package from the banking sector to support this hedge fund. that was 99. complexity risk may be little liquidity risk scenario. this time just two years to 2,001. we had one of the most frightening cases of systemic risk when the world trade center towers came down. at that point because of where the terrorists struck, not accidentally, they meant to head the heart of the financial system as well as taking out thousands of innocent lives, we came very close to a shutdown of the global payment system, not a small issue because all of it was pretty much buried under the towers and it blew. the fed rushed in with $87 billion at that point, more than it had ever put into the financial market ever before. basically took over the payment

system, held the system together with glue because no one expected this and we came out the other side. that's operational risk. we don't think about that much in financial markets with solvency risk, the credit crisis started back with the so-called less developed country one. complexity starting to be thought about in the second systems. the concentration of systems with complexity and the dependence of the world financial markets of this infrastructure that operational risk. that's an important for us to become a force of the systemic risk. after 2001 puttered again and then we hit 2007, 2008 and i will call this crisis that eager banker hypophysis in which it was unjust bankers, shadow bankers, rating agencies are regulators asleep at the switch, things of omission and

commission and we came very close to the brink of another great financial crisis. fine. in 2009 we had the european crisis going on before would of course because of the weaknesses in the 2008 debacle, all of the tabling of the european regulators have been doing for decades, and alludes to that was real and we had the e.u. crisis. another operational risk crisis the japanese tsunami an earthquake. these things happen on what and it's not just the ivar bangerter hypothesis that accounts for it. they are powerful to the sure but there are still dangers beyond their control and beyond the regulatory control so what should be done about all these causes of systemic risk in this

complex and dangerous world? i think we need a balanced regulatory structure. not a few simple fixes which largely rely on capital. capital is important but it doesn't cure operational but you can't find at. you can have the same buckets of capital, but in a liquidity crisis if your capital is not in a readily accessible form you can't mobilize it to support your institution. life is more complicated, banks are more complicated. signs suggest you have to answer one question. who runs the infrastructure and i discussed the infrastructure and the derivatives and there are many others. we need to think about that pity even if you top j.c. -- j.c.

penney -- [laughter] jpmorgan, far more formidable in many pieces, you would still have to deal with the payment system on which all of those pieces still need to sit for us to have an efficient financial infrastructure and i don't know how little those pieces should be. i read the paper, i read many others. i see a lot of discussion of making banks smaller, not a lot of agreement on the size. the only specific proposal that i'm aware in the policy arena is the legislation on senator brown of ohio to require banks to hold no more than 2% in their wholesale liabilities in the relationship to gdp they have lots of numbers and dodd-frank demonstrates these issues are in perfect.

i think jerry said that. this is tough. we can debate the size and complexity issues in a dangerous world, so what to do now. and i think here we need the balanced regulatory framework that i mentioned before. the few, relatively simple things. the dodd-frank framework, the global regulatory arena is very complicated with a lot of unintended crosscutting affect that i think about as bumper cars. the studies put out were discussed in an earlier panel tried to take this on by looking at major financial rules knocking them out for the key provisions intended affects an unintended. we don't say what these unintended results will happen. we met them out to see how each of the rules fits together if there is a coherent framework.

dennis commented that this paper was supported by the seat of his industry and financial markets as a motion. it was. but it's my work. my firm and i welcome any comments and questions and if there's anything wrong will put out a corrected version. look across the frame work rules to see how they might altogether. then as we look at the operational impediment to acting on rules, every and intended consequence of each of the rules and the map is wrong. they deal with the evil banker hypophysis and the liquidity of the capitol and a couple other systemic risks should all of them be implemented. and i think the answer there is no. we have an ideal of a global account and global accounting rules. we don't have the extraterritorial roles in the

road and we don't have key fundamental tenants of making a lot of the rules work and the capacity to ensure that they do. in the title to our third paper takes a hard look at this to see if indeed to debate on that and the differences of opinion is a perfect? is it tested? not yet but it's a meaningful statutory barrier to too big to fail. we need to make that happen and make it robust. the regulators have all the tools they need. if a big bank jpmorgan follows a court living well and doesn't show the banking industry that it can be resolved into

bankruptcy they give the bankruptcy to the cub and the opportunity to break that piece of into the agency said it can be resolved. if it is too complex, dodd-frank tells the agency's utah the same banks no more cross border branches, structure yourself so you are more easy to resolve. we need to hold the regulators accountable for acting on those living wills so the big banks are as the law requires made more resolvable and not step away and say it won't ever happen let's just do something else on which no one agrees and few specifics are in hand. orderly resolution i think is important and vital. new capital rules and liquidity rules and a keen eye to operational risk management all of which can be best ensured not only by new rules but by tough standards that pulled a

corporate boards and directors of the top and senior management from the accountable for ensuring that their institutions take no more risk than they can afford on their own. thank you very much. [applause] i promised each of the panelists brief follow-up statement, so why don't we start in the same order the presentations were given. would you like to add anything? >> are red like to emphasize if you've got the general gist of it that we don't know where the lessons are coming from and we don't know what it is going to look like and we are not ready. i would just like to emphasize that. there are things we can do to understand risk better because it is a nuance of risk that has shifted into the market exception at the reaction to that risk. it's not visible, it's faster and the damage is much more. we know the next time this happens and it happens for real

and as reiterated. >> the papers some put together in their country inns of ms. and their quality and were they highlighting that there are so many unintended consequences and so many crosswinds even with the rules that have been adopted and those that are yet to be finalized but it does create a great deal of complexity risk even if one were to hold forbes accountable or want to do the right thing at this point we find so many are struggling and spending so much time trying to understand the rules and then last on the operational difficulty we are introducing a number of new entrants if you

look into the system through dodd-frank whether it is the central clearing, and i think that we are all sort of understating the complexity in handling all of these and being prepared to sort of put this which -- put the switch in a way that we all have great confidence. >> three follow up points. one for anna. to many of us to participate in the discussions and followed dodd-frank and go to the regulatory hearings, the complexity of the current regulations looks very much like the outcome of enormous amount of assistance on their being the complexity of a lot of added rules for example run of the volcker rule which they then turn and say now what is so complex it is not workable so you have to excuse me and

several other americans for feeling -- for feeling that the industry is playing av wrong political strategy essentially defeating the financial reform, and if it is as a result with the fdic or with any other agency shifts away from this obstructive lobbying it would be huge. two points i've read your paper and they're very forthright and you should be commended for that but first of all, do you agree under the current circumstances

very large bank holding companies can borrow more cheaply than as the case for smaller and medium-sized banks and according to people like sheila bair what we do in a continued perception they are too big to fail and the second question to you is i and stand your point of the liquidation and use them very succinctly tell me how a global mega bank that is operating in 70 countries or 100 countries, to entered thousand people working around the world would be very complex and anna nicely analyzed. what the liquidation be implemented by the fdic and the fed represented by the treasury when the banks are so large and

complex and there is no cross border global resolution authority? >> the great questions and i will start off by agreeing with you. the body of law and the rule is incredibly complicated. some of that does pertain to the evil banker hypophysis amended hipaa the corollary. [laughter] i would add my own cause which is the typical regulator it and abetted by the officers. in my practice i spent a lot of time. in the battles of these rules and when you say okay i think i haven't here is the definition of proprietary trading some say it was the case of 1942 in which

that definition was not upheld so for this to be clear we need another 52 pages in the that is maybe good lawyering but incoherent rulemakings. i don't know what to do about it i just cite this as one of my personal favorite type of disease with complexity risk and why i go back to the clear standards to which we hold institutions accountable i've written in my own view that's fine if we can define it and if you can't control it to make some clear decisions here, this current never land largely construct the bye people doing the job they've been doing and it's creating a very particular dangerous form of systemic risk which gets to your questions.

we have a square peg which is the market perception that very big banks remove too big to fail and the last hole of the orderly liquidation of farby which is a statutory prohibition in the united states to doing so. some people tell me that in contradiction congress would intervene and fix it somehow and when you find the contras that fixes any anything any time you let me know. mevel lot is very clear. could the fed somehow override that barrier and statin? mabey. title the levin doesn't get a lot of attention. it borrows the fdic from doing a lot of what they did in 2008 quite definitively. so at the very least, it's hard if not impossible say you have a very bad situation in which the markets may be engaging in an

ongoing hazard accounting for some of the funding differential that simon of lightly references at the same time they are playing a morally without the safety net that would save them meaning that market shock in the case of either operational, sovereignty or liquidity risk of a large institution would be worse. it would be lanham brothers on steroids. that's what scares me and why we need to go back to the liquidation of authority. could work in across borders attritions? does anything work in a cross border situation? not well to read about 80% of all banks offshore assets are held in the u.k. and that is particularly true for the wholesale oriented institutions like jpmorgan. they are operating in 70 countries but to what they've got in bulgaria is not systemic. maybe in bulgaria is. that is a different question. to chase and the u.k. it isn't.

those are afterthought operations. that's why the u.s. and the u.k. are very fall along and what they called a crisis management group to resolve that aspect of cross border banking. is it done? no peery dividing durkan and i can answer your questions with a lot more confidence. >> one thing we ought to think about is the monetary policies that are accommodated during this period it's the sort of risk and the distorted returns. it is at issue and concern that might be in the next crisis. the other thing is what we have all heard today from everybody is dodd-frank isn't perfect but it also has some useful elements we ought to think about what the cause and effect is and continue to think about it. the orthodoxy that dodd-frank is the only solution i think it's

scary because the role of the markets and everything else. if we think dodd-frank is what is it and save us from the next crisis people are going to go around it. islamic you talked about the monetary fiscal policy. you're new book deals with that. can you give us a very short observation on what is looming for us in the united states on the fiscal monetary policy. >> first of all i would encourage everyone to read the work of, again, on this issue they have some longer papers if you don't have time for that but it's a great editorial piece they published in "the wall street journal" september of 29 called the blog that eight monitoring policy and they talk about how the too big to fail financial institutions undercapitalized taking the risk having big loss is operating in the form and made of monetary

policy was effective when you go into the crisis said the mechanisms don't work. the fascinating question is what would happen as we recover assuming we do and i think we will recover and how will that affect the ability of the monitor policy to control the economy and the body or the impact they will have in the fiscal policy? on the fiscal cliff issues and the disruption from the political chaos after the election i would worry about not so much the direct impact on us but much more the stock market and how to affect other countries to take the europeans and through an increase in the premium globally because they're running into the u.s. treasury's because there were so destabilized that what happened in the summer of last year they are spread in france or italy or spain.

our ability to damage is very important. i still worry about how the comeback through the financial system and impact of monetary policy i don't think anybody here is evil. they are just doing their job. >> thank you so much. [laughter] >> don't lawyers have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of their client? >> right. spec that's what i thought. >> within the bounds of law. >> i don't know if they are evil because we haven't been properly investigated or prosecuted. [laughter] >> it's not my hypothesis. my hypothesis is people doing their job and the management is acting in the interest of shareholders and that's exactly

what you need to lead you into a huge disasters. people doing their jobs and the rest in a certain way that's the problem. >> i don't think it is their job. what did doing their job do for the shareholder value and washington mutual? wachovia let alone the biggest banks trading at very small fractions of their book value? every one of the board of directors of those banks in devotee of the ceos including some incumbents were not doing their jobs nor were the regulators. >> the stepped down two years ago and i read in sheila bair's books that she felt that in october of 2008 the stock price is down 92%. where was the board of directors, where are the board of directors today?

break up the banks and look at the mega banks compared to the medium-sized banks. >> by then, make them more efficient. >> if you want response of a larger scale in this count the have to be long-term economic plan of how they will manage the debt over the next ten years. if we don't convey that to the market we are setting ourselves up again. >> i will conclude by saying someone was talking about the issue of why the u.s. dollar was the strongest currency in a way that treasury is the most sought after global currency and an expert said you have to realize the u.s. may simply be the most attractive bourse in the glue

factory. please come and join me and thanking the panel for wonderful discussion. [applause] we are now moving across the street to the barbara center across 21st street for lunch -- [inaudible] right across 21st street.

if you missed any of our coverage including mary schapiro's speech earlier it's an hour video library at c-span.org.

she is the wife of agriculture secretary and former i would governor tom vilsack. this comes to us from ipt and carroll iowa. [applause] i was congressional district the shifting population creates a dramatically different fourth district. ames and mason city specifically

now joining sioux city in anchoring the previously predominantly rural district republican steve king has been representing in the khan crestor in the past ten years. and he's been winning the election by a fairly comfortable margin getting a fifth with two-thirds of the chaos two years ago. but rita esters the delete redistricting with the demographics may be deluding the republican dominance and that is what kristi vilsack may have been hoping for when she moved to ames declaring candidacy for the congressional seat. she's familiar with the district traveling as i was the first lady during tom vilsack's eight years as governor. welcome to "iowa press." and of course both of you are familiar with the format but we are in a different setting here with an audience in addition to

our television viewers but in the audience here watching and listening they promised to not cheer at all and we don't want to hear from them that they will be cheering at the beginning and at the end. questions in this special edition of all "iowa press" will be coming from sioux city journal political brad hayworth and radio on you news director kay henderson. >> this past weekend at an iowa democratic fund raiser, you told democrats that you were running to prove that being a woman was no longer a barrier to public office in iowa. are you asking voters to set aside consideration of your views on issues and vote for you because you are a woman? vilsack: not at all. i think the delegation would be stronger for having a woman and to higher office i would be proud to be the first.

a small part person i think being 62-years-old i bring to this and certainly being a woman. but i think those make a candidate that provides a different view and temperament is when to be important. this time and the nation's history when you need people who are resolute and get things done but i don't think this is that time, and i think it is said the best by a man that approaches and says i'm not a democrat, i'm not a republican, and the american and i wish congress would start acting like they are americans, too. as a problem solver not a fighter and certainly, i -- there are a lot of issues i want to address. >> we will get to those later.

mr. king when you're speaking with i above republicans this past week you told them that mrs. vilsack was sort of left of san francisco. you also said that democrats aim to create chaos in order to gain power. could you explain that? king: chaos from fiscal irresponsibility and a potential meltdown of our economy which would come eventually if we didn't balance our budget. yes, you look at the groups that have supported mrs. vilsack, those over spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on campaigns. they are out there in san francisco, and one of them would be a chess u.s. the antimeat lobby and it's a pretty easy case to make. this is someone that i think his posture themselves as a centrist it's an entirely different story and i don't say that with regard to the woman issue. i told several women get elected office and i was the one that

nominated the lieutenant governor of the state convention. the governor says she might not have one that nomination if it hadn't been for me had the key thing for her. the last was merriam. i campaigned with her and mrs. vilsack worked against her.

relatively easy thing to vote the district and sit in your office in washington and come back home and work to get reelected but if you want to take this to another level you have to go outside the district and sell iowa values to the rest of the country. that is what i've been doing. >> moderator: go ahead. vilsack: congressman king has said this agenda to move this country to the right. i want to represent the 750,000 people in my district and concentrate how we grow the economy in these 39 counties. we lost population and a congress people. >> moderator: let's talk about the economy. >> if you're in congress what could you do to accelerate the economy from

the sluggish economy. vilsack: i said i'm very focused on the local and i am. i would start on the local. i said i saw the world and this district through the lens of a teacher. i see my job much the way i would on the first day of school with all the promise that entails tails. and i would like at these counties as 39 separate entities as many different communities. i would want to make sure that i helped each of them maximize their potential by creating jobs. i have spent the last year-and-a-half laying out my plan for layers of economic opportunity and you know i always carry my football with me, one of the things i talk about is creating another layer of bio economy and making things from what we grow within 10 or 15 miles from all the small towns. >> moderator: those watch us what would the football have to do? vilsack: the football is made of soybean. almost any car people drove up in came from destreets

and seats are made from to product. there are plastic bottles from coca-cola or using cow manure to creates a fault. we can make what we have here within 10 or 15 miles in this community. >> mr. king in 2013 and 2014 what needs to be done to stimulate the economy in congress? king: it is pretty clear what i have done. i introduced the legislation for biodiesel. today i represent the number one renewable energy producing congressional district in all of america. i also made it clear from a business standpoint that government doesn't create jobs. what government has to do is get out of the waive so that entrepreneurs can have a chance for profit. if they do that they will invest their capital. investing capital. earning profit turns into jobs and that's prosperity. what government needs to do is have a low, stable, predictable tax rate, so that those trillions of dollars that are stranded sitting there waiting because of the indecision will be invested in the economy and we've got to lower our regulation burden

on businesses. when i was in business i counted 43 agencies regulating my trade. there are a lot more now. i would say there is not a single company in america that has a banner on their home website, notice, we're proud we're in compliance with all federal regulations. no one would dare do that and government would come in and eventually they would be shut down. >> mr. king i like to ask you to pinpoint, what year would you say that u.s. economy will be fully recovered with an acceptable rate of employment? king: that's an awfully hard thing to measure. we don't know who will win the election. if i knew that i would be a little more bold in what i would predict. what i think you will see, if we win a majority, we'll hold majority in the house. if we win majority in the senate and mitt romney is next president and paul ryan is the next vice president we will move quickly on an agenda to stablize these tax rates. i tell you by the time mitt romney is up for re-election i think by then we'll see recovery and see unemployment drop at least point and a half. >> what is the acceptable rate? what would you consider to

be the acceptable rate of unemployment? king: when i was in iowa senate we had 2% unemployment rate. we call that full employment economy. i would keep trying to drive the unemployment rate down as far as i could. i would never accept that everybody would be working until everybody is working. >> what would you put the number nationally? king: i think we would be very comfortable if we get the number down to 4%. i say in that zone, but i would never let up. >> miss vilsack, your response. vilsack: we have gridlock in congress and congressman king hasn't done of much for 10 years in congress and we need he needs to be held responsible for that. we feed farm bill. that is important legislation for this district and people in this room and people in rural america. >> will that affect the rate of unemployment? vilsack: i think it will because i think the farm bill, certainly because people are not, investing, people feel insecure right now because the farm bill expired. it will be hard for farmers to go to the bank to get

credit next year. it will be hard for young farmers to know what the rules are in terms of leasing equipment and leasing land and, so there's a security. it is not just the farm bill --. >> moderator: let me interrupt. we'll get to the farm bill in deeper discussion later on but bret's question was acceptable rate of unemployment in your view? vilsack: the rate in this district is 2% on the west and 5% at the highest on the east of the district. so if we could get the national rate down to what is the high rate in our direct, then i think that would be -- >> roughly what time period? what year are we talking, would you guess? vilsack: you can't know unless you can say congress is going to actually get something done. i mean nothing is going to happen if we don't have a farm bill and infrastructure bill, jobs bill. >> moderator: let me ask one more thing concerning unemployment. how long, mrs. vilsack, should unemployed men or women be entitled to unemployment benefits?

vilsack: well i think that really helps protect people in this downturn in the economy but i think you have to make sure at that people don't continue to depend on those but you have to make sure that we actually have a recovery and we need to protect people. >> moderator: mr. king? how long unemployment benefits should be continued for those who are unemployed? king: i didn't hear an answer to the question when you asked mrs. vilsack. my answer is 26 weeks. >> moderator: far beyond that now. king: now 99 weeks. and extended again. we need to understand there is not a lot of return on that investment. people age 63 when they're promised 99 weeks of unemployment that is early retirement. people who have skills whose job skills atrophy because they don't go back to work. i have companies coming to me saying we're identifying people on the streets drawing unemployment. we can't hire them off unemployment. when we know it runs out the minute they run out of unemployment benefits. it is not good return on

investment we need a safety net. the safety net traditionally was 26 weeks. that is where i stand. >> moderator: coming back to you to answer the question if you wish. 26 weeks? vilsack: i don't think we have to have a definite time. we need to look at the recovery and make sure we take care of people being unemployed. the answer to it is to take care of the gridlock and actually get something done. and again, nothing has been done in congress and i think we need to hold the people there responsible for. if you keep sending the same people back and expect a different result, that is just not going to happen. i think we need infrastructure bill. we need a jobs bill. we need a farm bill. we need immigration reform bill. we need education bill. nothing has happened in congress. this is the most ineffective congress in my lifetime. maybe in the history of congress an congressman king is one of the most ineffective congresspeople in our delegation. >> moderator: i will ask you more about that later. >> mrs. vilsack, i would like to ask you a question similar to that asked of the

vice-presidential candidates in their debate. as a catholic how has your view on abortion been shaped by your religion? vilsack: i'm not catholic. i'm episcopalian. so i guess i can't answer that question. >> your husband is catholic. vilsack: my husband is catholic. i'm an episcopalian. my children are catholics. my children were baptized in the catholic church and we raised our children as catholic. i would be happy to talk about my view on abortion. my view on abortion, it should be safe, legal and rare. i worked really hard on the rare part for the last 3 1/2 years because i wanted to make sure this just wasn't something that divided us politically but i would would with the people of my state at the local level to make sure we could figure out a way to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and give young men and women an opportunity to get a job, get established in their first job and get ant education.

