>> the percentage of women voting has been larger than it used to be. but it is still a very big question in this election, and has been, about how many women

will vote. and in particular, the case for single women. >> [inaudible] >> i do feel very strongly there's a lot of women, and majority of women don't really understand what that act has done for them. and this administration has not used that, to really say this is what i did for you, with this act. obama talks about -- [inaudible] the assumption ever and understands it and i think that's a false assumption. i just wonder what you thought of that. >> i can't say that i followed all of the ways the lilly ledbetter act has been used, but i was involved in a debate just a couple weeks ago that wasn't in the context of the election

particularly, but about whether or not the ledbetter act was important at all and whether the paycheck fairness act, which we take things a step further, was a good idea or not a good idea. and there are those who are claiming that it was, as i said, just to tweak and not important. and they just don't ever get into the details of whether ultimately what it really means is you have an actual right that can ever be enforced, or is it just something written on a piece of paper that's meaningless. that's really what the ledbetter act boldly and meant, -- ultimately meant. to our current laws on equal pay have real force and meaning. and so i do agree that there is not enough understanding of how central and important it was to

pass that law, number one. and the second thing i will say is that there is misinformation that clouds the understanding and makes the job of informing people all the more important. >> i just heard an anecdote yesterday, someone said to me my husband pointed out one little detail in the lilly ledbetter act which made me feel is really useless. so there's that kind of thing going on also. do we have any other questions from the for? >> i thought it was really helpful to explain to our upcoming college students are with us today about the difficulty that college students are having in voting, especially if they are away from home at school. >> well, there are several different approaches in different states they can affected the ability of college

students to vote. one is how easy it is to register, especially if you're now in a different state or in a different part, you know, your location is not home anymore. and you're going to be voting at school rather than at home. you have to register based on where you are living. now, there has been a. >> host: make registration easier to do -- now, there has been registration issued to do and it has happened the same testimony as long as possible up to the time of voting. and some of these state restrictions that start to be passed started to require specific ids. in pennsylvania there was a specific id requirement that was

not the same as the id that students got from their colleges and universities. so the ids that they had as students proving you're living in the dorms, or where ever in their school locations, the state wouldn't accept. now, that kind of technical id requirement has been set aside but that come in pennsylvania, but that is an example. although the courts set it aside do so much confusion about what counts, what doesn't count that there is where the people will not know for sure that they actually can vote without those new impediments. and second is making sure that you do register within the timeframe that is allowed, and that can very depending on the particular state and location. and the third is to make sure

that the voting booths are going to be made available in a variety of different locations, in a fair way. sometimes, particular parts of cities or areas in states have very few voting machines compared to other areas. so the lines are much longer. so then it becomes much more difficult for people to be prepared to vote by staying in line for long periods of time. and these, you know, there are many different strategies that can all operate by themselves or together to make it much more confusing and difficult, and just seem like isn't really worth it, what's it going to mean to me anyway? and, of course, for students we can get into issues around student loans, affordable

education, what's happening to state colleges and universities, two-year colleges, public support for them, both on a state level and federal support. these key budget decisions about supporting student education, those are essential for students and, of course, as well as the job market when they are graduated from school, and what kinds of policies are out there. one of the big problems for women was when, with the budget constraints, so many public sector jobs were being contracted and even layoffs, teachers and social workers and others who are largely women losing their jobs. the women were hit in the double whammy way. they lost their jobs for the kind of services they were providing, and they lost the

services that women in particular were dependent upon. so this affects student country in students and education for directly. [inaudible] >> the media could always do more, that's for sure. there's a lot, a lot about the horserace aspect of these races, who is there, what is each poll show? is at 1%, 2% 3%? how does it break down? and those are interesting, but for people who want to have the facts that help them decide how to vote and whether it's worth it to vote, those horserace story still get you very far. and demean and that kind of thing, you know, that's all very

interesting but it still doesn't really help people sort through what they need to know. so i would say that whether it's to really take the time to explain what the ledbetter decision really was about, or what the affordable care act really does and making, for example, there are, if you have to buy insurance on individual market as a woman right now, if you go as an individual to buy insurance, i am proud to say the national law center issued a report which demonstrated each insurance companies charge women more than men for the same insurance, excluding maternity coverage. now, the affordable care act,

when it comes fully into effect, will have a limited to that practice. many people have no idea that that practice is still rampant in the individual market, and there are plans now to give people money to go buy insurance for themselves on that market. where maternity coverage is virtually not available to buy in many states, for many women. where, if you can get insurance, you have to pay more as a woman. we have shown that in some policies in some states, a young woman, excluding maternity, has to pay as much as 85% more than men, a young man of the same age. a 40 year old woman who is a non-smoker is charged more than a 40 year-old man who is a smoker.

again, excluding maternity. and the extra charges very wildly. so you can see it's actually early pace. some companies charge 20% more, some 30% more, some 60% more, 85% more. that can't be actually early pace. that's just complete arbitrariness. that's yet another thing the affordable care act would bring to an end. at how many people know about it? >> [inaudible] >> i happen to think, surprise, surprise that the national women's law center is a great resource, both because we do have boiled down some these key things on fact sheets on a variety of issues. with eight different issues with some details, and then our website nwlc.org also has

report. a report on preexisting conditions and how women before the affordable care act really lost out on the ability to get insurance coverage at all let alone have to pay for it, let alone not have maternity coverage, et cetera. so we have a lot on the budget. we did a report just released last week on childcare services. 27 states, where is child -- worst childcare available forever, and the availability for lower income families has been miserable. so we didn't have room to get worse. so at a time when women desperately have to go to work, the cruelty of drying at these childcare resources to those families, let alone what it is doing to the children is mind-boggling if we are thinking

about investing in the future and building a stronger country. >> thank you so much for really enlightening us. the women's national democratic -- [inaudible] -- >> i'd like to mention that there have been articles in the voting machines. there've been articles about how you should use -- [inaudible] because the voting machine can be changed. there were some cases where -- [inaudible] i remember that. so you should get paper bow its and you should remember that even though ohio now can have voting up until the and, i think it was the attorney general ruled that the hours where you can go will be shortened.

now, that really does affect, particularly minority's who are taken by the churches on weekends, or people who just don't have any other way to get there. so there are a lot of these things going on. >> people just need to be alert and understand the stakes, and it may take some effort to be sure that you can vote. but the most important thing is to exercise this very precious right that we have in this country, and for that i commend all of you for your efforts and engagement. and that's what we need to see replicated all over the country, regardless of, again, where people decide to come out at the end of the day, what we have is a one person one vote system that we have been proud of. and it is each of our duties and

responsibility to take advantage of that opportunity, as hard as some of the hurdles may be in the road that shouldn't be there, but regardless, there are ways of overcoming them. and this is an important election to do that. so thanks again. [applause]

>> what he just said is not true and we cannot let -- >> briefly speak we needed a better job of explaining your own record because you're messing up my record. apparently you're looking at somebody else. it is a shame. the people of the state of florida are tired of using one thing to them and then going back to washington, d.c. and voting with barack obama 98% of the time. we are tired of that. they want you to look them in the eye and tell them what you're going to do for them instead of what you going to do for barack obama. >> is that the only line that you have memorized?

[laughter] >> are you going to own up to it, senator? >> let me tell you that violence against women, for you not to have produced it in the house where we were trying to produce in the senate is just -- here we are in 2012 and it is true, you voted for -- [inaudible] [talking over each other] >> as forcible rape. it seems to me that rape is rape. >> with less than two weeks to election day follow the key house, senate and governor races on c-span, c-span rated and at c-span.org. >> all this month and until election day c-span is bring you coverage of debates for the house senate and governors' races. today and the house senate debate between senator sherrod brown and his republican challenger. live coverage from cincinnati starting at 7 p.m. eastern on

c-span. at 8 p.m., i was fourth district debate between steve king and his democratic challenger, christie vilsack. she's the wife of a culture secretary tom vilsack pic we'll bring it to you live courtesy of iowa public television on c-sp c-span. >> third party candidates for president debated in chicago. c-span is asking others what the impact of third parties. here's some of what you have to say. >> a breath of fresh air to hear a different perspective than just one or the other, the red or the blue. and as far as wasting votes, i just want to say anyone voting the party is a wasted vote. not to. a wasted vote is voting for someone who is not voting at all. you've got to vote your conscience, vote for the

candidate who really speaks the truth. >> last time in '08 i voted for the libertarian candidate because i just couldn't stomach obama or mccain. and what happened, obama got elected this time. i'm not taking any chances. i'm voting for romney because i'm sorry, i can relate to the third party supporters now, but let's get realistic here. a third party vote, most of them are conservative. let's face it. a third party vote is a vote for obama so you better vote for romney. >> i started off voting for obama and was going to be voting for obama, but after watching this debate i feel like there was more common sense in the first 30 minutes of this debate and there has been the entire main street fiasco. so i would be voting for the independent. i will support kerry johnson. >> i'm between kerry johnson and

jill steinberg of the choice to choose rocky then i would probably choose rocky because i like his template that i didn't understand or know him until this debate. >> people that are voting for the third party candidates are just taking away a vote from either democrat or republican. and they're just wasting their time doing it because it will be one of the two in office. >> i've learned more and i've heard -- more of my questions have been answered with a third party. it was really sad though, the democrats or republican party. these guys got the money and the third parties not got a chance to voice your opinion and i wish it was able to sit down with romney and obama and get some these questions that i just heard. >> as we follow the candidates on the road to the white house, watching engage with c-span. >> tuesday nights indiana senate

debate between state treasurer republican richard mourdock, his democratic challenger congressman joe donnelly and libertarian candidate andrew horning. "the cook political report" has the race as a tossup. >> welcome to the campus of indiana university southeast in new albany, indiana. we're here for the second of two debates featuring candidates for the u.s. senate from indiana and the debates are sponsored by the indiana debate commission. i'm dennis ryerson, retired editor of the indianapolis star and i'll be modeling tonight's debate. candidates will add to question presented to the commission by indiana voters. tonight's debate is being carried live on radio and television stations throughout indiana and also is being broadcast live nationwide on c-span.

