why there's this gridlock. best buy president obama offered to read spending cuts for when revenue increased republicans know, we are gridlock. that's because of congress today. mr. bilbray needs to ball not. his plan that he voted for twice listed on medicare. my plan is to work together to balance the budget in the way we can say the program by making responsible response book expenses that preserve the benefit. his famous tibetan entry and the benefit. >> moderator: thank you. brian, jabber rebuttal? peters: he was one of seven and he landed the city of san diego on the one of the premier fiscally responsible cities in america into what was called enron by the sea. never thought i'd live to see the day they would say that about san diego. cleveland may be, but mr. peters

is able to do something no one ever dreamed about. his responsibility brownness to the class. we allowed him to go to washington. we overturn his distaste for proposition b. we actually had to see the damage and watch great-grandchildren of my grandchildren, seven of them have to live with those mistakes and we don't want to take that risk with their future. >> you have a rebuttal. i surely understand why mr. bilbray would divert attention from washington in 2012 to san diego 2022. but there's a lot of history culture that to talk about more if i had a bigger block. but at the end of our decade of working to perform things to which mayor sanders called me and meaningful pension reform, the sec said it was a model for fiscal reform. i would call congress and model. we work hard to solve the problem that was long-standing. congress hasn't even started and

sat down and worked it out. the next 60% of voters as you are wrong without being overturned. >> that's not true. >> we will have a break coming up shortly. i figure before we get into the next question into a little description of the congressional delegation or the delegation consists of five members. right now is through republicans into democrats nfa sundust road for this day, this swing district for a country as well as the partisan breakdown of the delegation. mr. bilbray, state the three, to spread. for the first time in memory that would give the democrats a majority to san diego delegation. and mr. peters to the general election by defeating by some margin, whereas mr. bilbray is able to pretty much coast to the general election with minimal

republicans support or opposition. excuse me. let me ask you a quick yes or no question. did you support proposition p., pension reform initiative come of seeing how that has come up? >> i support many reforms. i don't think the ballot measure is the best way to address it. the best way is not the litigation. i never thought that is the best way to pursue, but i do support much of the substance, including working with employees to hold the line on salaries and pay coaches have been restarted in 2004. >> thank you. >> i support it strongly, mr. peters did not. he had to admit he did not clean up the mess he created. the scary thing is not only did he create the prices. >> moderator: i have to catch you off. i would like you to stick to the question. we have to go to break.

again, we are here at the 52nd congressional district debate between brian bilbray and. as you can see they are starting to heat it up a little bit. will be coming back surely for more questions on local and foreign issues. >> moderator: i'd like to welcome me back to the uttv congressional debate between brian bilbray and challenger. i like to move to the issues we talked about on the fiscal cliff and non-fiscal issues that be a

problem. medicare is a big part of that and what we would do with medicare. many believe the current system is unsustainable. the glacier map for use for which you to do to fix it? mr. peters, you first. peters: congress is letting medicare go bankrupt or we have to stick to the benefit for seniors. we don't negotiate the cost of prescription drugs. we should do that to drive the cost down. we should be moving out fraud in overbilling, which the government account of office has identified as a real problem that maybe we can work to reduce their costs. take advantage of electronic records, wireless medicine to provide better care and we should be changing our health care system for for than a sick care system that rewards treatment and visits to a health care system that awards prevention. if we can delay the onset of the chronic diseases like congestive heart failure or diabetes in the general population by 10 years, we can make a huge reduction in the cost of health care.

what i don't support us at the mine planted, which mr. bilbray supported, which is turning the program into voucher program and within seniors out with a certain amount of money into the marketplace that is not shown its competitive in a way that reduces prices. given the hope that maybe the hot enough money to get that care. today still the biggest cause of personal bankruptcy is the inability to pay medical bills. we have to save medicare, not end it might mr. bilbray supports. bilbray: i strongly support protect game medicare. the one-way startup is not is not by talking about supporting a $700 billion had added medicare to start with. this is a contract we haven't seen. we promise the service and those that are over 55 no what they've been promised for decades. we need to make sure we filled out. and support until the social

security fund so politicians can make more groups. i think it's essential we start with that. when we reduce the cost of medicare. starting with the lemonade and trial lawyers out of our operating rooms. doctors provide cost effective health church not only seniors. it's absolutely essential to start taking these on. and you don't get the lawyers out of the operating room to get the job done. >> moderator: let me ask a follow-up question. as a divine plan to that as well? peters: ryan can say every person will be guaranteed their program. we talk about developing a program for young people. those under 55 and featured on saving a contract with your lorca do for long-term

sustainable contract. one of the greatest challenges for those seniors is that young people, like mr. peters, who don't believe it will be there when he gets there. >> moderator: mr. bilbray, if i could keep you on the question, does divine plan -- bilbray: it does not cut services. it holds off until over 10 years before we even consider looking at anything like that. >> moderator: we have to go to another break. we have brian bilbray for challenger simon scott peters. we'll be right back.

