that the federal government provides, including social security, pensions, medicare for the elderly, medicaid for the poor. but in fact, there are so many millions of americans who are eligible the government just can't continue to pay for all of those programs as they're currently constituted. a blue ribbon panel shortly after the election is likely to recommend that you go where the money is when you make budget cuts, and that means entitlements. before the election would you commit yourself to any of those hard choices, such as which one of those entitlements have to be redrawn? >> andrea, why do people who want balanced budgets or to bring the deficit down always go to those programs which tend to benefit people of very modest means? now, two-thirds of the people in this country who receive social security checks live entirely on that check. they have no other income. and yet mr. bush tried to cut their cost of living increase in 1985. medicare is not getting less expensive. medical care for the elderly is

getting more expensive, with greater deductibles, with fewer benefits, the kinds of things we've had under this administration that have cut and chopped and reduced the kind of benefits that one gets under medicare. yes, we now have catastrophic health insurance, but it's going to cost, and that's going to be an additional burden on elderly citizens. it had bipartisan support. it should have had bipartisan support. but i suggest that we understand that those are going to be additional costs on senior citizens across this country. so i'm not going to begin, and i'm not going to go to entitlements as a means for cutting that deficit when we're spending billions on something like star wars, when we're spending billions on other weapon systems which apparently the vice president wants to keep in his back pocket or some place, but which, if we continue to spend billions on them, will force us to cut social security, to cut medicare, to cut these basic entitlements to people of very, very modest means.

now there are some things we can do to help people who currently do get entitlements to get off public assistance. i talked in our first debate about the possibilities of helping millions and millions of welfare families to get off of welfare, and i'm proud to say that we finally have a welfare reform bill. the ruby samsons and dan lawsons, hundreds of thousands of welfare mothers in this country and in my state and across the country who today are working and earning are examples of what can happen when you provide training to those welfare mothers, some daycare for their children so that those mothers can go into a training program and get a decent job. >> governor -- >> that's the way you bring a deficit down and help to improve the quality of life for people at the same time. >> one minute for the vice president. >> i think i've addressed it. but let me simply say for the record, i did not vote to cut cola's. and i voted the same way that he did three months before in a national governors' conference. and he said at that time, in a quote, and this is a paraphrase, a freeze, that's easy. so i don't believe that we need

to do what you've suggested here. and i've said that i'm going to keep this social security entitlement, to keep that trust fund sound. but i do think there are flexible ways to solve some of the pressing problems, particularly that affect our children. and i have made some good sound proposals. but again, we have a big difference on child care, for example. you see, i want the families to have the choice. i don't want to see the federal government licensing grandmothers. federalwant to see the government saying to communities, well, you can't do this any more. we're going to tell you how to do it all. i want flexibility, and i do you know, these people laugh about the thousand points of light. you ought to go out and see around this country what's happening in the volunteer section. americans helping america. and i want to keep it alive in child care and in other entitlements. >> margaret warner for gov. dukakis. >> governor, i'm going to pass on the question i originally

planned to ask you, to follow up on your rebuttal to a question andrea asked, and that involves social security. now it is true, as you said, that originally you sought an exemption for social security cola's in this national governors' association vote. but when you lost that vote, you then endorsed the overall freeze proposal. and what's more, you had great criticism of your fellow governors who wouldn't go along as political cowards. >> that is absolutely not true. >> you said it takes guts and it takes will. >> that is absolutely not true. it had nothing to do with the debate on social security. it had to do with the discussion we had had the previous day on the overall question of reducing the budget. >> my question is, aren't you demagoguing the social security issue? >> no, and i have to - [applause] >> i just have to correct the record. that simply isn't true. now, we're not a parliamentary body, the national governors association. we vote on resolutions. if you don't get a two-thirds, then your resolution doesn't pass. but everybody knew that those of us who voted against the freezing of cola's did so, we

did so emphatically. and i never made that statement; never would. the point is that as we look at this nation's future, and we have two very different visions of this future. i want to move ahead. the vice president talks about a thousand points of light. i'm interested in 240 million points of light. i'm interested in 240 million citizens in this country who share in the american dream, all of them in every part of this country. but as we look at the decisions that the next president of the united states is going to have to make, i just don't believe the place you go first is those programs, those so-called entitlements, which provide a basic floor of income and a modest amount of medical care for the elderly, the disabled, for people who can't make their way on their own, and in many cases, have given a great deal to this country. the vice president did call social security a few years ago

basically or largely a welfare program. it isn't. it's a contract between generations. it's something that we pay into now so that we will have a secure retirement, and our parents and grandparents will have a secure retirement. it's a very sacred contract, and i believe in it. so that's not where we ought to go. there are plenty of places to cut. there's lots we can do in the pentagon where dishonest contractors have been lining their pockets at the expense of the american taxpayer. there are we certainly ought to be able to -- >> governor -- >> give our farm families a decent income with spending $20 to $25 billion a year on farm subsidies, and i'm sure we can do that. that's where we ought to go, and those are the programs we ought to review first. >> one minute for the vice president. >> well, let me take him up on this question of farm subsidies. we have a fundamental

difference, approach on agriculture. he favors this supply maintenance or production controls. he said that. he's been out in the state saying that, in midwestern states. i don't. i think the farm bill that he criticizes was good legislation, outstanding legislation. and i believe the answer to the agricultural economy is not to get the government further involved, but to do what i'm suggesting. in the first place, never go back to that democratic grain embargo, that liberal democrat grain embargo that knocked the markets right out from under us and made mr. gorbachev say to me when i was here, how do i know you're reliable suppliers? we never should go back to that. and we ought to expand our markets abroad. we ought to have rural enterprise zones. we ought to move forward swiftly on my ideas of ethanol which would use more corn, and therefore, create a bigger market for our agricultural products. but let's not go back and keep assailing a farm bill that passed with overwhelming democrat and republican support. >> mr. vice president. >> the farm payments are going down because the agricultural economy is coming back. >> margaret warner has a question for you, mr. vice

president. >> mr. vice president, i'd like to cover a subject that wasn't covered in the first debate. you have said in this campaign, "i am an environmentalist" and described yourself as having zero tolerance for polluters. and yet your record does seem to suggest otherwise. when you were head of the president's task force on regulatory relief, you did urge epa to relax regulations involving the elimination of lead from gasoline. i believe you urged suspension of rules requiring industries to treat toxic waste before discharging them in sewers. and your group also urged osha to weaken the regulations requiring that workers be informed of dangerous chemicals at the work site. finally, i believe you did support the president's veto of the clean water act. my question is, aren't you -- how do you square your campaign rhetoric with this record? >> 90% reductions in lead since i chaired that regulatory task

force. 90%. it's almost you remember that expression, get the lead out? it's almost out. almost gone. clean water? i'm for clean water. but what i'm not for what i'm not for is measuring it the way that the democratic congress does. we sent up a good bill on clean water, a sound bill on clean water. but the only way you can express your love for clean water is to double the appropriations for clean water, and then rant against the deficit. i am for clean water. i've been an outdoorsman and a sportsman all my life. i've been to these national parks. i led for the earl wallop bill or formerly dingell-johnson. i headed the task force when i was a member of the congress way back in the late 1960's on these kinds of things, on the republican side. i led for that. and so i refuse to measure one's commitment as to whether you're going to double the spending. that is the same old argument that's gotten us into trouble on the deficit side.

so i'll just keep saying, i am one. i'm not going to go down there and try to dump the sludge from massachusetts off the beaches off of new jersey. i'm not going to do that. that boo was excessively loud. can you add five seconds, bernie, out of fairness? come on, give me five. i mean, this guy, this is too much. but i'm not going to do that. i'm an environmentalist. i believe in our parks. i believe in the president's commission on outdoors. and i'll do a good job, because i am committed. >> gov. dukakis, you have one minute to respond. >> margaret, i'm not sure i can get all of this in in one minute. george, we have supply management today under the 1985 bill. it's called set-asides. secondly, if you were so opposed to the grain embargo, why did you ask the godfather of the grain embargo to be one of your top foreign policy advisers? i'm against the grain embargo.

i'm against the grain embargo. it was a mistake. i'm also against the pipeline embargo, which you folks attempted to impose. that was a mistake as well, and it cost thousands of jobs for american workers in the midwest and all over the united states of america. margaret, once again, i don't know which george bush i'm talking about here or looking at. the george bush who was the charter member of the environmental wrecking crew that went to washington in the early 1980's and did a job on the epa, or the one we've been seeing and listening to the past two or three months. but let me say this, because he spent millions and millions of dollars of advertising on the subject of boston harbor. george, boston harbor was polluted for 100 years. i'm the first governor to clean it up. no thanks to you. no thanks to you. we've been cleaning it up for four years. we passed landmark legislation in 1984. no thanks to you. you did everything you could to kill the clean water act >> governor. >> and those grants which make it possible for states and local communities to clean up rivers and harbors and streams.

[applause] >> mr. vice president, jimmy carter has called this the worst campaign ever. richard nixon has called it trivial, superficial, and inane. whoever started down this road first, of negative campaigning, the american people, from all reports coming to us, are completely fed up. now, do you have any solutions to suggest? is there time left to fix it? there are 26 days left. for instance, would you agree to another debate, before it's all over, so that the american people would have another chance before election day to compare you two? >> no. i will not agree to another debate. the american people are up to here with debates. they had thirty of them. we had seven of them. now we've got three of them. i am going to carry this election debate all across this country in the last whatever

remains of the last three and a half weeks, or whatever we have and the answer is no. i am not going to have any more debates, we don't need any more debates. i've spelled out my position. in terms of negative campaigning, you know, i don't want to sound like a kid in the schoolyard -- he started it. but take a look at the democratic convention take a look at it. do you remember the senator from boston chanting out there and the ridicule factor from that lady from texas that was on there? i mean, come on, this was just outrageous. but i'll try harder to keep it on a high plane. if you could accept a little criticism, i went all across central illinois and spoke about agricultural issues, about seven stops. we had some fun, crystal gayle and loretta lynn with us, and they got up and sang, went to little towns, and i talked agriculture. and not one thing did i see, with respect, on your network

about my views on agriculture, and not one did i read in any newspaper. why? because you are so interested in a poll that might have been coming out or because somebody had said something nasty about somebody else. and so i don't know what the answer is. somebody hit me and said barry goldwater said you ought to talk on issues more. how can barry goldwater sitting in arizona know whether i'm talking on the issues or not when we put out position paper after position paper? he puts out position paper after position paper, and we see this much about it, because everyone else is fascinated with polls and who's up or down today and who's going to be up or down tomorrow. so i think we can all share, with respect, in the fact that maybe the message is not getting out. but it's not getting out because there are too few debates. there will be no more debates. [applause] >> governor dukakis, you have one minute to respond, sir. >> i can understand, after the vice presidential debate, why mr. bush would want no more

debates. [laughter, boos] that's my five seconds. andrea, i think we both have a responsibility to try to address the issues. yes, we have fundamental differences. i think a great many of them have come out today. and i think if we get rid of the labels -- and i'm not keeping count, but i think mr. bush has used the label "liberal" at least ten times. if i had a dollar, george, for every time you used that label, i'd qualify for one of those tax breaks for the rich that you want to give away. [laughter] [applause] isn't that the point? most americans believe in basic values. we have differences about how to achieve them. i want to move forward, i want this nation to move forward. i am concerned about the fact that 10% of our manufacturing and 20% of our banking and nearly half of the real estate in the city of los angeles are in the hands of foreign investors. i am concerned about what that does to our future. i'm concerned about the fact that so many of our securities are in the hands of foreign

banks because of these massive deficits. but those are the issues on which we ought to be debating, and if we can just put away the flag factories and the balloons and those kinds of thing and get on to a real discussion of these issues, i think we will have a good success. >> andrea mitchell has a question for you, governor dukakis. >> we are talking about issues, so let's return to something you said earlier about the modernization of land-based missiles. you said that you didn't rule it out that there are limits to what we can spend, and then you went on to talk about a much more expensive part of our defense strategy, namely, conventional forces. do you somehow see conventional forces as a substitute for our strategic forces, and in not talking about the land-based missiles and not committing to modernizing, do you somehow believe that we can have a survivable nuclear force based on the air and sea legs of our triad? >> i think we ought to be looking at modernization. i think we ought to be exploring less expensive ways to get it on land, and we ought to make sure

that we have an effective and strong and credible nuclear deterrent. but we also need well-equipped and well-trained and well- supported conventional forces. and every defense expert i know, including people in the pentagon itself, will tell you that given the level of defense spending and the level of defense appropriations which the congress has now approved and the president has signed, there's no way that you can do all of these things and do them well. that's why tough choices will be required, choices i am prepared to make, mr. bush is not prepared to make. but andrea, i think we can go far beyond this as well, because we have opportunities now step- by-step to bring down the level of strategic weapons, get a test ban treaty, negotiate those conventional force reductions. i would challenge mr. gorbachev to join with us in limiting in eliminating regional conflict in the middle east, in central america. let's get him working on syria, their client state, and see if we can't get them to join israel and other arab nations, if at all possible, and arab

leaders, in finally bringing peace to that troubled region. and i think that's one reason why we need fresh leadership in the white house that can make progress now in bringing peace to the middle east. let's go to work and end this fiasco in central america, a failed policy which has actually increased cuban and soviet influence. the democratic leaders of central and latin america want to work with us. i've met with them, i know them, i've spent time in south america, speak the language, so does senator bentsen. we want to work with them and build a new relationship, and they with us. but not a one of those key democratic leaders support our policy in central america. and we've got to work with them if we are going to create an environment for human rights and democracy for the people of this hemisphere, and go to work on our single most important problem, and that is the avalanche of drugs that is poring into our country and virtually destroying those countries. those are the kinds of priorities for national security and for foreign policy that i want to pursue. mr. bush and i have major

differences on these issues, and i hope very much to be president and pursue them. >> mr. vice president, you have one minute. >> in terms of regional tensions, we have now gotten the attention of the soviet union. it the reason we've gotten is because they see us now as unwilling to make the very kinds of unilateral cuts that have been called for and to go for the discredited freeze. my opponent had trouble, criticized us, on our policy in angola. it now looks, because of steady negotiation, that we may have an agreement that will remove the cubans from angola. we see the russians coming out of afghanistan. that wouldn't have stopped if we hadn't been willing -- wouldn't have even started, the soviets coming out, if we hadn't even been willing to support the freedom fighters there. and the policy in central america, regrettably, has failed because the congress has been unwilling to support those

who have been fighting for freedom. those sandinistas came in and betrayed the trust of the revolution. they said it was about democracy, and they have done nothing other than solidify their marxist domination over that country. >> ann compton for governor dukakis. >> governor, nuclear weapons need nuclear material replenished on a regular basis, and just this week yet another nuclear manufacturing plant was closed because of safety concerns. some in the pentagon fear that too much priority has been put on new weapons programs, not enough on current programs, and worry that the resulting shortage would be amounting to nothing less than unilateral nuclear disarmament. is that a priority that you feel has been ignored by this administration, or are the pentagon officials making too much of it? >> well, it's a great concern of mine and i think of all americans, and perhaps the vice president can tell us what's been going on. this is another example of misplaced priorities.

