get the other trillion dollars to balance the budget so where we put people back to work if we continue to put more regulations and more taxes on american companies they're going to either shut down or they are going to leave the country. we see it here in illinois housing leave the state of the time. ..

c-span.org but let's start with at least some of the things that make sense. of get back to that government accountability report. it sat on the shelf for two years now. two years. $100 billion in annual savings. i would propose, should not be elected, in the first 60 days, introduce legislation that would enact that. and investing in education, for every dollar we invest in education we get a return on investment because people get jobs. they get out of high school and go to college. and for an economy like this, further congressman to want to cut grants by 12 billion, that's not what we want to do. that is where we need to invest. >>moderater: congressman, rebuttal please. schilling: i will reiterate, the tax increases that my daughter talking about other was that will cost illinois 30,000 jobs among america's 700,000 jobs, the same tax hikes that president obama cab from happening in 2009.

pell grants will give washington d.c., the only place when you have baseline budgeting going up by 7 percent and you're going to cut that 7 percent, you're going to keep at the same. washington d.c. is the only place where you cut the increase and they say you are cutting programs. simply not true. >>moderater: and 30 seconds. bustos: it gets down to priorities. you want to cut programs like head start, programs, keep the tax cuts for millionairess. you want to charge seniors an extra $6,400 per year, which can be faxed checked. those are the wrong priorities. the questions about making sure we are looking for the middle-class. that's why running. as my family's background family's background. in his dad had an eighth grade education and he was able to, with the help that he was able to have his family drove to a middle-class existence because of the uaw. katie --

>>moderater: the facts question comes from malik. >> this is a topic that we have touched on. you each have criticized your opponent's stance on medicare. congressman said the current national health care reform would mean $700 billion in cuts to medicare. you say that the plan that congressman chilling supports would drive up medicare costs through the roof for seniors. so the question is, voters might be more interested in aside from what your opponent thinks how you think medicare should look if elected? bustos: medicare is run efficiently. the overhead costs on medicare is much more efficient than any private insurance company. it is run efficiently. i have spent the last ten years of my career in health care. i no medicare pretty well. here is where i would propose change, make sure that medicare can be here for the current generation, the next generation, the generation after that the --

we need to make sure. that is a solemn promise we have made to seniors. that along with social security keep seniors out of poverty. a need to make sure that medicare, dislike the v8 finish the prescription drug prices. tremendous amount of savings. me to make sure that electronic health records are implemented and used to the full advantage of making sure that patients are not getting over prescribed drugs or that they are not -- the health care that they need is not redundant. let's try and health records of do that. and lastly, we can coordinate care with the help of electronic of records, with the help of the provisions under the center for medicare and medicaid innovation i have seen great successes in the health system where i worked, and i know that has great potential savings for the medicare system. >>moderater: congressman schilling, please. schilling: the fact of the matter is medicare is going broke.

it will be insolvent in 2024, and i am the only one sitting appear that is actually backing a plan to save and strengthen medicare. the way our plan we will work is 55 and older, you keep the exact same medicare that you currently have. fifty-four engender, you can continue on traditional medicare or you can pick and choose from a list of approved providers. and the key here is that, you know, one of the frustrating things for me in washington is it is one thing to come to the table with a plan, but it is another thing to not come to the table with a plan and just demigod, and that is what washington is doing. democrats and republicans need to come together and figure out solutions to problems. this thing has the independent same advisory board that is going to kick in. it is going to be the bureaucrat hand-picked that will come between the patient and the doctor. that's wrong. medical device tax, american companies, another incentive to ship jobs overseas. this kind of stuff we have to

stop and we have to have people that are willing to come in and have the guts to do the right thing and save and strengthen this, to come to the table with the solutions is just wrong. >>moderater: were bottled. ♪ and dan gladden specifically pointed out the solution i would have, at least to help start hitting medicare in the right direction for solvency. however, not going to balance the budget on the backs of seniors. your plan would cost seniors an extra $60,400 per year, and i happen to be under 55. you happen to be under 55. a lot of people in this audience under 55. what about them? our health needs when we get older are not going to be any different than our parents or grandparents. we are going to get this program for the next generation? >>moderater: the congressman for rebuttal. schilling: i have been paying into the system since i was 13 or 14 years old. it is out not wrong to bury our heads in the sand and not have a fix for this. my grandmother is 90.