the indiana debate commission is a nonprofit nongovernment organization dedicated to expand opportunities for voters to hear candidates views on issues of importance. to learn more go to our website, indianadebatecommission.com. the debate commission's motto is putting voters first to all of the questions that came from voters throughout the state. one of the voters is in attendance tonight if you'll be asking the question of his own. i will be asking questions on behalf of others. each candidate was one minute to answer most questions and will try for 30-second rebuttals as long as we have done. midway through the program will take a patron history with a sequence bark from the famous lincoln-douglas debates of 1858. after the candidates take part in that segment will return to the voter questions and then we will end with a final general question in which each candidate has 90 seconds for a closing statement. we want to maximize time for candidates to present their views so in that regard we've asked the audience to avoid disrupting outburst.

the candidates are richard mourdock, republican. andrew horning, libertarian, and joe donnelly, democrats. thanks for being with us tonight. we will begin with one minute opening statements beginning with mr. mourdock. mourdock: good evening. just 14 days until very important election. and the fact that it's important here in india cannot be outweighed by the fact that it's important actually because it may well determine the majority in the united states senate. with 14 days to go, one thing is clear and with such as a record behind him, my opponent, mr. donovan has a clear track record of saying one thing and heading in a different direction by the time he is serving in office. is a fiscal conservative he says and yet he supported stimulus. he supports expanding. the fact is you need to know about who the other candidates are and quite simply, i'm a geologist, unlikely as it may

seem. five years ago i was asked to join governor daniels team and i did my part during the tough days of the financial downturn to make sure indiana live within its means. we've kept the state going, we've been apart indiana's comeback. we look forward to taking hoosier commonsense principles to washington. >> moderator: mr. horn. horning: thank you all. i won't belabor the point. i don't need to say too much about the two-party system, but what if you had to say is most people agree with me now more than they grew with the other guys. the guys that are most likely to vote for. what are most of the time is andy, your odds are not good. so what want to talk about is first of all, they odds are we're in a very special country to we that someone liberties we have thrown away. all nations fall sooner or later. we don't want to go with odds. we want to fight the odds. in fact, i think right now what you see is an opportunity to do

something that all of us wanted to do for a long time. you can say no to all of the above and vote for something other than the two-party system. that's the option i'm putting on. i will talk more specifically about what constitutionalist is in this race and what that means. what you all need to know is there something we need to deal with before we get to ideology. that is we've got a crony network running the country. donnelly: thank you much and i appreciate the chance to be here with my friend. the question is who will be a strong independent voice fighting for you? i have always been that way in my service to i voted for 2.4 trillion spending cuts. voted for balanced budget amendment, support the keystone pipeline. my opponent mr. mourdock said the highlight of politics for him is to inflict his opinion on other people. for me, it's the chance to see a veteran come home and get a good job. it is a chance to see our auto

workers be able to go to work every day because we stepped up to rescue those companies. senator lugar and senator biden had it right. it's not about the left or right. it's about america. they say i but with the democrats 70% of the time. i vote with republicans 60% of the time. but i vote for hoosiers 100% of the time. >> moderator: now we would turn to questions from voters and our first voter at present with us tonight is andrew redd, a senior at west lafayette high school. he serves on the student council. he is a voting age. he voted for the first time in the may primary. he is the model of youth engagement and civic affairs, and keeping with the situation last night, the presidential debate was on foreign policy, his question is about foreign policy. welcome. please ask your question.

>> [inaudible] >> thank you. i think we had a mic problem but i won't we state the question. he said does current u.s. foreign policy in the middle east undermine our national security? do you agree or disagree? what steps should be taken in foreign policy in the middle east? mr. mourdock, one minute. mourdock: our foreign policy is of critical concern of course, and in the middle east we must always first and foremost stand by our great friend israel and also we must be making the message that no options can be taken off the table as a look towards nuclear iran. but to the bigger point of our national security, it was the former head of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mullen that said the greatest threat to our

national security is her own national debt. the fact that we have now spent ourselves into a $16 trillion debt is inexcusable. the fact we continue to see the debt limit raised, and mr. donnelly has raised it no less than seven times without ever demanding real fiscal responsibility, this is a clear and present danger. we continue to loan money to people from whom we borrow money. it is creating national policy. we have to get our spending under control and then when we do that we will again be able to make sure we fully fund the military to make sure that we are going to always have the greatest military defense in the world. horning: i'm clearly the peace through strength can do. i do not good for international games of whack-a-mole has done us any good. i believe if you look at something like the petrodollar and tie the fact of our monetary scheme is now tied to oil more than it is anything else, you will see a good part of our foreign policy not just in the middle east but elsewhere is tied to all of the worst

decisions with made from central banking on board. i'm opposed to the. i'm opposed to just about anything that is him coming out of washington, d.c. for the last 70 years or so. make that more like 100 years. we've not had -- we've not had a declared war since world war ii. all of that is immoral and it's not working. i would say that what we ought to be doing is peace commerce, healthy skepticism with all nations and entangling alliances with none. >> moderator: mr. dudley, one minute. donnelly: first and foremost, osama bin laden is dead. in regards to iran, they can i get a nuclear weapon. it is a nonnegotiable point. what he's seen so far with the sanctions is their currency is worth 80% less than it was just a few years ago. their oil shipments have almost completed dried up so we

continue to put pressure on iran and we stand with our friends, israel. because an attack on israel is an attack on the united states. we stand together as a team to make sure that iran can i get a nuclear weapon. and in regards to afghanistan, the bravest young men and women that ever seen the face of the earth are serving our country. i've been in the living rooms of the men and women who served. we will stand with them and it will be home by mid-2014. >> moderator: will now do rebuttals to start with mr. mourdock. mourdock: again, we cannot have a strong national defense is first and foremost we cannot control our own budget. as we see now the obamacare bill will cost as $1.7 trillion going forward, that is an expense we have to realize was a mistake. mr. donnelly was the deciding vote for that bill. when you take that kind money out of our economy ultimately you will weaken our defense and you're also going to weaken our economy because as we have to

pay more and more just to pay the interest on our debt, it's pulling money out of our economy that would otherwise be creating the jobs that would be putting hoosiers back to work. it is time we do more direct with the idea that we do with our budget, that we -- start reduce that spending. horning: as i often do agree we can have sort unlimited warfare, with only sort of the skies the limit approach we always back up our friends, as the sort of outcome for the united states citizen, i have to say can would've i see democrats or republicans agree is because they are wrong. we really ought to be thinking long and hard about whether we want to keep doing this. we've been doing it forever. we are not the policeman of the world. no one ever gave us several. were supposed to be more like the swiss, armed to the teeth, ready for whatever comes with an abortion but otherwise leave everybody else alone. donnelly: mr. mourdock's only unique contribution to the health care discussion has been

when he was in jeffersonville and told the new albany newspaper that employers if they want, should be able to not have cancer care. that's his only unique contribution. in regards to our foreign policy, our greatest treasure are the men and women who are serving the we have to make wise decisions for them. they should be coming home to rebuild indiana, not just kabul and kandahar. >> moderator: thank you very much. our next question is from jennifer she's an assistant professor in greencastle. she asks this. the drought we experience this summer was devastating to hoosier farmers and local economies, and post a threat to public health. whether or not this guy can be attributed to climate change, climate scientists agree that we will see more drought and more extreme heat. more threats to public health and the economy. i'm not asking was the equity with this but i'm asking if you believe the u.s. government has

a significant responsibility to help communities and individuals repair for climate related threats to our well being. and if so, what specific policies would you recommend? if not, do you think adapting to climate instability is largely the responsibility of individuals and the private market? mr. gorn, you will go first for one minute. horning: i'm glad she has -- is more political discussion than it is, talk about climate change. we don't know what a correct temperature is but i do believe that there is a valid role for the federal government in protecting resource pics i do believe there is a very strong will that is, in fact, nothing like a very well at all. crony capitalism think what it is, made it awfully difficult for people to actually seek some kind of compensation for when a company builds a plant right next to your farm and starts belching smoke into, reducing their property valley. we should a more record. unfortunately, the taxation

regulation litigation that these guys and giving us for the last 100 years have made it very difficult to hold a large corporations accountable because they are the biggest campaign contributors. we should be following the money and not thinking it's an consequential that of millions and now billions and trillions of dollars going into campaigns but do we think it does not come without strings? when it comes to environment, that's serious. donnelly: the first thing we should have done is pass the farm bill. and i thought on the floor night and day to pass the farm bill, to stand up for indiana farmers. my friend with the indian corn grows off lines, mike and i were shoulder to shoulder trying to get this done. and a tea party folks in congress wouldn't put the farm bill on the floor for a vote. we need to stand with our farmers. they need certainty. they need reliability. and i've got to try to get that done. i would rather i should be voting on the farm bill right now and be here at the debate,

as much as a loving with my fellow hoosiers, we need to get the farm bill done. in addition to that in regards to the energy peace, we need all the american energy. clean coal is a big part of this whether it's cold liquefaction, whether it is cold gasification. when we do these things and have american energy, we can also help clean up our environment. mourdock: there is an interesting book written a few years ago called cool but by a nobel prize-winning economist. he made the point that for all the money we can put into fighting global climate change, that, in fact, those dollars could be much better spent just providing basic water, basic sanitation to people around the world to certainly increase their standard of living. the drought was devastating to indiana farmers, and i am encouraged we will see a farm bill eventually passed more of a risk-based insurance program so that farmers can be better protected for such address. but the bigger issue here again is going to be what can we really afford in the long run? if we continue to have a government that spends its out