>> moderator: welcome back to good uttv debate between brian bilbray and challenger. i want to give the floor to you talking about medicare and how to fix it. bilbray: first a rebuttal. "the wall street journal" said they supported the right thing but in medicare as we know it. it wasn't some left-winger that said that. the other thing is they've got me on tape twice saying i wanted to and medicare. he cut my answer off for once and does i'd wondered if he'd release the whole answer that i gave an order that the public might have proposal. peters: you've been quoted as saying that medicare needs to be cut to sustain it. and that you're suggesting, how exactly do you do that? bilbray: you have to get the benefits. you have to cut the cost. we don't negotiate the cost of

prescription to do that. to use the leverage to negotiate a price. we also know there's a lot of overbilling we need to take care of. and that's it in a very clear throughout this campaign. >> moderator: i want to get back to divine plan. there's been many criticisms the novel ultimately cost seniors in terms of their benefits. do you disagree with? bilbray: totally disagree because the whole concept that came out of the chairman's proposal was to make sure that seniors are protect it and guaranteed. that we are talking about young people talking about a future of how we can set up with young people sustainable. rather than seniors can we talk about an arrangement and proposing to give young people a health plan much like the

congressional plan. and so it actually has a menu can work with. but do it now. don't wait until the young people become seniors and then pull the rug out from under them. mr. peters is talking about a health care program for somebody else other than making sure the money stays here until we need it. >> moderator: are you suggesting that romney plan would give a plan similar to a congressman get? bilbray:.program is sustainable if we work with young people now so that they have that opportunity to plan for that. but not to start taking money out from people when they are seniors are not already made the commitment and depend on the services. so i think it's one thing to talk about we need to make sure that the system is sustainable. it's a totally different thing to start talking about cutting services for seniors, which

everyone reasonable to say that. what worries me is mr. peters said he was moderate to proposing this cuts. that was on channel 51 he made that statement on the line. >> moderator: mr. peters, final line. peters: he said to raise the cost for seniors over $6000 per year on average per to 2012 the buddha for it then delivers the cost of prescription drugs for seniors to $680 i believe. and so, the votes are there. he can speculate and try to edit about what my record will be and i'm not supporting the cut but i'm not in washington. i'm not supporting any obama proposals are describing. i'm not in washington. we don't have to speculate about mr. bilbray because he's voted twice on these issues and you can look it up. >> moderator: listen, we have to go to another break. the moment come back, we'll start looking at social issues in terms of same-sex marriage,

tomaso tell, abortion and equal pay for women. thank you very much and we will see you after the break. ♪ >> moderator: welcome back to the uttv studios, where we have a congressional debate between congressman brian bilbray and scott peters. as a center for the break him i'd like to move on to certain social issues that are hot button items not just here but across the country. mr. peters, let me start with you. do you support same-sex marriage

and if so why? if not, why? peters: i've been a supporter of marriage equality since 2007. i would advocate the repeal of the defense of marriage, so-called defense of marriage act on the congressional level. i think it's the right thing to do. but i think there's any reason to discriminate when your government between one set of people and another. >> moderator: mr. bilbray. bilbray: my constituency when you have a $16 trillion debt, when you've got 110 san diego's, you're talking about same-sex marriage during this crisis that affects everyone. i was a supporter and have been a supporter of domestic partnerships and i think i was a moderate approach of the item. what concerns me about how this debate is going as americans are actually discussing the concept that we have to go to the government to get a license for what people claim is a right. that is a scary place for us to go regardless of how you feel

about same-sex marriage. the entire premise that government could be in a position to where you have to get a license for the right to exercise that right. i think we're going on a ground is very dangerous, not just about this issue, but the relationship between the individual and our government. transport in the government step in with the defense of marriage act? bilbray: marriages always been defined by government. that's why you get a license. that's why these conditions for being married. we accept that. because marriage was in the right, it has been controlled and managed by government. if we say to right, why are we even talking about licenses and government able to pick and choose any one of his to rewrite. the whole concept of filling out an application to execute a bright is when that freedom loving american should question it by this i think about this issue separately. >> moderator: i'm having trouble falling it is some think you're saying it's not something government should be involved

in. bilbray: government has always had a role in defining marriage. as a basic structure for protection of children. it wasn't about couples. it was about children, innocent angels. the county actually worked at the polanski scanner for abuse children. i see what happens at the breakdown of family and we forget about the little ones. one of the things we have to consider here is that we say now that marriage really isn't about the traditional institution were going to basically redefine a? we can do that. i just think we have to be careful about how far were willing to do once we start talking about freedom and the right of government to control freedoms they require people to apply for the execution of freedoms. >> moderator: thank you. scott, rebuttal? peters: i think i would say no. >> moderator: moving on to another subject. the military's policy on serving. do you support that repeal?

bilbray: it was a political action taking there weren't more. at that time i definitely did not -- i think it is something we should talk about the threat of harm's way. i said that before. it's one of those items that need to be discussed, but no what we've got two wars in men and women are in harms way. i think those items or situations we should talk about as a society, as a cultural perception, not a military one. remember, our military is strained now to a large degree. i don't think anybody should be stressed out more now. i think we ought to allow them to finish their mission in a civil manner talk about this back and forth and have a dialogue, but not anytime but we are fighting two wars. >> moderator: thank you. peters: i'm with nathan fletcher on this. he supports the repeal and said why. >> moderator: thank you very much. moving on to another difficult issue for some people.