i've been working with organization that basically doing research has beginning evidence to show we reduced number of a, bos in iowa by 26% and number of unintended pregnancies by 8%. iowa initiative, people running it now because i'm not there have been in washington this we can talk about the results of this and we hope it will be a model for the nation but i think it is important to do something about abortion. we won't have to talk about abortion if we make sure that people have access to, to contraceptives. i would like congressman king actually to explain what his view is on that because he basically has said, only ames high school in the last few days. i would like to know whether he believes women in this community have the opportunity, have the right, the legal right to go into the drugstore down the street and fill a prescription for birth control pills or go out to new opportunities and, and get some of the new long-acting reversible contraceptives at local

family planning clinic. i don't think he made his position clear on that. >> mr. king, would you like to make your position clear on that. king: i think that is brazen toe make a misstatement here in iowa and around the country. that is manufactured from the other side of aisle. manufacture flows as far as the president of the united states in a tweet his people put out earlier today. this comes from me, explaining something and that is a case called griswald versus connecticut. that was 1965. that was when the supreme court said that there is constitutional requirement that prohibited the states from banning the sale of contra separate i was it. i accept that decision as constitutional. if anybody advised otherwise i would tell them why don't you go onto something you could be constructive with. here is something that is a valid point that is constructive and it is a difference between us that is not manufactured. and that is this. the prenda act. we have babies in america and in iowa that are being aborted simply because they are little baby girls,

because the mother wants a boy instead of a girl. we have evidence that. coming from the asian community as well. we have legislation before congress that prohibits sex selected abortion. mrs. vilsack says thinks it is ridiculous to talk about and iowans don't care about that. i think it matters and matters to the little girls being aborted. vilsack: congressman king you need to let the people of iowa know whether you believe in the right to privacy which was put forth in griswald versus connecticut? do we have the right to privacy under the constitution to allow us to go into the local pharmacy and purchase contraceptives? i think that is an important question for people to know of all generations here. king: if you were listening you heard me say i accept the decision to griswald. vilsack: i take that as a no. king: well you misunderstand it. >> mr. king, do you support an amendment to the u.s. constitution which is sometimes called the personhood amendment? it was proposed to the state of mississippi in the past

election and failed? king: i would want to look at language of that amendment which i said. generally speaking i'm inclined to be supportive defining life at moment of conception and natural death. i'm completely consistent with the catholic church, basic five prince piledz of the church concluding abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and the answer is likely but i want to see the language. >> mr. king, on the floor of congress you showed a scale model of a wall you said should be built on the southern border with mexico. do you feel like that is the way to go? king: what i said about that, people said we can't build a wall. well, it will get right down to the tipping kerr toys and show them because simply mental block how easy it is. i put together a model went down to the wall and here is how we do it. we could build a mile of this a day. that was the demonstration to put aside that argument

that we couldn't do such a simple thing. 5500 miles of great wall of china. why would we think america couldn't build couple thousand. my position is this we don't have to build 2,000 miles of wall on the border. we build that till they stop simply going around the end that is the simple equation. >> wall details what? concrete barrier? brief explanation of that. king: pretty interesting when the president rid chruled a wall he was standing 600 feet from four walls, four fences and walls and two moats along the border but i described it as this. it is a type of concrete system you would slip form a foundational trench, drop into it precast concrete panels and, build that, build that wall up. and you would have to have routes on either side it to patrol it. likely put chain-link fence near the border and fence upstream from there. we're spending $12 billion on our southern border. $6 million a mile.

only costs us $4 million to pave a four-lane highway 20. >> talking about immigration is what we're talking about but mrs. vilsack, president obama has been more aggressive deportation of illegal immigrants than what president bush had been. if you join congress would you be supportive of that trend continuing? >> the most important thing to make sure we secure our borders. we need to make them secure. we need to do whatever we need to do to make them them secure people who are not crossing the border illegally or guns and drugs are not crossing illegally. so we need to protect the border. i also think that we need to make sure that jobs go to lawful americans but we need immigration rerecall to. we need to make sure that there is a pathway to citizenship for 11, to 13 million people who are here, this is who are in the shadows. i'm not talking about amnesty but i'm talking about paying fine, going to the end of the line, deporting felons and we need to make sure that we also,

that the young people who are here who came here through no fault of their own get a chance at the american dream because many of them have, offered their lives for their country. congressman king also talked about the fence in terms of electricity and he used, language that i think is reprehensible and embarrassing to the people of iowa when he says we use cattle prods on animals why not electricity on people? >> moderator: you frownedded at that. that is false statement. i. king: i will not respond to that. it is false. >> moderator: mr. king, dennison which is one in your district, has influx of english speaking or people who need help in english speaking communication. there are several communities like that not to the extent of dennison itself but do you think communities like that need some special assistance, maybe even federal assistance in the way that the military assists communities affected by a

nearby military base with influx of children into the school districts and other infrastructure? do you think communities should get some special assistance when they are in that sort of bind? king: see i was born in storm lake. i graduated from high school in dennison. i live halfway between those two communities. those are communities most likely to make that kind of and ask. i haven't had that kind of request come to me but i know we have esl classes going on and volunteers and other systems out there. so i don't know there is a short fall of that kind of service. if there is i hope people will come to talk to me about it. but i'm not going to make a commitment to something it is clear there is a need. but i do want to see a simulation into this society. >> moderator: mrs. vilsack. you heard the question. special assistance for people impacted by population groups if. vilsack: i think that is interesting question. bob ray, governor ray brought the southeast asian

families many years ago and we had a really good way to make sure they became a part of the communities. churches volunteered in small towns to be sort of the mentors for these families. when many of our latino families came to the meatpacking plants there was no such buffer. at state level when tom was governor we created iowa centers that helped with all the issues an transition issues to fill the buffer. i think that is really interesting idea. i don't know exactly how you would move it forward but i think it is certainly an interesting thing to contemplate. >> moderator: go ahead. >> one more question on immigration, mr. king, yes or no are you planning to sue, in june you announced you wanted to sue president obama over change in policy that younger people would not be deported for a period of time. are you still planning that lawsuit? >> i believe that the president has violated the constitution just like tom vilsack did when he thought he could legislate by executive order. this president can not legislate by executive edict or memorandum.

i intend to follow through on that. i ran into a few barriers because of the election. it was bogging people down. so the answer is yes. >> how soon? where do you stand on that? king: process? >> yes. king: there are some plaintiffs that will not be able to come onto the scene until after the election and, so i said i will hold the suit up until after the election and i expect that this year we'll be able to complete the preparations for that and get the suit filed. >> moderator: mrs. ville sack -- vilsack, you wanted to respond? vilsack: the answer would be we wouldn't have this issue if congress did its job. congress didn't do its job doing immigration reform. one broon much government doesn't work very well another branch steps in here. i think the president took a necessary step. >> moderator: you both and your supporters are augmenting in person campaigning with extensive broadcast advertising. we'll see a couple of examples right now. first a commercial from mrs. vilsack's campaign.

vilsack: i'm chris at this vilsack and i approved this message. ♪ . >> moderator: mr. king, mrs. vilsack has previously outside that commercial called you an embarassment to iowa. came close to that already this evening. do some of the quotes there, though embarass you, wish you had them back? king: i have said of one of her previous commercials that by the time i eliminated the questions and misstatements and dishon necessity only thing left i'm christie vilsack and i approved this message. this one actually has in it one statement that is true and rest are false.

the one that is true, the statement that i made about the vote on hurricane katrina. i believe that the $51.8 billion. and i said that there will be all kind of wasted fund. there is no plan to spend it. i got beaten up by many newspapers around but i stood on that and said it is a principled vote and easier to defend every day and as a matter of fact of fact, here's, king was right. sioux city journal's response to that after they saw what happened after i voted no on katrina funding. i stand on what is true. balance of that is false. this was a good vote. i had several better ones since then. that is repeal, voting against obamacare, voting for repeal of obamacare. voting against cap-and-trade. voting against dodd-frank. there were better votes from a big policy perspective but that was a good principled vote i put up the rest of those allegations are false. vilsack: said it was best vote he had taken in congress. one of 11 congressman, congresspeople who actually took a vote against hurricane katrina relief.

i think everything i said in that ad is true. we have researched all of it. these are congressman king's own words. >> moderator: mr. king is also using a commercial to define mrs. vilsack. let's see what it says. >> what does it mean that christie vilsack support as tax hike on small businesses? it means that christie vilsack is for increasing taxes on iowa's job creators, making it harder to grow their businesses and create jobs. it means in this stagnant economy, christie vilsack will hurt job creation. it means christie vilsack doesn't have a clue on jobs. national federation of independent business is responsible for content of this ad. >> moderator: mr. king. you have seen the ad. how do you respond? king: first time i've seen that ad but i'm happy to respond to it and that is, that mrs. vilsack has said she wants to let the tax increase kick in on

millionaires and a lot of our millionaires are the job creators, small business people. so i think that's consistent and accurate but it is first time i've seen it. it is not my ad. >> mrs. vilsack you asked for the ad to be pulled, why? vilsack: because i have never said i wanted to raise taxes on, never said i wanted to raise taxes except on millionaires. it is not about small businesses. i think one of the reasons they're running that ad because i've done such a good job of talking about what i want to do to build the economy and rebuild the middle class and small towns. my whole reason for running for congress is to make sure that we have economic opportunity in these small towns and accept for saying that millionaires should have to pay a little bit more, i certainly haven't said anything else about raising taxes. i actually thought the proposal that he was here talking about maybe suspending some of the tax, tax issues for small businesses would be possibly

something else that is a good idea that is worth looking into. >> there is another ad a lot of people who live in this district are seeing on their television sets which there is photo of you and a photo of nancy pelosi. i'm wondering how you respond when folks such as congressman king accuse you of being a nancy pelosi clone? vilsack: well, you know, i think everybody, one of the things about this district is that i represented it for eight years. traveled all over the world representing this district and i see every small town in this district just like my small town, the town i grew up in. i see all the people in this district like my friends and neighbors. i'm just iowa. that's who i am. i am just iowa. >> mr. king you accused her just being just to the left of san francisco. could you again articulate in response to her saying she is just iowa? king: again i didn't hear the answer to the question they asked, kay. it was about nancy pelosi. i will tell you this is what i know.

i know of christie vilsack if elected to the united states congress the first voight she would put up would be a vote for nancy pelosi. it is a constitutional requirement. not slipping in there and walking out you have to stand up and shout the name of the person that you vote for speaker of the house. that is really the question that is in from the time of us here i didn't hear the answer to that. >> mrs. vilsack? vilsack: we have no idea whether nancy pelosi will be candidate for speaker of the house. may be a lot of other people interested for the job. i would never presume, i had a job to be answering a question like that but i would certainly take into consideration the other people who might be interested in the job and i will make a decision at that time. but there is no assurance that i would, that i would vote for nancy pelosi or anybody else until i get the job. >> one of the things about the ads you're both running you are each accusing the other of not being a person who embodies iowa values. i would like for you each in one sentence, briefly to describe to me what iowa

values are. mr. king? king: well iowa values are faith and family and freedom and smart, hard work and free enterprise and we're rooted in the soil. all new wealth comes from the land. we raise it out of here and value add to that as close to the corn stalk or bean stem as we can as many times as we can. it is work ethic. a faith ethic. i have gone to all 382 towns in this congressional district. i live here. my roots are here. i didn't move here to run for this race and i will be living here after november no matter what happens. >> mrs. vilsack. vilsack: when i did my tour as i was starting my campaign i did a ture called the value of work and asked people around the district to help identify those values we had in common because i knew this would probably be a race that was divisive. what people told me was certainly value of work was important. value of service to country. value of stew wardship of the land. family, and so, education, actually, not just as an

issue but people who i talked to in the 39 counties actually said education was intrinsic who we are in iowa. those are some of the basic values that heard and i think that pretty much heard congressman king say pretty much the same thing. so i don't think that we're that far apart what we would agree on in terms of what our basic values are. >> one last thing. he accused you of being a carpetbagger. what is your response to that? vilsack: i think same response i just made. all of these towns, i represented everybody in this district for eight years. all of the towns and people in them feel like --. >> moderator: as iowa's first lady? vilsack: yes, first lady. i travel auld over the country and all over the world representing people in this state and certainly this district. i represented everybody in the district. congressman king i think represented about 48%. so, i think i represent the values of this district. >> moderator: let me ask it this way, mrs. vilsack. would you be comfortable

with some of the organizations that were portrayed in, the ad that kay refers to, would you like to have them along your side campaigning for you? vilsack: i'm not sure which organizations you're talking about? >> moderator: say the humane society and their views on pork production? would you like to have them campaigning in the fourth district alongside you? vilsack: well i have not, i haven't taken money from the humane society if you're suggesting that. i think congressman king has suggested that. i can't take money. don't take money from anyone who is doing business before the usda. but i do know that the humane society and probably people in this room who have long been humane society because every little town in iowa has a humane society and people are volunteering there and helping take care of the animals there. so i think it depends on what you're talking about. i -- >> congressman king, say what we're talking about slightly different way, some of these ads, first ad that

we saw, that was an ad done by one of your campaigns. there is also a lot of outside group ads being done. are you concerned that how issues are being framed by these outside ads, by outside groups is different than how you're framing how you like to see the issues framed in this race? king: i knew this would happen. that's why i said a year and a half ago when the announcement came out out this would be a holy war, that's why i said i will learn things about myself i don't yet know and they will spend between five and $10 million attacking me and my -- >> we will briefly break away from the iowa senate debate take you live to the senate floor for a brief proform that session. back to the debate in just a moment

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable john d. rockefeller iv, a senator from the state of west virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on until 10:00 a.m. on >> of course you can see it next pro forma session live on c-span. we will take you back to the i would debate between christie vilsack and steve king. >> to change campaign finance law, something like to disclose act which hasn't gotten in congress. i don't know that i would say that in particular at the system

is broken. i think it's broken like broken are. i don't think it's terminal but we need to fix it. i would like to be a part of that. because there in way too much money in politics and when i see these ads on tv, i'm seeing them for the first time. because these are not organizations that i'm connected with. in terms of the advertisement. >> mr. king, i have a question about taxes. let's say in 2013 you are appointed the czar and to get to establish u.s. tax policy. what would you do? >> i'm not for czars to i oppose czars. that would be very tempting appointment to have my way. the first thing i would do, i could sell this, and that is make the bush tax brackets permanent. so there's long-term predictability. then i would go to work to sell to the public the idea that as ronald reagan said when you tax you get less of the federal government has the first lien at

all productivity in america. it punishes production. we need to take all the tax also production, put it on consumption. we can transform this economy. that's h.r. 25, the fair tax. hideaway that's a piece i've got around this district to talk about. i've talked about each i've been in congress. i did a tour and i asked mrs. vilsack to debate that issue with me in ames, but i didn't get acceptance of the invitation. >> mrs. vilsack, i will let you respond and also like you to outline what tax policy you would implement were you, let's say, king four-day. >> it certainly wouldn't be a fair tax because i don't think there's anything fair for the middle class about the fair tax. basically went to the grocery store i bought milk for $3, a gallon of milk, 2% is $3.55. if i had to pay 23% of every gallon of milk a but at the grocery store, if i had to pay 23% sales tax every time i

bought a car seat to bring my baby home from the hospital or bought a new car, that's a considerable tax. that's like if you make more than $200,000 a year. but if you don't, that's an incredible tax on the middle class. i think it's a really, really bad idea. >> milk would only be $2.75 under my plan. >> if it's such a good idea, why has it not become in acted? king: that's the only rebuttal i ran into an talking to my roundtable advisors in the debate in the morning and morning and all the times i've tested this out. i would give the argument over and over again and they would come back and say if it was a good idea we would've done it by now. we all know america. over the most successful country of the world, but we still don't always do the logical thing. there are political peers anyway and way and that's the reason.

the middle class does not -- we can tax the poor. i turned as red everywhere you can look at it like arithmetic you. every time i look at it it looks better and better and better. but we see people that are empowered about half of k street funded by the people that are there to advocate for people's particular tax exemptions. that's one of the reasons. self-interest. >> somehow the ground will change and that it could? king: we need to elect a president who has run on it with a mandate for the kind of change. or if we find ourselves in economic condition so desperate that were looking for a change. we had a circumstance. we just got the wrong president >> let's shift to courses and tennis. when you're elected to congress, either one of you, you'll be controlling the purse strings at the pentagon. mrs. vilsack, were you in that position, what so spending priorities would you have? we have a spending priority for

people in the pentagon or for weapons in the pentagon? vilsack: let me start if i may buy sing a little bit about my world and i think that common in the future we're not going to be judged, our might in the country will not be judged by how many soldiers we have or how many tanks we have or how many airplanes we have. i think we're going to be judged on our ability to compete in the world economically. and i spent some time with leslie who has advised presidents and secretaries of state, is on the council of foreign relations, and he is someone i have high regard for. and this isn't my original idea. it's basically his. but i agree with him, and i think that we need to refocus strategically. >> what is strategic? does that mean you downsize the current military might of the united states? what does that mean, nimble?

vilsack: it means because we have to pay attention to terrorist outbreaks the, often, that we need to be nimble, that we need to rely on technology, that we need to be very strategic in how we go about -- spent a smaller military that we have now? vilsack: it might be smaller but i'm just saying the most important thing for us is to make sure that we have a strong economy in the world. and that means making sure that we actually something done in congress and get the economy back on track. but i think that we need to be able to react very quickly, situations around the world because many of them are much smaller. and basically what we've done in the past, and congressman king is responsible for this, is we have been involved in two wars that have taken a huge toll in human lives and in money as well. and our debt with $6 trillion when congressman king went in and $16 trillion now, because he

put two wars on the credit card. and so we have to make sure that before we go into conflict, that we are prepared. >> moderator: let's ask him about we just say. and if you would, explain your measurement of u.s. power and might in the world directory i've been accused of starting two wars, and -- vilsack: not paying for them. king: i didn't start those words. that's been repeated a number of times throughout the campaign. so those things can those things were started personal september 11, we were a tactic when it happened a financial center was crushed. we went into a downward tailspin economically. we went into afghanistan. you don't check the balance in a checking account when you send troops into battle. you make sure they have all the training and equipping it and make sure they have the resources to win. i sort have supported that. when nancy pelosi when nancy pelosi came in a speaker, the national debt was eight points 67 trillion but when she teamed up with barack obama, today it's

of 16 trillion. it looks like i've got more power the nancy pelosi and barack obama combined if i listen to my opponent. but here's what i think about military. and that is that i believe there is fat in america. i think there's fat and pentagon. i think there's too much grass there, and is going to take people on the inside want to reformat before we can get that right. i think we're probably too many civilian employees and we're not keeping very good track of the. it's going to take people that are better in that system to make those recommendations than i can. there's some i work such a substantially. john bolton is one whom i have great respect for. >> former u.s. ambassador. king: i would add this, we need to enhance our cia. the intel that in getting in classified briefings is terrible. it is a shame. i can't talk about what that is but i would just tell you, i get political respondents data from the public's source and briefings are supposed be top

secret into. we've gone downhill a long ways honor into ms could be lifted because that lets us be more nimble and mobile spin is there a circumstance where you would see that you could vote for war resolution to enter -- more and i ran? is a circumstance which you could vote to declare war in iran? vilsack: right now we have to do everything we need to make sure that iran doesn't get nuclear weapons. israel is our best friend. we need to protect israel, and yes obviously i could if you were in the strategic best interest of this country, and the strategic best interest of israel, which is often in the strategic best interest of the country, certainly. we need to keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon but we need to do everything, and sanctions seem to be working well right now, and one of the best things is we have involved other nations and basically forcing iran to allow people to come in -- spent i think i heard

you say that under extreme circumstances, you could vote to support israel in going to war against iran. vilsack: that would be extreme circumstances. i think we did everything we can come and i think there are things we can do, even apart from sanctions. it goes back to going nimble and being strategic in terms of how we deal with these issues. >> same question to you. king: i've supported israel for a long time. our intel, are reset i have doubts about. israel doesn't get to make a mistake. it's a fair mistake for the nation of israel if they accept the idea that i heard a vice president joe biden in his debate that he thinks is as much as four years away before iran has a nuclear. we cannot tolerate that and we cannot let that happen. i don't have my hands on intel that tells me when it does happen. so here's what i said at i say this for years. i would recommend to the president at a back channel disinformation to ahmadinejad and so, mr. ahmadinejad i

decided the date which you will allow to continue their nuclear endeavor. that is on good intel. then send a message we will work with you in every way possible so that you can save face as an individual and the nation. we will work with you diplomatically but we are going to deconstruct your nuclear endeavor. and if not that date on account arise, then it's over, whether it's israel or the training we cannot let them get a nuclear weapon. >> moderator: mrs. vilsack, president obama has okayed the use of unmanned drones to go after terrorists around the world. that concerned some members of your party. are you concerned about that? vilsack: again, not particularly. i think that it's part of a strategy that them talk about. there are a lot of different things we need to be able to do. they are our people will be able to decide when is the best time to use drones or any of the other tools that we have to be strategic in the nimble in our response.