i don't wanna bureaucrats coming between my grandma and the doctor. we have got to fix this. and i am willing to sit down with anybody, as i have proven in my last year and a half from a year and three-quarters that i will work with anybody on any side of the aisle because it is the right thing to do to get this fixed. this is serious stuff, and we need to stop playing games with it. >>moderater: in order to allow sufficient time for closing statements we will have one morris question. we will not have time for a bottle. >> an issue that is in the hearts of people in the county and the north part of the district. since house republican leaders have said they would block any attempt to open the thompson prison, in part a vote to keep it closed? >> the thompson present to my have been working on that for quite some time. as a matter of fact last year i brought senator mark kerr and representative don man to lead to the present and we agreed

that it would be opened as a federal prison. i fought tooth and nail to get out there and work with these people. this is why relationships in congress are so important. i don't look at democrat -- a person as a democrat or republican. it is about building relationships to get things done. i think that -- i mean, this happened. you know, the prison was sold. now the real work happens because we have to go in and try to get folks to give us the funding needed to get it open. i will do everything i can. that is 1100 jobs, $202 million of economic impact by from the get go. just me, we won't have any problem filling it out. we have every prison across america filled above capacity take to the same minute. ♪ the epitome of dysfunction in congress. the fact that this person was sitting there vacant that we had bury much a consensus of wanting to open this, 1100 jobs, get the

$200 million economic impact. my opponent is behind this phantom controversy that there will be guantanamo prisoners brought there. it was a phantom controversy with no facts. everybody had gone on the record saying we will not allow these prisoners here. and so the senator durbin made this statement which is very telling about how this prison is now in the hands of the federal government and hopefully on the cusp of the opening. he said, i asked congressman schilling to do one thing, and he could not get it done. that was to convince his republican colleagues in the house to move on this. one congressman was blocking this thing for a matter of years. now we are on the cusp of 1100 jobs, $200 million economic impact that politics got in the way of. i can tell you, should i be elected that will not happen. >>moderater: thank-you to both candid it's for your answers. it's now time for closing statements. because congressman schilling went first with opening statements we will allow

twitter.com/booktv to go first with closing statements. bustos: thank you. and thanks to everyone in the audience and the panel as well. i appreciated. this election, and that the key have seen it tonight, is down to priorities. i believe their is a clear choice. i also believe that my opponent is part of the problem in washington with priorities that have just got an upside down. i go all over this district, and i talked to people nearly every day about how they are hurt by washington priorities. i visited a senior center in galesburg where we were talking about medicare, they cannot afford the $6,400. they cannot afford $64. people like carol who attended bradley university in today is an engineer because of programs. she fears that the program will not be available to students down the line. that is just not right. we talked about this a couple of times tonight. dot turner, 61 years old who

worked at the plan for 43 years and her job is gone to china, training her chinese replacement. these other wrong priorities. i'm here to say, here is what i want to work on. medicare is a security are there for future generations. the incentives that are sending jobs over to place a china doll wait. and i want to make sure that we balance the budget bill which will -- but with the right priorities. i respectfully ask for your vote. i can tell you, i will never stop fighting for the middle-class and working families of this region. >>moderater: likewise, a closing statement from congressman schilling. schilling: i would like that tell people that this fight came to me. my family and i were running our small business, raising my kids, watching what was happening to this great state in this country , i decided to put my head in the ring. i don't come from party royalty. my dad was not a lobbyist. he was a bartender. this is about doing the right thing. this is about a fight for america.

you know, i spent -- but my business and family of to the side to serve, and far too often what happens is folks get out there and forget where they're from. we are here to serve the people of the district. i rejected the congressional pension. i bought my and health care to washington d.c. i am leading by example, giving $110,000 my budget back to the people. it's the right thing to do. we have to lead. there is no more time for following. you know. somebody told me i would be here five years, i would say there is no way. with my business background, my liver background, and a stand that you cannot have an even match. i would respectfully ask each and every one of you for your vote on november the sixth, and i will continue to lead by example. thank you and god bless. >>moderater: with that, that concludes this debate for the sea for the 17th congressional district. i want to think the candidates for committing time and energy to the race. i would like to thank the panelists for participating in

tonight's debate. thank you to our viewing, listening, and studio audiences for also in joining the debate this evening. thank you so much, everybody. i remind you to cast your ballot if you have not already done so. >> at think that we have to have the discussion of a political ideology here in this country when we talk about progressivism in the history of progressivism and where it came from, is very easy to talk about communism, marxism, socialism, and modern-day state isn't. the principles of governance separate this country. as far as what happened with the comment, someone came up to me at the speaker's lobby and asked me a simple question, how do you feel about the fact that the majority of americans believe the only people on capitol hill a republicans. all i said was there was a propaganda machine that they're obviously operating. now, i thought we live in america where there was freedom of speech and expression. and not going to be afraid of