an administration which wants to billions on weapons systems that we don't need and can't afford, and now confronts us with a very serious problem, and plants that are supposed to be producing tritium and plutonium and providing the necessary materials for existing weapons. yes, if we don't do something about it, we may find ourselves unilaterally, if i may use that term, dismantling some of these weapons. what's been going on? who's been in charge? who's been managing this system? why have there been these safety violations? why are these plants being closed down? i don't know what the latest cost estimates are, but it's going to be in the range of 25, 50, 75, $100 billion. now, somebody has to bear the responsibility for this. maybe the vice president has an answer. but i'm somebody who believes very strongly in taking care of the fundamentals first before you start new stuff. and that's something which will be a priority of ours in the new administration because without it, we cannot have the effective and strong and credible nuclear deterrent we must have. >> mr. vice president, you have one minute.

>> that is the closest i have ever heard the governor of massachusetts come to support anything having to do with nuclear, that's about as close as i've ever heard him. yes, this savannah river plant needs to be made more safe. will he join me in suggesting that we may need another plant? maybe in idaho, to take care of the requirements, nuclear material requirements, for our defense department? i hope he will. this sounds like real progress here, because we've had a big difference on the safe use of nuclear power for our energy base. i believe that we must use clean, safe nuclear power. i believe that the more dependent we become on foreign oil, the less our national security is enhanced. and therefore, i've made some proposals to strengthen the domestic oil industry by more incentive going in to look for, and find, and produce oil. made some incentives in terms of secondary and tertiary production. but we're going to have to use

more gas, more coal, and more safe nuclear power for our energy base. so i am one who believes that we can -- >> mr. vice president. >> and must do what he's talking about now. >> ann compton has a question for you. >> mr. vice president, as many as 100 officials in this administration have left the government under an ethical cloud. some have been indicted, some convicted. many of the cases have involved undue influence once they're outside of government. if you become president, will you lock that revolving door that has allowed some men and women in the government to come back and lobby the very departments they once managed? >> yes, and i'll apply it to congress too. i'll do both. i'll do both. because i think you see, i am one who i get kidded by being a little old fashioned on these things, but i do believe in public service. i believe that public service is honorable. and i don't think anybody has a call on people in their administrations going astray. his chief education adviser is

in jail. he's in jail because he betrayed the public trust. the head of education. and yet this man, the governor, equated the president to a rotting fish. he said that a fish rots from the head down as he was going after ed meese. look, we need the highest possible ethical standards. i will have an ethical office in the white house that will be under the president's personal concern. i will see that these standards apply to the united states congress. i hope i will do a good job as one who has had a relatively clean record with no conflicts of interest in his own public life, as has the governor, to exhort young people to get into public service. but there is no corner on this sleaze factor, believe me. and it's a disgrace, and i will do my level best to clean it up, recognizing that you can't legislate morality. but i do believe that with my record in congress, having led the new congressmen to a code of ethics through major main emphasis on it in full disclosure, that i've got a good record.

and there are more, if you want to talk about percentage appointments, more members of congress who have been under investigation percentage-wise that people in the executive branch. and so it isn't one, and state governments have had a tough time. some of his college presidents aren't exactly holier than thou. so let's not be throwing stones about it. let's say, this isn't democrat or republican, and it isn't liberal or conservative. let's vow to work together to do something about it. >> governor, you have one minute to respond to it. >> and i would agree that integrity is not a republican or a democratic issue. it's an american issue. but here again, i don't know which george bush i'm listening to. wasn't this the george bush that supported mr. meese? called james watt an excellent secretary of the interior? provided support for some of these people, supported the

nomination of robert bork to the supreme court of the united states? we've had dozens -- we've had dozens and dozens of officials in this administration who have left under a cloud, who have left with the special prosecutor in their arm, have been indicted, convicted. this isn't the kind of administration we need. and one of the reasons our selection of a running mate is so important, it is such a test of the kinds of standards we'll set, is because it tells the american people in advance of the election just what kind of people we're looking for. i picked lloyd bentsen. mr. bush picked dan quayle. i think that says a great deal to the american people about the standards we'll set and the quality of the people that we will pick to serve in our administration. >> to each of you candidates, regrettably, i have to inform you that we have come to the end of our questions. that's a pity. before i ask the candidates to make their closing remarks, on

behalf of the commission on presidential debates, i would like to thank all of you for joining us this evening. governor dukakis, yours is the first closing statement, sir. >> 28 years ago, as a young man just graduated from law school, i came to this city, came clear across the country, to watch john kennedy be nominated for the presidency of the united states, right here in los angeles. i never dreamed that some day i would win that nomination and be my party's nominee for president. that's america. that's why i'm proud and grateful to be a citizen of this country. 26 days from today you and millions of americans will choose two people to lead us into the future as president and vice president of the united states. our opponents say, things are okay. don't rock the boat. not to worry. they say we should be satisfied. but i don't think we can be satisfied when we're spending $150 billion a year in interest

alone on the national debt, much of it going to foreign bankers, or when 25% of our high school students are dropping out of school, or when we have 2.5 million of our fellow citizens, a third of them veterans, who are homeless and living on streets and in doorways in this country, when mr. bush's prescription for our economic future is another tax giveaway to the rich. we can do better than that. not working with government alone, but all of us working together. lloyd bentsen and i are optimists, and so are the american people. and we ask you for our hand for your hands and your hearts, and your votes on the 8th of november so we can move forward in the future. kitty and i are very grateful to all of you for the warmth and the hospitality that you've given to us in your homes and communities all across this country. we love you, and we're grateful to you for everything that you've given to us.

and we hope that we'll be serving you in the white house in january of 1989. thank you, and god bless you. [applause] >> vice president bush, your closing statement, sir. >> sometimes it does seem that a campaign generates more heat than light. so let me repeat, i do have respect for my opponent, for his family, for the justifiable pride he takes in his heritage. but we have enormous differences. i want to hold the line on taxes and keep this, the longest expansion in modern history, going until everybody in america benefits. i want to invest in our children. because i mean it when i say i want a kinder and gentler nation. and by that i want to have child care where the families, the parents, have control. i want to keep our

neighborhoods much, much better in terms of anti-crime, and that's why i would appoint judges that have a little more sympathy for the victims of crime and a little less for the criminals. that's why i do feel if some police officer is gunned down that the death penalty is required. i want to help those with disabilities fit into the mainstream. there is much to be done. this election is about big things. and perhaps the biggest is world peace. and i ask you to consider the experience i have had in working with a president who has revolutionized the situation around the world. america stands tall again, and as a result, we are credible. and we have now achieved an historic arms control agreement. i want to build on that. i'd love to be able to say to my grandchildren, four years after my first term, i'd like to say, your grandfather, working with the leaders of the soviet union, working with the leaders of europe, was able to ban chemical and biological weapons

from the face of the earth. lincoln called this country the last best hope of man on earth. and he was right then, and we still are the last best hope of man on earth. and i ask for your support on november 8. and i will be a good president. working together, we can do wonderful things for the united states and the free world. thank you very, very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] a live look now from the campus of lynn university from boca raton florida. tonight president obama and candidate mitt romney meet in their final debate. we're looking at the media filing center also known as the spin room you see reporters from all over the world. we are just about three and a half hours over so away from the debate. live coverage gets underway at

7:00 on c-span. let's take a look and listen to the sites there in boca raton. [inaudible conversations] some of the media presence in boca raton florida to win university. we would like you to engage with us tonight from the boca raton

with our preview starting in just about an hour and a half at 7:00 eastern. at - cbs news chief washington correspondent

>> when i watch c-span i watch for congressional hearings and sometimes those pieces of legislation but more importantly about the house of representatives in the proceedings and speeches. on this congressional hearing subject matters like the appropriations but if you're reading something in the newspaper and get the idea that you want to get the readers to c-span and actually the reason is to get the rall information. the barras argument and a

level playing field is really so important. well i guess a week in to it we would expect a lot of stores in california to see growing sales as customers flocking to the stores instead of buying on-line. well, don't hold your breath. it's not likely to be the case. people buy online for convenience, choice and lower prices without even getting into the sales tax. last week democrat krysten sinema and republican fervor parker and paul less gammill took part in a debate in the district of arizona. that is the seat that was added to the state after the 2010 census. this debate courtesy of kaet tv in phoenix and the runs half an hour.

good evening and welcome to this special vote 2012 edition of arizona horizon. i am ted simonson and tonight is a debate of candidates running to represent arizonas ninth congressional district in the u.s. house of representatives. as with all the horizon debate this is a formal exercise it is an open exchange of ideas, an opportunity for give-and-take between the candidates for the state's most important offices. as such interjections at times even interruptions are allowed provide that those get a chance to respond and we will do our best to see that that happens. the new congressional district located in maricopa county includes phoenix, chandler, mazar, scottsdale and paradise valley. three candidates are in the race to represent. they are democrat krysten sinema

a former state legislator, republican vernon parker a current councilman and former mayor of paradise valley and libertarian paul gammill retired microbiologist making his fifth run for congress. each candidate will have an opportunity for a one minute opening statement. we drew numbers to see who goes first and the honor goes to paul gammill. gammill: nine different because i'm not here to rule over you but to advocate for personal freedom. i live by a single principle that it is wrong to initiate force or fraud on others and i expect everyone else to live by that same standard. that is what the founding fathers were trying to give us, a system that maximizes personal liberty and profit and minimizes the cost to optimize our life by providing the freedom to keep and enjoy the fruits of our labors and not to let a bunch of thugs in suits come along and steal from the labors by rule

and confiscation. it's really about the only two choices you have to read you choosing who rules over you for choosing not to purchase of in the process. it's wrong to initiate forceful fought on others. >> thank you very much. for the bunning statement we now turn to krysten sinema. sinema: thanks for having us here this evening. i'm running for congress because i believe congress is no longer serving week, the people. all across this country folks are struggling especially right here to get jobs and keep jobs and take care of their family. we have a congress that is more interested in political bickering and taking partisan ideologies twice on each other and solving the problems but i believe that we deserve better. across the state folks that don't have jobs are trying hard to get them and look at the middle class. folks that have jobs are struggling to keep them and take care of their kids and prepare for their future. and we need for extra billing to work across the aisle to help

our problems. in the seven years i served in the state legislature, i had a reputation of looking across the of with folks on both edges of the spectrum to solve problems. folks like goldwater provided a great opportunity for us to serve those roles and carry on the tradition. >> moderator: the final billing statements from vernon parker. parker: thank you all for turning in. our country is going through some very difficult times. we have out of control spending. we have unacceptable unemployment. when i served as the mayor i had to make some very difficult decisions to either raise taxes or cut our spending. i worked with republicans, democrats and independents and we cut our spending by 30% and our town was better off. if you send me to congress i promise you that i will work across the dial to work with republicans and democrats to

make sure that we get america back to work, that we get the middle class back to work, and that we have a health care system that is second to none and in education system that is second to none and that we restore the 716 billion that had been weeded from medicare. i promised to work and put the american people first and do not put republicans or democrats in front of the american people. thank you to >> moderator: krysten we will start with you how best do we create jobs in america? sinema: i called a 12-point job plan that actually talks about the specific ways the congress can help create a better job climate in the arizona and around the country we don't talk about all of those plans but we will mention a few. right now companies actually get tax rewards for shipping jobs overseas which leaves americans out of jobs and shortchanged. i'm going to switch that tax

code around for businesses that hire folks right here in america. number 2i would support businesses and give them tax credits to hire veterans who've served the country and when they come home have great skills we can put to use right here in arizona. a good example research and development tax credit. when i served in the state legislature and the research and if a limit credit it leaves the jobs in arizona. we need to do that for the long-term to bring those jobs right here to america. >> moderator: how we get jobs in america? parker: i have a 16-point plans may be - four points better. however, the first thing that we should do is freeze the current tax rate. if we do that we would put $4,000 on the pockets of middle class americans. we must be more competitive on the global scene we can no longer have the highest corporate income tax in the world. right now we are in the high

30's and if we lower the corporate income tax to 22% we will create 2 million jobs here in america and if we reinvestment make sure that the research and development tax credit, if it is by 25%, another 500 balls at jobs, and the next point is i fully support the building because the will create jobs and i will also advocate that we keep the air force base open. the provide 17,500 jobs to this economy with $2.2 billion which ms. sinema: proposed the we shut. sinema: not accurate. that is something i find pretty offensive. my grandpa is an army veteran who served in world war ii and got a purple heart. i have a big brother that served in the marines and a brother that is currently serving in the united states navy.

so lots of guys in my family and military families have a strong record of supporting the the three veterans, and in fact the only candidate sitting here at the table this evening that has a record on the air force base over the course of seven years in the state legislature. not once but eight times to protect and preserve the air force base. >> baiji you ever have the -- did you ever advocate to close the air force base? sinema: i was turning to independent the republican families of it took me awhile to become a democrat. >> moderator: was it independent? sinema: and i was younger i felt based on information that i had been told but i tell you what, my brothers taught me that the most important thing that we could do is to keep those jobs open and that is why i tax legislation to produce more veterans throughout the state.