do you support legalized abortion and federal funding for the last abortion? peters: i'm strongly pro-choice. my wife and i have been supporting planned parenthood, my wife on the board. endorsed by the planned parenthood action fund will receive 100% my scorecard of us tried to see their endorsement. either the government should not be involved in making medical decisions for women, whether you are libertarian or not, i just don't think it's an appropriate role. women are capable of making decisions and are empowered to as well. mr. bilbray unfortunately scored a nine on the scorecard out of 100 and voted to define planned parenthood. i don't think you stand up for women's choice and women's ability to make those decisions in the way the district deserves. bilbray: i have three daughters. i know how important their health care decisions are. the issue of abortion is a very personal one between a woman, her family, her religion, her

faith. her decisions should be made by the individual and i think she should be protected. and i stood up and i've been attacked because i've stood up for those rights of women to make that decision. but when it comes to abortion, government should stay out. government should not be financing abortion. the entire concept is either legally or financially it's inappropriate. sidestep that issue. >> moderator: what to say to people who say well, that brings up almost a class issue because certain people can afford an abortion procedure. others cannot and government by not helping as they do for other medical things that are legal are prohibiting them from getting that treatment clinics bilbray: i didn't come from a wealthy background. i grew up in a working-class community called imperial beach and i know the stress of working class people go through to be able to get the services. i've also been a county

supervisor unlike mr. peters have had to supervise to make sure women and men and children get the kind of services they need. i haven't talked about it. i haven't lobby groups in washington about a group fighting these things. i've been here working with them for 10 years. peters: he didn't answer your question, but i would say the points it's not abortion. are talking about and against in the planning and contraception to watch her basic concepts. >> moderator: great. we need to take another break trip will be back to talk about immigration, pension and maybe a couple foreign issues if we have time. thank you very much. we'll be right back in a few.

>> moderator: welcome back to uttv. i'm here with congressman brian bilbray and scott peters in our second district debate. we covered a lot of ground in the first half of the show from fiscal issues to social issues and medicare. what i would like to do is move onto the issue of immigration, which is a huge nationwide issue especially in san diego. congressman bilbray, this or the president issued a border, just to give readers a quick summary, to qualify for the federal program, applicants must be under 31 years old and have arrived in the u.s. before their 60th or think i'd be in school or graduate. be honorably discharged in the military and had no criminal

record if they must've been here for five years. to support that? bilbray: now can i do not support a policy in violation of the law. we need to make quite clear that the real problem is the next signal. it's good for politics, makes us feel good to accommodate those who have come here illegally. the trouble is somebody group on the board of two houses which in my childhood home of the border. i've seen the cost on the loss of life. what the president not to do is work across the aisle with all of us. it is actually republican and democrat proposals to address the true cause of the problem of immigration. that's not the border. not given enough amnesty programs. the real problem is employers hiring illegals and they are today still getting tax seductions of the federal government. that is one place democrats and republicans can work together. we've seen that kind of cooperative effort before and we should start with that effort. when you can get blue dog

financials agree on immigration, why can't congress get together? rather than arguing about what to do about those who were illegally shared and causing more people to come, we should be talking about what brought them here. employers exploiting illegals and we are at the basic decency of americans to stop giving taxpayer deductions to people who create the problems that are causing all this. so again, we need to work together on this and i think i think the lemonade a tax deduction for employers is where we can address this issue comprehensively and as a bipartisan effort. peters: our immigration policy should be tough for the taxpayers and practical. clearly, first produced to secure the border make sure there's not crying, people trafficking guns or drug or people the border and i think we all agree on that. next i would have to come up with some way to figure out how to deal with 11 million of the

united states who are undocumented. the same number of people in ohio. i think in that context the president would make sense. it's a rational way to deal with it. i think mr. bilbray on this particular issue claims we should be working together because in 2006 he was one of the people that derailed the comprehensive immigration reform favored by the united states chamber of commerce, not exactly a left-wing organization. i think we have to get back to figuring out exactly how we work more sensibly with these people here. the whole idea of declaring them with anything other than supporting them is amnesty is just not in the work. >> moderator: a rebuttal. bilbray: is interesting you bring up the chamber of commerce because they are endorsing the candidacy and now agree with me that all employers should be verified. when i commend the chamber of commerce how to make them cooperate in a comprehensive problem, but mostly cooperative approach. i've got people from north carolina who joined to work out

this issue appears if you want to refer to the chamber of commerce and opposition in the past come in their support is not only for my candidacy, but a compromise to finally crack down on the employers who caused the problems. they realize it's unfair to have to complete a new play by the rules. >> moderator: do you agree with that proposal on the website? bilbray: i know exactly what they're supported he verified down the line. are you for eliminating the tax seductions for employers of illegal immigrants? tranter once we rationalized -- bilbray: passer we should start, where we can agree. everyone agrees we should do it. let's start there, build a consensus number to work together in the easy stuff before we start talking about the things we disagree with. that's what it takes to work together in congress. i know, i've done it. trouble is you don't understand, you don't know what you don't know. that is what is scary about

this. there's important stuff to be done in the next few years in your way over your head when it comes to these issues. peters: you got it under control it sounds like. >> moderator: before our next break i do want to follow up on that. young people who follow up with the deferred action will apply for driver system in california. for those of you on the federal program, should they be able to drive legally in california? peters: i generally don't support having drivers license for people. but the people would be here illegally. if they're here illegally i think they should get the program. >> moderator: after 9/11, congress passed a law, the president signed a law that those who are illegally here should not be getting drivers license. the definition, will redefine these people know there's been legally here and exempt from the law?