so i don't have any particular problem. >> moderator: there are some libertarians in your party who have a view of drones that is not terribly positive. what is your view? king: i have not raise the publication against those. i think to take out the leadership without that has been an effective means in that part of the world and i think it's a case-by-case basis. i would not say i would remove the authority from the president to protect us, and he needs to have that authority as the commander-in-chief so i'm not than what has been an elite critic. >> let's go to another type of war, a trade war. possibly it's been spoken of as hypothetically with china. in currency manipulation and other trade policy. how aggressive should this country be in his trade policies with china? and what specific? king: get more aggressive than we are is one of the ads. i'm one is going to china to go in there and engage in trade negotiations with china. i express them very hard against

the theft of u.s. intellectual property but it seems to be a process an appendix they will sit around the table as an okay fine, we're going to find even put some in prison but in reality, it comes out of one pocket and the other in china. i've introduced legislation that does this. it directs the u.s. trade representative to conduct a study which he does to determine the valley of the loss of u.s. intellectual property to the pirates of that ip from china. levy a duty on products from china equal to recover that lost and distributed to the people that i find rightful property right. that's one thing along the way that fixes a lot of the problem with the theft of intellectual property in china. >> do we have a problem in trading with china and how much you modified? vilsack: i think china is one of her most important trading partners to me to continue to develop china as we have with our other trade relationship around the world. i think we need to enforce our trade agreements with china and we need to be tough on them.

they are, they have a problem with intellectual property. they don't see that intellectual property actually -- i've been there also and listen to people in china -- spent do i hear you agree with mr. king? >> yes, probably. >> moderator: mr. king, earlier this month your colleague, republican congress and tom latham said he was unhappy with the rules of engagement in afghanistan. and he would support bringing troops home tomorrow. you share that view? king: i don't think that i've looked into that strategically to see what that really means in the aftermath. but i will say that my advocacy is more open than it was a half a year or a year ago. at this point i will say our commander-in-chief has not articulated mission in afghanistan, and it's awfully hard to keep troops in a place where you don't have a mission articulate. i had some of the discipline with president bush back during

the middle of the iraq operation as well. but here we are in afghanistan, what happened in the aftermath. i would rather at this point weight ahead of the presidential election, let me wrong to lay out the plan and i have photos that might end up with a better result than i think we're going to get if we just pull out. >> moderator: such as? >> these are strategic and dangerous to talk about on public and national television, but i will just say that i expect it would be a civil war in afghanistan if we pulled out immediately. and there's some ways to bring the together in such away that people can be represented within various governments and more effective fashion that they are now. president karzai has been handed an all powerful constitution where he rules the whole country and that is caused -- a saint would have abuse that power. karzai has abused that power. i would like to look at them offering a new constitution that would represent the people in afghanistan far better than it is today. >> moderator: time for a new constitution in afghanistan? vilsack: i think that we need to

first of all make sure that everyone who has served their in this country, that we all recognize that they did everything that we asked them to do. and in the end of a been asked to help train police forces. much like our national guard they've been asked to help train them so that they can take care of their own country, and they need to be doing that. the sooner we can get out of afghanistan, the better. because we need to bring those young people back and we need to invite them back to the small communities in this district and we need to build schools here and we need to build the infrastructure here and we need to put -- >> not addressing something important but i promise you early we would get to the farm bill and we need to do that. >> transit it's been expired for about a month now. there will be pressure a very limited spending. what could you do, mr. king, to perhaps persuade an urban

representative to be wanting to spend money and get a nice plump farmville that a lot of viable farmers would like to see? king: i've been working on this farm bill for about a year and a half and there's people on our staff -- >> watch all of this debate in rfid elaborate at c-span.org. we will take you live to iowa, ames, iowa, and mitt romney speaking at the construction products coverage is getting underway with senator grassley live here on c-span2. >> thank you. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. so many friends in trend one today. thank you for being here. [cheers and applause] >> a little windy, little chilly but we're just getting started, are we? it's going to be a great winter. we need some snow, don't we? yeah. senator grassley, thank you for that introduction.

governor branstad and lieutenant governor reynolds, congressman king, appreciate your being here, and the chairman of my campaign for a long time, brian kennedy, thank you for being here, and for all of you braving, it's a little cool and little windy today. thank you for being here, and bringing me such a warm spirit. it's good to be back in iowa. don't think by the way -- [applause] don't think this is the last you are going to see of me and paul ryan because -- [applause] this state may be the state that decides what kind of an america where going to have and what kind of lives are found are going to have so we are counting on you. and the decision you make this november will great -- shape the great things, historic things. and those things will determine the most important and intimate things in our lives, the lives of our homes and our families and loved ones. this is an election about america. this is an election about the american family.

now, all elections matter of course, but this one matters a great deal. over the years of our nation's history, choices our fellow citizens have made have changed the country's course. they are are turning point in defining consequence. we are today at a turning point, our national debt and liability threatened to crush our future. our economy struggles under the weight of government and fails to create the essential growth and employment that we need. the same time, emerging powers seek to save the world in their image. china with its model of authoritarianism and they very different way, jihadists with sharia, repression and care for the world. this is an election of consequence. our campaign is about big things because we happen to believe that america faces big challenges. we recognize this is the year with a big choice, and the american people want to see big

changes, and together we can bring that kind of change, real change to our country. [cheers and applause] you know, four years ago candidate obama spoke to the scale of the times. today, he shrinks from it. trying instead to distract our attention from the biggest issues to the smallest, from characters on "sesame street" and silly word games to personal attacks that he knows are false. the president's campaign falls far short of the magnitude of these times, and the president has seen the last four years has fallen far short of the promises of his last campaign. four years ago america voted for a post-partisan president, but they have seen the most partisan of political presidents come and in washington that is in gridlock because of it. president obama promised to bring us together, but every

turn he sought to divide and demonize. he promised to cut the deficit in half. but he doubled it. how about his budget? he failed to win a single vote, either republican or democrat, in either house of the congress. he said he would reform medicare and social security and save them from pending insolvency. but he's shrunk from opposing any solution at all. and where are the jobs? where are the 9 million more jobs that president obama promised the stimulus would have created by not? they are in china, mexico, canada, and countries that made themselves more attractive for entrepreneurs and business and investment. even as president obama's policies have made it less attractive for them here. and so today his campaign tries to deflect and detract, to minimize the failures and to make this election about small shiny objects. but this election matters more than it. it matters to your family, it

matters to the senior who needs to get an appointment with a medical specialist but has been told by one receptionist after another that the doctor isn't taking any new medicare patients because medicare has been slashed to pay for obama to. it matters who the man from waukesha wisconsin i spoke with several days ago. and what was supposed be his best work is used to have a job at $25 an hour with benefits and now has one at $8 an hour without benefits. it matters to a college student with 10 to $20,000 in student debt. [cheers and applause] who now learns that she will also be paying for $50,000 in government debt. a bird now put the american dream beyond the reach of so many. it matters for the child in the fiscal, unable to go to the school of his parents choosing because the teachers union that funds the president's campaign opposed school choice. the president -- president's

campaign slogan is this, forward, but to 23 million americans struggling to find a good job these last four years fuel a lot more like backward. [applause] we can't afford four more years like the last four years. this election is about big things. like the education of our children, the value of our homes them a take-home pay from our jobs, the price of the gasoline we pay, we buy, and the choices we have in our health care. it's also about the big things that determined those things. like the growth of the economy, the strength of our military, our dependence on foreign oil, and america's leadership in the world. president obama frequently reminds us that he inherited a troubled economy, but a troubled economy is not all that he inherited. he also inherited the greatest nation in the history of the earth. [applause]

he inherited the most productive and innovative nation in history. he inherited the largest economy in the world. and he inherited a people who have always risen to the occasion, regardless of the challenges they face. so long as they then led an by men and women who brought us together, called on her patriotism and guided a nation with vision and conviction. despite all that he inherited, president obama did not repair our economy. he did not save medicare and social security. he did not taint the spending and borrowing. he did not reach across the aisle to bring us together. nor did he stand up to china's trade practices or deliver on his promise to remake our relations with the muslim world were anti-american and extremism is on the rise. what he inherited wasn't the only problem. what he did with what he inherited made the problem worse.

[applause] in just four short years he borrowed $6 trillion nearly, adding almost as much debt held by the public in all prior american presidents combined. he forced through obamnicare frightening small business from hiring new employees, and adding thousands of dollars to every families health care bill. he launched an onslaught of new regulations often to the delight of the biggest banks and corporations, but to the detriment of a small growing businesses that create two-thirds of our jobs. [applause] new business starts, they are at a 30 year low because entrepreneurs and investors are sitting on the sidelines and weary from the present staggering new regulations and proposed max of tax increase but many guys can get mortgages and many other vendors can't get loans because of dodd-frank regulations that made harder for banks to lend.

the president invested taxpayer money, your money come in green companies now failed that made his fancy and were sometimes owned by his largest campaign can triggers. he spent billions of taxpayer dollars on investments like solyndra and tesla and fisker and enter one which only added to our debt. energy prices are up in part because energy production on federal land is down. he rejected the keystone pipeline from canada and cut in half drilling permits and lisa can even as gasoline prices soared to new highs. the problem with the obama economy is not what he inherited, it's with the misguided policies that slowed the recovery and cost millions of americans to undo her lengthy unemployment and poverty. [applause] that's why 15 million more of our fellow citizens are on food stamps than when president obama took office. that's why 3 million more women are now living in poverty. that's why nearly one in six americans today is poor. that's why the, the economy is

stagnant. today we received by the way the latest round of discouraging economic news. last corner our economy grew just 2%. after the stimulus was passed the white house promised the economy would now be growing at 4.3%, over twice as fast. slow economic growth means slow job growth and declining take-home pay. that's what four years of president obama's policies have produced. americans are ready for change. for growth, for james, for more take-home pay and we're going to bring it to them. [applause] >> now you know we've had four presidential and vice presidential debates, and there's nothing what the president proposed or defended as any prospect of meeting the challenges of the time. rising taxes, will not grow jobs or ignite the economy. in fact, his tax plan has been calculated to destroy 700,000 jobs. a new stimulus, three years

after the recession officially ended, that makes their government but it won't stimulate the private sector any better than did the stimulus for years ago. and cutting a trillion dollars from the military would kill jobs and devastate our national defense. this is not the time to double down on trickle-down government policies that have failed us. it's time for new bold changes that measure up to the moments and the to bring americans family the certainty that the future will be better than the past. [applause] is paul ryan and our elected as your president and vice president, we will endeavor with all our hearts and energy to restore america instead of more spending, more borrowing from china and higher taxes from washington, we will renew our faith in the power of free people pursuing their dreams. we'll start our plan for a stronger middle class that has five elements come and your to talk about them before.

one, we're going to act to put america on track to a balanced budget by eliminating unnecessary programs by sending programs back to states with the commit message with less abuse and less cost, and by shrinking the bureaucracy in washington. [applause] number two, we will produce more of the energy we need to heat our homes, fill our cars and make our economy grow. we will stop the obama were on cold that disdainful oil and the -- by federal regulation to the very technology that produces it. [applause] we will support nuclear and renewables, but we will phase out subsidies once an industry is on its feet. and resident investing in electric auto and solar companies we will invest in energy science and research to make discoveries that can actually change your energy world, and by 2020 we will achieve north american energy independence. [cheers and applause]

we will make trade work for america. will open more markets for american agriculture and products and services and we we will find hold accountable any nation that doesn't play by the rules. look, i'm going to stand for the rights and interests of american workers and employers. we will grow jobs and making america the best place for job creators, for entrepreneurs, for small business, for innovative, for manufacturers. this will be updating and reshaping regulations to encourage growth by lowering tax rates while lowering deductions and closing loopholes and by making it clear from day one that unlike the current administration, we actually like business and the jobs that business create. [applause] and finally as we create more opportunity we will make sure that our citizens have the skills they need to succeed him training programs will be shaped by the states where people live and schools will put the

interests of our kids and their parents and their teachers about the interests of the teachers unions. [applause] look, when we do those five things, this economy will come roaring back. we will create 12 million new jobs in just four years. we will see rising take-home pay and will get america's economy growing at 4% a year, more than double this year's rate. after all, the false promises of recovery and all the waiting we're finally going to seek help for america's middle class. it is about time. [applause] >> and paul and i are not going to stop there. when we take office we're going to take responsibility solve the big problems that everyone agrees can't wait any longer. we will save medicare, social security, oath for current and near retirees and for the generation to come. we will restore the $716 billion president obama has taken for medicare to pay for his

obamnicare. we will reform health care, the cost better than going skyrocketing to provide for those with preexisting conditions as well, and to assure that every american has access to health care. we're going to replace a government choice in health care with consumer choice, bringing the dynamics of the marketplace to a section that has been too long dominated by government. now these things among others we can only do if we work tirelessly to bridge that gap between the political parties. we will meet with democratic and republican leaders in washington regularly. we are going to look for common ground and shared principles. we'll put the interest of the american people about the interests of the politicians. [applause] and i know something about leaving. because i've said before. in business, in the olympics, in my state. i brought people together to achieve real change. as you know i was elected a

republican governor in a state that has a legislature that was 85% democrat. when i came in office we were looking at a multibillion dollar budget gap. but instead of fighting with each other, we came together to solve the problems. we actually cut government spending. we reduced it. we lowered taxes 19 times. we defended school choice. we worked to make our state business friendly. and our state moved up 20 places in job growth. our schools were ranked number one in the nation. we turned a $3 billion budget deficit into a $2 billion running one. i know it because i've seen it. the democrats can come together with good republicans to solve big problems. what we need is leadership to make that happen. [cheers and applause] america is ready for that kind of leadership.

paul ryan and i will provide. our plan for a stronger middle class will create jobs, stop the decline of take-home pay, and put america back on the path of prosperity and opportunity. and this will enable us to fulfill our responsibility as the leader of the free world to promote the principles of peace. we will help most of the combat the spread of extremism. will dissuade iran from building a nuclear iran. will build enduring relationships throughout latin america. will partner with china and other great nations to build a more stable and peaceful world. look, we face big challenges, but we also have big opportunities. new doors have been opened to us, ideas and products around the world, new technologies offer the promise of unfounded information and limitless innovation. new ideas are changing lives and hearts in diverse nations and among diverse people. if we seize the moment, and rise to the occasion, the century

ahead will be an american century. our children will graduate into jobs that are waiting for them. our seniors will be confident that their retirement is secure, our men and women was good jobs and good pay and good benefits. we will have confidence in our lives are safe and that our livelihoods are secure. what is required is change, change in the course of the last four years. it requires we put aside the small and the pity, and demand the scale of change we deserve. we need real change, the change. that time has come. our campaign -- [applause] them our campaign is about that kind of change. confronting the problems that politicians have avoided for over a decade. revitalizing our competitive economy, modernizing education,

restoring our founding principles. this is the kind of change that promises a better future, one shaped by men and women pursuing their dreams in their own unique ways. this election is a choice. a choice between the status quo going forward with the same policies of the last four years, or instead choosing real change, change that offers promise, promise that the future will be better than the past. if you're ready for that kind of change, if you want is to be a turning point in america's course, join paul ryan in me. ditch of friends and family to do the same. and vote now for the kind of leadership that these times demand. i'm counting on iowa. iowa may be the place that decide to the next president is. you may decide whether not we're going to have real change. so i'm counting on you to vote him to get your friends to vote, to work in the polls come to bring people out. we've got to take back america and make sure that we have that

kind of change begets america strong. we are not just for us but for coming generation. thank you guys. great to be with you. god bless america. god bless iowa, and god bless you. and you so much. [cheers and applause] but they not♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> mitt romney wrapping up comments in and iowa, the first of two stops today. and this is campaign is said it would be one of his closing arguments particular here focusing on the economy. we want to ask you the question of the candidate you've heard, what do you think about the economic policy? who has the better economic plan. the numbers to call, republica

republicans, turn 11, democrats (202) 585-3886. independence day 13. you can also tweet us hash tag c-span 2012. we will take a look at facebook as well. let's go first to houston. you were up first. what do you think? who is the better economic plan? >> caller: i think president obama, because i think voting for mitt romney is voting against your own self interest. i'm getting ready to retire in a few years, and i don't want to see my daughter's have to work until they are 72. you know, and there's a whole other things that mitt romney is thing in a roundabout way. he's trying to tell people that they can provide, decide whether own health care in a way that he is not saying that he is giving them a voucher in order to do

that. >> host: let's go to muncie indiana. james at our republican line. hello? >> caller: hello? >> host: you are on the air traffic yes, i'm for mitt romney. the reason that i for mitt romney is because i think our country has never seen such an awful time. and, we were promised hope and change in the last four years, and we really, really need hope and change now. >> host: what did you hear from mitt romney here, talking about some of his economic plans? what did you in particular that made you more hopeful our for the convention to vote for him? >> caller: well, he's just coming in, he's got a plan and he is a man that knows how to carry out a plan. and we just need somebody in there that knows about the economy and how to fix it and a man that has fixed economies

before. that's the type of man that we need in there now. >> host: mitt romney has been speaking this afternoon in ames, iowa. later today he is in north can't ohio and he will team up with his vice presidential running mate paul ryan. vernon is next click on our independent line from nottingham in maryland. >> caller: hello? >> host: either. treachery how are you? >> host: who do you think has the better plan? >> caller: i think mr. romney's plan is way off but when he talks about mr. obama stimulus, he mentions the fact that half of a stimulus investment went bankrupt when in actuality i think was only like maybe three or 4%. and he doesn't ever mention that out of his investment when he was a governor, 22% of his bank -- investment went bankrupt. he lost a lot of money. he doesn't mention the fact that he gives you topics there he doesn't give you, it's like when

you make an outline of the vote. he will give you the topics but he never gives you the detailed. >> host: and you think president obama has given more specific details? >> caller: i think originally did but i think he's afraid is anything but i would like to see him speak up and say something. i think he's afraid to say anything because they take them apart and most of the media picks the man apart. >> host: you're on our independent line but can you give us -- >> caller: i'm not swing either way. [inaudible] he's relying on the old facts. i think he made a big mistake when he first came into office. he was depend on the fact he could negotiate with republicans which he found out to be wrung. >> host: it sounds like you are listening to us on c-span radio. >> caller: yeah, turn it off. >> host: just appreciate your call it that the vernon from maryland on our independent line. back to the democrats line. this is danny.

welcome to the topic here, who has the better economic plan. treachery certainly -- >> caller: certainly it's out in the market and as president obama without a doubt. the united states of america, don't get -- [inaudible] it's a sad thing that -- [inaudible] specifically saving the things that they're going to do for this country, how this country needs to get back on its feet, how this country needs this can have this country needs that. the country is headed in right direction. we just got another report on the economy but it's going in the right direction. and for the more idea those republicans who did not negotiate with this president one iota. mitt romney is other talking about we're going to cross lines and we're going to deal with the democrats as well as -- liar liar liar trying to gain imagine another report on the come. he's referring to the commerce department facing the u.s.