>> moderator: creating jobs in the country. parker: this is how you reduce the debt that we are in is keeping the air force base open? now, come on. how do you get jobs and to the state? jobs are created when businesses have surplus money and means how to get the surplus money ripping them off left and right for taxes you've got to basically go in there and got that and my personal opinion is we eliminate all federal taxes and corporate taxes of the federal level and see how good the baking skills are now. before you jump on that, the other thing that i would like to jump on is that we need to get rid of all of the regulations and mandates that the government was on businesses that crushes the life out of them. if you do that and you suddenly have surplus money in those businesses they will start to high-yield people. >> moderator: the economics, some people have argued why would we return to that

particular ideology philosophy? what have you when some see that as one of the reasons we have the great recession in the first place how would you respond to that? parker: we must be competitive on the global sense. we cannot have the highest corporate income tax in the world we must reduce the global income tax because our number one export right now we are exporting jobs to china and india, and i firmly believe that in order for us to be more competitive, we us take a look at our current tax structure. >> moderator: what do you think about the idea that cutting taxes is the best way to stimulate the economy and that the idea that the tax cut would eventually pay for themselves? sinema: some tax cuts they lot of sense. i support the bush tax cut continuing from middle class families because right now the families are struggling just to put food on the table and gas in the tank and prepare their kids for the future. we have a fundamentally different idea how to help families get back on their feet.

he suggests the way to do that is cut corporate taxes. i think the number one ways to support a middle class family. for instance, i will but we should stop the bush tax cuts for the richest 2% in the country. if we continue the tax cuts for the richest 2% it would add $1 trillion to our country's deficit over the next ten years. and i don't think that we can lose that for our kids and grandkids. that isn't what we want to create for them. >> let me respond. ms. sinema proposed in the past that we raise taxes on families that make $75,000 more. she has also proposed that the tax services such as barbershops, hairdressers, and she has proposed that we would tax 25 cents per bag. that would put an enormous burden on middle class families. look, when people talk about let's not cut taxes, when you cut taxes on people that are

making to entered thousand dollars or 250,000, those are small business owners. those are llc's and they are paying at the individual rate. they are hiring americans. so, the notion that someone that makes 200,000 or to wonder if $50,000, that they are rich and wealthy and that they should not receive tax breaks, that is unimaginable. sinema: i'd like to clarify my record in the seven years that i was in the state legislature, i never once had a tax increase, at the families. so i think that that could be very clear here again there is a difference between us. he was to give tax breaks to the wealthiest americans and i think that we need to give those breaks to middle class families that are struggling. my dad lost his job and we ended up homeless for a few years. we worked hard to get back to the middle class but if it hadn't been for the programs like the income tax credit that helped folks like me with pell

grants. the legislature has lost control by republicans. so they never have the opportunity, but she had advocated the tax increases that is unfair after the tax increases because she never had the opportunity to. >> moderator: respond to that event because we've heard in the presidential debate over the country the idea that the two injured $50,000 plus a year need to pay more of their share and should pay more of their share. valid? gammill: those are individuals, small business owners that have escorts and they pay of an individual way. they hire people so if they are going to be taxed at that rate, they might have the resources to

reinvest and to our community. the bald have the resources to create more jobs. so, it is not fair to tax those individuals that are supplying 90% of the jobs in this country. sinema: the trickle-down economics just doesn't work. i'm worried about the teachers, nurses cut doctors, and -- parker: the high year across this country to be considered for a millionaire. that is totally -- gammill: i never got a job from a poor person so don't take away their money and expect the rich people's money and expect jobs to go up, to expect it to go the opposite way. second, no corporation or business in this country pays any tax. all those taxes out there that are sticking it to the rich from sticking it to corporations, guess what that gets passed on to the company's manufacturers.

the fact that you are basically taxing yourself when you sit there and cheer the businessman getting hammered. >> moderator: all right on health care what you have made it in the act? sinema: i would have voted for it and i would have worked hard to shake that all. i in the first to say that this law is not perfect. there are a lot of thinkers in that legislation but there are important parts of the law that must be protected. protection for kids with pre-existing health conditions like autism or down's syndrome, protection for folks that are diagnosed with diseases like breast cancer and that get kicked off their insurance when they are diagnosed with a disease. what we need is not a repeal. first of all that is not for a practical. it's not likely to happen but what we do need is bipartisan action to come together and fix some of the parts of ball that don't work well for american small businesses and families. >> moderator: parker: i would not have -- look, if this topic is very personal for me, my wife, she

had third stage breast cancer. we could not afford it, but she recovered, and she recovered why? because we have the best doctors in the world and healthcare in the world, but it's not affordable to the affordable care act does several things that i believe went too far. for example but is too expensive. it will cost us $2.6 billion the one provision that i think is just reprehensible is that it allows medicare is $716 billion when i get to congress i will fight to make sure that those cuts are restored, and third, this is a -- ford, we will have bureaucrats in washington, d.c. destroying the doctor patient relationship telling us where we can see doctors and forth, it will destroy small business because never before in american history have we said that if you hired more than 50 people and they worked more than 39 hours

per week that he would be penalized. >> moderator: too intrusive and damaging to small business. sinema: i think the small business expect it to happen that hopefully repeal the law isn't practical or realistic what we need to do is work together to create more affordable the for the businesses. this is between 50 to 200 employees. there is one thing i do want to point out that i was concerned that mr. parker said and it's a story in the media that is beyond with allies in the beginning. the cuts, the massive cuts in medicare. the truth is the affordable care at cut out waste, fraud and abuse and i did think we would all agree that we want to get rid of that system. the concerning thing is the support for romney and raw and budget. he recently said that he supports the approach to entitlement. now that the budget would cost seniors like my grandma $64,000 more each year. parker: i've never said that i supported a the romney and raw

and budget now let's get back to this health care. i agree with a certain aspect, number one, but we should be able to purchase insurance for the other children until the age of 26 and god knows we need it now because these kids do not have jobs and we must address preexisting conditions. to drive down those costs, we must be able to purchase insurance across state lines, but this is a very important point. this point right here. doctors practice defensive medicine. my wife who had third stage breast cancer we have to pay for these tests and so we told the doctor and he said you need this test and this test and i said i have to pay for this. he said what you don't need this one and this one. i said why would you prescribe? he said i am afraid that i would be sued and that is not madison --

gammill: i don't want to get into this. health care is there any examples of why the constitution and the federal governor are completely at odds with one another? the constitution is supposed to limit the federal government. there's nothing in the constitution about health care or permitting the congress to pass health care laws they do all over the place and mandate. so i would have voted against it and i think that this shows more of a different swing between myself and the other two candidates on any other issue because i completely oppose the federal government having any say in any aspect of people's medicine especially the mandate provision. >> moderator: social security should be privatized on contributions going to stock and medicaid, should be turned over to the states? should they just be a radical look at these programs? sinema: that is a great question. earlier this year he told the tea party audience that he was interested in the budget as it relates to entitlements.

so there's three areas i think that matters and the medicaid payment, the block payments of medicaid to lose more than half of the funding for a arizona the taxpayers of the other states that makes no sense we should get those dollars back. it's true the security and medicare those are very personal issues. my own grandmother is widowed when she's in her early 20s in tucson. based to kids on her own working in minimum wage at the cafeteria in tucson and when she was hired all she had was a social security and medicare. so the republicans in congress are supposing to privatize social security those are dangerous programs. parker: absolutely. i will tell you this i've never advocated privatizing social security i'm on record for

continuing we must uphold our commitment to our seniors, we must preserve medicare we must preserve social security. our system is broken and we have to do something to fix the system and when i get to congress will sit down with republicans and democrats to make sure that in the future we resolve the issues surrounding social security and medicare. >> moderator: what about returning it to the states? parker: i have no problem with that. >> moderator: the degette is a good idea? sinema: this is the area of difference between us because if medicaid would return to the state of the block grant we would lose over 50% of the funds the we currently get and this means that low-income workers, people with disabilities and seniors make up 65% of the folks that benefit in the state that means my grandma wouldn't get care, kids with disabilities couldn't get care -- speed but

the states have made the argument can't afford what's going on right now with access. sinema: the truth is we can't afford to not do it. the folks that have access to affordable health care show up for health care anybody in the emergency room and we know that it costs 12 times as much to see a doctor back in the emergency room and to see a doctor back in his or her office. it doesn't benefit anyone to cut this program lets me in on that. parker: ms. sinema: will continue through the entire night to believe that the government is the answer from the federal government should be in control. i believe that decision should be made at the state level. a lot of these decisions should be made at the state level because we are here. we don't need washington, d.c. telling us how to do business in the returning medicate to the states. gammill: i am appalled that he would toss your grandmother out in the street simply because she doesn't have health insurance, which is what i just heard to say.

i would think that he would come up with money and help her out. but i guess instead you've got to put a gun to every american in their country and take them of their hard-earned wages. .. i don't believe in al gore and the internet either. here's the thing, man-made climate change, we must be good stewards of our environment. we must make sure that we protect our environment.

my back is climate change real? sinema: there's overwhelming evidence that demand has made a difference and that is why i support to help curb solar energy and improve alternative energy here in arizona. ted is not only important to address the shift climate change but it's also important from a national security perspective. they're less likely we will continue depend on the middle east. parker: here is the problem we have right now. we have the largest oil reserve in the world and if we tap into that reserve, believe me our economy would take off and so we have to make sure that week, as someone said, that our president is not now down to a saudi king. we have the reserves. we must utilize those reserves.

i'm in favor of nuclear. i'm in favor of clean coal. i'm in favor of solar so whatever it is that gets us away and gets us independents we need to pursue it. >> moderator: quickly, drill more, more resources in america? sinema: the truth is we can make a lot more curry clean energy using solar technology. without endangering some of our greatest wildlife resources and natural resources. >> moderator: we have to stop it right there. each candidate will now get one minute but going in reverse order of their opening statements. we start with vernon parker. parker: thank you ted and thank you guys. this was a lot of fun. i'm asking you today to support me in sending to congress congress. we must get our economy going. we must get the middle-class

back to work and we must protect our seniors, protect medicare, protect social security and they must have an education system that is second to none. you have my commitment that i will work with republicans and democrats because right now we have a congress that gets nothing done because they are more concerned about pinning the tail on the donkey were trying to lasso the elephant. i can tell you right now the american people, they have been lost. i will work hard to make sure that we keep the prosperity of this country and that we work to ensure for future generations that they have a future. placing me in congress, will work for you. >> moderator: our next eight minutes from kyrsten sinema. sinema: thinks that. from the beginning of our debate i said i'm running for congress because i do think we deserve better. as i mentioned earlier in the face tough times. when my dad lost his job would last everything.

but yet thanks to this great country the opportunity afforded us in a good public education system i was able to get back on my feet and make it to the middle-class. i want that same opportunity for every kid and every family in this country. i'm running for congress because i believe we can keep those doors of opportunity open. when we combine hard work and assistance to help each other make it through, we can create a country that we are all proud of every single day. back in the days, arizona was known for his problematic -- pragmatic common sense and we can be known for that again. if we are going to go across the aisle to solve problems and i promise to do the same thing for you a few semito washington d.c.. >> moderator: our final closing statement is from al gammill. gammill: another two years to vote for a bunch of off the --

where one candidate is always doubt this is going to win there for your vote doesn't count or where r indymac are both unacceptable where you get to choose between the lesser of two evils. choosing evil is still evil. the only alternative is to choose not to participate in what is a voluntary process, don't vote. you have better things to to do then reaffirmed the process where a bunch of thugs get anointed to divvy up your stolen labor in a 60-40 split. the washington parties not eager towards either candidate is acceptable to them. what they need is your participation and your consent in the anointing. deny them both by finding better things to do this election. >> moderator: thank you very much and thank you for joining us tonight on this special edition of arizona horizon. i'm ted simons and that is it for now.