i think that is something quite clear. there's a lot of people have always said we should get the drivers license. but after 9/11 when the terrorists given driver's license got on that airplane into that show that foreign passports and killed 3000 americans, this is one thing we're all americans ought to be working together come if they will never allow that to happen by having someone undocumented with no documents get a drivers license to get on an airplane. transfer thank you, brian come into the next guy. nice exchange. we had to pause for a break, but will be back shortly. be smart ♪ >> moderator: hi, back again in the congressional debate between brian bilbray and scott peters. we have a short segment here, but i did want to get to the

issue because both men seemed to be interested in talking about that more. san diego was opposed and now they've passed a pension overhaul plan for 401(k)s for new employees. mr. peters, did you support that inducing a should be a model to the nation? bilbray: san diego's pension funding started over three decades. we have a lot of cities and states and school districts around the country. and on my first few years i did continue those practices, which was a mistake. businesses got nme changes. we hire to the outside auditors to tell us what was wrong and how to fix it. we been underfunding. we asked for employers to pay a higher cost of benefits. the win on the way that most continue. i negotiated the new pension system that will save about $23 million a year.

that's the end of the decade, the fcc called san diego and model for other cities to follow. but in stark contrast to congress from which no one would call it model for anything you >> moderator: i have to message about the. bilbray: if he took care of the problem, after you get all of that, you didn't even learn your lesson. within a year of leaving the council, you were to the district and made a motion that included consideration of underfunding the retirement. september 1st, mr. peters, you made the motion and fellow commissioners got you to reverse negative amortization. we have to consider including not. everyone at the other commissioners called you down. >> moderator: mr. governor, have to go to an ad right now. will be back for it a closing statement from the candidates.

♪ >> moderator: welcome back to uttv in our congressional debate. we're going to hear arguments for and scott peters and brian bilbray. scott, you go first. peters: what mr. bilbray is saying when he says he knows how to do it is that things are just fine in congress. apparently it's time that we have sequestration, do we have this to 30,000 jobs in the defense sector alone and the average family he thinks that gridlock is fine and it's time to take a pledge that he reaffirmed the tea party this year he would compromise. that prevents us from balancing the budget -- is that what we need. we don't need the political sense.

we need a sense of how to get things done. whether it's working on downtown redevelopment, cleaning up beaches and bays, expanding convention center or building a new waterfront. that's why i have support from across the board. at democrats and i'm proud of them. said independent but lucy clay and mason fletcher and mr. bilbray mentioned the united states chamber of commerce. but the local folks, three chairmen who are republicans and the executive your other taxpayers as an individual are supporting me. why they supported me? they not see the problems in washington we deserve. we can do better. with your support and with your vote, we will and ask for your support. thank you. >> moderator: brian bilbray county that the final say. bilbray: i hope you listen to the tape before you denying review it. i don't want you to make this

mistake again. with some gentlemen can i thank you for watching tonight. the fact is that mr. peters needed somebody to work on keeping our cruise ships in san diego, he asked me to take on letters along with mayor sanders because they knew i was the go to guy. when we talk about bipartisanship come even though he's in washington he couldn't come into my office and talk to me. yet staff come in and do it because he couldn't cross the aisle. if you can't cross the aisle when you're a conditioner commissioner, how we do it in congress? as a proud father there's a lot of challenges. one of the things i enjoy supporting endorsement of not political groups, that being named legislator of the year. he named the legislature for the melanoma foundation and getting the endorsement that mr. peters wanted a biotech company people working on these issues. but today you have a choice between somebody who is a failed leadership and reputation or somebody that democrats and republicans work for so much that i've been asked to help

lead the fight against the five deadliest cancers within congress today. this is something near and dear to my family, but near and dear to so many other families. there is a place to republicans and democrats can cooperate on. we just passed a major bill for cancer in congress. mr. peters didn't even know about it, but it's a great step in the right direction. but i hope to do is your support, we can engage, we can work together, but we've got to keep both of us have been identified as those who can work together in congress and now is the time to build on those, not start tearing us apart. submit your support, will not only get congress moving forward, we'll build to save lives as were doing it. thank you very much and god bless. >> moderator: want to thank both candidates, brian bilbray and scott peters. i appreciate the level to which you engage.

>> today can a c-span's debate coverage continues live coverage of the new york senate debate between kirsten gillibrand and republican challenger, wendy long. see it live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> , so, it starts as an economic argument. men are having a harder time adapting to the economy and women are adapting more easily. i can tell you why. there's end of her peers are managed up were easily. so then its education credentials for the economy is

fast-changing. women seem to be getting those skills and credentials at a much faster rate than men are and they seem to be more nimble. and that kind of filters down into our society. in my book i talk about how that changes marriage and notions of fatherhood in what men can and can't do in families and how young people have and i can make decisions. see willie start to see it having an influence on our culture. >> wednesday, former federal reserve chair paul volcker testifies before the british parliament on u.s. versus u.k. banking standards.

>> i watch c-span because when i want to get the news about a lot of talking and pundits adding their point of view, i can get the original script from a person and then i can come to my own conclusions, which i think is better than having someone else tell me what i should think. c-span, c-span 2 and c-span 3. to list of tv, which i love. c-span 3 is the history channel and they've been doing civil war series. but sometimes i want to visit the senate and see what the house is doing, so i look at c-span for those kinds of things, too.