economy expanded slightly faster than 2% annual rate from july through september of this year. we are taking your calls and getting her thoughts on who you think has the best economic plan. we've just heard from mitt romney in what's been built as his last major policy address before the election. you speaking to folks here in ames, iowa. we could our republican line next, and this is linda who is in somerset kentucky treachery yes, listen, i think romney has a good plan, basically a democrat. what's called a blue dog democrat but what bothers me of all think i am going to probably cry is what they've done in libya to our people. my dad was a military for over 20 years and i, i am appalled at what they did. i think romney has a plan. i think we're going in the wrong direction. with the democrats because we're

spending more money and we can't afford this. we cannot afford to go over the cliff. >> host: you called yourself a blue dog democrat. do you think -- is that when you vote democrat? >> caller: now, that's what i am. are probably going to change but i'm disabled and i can't get out a lot but i have to do what i can do to you know winning? >> host: it also sounds like the benghazi incident was more a factor in deciding your vote? >> caller: it's appalling because i went into, we went into burger king with my granddaughter for lunch, and i saw a military man over there and i got up and went and think in. >> host: thanks for your call. the senate foreign relations committee is now going to hold hearings on the been gaza incident when the house and senate come back on the 13th. i believe the date for the foreign relations hearing is november 15. independent line is next, robert is calling from buffalo, new york. >> caller: yes, a, mr. ron is doing a hell of a job.

my wife and i and i and my daughter are all voting for your. >> host: what specifically about his plan that appeals to you? >> caller: that he stands up to obama. >> host: robert and also. thanks to the. your democrats line next. carol stream illinois this is jason. make sure you mutual television. >> caller: yes, sir. i'm calling because i know the economic situation we are doing good, great when the democrats left the office and george w. bush came in to take over. and economic started sliding all the way down, and now this man, barack obama, have stopped all that and have started this economic cycle on the path where

it's fair and equal. and i think romney should stop and just bow out of the race. >> host: some of what the president, some of what mitt romney said about the president in his comments are on the economy come he said we've had four presidential and vice presidential debates and there's nothing in what the president proposed or defended that is any prospect of meeting the challenges of the time. some of the comments of mitt romney today in iowa. we will show this to you again tonight on c-span. florida is next, a republican. >> caller: hello. i just want -- just watched the speech from cairo, and i veggie chili is really inspirational -- iowa. a little reaganesque in a big is big ideas, big plans and that's what it's going to take to get us out of this swamp. >> host: which one of his plans appeal to you the most,

what you heard? >> caller: reduce the size of government, reduce regulation, lower taxes, encourage small businesses, make the banking system a little more efficient so some of small banks can make loans to the smaller businesses to get us going. but this guy is an organizer. that's how he has been successful in his life. he has a unique exceptional ability to organize. organize the efforts of others'. >> host: how do you think about is going to go there in florida? >> caller: [inaudible] >> host: i beg your pardon? >> caller: romney will carry. >> host: have you voted yet? >> caller: just. >> host: so you did your early voting. >> caller: absentee. >> host: thanks for the goal. president obama became the first president to early vote. yesterday during his whirlwind tour of a couple of states. the president made time to go to chicago, and again as they

became the first presidential candidate to cast his vote early. is a quick look at some of yesterday's appearance at the polling place. >> i think it was my time anyway. >> you see the absentee ballot. >> i assume it is. i hope so. if not this will be really embarrassing. [laughter] [inaudible] >> so when does early voting start? spent on monday. spent how we got a pretty good flow of people coming in? that's great. it makes such a difference so folks and after takeoff time from work, so they can arrange around their schedule.

it really is good, really important. we appreciate you guys. >> thank you. we appreciate you. spent i'm just glad that renewed my driver's license. [laughter] >> you don't drive. >> i did. i drove around the south lawn. it was fun. i couldn't go more than 25 miles an hour. did you -- [laughter] how about that? thank you.

>> thank you. >> that's a lot of pressure, isn't it? [laughter] do i put this in like this? >> yes. >> okay. [inaudible] >> there you go. >> president obama yesterday back in chicago casting his vote becoming the first presidential candidate to do that. back to your calls in a moment on u.s. the best economic plan. first a couple looks at facebook and twitter. here is christiane facebook, and she says back to the real issue

exactly what has obama done for americans in the last four years that warrants his reelection? on twitter, obama's is trust matter, trust matters just does. you cannot trust obama. kay says we have reelection in the bag. republicans and everything to hurt our feelings from your feelings and bring you down. they are desperate. they feel. that's from facebook.com -- from twitter and the hash tag is c-span 2012. to grand forks in north dakota we go to scott on the independent's line. >> caller: hi. i was watching for six years now, i mean, mr. mccain makes romney look -- i mean romney makes george bush and mccain looked at. i don't see anything at all that romney can run this country. i just don't see yet. it's scary to think if he gets in office. it's like geppetto and pinocchio

with him and ryan. it's just like the boy can walk. it seems like he will start crying if he doesn't win the presidency. he can't buy. at least the president of the united states is trying the best he can. this is just a sideshow to me, i'm sorry. but i'm from north dakota and i know it's a red state and i'm embarrassed to be from nearby this tricky but your comment on the independent line to does that mean you voted both for democrats and republicans? >> caller: well, i voted for reagan. back when ronald reagan ran. ease the only republican i ever voted for, but, you know, bill clinton was a great president and i think obama is a great president. this mitt romney thing is just, it looks like a sideshow to me. then he's got all these guys running with him, telling women what to do with their bodies and stuff, and -- >> host: thanks to that call.

to north carolina. connie is up next. she's on her democrats line. >> caller: hi. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: yes. i'm calling in reference to obama's plan. yes, i think it does have a good plan. his plan is to bring jobs back to america. romney's plan is to outsource. he is known as the leader in outsourcing. and as far as obama's record, he has provided insurance to people who -- friends who lost insurance. they lost their home. now they can afford insurance. and the housing market is getting better. i'm getting ready to sell my house and i've been told by a real estate agency that the market is getting better. and also, in north carolina here that the owners have spoken up.

[inaudible] they are getting better. but romney's plan is very, very scary. even colin powell as much as almost said that yesterday on cbs. tread ub.net run from a few minutes ago in ames, iowa, come and more of that this evening we'll show you the entire event this evening. san pedro california is next. island is on our republican's line. alice, hi. >> caller: so glad you took michael. i love romney. i can see the -- [inaudible] he is a to american and he will help us. what has obama done last four years? the jobs have been lost. people have lost their homes. lost their jobs. the economy is down. i don't understand what these people are coming from. [inaudible] he's a good men. he'd created business. obama has not held a job outside of political. tread to your in san pedro,

california, so that's orange county, los angeles county? >> caller: los angeles county. >> host: how is the county going to go? >> caller: well you know, it's split i think, you know? but -- [inaudible] >> host: just. >> caller: i sob romney-ryan signed up there today when i was walking. it's a uniontown. it's mostly all democrats are. but there's a lot of people -- [inaudible] but like i said, there's people there talking against romney, he's the only one that is held business, i mean, you know, what has obama done? >> host: that is alice. one more republican view. this is a tweet from jane who says i will be voting for a successful honorable businessmen i believe romney will give small fiscally sound government. to arkadelphia arkansas jordan gets the last word. is on her democrats line.

go ahead. >> caller: okay. i think obama should win because -- [inaudible] what ron is saying is not true but it's not too. he has raised us. -- [inaudible] and ron is a scary man. i don't think he should be in office as well. i'm looking at the statistic map right now, and what he is saying is just a lie. los..

[inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. i am dan glickman here at the aspen institute as vice president and i run the congressional program. it's a great honor to have you here and these great folks here on behalf of the washington ideas around a table series of the aspen institute and the mashaal smith and robert h. smith foundation. we thank you for being here. a lot of us are very interested in the politics of the last couple of weeks. as an old politician myself and i see some old politicians up

front. there's congressman and ambassador tim roemer, senate johnson, and i know that there are others as well anyway. so we appreciate folks being here. also i recognize very who is the president of national public radio here who is a friend of mine delighted he is here. we just have a brick program -- great program. we we get to that soothing and wonderful voice. i tell everybody doesn't put me to sleep but it enriches me and enlivens me every day that it's on and you doing great job. i'm going to let steve introduce charlie cook with the cook political report, amy walter, political director of the pc. thir both terrific. i will tell you one mention about charlie, his son just came back from afghanistan just in the last couple days. last month he was in the 82nd airborne and i'm sure charlie is delighted to be back safely and we are all as well. anyway. [applause]

steve of course is the co-host of morning edition. he is the author and has been involved in a lot of issues reporting on the middle east and international affairs and of course domestic policy as well so i'm going to turn the program over to steve and we will have 30 to 40 minutes of questions and then turn it over to the audience for q&a. steve, go ahead. >> mr. glickman thank you very much and for having me at the aspen institute. it's an honor to talk to both of you folks. i grew up watching abc news. i continue to pay attention to adc's reporting. so it's great to meet amy walter, the person when sure tells george stephanopoulos what to do. >> everything. [laughter] >> tells him what to do, everything. whenever they say it's from her brain to their mouth and out into the ether. when i moved to washington in 1996, very early on i had some local question i was putting to a colleague and they said you really ought to just call what charlie cook because he knows

more than anybody else. it was true then and continues to be true now and it's great to be with you mr. cook as well. i should mention for those that don't know that the cook political report and economist for the national journal. i want to begin with a really straightforward questions. i'm sure the answer is really, really simple. two weeks from the presidential election, who is winning? >> you really have to put that up there didn't you? >> ladies first. [laughter] >> so, you look at the news coverage and you look at the data and to get kind of two different answers. if you look at the news coverage especially since the first debate it would be romney is the guy that is ascended after a terrible summer and terrible september and what looked like a race that was a run away and the momentum is always mitt romney. look at some of the polls, the

national polls immediately after that debate in denver and others showing dead heat momentum is going his way. and when you look at the data and we are going to get to this in a minute earlier in our lives we learned in 2000 people don't elect the president the college elects the president and when you look at the underneath numbers it suggests that it's still obama's race right now that fundamentally he has got an edge in this electoral college and some of the big states like ohio, wisconsin, nevada, especially and that his path to victory he said multiple paths whereas romney decided early on that they were going to try to find the same path rather than try to expand.

so pennsylvania, michigan, minnesota, states they talked about putting in place they've never sent at a time -- cent of time. >> we will get charlie's perspective. i hear you telling me even if i look at a list of polls it may show romney plus two or plus five, romney plus one. there are a lot of obama polls as well. but you're telling me that it sounds like obama has the edge and is actually going to win. >> structurally he has an advantage right now. >> i've gotten closer and there is a debate of course and charlie i know will have a lot to say about this or that, what pulls to believe and are they even trustworthy now? everybody seems to have their own. i don't know that there are actually that many people in ohio. i feel like there are professional polltakers in ohio. sure, i will answer. so there is so much data coming

out to you almost don't know what to believe so you have to sort of read what is happening in the campaign. and it's pretty clear that there is, again when you talk about a few of these and you can go through them where the obama edge is still there. so. >> charlie cook who is running? >> let me say how much i appreciate what i've done anything with the aspen institute it's been a wonderful experience. the one time i took my son out to the global strategy conference in aspen and there was bob gates before he was the cia director and over there is al gore and george soros, and you know, here i am from shreveport thinking how did i get here. but anyway, the aspen institute is wonderful. my old boss that i got my start working for the senate race in 1972 is sitting here. so, anyway, thanks. the way i would look at it is

the popular vote, the national polls i think is equal right now and i want to get into a conversation of the polls, but i agree that the electoral college situation looks a little different and it is more of hill for romney. the way that i would describe it is this. first of all, president obama was on the verge of putting this away in the first debate. it was all but done. you had a lot of voters that were not even considering thinking about voting. considering mitt romney -- if not terribly enthusiastic about president obama. suddenly it is in the way that obama drops and even the next two debates president obama to complete defeat could technically one but the feeling of open the door considering romney in a way that they had never considered him before. so national league this is a

very close race. in fact we talk a. but i think the -- there is a lot of scar tissue in the seven swing states that sold the brunt of the capitol plant closings and lay off an outsourcing in some tax, salon.com of the remuda and all that stuff. the romney campaign i think made a huge error by not coming in early on as soon as they narrow down the nomination and created, tried to project a positive image here is a piece of paper to find her candidate for the other side defines them and think of the boy scout clean and

reverent the -- [inaudible] [laughter] the tough line coding before this line hits and the romney campaign is opted not to do that to talk about anything other than the economy was a day or dollar wasted. as of the obama campaign went in so, there's still a lot of tissue so after the first debate, romney goes up i'm sure they went up in the state's but they were not lost because of that scar tissue and even so that romney takes north carolina and virginia is a but even and florida is about even but it's a tough path for him to get to in

70 and colorado, wisconsin, there's a lot of scar tissue so that's why it's uphill but to respect that is the question people have been talking about as a legitimate possibility that one candidate wins the popular vote and the next wednesday electoral votes. is committed such a good book in the states that are red and if you read the score in a place like texas if you do when florida, north carolina, virginia, even ohio you can still lose and then look at the blue state and this is where the campaign often says they are doing much better and the poll suggests this they are not going to move by the same suggestions even in a place like illinois.

that's not going to have in this year's again see those numbers coming up even in states that romney will lose but because some of the states are completely off the map, places like pennsylvania, michigan, that means his pathway has to go through a place like colorado, nevada or ohio. >> you are sort of on the record and if you write a column and serve all these people better spending so much time pursing together the combinations of electoral votes like they're trying to solve a reubin askew for something and i pointed out that look in 53 out of 56 presidential elections and had gone the same way that goes up to 95%. could it happen? of course it could but it's very unlikely. but now i think that there is a fair chance of that and if that

happens, romney would be the one that would be more likely to come out of the popular vote site and obama and the electrolyte because that is what we are so a lot of the republicans saw the great benefit in the electoral college back in 2000 may be rethinking that and vice versa for the liberals on the other side. >> i'm glad you mentioned 2000 because one thing i do remember about the campaign is there was also add that time talk of the possibility of the split between the popular and electoral vote, but the talk was as i recall that the time al gore was going to lose the popular vote but still have a shot at the electoral vote. it turned out to be the opposite. and i am wondering if that is something to remember not because even though we are talking about the possibility, aren't the odds still against that happening? >> i'm talking about maybe 10% chance the the thing is statistically it ought to be

five, so its greater than it normally is. if you didn't even know who the candidates were, i would assume normally that a democrat would be better off because they run up the score in the popular states like california and new york and the only popular state that republicans were to score as texas said democrats waste more votes than republicans do so that would be the norm if you have a divided electoral popular vote. but this time is different. if it happens this time it would be likely to go the other way because of the electoral college difficulties that we are talking about. >> i want to mengin amy talked about pennsylvania being off the map. for whatever reason the map that we have here pennsylvania is one of the three states i know some electoral maps have it that way. >> i would look in politics as in life, follow the money.

if a campaign had spent approximately $0 on television in a state, that says to me they are not invested in that state and consider it a battleground state and that is what happened. in the romney campaign they have people on the ground and organization but nobody has put a dime from either campaign recently that in terms of advertising. some of the outside groups for a little bit of money but very little and that to me you figure out where most of this money is going but they have been indicated for months and i completely agree with charlie which is when you saw them just going up and going after mitt romney basic surely we are going to get a response from the campaign. here is what a good guy he is or what his business experience was. we listened to some of the same

focus it and you hear it over and over again you have these swing voters disappointed in president obama but i don't know anything about that from me. sometimes they would just say things without being prompted that were from ads. i remember sitting in a group a woman said that mitt romney is a businessman and everything that could be good but didn't he shut factories down and stuff and then in northern virginia where the swing voters are these suburban women talking about romney and the economy but worried about like women's health care why is he doing that with abortion and stuff? so it was penetrating and the outside groups for all the talks wearily to have about citizens united and the influx of money from the outside groups they aren't going to have as much bank for the buck. if you look at how much spending

even this week we talked about the massive amount of money coming in from the outside groups the obama campaign has more ads on television and all of the republicans combined. that's number one. number two, all of the ads the republicans put up for , too said nobody was in getting any coverage to mitt romney. when i talked to one of them the other day because they're putting up these spots out here is mitt romney that we heard that during the convention who died of cancer and he was with him and helped him take out his boy scout uniform and it's the really touching story. why didn't we ever hear this story before? i asked about it and they said we didn't know about that story before the convention. that's the problem being an outside group you don't know your own candidate because they were not so must be telling that story. >> he's been hearing the last few days he has one of the most brutal tag lines i've seen. and from me, not one of us. earing and ohio. that's something -- that is an

alienating line literally. it's hard to imagine. >> if a republican had run that ad, i think we know what the interpretation of it might be. >> yeah. >> it's an outstanding point and it sounds like that's what you're saying they wouldn't have gotten away with running an ad like that about mitt romney had been prepared in a different way. i wasn't for designate his gimmick where they've done the most effective job we see this in the national polling that we just got out and if you look at things like ohio where mitt romney closed the gap on who you think will do a better job in the economy comedy's top aide in this most recent ohio but who do you think represents middle class values? there is a 14 or 16-point gap so people are saying he's a good at what he does. he made a lot of money and that's good i guess except that

is he going to make a lot of money and then think about me? how am i going to be part of this equation? >> at the same time coming out of the debate if you see "the wall street journal" had a survey they asked who has a plan for the future and to create jobs and while the numbers improved somewhat for romney when you look among the independence, you know, it's sort of like twentysomething points. they close the sale with these people that he's opened up the conversation. the people in ohio it was fascinating where this one woman says i look at romney proved as. she was still undecided but she was looking and that's what's different from where things were he had a portable summer and

horrible trip to europe. the convention he got one lousy point out of it. september was affordable. 47% was a disaster. until october 1st after winning the nomination nothing went right but then you have the debate on october 3rd, and it was a great month for him. >> amy mentioned something i want to follow-up on. you talk about the narrative. you refer to the fact everyone went through the event you just described and after the first debate the narrative changed. it's an emeritus of mitt romney on the rise and how long people in the media will stick with that through the election or what will happen. how important a factor is that in the real world simply the way that the political reporters assume it is going and the way they cast their stories as a result. >> in terms of swing voters,

undecided slash independent the thing about it is independent voters read newspapers less, they watch television news less and listen to npr last. they don't follow -- republicans have passion, liberals and democrats have passion. moderates and independents have why is. [laughter] they are not setting their lunch hour and a room near washington to hear a discussion about this or watching on c-span. no offense. the politics they typically don't like politics, they don't like politicians, they are cynical about washington and show up for one or two reasons, civic obligation or they are angry at somebody or bunch of

people will one whole side. they are not walton fox or msnbc so much of the chatter that is going on is going past the people that really make a difference because they are not watching rachel and sean hannity. that's not where the independence, moderates, undecided voters live. >> if i'm pronouncing the name correctly he wrote about the way the narrative changes -- basically reporters to give the devil and write their stories. >> it's like a bird on a telephone line when one takes off the all fly away. >> obama gets out there and he describes romney for getting his past positions and if you perceive him as winning or losing it is an embarrassing sign of desperation and colors once independent voters get

around it is the color that they get. >> are they getting the news by watching something on saturday night live? a great arbiter now we're a lot of folks are very passive and i completely agree with charlie you are all wonderful people but no one in this room is normal, right? [laughter] including people on this panel we discussed how many minutes talking about the possibility of a popular electoral votes. how many times have people actually thought about that in their life? so, anyway, so that show for people that are watching this race it does give an image of that. look, the image that was created after mitt romney both on the comedy shows and then in the traditional media and of course by the ads is that mitt romney was kind of stiff but also a

super rich guy that doesn't really know what it's like to be an average person and that's what you hear in the focus groups especially he asks what would mitt romney be like as a neighbor? they said things like ensure he would be nice and pleasant but i don't think i would be good enough to be invited to his house. he's going to have a really big house and i would be embarrassed bringing the casserole over. >> who did they say they would like to have come to a backyard cookout respect you know who this is. who did they want? joe biden because he would bring the area have a great time. [laughter] -- guelzo of bill clinton to come by. they love bill clinton and joe biden and they think that, you know charlie's point is right on that's why this race isn't over and why it is so close that it's the fact the door did open

during those debates and there are a lot of people getting a second look at what they see from mitt romney, but the question -- and this goes back to the earlier point charlie made about defining yourself. what is the closing argument and that mitt romney is making and for many of them they are saying things are not getting that much better or they are getting a little bit better but i don't know that i give obama much credit for it. if i am going to switch horses what do i get out of mitt romney and they still haven't really answered that question. >> one of the things we haven't talked about is which mitt romney? he can buy our office and i don't see that in a pejorative label but he came by running the u.s. senate in 1994 very bright analytical mind you could tell he was a little bit of a problem solver, the management consultant he said i would like to get my hands on this government and i think i could do better job and i would

characterize him as fairly and on ideological if i had to put him on a scale on the football field i guess i would probably put him on the 35, 45-yard line. that's the guy that was there and got started running for president in 2007. and then somewhere during the 2008 campaign he realized it wasn't working and he had to go hard right so for the four years he has been running as far to the right as he possibly could and that's what he had to do to win the nomination and when you have that fox news last year when he said if you offer a budget deal 10-1 for a dollar in tax increases would you go and not one of eight raised their hands not even romney. the thing about it is ten period one, that is a helluva deal but raising his hand would have effectively been cutting his own throat. the thing is he didn't really take it back until not even at the convention at that point.