-- spend itself out of control, runs up a $16 trillion debt by trying to finance another 1.7 trillion to health care, through obamnicare, through statist programs, we will not be able to provide essential services let alone deal with the emergencies that come up. >> moderator: thank you. given the length of the question i think we probably need to move on to another question. the debate commission received several questions involving social security. people want to know how do you propose to make the system financially sound for our children and grandchildren? voters want to know your positions on the there is proposals related to changing the programs such as increasing or removing the social security payroll tax cap, reducing or raising the retirement age, these kinds of things. if you could be specific and addressed your solution to the social security issue, that's what voters want. so we'll start with one minute from mr. donnelly tragic a

specific solution is discussions are social security will be part of the deficit reduction talk that will move forward after this election. and in that social security will be discussed, medicare will be discussed in reducing the debt by up to $5 trillion will also be a big part of it. what we have to do is do it with republicans and democrats together. the one thing that won't be talked about i believe is privatization. because we don't want social security to be put at risk. we saw the stock market go down to 6500. it's come back up to 13,000. we don't want to take a chance with the earnings of the people who have contributed over the years. so we have the opportunity as we move forward to be able to get this done in those discussions that will be part of a grand bargain. mr. mourdock papers privatization. i do not. >> moderator: mr. mourdock, one minute. mourdock: let's put social security and medicare in that

same bucket because the fact is the obamnicare bill that congressman donnelly said he read before you voted on, and i give them credit because not many congressmen did the. he said he did it. i taking for his work. but the fact is that bill took $716 billion away from medicaid to it takes money away from those who would be providing those services. we need to deal with both sources could and medicare and we need to start with this fundamental principle. if you're over 55 on the day the decision is made, the reform comes, nothing changes for you. i think all republicans and all democrats agree largely on that point but i also believe that this sort -- start immediately, younger workers, there must be a different set of rules in place for you. and i think they should be given the choice to say for themselves or select a government program and be ready to go down that road and then we can keep our promises. horning: speaking of fundamental

principles, i'm operating on one that says if you buy something with somebody else's money, then it really isn't yours. what we are doing right now is mortgage our children's future deep, deep into the future, trillions and trillions of dollars. we of unfunded liabilities going up to like $220 trillion by some as does. the $16 trillion is serious enough but if you think about what we've been doing with social security for the last since it started in 1936 when the retirement age was calculated at about the lifespan of most people, white women died at 62 back in 1936. it was a very cynical monkey trap. this has been political ever since the attacks the benefits, increase the ages, i think it's time to have a serious discussion about whether we want to amend the constitution to make this a constitutional thing or find some better way when i think there are plenty, to take care of our elderly. >> moderator: let's do 30-second rebuttals. part of the frustration is

voters want specifics. what do you think should be done? can you be as specific as possible and start with mr. donnelly. donnelly: the specifics will be put together in a bipartisan him and the points you made a going to be part of that discussion takes place. i want to make on the 716 billion, richard, you also take that out in your budget. but the difference is that what mr. mourdock it is he gives it away in tax breaks. we put it into care for seniors and to be able to get prescriptions at 50% off the i think that's a better use of funds. mourdock: with regards to what i do that is totally incorrect and the fact is that $716 billion will come out of medicare. in fact, the medicare actuary has said it will result in at least a 15% reduction in the delivery of services to seniors. that's not richard mourdock. that's the medicare actuary who works for the united states congress. horning: when you have to

parties bickering like this sometimes you need to have a marriage counselor. third party to come in and introduce some sense into the discussion but i'm afraid we haven't done that for a very long time. this is a series subject. nobody is talk about taking away anybody's benefit. what we are talking about is we have something that we can't pay for icann specific in the past about at least offering a fair tax to get rid of the demographic problems that we have with the way we fund medicare and social security. >> moderator: now we will move to the lincoln-douglas segment of our debate tonight. i will begin by asking each candidate to make it one minute statement about his beliefs on a particular issue. many of the two candidates will get two minutes each to rebut that or comment on this statement. will return to the first candidate to make a one minute response. we will go for three rounds through this process. mr. mourdock let's begin with your one minute statement. mourdock: we'll pick up a bit where we just ended. let's talk about that obamnicare

issue because congressman donnelly when he had the choice was asked if he would support a national health care plan when he was running for election. he said no. he asked if he would support a massachusetts town from the plan. he said no. he said he was against obamnicare but in the end he decided to vote for it. when the pressure of the partisanship was put on in this personally think is a principled person unfortunately saw his principles multiway like july ice cream. he just caved. that's not what we need. congressman domino's we've added 1.7 trillion in new taxes. something called the medical device taxes going to absolutely devastate the hoosier life science industries. we have 21 new taxes that are coming to health care. it's all because congressman donnelly cast the deciding vote for that bill. congressman donnelly, i'd like to know again why you would vote for him if he would do it again. horning: actually, there's a

site out there called who is richard mourdock.com and on this is extreme stance because of reading about extreme stance richard mourdock i was thinking hey, there's hope for this guy because a lot of the stuff he said was correct. i think he's right on so the is hope for you if you want to come to the libertarian party. but what is frustrating is what he just accuse mr. donnelly of is backpedaling on a lot of those answers and he has repudiated a lot of the statements. some of it where you were saying about the unconstitutionality, right on, i was with you with it. you've got to stick with the. we need somebody was going to stick with principals. i've always been that. anybody looks at anything i've ever done knows i'm not going to budge. i've read the constitution, state and federal, and i'm really the only got a. no, i can put this on paper, i can prove. i the one guy who will defend and support united states constitution of the constitution of indiana against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. and i think that's what we need

right now. we need somebody is going to stand for something other than the two-party system. i don't want to belabor that point. i think we all know that system really stinks. why we keep voting for is something that requires some explanation in my view. why we keep doing this over and over again when we know that the bickering is not helping us. we know the guys were funny the campaigns are expecting something in return for their investment. we know they're going to get it. we know that all of this money comes from some kind of reason. we should be finding out with every loss has written somebody is getting a benefit. who is getting the benefits? i can tell you it's not needed on the one guy who lives on a farm and i can tell you that all the people around me who live on a farm and work on a farm, know the kind of stuff we do with our bills, it's not for farmers. let's get real. we should be looking to see where the money is coming for, what they expect in return and vote against that. donnelly: as i said before,

mr. mourdock, you need contributions to health care. has been to say in jeffersonville, for the new albany paper where we are now, that employers should have the right to not cover cancer care. i don't think that's the way for good health care coverage. as we look at this and as we move forward, mr. mourdock also said that the question whether medicare was constitutional. he thinks medicare should be turned into a voucher system. where you get a $6200 coupon, excuse me, where you can have to pay up to $6200. it put you in an extraordinarily dangerous financial situation. and has regard to health care bill, the seven of 16 billion that you talked about as i said before, instead of being put into senior care, to wellness care, to the chance for our seniors to get prescription at 50% off, what you did was to

give it away in tax breaks. what the health care bill does, for people who have cancer, or diabetes, they can get coverage for the first time. if you are a young person between the ages of 21-26, it can stay on your parents program or health care but if you're a senior you can get prescriptions at 50% off. these are good things. arthur fixes? yes, but i'm the only one up here who will fix it. mr. mourdock says he wants to repeal it but then he was to put the good parts back in. we have good parts already in place. we've all had people in our families who have been touched by cancer. do you want to take away that coverage that they now have? i think the way to go that this is to fix health care, not to blow it up all over again. >> moderator: you have one minute to wrap it up. mourdock: first to your point

about the interview with the newspaper, you take a fully out of context because also said if a company did that they would and data not have been employees. because no one would choose to work there. to the second point, you said you're the person standing here, you're correct in your the only person standing here who voted to take $716 billion away from medicare. the problem with obamacare isn't just that it's putting a government bureaucrat in front of the hoosier image when their doctor, the fact is it is showing itself more and more to be what it is come which is the greatest tax increase and the greatest intrusion on individual american liberties, american history. a few ago i stood up in south bend south of the notre dame campus to make the argument that it is obamnicare an extension of obamacare the health and human services department to tell the catholic church what they can't do what they can't and what they must provide but with health care coverage. i was proud as a kid to stand there, and i was unfortunate i got from notre dame was not there to defend the notre dame.