>> new jersey senator bob menendez and republican challenger joe kyrillos recently took part in their third and final debate. "the cook political report" listed this race as the likely democratic. courtesy of w. iptv in trenton, this is an hour. >> hello, i am jim gardner from six abc action news and we are here at the debbie tbi charden bureau with new jersey senate candidate, republican joe kyrillos and democrats robert menendez. our panelist with us today are univision reporter mariela salgado and matt friedman from the star-ledger. moderating with me, wabc anchors diana williams.

we have a few simple rules to share with you before we get started. the format today will include questions of the candidates from me, diana and her to panelist. we will be around when the candidates will be able to question each other and there will be answers. >> moderator: the order was determined by a coin toss a short time ago and for fairness they will be time limits on the responses gentleman. the time limit is one minute. we have a lovely light system with yellow and red so if you don't stop talking by the red light hits, i'm sure we will stop them. so we are going to begin with some first questions in the first question does involve jobs here in new jersey. new jersey as you know has given tax credits to businesses in the state which is received almost $12 billion in federal stimulus money and the assumption was that all of those measures would bring jobs back to the state of new jersey. new jersey though as a 9.9% unemployment rate and the fourth highest in the country so if

those measures have not worked, what will bring jobs back to the state and mr. said three re-begin with you. kyrillos: good to be with you and thank you abc affiliate and the league of women voters. we have a strong national economy. we are making all the wrong decisions in washington d. beast -- d.c. and that's a problem. way of high unemployment in new jersey and high unemployment in america. 23 million americans out of work or working part-time jobs or have given up looking for work altogether. the recipe they are following is similar to what we did here in new jersey under the corzine era, more taxes, more spending, more job-killing regulations. here at home governor christie and i are working with democrats, reformers and the legislature to turn new jersey around. we are dealing with budget challenges. we are not doing it with higher taxes. we are rolling out economic incentives and we are confident

in the private sector but we are not an island. we have got to do things in washington d.c. a very different way. menendez: is interesting to note that in this national recovery, 46 other states are doing better in their unemployment rates. so i am focused on what we can do to create jobs in new jersey. that is why the recovery act, the governor governors governor's own web site that saved 100,000 jobs in new jersey, that being a diverse economic portfolio for new jersey. that is why it brought 50 some odd million dollars to 133 small biotech companies that are doing groundbreaking work, great jobs. that is where the solar tax credit that i created help jumpstart 750 solar projects in new jersey. there are now 10,000 new jerseyans working in the solar industry. that is why the new transportation bill that i helped write will help and/or

create 52,000 jobs in that sector so we will have to continue to make the investments that can help the middle class be able to grow and prosper and get the jobs they need to realize their hopes, dreams and aspirations. kyrillos: >> moderator: the fiscal cliff is a scary looking precipice and it. if congress doesn't come up with a plan according to the tax policy center, taxes are going to go up by $500 million or an average of $3500 for an american household, substantially more than that in new jersey. the country probably going back into recession according to the american tax action forum. the fiscal cliff will cost the economy as many as 2.8 billion jobs, make that million jobs and new jersey between 80 to win 293,000 jobs. it's a scary deal. let's pretend that your respective leaderships in the senate have asked each of you to

figure this out. to solve the crisis. what do you do first mr. menendez? menendez: while the effort that i led to make sure that the $3500 that it would cost the average person, that is the tax cut that i led, middle-class tax cut that i want to continue to have middle-class families have. they're the ones that help grow this economy so the fiscal cliff it is a combination of figuring out what is the right personal rate, what is the right corporate rate and what is the right dividend rate and how did we commit ourselves to a glide path over the next decade to reduce in my view of $4 trillion over the next decade but not disproportionally cut over the next two years along the lines of those 10 years because otherwise we throw the economy right back into a recession. so it's going to be a combination of how do we strengthen the middle class and how do we create a balance when you have a multi-trillion dollar

pocket. what's the right tax policy and what's the right fiscal and growth policy? my focus will be on ensuring that middle classes strengthened. kyrillos: jam the country is facing a crisis, the kind you just described. it's a fiscal cliff. we are rolling over it and you know the answer that i heard from senator menendez i'm not sure he understands. i can't believe that they allow the uncertainty to exist out there in homes, and businesses, small businesses, large businesses, every single american, every single new jersey and is going to get a tax rate hike. that's just a fact. bob said last week well you know we are going to go back in the a lame-duck session and deal with it. why should people have that kind of uncertainty? why can't they get their act together? the national federation of independent business says when he raises the top tax rate,

700,000 americans will lose their job in new jersey alone. it's 20,000. we are to have 450,000 new jerseyans out of work. we can't add to it and the defense cuts that are coming. that will mean 43,000 jobs to new jersey alone. it's a big cliff and a long fall. >> moderator: mariela salgado has the next question focusing on the economy and the first question goes to mr. kyrillos. >> thank you and talking about business, you will know that 25% of homeowners in new jersey belonged to immigrants. we see them every day as we report with a very ambitious period but often they complain to us of the lack of being able to get loans to help grow their business and create more jobs. what would you do specifically mr. kyrillos to help them grow their business?

kyrillos: first of all we can let these tax rates rise because so many new jerseyans and immigrants and the latino community disproportionately affected, work for these businesses that will be affected. one out of six americans work in the private sector, work for a small business, so we can't let these tax rates go up and you talk about access to capital. you know we overregulate the banks. we had some problems on wall street obviously and these guys passed a big massive regulatory bill that now ensures that businesses cannot get their loans. they can't meet their payroll. people want to go and refinance her house and they can't do it. and so, communities, all communities are holding their breath that we can do something differently. these guys haven't passed a budget in three years so why should we be surprised that they haven't done anything about the

fiscal cliff that is coming? and a shortage of capital in and the access to capital. menendez: i didn't hear an answer to your question so let me try. first there will be no tax increases on new jerseyans or americans in january because we will not allow the fiscal cliff to ultimately have americans drive over it. everybody knows that we need to meet this challenge and we will however holding tax cuts from the wealthiest is my opponent supports some middle-class families can get a tax cut doesn't make sense. as it relates to your question, that is why i had the small-business jobs at the brought over $33 million to small business entities in new jersey. that is why i sponsored a billion dollars in community loan guarantees with treasury department to work with community development financial institutions that are the middle

investors on small businesses like the ones you are referring to. that is why i help with small business administration loans and a lot of red tape along the way. those of the ways you are asking for to help create small business opportunities. >> moderator: the star-ledger is represented by reporter matt friedman. his question concerns transportation and matt, mr. menendez will be the first to respond. >> there's a tunnel between new jersey and new york that exist now and it was past two years after governor christie rejected the access to the region's core tunnel. would that be one viable alternative now? so far only $50 million has been appropriated by the federal government to amtrak projects and -- so first how necessary is it that we construct that tunnel in new york and in senator

kyrillos's case would you work to pass its? mittmet romnius said he wants to eliminate federal funding for amtrak. do you agree with him and what would that mean for this project? kyrillos: i appreciate your question. i have work to bring nearly $3 billion to the state of new jersey for a new trans-hudson tunnel which was their. when governor christie decided to eliminate the project and cancel it, it was on-time and on budget and the suggestion that cost overruns were going to be the fear and it up using the money for the time of that was dedicated by the state of new jersey and put into the transportation fund so to cover a generational opportunity and a new trans-hudson tunnel would open up the region. i disagree with the governor. we went back to work on the new tunnel. senator lautenberg and i are working on it.

we are the ones who got the original funding for it but ending amtrak money would be a catastrophe for the region. the entire northeast corridor meets amtrak ticket sales forces to work and people to hospitals and travel in the post-september 11 world. and see the last question dealt with small business and i heard senator menendez he wants to -- going higher and that will impact small businesses we talked about in your last question. with regard to the tunnel, the last deal was not a good deal for new jersey and that is why governor christie canceled it. it was a tunnel that went to macy's and it did not go to penn station. it was inordinately expensive to the taxpayers of new jersey. you know our delegation didn't cut the right deal for state

taxpayers and there was no -- the governor and the legislature and those of us who have to balance the budget here at home didn't know what the price tag would be. and we couldn't get the assurances. the leaders met the secretary of transportation. we didn't get the right answer so i think the right decision was made. but we have to pursue another alternative. we know how important it is to get back and forth between new york city and new jersey. it's important to our residents and it's important to the commerce of our region and i'm committed to that. >> moderator: you are committed to amtrak and gateway? kyrillos: absolutely. we have to put the right deal together. >> moderator: we begin our second round of questions with the socialist is that have been prominent in this election year and let me ask mr. kyrillos first. at what exact moment does life

begin and at what exact moment does the right to be unborn equal or supersede the rights of the mother? kyrillos: this is a very personal question to a lot of people and it's a very important question to me as well. i am not exactly sure when exactly it is life begins. i know for me, i have a pro-life thought process for me and for my family. i don't want to impose the on each and every person to decide. i don't think you should have third try men's -- trimester abortion. i think you should have parental notice and that is the way i

think most americans feel as well. menendez don't you think it's appropriate if in fact you are pro-life and i know you said you are. is that important to know when that life begins? kyrillos: i am pro-life in terms of how i conduct my own affairs but i believe everybody has to make their own choice. i am pro-choice for the society at large and that is how i have conducted myself as a member of the legislature and conducted myself as a member of the united states senate as well. >> moderator: thank you. mr. menendez. menendez: i'd hear to the roe v. wade decision that does not permit late-term abortions in the third trimester, especially in the health or life of the mother. i have now been in three debates and heard three different answers as it relates to my opponent's position on choice. i have been in debates in which

he said he is pro-choice. i just heard him say he is pro-life. i've heard him say that he is restricted pro-choice. what i don't believe it is someone who goes to the senate and it's multiple choice. at the end of the day i have been consistently pro-choice. i believe that is the decision for a woman to control her own body and with her own doctor, her own family and her own faith. that is my focus. >> moderator: forgive me sir but you haven't answered my question. do you know when life begins and at what point do the rights of the unborn become equal to or supersede the rights of the mother. menendez: clearly they have perceive the rights of the individual -- [inaudible] >> moderator: your personal

feeling. kyrillos: one ounce conception. i shouldn't use the word conception. one's own perception. >> moderator: we have rebuttal time going on here. let's go on. mariela has a question first to mr. menendez and then to mr. kyrillos. >> yes we all know the obama administration has had a reckless -- at about 400,000 a year. however the presidential executive order who are young and documenting came to this country as children as she now. what would be your plan to help them achieve assuming you have one and pass citizenship? menendez: is the president has had a large number of deportations in which they were criminal deportations and i support that effort however i

believe strongly supporting the d.r.e.a.m. act. this is an opportunity for young people who came to this country through no decision of their own. their parents brought them here. the only flag they have ever pledged allegiance to is the flag of united states and the only answer they knows the "star spangled banner." americas their home and we have already made huge investments in public education and it seems to me allowing them to earn their way to permanent residency should should be allowed and is the appropriate vehicle. i have voted for it and supported that. i appreciate the presence efforts for deferred action but that is not the d.r.e.a.m. act and we need to pass the d.r.e.a.m. act. we would have the d.r.e.a.m. act if the republicans in the united states senate did not filibuster which means it requires a higher vote margin to pass a majority vote. kyrillos: i think we have to be very sensitive to people who came to this country with their

parents. they can speak any language, english, spanish or anything else and deal with the families and people in a very sensitive way. i support elements of the d.r.e.a.m. act and whatever legislation would come before me. we need secure to secure our borders as well, not to have, not give anybody some false hope that if they come to our country. it's not fair to the people that play by the rules. i think we have to increase the ceiling on high-tech and have people come to this country and stay in this country. they can add two fields where we really need people in math and science and technology. and want to have the new entrepreneurs visa, people with investment capital come to this country, invest it here rather than someplace else. but do you know what? the congress hasn't done anything on this issue. my opponent has been there now

for seven years in the senate, 20 years in the congress. a few years ago, a couple of years ago they had control of the united states senate, the house of representatives, the white house. they could've passed conference of immigration reform. why don't they do it? >> if i may ask you real quick so senator what would be your answer to those young people that are watching right now because they want to know where you stand if you are elected. do you believe in the d.r.e.a.m. act or not and you said you do partially. kyrillos: i want to find a way for them to be here and to grow up to be good and productive citizens. >> moderator: we will move on with another question on social issues. mr. kyrillos you will be answering that first. kyrillos: most of the information has evolved substantially over the next six

years. senator menendez starting in the 1990s he voted in favor of the defense of marriage act which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and when you were running six years ago you said you opposed gay marriage. now you support gay marriage and are in favor of repealing the defense of marriage act. senator kyrillos you have voted against gay marriage twice and in 2060 voted against allowing civil unions in new jersey. now you say you are opposed to gay marriage but you want to expand civil unions. could both of you please share with us the experiences on these issues? kyrillos: am i at first? >> moderator: yes you are. kyrillos: i believe marriage is between a man and woman and i believe in traditional marriage. and what i said the other night was when i hear stories from

partners that they can't go to the hospital and they support medical decisions for their partner, that is wrong. and so, it's not that i want to have an enhanced union law necessarily. i want to make sure the laws carried out the way it's intended to and if that means the legislation, then so be it. and so, that is how i feel. i know bob has changed his mind on this issue and i believe it's a states rights issue and one that ought to be decided location by location. >> moderator: senator menendez? menendez: thank you for your question. i looked at this issue strictly religiously and in that context and i voted that way in the '90s. overtime i have met many new jerseyans who love each other dearly, who couldn't get into

the hospital when the loved one that they had was very ill, who couldn't make life decisions even though they were committed to each other, who could not ultimately have so many of the things that two people are committed to each other are able to have in terms of the legal ability for them to pursue and make their lives together. i came to the conclusion that this was a civil rights issue and as such when i pass the supreme court on my way to work, it says equal justice under the law, not just for some people but for all people and i felt these americans are not receiving equal justice so yes i have evolved in marriage equality and we have heard from the community that civil unions do not give them the ability to have those rights i just talked about. >> moderator: does is change how you define marriage? menendez: to me, to people who want to be committed to each other have the absolute right to have with the law provides