>> next, if armand reinking and whether breaking a big banks would help protect the larger system. participants include former treasury department officials from the reagan and george w. bush administrations. this event hosted by the milken institute is an hour and 20 minutes. >> -- you're in washington. were actually in this building, 1101 new york. thank you for taking time to join us this afternoon for this program sponsored by the institute center for financial markets. the issue of bank size, big complexity, interconnectedness is one that is vexed policy makers since before, during and after the financial crisis, struggled with these issues in the context of the dodd-frank legislation and lamenting the rules thereunder.

international banking regulators and policymakers have dealt with this in the context of basel three and recent reports issued in the u.k., the vickers commission as well as the more recent report. yet all the efforts today probably raise just as many questions as they then said. the issue of should banks be broken up for euphemistically too big to fail, which is not about today to fail is an issue that scott increasing attention reselling and when sandy while back in july and cnbc, he was probably the principal architect of the financial supermarket or budding conglomerate said we should probably do is put up investment banking. has banks be deposited makers, and the commercial loans, banks doing something that's not going to risk taxpayer dollars.

that is not to be too pale. another of commentators on both sides of the question have chimed in subsequently. the attention over the last couple of weeks has got increased attention as a result of the release of former fdic chairman sheila bair's book, a speech given by fed governor dan cirillo last week at the university of pennsylvania law school and then just coincidently ready to send him a thank you note for tms if you did there, george wills in yesterday's "washington post," where he actually quoted harvey spies. richard fisher, president of the dallas federal reserve brain said that too big to fail institutions are too dangerous to permit in this uniquely colorful fashion, george goes on to quote fisher saying the problems posed by supersize and

hyper complex banks require anti-obesity to irreversible lap and her gastric bypass surgery. i'm not sure to be quite as colorful underboss, but hope springs eternal. the milken institute likes to shove items issues rather than making a lot of noise about them. i think there has been a lot of noise about this issue, but it's extraordinary complex. in order to shed life, will bring an old-fashioned debate by four individuals who have an extraordinary thoughtful in terms of their policy views as to what should be done. basically standing for the proposition that certain large financial institution are too big to fail, that they perhaps should be broken up, but there

may be new ones this in terms of what then tails. higher capital requirements, and certain activities, et cetera. harvey rosenblum, executive vice president rector research at the dallas federal reserve as well as simon johnson at m.i.t. standing for the proposition is that the market can dictate size and structure or that there were both intended consequences that may be at first too big banks be broken up ours phillip swagel and peter wallison. phil is an international economic policy at university of maryland. peter is the arthur burns fellow financial policy studies and

both are former senior treasury officials. moser's labor as assistant secretary for economic policy of the bush administration about the principal the principal architects behind her. robert deutsch do in terms of our format is begin the program, the first half of the program is an old-fashioned high school college debate format. stating the case cover everybody in the case, rebuttal, rebuttal and additional questions back and forth and summaries. we have harvey rosenblum, who wrote a thoughtful essay about this issue. amanda salas said, choosing the road to prosperity, where msn today to fail now. earlier this spring will state the initial proposition . so he has eight minutes.

phil swagel will have a venice to make the counter case, why did rake in a big banks may make them too small to succeed. then, simon johnson will have five and it, as will peter wallison and manually check thereafter we will open it up to a panel discussion so one can throw questions at one another, make ad hominem attacks as you want to come will simply have an open discussion if time allows we will open up to q&a from the audience. i wonder we will have our timekeeper stated in the back and in contrast to moderators at some recent debates, who shall remain nameless, you will be cut off his views more more than your allotted time. with that, let's get started. harvey, the floor is yours. you have eight minutes. and you don't have to use at all if you don't choose to. >> thank you is an essay say at the outset i would like to thank

phil swagel and rod belt for coming up this debate. i'll be the only one on the panel who probably has to do this. but i do need a disclaimer. the views are going to express today online. they also belong to richard fisher, the president of the dallas fed on too big to fail. therefore in espousing a dallas fed position. but what i am saying today is not, in iowa full-size madness or the view of anybody else in the federal reserve system for any parts and institutions. so we've been speaking about this topic for many, many years. speeches go back to 2009. back in 2008 for an article on managing hazard during financial crises. i was concerned with the implications of too big to fail. we wouldn't op-ed piece in 2009

titled the blog to keep monetary policy. it is too big to fail banks. i used science fiction sci-fi to talk about today to sell banks. a little bit later, the word god changed in its pronunciation and became zippy here in washington. i pronounce it sci-fi because i think too big to fail a sub is straight out of science fiction. in march of this year, the fed publishes annual report. the route to prosperity, why we must add to the now. and what we did was labeled a too big to fail banks, the major roadblock in the return to prosperity. today to fail is more than just about moral hazard. it is more than just about seriously undermining our financial system.

it's about seriously undermining all the rules of capitalism. the return to your prosperity requires that we add too big to fail and quickly. all used with instead of now. but i have a sense of the about this. the dodd-frank act is very well-intentioned. tell it to big to fail banks, the dodd-frank act is too big, too complex and part of the roadblock and i think inadvertently at neighbors to larger institutions in the financial services industry over the smaller cetaceans. and therefore, it likely perpetuates to fail. so, for consistency with the dallas fed position on this subject, going back to richard fisher's early speeches, i used the word in the annual report, it's time to break up the large banks. the good communication is about

two things. it's about being misunderstood when it's also about not being misunderstood. the choice of the word breakup led to some misunderstanding and lead some people to pay me into a corner of being radical or some such thing. so i decided that what i said in the annual report was providing direction. this frenzy to be right size, downsize, some such thing. but i needed to clarify what i meant by. so richard fisher and i got busy and wrote another "wall street journal" op-ed. "the wall street journal" change the title and the quote i suggested, but in an event on april 4th of this year, they published the author. we try to explain what we meant by breakup. and they break up what met restructure, rationalize and we