horning: the last time i had this opportunity nobody answered my question. made me kind of sad. i guess the variation i would like to make on it this time though is you think about what most people know about our political system and what we have hopes for. we've been told things in us goes about equality under law, about how the rich and powerful guys have to obey the same laws as the rest of us. you can read it. i'm all about peace, commerce, the kind of things that people came to this country bore to get wherey didn't have anywhere else in the world. people used to pore through our borders to get this stuff, yet we been doing so much to screw that up for the last 100 years. we all know. my question to you gentlemen is, why should we give you another chance when we've already given you 100 years of chances to get this right? and you screwed it up. >> moderator: mr. donnelly, you have two minutes transit

what has greeted so much of the problem in washington is the attitude of partisanship. of bickering, of constant fighting. mr. mourdock has said that the highlight of politics has inflicted his opinion of people. partisanship is democrats join republicans want them to you. i can't think of something were off target or more off base. to move this country forward, to solve these problems, we have to have people of goodwill of both parties and independents in the senate working together to reduce the debt, to create more opportunities for jobs, to make sure that our men and women come home from afghanistan into 2014 as scheduled. that's what this is about. what my way or the highway means, it means saying that medicare is unconstitutional. it means questioning the cost is

not of social purity. it means going after our auto companies and putting over 100,000 indiana jobs at risk. and if you had been successful, indiana would've gone into a depression. i thought nonstop, not only because those jobs report to our economy, but because those were real families. those were people who didn't know if they lost their job whether they could even make their home payment that much. whether their kids could stay in school, whether they would even have to be able to be forced to move and not to be able to live in indiana knew the other family. that's what this is about. so when we work together, good things happen. >> moderator: mr. mourdock, your two-minute response trade for congressman don which is part of an exit point and it is about partisanship. unfortunately, partisanship in washington, d.c. does cause

people to do the wrong thing. it was congressman connolly who took a stand early on to say he was against earmarks until he got to washington and then the partisanship taken. that caused him to say he's against a national health care system can against obamacare but when the chips were down from when the pressure was on, the partnership in chippewa and joe donnelly cast of afford. he talked about person ship and he forgets in a lying about my way or the hype, let's go back to the first presidential debate because mitt romney got it right when he looked at president obama and said my way or the highway, that's what obamacare was, congressman. there was not one single republican vote for it. not one. if you wanted to see partisanship, why didn't you act in a bipartisan way to cross the aisle to try to get some good ideas from republicans, and you can't say with that many republicans there wasn't at least one good idea that could be made, and a step forward, go

to your own democratic caucus and say let's bring these fellas in, let's have partisan discussions. but congressman donnelly with a partisan vote and voted that straight partisan line. that's unfortunate. we need to fix much in washington every now and again it's just richard mourdock doesn't know how washington works. that's the problem, it's not working. it is because of the partisanship like mr. donnelly that will say one thing back in the state, say one thing in this district and then go back and consistently unfortunately gave in to harry reid, gave into nancy pelosi. he said he wasn't going to even support nancy pelosi for speaker but he got there, guess what? he did, twice. that's a pattern. unfortunately, it's not what is going to fix washington. it's going to continue to make it worse. >> moderator: mr. horning, one minute treachery nobody answered my question again. i guess people say i'm a dreamer, i'm not the only one. but let me be pragmatic here for a minute. you, you guys have what you have

chosen to you have it. this is what you have chosen to you don't have to choose this. we can do better than this. every time i run for office, it's been plenty, but i'll tell you, every time i've done this i've written have specific plans and what we need to do, my good friend would have a budget that i sent out to called the road to reality. i've got the constitution on the website. we have an app now, it's specifically lays out what i think the constitution says and what we're supposed to do in response. i've got specific. this is not the way it's supposed to work. our founders were right when they warned us about the influence of bankers and military industrialists. that's what we see all over the place in the two-party system right now. they bigger back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, and people tell me i'm the one who is dreaming? this can't work. >> moderator: thank you very much. mr. donnelly, a minute for your statement. donnelly: as i said before i have a record where i've worked with my colleagues to make sure

the indiana gets better highway funding, to keep our air base in fort wayne, to make sure that our veterans center in south bend was able to expand and grow without spending want additional dime. that was democrats and republicans working together. a bipartisan view. mr. mourdock has said as they mentioned that bipartisanship is democrats doing what republicans want him to do. here's what that means. it means saying that medicare, you question its constitutionality. it means on medicare that you might have to pay $6200 out of your own pocket. it means on social security you question the constitutionality of it. and on the budget, what it means is that instead of money going to veterans care, veterans care is reduced and there's more tax breaks for businesses that send jobs offshore. >> moderator: mr. mourdock, two minutes. mourdock: a lott said there, and

i have to say that again what is going to take to repair washington is people from outside understand how to make a system work. we have a system today is terribly broken. it is because incumbents, and they do, i believe they go there as well been people. i don't know if it's something in the water in the potomac or what do people get there and they lose their direction. i think congressman donnelly has done it. he says one thing when he is back and then he votes another way when he gets there. there's something critical in agriculture come which is removing the inheritance tax. we have far too many hoosiers farmers who when i want to pass the family farm on see that the taxes are so extensive and so heavy the kids are going to inherit the farm had to sell the farm just to keep half of it and then they can't sustain themselves. on that issue, mr. donnelly said he wanted to reduce the inheritance tax. and get the first time in a chance to vote for it, he was going to terminate and he voted to extend it. issue after issue we see the same pattern.

we are not going to get washington fixed it the same people keep going and doing the same things. i guess on that press and and i agree the it's the people who are there who want to sell out for partisanship, who won't take a stand on principle. i find it ironic that so often unseen things taken out of context. to take things out of context from a speech here, he said this twice about constitutionality. the social security and medicare. you heard me make my statement on social security and yet still he keeps throwing it out. he says i would like to flick my opinion on others. i do, i love what i'm doing right now. i'd love to get people to think about these issues. it's importantly. this is the future of our country. and yet he says let's just keep going, let's keep the status quo. i'm sorry, it won't, not if we promote mr. donnelly. horning: when these men are both talking about how dysfunctional our system is and they said a

lot of mean things about the other guy's party, they're absolutely right. i can't disagree wit with a worf that. that wouldn't we don't need is more bipartisanship. don't you see that this is an opportunity for bipartisanship? don't you see this -- you have a shot. i'm not so danger but i'm only one voice. i'm not going to turn your world upside down. let me take that back. if you vote for me and i went, what do you suppose is going to happen in washington, d.c.? can you imagine the shutters they go to when a guy with no money gets elected? think about how that is going to work. i'm going to give you something mr. mourdock. there's good republicans. i think you're one of them but i don't think you can fix your party. you can't fix the system. i know lots of people who did not get change by washington, d.c. i've seen people like ron paul the department against and they would do the same for you. they turn against and make sure you're not going to a cottage squad as republican you be fighting your own party. i've been as republican but i

saw the inside of the beast and it is a beast. it's not one we need to keep breathing life into with every election cycle. guys, there comes a time when you need to kill the monster. you don't need to keep feeding it. this is something that is dysfunctional. it's bad. it's not working. nobody likes it. what are you doing? we have to stop doing this to every election cycle we think you've got to vote for this guy, the odds are -- this is not an office betting pool. people's lives are at stake. this is serious business. i'm not the one who is playing a. >> moderator: back to you mr. donnelly to wrap things up. donnelly: the words that i talk about our mr. mourdock's, so we are back to mourdock versus mourdock debate. i have one of the most independent voting records. i voted for $2.4 trillion in spending cuts. i join with my republican friends for the balanced budget amendment. i voted for the keystone pipeline. i voted against cap-and-trade. and i work every day to make sure our veterans in south bend

and if i'm blessed to have a chance to be innocent, all over our state, have a chance to get great health care and great services. those are the kind of things that we are supposed to do. for me, like i said, the highlight of politics, it's a young man or woman get into one of our service academies. it's seeing a pattern come back and get their g.i. bill benefits. it's been able to go over to afghanistan and iraq and spend time with our veterans and let them know, we care about you, we love you, and we want you home safely. >> moderator: thank you. we are done with the lincoln-douglas portion of the debate. we're back now to questions from voters. the next question is from james. he's ever tyree, and it's about term limits. would you propose a bill to limit terms are both houses of congress, for example, to terms for senate, six terms of house, a total of 12 years for both houses? mr. mourdock, one minute transport i absolutely would.

i've signed on to the very type of plane. i believe in term limits and i think they are good thing. i think they keep turning over ideas. there is a myth in washington that we need all the seniority to have good ideas. i think one of the best ideas that is come along in a long, long time is a balanced budget and minute presented by senator mike lee. that bill unlike a balanced budget and in the mr. donnelly keeps talking about that would force congress to raise taxes would actually put a cap on spending. mr. donnelly, i'm sorry, mr. lee, senator lee have a been there for six weeks when the offer that i do. not only do i believe and what i support a balanced, a constitutional and them to limit terms, i've imposed such terms are my so. when i was elected county commissioner i said i believe in term limits even to the office doesn't have them, i said i would serve is fortunate to terms, for years, when i was done i was done. horning: [inaudible] the recognition the voters are not doing their job, and isn't that

which is both be doing in the voting booth? but i have to admit that yes, i have come around as if we do need to term limits and i agree it should be pretty severe limits, maybe to terms of senate, a couple of terms or maybe three terms in the house. so i'm fully in favor of that but lots of people have said that for a very long time. in fact, when republican revolution came through in 1994, they had a voluntary pledge. i'm against voluntary pledges because what that means is that liars are still going to be there after all the good ones have gone home. so i think we have to be real series. we haven't been voting for people who are going to actually propose, maintain and stick by term limits. ..