legally under marriage and that is all of the rights that flow from civil context accordingly so yes, i don't think the government should be involved. to people who are committed to each other -- [inaudible] >> moderator: which kind of these to my next question which is all about the role of government in our personal lives. we see cities who are banning supersize drinks. trans fats and reducing salt. in depth -- it will save us money but a lot of people think government is getting a little bit too intrusive so i want to know gentlemen, what do you think and mr. menendez we begin with you. menendez: look, i understand the public health desire but i don't think government can or should make every decision that ultimately leads to a person's healthier lifestyle. do i think we should educate people? do i think there should be

public health consciousness that the government can help create? absolutely. do i think we should tell them what size soda we should have? i personally don't. i think that in fact we should you know, have a whole host of other laws and regulations that ultimately are trying to get individuals to modify their health habits. i think we should educate them. i think we should promote public awareness of the benefits and the consequences of not doing so but it's different than to demand upon an individual that these choices have to be made. i think it's fundamentally different. >> moderator: mr. kyrillos do you think it's enough or does it take government action? kyrillos: i think we have gone way overboard in state legislatures and across the country. in new york city and in washington d.c., we are trying to micromanage everybody's household, everybody's lifestyle

too much. people resent it. it's too costly and it's not the proper role of government. that is not how i have conducted myself and not how i would want to. generally washington over regulates and we we know that and that's a general philosophy and a general thing. i'm proud of the fact, i think it was the right decision for example on the other hand to deal with smoking in new jersey in public places. i think that impacted other people. we don't want to get sick from somebody else's secondhand smoke. one of the smart things that the congress did and i'm not sure bob was there this time was to ban smoking on airplanes and that's a good thing. >> moderator: so you wouldn't ban large sized sugary drinks? kyrillos: i don't think to myself. i will leave it to the moms and

dads of new jersey to decide. >> moderator: we are beginning round three of this debate and more questions dealing with people's finances and money worries. mariela you can go first. >> this topic has to do a student loans. borrowers have defaulted on their federal loans according to the department of education and have reported that they are afraid after graduating of even finding a job. so i guess the question would be to you, how would you keep education affordable and available to them? menendez: i'm heartbroken about unemployment in particular. we see so many kids in so many young college students he can't find their first job. i get so many people volunteering on my campaign but loving it but they would really rather have a job someplace. they volunteer in their spare

time. hatha graduating class would have a job to go to. they have worked hard and taken out loans. i have loans as a student. we want to keep them as affordable as possible and keep that interest rate low. we want to make sure that the public and private universities keep the tuition as low as possible as well. and as we allow more capital and more people take loans and more people borrow for their future, but that doesn't mean that we can finance tuition rate hikes. we have a real affordability problem out there. to answer your question specifically, we want to make sure people can get ones intuition. >> moderator: this is a very important question. i know it in my own life and i was the first in my family to go

to college. the only reason i was able to go to college and to go to law school was the power of the federal government providing pell grants, personal loans and work study but for that i wouldn't be standing here tonight at this debate as a united states senator. i want that to be a reality where each one of our kids who want to work our. are. that is why far to take the money way from the banks and give attractive to students and that is one of which pell grants. is why i fight against republican opposition in the united states senate to keep the student loan rates low and it is why i am an advocate of debt forgiveness so that in fact if a student after graduating, if they have to borrow if there are willing to commit to a critical service in the country we can reduce in return for service. i believe that's good for the nation and good for the individual but i've been a champion of the student to access college education. moderate let's get back to taxes

and math i know you have a particular concern about how much taxes new jerseyans paid. >> senator, the tax foundation receives only 51 cents for every dollar and ranks as dead last among the states. to look at another way we have it top "" donor state. this is come up in a senate contest for last 20 years and really nothing has changed. is there anything we can or have done to change the status or is it something we have to access -- a step like our high average income or new military facilities or is this something we need to fight for or is it something new jerseyans need to accept? menendez: i will never accept that reality and i've had a series of successes but part of the challenges, when we bring money to new jersey fired my opponents say we didn't get a

good deal. $3 billion for a new trans-hudson tunnel. at that time the highest amount of dollars ever for a federal project in the nation nations history i believe. then we bring, i bring $300 billion for keeping new jerseyans in their homes in the home program. the state ultimately only spent $4 million on it. where is the oversight? so we can't complain about how much we get when we get money lead the money or we don't use of. this is why i am proud of the new transportation bill since i got the chance to chair the subcommittee. here in philadelphia will get a higher rate of transit money as a result of helping to write the formula and i will continue to write formulas that will drive greater resources to our region.

>> moderator: mr. kyrillos. kyrillos: the tunnel is not a good deal for new jersey. this is a problem in general. the question that you bring up and the amount of money we get back from washington d.c.. we are an affluent state and we send a lot of tax money to washington. we get precious little back. a lot of it is because of the criteria that is long-standing but they senators and the delegation in general have never looked at the formula. they have never looked at the metropolitan statistical constructs were we are -- with new york city and find a different methodology in a different way to bring resources back and that is something i'm going to look at really really carefully. senator menendez supported the big stimulus bill, nearly a trillion dollars and new jersey again was at the bottom of the

bare. we actually spent more money in foreign countries than then we got back here in new jersey. any mention military bases and i have read that before -- >> moderator: i'm sorry to interrupt. >> moderator: i just have a followed question. mr. menendez brought up a three and a million in foreclosure money that has not been spent. why is that not been spent? menendez they are looking at the best way to spend it to make sure it spent wisely and make sure that money is being spent well and hopefully it'll get out there and allow people to stay in their homes. >> moderator: i want to talk a little bit about taxes because in this election cycle, we are hearing about three very popular deductions that we all see on our tax forms. the mortgage deduction, the property tax deduction and the charitable deduction. i want to know from you both, are all three of these sacred

cows or is it time to make changes? should any of those three be eliminated and if so, which once? we will start with mr. kyrillos. kyrillos: listen i don't want to eliminate any of them if we can help it. i certainly will never allow for the standard core mortgage interest eduction to take place take place but do you know what? i understand we have this massive debt crisis in our country and the congress hasn't been able to figure out how to make things work. we have $15 trillion, $51,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. i said i want to adopt the simpson-bowles commission style methodology and it couldn't get the job done so it was outsourced to a bipartisan commission of republicans and democratic people. smart people that say we have to lower tax rates. we have to deal with seductions and we have to deal with spending as well.

my opponent doesn't want to follow that path. i want to bring everybody together, republicans and democrats alike, to figure out how to deal with is this going forward. >> moderator: i want to make sure i heard you, you would protect the mortgage deduction. what about charitable -- kyrillos: i don't want to lose any of these popular deductions but here's the thing. i haven't signed any tax pledge and i'm one of the only americans who haven't done it as i think we have to put everything on the table and look at everything. i'm not going to do it until we lower the rating cut spending. then we are going to have to figure out how to deal with this crisis. >> moderator: i want to give senator menendez a chance to respond. menendez: first of all my opponent if you listen to the tax plan he is talking about that the state promotes basically the romney tax plan, you cannot pay for all of that unless you close the mortgage destruction or the charitable

deduction or the property tax deduction or a combination of them so you can have it both ways. otherwise you explode the dead which you are supposedly against even though in new jersey voted for a pension bonds that ultimately cost the state taxpayers $10 billion to ultimately bond $2.8 billion to create a billion dollar tax cut. having spent $10 billion to get a billion dollar tax cut, that is not a good plan. i will tell you what i am forward. i am for closing the 21 billion-dollar oil -- in ending the $6 billion ethanol that farmers get. i am before ultimately closing the offshore tax havens that no new jersey and largely uses. that will save us billions of dollars and walker middle-class families. >> moderator: mr. carrillo said guerrillas did i understand you to say that should grover

norquist come knocking at your door asking you to sign the no tax hike pledge that you will not find a? kyrillos: i have ready been asked to sign that pledge. i'm a tax cutter. that is how i've spent my whole career in the state legislature. >> moderator: are you saying you'd be with willing to consider revenue changes? kyrillos: we need to grow revenue. >> moderator: through a tax increase? five we need to lower rates and finance it through loophole that actions and jump of the tax code. we need to cut spending. >> moderator: would you consider voting for higher taxes if you are elected senator? kyrillos: no. >> moderator: then why not sign the no tax hike pledge? kyrillos: i haven't signed it. we will have to look at hundreds

of thing so i don't want somebody to say this is a tax increase for this reason or that is not. we have serious business at hand and so serious people are going to have to reach across the aisle and come up with a math problem answer. we are going to have to solve this puzzle so i don't sign pledges for anybody and nothing is off the table. what is on the table is the future of the country. prosperity for the country. >> moderator: you said there is serious business at hand in the deep there is. cities like camden, trenton and newark have been laying off police. camden has dibs been described as the most dangerous city in america. the entire police force is in the process of being expanded to be replaced by a nonunion regional force.

at the same time crime rates are going up. in the cities. it's a dilemma at the very least. is there a role for the federal government to play and somehow ameliorating what is a very discouraging calculus, and i would ask that first to mr. menendez. menendez: and i have already played that role. first of all, through my efficacy for the cops program, we have put nearly 300 police officers on the streets of new jersey. and in camden, nearly 30 were created a virtue of the programs that i did working with the mayor. we have i believe the strong support of the justice grants that help law enforcement departments create greater safety. i strongly believe in those

programs and also with our firefighters. they were the ones who responded on that fateful day of september 11. they are the real first responders, not the federal government. we were all committed to them but my opponent has cut them dramatically and cut a $50 million supplemental to help the police department that you just cited, jim, and when he voted against this he said well i know it may increase crime but we have a tough budget. safety is job number one and that is why i am proud that the police associations in the state and that is why i am proud all the fire associations in the state just came out and endorse me because they know that even in tough times public safety still has to be job one. so yes i believe the federal government has a role to play. >> moderator: mr. kyrillos. kyrillos: i think it may increase crime nevertheless. we don't get to print money the

way they do in washington d.c.. this is a local challenge. the challenges of our cities are tough ones. any responsible leader, any responsible citizen needs to understand that and this is the project of the local governments well and it is not principally the federal government. i've done everything i can do as a member of the legislature to improve jobs in the city of new jersey and the employment incentive program has built the goalpost for example of jersey city. it is now helping to rebuild the city of new york as well. i was the original sponsor of the bill that eventually aloud the building of the prudential center in newark, so that is what we have got to do.

>> moderator: i know it was another administration in another time in a and a different economic environment but there was a presidential program to put 1000 police on the streets in american cities, so are you saying when it's a local issue, are you saying because of economic problems there is an ideological difference? kyrillos: the problem with the stimulus bill, the money is temporary. it sounds really good. there was lots of money in the stimulus bill for the state of new jersey. if i were the governor of the state out there or the mayor, i would like that help to map. it makes your job easier but what happens the next year or the year after that when the money isn't there any more? and of course we don't have money in washington. that's why we have a 15 trillion-dollar debt or go then you are stuck with these

guys who run the force. >> moderator: mr. menendez did you want to respond? menendez: i appreciate that. kyrillos: menendez: first of all you have your numbers wrong. and secondly, secondly -- that was 650 million, not a trillion so if you rounded up that way -- if you rounded up that way we are going to be in deep trouble but tell the 100,000 new jerseyans -- tell us that in fact when you have young people dying in the streets of camden that not having federal money to try to help and i'm not saying the federal government can do it all but to try to help that isn't necessary. kyrillos: we have a fundamental difference about that. >> moderator: we appreciate that. this is around four and the candidates will have an

opportunity to direct a question to their opponent. they have 30 seconds after question and one minute for the responses and mr. kyrillos it is your turn. you began. kyrillos: thank you very much. senator menendez following a jon corzine economic strategy. we see the same kinds of challenges now in washington that are affecting the country as a whole. too much taxing, too much spending, higher debt and of course the proof of what the results are where we have 23 million americans out of work. i asked him, given the results of unemployment, higher gas prices, higher food prices, if you had to do it all over again would you do it again and he said he would do it absolutely the same. i'm going to give him another chance to answer my question.

menendez: i would love to and i hope this time he will not misquote me. what i said was to make sure middle class taxes got cut $3500 for the average middle income family and the ability to make sure to million new jersey and didn't get hit by an additional tax, the aft that i save them from working with a republican senate. expanding the child tax credit and the extrication opportunity tax credit to help young people get through college and help them as realize that. yes i would do that again but here's the problem. the strategies you were talking about and you keep alluding to is the strategy we inherited. we inherited tax cuts for the wealthiest that blew the deficit and the debt when george bush came into office. he inherited 128 billion-dollar surplus and exploded it into a deficit. he doubled the debt, nearly double the debt to about $10 billion.