it was really the first debate. so this was a different romney and people like to start out for themselves which, you know, which is it. to me this is closer to 1.0. but that mitt romney could win a general election but couldn't win a nomination. the other come when nomination also, you know, it was a struggle but couldn't possibly -- >> let me ask that the opponent to because you have described mitt romney doing a lot of things that you come just looking at it professionally do not think it's necessarily the ideal behavior having an effective campaign running against him and a terrible summer, having trouble september, the 47%, and after all that, the president with all of the advantages he was only a three or four points and had one bad night and even goes away. what does that say about the president's plan? >> if we go back six months ago you say president get reelected

and so, the fact that romney was behind with a lousy economy was really quite remarkable. now i think also starting in august and september at the time they the five-year high consumer confidence started shooting up because the fed but housing markets finally started shunning some light and consumer confidence john supple and we started seeing the right direction, wrong track. >> you have some arguments they economy would actually lean towards the obama win narrowly. >> it was getting whiter. it wasn't going to be an asset but it was less of a liability

and then 47% plus -- you could look at the polls and see what they that happened. and when it hit michael degette the national journal did a lot of looking through the data and said it was non-college-educated white women that took a huge debt to the cadet after the 47% remark. and there was a group that was holding out. mom college-educated white voters are a problem to the president, not college-educated white man is like a no-fly zone for the president. but the women were sort of more they didn't really like obama, but they were not comfortable with romney and after the date you started seeing some of the -- >> what does that say about the strengths and weaknesses as a candidate that had the decrease has had a big advantage of the incumbency and in the campaign, and here he is -- >> here is the issue. you have two things - working

against him. the economy is one the other is this is especially true from the suburban women we keep hearing about here in virginia and columbus ohio. he was going to change washington, right? people voted for this guy a. i remember talking to people the especially out in the excerpts of virginia who said i don't know i can't believe i voted for a democrat. i've never done this before. but i really believe that he's going to be able to change the way this place works, not completely what he's been to make some inroads. so it is the frustration that he says he was going to go and make things better and it's 100 times worse. congress is more polarized from ever. okay i get it. maybe the economy is improving and things are getting a little bit better to wait about why are the next four years and be any different than the previous four years. how are you going to actually work in this congress that you seem to have completely

dismissed and that wall street journal article as fascinating to me. if obama is reelected what percentage of you want to see major changes, minor changes or no change of altering his next four years? 62% said major changes. so, there are a group of people out there again, take away the hard part is in on either side who are going to reluctantly pick the next leader in the free world. this is not out of passion are thinking things are going to change. it's the least bad option. >> the thing that disappointed me the most just sort of as a somewhat more informed citizen than -- all three of us have unusual vantage points watching so closely. but watching the president's acceptance speech in the debates i kept waiting to hear him say i have regrets about how life

handled things and if we believe could be elected i would like to do some things differently. and the fact is this president had virtually no relationship with congress. i mean, when politico ran a piece in may they pointed out the president hadn't had a single conversation in person or on the phone with kent conrad or tom harkin the chairman of the senate health labor committee which also does the rounds not on the phone or -- >> i've had a democratic committee -- i don't want to get too specific in the clinton administration and both the bush administration's, there were better relationships. the democratic senate chairman said he had been to the family corners under both bush as well as clinton not on this one will.

go and ask members of congress how often do you have any kind of interaction at all with the president, and you would find its shockingly small maybe because i just finished reading the book on lyndon johnson. but ronald reagan came to town and he didn't know when he got to washington. but he had the personal skills and the desire to build relationships and work. >> waiting for the president to say here's what i'm going to do different. didn't he attempt that in the state when he said something about i'm not a perfect president -- >> i think what they do what we hear and it's not so much missing up on the economy. it is, you know what i came to washington, i really wanted to

institute change. i thought i could do this. it's hard. i need to do a better job of it. and i think people are willing to listen to that. now, you also have to believe that and say that to the people on the hill, those on the republican and democratic side, but this sense of things are going to change because they have to, we can't go through another four years of a paralyzed washington, and that's what again for all the people in denver and virginia that i've listened to where the economies are better they are not giving the president credit because they think that he failed on that measure. >> if people are reluctant to increase the president for a second term because of gridlock in washington are they also reluctant to embrace their incumbent senators and representatives at this point? >> no, that hasn't translated. they think they are all -- they

don't like democrats or republicans. they think the system is broken. but there isn't a wholesale. that is where the great irony is. in 2006 they got in control of the house in large part because they defeated a bunch of moderates. republicans gained control in 2010 by knocking out almost all of the blue dog moderate democrats. and so, voters id were making change when they said for the dhaka pretty sterile democrats out what, and in their desire to send a message of change, but they created essentially was the more polite, chris. they threw out the wrong people, and that is where, you know, that's why i also get frustrated when you have the campaign committee chair people on each side saying the congress is a

terrible. because you beat all those people you could have worked with. he painted them with a broad brush and just another obama democrat. >> there is no silver bullet but if i could wave a wand on these, the districting reform so that we don't have all of these customized district these are designed for democrats and republicans because when you do that, you get far left democratic districts, far right republican districts and the other thing is open up primaries in states such independent can vote either way. california just did both, and we are seeing more competition in california than i would say the previous three decades combined and it may not be the perfect reform but i tell you what, you are getting competition and having members that have never tried to talk to voters in the

other side or independent. you've got sherman running to try to meet republican and independent voters because they have seen off against each other. you are seeing some very interesting things happen. but that would do more to fix washington than any of your that i could think of. >> i want to ask two more things and then open to the questions. i believe there will be a microphone passed around as well. first as a follow-up both of you have referred in the conversation to the polls. when you refer to the polls are saying is that before or after? [laughter] >> you go, charlie. >> i have very strong opinions on this. should i explain this for the c-span audience that they were showing obama ahead when he was and and the web site that is now

objecting the polls, jonathan martin of politico referred to the choose your own adventure campaign where you can decide who is ahead and behind and have your own debate. yesterday i saw devotee of going around you could rearrange the debate to have the argument goes the way that you wish. >> last month they have a subsidiary where you could actually go online with a credit card and give them your credit card, right question and would get asked on a pole the next night which i'm not sure why evin decided to bring that up because i probably shouldn't have. but anyway come here is to me that common sense. number one, cherry picking. people who think that they go for the one poll that tells them what they want to hear and that is the most accurate and any other is obviously flawed and so the cherry picking is a sin.

the other that is worse among the cable brokers is the latest poll. it must be the truth. even if it is inconsistent with other surveys that they seized and then the third and the way to combat that is to go with aggregation with a bunch of the polls together. but the problem is if the polls going into the average are -- computerized response attitude -- the reader internet or lil' bo -- internet orrobo polls. you have huge problems. if you are averaging with the good stuff, so you know, what we started to doing on our web site

is we just go through for the presidential, for the national polls and battleground states and say okay we are just going to show the polls that our people calling real people with acceptable methodology putting that on and for the conservatives that don't want to trust the liberal media okay, fine why don't you just do this? watch the fox poll to be perfectly honest doesn't look much different from the other networks but that's okay and look at the "wall street journal." wall street journal i don't think they are a part. one of the pollsters that is doing it is one of romney's the five pollsters a year ago and so, they are probably not in on the conspiracy and so just look at those if you don't want to look at -- they look like most of the other reputable polls

both in the states, the day's of the newspaper commissioning a quality research firm to do a real legitimate poll it doesn't happen anymore. one of the firms that was in the new york magazine a couple weeks ago it was a three-person firm in north carolina that puts out over 800 polls a year. 800 polls a year. >> that seems like a lot. >> yeah. and the other probably has fifer ten people. >> what would be fun is to do not just an autopsy of the public polls, but internal your different things, too. there still are -- we don't get to see, we get to hear about the poll that we have this year and this their assumptions that the campaigns but that the

presidential level and the senate level are making with the electorate is going into look like color the way they are looking at each of these states, so which is but again if you put truth serum into both the campaigns, they are not going to be that far off. >> maybe we can to get more interesting one. the democratic pollsters one has obama by six or seven and one has it by five, three republican pollsters, one has obama, one has obama four to six and one hasn't even. sounds like obama is ahead three to four points. >> evin seven to probably split the difference. so, buy showing the shoe leather

to kind of get a feel for where this is based on a high-quality research. >> would you recommend that people might recommend will get the state polls rather than national polls? >> 90% are robo or internet. >> when you see the cbs "new york times" that is a good policy. "the des moines register," julian also does the bloomberg poll. there are some high-quality people but it's very, very little and that is what pollutes the averages and whether it is pollster.com or politics dorwart with nate he's a really bright guy but you have to be more

discriminating otherwise it is garbage in and garbage out. >> the last question before we go to yours we are in a choose your own adventure in the environment tell me your instinct. is it presumed that the mood remains a very close election do you think that the public at large on the losing side, whoever that may be is going to be prepared to accept losing. >> the mccain voters wanted a thereby to win but you sort of felt a sense of america just made history and there's that hope that you saw the president's numbers by cut right after the inaugural everything went up and then of course it crashed back down. so that has not been completely wiped off. the question is is it going to feel like 2004 where there is the frustration and the hand

wringing and i can't believe this from democrats or is it going to be like 2000 where we get to the position of this race is still in, there is an illegitimate president and that's going to come down to are we going to have another hanging chad peace of all of this, is it planned to be as close? exactly. >> as close as that was, i have a bunch of some lefty's e mailing me. but the election was stolen. you are going to have to nine years in any race there will be some deniers that are not willing to accept losing and that's just part of where society is it just is what it is. >> it sounds like you are talking about something larger than that. >> i was just thinking even 2004 when there was a close race but

there were people that were saying, you know, ohio was stolen from kerry. >> but we are polonized even then. so the intensity is much more. >> let me invite your question. i will be calling you and if you can stand up so people can see you and also say your name and -- so we'll learn a little about you. yes, you. >> will davis with the united nations. first off, the whole reason i was in the des moines edition summarized by the fantastic story with a spring in my step three is connected abc had a story? >> he's an excellent

correspondent. the senate is when to be very close. who's going to control it and what races will it come down to? >> charlie, you go first. >> if you were a republican well, we were standing in a year and a year-and-a-half ago the eda 50% chance of picking up a majority of the senate. i try not to use kunkel because in the senate that is a member that begins in a six and doesn't end in a zero but they've had tough breaks whether it was olympia snowe's retirement or becoming a biology instructor. [laughter] that is still pretty close actually. some republicans that i thought were first-rate candidates not panning out so much like heather wilson in a mexico. i think it's about a 40% chance of republicans taking the majority but i think it is going to be a lot of one and two-point

races. so why would not be surprised if wednesday lunchtime we may not be positive. remember six years ago the time this group has seen the states you had missouri, montana, virginia still up for grabs and that was the majority of the senate and in those three states, jennifer devotee figured this out from 4.8 million people voted in those three states and those three states were decided by 60,000, 600 total votes and there was the majority of the senate. i think we could be in that kind of situation but basically once you move the nelson open seat from the democratic side of the republican side that's a done deal if they win the white house three if they don't if nebraska has moved over and you have five democratic tossups and republican tossups and keep in

mind the last group of tossups the usually don't split down the middle. the heavy tendency to break two-thirds one way or the other. it's kind of like dominoes. let's say the one point race is a last little wind and they typically break one way or the other, so democrats have an advantage but there's a 40% chance. >> and i think if you want to know who has control of the senate, some of the early states, i'm sorry, majority. thank you, sir. virginia certainly is a place to go. if republicans win virginia, i would argue there is a very good chance that they won the senate even if they lose massachusetts because a would suggest to the 2/3 point they are winning in states where it was close but maybe romney came over the top 70 win in north dakota, montana,

nebraska and maybe they do pick up i don't know what to think about wisconsin but that's another one. >> people say that about wisconsin. >> people don't think about indiana. i do. so that really to me is the state that will tell us the most. >> the theme in the senate race this year is people in very close races in nasty states and whether it's scott brown, the republican in massachusetts or heidi in the north dakota or joe in indiana or landed in hawaii, it is a bunch of people and i think of it like you could have an olympic lubold metal swimmer but how bad can the undertow get before they get sucked under.

you take massachusetts where they have to win a 100% of the republican vote and 100% of the independent vote and one out of five democrats were every rounding vote or to hundred thousand obama supporters have to split the ticket. >> all those people when the senate would look different because they are opposite parties the states that don't let somebody from their party so it would have to be those down the middle need to compromise kind of people and would suggest this is where massachusetts is a great case study because he will lose high positive people like him. they think he's a terrible person i don't really like the idea of republicans having control of the senate. >> would be a parliamentary system where they can pick somebody been put them someplace they can actually win when you have a good candidate in a

really ugly place. >> that's good to the side of the room. please, right here in the second row. >> i worked on the hill on these task forces of dod. a couple things if you can bear with me. what's going on with the voter protection and how much of the difference to you think -- there were horrible stories of people dropping out boxes and the river and machines were there was a was to be ten and vice versa so what is the sense of that and my second question is you mentioned that people have to sort through who romney is and is he going to control the tea party or is the tea party going to control romney and sorting through that it's difficult for those inside the beltway one would hope that the obama campaign had made that particular point in the states like massachusetts or someplace

else. are they doing that out there? i salt elizabeth warren and scott brown go back and forth talking about control in the senate and what that meant. as a in the ad fenestration we don't have access to advertisements like you can see across the country. are they doing something to define it out there because the president really does need some control over the tea party. >> a case of the first question about the voter protection, what does the battle of look like? >> i will say this. every year there are problems in every single state with voting. those of you that go to the voting places no primarily with those involved. they are nice, sometimes elderly, most often elderly people to get to their voting place. sometimes in montgomery county

but they taught them how to turn on the machines so people showed up and the machines were not turned on. this isn't a conspiracy to deny people the right to vote, this was the fact that a lot of people had no idea how to work a machine. that is 99% of what goes on. every year we to ask them to be ballett watch. what's happening and we have reports of problems anywhere. every year somebody runs of knowledge and some counties and jurisdictions and there are debates usually in big cities should the polls be open leader because the lines are too long and at the same time we know the following things will happen. there will be votes miscounted. there will be things that we found these absentee ballots on the bottom of the room that we forgot to check. the screen to happen.

>> it's about honest mistakes, it's not malice. >> i couldn't agree with any more than what you've got, most counties spend more money on food in the county jail than on administering elections. so, we get all of the accuracy that we pay for. you want it down, you want precision, we have to spend more. we basically have a system that is based on part-time temporary elderly workers using new technology. now, -- >> we love all of those people. >> think about it. >> sure they are going to be the people on the one side or this clown and virginia. look, it's a big country. there are going to be examples of that. but there is not a serious voter fraud problem in this country

widespread. if the bush administration in eight years they found fewer than one case per state per year for all 50 states. now, that's pretty negligible and this is not -- its people that want to deny -- the wouldn't accept that they lose. either stolen from you and you know, believe what you want to believe, but in the scheme of problems in this country, this is way down the list. >> so you put voter fraud news that specifically which is more republican and democratic concern. a voter suppression which is what the democrats talked about. would you also put that down the list? >> i think running as to try to depress the supporters for the oversight is something that virtually every campaign in both parties and competitive races do. you want to get your people out

and do you want to have -- give your supporters conflicting emotions so that maybe they stay home. >> but that's conventional voter suppression, not some mechanical thing changing the voter i.d.. >> it's pretty rare. as the mix of the vote stealing that is a concern to partisans you feel will be overwhelmed by the normal human errors. >> right. >> okay. over on this side. right here in the third row. >> - dug with the aspen institute. both of you are an expert election watchers of the highest caliber so i was wondering if you could talk about the superpacs and the the new world of campaign finance. >> i can't wait for the real autopsy when all is said and done about this but as i said a

little bit earlier, the amount of money that's being spent to especially on the republican tide has been astronomical. and is the only reason why mitt romney is not getting out spent by a greater margin especially in the battleground states. at the same time, flooding money into the system has an outside group is not always particularly helpful. first of all, no matter how smart these groups are coming and believe me they are smarter than the outside groups that used to be but they're much more ideological. they have a cause and the arrogant spend a trillion dollars even if was on some crazy thing we need more in schools. we are in demand that the focus of our campaign. now it's the our strategic, the of their own polling, they have their own media shops, they think okay here is how we have to move the voters to the candidates. but what they're seeing and focused on is the economics are

completely different than the campaign wanted to these we have conflicting messages which isn't always helpful to the candidates the tv station house to give you and gets less and to cost a candidate so you have in some places a complicated thing if you buy your land reserved from purchase where you to look for bargains and the smart and strategic about that, you have to buy ads and their spending ten times as much as a campaign. all there is to say is they have made an impact but at the end of the day it wouldn't be the one thing that we both agree could have helped mitt romney which

was defining him and letting him be defined. there were lots out there that president obama is a terrible candidate and a steward of the economy people already knew that. the senate is another big piece of this. after all is said and done and the republican superpacs they are going to buy this election and if republicans don't take control of the senate it's not a good return on investment so i would be very curious to see what the reaction is going to be like from the circle. >> it's not new for very wealthy people to have free-spending disproportionate influence is and whether you want to go back to the 72 and before that, soros and peter lewis, it happens and in one election they will be on

one side and another will be on the other, but you're right, it's not quite as efficient as some other spending. ..