donnelly: i would think if i was fortunate enough to win, two terms would be plenty, and then it's time to come home to indiana. i think it's a program that could work, but i think even more than be term limits we put on ourselves or legislative term limits, it's the people who make that decision. by going to vote. by listening. by studying the issues. by calling your legislators. that's how you can be the most engaged. and the people are the ones who determine who represents them. we're just the hired help. >> moderator: let's continue this discussion, 30-second rebuttals each. this is a hot button issue with a lot of people. mr. mourdock? mourdock: well, it is, and it

well should be. we do see the same people going back time and time again, and i think there is a staleness. i started to realize after, oh, say halfway through my second term that i was seeing things a little bit differently. i was becoming part of the system, not there to fix the system, but just becoming part of it. i think if you keep bringing in new people, you've got an edge to keep filing away on a system that needs to be well sharpened. >> moderator: mr. morning? morning: -- morning: once again, the solution is pretty much me. we have so many times when it comes up with the partisanship or people have been in office for 100 years. we as voters have to understand that we are both powerful enough to fix this and accountable for the result anyway. we own the country. we can't dell gate away -- delegate away our

responsibilities anymore. >> moderator: donnelly? donnelly: the greatest wisdom we get from this job is you. at the factory floors of indiana, at the supermarkets in indiana. we are, as i said, the hired help. you are the bosses. we work for you. you have the wisdom to tell us what to do in this job. and there's a whole lot more wisdom at home than out in washington. and on the left and on the right all they do is fight. here at home is hoosier common sense. >> moderator: thank you. um, the issue after -- of abortion and contraception continue to divide the country. one voter wanted to know your position on a woman's right to abortion, contraception and health services and whether government should provide those services. another asked if you believe

life begins at conception. so where do you stand on these issues? mr. horning. horning: all of us up here or have said we're pro-life, but what does that really mean? there's not any authority granted to the federal government of matters in even murder. that is a state-level crime, and unless it crosses state boundaries, it's not a federal matter. i have said i would have to oppose roe v. wade being treated as law. it's not, it was unconstitutional, and the laws under the color of it have been wrong. but we have been doing so badly for so long that we've kind of forgotten how many other rights are being trampled over this. you can't say just say no to child support, for instance. we've gotten so lop sized with looking -- lopsided with this.

there are lots of things we can do better than what we're doing right now. but as a federal legislator i've got to tell you, there isn't that much that i could do. >> moderator: thank you. mr. donnelly? donnelly: i believe in pro-life. i believe that life begins at conception. the only exceptions i believe in are for rape and incest and life of the mother. in regards to contraception, i believe women have a right to access quality health care. at the same time, i believe that religious institutions have a right to not go against their own religious beliefs. we can't ask them to do something they simply cannot do. and so how do we make sure that a woman has the right to that quality health care while at the same time protecting the rights of religious institutions to not violate their own beliefs? and that's what we're working on right now. many groups, many of them in the catholic church which i'm a

member of, have filed suit. they have every right to file that suit. i am working on a legislative solution to it. there's also work being done on the judicial side, and we are trying to get an executive solution to this as well. >> moderator: thank you. mr. mourdock. mourdock: this is that issue that every candidate faces, and i, too, certainly stand for life. i know there are some who disagree, and i respect their point of view, but i believe that life begins at conception. the only exception i have is in that case of the life of the mother. i just, i struggled with it myself for a long time, but i came to realize life is that gift from god, and i think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that god intended to happen. you know, mr. donnelly's comments about obamacare and what's happening there, trying to reform it, that's good to reform it, but it should not be here in the first place. the fact that we have the catholic church and so many

institutions having to file a lawsuit to get their basic freedom that i thought was guaranteed under the constitution, the practice of your religion, that now there has to be an amendment put forward to somehow bring that about? if the law had never been passed, religious freedom would not today be in question. >> moderator: let's continue with rebuttals. horning: it's my experience where every people drawing up sides so vementdly, there's usually a lot of misunderstanding. unfortunately, it's one of those that's an outcome of something terrible happening sometimes, and it's, you know, dealing with mistakes, it's dealing with rape, it's dealing with life situations that nobody wants. in a minute we really can't do very much justice to it, but i've also got to tell you i would not be able to do justice to this. i would fail in what i would try to achieve. >> moderator: thank you. mr. donnelly? donnelly: my catholic faith has guided me on this issue, and i

know their faiths have guided my friends who are up here as well. i just want to mention one thing real quick. we have a need program back in my hometown, it's called the women's care center. and what they do is to provide a positive alternative for women who are pregnant. they have an opportunity for a place to live, a place to be cared for. somebody to know that you have people who care about you and love you and want to help you in any way during your pregnancy. >> moderator: thank you. mr. mourdock, 30 seconds. mourdock: well, very short, less than 30 seconds. obamacare has caused this issue of religious freedom ordering the catholic church, ordering institutions that find it morally objectionable to provide contraception care, that goes against their basic faith, and it's wrong. mr. donnelly, unfortunately -- and i respect him in his point of view on this issue -- but it was obamacare for which he cast

the deciding vote in the first place. >> moderator: move to our next questions from craig reasoner, a historical interpreter from indianapolis. his question is this: are you hoping to serve in the office of u.s. senator, as you are hoping to serve in the office of u.s. senator, i would like to hear your stances on gun control and same-sex marriage. for time reasons we'll need to be quick on this, 30 seconds. mr. donnelly. donnelly: i will just make the quick reflection that that's quite a combination in one question. [laughter] in regards or to gun control, i believe in the second amendment. it is in our constitution, people in our country have a right to bear arms. and in regards to same-sex marriage, i believe that marriage is between man and a woman. >> moderator: thank you very much. mr. mourdock? mourdock: i have an a rating with the nra, also believe one man, one mom.

horning: i'm the constitutionalist that goes for all of our rights, not just the first amendment. i guess i'm for the right to keep and bear arms, but i guess i have to say is do we really have any rights at all? when it comes to they divide us up to the second amendment, oh, gosh, i'm out of time. sorry. >> moderator: we're out of time. i need some advice from our producers, do we move on to the last questions? the all right, here we are. the final question, you'll have 90 seconds to kind of wrap things up. after two debates, this is the last time you'll be able to speak to a statewide broadcast audience. with the election two weeks away, what do you want voters to remember about you as a candidate and as a person? mr. mourdock? 90 seconds.

mourdock: very quickly, i'm a person who does stand by his principles, works with others to get things done. you know, elections do have consequences. 60% of hoosiers recently polled oppose the re-election of barack obama, and yet mr. donnelly endorses him and says he's going to support his thinking. congressman donnelly wants the status quo to continue and go on for another four years. we have overwhelming, overwhelming numbers showing hoosierss disagree with obamacare, and even after he said he was not going to sport sport -- support be it, he caved in, and he did. i think that's not good. you know, aye been attacked on two fronts, number one because, yes, i do stand up for my principles. it's about standing up for the rule of law and standing up for my oath of office to protect for pensioners, retired teachers and retired cops. i stand for my principles. sadly, sadly, if mr. donnelly had stood for his, we wouldn't have obamacare today.

it wouldn't be an issue. he tells us he's dick lugar-like. senator lugar and i certainly were rivals. to have the privilege to stand at this podium this evening. but tonight we stand uted you said and -- united, and that is harry reid cannot continue as majority leader in the united states senate. mr. donnelly can't tell us if he's going to vote for harry reid or not. fourteen days in front of an election if you don't know who your going to vote for to lead the senate, perhaps you ought not be running for the senate. i'm richard mourdock, and i approved this message. we need to make washington work like indiana. >> moderator: thank you. mr. horning? horning: when it comes to something like gay marriage, it's just another example of where we've misplaced our faith. when did we give marriage over to government? in other words, over to caesar? there's an alternative to this

in god we trust thing. the corollary is in politics we do not. we're not supposed to just give everything -- we've delegated charity, as if christ ever said delegate charity unto she's star. we have given our money over to a central bank that's mostly private bankers from all over the world. we have screwed up everything that our founders warned us about. they warned us and warned us. a dozen presidents, all our wisest founders, the rule of law as written in both indiana and u.s. constitutions and, by the way, a senator is supposed to be protecting the indiana constitution from federal intrusion. we have been doing such a terrible job on that. please, look at horningforsenate.com. if you look up my annotated web sites and constitutions, both indiana and federal, they are both relevant, you'll find that we have been badly misled in almost every particular. of course, obamacare's unconstitutional. of course most of what our government does whether it's done by democrats or republicans has been unconstitutional for

the last 100 years. i'm the guy who's saying let's go back to what's proven to work better than anything that's ever been done by any human beings anywhere on earth ever. we had something special in this country, and i want it back. >> moderator: thank you. mr. donnelly, 90 seconds. donnelly: i do think it's sad that for richard mourdock it's always politics. he talks about, well, it's important to have this party leadership or that party leadership. and this is after a year of kneecapping richard lugar at every chance you got. if party leadership was that important to you, you wouldn't have done that in the first place. look, for me the wisdom does not come from washington, it comes from backyards inner the -- terra hot, in dines in rochester, indiana, because there's a whole lot more wisdom in indiana than there is in washington d.c. i get my wisdom from the people of our state, and when i pray on my knees before god every night.