he had two wars that were totally and paid for in iraq and afghanistan and the excesses of wall street in front of a free market would have freefall market that all of us had to pay for. that is not what i want to go back to. >> moderator: mr. menendez to have do have a question for mr. kyrillos? menendez: lights as my opponent, and the in the state legislature you voted to reduce property tax rebates for seniors. in our debate the other day on the radio you said that my successful effort to close the prescription drug cap for seniors was a job killer. i think it's a lifesaver. the question is on that and, when you vote six times to cut women's health care and you walk out on equal pay for equal work instead of passing a vote, why are you so hard and seniors and women in our state? kyrillos: that was about three questions but look we have to balance our budget in new

jersey. governor christie and i and other reformers, we have real jobs to do. we get them done. these guys talk a lot. they print money. they spend too much. bob references obamacare. there are job-killing tax is in there. $716 billion for medicare. do you want to talk about senior citizens? the only person on the stage taking money out of medicare senator menendez. women's health. i voted for millions of dollars for women's health during the course of my career. he references a vote that they put out there, probably just to see how i would vote on it, that would allow women to sue their bosses after-the-fact.

it takes away the statute of limitations and as i said, i don't want women to sue their boss. i want them to be the boss. so what we do here in new jersey is real. we are balancing our budget. we are doing it without tax increases and we we are trying to make to stay competitive again. >> moderator: gentleman i know where entering the final 10 minutes of this program so i want to see if we can get at least a couple more questions in her. round five bringing us to the subject of foreign-policy and matt friedman with the star-ledger are panelist is going to ask a question with regard to that. >> president obama has faced enormous consequences against bashar assad appeases chemical weapons. he is not explicitly raised the possibility. mitt romney's campaign has accused the obama administration of outsourcing our responsibilities there to the united nation and he said we

have bought al-assad time. paul ryan said that. neither has been specific on how they would handle the situation differently. what do you think of the obama administration's handling of the situation in this area and what do you think needs to change in how seriously in house and he think we need to consider military intervention? >> moderator: we begin with mr. menendez on this one. menendez: a very quick reference before i answer your question. this $716 billion in medicare, that was to stop future insurance companies who are getting payments that were supposed to provide medicare services under the cost of medicare to stop respectively those payments and that was used to extend the life of medicare until 2022 and to close the -- the reality is, it is a tragedy going on in syria but unless we

are going to send our sons and daughters to syria at this point and take our eye off the real prize, the real challenge to the national security of the united states which is iran, that seeks nuclear weapons and is a threat not only to our allies in the state of israel but also to the national security of the united states, then i think that would be a mistake. i applaud the president having sent troops to jordan to create a buffer and to be able to have a very highly-skilled set of troops to see chemical weapons through the assad regime, when the assad regime falls but i don't think we can intervene in syria right now. this is the adventurism that cost us in iraq and afghanistan and the cost us billions of dollars in national treasure and lives so our focus has to be on iran. >> moderator: mr. kyrillos? kyrillos: one way or the other we have to get rid of the thugs that run syria, killing their people, butchering their people,

destabilizing other countries in the region. we have got to work with the united nations to bring about sanctions, work with other moderate arab states, the saudi's for example who try to drive a wedge between military or excuse me, the people in the military rather and assad. if they use chemical weapons, i think we have to have the possible use of force out there. i don't think we should flag to them that we won't do it. ..

kryillos: we cannot allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. america, israel, the free, freedom loving world, we can't allow it. the sanctions -- the sanctions don't seem to be working unfortunately. listen, they worked hard on it. you know, i give him that. maybe too little too late.

>> moderator: we are running really short of time. i'm assuming you think, and i may think sanctions are working, correct? menendez: one of them in the right direction. i won't tell you until we are achieving nuclear weapons. it accepts a red line that they cannot have nuclear weapons. that's why have a bipartisan effort with republican senator from illinois from the toughest sanctions, one is public internet or come against the central bank of iran. i have now on third -- an alternative set of sanctions reads iran's foreign currency reserves. this has caused iran's currency to drop by 50%, oil exports to drop by 40% 50%. this is all our peaceful diplomacy tools to get the opinions to stop their course to nuclear weapons. but if that does not achieve the ultimate goal -- >> moderator: d. both think

think will stop -- do you both think -- do you both think iran will stop, or no? kryillos: i believe that either multilateral sanctions and the european union and other countries will achieve our goal, but if not, i believe will do what is necessary not to allow a national security threat to the united states and the latter winnings to have nuclear weapons. kryillos: now i'm in trouble because we had to go to closing statements. i keep hearing euphemistic ways of saying, will the united states bombed iran? does that happen at some point? you've got about five seconds each. we don't want that to happen. but we have to put all options on the table. but we can flag our intention. >> moderator: i want to give you time for a closing

statement. the time has run out and the question is the debate is over and this is the portion where the candidates will not get us a closing thought. >> moderator: the order of the closing statement was determined by it acquaint us and mr. menendez, you go first. menendez: let me thank the league of women voters, moderate and panelist at this question has a clear choice. i said that to wall street, pass attack is reformed to credit card companies. my opponent says he wants to unshackle them. he wants to add the regulations, allow them to have the excess. i said up to insurance companies to deny coverage to people in our state and successfully worked to close the doughnut hole for senior citizens in terms of prescription drug coverage. earlier this week he said that was a jobs killer. i think that's a lifesaver. i have succeeded in bringing jobs to new jersey. the biotech, transportation

field. my opponent's job is more tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations who often send jobs overseas. i voted to keep teachers in the classroom and to make college more affordable. he voted to get teachers out of the classroom pennies make college a lot more difficult. i'm fighting for the middle-class and not sway us where your vote. kryillos: senator menendez likes to talk and slogans. he is the one that's taken $1.4 million from wall street bankers. he is the one that stood silently when the person appointed to the seat, jon corzine, after he nearly bankrupt new jersey, took 1.6 lien dollars of the access of middle-class investors and didn't say a word about it as a member of the banking committee. let's be real. this stuff about wall street is laughable.

he is pursuing a jon corzine economic strategy, reelecting him to the senate. higher taxes, more debt, more spending. we can't have it. america is in peril. and so, i'm working with governor christie to try to fix new jersey and were doing it little by little, dealing with our challenges come in dealing with our budget, pushing education reforms. i want to do the same thing in washington d.c. i want to do energy and integrity and hard work to the capitol. i hope you'll vote for me. >> moderator: thank you, gentlemen. we want to thank you for watching and we want to thank the candidates are taking part in this very important program. so please give me some good information you can use on election day. i'm diana williams with a wac tv. >> thank you to our panelists. univision's mariela salgado and matt friedman.

thank you for watching. we have the final words from the league of women voters of new jersey. >> i'm toni zimmer, president of the league of women voters of new jersey. i'd like to thank you for watching today's debate or by taking time to learn about issues today, you are helping to make our state and country better place. for more information can please contact us at 8729 vote or visit us at www.two.org. polls are open from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. >> and again we go live to the campus of lynn university in boca raton, florida, where you say which you could call a collection of the various news crews from all over the world covering tonight's debate. you can see some of the reporters standing up and doing their reports live on television to their networks. let's watch and listen for just

a moment here. [background noise] [background noise] >> and again coverage on the way right now. our preview tonight's debate you can of course watch on c-span. you can watch on a website,

c-span.org, follow on c-span radio and coverage right here on c-span 2. as we take a look at other debates we've been covering for you, u.s. house debate now for florida's 18th district between republican alan west and democratic challenger, patrick murphy. cumbersome and west represents the 22nd district, but is running for the 18th district due to newly drawn congressional lines. courtesy of wp tv in west palm beach, this is 50 minutes. >> democrat patrick murphy, alan west, one of the closely watched in the country. tonight they square off in a one-hour debate to represent st. lucie, martin and parts of palm beach county. this is a wptv news channel five special presentation. >> moderator: i'm michael williamson welcome to our special one-hour broadcast, the congressional district 18 debate between our candidates tonight

or they are democrat, patrick murphy. thank you for being with us. an incumbent congressman, alan west. thank you for joining us. i'll be the moderator for a broadcaster for the next hour as part of our democracy 2012 coverage. join me to ask are two of my colleagues, george bennett, longtime political reporter and jonathan matisse from scripps newspaper. our format agreed upon by the candidates are really simple. he shall be asked a question in turn and they will each have one minute to respond. then, 32nd rebuttal at the discussion and reporters can ask follow-ups again, 30 six rebuttal to each side. at the end of the broadcast committee shavonda michnik closing statements. but after a lot of topics, dig into the issues for your right and with each of the candidates are the first question we agreed to go to mr. weston will come from george bennett. >> congressmen come your part has based a lot of his campaign on the controversial things that you say. you have, for example called

members of the congressional progressive caucus communists. you said not the propaganda minister would be proud of the democratic talking points. i think i was on the budget last year. he told conservative women's group that they should stand up against liberal women's groups that were in your words, neutering american men. your critics say that makes you a polarizing and divisive figure and that it might be great for cable tv, that makes it an effective as a congressman. how do you respond? west: first of all, my legislative agenda speaks for itself. i didn't see any people for my campaign hurrying out patrick murphy. we can see a lot from the ads have been run as well. i have to tell you, i think we have to have a discussion about political ideology here in this country people we talk about progressivism in history and where it came from, it's very easy to talk about communism, marxism, socialism and

modern-day a citizen because the principles of governance is what a separate in the country. as far as what happened, someone came up to name at the speaker's lobby and asked me a simple question. had you feel about the fact the majority of americans believe the only people on capitol hill are republicans? always said if there is a propaganda machine out there obviously operating they could be proud of. now, i covered that in america where there is freedom of speech and freedom of expression and i'm not going to be afraid of people because they get upset for things that they are true. >> moderator: keep an eye and the lights they are. your does minute is out. response. murphy: sure, thank you all for being you this evening. it's an honor to be here. part of the reason i got into the scum of the reason i decided to run for public office discusses the extremism of i.t. party pubescent wiccan that to move the country forward. at the end of the day comes to family, business coming after

work across the island was best for all americans, do its best for your district, your state from your country. when you spend your time calling people communists are comparing them to nazi or marxist, that's no way to get things done. we've got to find compromise to make tough decisions in our country now. when you're more focused on that, there's no way we reach across the aisle to do his best for everybody. i look forward to focusing on the issues. when i walk runnemede people, they want to hear, how you can get it back to work? what he acquainted with medicare? that's really where the focus needs to be. follow-up? west: we talk about bipartisanship, born of the things my opponent has done is he's even said that he will not join the blue dog coalition. that's a conservative moderate democrat coalition. so obviously they're not willing to work within your caucus, democratic caucus. talk to him how he came to me is the president violated the war

powers act. or talk to her dear colleague up north of here when i worked with her about the congressional gold medal for the marines scott brown. so my legislative record shows plenty of bipartisanship and plenty of working across the aisle. murphy: the two examples when you point to. when you'll have two examples of bipartisanship, there's a problem there. but the fact is that many democrat. i'm a business democrat. i'm fiscally responsible and socially accepting. so that's where i find myself. at the end of the day, used to be republican. we all know that. i'm focused on doing what's best for america coming off of some of the republican democrat independent and what they think about all americans. >> moderator: jonathan come your question for mr. murphy. >> given mattel the race has taken recently, can you look across the table and finish your opponent is unfit to be a member of congress?

>> moderator: one minute. murphy: part of a mixer congress so great is that it's the people's house. if the voters unhappy with the representation, then they can go people out or in. so it's not the voters come its not up to me. i got into this in large part because i think her country is a tipping point. we see fierce challenges right now. many people serious bug in our country back on track and i'll continue to focus on job creation, protecting the middle class and promise to her seniors. we'll let the voters decide. >> moderator: congressman. west: we talk about the fundamental principles of extremism, but we talk about limited government from the declaration of independence. we talk about fiscal responsibility. you are part of the parties has taken us from 10.6 trillion to over six centrally dollars in debt. we talk about individual freedom and sovereignty. we talk about the free marketplace. when you look of its proposed coming of the democrat party

were to just raise taxes on the top two income tax breaks, then it is $85 billion of new revenue. it doesn't keep the fellow government for 21 days. that's the thing you sign off with at the daily kos. what we talk about destabilizing tax rates, even going to a flat tax rate. dividends tax in the exorbitant amount. death taxes. i've been talking to farmers and ranchers that will kill her and street map or culture. so i've been out there talking to people as well. you did not go to north palm beach county chamber of commerce. >> moderator: congressman, thank you. we are going to have to segue into jobs and ultimately taxes and the economy since you discuss. so let's talk first about the jobs report. the report out today in palm beach county. unemployment your figure from 11.129.2. still very tough. from 11.229.4.

st. lucie, 13.6 to 11.7. democrats argue both in your district and your potential district and across florida and across the nation, termites will still suffer headed in the right direction and that is a powerful case for continuing democratic policies over the next four years. your response. murphy: i don't think it's continued democratic parties. when you see unemployment decreasing committees are republican governors. they are placing job creating types of policies. but you still have to be concerned about where we are. if you look at the computation computation -- unemployed and have been completely dropped off the rolls. so when you look at that computation, that's 14.7%. so, are we lowering his race because we are not counting certain individuals? s. still a concern. we drive down u.s. federal highway one, you see too many

closed doors. small-business owners are concerned about two things. owners tax policy and lack of access to capital that will enable them to sustain the business. >> moderator: mr. murphy, one minute response pared murphy: four years ago with the deliberate 800,000 jobs a month. the guy was basically cut in half. the housing market bottom had just fallen out. things are slowly coming around. look, i walk around and talk to people all the time and they are upset right here in this district because we have a come out of this recession. look, i wish would've, quicker as well, bore the path to recovery. we had 31 straight months of job growth or the stock market also was doubled. so things are rebounding. we got to continue down the path and not go back to the failed policy of the bush administration that got us in the mess in the first place. >> moderator: let me ask as a follow up question. both are you talking points and made a parody.