>> moderator: financially he is sort of the wizard of financing. mama let me ask a follow-up question. you mentioned again the idea of the romney campaign made what you see is a mistake in not finding early on and explain to people who he was. surely at some point, you have asked people from the romney campaign about this. what explanation have they offered? if they said climbdown, we know it's not conventional, but here is what we want to do. mandela: we want to be focused and disciplined. >> moderator: this is about the economy. this is fundamentally about the economy. this is about the president. and they are saying that we didn't have the kind of resources. we are going to get outspent two or three or four to one. regardless of what advertisement

we put out there. they are still going to get the hacker that is the problem with being a challenger. you don't get to go in. we had to fight off the six other people in the primary president obama will together and just dump it. now, it also might not have work. this is a gamble that both sides made. the obama campaign gambling is a time of economic despair, and that is what we are purpose upon. >> is going to be up or down, the president obama's economy. i think it is a little bit more complicated. to me, people are asked, do you want to renew this president's contract for another four years? yes, no, or maybe?

is the no equals 50% or more, which it has, there is a second question. do you feel comfortable replacing the president with mitt romney. [laughter] [talking over each other] >> okay. it is that they wanted to say focus and discipline. which leads to widen the super pac comment. >> that is not our job. >> yeah, that's actually true. the romney super pac actually had a really nice testimonial

spot that i felt was really good. we don't want to get in the way of the economy here. >> i think it worked fine. >> the thing is i don't think he was going to win a foreign policy debate. that is not an area -- his area of expertise. so i think that he opted to go a low risk strategy. >> let me ask the gentleman in the bowtie here. >> hello, would like to ask

about ronnie arriving at pragmatic compromises. my hunch is is that he would like to do that. but my other hunch is there is a hostage to fortune and he would not be able to get grover norquist of his back so easily. i'm wondering why he doesn't say so more directly. >> i would argue without president obama. i think there are a lot of ideologues believes in compromise in the four letter

word in both parties. i say it is over a half of the members of each party actually, the other question early about the tea party. this tea party business, less than one third of the freshman joined the tea party. less than one third. >> [inaudible question] >> no, not in the tea party. >> i don't consider eric cantor or john boehner part of the tea party there. but the thing about it is you are basically taking an old line of conservative republicans and putting a new label on them. in the tea party movement --

they voted for obama in 2008, these democrats did, or for john kerry or al gore in 2000. there are not many. will president iranian people stand up to this element? could president obama cinnabon entitlement changes? looking at two sides of the same point. they are both problematic. >> the voters get this. they get the joke.

they needed him to be the severe mitt romney. that is why these ads look at the most over-the-top negative ads, which have come from barack obama and not mitt romney. most of the sit in the washington dc meeting. and he say, basically, i will not have a contraceptive and i will be cancer and die because of mitt romney. that is essentially what they are saying because he's going to cut off planned parenthood. i think you saw him at this debate the other day for both reasons. one, it is not territorial and he didn't need to get himself tripped up in this debate. but also because those very women he is trying to talk to,

they don't want to be a george bush or put in a category of he is a george bush neocon or it eating a wardrobe. one of the first things he said in that debate was implied. >> mitt romney cannot have possibly won the republican nomination if not for this. okay, some of your democrat. half of them are democrat. let's talk about 2016 for a second. it is the same thing. these parties have gotten so ideological that you can't -- you know, that was what was so remarkable, i think.

it wasn't about ideology. they mask a larger thing. the democrats have the same problem. >> let me ask to call upon the questions that people asked her in regardless of what you believe is a politician, you have to govern as a campaign. >> given the fact that they demagogue on two issues, they are going to have to make that change. they are going to deal with it one way or the other. the first question is how ugly this again.

the "des moines register" noted late last night that they had an interview with the president that he wanted to be off the record. they complained that it shouldn't be off the record. and now it is on their website. i think that is one of the points that the president makes, too. but it will be very ugly. the spy. but that's how it has happened. >> i was talking to the republicans when they had a conference call. i don't know if it was cancer or mccarthy or two -- but don't commit to anything. but if we don't commit, just say as little as you possibly can about this because things are going to have to happen after this election. and, you know, i think hopefully after the election, the adults take over on both sides. because obviously things have to happen. it was a pretty ugly things

happen. >> folks i talk to on both sides at least they are talking in a way that they suggest that they do not want to see another debt ceiling meltdown. >> in the senate side, i think it is very plausible that some kind of a compromise worked out. the house is just very problematic. you have just a lot of really exotic members on the right and the left. [laughter] >> you are talking about a euphemism here. >> nothing wrong with that. [applause] >> they are pretty hard to get those people to come to the same table. >> we have time for two or three more questions. how about you in the aisle here. >> hello, we talked a lot about the three debates and the impact it has had on the election. is there any analysis or views about what the vice presidential

debate did? >> i think it'd give a boost, the vice presidential debate, to a very depressed the democratic party. they came out of that first one bringing their hands and oh, this is over, it is a disaster, eeyore came out. but it didn't have an impact on the actual numbers themselves. in part because voters are still picking the president and they are not taking the running mate. so it was a good morale boost for a democratic party that needed one. but beyond that, i don't think it had as much of an impact. >> it should have a disclaimer, perhaps, this debate is for entertainment purposes only. [laughter] >> you heard after the president's performance the first time, and i love jay leno is one, the only people who thought the president on won the

first debate was the nfl replacement ref. the democrats were standing on the window ledge and joe biden them got them into safety. [laughter] they were very relieved. >> the gentlemen here on the aisle with the glasses. go ahead. >> okay. >> i'm an independent consultant. i have a question to make it short. >> going back to the debate in general, substance versus style. versus the shaping by the media. i talked talked to some people that have heard on interviews the people have heard obama's

retort. it is almost a specific. >> jimmy carter had bad idea. how did that work out for him? [laughter] i think a six-year term limit was the question. the other question was about the debate, about who was more specific? >> the democrats will say the president obama was specific. others will say that mitt romney was more specific. and they probably didn't make it all the way through. >> that's right. on the term limits, they would just mean that we have a longer campaign season. i don't get that. but beyond the partisan to say

that my guy won regardless of what happened at the first debate, it is very different to go through and, like the dork that i am, read the transcript of the debate. and then watch it. it is a very different debate. so style does matter. and i think that is where the vast majority, we have been tuned in for five seconds. but we found is a president who seemed like he just didn't want to be there. again, for a president that was already sort of teetering on the question of maybe -- it seems either going to change their minds. so it is important. that is why these guys spend almost as much time learning about what camera to look at, what kind of face you have.

>> the president did one of the debate prep sessions at hoover dam. >> yes, that's true. who doesn't want to see the river dam? >> it has been there for a while. last month. >> adesso. >> one more question. >> so you two are involved as anyone that i know. what will be the biggest surprise when we wake up from the election. >> that it's not over. >> so that is the question. but there is always some who think there is a surprise that

it is literally broke like the day before. right? but is there going to be a presidential race? well, you know, we are always chasing after, you know, you hear this and that. you try to figure out if there's anything to it. after every shocking upset, i can usually think back to some conversation that i had with someone somewhere who suggested this or that in iowa. >> that's right, and they always kind of say it offhand. but there are 67 other ways. >> for you should watch this one. >> the senate majority super pacs, they just went up in

pennsylvania for bob casey. not a race that we consider particularly competitive. there have been a bunch of fools, but most of them were polls of dubious credibility. you believe it or not? and so we will spend today trying to figure out whether the pennsylvania senate race is going on or not. >> well, maybe that's a good point to stop on. thank you very much. please join me in thanking everyone. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> more from campaign 2012 here on c-span2 with a debate from

ohio. democratic senator sherrod brown debated his challenger, sherrod brown. it was his third and final debate moderated by nbc news. >> moderator: thank you. the error may be no bigger debate in this battleground state in hamilton county where we are tonight in the studio here in cincinnati. welcome to the third and final debate between the two men vying to be one of ohio's voices in ohio. thank you to all of the nbc stations here in ohio. senator sherrod brown maintains he has the experience of fighting for ohio's best interest.

and josh mandel says it's time to put the state on a new course. i promise the live audience that i would give them one chance to give the candidates some applause. there is your cue. [applause] >> moderator: been an exchange, they agree to keep the applause down until we get through our questions. both men have the opportunity to get through these questions tonight. we have a panel of questioners. we have a reporter from channel five, our nbc affiliate in cleveland has a reporter, and colombia has a candidate as well. each candidate has 90 seconds to answer a question. followed by a minute response from the opponent and followed by a 32nd rebuttal. senator brown, we began with

your opening statement. brown: thank you to nbc and aarp. one of america's great advocacy over organizations. i have worked for the senate for six years. my pledge to you tonight is the never knew that promise the bible continue my fight for the middle class. being a senator is a lot about listening and learning. i have held many roundtables. sixteen and 20 people, i will sit and ask them questions for now and how for two hours and take those ideas and thoughts back to washington. one of the most memorable discussions i had was with the gentlemen who work in the toledo plant. this was in the fall of 2008, and he said to me, how do i support my family.

in the winter of 2009, we knew how important it was for people to be hired. 800 jobs in the state connected to the auto industry. not just the big auto assembly plant in toledo, it is the steel plant just up the road from here. it is the classic rant. it is the plant that makes components for airbags and it is the diner in marysville and that beautiful place in the state. so we stuffed up. we get it. my opponent says this was

un-american. to me, this vote was doing my job to fight for their jobs. >> moderator: senator? mandela: i would like to thank anybody watching tonight. i am running for the u.s. senate because washington is broken. one in every poor children is in poverty. 4000 ohioans are out of work. that is unacceptable. in order to change washington, we have to change the leaders that we send there. over the next hour, i look forward to having an opportunity to tell you what my specific jobs plan. to turn around the economy and bring new jobs right here in the state of ohio. unfortunately, in washington, things are broken when it comes to growing the economy here in the state of ohio. i believe washington can take a lesson from what we have done in ohio. look at the states treasury

office. we have navigated the european sovereign debt crisis. not only without a loss, but on behalf of taxpayers, and we have done that were voluntarily cutting the budget two years in a row. compare that to washington and the failed to the failed record in washington were they haven't passed a budget for over three years. the u.s. credit rating was downgraded for the first time in american history under sherrod brown's watch. in the next hour, you'll probably hear sherrod brown attack me. he has used most of his money and time attacking me. the question that senator brown is getting throughout ohio democrats, republicans and independents, is for a guy who has been running for political office since richard nixon. don't you have a couple of good things to say about your own record?

the reality is he had been in washington for 20 years. it is a record of failure. the reality is he stood for the middle class. unemployment rates are up, for foreclosure rates are up. health care costs are up. senator, that is quite a record. the way we are going to change washington is by changing people in the senate. >> moderator: before i get to the questions, let me start with an open question for both of you. particularly on your curves. senator, you have been in congress 20 years as senator mandel said. congress has an approval rating of 20%. when you got into congress, it was a robust 27%. it is unpopular today. how do you defend yourself? brown: okay. let me give you an example of how my experience works.

i know what china trade has done to our state. lost manufacturing jobs in every place in the state. medium cities like springfield and toledo and everyone else. another we have to address that issue. i went to republican senators in north carolina and alabama because i knew that china and the china currency problems have been inflicting their states through that industry. i have worked with them and we have put a group of eight people together. the experience i had in washington has helped me be a better senator. i'm proud of that, sir. >> moderator: senator mandel from a different version of his question. you are looking to holger for political office in the last seven years. but he was sure ohio voters that this is not a stepping stone, that if you are there, you're going to be reliable in a consistent voice for six years.

mandel: i think all politicians should have to sign a pledge. i signed it. i pledge to stay there only a maximum of six years. i'm going to go there with as much passion and energy as possible, make as much positive change is possible. then i'm going to come home and live under the budget and laws that i created. compare that to senator brown. he ran for washington in 1992. he promised to stay there only 12 years, but after 12 years, he looked at the people of ohio and said i change my mind, i'm sort of enjoying time in washington. he has been there for two decades. i will say this no longer, i can do everything to bring jobs to ohio. one of the reasons that washington politicians have a bad approval rating is because they live by one set of rules. all of us live by a different set of rules. that is why washington, it is

high, in ohio, it is very low. >> moderator: this question is going to be directed at senator brown. he is a father of three who has now been out of work, the questioner. he is one of the people standing in line trying to get one of the 400 positions at our horseshoe casino in downtown cincinnati. he wants to know if you win reelection, how can you bring more jobs. brown: thank you for that question. first of all, look at what has happened last three years. we were losing 800,000 jobs a month in january 2009. today the job rate is down 7%. unfortunately, it's not good enough for that gentleman or the others getting in line. it is moving in the right direction and we get there because of the auto industry, we get there because we are enforcing trade rules.

there are jobs and a steel mill in youngstown. aluminum jobs in sydney and because we enforce trade laws, we focus on community colleges and job training calls to match up with what the community colleges teach. there is a program specifically that came out of the veterans committee. it helps the veterans 35 to six years old get retrained for these jobs. we are not there yet. we honestly need to focus on this. but we are moving in the right direction. bipartisan between the federal government with local businesses and local communities. >> moderator: mr. mandel, 60 seconds. mandel: he went to washington in

the senate. the on employment rates for women have gone up. on a planet rates for african-americans have gone on. unemployment rates for the middle class has gone up. let me tell you about my plan. first, we must make the tax code more credit for small businesses. it is small businesses that drive the economy. when multinational corporations filing 50,000 page federal tax return and pay zero taxes, it is the mark of a broken system. it is unfair to the middle class. we need a tax code that is better for the middle class and small businesses. lower tax rates for middle class job creators. second, right here in the state of ohio, we must drill for oil and gas in a responsible way.

mandel: what we don't do is follow the economic path that we followed for most of 2000 and 2008. in the '90s when we invested in the middle class, we saw 21 million jobs in greece. focusing on the middle class and building the economy up from that. rather than tax rates. >> moderator: from both of you, do you believe government can create jobs? thirty seconds each. mandel: i think it is a matter of history to create jobs and not the federal government. we got in a mess because of the bailouts. senator brown voted to bail out banks. i don't think we should be using your tax dollars to bail out banks on wall street.

i think the private sector should drive the economy, and i trust you a lot more than i do bureaucrats in washington. >> moderator: senator, does the government are great job? brown: right now, the company shuts down in norwood was shut down in chillicothe, missouri, or shuts down and moves to shanghai, we have tried to eliminate that. i'm proud of my work. i'm sorry that my opponent doesn't see what this is meant for our great state. this is just 15 miles away. >> moderator: senator mandel, you have not specifically endorse the paul ryan plan. it would radically transform

medicare and medicaid. a dramatic overhaul of many programs. something that virtually all republicans in congress have supported. a simple question. if elected, would you vote for the paul ryan budget plan? yester now. why, or why not. mandel: i do not support that plan and i will have my own plan when i go to washington to save medicare and social security. for me, it is a personal issue. my grandmother is 84 years old. my parents are baby boomers. they are 60 and one respectively. i believe it is unfair to change medicare or social security. whatsoever. for my grandmother and her generation, and for my parents. and for their generation. one of the things that bothers me about the problems of social security is that politicians in washington, sherrod brown and others, have robin stole from the social security trust fund

which uses that money for fannie and freddie and large corporations. that money should stay in the trust fund to save social security. secondly, when it comes to medicare, we have to repeal the affordable care act. we have to repeal obamacare. because one senator brown cast that vote, they took $715 billion away from medicare. in order to fund obamacare. third, we need to make commonsense cuts in other parts of our government in order to fund social security and medicare far into the future. >> moderator: senator come you have 60 seconds. brown: you might have heard that answer before, tom, on the order 10 different issues in this campaign. when you washington to vote, i know this sounds interesting, but to actually vote yes or no. of course i voted against the

various federations of the rhine plan. it is more tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country. it is more spending on the military dollars. and it cuts right at the heart of the middle class. it cuts the college programs. it cuts the stafford loans. cuts to education and health care programming. his people rely on those. the 700 billion-dollar mess that we hear about over and over again, if we cut medicare, you would see fewer benefits and medicare. instead, seniors in this country have significantly more benefits on all kinds of preventative care and savings on prescription drugs because of health care. mandel: that is definitely washington speak. talking in circles. here's the reality. senator brown cut $1,600,000,000,000 for medicare.

that is unfair to american citizens and unfair to the baby boomers. unfair to others who are reaching the age of eligibility. as a united states senator, i will take a backseat to no one when it comes to saving social security, saving medicare, and making sure that these programs are funded into the future. >> moderator: what does that mean? are you for raising -- are either one of you for raising the retirement age in order to deal with medicare and social security? mr. mandel, start with you first. mandel: my grandmother who is 84 years old, we should not change anything for medicare and social security. for my parents were peeved baby boomers, we should change anything. but my knees, hannah, she is 20 months old. if we maintain the status quo, which is the way washington, there will be no social security or medicare. for folks that are toddlers or elementary school kids and others who are a little older, we have to make changes. i think one of the things we should celebrate in this country is people are living longer. we have decreased life

expectancy. >> moderator: we should look at some that are older? mandel: i think it is unfair to change social security and medicare whatsoever. >> moderator: what you think on the senator brown. brown: i spoke at the beginning. i would not have voted for bowles-simpson. i will give you a specific answer. some just want to stay alive

until they turn 65 so they can get health insurance. if you raise the retirement age for people, the eligibility age, and social security, i would not raise the retirement age. because construction people and people to work in diners -- they can't work until they're summoning ursula. i would not raise the retirement age or cut benefits. it is really important. but i would think about raising the cap. that is the way to solve this. >> moderator: the taxes? brown: i think you can find a way. maybe 300 or $400,000. we can talk about that in detail.

>> moderator: mr. mandel, 30 seconds. mandel: i yield my time back to senator brown. would you do with all the money in the trust fund? for tobacco? brown: i came here to talk about issues and not to talk about accusations. [talking over each other] brown: when fdr signed in the 1940s, there has never been one late payment. there are accounting issues that i wish we would change and social security. change and social security. the fact is that is it is reliable, it would be reliable for this generation. i'm going to make sure where did that money go for social security.

>> moderator: devoted to save many jobs in ohio. the federal government stands to lose $25 billion on the investment with gm. is that too steep of a price cut for american taxpayers? be one no, i don't think so. thank you, colleen. i do not agree with the presumption that the federal government stands to lose. right now, the stock prices suggest that there could be some long-term issues. but i look at this and i can talk to people in line. i can talk to people outside of dayton, those that supply gm and other companies. i can tell you literally hundreds of stories of people whose homes were saved, these families are now getting an education. those who are getting along okay today because of that auto rescue. again, that is why people came together. that is why republicans and democrats alike, they were perfect, but look at what we did

compared to what could have happened in this country. again, in this date, 10.6% unemployment rates in 2010. 10.6%. now it is 7%. it is going down. 20% of the growth in gdp in this country since the auto rescue. 20% of growth in gdp has come from auto. 20%. in ohio, i don't know what it is. it is probably 25%. in sharonville, north of cincinnati, the plants for the first time in 12 years are hiring people. a hundred 180 people recently. i can give you example after example. every major company in ohio, the domestic auto companies, they have all invested at least 100 billion -- excuse me, $100 million in their auto plants. chrysler and gm have invested 500 million just in the last year alone. that is huge progress, and it clearly is what keeps the middle class going.

>> moderator: you have 60 seconds. mandel: he has been in washington for two decades and when he first ran for it this, unemployment rates have gone up. but to the middle class, up for african americans and women. in one of four children are in poverty. you also haven't heard him talk about all the retirees in the state of ohio that were stripped of their pension because of this bailout that he supported. middle-class employees looking for help. in their 60s and 70s who lost most of their pensions. they were planning on these pensions for retirement and live on to old age. supported a prospect that stripped them of their pensions. i do not support a process that stripped them of such things. >> moderator: senator brown?

brown: i said i went to work in 2009 under president bush. , 2008, i'm sorry. i worked with president obama to save this industry. i am very concerned about the delphi workers. i have done all kinds of things to try to protect them. it was gm who made the decision to shortchange the delphi workers and not top of their pension. i pushed and i have introduced legislation. i brought delphi retirees in to testify in congress. because i want to make this happen. but if we had not done the auto rescue, the delphi workers would probably have it worse than we did not. that doesn't satisfy them and nor should it. i will continue to go to bat. >> moderator: is there a bailout that you were disappointed and transported in any industry here in ohio? would there be a breaking point when he said, okay, there has to be a breaking point in the auto industry? mandel: there is no government bailout that i would ever

support. if you're watching at home you are looking at a bailout, that is sherrod brown. he voted use your tax dollars to bail out wall street and fannie and freddie. then he used your tax dollars to bailout large corporations. i will not take your tax dollars and use them to bailout wall street and large corporations. >> moderator: end-use senator? brown: one of the things you really guess on this, their bank, along with others, other regional banks are still in business because we stepped up -- the point is is that you have to figure what you would do with an auto rescue. would you have not followed what wanted to do or what president bush wanted to do? is what this industry ballpark? i just think that that is the most irresponsible thing. i notice good talking points and empty slogans for you.

but i just wonder what he would've done to help the middle class. you come up with nothing to say how you'd want to help the middle class. >> moderator: thirty seconds to respond and then i have one last question before we go to break. mandel: i talked earlier about part of my jobs plan. regulatory form for small businesses. and also drilling for oil and gas in the state of ohio. i also believe we need to do everything we can to help blue-collar workers. my grandfather was a member of the uaw. my grandmother was a member of the unit. they worked their butts off to feed their families and sacrificed so my mom to go to community college, but a two year degree and worked the public schools for 20 years. that is america and the strength of the middle class. your family can tell a similar story, but those are the type of stories i will fight for in washington. we have a strong middle-class. >> moderator: mr. mandel, there is no government assistance he would've given to the auto industry? if you are a senator at the time he was a senator?

mandel: i would've followed a different process. i would live the private sector process to take over. if i believe this, the auto companies will come out stronger. the retirees would've had their pensions. right now, they are stripped of their pensions because of a process. >> moderator: we are about to take a break here. before we go, each of you, one-word answer. model report? we are now going to a commercial break. ♪ ♪ >> moderator: welcome back to the third and final senate debate.