i am a humble servant, and i do the best i can, and it's not always perfect, and that's what i tell the good lord. and he says, just do your best. 2.4 trillion in spending cuts. balanced budget amendment with my good republican friends. that's what richard lugar has always stood for. he has been someone who has worked hard, done his duty, stood up for country. that's how i've tried to serve as well. this is about our children and our grandchildren's future, reducing the debt, having our young men and women come home from, afghanistan, building a stronger, better country for our children and grandchildren so we can continue this incredible tradition. i ask for your vote. god bless you, godless indiana, and god bless the united states of america. >> moderator: mr. donnelly. thank you for watching tonight's indiana senate debate sponsored by the indiana debate

commission. our thanks to the candidates. gentlemen, thank you so much for being here. thank you for the voters who participated, and we want to give a special thanks to indiana university southeast in new albany for their cooperation in providing the venue for this debate. join us next week for the final of five debates sponsored by the debate commission. this one is the final debate involving the gubernatorial candidates, thursday 7 p.m. from fort wayne. join us there. on behalf of the indiana debate commission, good night from new albany, indiana. thank you. you can applaud. [laughter] [applause] >> coming up today on c-span2, california's 52nd district debate between republican representative brian bilbray and democratic challenger scott peters, a port commission freres san diego. that's followed at 9 a.m. eastern with live coverage from

the impact of swing states in the 2012 election. and lye at 3 p.m. eastern, the national council on u.s./arab relations holds a conference on north america and the middle east. >> today, the new mexico senate debate between representative martinning heinrich and heather wilson. live coverage from albuquerque starts at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span. and here on c-span2, the debate for the illinois 17th district seat in the u.s. house. representative bill schilling faces democratic challenger cheri bustos starting live at 9 p.m. eastern here on c-span c-span2. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekday featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend

the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedule at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> now, the debate in california's 52nd district between republican representative brian bilbray and democratic challenger scott peters, a port commissioner from san diego. this 40-minute debate is courtesy of the san diego union tribune. >> moderator: welcome to the second in a series of ut san diego tv debates on some of the most important issues and candidate elections that voters will decide on november 6th. tonight, sand yea's 52nd district race between brian bilbray and scott peters. this is one of several district races across the nation that is on the political chess board in the battle for control over the house of representatives where republicans currently dominate. as such, it has drawn national

attention from both political parties. the district stretches through central san diego and the coastal areas down to the city of coronado in the south. mr. bilbray has represented the district for several years, he's been in congress for a total of more than 12 years. he's a former city councilman and served on the san diego county board of supervisors. he also has been a federal lobbyist. mr. peters is a former member of the san diego city council and served as the panel's president. he's an attorney, and the debate format is very simple. each of the participants, excuse me, will begin with a two minute opening statement, and i will ask questions keeping a loose and fair eye for each response. there will be commercial breaks during the hourlong debate. prior to coin toss, the first opening statement will go to scott peters. pete effort thank you, mike, and thanks for tuning in. congress is broken, do we really

want to send the same people back? i'm running for congress because i'm concerned about this country, and i owe a hot to it. my parents raised me and my three sisters, sent us to college on a minister's salary by doing what families did back then; they saved their money, they borrowed against the house, my mom took a part-time job. i worked hard, i got good grades, i qualified for some grants and some financial aid through low-interest loans, and i worked my way through school with a work study job starting with $2.65 an hour to clean cages in the psychology department. but i had a chance because america made an investment in me, and i'm concerned that kids like i was are losing that opportunity throughout the united states today because congress can't get its act together. last summer we watched a debate over the debt ceiling which was a debate over whether america should pay its bills. we then got our credit downgraded as a nation for the first time in our nation's history, so that 40 cents out of

every dollar which congress borrows, which it spends, is that much more expensive to borrow. and now we have the fiscal cliff, these massive cuts and tax increases that threaten to raise the average family's tax bill by $3500 a year and threaten 30,000 jobs just in defense just in our county. that's not solving problems. my approach in public office whether it was as a lawyer or the city council member or as a port commissioner is to work to solve problems. that's how we built a ballpark, downtown development, that's how we cleaned up our beaches and bays reducing sewer spills and beach closures by over 80%. that's how we finished highway 56. that's why we're expanding the convention center and building a new water front that'll be a great amenity for tourists and for visitor and residents alike. we do that all by working to the, not by bickering and bipartisan fighting.

with your help i know we can do better in congress, and i ask for your help. >> moderator: thank you, scott. brian, your turn. bilbray: let me thank ut for holding this event, thank you for watching, and i appreciate the council that made this debate. i want to say one thing, i was born and raised in this community. i've actually spent my entire life here. my father was a naval officer, a warrant a woked his way -- worked his way up through the ranks. my mother was an immigrant from australia. my dad met my mom in general mac arthur's headquarters in world war ii. yet i've hiked the hills of san diego, but as a local i know that san diego is so much more than beautiful beaches or great weather. san diego is not only the center of military power on the pacific, but it is a hub of economic growth through high-tech and biotech. the fact is we've got a

community that is willing to do extraordinary things if government will just work wit. that is why i'm very proud that those high-tech and biotech people have made me the go-to guy in congress, somebody who can work across the aisle to get the job done. that is so important not only when you're creating jobs, but when you're working with the life sciences where people are saving lives too. this has been a real privilege for me, and it was great to be, actually, recognized by the no labels organization, an organization headed by a democrat that recognized me as the go-to guy in congress to work across the aisle. in fact, 90% of my legislation has been bipartisan. 90%. i have even got duncan hunter and bob -- [inaudible] working together to do right things for san diego, and duncan and hunter together is not bipartisan, it's practically bipolar. thank you very much. >> moderator: thank you, brian.

we hope to cover a wide arrange of fiscal and social issues today, so let me start off with one of the things that's on everybody's mind. in january the nation faces the so-called fiscal cliff where more than $1 trillion in automatic cuts to defense and domestic programs over the next ten years begin. tens of thousands of sand yea gans may lose jobs, experts are saying. if you had total control, no congress, no president, what would you do to keep the country from taking the plunge? brian, let's start with you. bilbray: first of all, i would make sure that we assure seniors that we are going to take care of them. we should not start by doing the kind of things that mr. peters has done, by scaring them, by saying twice on camera that he would cut social security and medicare. we've got to take that off, bring a degree of security for our seniors. then we need to talk about that common ground and make those priority decisions on the budget like families do all along. so many people in washington spend time looking for reasons to disagree and fight rather

than first looking for those agreements and things we can agree on and building relationships. that is why i've been recognized for my bipartisan effort. that is why i'm recognized as one of those moderate members of congress by ranking. but i think the biggest issue we've got to do is remember that all of the revenue crisis is spending too much and not allowing the private sector to grow enough to be able to pay a decent revenue -- >> moderator: thank you, brian. we must wrap up. now we have to toss to a break and, mr. peters, we'll come back with your answer after the break. thank you. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ minute

>> moderator: welcome back to the u-t tv congressional debate. i'm with scott peters, the democrat, brian bilbray, the government. before the break we had a question to brian bilbray on the nation facing the fiscal cliff and what the candidates would do, and so i pose the question to you, scott, that if you were omnipotent -- no congress, no president -- how would you deal with the tax cuts and the sequestration cuts? peters: well, remember the sequestration came from congress, and i understand why the congressman wouldn't want to own up to it, everyone said it couldn't happen. but this is the result of a congress that doesn't work that we have these draconian cuts that we face that threaten 30,000 jobs just in our county. so it is a creature of congress, so we need a congress that works together. one of the main reasons that we have this gridlock is that my opponent, mr. bilbray, has

signed a pledge over in raise taxes on anybody, no matter millionaire, billionaire, to decrease subsidies on oil companies. that's why there's this gridlock. that's why when president obama offered three spending cuts for one revenue increase, the republicans said, no. we're gridlocked. that's because of congress today. mr. bilbray needs to own that. the other thing he said about medicare is that his plan that he voted for twice was to end medicare. my plan is to work together to balance the budget in a way that we can save the program by making responsible cuts to expenses, but preserve the benefit. his plan was to end the benefit. >> moderator: thank you. brian, do you have a rebuttal? bilbray: look, councilman peters was not one of 500, he was one of seven, and he actually ran the city of san diego, one of the premier fiscally-responsible cities in america, into what was called enron by the sea. never thought i would live to see the day that they would say

that about san diego. cleveland, maybe, but mr. peters was able to do something no one ever dreamed about. his fiscal irresponsibility ran this community into the cliff. if you allow him to go to washington, we won't be able to overturn his mistakes like we did with proposition b. you'll actually have to see the damage and watch your grandchildren and my grandchildren, the seven of them, live his mistake. >> moderator: you have a rebuttal. peters: i understand why mr. bilbray would want to divert voters' attention, but there's quite a bit of history leading up to -- which i'd love to talk about more maybe if i had a bigger block, but at the end of our hard decade of working to reform things which mayor sanders called me a meaningful partner in meaningful pension reform, the fcc san diego was a model for fiscal reform. we worked hard to start to solve

the problems that were longstanding, and congress hasn't even stopped blaming each other and sat down and worked it out. >> scott, 60 president of the voters -- 60% said of the -- >> moderator: mr. bilbray -- peters: that's not true. >> moderator: before we get into the next question, i'd give a description of san diego county's congressional delegation. it consists of fife members, and it's largely been dominated by republicans. right now it's three republicans and two democrats, and it's a swing district for the state, for the country as well as the partisan breakdown of delegation. mr. bilbray, if it stays a 3-2 spread, if mr. peters wins, that would -- for the first time in memory, i believe -- give the democrats a majority in the san diego delegation. if mr. peters got to the general election by defeating lori by a slim margin whereas mr. bilbray