was this thing is to go or you've pushed in congress or with local businesses to create jobs in congressional district 18. west: the most important thing is how to stability in search to stability and search into the tax policies and regulatory policies and also access to capital. small community banks are suffering from the unintended consequences of dodd-frank. we have to understand we're not out of the woods as far as housing. florida is number one for foreclosures. st. lucie counties in the top two of counties in the state of florida, which is the highest. >> moderator: people are listing for solutions. what is your solution to create jobs, not about policy that failed or succeeded in the past, but specifically for district 18 for what would she do. 30 seconds. murphy: congressman west is to blame in and pointing the finger. as a cpa created jobs, not just

talked about it through the first thing you would like to push for is a piece of legislation that allows businesses of all sizes to expense 100% their investment in property plant and equipment in the first year. this is something that came out of a job spill a few years back and said device companies to invest in the country. corp. said on $2.5 trillion of cash and they're not investing it. we need to incentivize them to do that. i do support acuity three or qe four. >> moderator: thank you very much. west: one of the things we've been talking about his repatriation. your parties say no. the editing is very simple. 37 pieces of legislation, bipartisan pieces of legislation not voted on the sit in on harry reid desk. tell about job creation, tax and regulatory policy. >> moderator: let's move ahead to georgia the question beginning with mr. murphy. >> let me ask you about your background. coastal construction group is

one of the biggest general contractors in south florida, one of the 100 biggest in america. your father is the ceo. a lot of your family members on the executive board and you are vice president of that. how does that make you a small businessman? murphy: i await word for deloitte & touche income icp less and spend years going to fortune 500 companies looking for inefficiencies, waste and fraud. a richer and the family business which is coastal construction and i decided to start a small affiliated company called coastal environmental and that was because of the bp oil spill. after the assault took place at the oil that comes on florida's west coast of the keys and optical stream. so i decided to start a small fleet of oil stream is sympathetic to work in the gulf of mexico. it's as a small-business affiliated to a larger parent company. >> moderator: congressman. west: i could tell you you continue to represent yourself as a cpa, but as i understand

you're not cpa registered in the state of florida and you're misleading people as far as your credentials and that's a big concern i have. we have to be truthful people want to know about qualifications. when it comes to small business, i've sat on the small business committee. every single person a concept that we have to give them stability with our tax code. that's what they voted on. as a matter of fact you're talking about flat tax. we cannot continue to look as we raise taxes on the top two brackets, which is something that is a big concern. 33%, 35 to 96. it will kill small business in effect to buy one small businesses in united states of america. deloitte and touche, national federation of independent businesses put that out. we have to pray stability and that's what i'm fighting to do. >> moderator: rebuttal on the charge but your cpu status. murphy: i'm a certified public accountant in the state of colorado. i have my license in my pocket

right now. i was endorsed. i'm an active member of the florida institute of cpas, an active member of the american institute of cpas. not only am i a member, but they both endorsed my candidacy. so i'm a certified public accountant in the state of colorado. i've never had that. >> moderator: any follow-up? jonathan come your question to the congressman. >> you campaigned against the federal seamless package that barack obama has largely touted for us in tenure. explain which are alternative methods would be to creating jobs. west: created jobs for them to to good job creators and give them the tax policy to enable them to grow. you look at the winter and dollars are spent, first of all unemployment was never supposed to go above 8%. it was about 8% for 43 straight months. furthermore, when you look at

projections of the stimulus, right now were supposed to be somewhere between 5.4 m. 5.8% employment in the united states of america. sweden was 7.8%, were still two percentage points, two full percentage points lower than where projections were. this is not about the government spending more money. i would've rather seen them and they get pushed into the pockets of the small business owners, to push into the pockets of the people that go out and actually create the opportunities to get these storefronts opened up the received router areas out here so it wouldn't have over 9% unemployment or some 12% in st. lucie county. >> moderator: congressman your response. >> moderator: basically on your nt support the federal stimulus package. outline why you are in support of that why to why you think it's effective. murphy: we have to remember

where rebirth in the seamless is passed about was happening in their country. the chairman of the fact that if we did not quickly there with no economy starting next week there's a something dramatic had happened. i wasn't there in the stimulus was passed. it's not perfect of course, but something had to be done, so it would've been a tough vote from the something had to be done to get our country back on track. to prevent it from. that in turn brought down the rest of the world economy. so something had to be done. by delegates to be done is focusing on building roads, bridges and schools at home. not halfway around the world. we took signed lending to businesses. but we need to do is create an environment that's conducive to job growth. we can need a tax policy predictable for business of all size. we commit the next 10 to 15 years. as a tax rates will be in the riveter environment will be like so it's not too burdensome on the small businesses in ashburn are trying to get started. >> moderator: thank you very much. any follow-up?

let's move onto economy taxes. he talked about flat taxes, but the first will be directed to mr. murphy and then congressman west as we move onto the deficit and whether your mouth or yours truly above. at the end of the day come and speak to the constituents or would-be constituents in your case in district 18 in yours as well. talk about why when this country collects $2.5 trillion in revenue, that was the last fiscal year, why do we need more? why do we need to tax anybody more? ready stand on the expiration of bush tax cuts for americans? west: first of all, to support raising taxes in the middle class. i'm fiscally more conservative than many of those in the party. bush tax cuts ask him for everybody until they make a million dollars. if you make a million or more -- [inaudible] i would draw a line at a million dollars and that's because of my background and is a

small-business owner because the latter escorts in a way to reinvest that money into their company. so i believe the line should be higher. really, we need major tax reform. what happens in our country and i studied first 10 minutes in the company's doing what individuals do. as we too many loopholes and deductions for companies get away with. the fact that shall in cheeky, companies making billions a year are paying basically zero attacks. that's not sustainable. we major tax affirming this country. >> moderator: congressman thomas stauffer people precisely which are talking about in the messier impact he would have in terms of revenue right now. west: right now we have six different tax brackets. as a matter of fact, before we departed washington can we pass legislation and house bipartisan. they said let's go to 25% and 10%, two different brackets. that's exactly what we need for small-business owners. as you lower the tax rates come you can reduce the amount of

exemptions and deductions out there. and we want to get the revenue increase. as you put more money and business owner pockets, low reinvest in higher people and things will increase paper thingy that a capital gains tax. capital gains go from 15% to 25%. dividends taxes going from 15% to 43.4%. many seniors down here live off of those dividends. that's another killer. and then the debt -- death tax. we need to get rid of the death tax and probably need to look at getting rid of the dividends. keep capital gains where it is, but we need to allow the repatriation of capital. >> moderator: a quick 32nd follow-up. how does the math add up in what point to say we need to have a mix between revenue tests but some tax increases. many argue are absolutely going to have to.

west: i'm not going to talk to the american people about raising taxes and revenues until he could arrive together washington d.c. 200 to $300 billion to programs in washington d.c. he sighs and tom coburn spoke. it's in cities that things doing. we're wasting money. it's not just about fighting wars because that was borrowed money and top of that. you shouldn't even count that as revenue coming in. for me to look at those agencies that have functioning properly. we need to consolidate and look since the 1970s large expansion of federal government. murphy: cover sunwest sign on to the grover norquist plan. every economist in the world center for going to be serious but reducing our long-term debt, it's going to take three pieces. number one, we have to reduce spending in this country. number two, we have to increase revenues. go back to quicken your tax rates for those making a million dollars or more. number three, we need economic

growth. we need to get people back to work. i support bringing down the toppling corporate tax rate down to 28% and eliminating loopholes and reductions peabody to make sure the competitive on a global scale. >> moderator: dgc to know them elected official to have maneuverability and taxes the grover norquist pledge number taxes. west: as in kandahar, afghanistan. the people advising the mail the form and in 2007 i signed it. in 2010 election cycle is asked to sign again. as a matter of fact, it was in the hill newspaper the interview i took as far as not signing a pledge of that nature. it's not about changing. i don't believe we need to raise taxes at this time and i and i don't need to sign a pledge to say that. >> moderator: quick response. murphy: that the data i have that he signed it. we have to be realistic about what are going to do our country and we have to make tough decisions. i talked to people that are affluent frequently they don't

mind paying more to the tax code if they think they're getting more out of our system. >> moderator: were going to continue the discussion about the economy, taxes and whether the math really adds up in the deficit. we'll have both look at some of the numbers and make some tough choices. all of that on the other side of the breakaway comeback of the debate for congressional district he team. new smart welcome back to the continuation of a one-hour primetime debate with congressional district 18, covering parts of palm beach county, st. lucie county and martin county. but yesterday, congressman alan west and his challenger for the new district here, democrat patrick murphy and his first run for office. we do not vote for being with us. we'll continue in the broad topic, putting the question to congressman west.

west: we left it on hanging on the deficit stuff, so we'll pick up with that again. you are opposed to raising taxes. the deficit this past year was $1.1 trillion, which was an improvement over the previous year. if you're not going to raise taxes, what are some things you can get to get anywhere close to releasing 1.1 trying dollars deficit? west: were supposed at the deficit cut in half which is 400 billion we should be a 230 billion. we've had 1.42 trillion, 1.29, 1.1. where to look a certain agencies created that are leading up to their original intent. very simple, you look at the department of energy that was created when i was a teenager and we say one simple thing. it did make the united states of america energy independent. so what happens over these past 37, almost 40 years? look at the expansion of the government into educationally separated the department of education of health education and welfare.

what has happened to the standards of education and united states of america? who spent more and more money at the department of education and the federal government level. money that could've been really used better at our local levels. so we have to go surgically and start looking at these duplicate of programs, look at the great book from senator tom coburn. we've got to move away from baseline budgets zero-based budget. >> moderator: mr. murphy, one minute response. murphy: the gao had 33 government agencies that are duplicate it and do the same thing. we need to streamline agencies. in fact, seven of those agencies focus on business and trade. so let's bring these agencies into a streamlined. we need to also go after the waste, fraud and abuse. regarding attacks medicare fraud and abuse the tens of billions of dollars in the need to do this not only medicare, but all government agencies. my background is as a cpa.

i spent years i spent years going into numerous fortune 500 companies, looking for inefficiencies, we can make companies on this case government agencies more efficient. i plan it is my background to find this waste. >> moderator: follow-up. >> and neither of you give me numbers attached to that? the department of energy -- west: close to $85 billion fund correct. what cannot a guy who's never been a politician and his first the method found three whistle programs under the department of defense budget. i passed 393 to zero. combined savings of about 300 semi million over the course of 10 years. but if every single million of the house of representatives was going in looking for whistle programs, think about what that does. murphy: it's going to be a balanced approach. we need to go after the fraud and abuse and look into the tax code to go after the adoption some loopholes. individuals are getting away with.

i'm not saying they're breaking the law, but we need to make it more even and more fair playing field for all companies. >> moderator: i want to take a quick rate with my producer's discretion in modern choice. i think it's important because we hear this from candidates, republicans and democrat all the time about wasteful spending. i want to throw up a chart. it's called u.s. debt clock.org. you will probably have better vision than i do. look at the campus right there with their viewers. the u.s. national debt right now, $16 trillion counting. also, as you continue to look at that, you look at 3.5 trillion spending this last fiscal year. a trillion dollars deficit. he will talk about programs you can pack, but it's clear the three biggest drivers are medicare a 756 billion, social security and nearly 800 billion including the wars we're fighting. the 662 billion. six out of 10 federal dollars.

it is a tough choices you are willing to make, congressman, when it comes to prioritizing cuts in benefits or cuts in defense? serious cats because it's clear that's the only three areas you can make substantial differences and the tea party for people like you and not the same make the tough choices. so with these three specifically, would you cut first? defense, medicare or social security? west: limit correct to put the 662 billion you included the overseas contingency operation. not overnight in iraq, that number is strapped. you're looking at a guy who voted for the budget control act of 2011, something my opponent said he would not support. that cut the defense budget by $487 billion over the next 10 years. sequestration puts another five or six. 62% of the bush and united states of america is not interest on the deck, medicare, medicaid, social security.

even aarp has that stopped at the payroll tax cut gimmicks because regarding social security trade deficit situation. so we have to start looking at how we can reform. programs that medicare for future seniors, but also what were going to do to make sure sustainable. >> same question to you, mr. murphy. any real serious discussion has to look at programs like this and serious cuts. if you had to prioritize and the worse set to start, defense, medicare or social security if you're serious about winning this episode. murphy: you can't look at these three in a vacuum. they are a definite problem and in large part by what to get to congress with my background because i think i can help out. when you look at it come you can't look at it in a vacuum. each individual department needs to be looked at to find these inefficiencies and waste. i read a report recently that said congress is continuing to approve spending for foreign military the generals on the ground do not want.

so look, i support everything in the defense budget is going to keep our brave men and women abroad face. that's number one priority. and congress continues to issue programs that generals to one, that doesn't make sense. so we need to look at all three departments of medicare. we've gone after waste and fraud. $716 billion in future savings. we have to continue cracking down and finding more examples of this. >> moderator: a lot of people will be forgiven with all respect the same old same old with a harsh numbers they don't want to say the big tax cuts. your household budget would look at the biggest items in serbia to make major cuts. neither one of you said which one. 30 seconds. if you had to prioritize at the kitchen table for the federal budget, which of those 3-d start cutting first? west: i would start cutting on defense. i cut it when i found this three whistle programs. i cut 487 billion over the next 10 years, which everyone agreed

upon. if you want to talk about a balanced approach commute to work at the 62% that were not doing anything to you. that's what you have to have the courage to do something about that. than it medicare, medicaid and social security. so when you look at the constitution apprentice possibilities provide for common defense. trim and 30 seconds and will dr. jonathan. a good point to segue into health care and medicare. murphy: again, it's a balanced approach and we need people serious about solving problems, willing to reach across the own fine compromise because that's what this is about. tranter industry, where would you cut? murphy: president obama and john buhner almost had a grand bargain, but the tea party opponent would medina make a deal. so everything was on the table during these negotiations, but the tea party would let it happen. so now i'm after sequestration.