sheree, you have the next question. >> moderator: we are seeing outside the studio right now, supporters for both of you. screaming, yelling, taking down each other's signs are named to issues where you can find common ground with the other side of the aisle, or maybe even with each other. mandel: one of the issues where i believe i can find common ground with the other side is they are stopping to use our tax dollars to foreign countries that harbor terrorists. there are democrats on the other side who i can team up with on this issue. a few months ago, sherrod brown voted to give $1 billion of your tax money to pakistan. right in the wake of pakistan. he has voted to give billions of your dollars to countries like libya where our embassy was

overwhelmed and our ambassador was killed. egypt, where there is a guy from a terrorist organization, the muslim brotherhood, running the country. in other countries in the middle east, where women are treated as second-class citizens. this would be wrong. but we are not just operating in a vacuum. we are operating in an economic environment in which we have 16 trillion-dollar debt in washington. social security and medicare are on the brink of bankruptcy. families are struggling, and sherrod brown keeps spending our tax dollars and sending them to foreign countries. i would stop your tax dollars going to these countries to harbor terrorists. i support a lot of what joe manchin, the democratic senator stands for when it comes to responsible exploration of coal and oil and gas through job creation here in ohio and throughout the united states of america. unfortunately, senator brown is trying to block exploration of

oil and gas in ohio. he voted against the keystone pipeline, and does not support our coal mining families in eastern ohio as well. i will work with joe manchin in west virginia to keep the energy jobs here in ohio. i believe in ohio and energy equals jobs. >> moderator: senator brown? brown: most of what josh said is not true. about where we spend money internationally. but let me answer it in this way. here is how you work this. a farmer in northwest ohio told me that we can save tens of billions of dollars in taking away those wasteful farm subsidies, and construct a much better safety net for family farmers. i took that idea from the roundtable. i went to senator john thune in south dakota. we wrote a provision into the farm belt. we got it amended its implemented, and it passed the senate back in july. that is the way you do bipartisan bipartisan work. it could be the china currency bill, it can be our bus safety

bill. i teamed up with kay bailey hutchison from texas. we don't have time, but i can list 10 or 15 things by mark. >> moderator: senator mandel. mandel: that is washington speak. he is a rubberstamp or political party. when i go to washington, my boss is 11.5 million people in ohio. no one could push me around. >> moderator: senator brown, the senate has not passed over alleged traditional budget in the past three years.

senator, your party and democrats have been in charge of the senate during all that time. how much blame for the failure to perform except duties do share for that, and have you ever had a conversation with the majority leader, senator reid about how the senate is not doing its job? brown: i do not agree with that assumption. one quick point on the 95% -- 96% of the time, josh mandel has voted with the republican speaker of the house. one of the few times he didn't is when he voted with the payday lenders. he raised $100,000 from them, and i will get your question. you said the word traditional budget. we have done something better than that. the budget revolution that you ask about is asked by the house and senate, not signed by the president because it's not an act of congress. it is an important resolution that is not a blueprint that has the force of law. we test the budget control act

that was passed by the senate by partisans, signed by the president of united states, cutting $2 trillion. this is not something we are playing. the talking points that josh has brought up. about not passing a budget. but we have the budget control act which cuts $2 trillion in spending. it is making a difference in getting our budget under control. and i would add that i was part of the budget that we come in the 1990s, got to a budget surplus. i didn't vote for the war or the tax cuts for the rich. and i didn't vote for the medicare given way to the drug companies where we went from budget surplus in 2000, the biggest in american history, to the the biggest budget deficit in american history. that is what we will continue to do. i think we need to do more. that includes revenues and especially includes going after

the tax loopholes. the politicians that sign a pledge, you talk about that? >> moderator: i will give you 60 seconds to respond, senator mandel. mandel: sitting around your kitchen table, you can go three months without managing your family finances. sherrod brown and others in washington have gone over three years since they passed a budget. he talks about this budget control act. if you're sitting at home and watching this, and for a second, do you have a budget control act around her kitchen table when it were a budget can select in your small business? no, it's washington speak. we have budgets. we manage our small businesses for the budget. but unfortunately in washington, the politicians think they can live by a different set of rules. after you have been there for 20

years, i think that is just what happens. unfortunately, they have not passed a budget in three years. it is part of their duty and one of the main reasons i support the proposal called no budget, no pay. if they're not going to pass the budget accommodation and get paid. >> moderator: senator brown? brown: good sound bite, but it doesn't face the facts. in the '90s we had the biggest budget surplus in american history. now, all kinds of politicians are signing a pledge and if republicans keep signing the grover norquist pledge, they will never get to a balanced budget because grover norquist says not only can you not increase revenues, asking to be a little bit more, you can't stop the outsourcing of jobs by cutting and taking away that tax break, the corporations get when that when they move jobs. that is the important thing. you can talk about it, but you have to have a balanced approach. >> senator, but there's not.

>> moderator: you guys for the past one. why did the senate majority leader pass on? brown: the budget can select cut $2 million in spending. we did our job that way. we couldn't get closer to balanced budget because of this grover norquist pledge. this lobbyist pledge. it said no tax increases for upper income people. no closing the tax loopholes. >> moderator: so you didn't want to pass up democratic votes? brown: the issue is that you have to have a balanced approach. that means revenues and closing cash loopholes, and making the kind of cuts that we need to. >> moderator: the next question is to you, we are going to continue the conversation. >> moderator: you have retrieved yourself as an outsider, senator

mandel, so that you will be to hold anyone in washington, whether it is a lobbyist or a member of your own party. member of your own party. yes, you sign a pledge created by grover norquist who is a big washington insider and registered lobbyist. not to ever raise taxes. so how is it that you can sign the norquist pledge and not be beholden to someone who is an insider in washington? >> i am proud to stand up for lower taxes. i do not believe we can tax your way to prosperity. when i go to washington, i will fight tooth and nail to lower taxes for small businesses. for job creators and for middle-class families. compare that to washington. compare that to where in washington sherrod brown has raised taxes 36 times. thirty-six times during his 20 years in washington. yes, he didn't pay his taxes

once. he didn't pay his taxes twice. he didn't pay his taxes three times. so he is raising your taxes, but he's not paying his own. not once, not twice, but three times. when he was asked why he didn't, the answer was that he forgot. maybe you can understand that once. maybe you can understand that twice. but three times, senator? you forgot to pay her taxes. you sit on the banking committee and you're not paying your taxes. one of the reasons why congress has a 10% approval rating is because sherrod brown and others think they can live by one set of rules while all of us live by a different set of rules. i'm i am proud to stand up for lower taxes. when i was a city councilman, i worked on a bipartisan way to pass the first property tax for senior citizens and middle-class families in the history of our county. brown: it is simply not true

again. but i have come to expect that with josh. and you also didn't answer callings question. it's not that you can talk about middle-class taxes. the grover has stood against raising taxes on hedge fund operators. ..

45 to 44 and one of the reasons is because there is a good mix of democrats, republicans and independents throughout the state of ohio better sick of this washington's fecund career politicians living by one set of rules while all of us live by a different set. when i go to washington i'm going to live by the same rules all of you have to live by in running for small businesses and putting food on the table for your families every day. >> moderator: i'll want you to respond to something. this morning's wall street journal had executives of the big corporations including macy's headquartered in cincinnati coming out for saying it's some taxes are going to have to go up. is there any circumstances if you are in the senate that he will vote for a tax increase? brown: i believe we should be lowering taxes across the board,

lowering taxes for the middle class and job creators, lowering taxes for small businesses. i also believe our tax code is completely broken when you have these large multinational corporations that are firing 50,000 page federal tax returns and pay your taxes it is a multiple broken system and it's unfair to the middle class and small businesses. they don't have the money to hire an army of accountants and attorneys. i'm going to lower taxes. >> if there were a deficit feel they would file a deal three to one, taxing tuck kutz, nothing now? mandel: when i go to washington and going to lower taxes and grow our way out of this problem and create a better economic environment with lower taxes for small businesses and job creators and lower taxes for the middle class. >> moderator: senator very quickly can you lower rates and raise revenue like simpson-bowles says; is that realistic wax lowering rates which is what simpson-bowles tries to do to raise more revenue to you think that is possible? brown: i'm not sure if you do or

not. it is a screen to be balanced plan. it has all of the ceos understandably and we will have to put pressure on all of these republican members that have signed the pledge to grover norquist but when you talk about a balanced plan the $3 trillion would cut a budget control act which are very real cuts medicare saving money by the drug prices with the drug companies there's a lot of ways we can save billions of dollars of revenue has to be part of it. we can say we are always going to be for lower taxes. we've cut taxes a lot of times and i will continue to do that in the senate but in the and we are going to need revenue from higher income people and its grand be balanced plan. >> moderator: let me move on here. i want to advise you of something that mr. mandel was talking about. in the 2008 campaign against republican you attacked him for supporting george w. bush 95% of

the time coming and now we have exceeded that supporting president obama's agenda 96% of the time. isn't that also one-sided? >> what i've done is i've taken on the press in my own party and my first years in the house of representatives i disagreed with president clinton as a freshman member of the house on the north american free trade agreement. i thought i was right at a time. it wasn't easy opposing the president of the united states when you are a freshman congress. on some trade issues and health care issues i have done the same with president on some banking issues. on too big to fail, my legislation to break up the six largest trillion dollar banks in this country was the president opposed it. we lost on that, but the support for the growing and growing i've never had a party to be a problem taking on my own party. i haven't in the past and i won't in the future.

>> rather than listening to the washington's fecund rhetoric, look at the record. it's a good question. he is voted 96% of the time with his party and president. let me tell you what i'm going to do and i have a track record of doing. when i was a council member i mentioned earlier i reintroduced the first tax rollback in the history of the city. i worked with democrats and republicans to pass it we gave property tax relief to senior citizens and working families. when i was in the state legislature of in a bipartisan fashion and i served on the house entrance committee where we reconstructed the oversight to the workers investment fund to protect your hard-earned dollars. i worked in a bipartisan way to pass a balanced budget. i worked in a bipartisan way to keep young people here in the state of ohio. i identified an issue the export of kids and grandkids from a high of. i worked in a bipartisan way to management in the state of ohio

were referring to the highest rating bonds and investment and voluntarily cut our budget two years in a row. >> senator you have 30 seconds. brown: i would emphasize again josh mandel in the home party and the speaker of the hostile legislature talks a good game but with a 96% of the time and the only time he does in the financial skirred doesn't have a better offer and when he voted against satisfying to pay lenders which raised a whole lot of money for josh. it's a good talking game but there's nothing in the campaign and nothing is and he is electro record that shows that he's got, that he ever stands after his political party on anything insignificant. >> moderator: governor mandel is their anything you have a disagreement on with mitt romney? mandel: defense spending. a lot of republicans will say you can't cut defense spending at all. i did a couple tours and iraq.

i will do everything i can to stay vigilant in the war against radical islam. i done think we need all these bases throughout europe we aren't part of the nazis anymore to read we aren't a part of the cold war anymore let such down and turned on the basis we have in germany and italy and england and bring on our young men and women and use that money to fund social security and medicare and bring our boys and girls home. >> you find a question saying that you support federal and state legislation to ban abortion from fertilization without exception. what is your rational from that supporting exceptions on abortion on cases of rape and incest? mandel: well i do support an exception to protect the wife or the mother and this is an issue that i know is a very divisive issue and i know it's an issue where people are very passionate on those sides and i respect

that. while i am pro-life i respect people have different positions on this issue. i do think there are areas of common ground and we should talk about some of those areas of common ground. one of the areas we can work together democrats, republicans and independents is an option, we should encourage adoption in the united states of america in washington and here in the state capital. another area i think we can all agree tax dollars should be used to fund medicare. our tax dollars should be used to fund social security. our tax dollars should be used to fund government with very few tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund abortions. sherrod brown as an extremist on this issue and he supports using his tax dollars to fund abortions. another area people can agree is that we shouldn't support abortions in the ninth month of pregnancy. sherrod brown has an extremist

position and supports abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy. i mean, senator brown can you explain to the people watching at home tonight why you support abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy? >> moderator: senator you have six -- brown: i've never heard that. unlike george mandel i just a lot of women to make their own decisions about their health care, period. and my opponent has the most extreme position and sign a pledge to cincinnati right to life back and i think january saying no exceptions for anything. no exceptions rape or incest. there are tens of thousands of women in this country that get pregnant from read every year. a man not be something that people that look like us want to acknowledge but it happens. that's why in the and i will always trust ohio women to make their health care decisions, pure and simple. >> moderator: you have 30 seconds. mandel: this is an area we should find common ground and

work together on the adoption laws and work together to stop the taxpayer funding of abortions and also work together to stop abortions in the ninth month of pregnancy and this is an area where sherrod brown is an extremist and out of touch with mainstream ohio. before we get to closing statements and a quick question from both of you. to mr. mandel if ohio and the president obama to the white house and you to the united states in this state what message are they sending, what message do you take away from that and then similar 30 seconds to you senator brown if mitt romney carries the state but cindy seabeck to washington what do you take away from the voters that do that? go ahead mr. mandel and mr. brown. mandel: first of all i hope and believe governor tommy is and be the next president but if president obama is the elected i will work with them. i will work across party lines economically for the state and for the country. going the direction they would want a check and balance they

don't want someone like sherrod brown to be a rubber stamp as president of bombing and his party 95% of the time. people think back and say he is his own guy and he fights for the middle class when i was bill clinton and barack obama and he's an independent voice for the state. i would guess it could be a mixed message of course i will work with mitt romney views the president of the united states i work across party lines and could recite a dozen cases where we've made a difference that way and i will continue that. >> moderator: it's time for closing statements and if i got the coin toss right, mr. mandel has the first closing statement. mandel: one of my grandfathers was liberated by the troops and my other grandfather served in the u.s. army air corps.

we can have a debate like this and we can disagree. but when this ends. there are not could be punches thrown or shots fired. melendez and be flown in of hit or in jail. but in places throughout this world that is what happens. throughout the world folks that disagree on different political parties oftentimes get killed if they lose the election or their kids get to death or their spouse gets kidnapped. the great thing we have in this country is that we can disagree and we can debate in a passionate and energetically but once it is over there is a peaceful transfer of power when i raise my hand in the marine corps i swore an oath to defend the freedom and defend our rights to stand up here and disagree in a peaceful way and this has been a tough campaign. there has been a lot of accusations and claims the going both ways but i would like to think to people that are

watching here today. one is tanya schwartz and my wife who i could not have done this without. she has been incredibly supportive and loving and i can't thank you enough. my commitment to the state of ohio and to the people of the state of ohio is that you will have no better fighter, no stronger fighter in washington than ghosh mandel. i'm not going to stand up to the republican party or the democratic party or lobbyists but i'm going to stand up for your jobs. if sherrod brown was our answer the problems would have been solved long ago. the reality is in order to change washington we have to change the people that we send. and my job will be doing everything i can to fight for your job. >> thank you for your kind words about my life. i haven't met your wife. my wife is in the audience.

my daughter elizabeth and my daughter, emily, who is 31 weeks with her first child so i'm thankful for that. the last hour you've heard a lot of things back and forth, a lot of slogans. new herd tests but i am more interested in getting things done, and i think that if you look at what the newspapers have done they've gotten pretty much all of the newspapers that have endorsed my candidacy as a number of republican leaning organizations like the police have endorsed my candidacy i am quite proud of that but i think all about who stands and fights for the middle class and the differences are pretty great in this race on medicare. i don't call medicare and tie, i think it is a year and a benefit for the investment that people make their entire work lives they expect that benefit to be there when they retire.

when i know something as important as stafford loans in the interest of student loans i led the charge to freeze interest rates so middle class kids and working kids whether it is ohio state or bowling green or supplier for the community college they can get a chance to get an education. when the china currency the above will help level the playing field and stop china from cheating by legislation is the guest bill to pass the set to become senate those differences are pretty clear and of course we ought to rescue but in the end of the contrast is the square. josh mandel supports tax cuts for the richest people with the hopes that maybe some of it will trickle down and held the rest of the country, and i support focusing on the middle class growing the economy of from their enforcement trade land community college, small business, although rescue. that's how i ask for your vote. -- i want to think the candidates for the debate. my three colleagues here and the

aarp that provided underwriting support for tonight's debate. most of all things to you for watching and listening to the two candidates but your job isn't done yet you have until november 6th to cast your vote and make your voice heard it's one of the things that makes the country great. good night. [applause] by the league of women voters and peoria illinois. >> think you're for joining us this evening. the 17th district is a newly redrawn district that begins in northern illinois in the western portion and extends westward from there to the mississippi river then it turns south and heads down to the quad cities

continues along the river to henderson county then terms east word to fulton county and the southern portion of peoria including the southern half of the city of peoria and also a portion including most of pekin. except when i introduce the candidates which i will do now. first, the challenger a democrat from east moline illinois, cheri bustos. [applause] and the incumbent is the republican from kalona illinois, bobby schilling. [applause] the format for tonight's debate requires 75 seconds for opening statements.

then they will have 75 seconds to answer the initial question and up to 30 seconds for the rebuttal. in closing statements will also be 75 seconds in length. we have people from the illinois league of women voters who are here this evening to time the candidates. my name is leyna willson i'm the moderator for tonight and asking the questions of the two candidates will be alex, a news reporter at wcpo in peoria. also asking questions is herb trix and we have solicited questions through the internet from the public and asking those questions will be camille o'donnell who is a journalism student at brusquely university. we thank all of them for being here this evening. thank you. we asked the candidates to support the statement with details where appropriate and by an earlier flight of the claim,

we determined that bobby schilling will begin with the opening segment first. >> thank you very much and wptv to all of the viewers better tuning in and watching this debate. they're very important for us to have and i also would like to thank the star for their endorsement this week as of today we also received the register star endorsement and then the operators and engineers local 150 and i thank them for that. we have been married for 26 years and together for the last 16 years we have our small business in the illinois. a couple of years ago i decided that i was calling to take a look at running for office because i did not like the direction of the country was headed. the district was headed and the state and i felt that the only way to make a difference is to go in and throw my hat in the

ring. he's led by example. this past year because the budget by $150,000 with this congress put it on top of that i returned $110,000 back to the taxpayer which was the most amount of money ever given back in the history and 17th. i rejected the congressional pension and got my own health care to washington, d.c. am i looking forward to another debate tonight. >> moderator: now your opening statement, cheri bustos. bustos: thanks everyone for putting this on tonight. my name is cheri bustos. im the daughter of a social worker and a public servant, the granddaughter of a hog farmer and a nurse. my husband and i were taught at a very young age the importance of making a difference and giving back. and we have done that through our life as my husband and law enforcement. for many years i was an investigative reporter and sought public corruption.

i also spent the last ten years of my career in health care making sure that health care is accessible and we offer quality health care. this election will get down to priority, and i see this as a very different set of priorities from where my husband and i come from and from what congressman schilling stands for. i pledge to give it my all to make sure that i am working on behalf of the middle class families that had been under attack in the last two years of congress and schilling tenure. we estimate medicare is there for future generations and things like the pell grants order for students to be able to go to college not on the backs of the middle class. but your class in mind. thank you very much. >> moderator: now it's time for questions from the panelists. the first question is from wcbu-fm and will direct to congressman schilling. schilling: as was mentioned in the introduction, congressman

you're from kalona and mollyann. those are 7 miles apart. yet members elected in november after represent a district that is over 85 miles wide. so the question is how well each of you best represent people in peoria and in rockford given the physical size of the district? schilling: excellent question. if you look to the district that i currently represent, this is something where we need to make some adjustments and fix the mapping system. we need a fair map. it's just ridiculous with the politicians do and picking the voter versus picking a petition. i've been to this region 37 times to date i've gone out and i've made relationships with the

mayor in east peoria. this is called hit the ground running and what we have to do is go out and tour the facilities. i've gone through the heartland clinic here in town. this is about getting to know people, and really seeing what is important to them and i think that we have done quite a bit of that throughout our time that we've been coming back and forth here to the area. so we are trying to find the tight end to the district which is something we've been doing and a lot of things that they are doing in peoria are being used in rockford and vice versa, so it is kind of typing those together. >> the same question to cheri bustos. bustos: that is a good question because it is fast. i said from the very start of the campaign should i be elected by would open an office not only in the quad cities where i currently but also in peoria and rockford we need to make sure we do that.

i also look into the feasibility of the satellite office to see if we can do that from their rural areas. the office is each of those respective cities that i referred to would be staffed by people from for instance peoria and rockford and reflect the makeup of the communities and would be very important. constituent services are among -- they have to be among the top priorities and make sure that we are listening to residents and make sure we know the concerns are and be responsive to that. another part that i think is important for serving the entire district is we've said that within the first 90 days of being elected we would host an economic summit. this would be something the would be done annually but i see that at having to set the foundation for what we need to accomplish for job creation and making sure that we are serving our district as best as possible. >> moderator: we have to 30 seconds for rebuttal. congressman schilling. schilling: myself also. we will have an office here in peoria and one in the rockford area and the quad cities. what i will do is have what i

call a rover, somebody that has specific days we go to the other smaller making sure get proper representation. a constituent service is the key to any office that's all there and that is one of those things that we truly pride ourselves on. >> moderator: thank you. just to expound on the constituents for second. i see that as a very hands-on making sure that you have accessible office locations and making sure that you have the hours that reflect the community needs and hands on interactions. i'm glad clinton out there, the congressman schilling is number one in congress for spending on taxpayer funded that's how he has chosen to spend his funding and i would pledge not to spend on half a million dollars on taxpayer funded mail to communicate with constituents.