was able to pretty much coast to the general election with minimal republican support. or opposition, excuse me. let me ask you a quick yes or no question. did you support proposition b, the pension reform initiative in san diego county, seeing how that has come up? peters: i don't think the ballot measure is the best way to address it. the best way to address these things -- because now it's in litigation, and i've never thought that was the best way to pursue those things. but i do support much of the substance, including continuing to work with our employees to hold the line on salaries and cap pension bl pay which is something we started back in 2004. >> moderator: thank you. mr. bilbray, did you support it? bilbray: i supported it strongly, mr. peters did not. the scary thing about this is not only did he create the crisis then claim he corrected it -- >> moderator: mr. bilbray, i would like you to stick to the

question. we have to go to a break, but we'll come back. again, we're here at the 52nd congressional district debate between brian bilbray and scott peters, and as you can see, they're starting to heat it up a little bit. we'll be coming back shortly for more questions on local and foreign issues. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> moderator: i'd like to welcome you back to the ut tv congressional debate between brian bilbray and democratic challenger scott peters. i'd like to move on to one of the issues we talked about on the fiscal cliff and all the fiscal issues that would be a

problem. medicare is a big part of that and what we would do with medicare. many believe the current system is unsustainable. the question i have for you is what would you two do to fix it? mr. peters, you first. peters: congress is letting medicare go bankrupt, and we have to fix it to preserve that benefit for seniors. we don't negotiate the cost of prescription drugs, we should do that. we should be rooting out fraud and overbilling which the gao, the government accounting office, just identified as a real problem, something we could work on to reduce our costs. we should take advantage of electronic recordkeeping, wireless medicine to provide better care, and ultimately, we should be changing our health care system from a sick care system that treats, that rewards treatment and visits to a health care system that rewards prevention. because if we can delay the onset of just, of the chronic diseases like congest ty heart failure or diabetes in the general population by ten years, we could make a huge reduction

in the cost of health care. that's what i'd like to do. now, what i don't support is what the ryan plan did which mr. bilbray supported which is turning the program into a voucher program that would send seniors out with a certain amount of money into a marketplace that has not shown it's competitive in a way that reduces prices. and, you know, give them the hope that maybe they'll have enough money to get that care. today, still, the biggest cause of personal bankruptcies is the inability of people to pay their medical bills, and we've got to get away from that. we have to save medicare, not end it like mr. bilbray supports. >> moderator: thank you, mr. peters. bilbray: i strongly support protecting and defending medicare, and the one way you start off is not by talking about supporting a cut out of medicare to start with. this is a contract that we have with seniors. we've promised seniors this service, and those that are over 55 know what exactly they have been promised for decades. we need to make sure we fulfill that. but we don't start by doing what

mr. peters suggested and support the concept of raiding the medicare fund so politicians can make more promises to more groups. i think it's essential we start with that. one way we reduce the cost of medicare is reduce the health care costs starting we eliminates trial lawyers out of our operating rooms. we've got to get the lawyers out of the process, allow doctors to provide cost effective health care to not only our seniors, but to our families. absolutely essential we start taking these tough fights, and you don't get the lawyers out of the operating room by sending a lawyer like mr. peters to washington to get the job done. >> moderator: doesn't the ryan plan do that as well? bilbray: the ryan plan makes sure that every senior that is getting services will be guaranteed their program. we're talking about developing a program for young people, those that are under 55. and saying to them we need a contract with you, and we will work with you for long-term,

sustainable contract. one of the greatest challenges for those of us who are seniors is that young people like mr. peters don't believe it'll be there when he gets there. >> moderator: mr. bilbray, if i could keep you on my question, does the ryan plan cut $700 -- bilbray: ryan plan does not touch any of the seniors' services, it actually holds off over ten years before we even consider looking at anything like that. >> moderator: okay, thank you. we have to go to another break. we're having a debate here with congressman brian bilbray and his challenger, scott peters. we'll be back in a moment. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> moderator: welcome back here at ut sand you go and the ut tv debate between brian bilbray and scott peters. scott, i wanted to give the floor to you. we were talking about made care and how to mix it. peters: it was "the wall street journal" that said the ryan plan would end medicare as we know it. it wasn't some left-wigger who said that. the other thing he says he's got me on tape twice saying that i wanted to

>> was to make sure that seniors are protected and guaranteed, that we are talking about young people, talking about in the future of how we can set up a contract with young people that are sustainable rather than talking about cutting to seniors, we're talking about working out an arrangement and actually proposing to give young

people a health plan much like the congressional health plan. so we actually have a menu that you can work with. but do it now. don't wait until the young people become seniors and then start pulling the rug out from under them. like mr. peters has done by talking about shifting some of our billing over the a health care program for somebody else rather than making sure that money stays here until we need it. >> moderator: are you suggesting the ryan plan would give seniors a planned equivalent to what members of congress get? bilbray: it is based on what the federal government gives to their employees, it's the basis of this whole thing. and that program is sustainable if we work with young people now so that they have that opportunity to plan for that. but not to start taking money out from people when they're seniors and have already made the commitment to, um, and depend on these services. so i think it's one thing to talk about we need to make sure that the system is sustainable, it's a totally different thing to start talking about cutting the services to seniors which i

think everyone reasonable would say that. what worries me is mr. peters says he's a, he's a moderate by proposing to make these cuts, and that's the part -- and that was on channel 51 he actually made that statement down the line. >> moderator: >> moderator: mr. peters -- peters: i would say in 2011 he voted to end medicare for everybody and to raise the cost for seniors over $6,000 a year on average. in 2012 he voted on a plan that would raise the cost of prescription drugs for seniors by $680, i believe. but the votes are there. he can speculate about and try to edit the tape about what my record will be, and i'm not supporting any cuts because i'm not in washington, i've not supported any of the obama proposals you're describing, i'm not in washington. but you don't have to speculate about mr. bilbray's record because he's voted twice on these issues, and you can look it up. >> moderator: okay. listen, we're going to have to go to another break, and when we come back, we will start looking at some social issues in terms

of same-sex marriage, the don't ask, don't tell repeal, abortion and equal pay for women. thank you very much, and we'll see you after the break. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> moderator: welcome back to ut san diego and the ut tv studios where we're having a congressional debate between congressman brian bilbray and scott peters. as i said before the break, i'd like to move on to certain social issues that are hot put beton -- button items not just here, but across the country. mr. peters, do you support

same-sex marriage? peters: i've been a supporter of marriage equality since about the year 2000. i'm a strong supporter of it, would advocate the repeal of the defense of marriage act at the congressional level. i think it's the right thing to do. i don't think there's any reason to discriminate when you're a government between one set of people and another. >> moderator: mr. bilbray? bilbray: let me say what i hear from my constituents. they say when you have a $16 trillion debt, when you're got one in ten people unemployed, you're talking about same-sex marriage during this crisis really kind of diverts on the crisis that effects everyone. i was a supporter and have been a supporter of domestic partnerships, and i think that was a moderate approach. what really concerns me about how this debate is going is americans are actually discussing a concept that we have to go to government to get a license for what people claim is a right. that is a scary place for us to go regardless of how you feel

about same-sex marriage. the entire premise that government could be in a position to where something's a right, you have to go get a license for them for the right to exercise that right. i think we're going on a ground that is very dangerous not just about this issue, but a lot of issues about the relationship between the individual and our government. >> moderator: didn't the government step in with the defense of marriage act? bilbray: actually marriage has always been defined by government. that is why you go to a license. that's why there's many conditions for being married. we accept that. because marriage wasn't a right. it has been controlled and managed by government. now if we are saying it's a right, then why are we even talking about licenses and government being able to pick and choose anyone? and, you know, the whole concept of filling out an application to execute a right is one that prix prix -- free-loving americans -- >> moderator: i'm having a little trouble following, it sounds like you're saying government shouldn't be involved

but government has a role -- bilbray: government has always had a role in defining marriage. it was a basic structure for protection of children. it wasn't about couples, it was about children. innocent individuals. it has always been that. i actually worked at the center for abused children. i see what happens with the breakdown in the family and that we forget about the little ones. one of the things we ought to consider here is are we saying now that marriage really isn't about the traditional institution, and we are going to basically redefine it. we can do that, but i just think that we ought to be careful about how far we're willing to go once we start talking about freedom and the right of government to control freedoms and require people to apply for the execution of their freedoms. >> moderator: thank you. scott, rebuttal? peters: i think that was a no. [laughter] >> moderator: moving on to another issue, the federal government repealed the don't ask, don't tell policy, the military's policy on gays

serving. do you support that repeal? bilbray: i think the repeal was a political action taken during a war. >> moderator: is that a yes or a no? bilbray: at that time, i definitely did not. >> moderator: do you now? bilbray: i think it's one of those items that need to be discussed after we're out of harm's way but not while men and women are in harm's way. i think those items are situations that we should talk about as a society. as a cultural perception, not as a military one. remember, our military is strained now to a large degree. i don't think anybody should be stressed out more on that, but i think we ought to allow them to fish their managers -- finish their mission and then in a civil matter have a dialogue about this but not at a time when we are fighting two wars. >> moderator: thank you. mr. peters? peters: i'm with nathan fletcher on this, he's endorsed my campaign, and he supports the repeal, and so do i. >> moderator: thank you very much. moving on to another lift issue

for some -- difficult issue for some people, do you support legalized abortion and federal funding for legalized abortion? peters: i'm strongly pro-choice. i'm endorsed by the planned parenthood action fund where i received 100% on my scorecard and was proud to receive their endorsement. i believe that the government should not be involved in making medical decisions for women whether you're a libertarian or not, i just don't think that's an appropriate role for government. women are capable of making those decisions, they ought to be empowered to as well. mr. bilbray, unfortunately, scored a 9 on that scorecard out of 100 and voted to defun planted -- defund planned parenthood. i don't think he's been standing up for women's ability to make those health care decisions in the way this district deserves. >> thank you. bilbray: i have three daughters, i know how important their health care decisions are. and the issue of a woman's

health should be made by the individual, and i think she should be protected. and i've stood up, and i've been attacked for standing up for the right for women to make that decision. but when it comes to abortion, government should stay out of the issue, and that is why i do not believe government should be financing abortion. i think the entire concept of government imposing itself into this issue either legally or financially is inappropriate, so i've stuck with that issue. ..