explained that american businesses do this sort of thing all the time. there's nothing new here. businesses are his rationalize their structure at the circumstance is change. so i concluded that raking up sounds really radical if you mean restructure. what was truly radical was caused by nationalizing our financial services industry has happens in 2008. two thirds of the assets in the banking industry requires a nationalized in 2,002,009. two minutes of very, very radical outcome, particularly if you live in texas and you really think about free-market capitalism. so the issue is what we do about it? well, i've been criticized in another sense that the actions i recommend have consequences in a habitat to the consequences. all actions have consequences. the good onescoming back once, intended, unintended. they've got costs and benefits. but we sometimes seem to forget

also has consequences. also has unintended consequences, also has costs and benefits. the rationale behind my recommendation is that an action may be worse than the action of breaking them up. the status quo perpetuates the incentives we have been limited competition that we have in the financial services industry. so who's job is it to europe to scheme your heart well, if we get down to basics comets or the congress is shot because congress represents the taxpayer. banking has been around for several hundred years and under the u.s. constitution, the prerogative to coin money and regulate the value therapist part of powers is provocative in the u.s. constitution. for over 200 years, a lot of that has been outsourced to the

private sector for the banking system. today 90% of our money supply is produced by the commercial banking industry. i'm not even mentioning other parts of the financial services industry. but the last hundred years, federal years has been involved in the outsourcing and the lender of last resort is there to support the banking industry and for the last 75 plus years we have the fdic providing another part of the federal safety net to make the banking industry, commercial banking industry much more robust. search me, this is also partly time to roll back safety net because when we think about of money supply, it's obvious to pay for things. so that the safety net. we have to realize the u.s. dollars in the currency in the world, many of our contracts and transactions are in dollars.

>> you have one minute, harvey. >> okay, so i've got three minutes later on. >> what i said earlier is there's no solution. this meant that solutions and were solutions and its ichat to pick the least worst solution. part of what i'm recommending it will impact the safety net are clearly to my meeting with the safe net begin finances that we do just that. and that is consistent with a number of other proposals in the last several from the implement european commission from other people in the united states. i will end there and make my points. later. >> fail, the forester is very different about the topic suggesting they cannot read things could make them too small to succeed. >> all go next and i know peter and are seated together and of course we all have our own opinions, so i don't fully agree on everything here. so i understand the appeal of

breaking up or have a large banks. i note that it is striking in the town and country that is so divided on partisan lines that this is an idea with bipartisan support. i think there's no way to avoid that. my concern is that there are costs to the economy and society coming to families, businesses and i think this casa break-in at the large banks outweighs the benefits. in the benefits of improved stability and improved safety in the financial system to surrender sender could there could be some benefit there. but i would say the cost, hearing and the cost of foregone activity, without foregone activity outweighs the potential benefits. at the same time, i think there's better ways to deal with it so there's your purchaser jewison issues raised by large banks. so we see what to do and why not

to do the other. so there are better policy approaches. i think the next sentence has to be her they are. not to say that they are, but explain them. i think would be better to say what can we do before the next crisis and what will we do during the next crisis or should we do during the next crisis? and to implement better o. sanders and liquidity requirements, including doc frank and basel and perhaps other approaches to ensure that banks including the largest ones can better stand problems in future crises. i meant to have an orderly liquidation authority for some bankruptcy procedure to ensure that every institution including the large side can fail without posing a risk to the financial system and the economy. and ultimately, that is what is required. until one of them fails, you know there's no such thing as too big to fail. there's a sense who know till the next next crisis. but if it works or something

like a well it works, that's a better approach because we keep the benefits of large financial and cetacean and still have an approach to ending too big to fail. and i say that recognizing that there are benefits to diversity in the financial system that we want a newer import rules for large large banks and small banks, benefits to society and the economy. but among the benefits are having glibly act of american financial institutions. there's benefits of scope, benefits of scale. some transactions realistically will only be performed by large multinational financial organizations. i think that it's just a fact. ambos splurged financial institutions will exist. they exist in canada, that's for sure and i think they'll be losses to the united states if they don't exist in the united states as well. okay, so my second set of observations than to say

something silly to debate over today to fill mrs. ima key changes have taken place since the crisis and especially in the wake of the doc frank legislation. so when you mention is the order to liquidation authority, obviously untested. we know it's orderly, but that's all we know. i recently reread some of the speeches from the fdic and i think they're still figuring it out. so it's hard to know what i'll do. but i do think two things. usually brad mentioned tart tomato comes out good sungard that's not going to happen. to answer tough crowds. but it's not going to be another t.a.r.p. i think the bondholders are at their county parties a large institution that failed will face a haircut and that's a huge difference in the situation. and previously, large institutions had a funding advantage because of the

expectation, which was developed in the crisis of a bailout. when they asked the funders of aig, if it works right, double reverse this. i should expect a funding cost beforehand. that is one. to come a don't pay insurance premiums to the fdic on their non-deposit liabilities, even though those liabilities are not actually insured by the fdic. so there is a sense in which we are penalizing large banks for the way they find themselves, mainly large banks. in the same thing, larger banks face not only increase capital requirements and that's appropriate, but it is a change. all three of these things go in the same direction of leveling the playing field, either moving towards a level playing field for a led zeppelin at infinite cost of larger and smaller institutions that least among some dimensions. obviously different institutions were different funding cost. i think it is important to keep