they will give them an cuts at the end of end of the affair, economy cannot sustain. west: the sequestration was president obama's odi. and nothing to with the house of representatives. murphy: you voted for it. west: i did. to say the sequestration for one year to two years. so i'm taking action, not just rhetoric. >> moderator: were talking about defense and social programs are not diverted before the end of the year. i think it's a good point to start hopping over to medicaid and health care. jonathan collier questionably goes to mr. murphy for one minute. >> mr. murphy, facing a lot of different numbers on what the paul ryan plan would do in the fact to increase costs potentially to seniors anywhere from $6350 that was an old man, different number to about $200 a month in this new study.

what kind of number can we actually look at and say this is what a couple of look like under this plan because it's a large area of the budget denny's looked at it. murphy: at the kaiser foundation study of the cannot. under the ryan plan come to 60% of seniors will face cost increases. this is something that needs to be addressing people look at the ryan thing that's happening here. under the right plan, which my opponent voted for twice that it would be suicide to impose, we kind of medicare as we know it. that's not the way forward. we need to reach across, do its best to ensure medicare is there for generations to come. as at century village two weeks ago talking to seniors. you can see the fear in their eyes weren't medicare is taken from them. if it's not them, deftly kids and grandkids and we can't let it happen. we need solutions under the affordable character may be they found inefficiencies, waste and fraud and have taken it out, taking it away from insurance companies executives, away from

pharmaceuticals and given it back to seniors in the form of preventative treatments and the form of closing the door the whole. the sooner we need to bring down the long-term cost good driving our health care costs through the roof. >> moderator: mr. murphy, with the congressman wes to answer the question. west: first of all, when you look at the whole thing about ending medicare as we know it was already debunked as the politicized inaccuracy of the year. that came out of st. petersburg. medicare as we know if you have not paid attention to the actuaries and trustees ends in 2024. social security has nine years after that. so continuing to do nothing means no one will have medicare and about 12 years from now. the premium support plan paul ryan has proposed, which he reached across the aisle is something that came from bill clinton and his administration. it provides you the exact same type of health care plans that

we are able to select as a government employee. if you are making us come you get more. if you're more sick, you get more. what you see with the affordable care act is the mandate came down to mexico, where seniors that they were turned back to a hospital within 30 days of the visit, the hospital gets assigned. that's not the right way to take care of our seniors. >> moderator: we have to stop although we're going to stay on this topic. first, we're going to stand the topic i suspect, but george, will begin the cycle to you but congressman wes. >> shortcomings sticking on medicare, when he ran two years ago you campaigned against the affordable care act and its cutting their savings or cost reductions to $716 billion for medicare and you've been very critical of that. but when you voted for the right thing, that included $716 billion in savings. what's the difference between 716 billion you criticized him what you for? west: i've not voted to cut $716 billion for medicare.

i have voted against a lot of owners policies. 3% withholding tax, medical loss ratio. when you look at the affordable care act, it's very simple. it's a tax law. this 20 new taxes and now we find out the individual mandate is not a tax. your taxes on capital gains, taxes on dividends and the real estate transaction, financial transaction, medical device tax, health savings accounts originally created for people to be able to earmark a certain amount of their income and not be taxed. what to get with those 20 taxes? 159 new bureaucracies and you also get 16,000 who will be electronic medical records. that's not how we were power health care. as you know i wouldn't opted piece with the palm beach post talking about free-market solutions to our health care to restore and get it back on track. one of the key things is tort reform. talk to any doctor. catastrophic litigation is their

most -- >> moderator: one minute, mr. murphy. murphy: are not being honest with voters. when you voted upon at on the shtick seven takes $716 billion. excuse me, you said i voted to remove $716 billion. the fact is i've never been in congress. i've never made this though, so let's be clear here. the $716 billion as future savings under the democratic regime. they found waste of efficiency and fraud. they found some overpayments are insurance companies that they're now giving back to seniors. through preventative treatment to annual screenings and by closing the door of hope for seniors. the difference here is the $716 billion in your plan, which you voted for, paul ryan but it is a good idea so included it in his plan. the difference is the $716 billion goes to giving taxpayers to millionaires and billionaires, insurance company

executives bonuses and high salaries. so there's a big difference when it comes to the 716 billion. west: the affordable care act we were told would not be 716 billion. we've seen an increase in 13% to 14% were told not been increased. have you ever talk to the palm beach society of health underwriters? these are independent insurance agents, which you talk about being driven out of business, so you force my business to larger insurance companies. have you ever been to those hospitals? they're about to get hit with $300 million of cuts. that's not because they're inefficient. >> moderator: 30 seconds and then break. murphy: i did speak with the aarp. they don't like the right plan and didn't endorse it. let's talk about the seniors be in effect it here. with the affordable care act, which added eight years of life to medicare. it's a step in the right direction. we have to make the sensor can,

make baby steps and continue to improve it. that's where the conversation could be. the affordable care act was not perfect yet no legislation that comes out is perfect. let's focus on how to improve it going forward. >> moderator: a conversation that will continue on the other side of the break. stay with us for more on this congressional debate for district 18. back now with our congressional debate for district 18, covering parts of palm beach county and martin and st. lucie county between congressman alan westin patrick murphy the democrat. your question for the congressman. spin the congressman, the newest online plan had an option to continue any normal medicare plan. explain how that's possible given that we are talking about how much cost we are associated with this program would be cut. west: i think if you allow people the options to go into whether they want to have their own health insurance plan that they will go where they will go

into a medicare plan. eventually it does end up in the cost curve for the overall medicare. you know, this country should be about having options. when i became a congressman, guess what? adoptions in the health care program i wanted to have. i chose blue cross blue shield and i'm the one that's paying for that. that's the option we have to present. it is also indexed forward and come. so if you are high wage earner, you won't get the same amount of money if someone with a lower wage earner. so i think in the long run but were talking about is exactly what everyone is saying. all this about fairness in all this about those that are higher wage earners not given the same as others. another thing we ought to look at is raising the cap and social security. raising the age as well from 65. there's some very good proposals. we can look at incorporating as we go forward. >> moderator: congressman, one minute response, mr. murphy. murphy: under the ryan plan, we

ended medicare is a know it. this is a serious issue. i talked to seniors every day and they are scared. they're worried. i see the fear in their eyes and i wouldn't support this. i agree we need to make tough decisions, but we need to continue to find ways to make these programs more efficient. and i believe when you give it to the private sector, i don't believe this is the fact, that there's a profit incentive there. how can they be as competitive? not for small businesses, but when it comes to medicare and giving benefit to individuals in this country, they deserve the best treatment. they don't need someone skimming off midsentence and salaries. right now when you compare it to some private insurance companies, their cause are way lower than the private insurance companies. but we have is working, but we need to make it more efficient and continue improving the system we have. >> moderator: who can make it more efficient? a private business or free-market?

murphy: that's part of free-market paradise and made this country what it is. when you talk about seniors being afraid to one of the main reasons citizens are afraid is because there are doctors dropping them off of medicare coverage because the reimbursable rates are getting cut and cut and cut. that's a big concern for seniors. murphy: it's about the beneficiaries, those waiting for these treatments. i think this conversation should be focused on how we can look for it, how we can improve it. the proposal i would like to look forward is to begin negotiating with the large pharmaceutical company. just a va does that with much success. they negotiate to bring down the cost. also, we need to continue to move towards a method of pay-for-performance for doctors. not just pay for individual treatments. this'll bring down the long-term cost her. when it comes to health care, it's all about cost. we have to bring down the costs. >> moderator: because specter

earlier deficit question. we'll move on to some other issues for people who know. but more importantly for potential constituents who don't outline your views on abortion and rights. mr. murphy first. murphy: i support a woman's right to choose. congressman wes recently said the plant airhead women are neutering american men and bring in this country to the point of incredible weakness. i could not disagree more with that statement. congressman wes voted to define preventative treatments for women. that mammograms, cosponsored the akin built to redefine and the personhood amendment. this makes all abortions illegal, even in the case of rape or incest. west: i've been there for 23 years and have two daughters.

we don't support abortion as a means to burst control. i've always said in my legislative record as far as incest in the hall to the mother. but i do not support partial birth abortion of a president obama supporters as a child survived in the will still be killed. i go back to his record as a state senator. when we talk about planned planned parenthood, i know you like to throw this out. planned parenthood is a billion dollars not-for-profit company that's been making a profit. the $352 million the federal government sent to planned parenthood, i think priority could go to a better place. one of the places they should go to is helping us that the comprehensive everglades restoration project, helping up with dredging, helping us make sure that our waterways and water quality is clean. that's a wish of taxpayer funding. murphy: plant. treats ulcers of women. women in need. i'm not going to take away funding for preventative

treatments. it's interesting how you split environmental issues into that answer. when you voted to allow oil drilling in the everglades, that couldn't be more out of touch. congressman, and this is -- a big heart of this district is the environment. it's a much of our economy locally is based on our environment. as a direct correlation with its tourism, real estate. these areas -- west: michele bachmann came down over here for that idea and i was all for her that the black-eyed pea. once again, i'm talking about priorities. when you look what has happened with planned parenthood, perhaps you should club secretary sebelius. the hhs cannot dance at planned parenthood is doing mammograms. >> moderator: we have to move a lot to give you all time for the close. your question first of congressman wes. >> sure, this raises the both of

you guys spent a lot of money among the congressional races are to spend more than $3 million on this. do you support any kind of legislation that would limit the influence of outside groups? is that necessary? >> i think first about that has to be argued in front of the supreme court. look, if you look at our fec record commish is an incredible amount, almost 95% from individual donors and nothing is really the averages about $98, $99. i can help people donate to me. there were some people that have pledged up to $5 million in tax against me. you know, so be it. i know my opponent said he then created a pac specifically for him. i don't have equal to those you can see and i don't like punching women, but i think that needs to be going back in the florida supreme court. murphy: to answer your question,

absolutely. we need major campaign reform. seen what's happened to our country because of the money in politics, it's absolutely gross. i'm completely against it and i want serious campaign finance reform that starts at the constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. congressman wes has a $1 million super packed. this isn't just talking and made up facts which are talking about. as a $1 super packed supporting congressman wes. the person behind is a pharmaceutical drug company owner. now you wonder why congressman wes doesn't want to negotiate, and saw where priorities are and where they're coming from. west: if you go back and look at the record, look for president obama was a with pharmaceutical companies and affordable care act. >> if you overturn citizens united, would be the legislation? both of you have outside pac supporting you.

what legislation or constitutional amendment would you support? murphy: to completely overturn citizens united. i do support it at all. individuals and corporations can give unlimited amounts of money to campaigns is not right. that's not what our country is about. west: once again, that's something argued in front of supreme court and not something i think we should be taken up in the legislation. there are much more important topics in each be focused on the tax fiscal cliff. >> moderator: quick question. everybody seen how nasty this campaign is. you apologize him to the nastiness of your campaign not, first you as you look each other in the eye. west: i don't know what nastiness were talking about. let me to you something. no one said anything about lifecycle when the social security numbers put out. george bennett even asked a question about me being the only black member. >> moderator: no apology there. murphy: i talked to people every

day and they're sorry. what my campaign, all of our ads are accurate. that's not my outcome of sir. on the outside of my campaign are factual. >> moderator: on that non-apology note from both sides come or go to closing statements now prefers paper in it, congressman west, one minute. west: is very simple. i'm proud of the record in washington d.c. my opponent talks when i looked and study the declaration of independence the declaration of independence on the constitution of the united states of america, our country was established on fiscal responsibility, individual sovereignty coming driving free market and strong national defense. that is then the emphasis of what i've done being a member of the armed services committee and also the small business committee. i'm kind of upset we didn't get a chance to talk about foreign policy and national security standing that we see as very threat name.

we didn't talk about our beliefs and how we improve military and how we make sure to take care of veterans. but that is my commitment to this country, a commitment of time for 22 years in uniform and i take very serious. we didn't have the right type of reforms to have a better and brighter future. >> moderator: thank you. mr. murphy, final closing statement. west: we have a senator focused on backgrounds. i believe my cpa will put our country back on track to where to focus on protecting the promise to our seniors and strengthening pillars of the middle class. this includes social security, medicare and medicaid and not constantly demonizing and attempting to privatize them. my opponent caught 80 members of congress communists. voted to end medicare as we know it, voted to eliminate 10 million pilgrims from her students in support of legislation that would take away a woman's right to choose. palm beach post even said he's everything that's wrong with

congress. the fact is i'm a former republican. i got tired of extremism that created gridlock in our country. i have the background to get our country back on track. not only do we need to get to work, we need to work together. >> moderator: democratic congressman alan west. we thank george bennett and jonathan the case. most of all, we thank you or congressman west brought up an interesting point. we knew we could only begin to scratch the surface of this hour-long debate. the only televised debate the two candidates had agreed to. we knew monday night would be a huge foreign policy only debate at lynn university and largely we suspect they largely support the two respecting candidates, president barack obama and mitt romney. we elected to move on without that. all important topics we hope we wedded your appetite. on behalf of everybody here at wptv-tv news channel five, i'm