i worked with the community clinics to make sure that safety net is there. peters: i would say the point is it's not abortion. we're talking a voting against family planning and contraception which are basic components of health care. he voted against the. >> moderator: we need to take another break. we will be back to talk about immigration, more of a pension, and made a couple foreign issues if we have time left. thank you very much. we will be right back in a few. ♪

>> moderator: welcome back. i'm here with congressman brian bilbray and scott peters and her 52nd congressional district debate. covers a lot of ground in the first half of the show. from fiscal issues to social issues and medicare. what i'd like to do is move on the issue of immigration which is a huge nationwide issue and especially here in san diego. congressman bilbray, the issue the president issued an executive order deferred action for childhood arrivals. is to give the viewers a quick summary, to qualify for the federal probe them applicants must be under 31, have arrived in the u.s. before their 16th birthday, be in school or a

graduate, be honorably discharged from the military and had no criminal record. they must have been here for five years. do you support that? peters: no, i did not supported policy that is in violation of the law. i think we need to me quite clear that the real problem is these mixed signals. it's good for politics. it makes us feel good to try to accommodate those who have come here illegally. the trouble is someone blew up on the border to houses between my childhood home in the border. i've seen the costs at a loss of life. what the president ought to be doing is working across the aisle with all of us. there was a republican and democrat proposal to address the true cause of the problem of immigration, and it's not the border. is not giving enough amnesty programs. the real problem is employers hiring illegals and their today still giving tax deductions from the federal government. i think that's one place that democrats and republicans can work together. we have seen that kind of cooperative effort before. we should start with a cooperative effort. when you can get lou dobbs and

you can get ed schultz agreeing on immigration, why can congress get together? rather than arguing about what to do about those who are illegally here and causing more people to come, we should be talking about what brought them here. the employers are exploding the illegals. i think we are the basic decency of americans is stop giving taxpayers deduction state people are creating the problem, that are causing all of this. so again, we need to work together on this and i think eliminate the tax deduction for illegal employers is where we can address this issue, comprehensively and as a bipartisan effort. >> moderator: scott? peters: our immigration policy should be to, fair to taxpayers and practical. our first priority is to secure the border and make sure there's not crime, people trafficking guns or drugs or people across the border. and i think we all agree on that.

next the we have to come up with somewhere to figure out how to deal with 11 the people in the united states are undocumented. the same number of people that are in ohio. i think in that context the president order makes sense. it's a rationally weighed you with this. i think mr. bilbray on this particular issue, says we should working together because to does in six years one of the people that the real the governance of immigration reform favored by the message chamber of commerce. not exactly a left wing organization, and i think we have to get back to figuring out exactly how we work more sensibly, these people do. college of declaring them come to anything other than supporting them with mac is just not going to work. >> moderator: it's interesting you bring up -- rebuttal? bilbray: they now agree with me. that all employers should be verified. when i can bring a chamber of commerce out and make them cooperate in a comprehensive approach. but mostly a cooperative

approach, and where democrats, i've got people from north carolina who have been dyed in wool democrat to join with my caucus to work of this issue. issue. if you want to refer to the chamber of commerce and the opposition in the past, there's support to do not my candidacy but for a reasonable compromise crackdown on employers who are causing the problems. it's unfair to have to compete with illegal employers when you're playing by the rules transit do you agree today with the chamber of commerce today? bilbray: i know exactly this afforded them either of my university online transit are you supporting -- county argued for a limiting the tax deduction for employers of illegal immigrants? that's the problem, sky. where we can agree. everybody agrees we should do it. let's start there, build consensus and learn to work together on the easy stuff. before we start talking about the things we disagree with. that's what it takes to work together in congress. i know. i've done it. the trouble is you don't understand, you don't know what

you don't know. that's what's scary about this. there's important stuff to be done in the next few years, and you're way over your head when it comes to these issues transit and you have it under control it sounds like. go ahead. >> moderator: we have a short while left. before next break i do want to follow up on that. young people that qualify for deferred action program will be a will to apply for driver's license in california. should they be able, regardless of you on the federal program should they be able to drive legally in california? mr. peters. peters: generally i don't support having drivers license for people, but people under this, the people who are here illegally. if they're here legally i think they should get a drivers license. tragic after 9/11, congress passed a law, the president signed a law that those who are illegally here should not be getting drivers licenses. the definition is will be defined these people now as being legally here and exempt from that law?

and i think that is something quite clear there's a lot of people have always said we should give them drivers licenses. but after 9/11 where your terrorists who were given driver's license, got on the airplane and didn't have to show their foreign passport and killed 3000 americans and i think this is one thing we're all americans ought to be working together saying we will never allow that to happen by having someone who's undocumented get a drivers license so they get on that airplane. >> moderator: nice exchange. we have to pause for a break but we will be back shortly. ♪ >> moderator: back again with congressional debate. we've got a short segment here

but i did want to get back to the pension issue because both men seemed interested in.net that more. san diego was the poster child for pension problems. now the passed a pension overall plan that dredges 401(k)s for new employees and temporary freezes for current employees. mr. peters, did you support that and do you think that should be a model for the nation? peters: let's go back further because sandy goes pension underfunding started over three decades and for the three decades with a number of bad sectors. like a lot of cities, states and school districts around the country. on my first new year i didn't continue those practices which was a mistake. the difference is when we got into we may change. we are to outside auditors to tell us what was wrong and how to fix it. we banned under funds would pay the full payment now. we asked employees to step up and a higher cost other benefits. we held the line on raises. most folks haven't had raises. i negotiate a new pension system

for new employees that was a the $23 million a year. at the end of our decade, the sec's own mother called san diego a model for other cities to follow. that's a stark contrast to congress which a look at a model for anything. >> moderator: i will have to ask you to wrap up. tragic if you took out the problem why did the voters have to dash and issued in by 60% what she didn't learn your lesson. with any of leaving the council, he went to the district and made a motion that include consideration of underfunding the retirement program. peters: that is false thank you mr. peters can you made a motion and your fellow commissioners talked you out and ask a got you to reverse and drop the item called negative amortization but you asked to consider including that. and everyone of the other commissioners called you down and after -- >> moderator: i have to go to an ad right now. we will be back shortly for the closing statements from the

candidates. ♪ >> moderator: welcome back. our congressional debate. closing argued from scott peters and brian bilbray. peters: what mr. bilbray was saying when he says he knows how to do it is that things are just fine in congress. apparently he thinks it's fine with sequestration, that we have this threat of 30,000 jobs to be lost, $3500 tax increases for the average family. apparently he thinks that gridlock is fun. he thinks it's fine, take a pledge he reaffirms what the tea party this year that he wouldn't compromise. that prevents us from balancing

the budget. that's just not what we need. we don't need that political kind of sense but when you sense of how to get things done. that's what i brought in my career, whether it's we got downtown redevelopment, cleaning up our beaches and they come expanding our convention center, or building a new waterfront. that's why i have support from across the border by democrats, and also independence, and mr. bilbray mentioned the message chamber of commerce. but local folks, three former chamber -- republicans, and the executive director of the taxpayers as an individual are supporting me. why are they supporting the? they've not seen in a problem-solving out of washington that we deserve. we can do better. with your support, with your vote, we will and ask for your support and vote. thank you. >> moderator: think you. brian bilbray can you get the final say. bilbray: thank you very much. scott, i hope you listen to the day before you tonight, review.

i don't want you to make this mistake again. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for watching tonight. the fact is that when mr. peters needed somebody to work on the struggle of keeping our cruise ship in san diego, he asked me to take on, wrote letters along with mayor sanders because they knew i was a go to guy. mr. peters and they talk about bipartisanship but even though he's in washington he couldn't come into my office and talk to me. yet staff come in and do it because he couldn't cross the aisle. if you can cross the aisle when you're commission, how are you going to do it when you're in congress? there's a lot of challenges. one of the things i really enjoyed is support and endorsement of nonpolitical groups but being named legislator of the year for the children's hospital. being named to legislate of your for the melanoma foundation, and getting the endorsement that mr. peters wanted of the people that are working on these issues. but today you have a choice between somebody who is a failed leadership