these three names in mind. let me just finish quickly with a gun to thoughts. one is recapping the advantages of large banks. and there will be a think lots of society are giving this up against a global scale and scope, ability to undertake transactions are just not easily replaced. they cap on large banks of action that actually proactively breaks up large banks i think we'll see some financial activity should condescend to smaller banks is fine, but then some to less regulated institutions and so-called shadow banking system and of course some to foreign banks. i think activity will still take place. we'll just take place differently and possibly away laissez for the united states and the reckless economic advantage. i'm going to stop there. >> thank you, phil. simon, rebuttal. >> thank you very much. i have three questions that i

would like to put to you. the first question is, how big is jpmorgan chase really likes now, and the official numbers in the third quarter earnings report, and this is in the milken report is the cost is around $2.2 trillion in total assets. and there are conventionally ranks somewhere between number five and number 10 worldwide terms of banking assets. those comparisons mix apples and oranges. u.s. banks in those comparisons are typically measured under u.s. gap in the european banks are under ifr is, quite a different accounting standard that allows much less derivatives. if you have a derivatives book, as is jpmorgan chase and bank of america, for example, then the difference of accounting standards makes a huge difference on the balance sheet. jpmorgan chase is around 3.9 or

$4 trillion total assets. that we can assess its accounting standard your preferred from an investor point of view or from a regulatory damage control point of view. i think it has a lot of appeal in the downside damage that an economy can withstand or someone like phil me next time in the treasury be staring in the face. but in any case, which you compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. jpmorgan chase is the largest bank in the world by a long way. the second point, which jamie diamond neglects to make a think you should be proud of the fact the second as with liquidation rate under sensible proposal by george w. bush administration taken up by the obama evisceration. depression for orderly

liquidation is where is the cross-border resolution authority? where's the agreement between the united states and other important financial incentives the u.k., will on how assets and liabilities, all the major global banks, such as jpmorgan chase. how would that be handled? jpmorgan chase another complex have between 1,502,500 subsidiaries. they are intensely cross-border in a very, very complex way. now i understand there is an attempt to make a great living wills. i understand the full resolution plan. ..

>> but they don't recognize and it knowledge or talk

about two big to fail banks backed by the treasury and the federal reserve you would not allow them to fail. they received a funding advantage of 25 basis points. that is a huge funding advantage in today's market. the american taxpayer are subsidizing and encouraging the excessive risk-taking of the world's largest paper. why? what does that do for the american economy? goldman sachs was $200,000,000,000.1998 there world-class banks we can go back there again. nobody suggests the return to banks with only one branch. push them back down under

$250 billion total assets. >> thank you professor john sen. pater wallison. >> i wrote a piece about a month ago about this question. but not really taking a position. i thought there was a deficiency. people talk about breaking of the bank's. but very few look at the cost and benefits. sitting here waiting for someone to explain what the cost benefits might be but i have not heard it. the adl of breaking up of big banks has profound consequences for the united

states. there gigantic institutions. if we broke them up there good employee fewer people. broken up that they do now could not do broken up. as a result many would have to find jobs elsewhere. those that operate around the world have to find a new banking relationships. millions of rate -- relationships have to be renegotiated. the lines of credit also have to be renegotiated york terminated. you cannot have certain lines of credit with small banks. a have not heard anyone estimate with any profound

accuracy what size of bank should be in order to be not too big to fail? i heard sidemen talk about $250 billion but if we broke them all up with those that ll's then 250 the failure would not cause a financial crisis? this smaller it will save us from another crisis. since the dodd/frank axa just $250 billion or more.

strangely by the federal reserve. it is not but i am for or against large banks are recognized and have various financial advantages. obviously they do. i would like to eliminate those but there are much easier waves to solve the problem and the disruption that would occur but they could increase capital requirements. we could do things that extract the value they get at of being considered too

big to fail. to say let's break up the larger institutions. with no hint of the consequences for the u.s. economy if we did sell. to be a bit -- agnostic but the only thing is that we have certain advantages to create the disruption. to arbitrarily break them up into a smaller size which even than if it would not cause is a financial crisis or a panic if such the

institution failed. >> back to you, harvey, three minutes. >> a death benefits of cost for the various proposals out there. i start with the cost of the status quo. we will have another financial crisis it will come sooner rather than later. that is the cost of doing nothing. it will be bigger than the last crisis. back of the envelope calculation that we it will be going through, somewhere between $15 trillion economy. it is not is a dividend. if and the first will be bigger.

to put the cost it trumps all of these supposedly benefits to keep them big and too big to fail providing the market would price them. with the five most largest complex banks in the u.s. u.s., look at the ratio less complex but fairly large banks the ratio is one point* three. the suppose it economies of scale, money-market tells us it is not there. i am not sure where the benefits are.

i have never argued for the government to break up this shareholders need to bring -- break them up. enough for the government. it does not know how. what we saw with some breakups 30 years ago suggest it has no magic formula. it would rather see the direction dictated and let the owners figure out because when there is a break up 1/2 to have entities to attract capital. that is the nature. >> last word for right now. >> a couple of quick thoughts.

the subsidy is the key issue. will they the bailout? ag is the tough case. the most frustrating aspect there are no ways to impose a haircut but every an insurance regulator would have been obligated to destroy the firm and it would collapse. nothing else could be done other than prop up the firm.