>> moderator: ms. bustos will answer first which comes from herb trix at wvik-fm. everyone is talking but a cover-up to be cut federal spending and reducing the deficit, so i would like for both of you to talk about programs are spending in the 17th district that you will be willing to sacrifice in the federal deficit for example 25 jobs or delaying a new bridge across the mississippi for five or ten years. something there will be our contribution. >> thank you. it's really a defining issue i see it getting down to priorities and we obviously have a budget problem we have to balance our budget but how are we going to do it? are we going to do it on the backs of seniors as my opponent proposes where it would charge those on medicare and extra $6,400 a year. they can't afford an additional $6,400 out-of-pocket.

are we going to do it on the backs of workers such as those of in shreveport whose dollars are being sent to china because there are tax incentives in order to do that or are we going to continue to give tax breaks to the big oil at the expense of again middle class families will be asked to pay $2,000 more under the ryan budget plan that my opponent supports? there is the government accountability report. i know you asked for specifics. $100 billion in savings every year. the report is sitting on a shot and it has for the last two years. it has proposals such as merging with the small business administration where the department of commerce has proposals like getting rid of redundant services for instance the job-training program. there are 44 programs that we can do away with. >> moderator: the same question goes to congressmen

schilling. i believe that you start with the top and lead by example. myett when it talks about the mailer's on invested less than 50 cents per constituent in the district and we spent money communicating with our constituents but at the same time the part she failed to mention is the fact we spent less on the offices than what my predecessor spent on one so the pool is about $400,000 less than my predecessor. we've got to start by cutting at the top to show the american people we cut 11% out ourselves. specific cuts for example one of the cuts on the committee that we did save $16 billion what this does is this i am a true believer that you don't take anything away from those that truly needed. what we this debate could it is safe to get the assistance to automatically qualify for the $200 in the nutrition, food

stamps and we said from here on out we will have folks allowed applications we can capture the people abusing the system and somebody that has won the lottery or somebody that for example as 50 or $100,000 in the bank to get the folks of the system so they can get what they need. >> moderator: return to cheri bustos for the rebuttal. bustos: happy to address those. in addition to the government accountability report, the other thing that we need to look at is a really does have to be a balanced approach. part of that is the burden that we are putting on the middle class. the tax break for those making over million dollars the need to go away. the congressman is working hard for those millionaires. that we need to address. this is about middle class working families come the 17th congressional district is made up of working men and women that so we need to make sure we are fighting hard for.

>> moderator: congressman? schilling: first i want to rebut the medicare scare. for 30 years politicians have been scaring our seniors telling them you are going to have -- medicare will be ended and you have to lose your social security. everyone i talked to so far as their social security. the 6400 dollar and now that my opponent continues to put out has already been debunked by the "wall street journal." millionaires and billionaires, he's talking about tax breaks that our job creators get for employing people. what's going to happen is we are going to lose 31,000 jobs in a light, 700,000 jobs in the united states of america. >> moderator: con wissman schilling. >> my question comes from a freshman at the university, and she asks what do you believe is the will of congress in regards

to gas prices? and if you believe the congress has a role in such a policy, what specific tactics do you support in the effort to lower gas prices? schilling: they do play a role and one of them that they play is to pass the law to make it where we can access our own domestic energy. this administration has made it illegal you cannot access natural gas on public grounds to the united states of america. the keystone pipeline is another thing that this administration has put a halt on. my opponent says that she supports the pipeline yet she is endorsed by one of the biggest out there that says you cannot do anything that's going to put the pipeline in what have you. it's crushing our economy. that is just the fact. we have got to have clean air

and at the same time you have the federal government telling the american farmer you're 17-year-old daughter can't drive a tractor who's going to take better care of the kid? and dad or big government? to come together sharing ideas not one party ran things through to tell us what we can't do. let's take a look at everything but do it in a responsible way for the economy, for the environment, and also to ensure that people are safe on the jobs. >> moderator: return next to cheri bustos. bustos: we need to get away from our reliance on foreign energy. we are taking some good steps in that direction. we've got great examples right here in peoria. researching something that's got great potential. it has the higher oil content that soybeans do and it can be planted in the off-season so it's not planned that the same

time. it has great potential. we have for the the 17th congressional district examples of solar farms and wind farms. in the favor of keeping the wind farm subsidy that's currently being fought by the republican presidential nominee. i am in favor of that. we have a district that actually could be a leader in the united states helping us come up with alternative energy sources to help us get away from their reliance on foreign fuel and i'm excited about the possibilities and how the wound here in peoria can make it bleed to become major part in that. and i think let's use this area as an example but we can hold up around the rest of the country. >> moderator: the rebuttal

from congressman schilling. schilling: my family and i build a dream home. green is red white and blue. it saves us money. my utility bill was low because i had the wall but we have to put all options on the table to relieve our dependency upon the folks in the middle east. bustos: i support the president's proposal to increase the mileage on the vehicles that are manufactured. another part of our -- it was just announced within the last week what is going on over at caterpillar and how they developed a new hybrid excavator that is part of this as well. we have tremendous innovation going on that can play a major part in helping the environment and helping us to be a leader in this area. >> please direct first to cheri

bustos. >> i would like to turn to a dish you both candidates have participated in this week. you held a rally earlier this week at the headquarters in east peoria and today the international union of operating engineers local 150 endorsed the congressman. so you overstressing your commitment to labour and organized labor, but going into the specifics what can you detail about how you would specifically held do to help organize workers? bustos: need to get the economy going. that's number one. our job creation plan. the organization's that make up the afl-cio. my uaw retirees. my brother-in-law is almost authority year member of the uaw and my husband was in the uaw so when we are talking about the support if this is family, this

is personal so that means a lot to me. so our job creation plan that we call to the manufacturing triangle because we have major manufacturing in rockford, peoria and the quad cities. a mix of a triangle. what we need to do is we need to partner with community colleges. we have agreed community college environment already in place. that's where the community colleges can come into play but we need to make sure that we are addressing these policies that actually incentivize businesses to send jobs over to places like china. i hope to have an opportunity because i have ten seconds here and how they are being hurt by these failed policies that my opponent supports. >> moderator: the same question to congressman schilling. schilling: i think it's clear my opponent is against the free trade agreement that came out

last year and if you take a look at the free trade agreement here specifically in this district its huge. as a matter of fact and one of their plans they have 3,000 workers. 80% of their product ships outside of the united states of america. as if you do the math on that that is 80% times 3,000, that's 2400 jobs responsible because of free trade. here's the thing. what we have to have in this country is a level playing field. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. we have an administration that's put on more 100 million-dollar pieces of regulation than george bush and bill clinton combined. you want to talk about shedding jobs overseas that's how you do that when you overregulated and overtaxed. when we get this economy rolling, the labor folks are going to get their jobs and have worked. but as they continue to put more regulation and more taxes on our american companies we are going to ship more jobs overseas and

create an environment in washington and in springfield and we know best in illinois what that environment and that politicians do to the state. we see it here with four or five plants not being built in illinois. there's a reason because of the environment. >> indeed we can get into the free trade agreements hopefully later on in this hour. but going back to the organized labor groups, giving both of your support that you both are touting for manufacturing, why should a factory workers say earning wages are just above the family poverty line vote for you. if you can talk to someone out there that might be watching or listening what could you do for them? bustos: are we getting a full 75 seconds to answer this or is this a real? >> moderator: i will give you a full 75 seconds. bustos: this is about middle class and working families making sure that we support the

policies that support working men and women. and that means that we agree to fair wages. we've got ledbetter who is supporting our campaign. why is that? we support equal pay for equal work matter who you are. again, to receive the endorsement of nearly every labor organization here in this region i think is an indication of the right side of organized labor and that's where i come from. my opponent's voting record on organized labor, 7%. and this is one of the heaviest organized labor districts in the country. we have 90,000 households in this country and we have to make sure that we are looking out for what is important to the working-class men and women and making sure that they have the right to organize that's pretty darn critical and we agree to project labor agreements and the

track record on the city council. in fact in my career i've been involved in $100 million in public private labor agreements and i am proud of that. i'm proud of that because i've got hands on experience doing that kind of thing. >> embrey deride the candidates there will be no rebuttal because of the fold question and we will turn to bobby schilling for his answer. speed the key is it still falls back to the environment that we create and let me kind of put this into perspective. if you think about today with a hostile environment that's out there with the epa and all of the overregulation, john deere or caterpillar probably couldn't get started today and we are continuing to penalize folks to get things off the ground. we need to make sure the government is given proper safety of the employees. it's one of the key things because the person that might be building something in the garage today might turn into the next john deer who can put these people to work picking 30, 40,

$50 an hour and of course one of the things i think is great after visiting with the contractors here in town, the training facilities that they have here the people of actually higher than they know what the quality is going to be so this is where we have to get the skill set for the come community college to get these folks all working together at bradley university where they are talking in with the businesses and one of the shortages that we have is engineers across the board. so, getting everybody working together for the common good i think would really be a big plus. >> moderator: directed to congressmen schilling. schilling: the recent campaign ads i've seen on television, congressman, i have learned that you he told people and she has tea at the country club while planning new roads to her house. i was wondering do you have any

ideas for letting the campaign spending and advertising for more transparency or how might you want to change this current system that we have? schilling: there is a thing called independent expenditures that we have a whole lot of control on you can't go are not picking winners and losers. so, when we do our ads and here i'm bobbie schilling i approve this message, that's 1i approved. i will mention the one about the road that ms. bustos daoud i fully agree with, let wptv said was accurate. so, the big thing is that when you look at the ad, bobby schilling is intended medicare as you know it, that was that the dubious award yet my opponent rounds elma pos all level the same with a 6,400-dollar deal. the key thing is what we've got to do is do our best with our

eds and try to do some type of reform to where you don't have these folks coming in and putting up ads that neither party approve basically. >> moderator: ms. bustos? bustos: every print publication of the 17th district has criticized the ad that congressman schilling tried to hold up as factual. it's been called reckless and irresponsible fiction. i'm proud of the campaign that we have run. there hasn't been anything that i've said, nor anybody on my staff that has said it hasn't been accurate and i've said from day one we are going to run an honorable campaign and i am proud of the fact i can stand up here and say that we have done that and it isn't fair as his ads have been towards me it's not nearly as unfair as he's been to the middle class working families and policies that he

supported. i will answer your question though. i support campaign finance reform to the tee. having run for the first time in congress i can tell you this system needs correcting we spend too much time having to raise money. i'm proud of the groups that have supported us and the fact that we have more than 8,000 individual donors but we should be out talking to everybody in audiences like this going door to door every day we should be having economics before we are elected that is what we should be spending time on not raising this kind of money. it is of the serve to reduce the 732nd rebuttal to the congressman. schilling: dyga back to be paid for by my opponent had paid the 6400 dollar medicare mediscare isn't true. it's been debunked by "the wall street journal" along with her telling people we are going to end medicare as you know it. i think we definitely need some

reforms there and this is what both parties have to come down and sit together and you can't be picking winners and losers. it has to be fair for both sides. you aren't going to see this going to the charitable organizations. >> moderator: bustos: the confirmed the $6,400. that said this is what the public despises about politics. the kind of nastiness that has emerged the fact that we have a party that says we aren't going to of the fact checkers get in the way. this has got to stop, this has got to stop and if we are going to end the gridlock in washington, we need people who understand the importance of telling the truth working hard doing this for the right reasons >> moderator: this comes from camille. >> this question is from paray and that is a senior.

would you do in congress to help create jobs specifically for the 17th congressional district of illinois? schilling: bustos: i'm going to spend a little bit of time getting into our jobs program because i would like to be able to talk about that and more debt and we can do that. why do we do manufacturing as the basis for job creation? because they pay well. why do they pay well? we have organized labor to think for that. retail jobs, we need real jobs they are not meant to support a family. after part nine with the community colleges in the district we have a very strong community college environment. we have black hawk college and heartland community college, we have a very strong community college environment so when we are talking about these jobs

that exist the only way we are going to be able to address that is to make sure the manufacturers that need to solve the jobs are working with those in the position to train people so that is the basis and again, you can't do that without looking at tax policies that will incentivize jobs to stay here. i support an act called the bling american jobs howe and that would incentivize them to bring jobs home and shipped goods overseas not jobs overseas. >> moderator:, this man schilling? schilling: it's one of those deals you can't judge the book by its cover and just tonight in the registered start the evin said it's a good need to build but it's not going to do what they say is intended and if you get the chance you can read that online. a couple things we can do right away, number one i'm a big proponent of the repatriation. we have about one print $7 trillion sitting offshore. what happens is america has this kind of sort of backwards.

companies from other countries have come here to america they pay the federal tax and then what happens is when they want to bring that money back home they get to bring it home for good and they get. in america what we do is let them pay the tax wherever they are up and then when they want to bring it back home, we charge them a 45% tax so we incentivize them to grow jobs offshore. that would be something big. another thing that we did for ten years on our side has been looking for public-private partnerships caps to be removed. we did what my predecessors couldn't do in ten years by working in a bipartisan fashion with dave loebsack from iowa. we got it done in five months. we've already got the first contract so it will be around 200 jobs to spin off about another six to 800 jobs so it's trying to get the overregulation overtaxing on to control. bustos: to bring american jobs

home act what that does this takes away any kind of a tax incentive for companies like to send jobs over to china. i would like to take a moment to talk about the 170 workers in this report illinois. their jobs by christmas time are going to be sent over to china and this is because we have tax policies that actually pay the companies and tax incentives to pack up and ship those jobs over to china. i say let's pay the companies to bring the jobs home. >> moderator: rebuttal from, schilling. schilling: the thing is my opponent continues to talk about how she doesn't want to ship jobs overseas, yet she invests tens of thousands of dollars and overseas funds so you can't have it both ways. what this bill will do is incentivized companies to build

maybe a million bucks and give tax incentives for 2 million to bring those back. another thing is is a device companies as automated to come here to america with no jobs about 15 seconds each. bustos: i would like to say my husband and i have a 401k like many families out there. there was 1401k that had a quarter in an overseas fund. what we did is as soon as we found out about what we divested on that. simply not true you know it's not true and we continue again to spread lies and let people to stand with this process. >> moderator: another 22nd for the congressman. schilling: i don't know what you wouldn't understand when you invest in the overseas fund he would know you are investing in overseas fund, so the fact of the matter is that happens to put more taxes on american companies to incentivize them to

leave the question for us to the congressman. >> this is an issue touched on n earlier and about free trade agreements have been a topic in this race. as you've said the agreements could contribute to hurting jobs in illinois while congressman schilling, you say that the free trade agreement benefit manufacturers that rely heavily on exports so can both of you specifically state where you stand on free trade and what needs to happen to help manufacturing in the state? speed me first? okay. i am a firm believer in the free trade agreement. 5% of the world's customers reside in america 95% are outside of the usa get a level playing field which can be anybody of there. when you look at the free trade agreements just for example just two weeks ago the exports for

construction equipment in america jumped by 24% because of free trade. this is where we agreed upon this we can beat anybody if we were given the playing field in the president of the good job on these because he put the numbers in there to where things got out of control and we can pull back and do some changing around. but i think this is the key when you look at john deere and all of the traders that we have in this district and if you think about this there isn't one country but we are treating with that we don't have a trade surplus. the only place you don't is in trade energy and that is really important to know. >> same question to the >> nafta and the trade agreements but my opponent supports he voted a year ago to the panama and colombia act.

they have resulted in 91,000 illinois jobs just in illinois so that's why don't support something like this because it's hurtful. i am fur trade i want to be clear on that. i want caterpillar to do well and should its goods overseas. that's critical but we need to be focused on sending goods overseas and not the jobs overseas and they have been hurtful to the state of illinois. i support the plans that actually come out of the senate under senator brown and call the 21st century trade act. why i support that is because it allows the congress to have more oversight. it's not a one-size-fits-all, and it actually looks at countries to find out where there are markets for the goods and it also keeps in mind human rights and the environment, things that we as americans hold

dear so that is the kind of trade agreement. it's common sense trade i want to make sure we take a look at and that's what i support. >> moderator: three's it is for the congressman. schilling: and a free trade agreement these trade agreements, these three trade agreements did not cost 91 dozen jobs. that is simply not true. and we can verify that with caterpillar right here in town. the only thing that is actually costing the jobs here in america is when we have companies attacking clean coal and other things not allowing us to go in and access so they can't build the big trucks they sell across the world. >> moderator: 40 seconds. bustos: i would turn to maytag. not long after nafta passed, 1700 jobs went over to mexico and that company received tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds and move the jobs

over to mexico. i talked to somebody like david lost his job and he moved away from the community in order to find works. those are the kind of people talk about how hurtful they've been in the state of illinois. >> moderator: herb >> moderator: directed at cheri bustos. some of the corporation for public broadcasting which helps me and the other stations carrying this debate. the appropriations about four injured $40 million per year or in other words 1121% of the federal budget. do you favor eliminating this appropriation and if so how would you? bustos: i do not favor of eliminating them. in fact i'm a supporter for public television and a supporter of public radio. i'm pleased to say i used to be on the board of directors of the rock island base review station

where you happen to be employed. if you can even look at that example is the only radio station in that region that covers news. we're fortunate to have alex over here working but that would go away under a proposal like this. my kids, my husband and kids were at an age they grew up on sesame street and i happen to think that the news programming out of public television is one of support, and i'm not only a fan of public radio and public television but i would be an advocate for both as well. >> moderator: the same question for congressman schilling. >> here's the thing i don't believe that we should pull everything away. your station as we had a good conversation two years ago there

is some emergency broadcasting that's there and as it goes on people are not going to know what to do in the event of the disaster. but what we do have to take a look at is what we can come in and do some cuts and try to cut. we are 16 trillion. for every $7,000 americas fincen we bring 11. this is right to be the fourth year in a row we've had a trillion dollar deficit to - we go the way we're headed we don't have to worry about funding for public television because there won't be anything we have to go the way of other countries we have to get into but i think when you've got to do is make sure that you prioritize cuts that you are going to be living and make sure that you don't hit things that are really separated and i think it's something that we are going to have to do and that is why we have to focus on getting this economy turned around because a lot of the issues that we are dealing with today go away. it takes care of a lot of the problems so we have regulation after regulation coming on putting more people out of work you can't be against the

employees or employers and for the employee. >> moderator: 30 additional seconds. bustos: the question somewhat evolved to what i would see as priority. and again, you pointed out very clearly that is such a minute part of our national budget. we have a deficit problem. i would ask why you want to make sure the tax cuts stay for millionaires and billionaires and big legal and corporate outsourcing. i think i'd rather have big bird and bert and ernie then making sure that you are making it allowable and profitable for countries to send troops to places like mexico and china. >> moderator:? schilling: it's important here because we are always during the dccc talking points. the millionaires and all this stuff. here is the fact. the tax increases are the same

tax increases back in 2009 president barack obama said look why would we want to increase taxes on the job creators in the middle of a recession in the recovery? what has changed from 2009 until today? we have an election, ladies and gentlemen. >> moderator: direct your next question to the congressman. >> all right. the deficit mentioned, a freshman of bradley university asks with the federal deficit climbing to over $16 trillion, how do you plan on reducing the deficit without burdening the middle class? schilling: that's why? >> moderator: that is yours. schilling: the big thing we have to do, we put together what they call cut cap and balance which will cap the spending. we are spending a trillion more each and every year so what we have to do is honan and look at the wasteful spending and trust me those billions of dollars and it's back to leading by example, but we talk about taxing millionaires and