it is a frustrating outcome. now that have the authority to do differently everybody understands it will be invoked make the tough new with any support in two aig but to what many people proposed was you could have saved the men but now there is. that is another possibility. one other thought this i agree market development is key. in the meantime my do see the economies of scale to

reflect the uncertainty of the regulatory environment. it is our fault for arguing about it. that is a joke. [laughter] if that happens going forward i suspect that will not happen to every firm. as a percentage of gdp i think that is the misguided and a fine development. >> that still does not talk about cross border raids it -- resolution but it would protect creditors in full if they fund operating

companies i am afraid we are not yet to out of the woods. i never heard peter before say there was the undeniable advantage to being a large bank. that is a huge statement and completely inaccurate. this six largest bank holding companies have assets just over 6% and go back to the mid-1990s the same six companies were 16 or 17%. what is the benefit we have derived for that growth?

the answer is nothing would the economies of scale of 100 billion yen of total assets? no one can find you think you can probably have the goldman sachs award. i talk to see if those and ceos and sg you need jpmorgan chase to be at this level to run your business globally? no. added this scale. it is very important but they don't need one break to

provided those financial-services that would put too much power and enhance the jaime dimon making the bank smaller is straightforward and management can split them to raise shareholder value our indication is it you run the smaller companies in the interest of shareholders to have an increase nodded decrease from the transformation spec last word for the moment. >> i have been writing for years of the dangers of too big to fail not only to the bank but the nine bay institutions to be declared to big to fail from the

oversight council which is extending the idea beyond the banking industry. i was astonished to hear that somehow large banks caused the financial crisis. my own view has been expressed but i believe it was the housing policies of the united states government. if you believe that are not we know it was caused by a meltdown starting late 201-06-2008 i am puzzled why anyone would say the mere fact they are large is something will cause the next financial crisis?

i cannot see what occurred between 2008 and the size of the banks involved. the banks that were involved did not fail. they suffered losses bette wachovia was acquired wamu was acquired there was no great crisis they were the victims of whenever caused the crisis that their side is to not cause it. i am an agreement with the fact if the bank is considered too big to fail in has financial advantages. but those could be addressed

at would be entailed to break them up. the analogy would have been earlier to standard oil that was great it had no competitors that was the problem banks have plenty of competitors and not only in the united states but abroad. herein is no analogy and with the causing huge problems for ourselves and our economy unless someone to show me the real benefits. >> i think the presidential candidates could take a cue not to talk over one another.

but now there is. would you like to get us started? >> we should raise requirements who fights against them? the organization has argued strenuously on behalf of the biggest banks if we increase capital requirements they will do real the economy. there is no question the largest banks are powerful politically they mostly resisted even with basel iii -- can i talk?

>> at this point* what i said that is one way might do in other ways to increase the deposit insurance premiums but to extract the benefits from being considered too big to fail. i am agnostic how but it makes no sense if rethink they are getting financial benefits to break them up and even with that process could we then say they are not getting any financial benefit? i imagine they would still be considered too big to fail.

>> what about the away to remove the funding advantage? >> i am not sure the banks are those high of leveraged institutions. >> we talk about two big to fail. talk about complexity and interconnected this. you talk about the need for scaled to compete of the global markets but is there a difference retained the $200 billion acquisition versus another that may be

highly leveraged and has a lot of counterparty transactions? >> we are confusing science with focus and specialization. if function house to be performed, just because it cannot be performed under one roof does not mean the function will not go away or the jobs will go way. i was surprised to see you arguing and your jobs. you would not say free-trade would create job. we need to let the market to turbid where the jobs will be but not create perverse incentives because of the real subsidy. but i believe there is a real subsidies.

>> there are activities you need size. the complex derivatives book you need a large balance sheet. >> but in the deposit taking business to do that? >> that is where the safety net has evolved. >> it is spread further and further who decides? congress or the bankers? we do this but that is where congress has to start. >> the public has to pay. >> is important to oppose haircut spread pro someone mentioned wachovia. with them being stale. -- stable. not so much.

the argument of the cost me cut caricature of lowe's sides is the ivory tower a few with almost no effect of course, it is somewhere in the middle but many have much higher capital ratios more than expected. >> i have the sense of deja vu. starting 1981 that was part of the treasury group that argued we could separate baking activities from other transactions such as

security dealing it was is adopted 18 years later now people are dissatisfied but the purpose was to lou separate from ensure deposit taking other activities that are important in our financial system. since 1981 the securities industry has swamped the banking industry over this period has a chilean and 1/2 economy the banking industry

has one chilean and a half dollars the securities industry has produced over 15 trillion and the gap is growing. now those deposit institutions if we talk just about the mundane activities there increasingly lending on real-estate because they don't have competition. competition for other types of lending, the securities industry which is much more efficient. they are increasingly tied

to the real-estate business. but how do we make it possible for these institutions that are out competed -- competed that continue to function and profitably? we have not address the question but it is obvious we have to think about allowing the banking organizations to get into the securities business. getting into glass-steagall. that is rare finances going and allows them to shrink because they have less in the future. >> the problem is all 580 holding companies have large

securities and they have in advantage because of the subsidy and they book the derivatives and the bank to transfer exposure into the insured bank. if the goal is to boost the profitability we could argue about the relative importance i think if you get insurance from the government and any form come a should pay for it. not just be a teammate and freddie mac and include the