people because they get upset. >> the reason i got into this and decided to run for public office because the extremism of the two-party. that is no way to move the country forward. the end of the day, whether it is your family or business you have to be able to work across the aisle and do what is best for all americans, your district, your state, your country. when you spending your time calling people communist or comparing them with nazis and marxists, that is no way to get things done. at the end of the day we have to find compromise and make the tough decisions in our country right now. when you are more focused on that there is no way to reach across the island was best for everybody. >> follow the issues and candidates in the heat -- key house, said, and governors races >> warren hatch was first elected to the senate in 1976. he is now the most senior republican senator, and he is running for his seventh term. last night the senate debated

his democratic challenger scott howell. [applause] >> it is my pleasure to welcome senator hatch and mr. hall to the brigham young university campus. we are joined by representatives from leading community organizations. we will begin with opening statements from each candidate. the coin toss conducted earlier determines the mr. howell will have the first statement followed by senator hatch. howell: thank you very much and thank you to pbs for sponsoring this. tonight you have a chance to compare to candidates, each of us seeking your vote with two very different records. my record of a balanced budget, job creation, fighting for seniors, and protecting public and hired a education versus my opponent's record of crippling debt, privatizing medicare, and social security and defunding

education. i offer you my history as a utah state senator, minority leader for eight of the ten years that i served. we need to collaborate with both parties to solve problems, produce a balanced budget, my vision of government is a common sense business approach. by putting first the important issues on the front burner regardless of political consequences. best product, lowest price, and best service. there is a clear difference between my opponent and myself. thirty-four years at the ibm corporation with a reputation of working across the aisle while serving the utah state senate. thank you very much and thank you for having us today. >>moderater: senator hatch. hatch: i am honored to be here with all of you. i wanted thank you for putting on this debate. i wanted thank you. look. our country is at a real crossroads. we are in real problems. there is no question about it.

we know that there is too much spending, too much regulation. we are $16 trillion in debt. we are going to have well over 20 trillion. the average debt per family is $140,000. we can no longer live like that. now, everybody knows, i have been a conservative the whole time i have been there. i have 90 percent voting record. i represented utah and all of the problems that we have in utah from public lands to the air force base to getting business for utah, to bring people together on both sides of the floor in washington and also bringing congress, both congressional parts together, the house of representatives in the senate. i am known for that. i am grateful to be with you and hope to have a good time. >>moderater: questions for today's debate were submitted by

members of the audience, many are byu faculty members from the communications and political science department as well as the byu law school. they selected those addressing important utah national issues, some questions were edited for clarity. mr. howell will have the first question of the debate. for substance -- subsequent questions we will alternate. each candidate will have one minute to answer the question, and both will have an additional 30 seconds for a bottle. if i determine a follow-up question is appropriate each will have 30 seconds to respond. the first question is from joseph a. wood, a student here at brigham young university. >> regarding health care, what responsibility, if any, do you believe rest with the state and local government and what responsibility if any way with the federal government? howell: thank-you, justice. healthcare is one-fifth of our gdp. the largest not-for-profit health care organization in

california. we have known for a long time that we have to have affordable quality health care. when joseph asked about the responsibilities, it is all of our responsibilities. under the affordable care act and think it was the first beginning of what we need to do in order to reform health care system to make it affordable for all of us. i like the ability to put my two boys back on to the health care system that we have to wait until they're 26. i also like the ability to make sure that no one is a slave to their job when it comes to pre-existing conditions. you know, health care is a big deal, but whether -- is governor romney becomes president we will have romney care or obamacare because we need to solve this problem, and we need to solve it immediately. it is a collaborative effort between private, public, state, local government, and the federal government. >>moderater: senator hatch de. hatch: anything but affordable. 85 percent of the american people have insurance, and we

are getting along quite fine. so discombobulated the whole country at a cost over two and a half trillion dollars with all kinds of regulation, all kinds of federal government intrusion. frankly, we in the state of utah did better by ourselves. we did not need the federal government to tell us what or how to do. and frankly, we have one of the best of care systems in the country. we for one of the first states outside of massachusetts to have an exchange. our exchange will not be acceptable to obamacare both, but i have to tell you this, obamacare will lead to destruction. there is no way that is not going to eat us alive. there is no way that we should turn over health care to the federal government which never does as good a job as the people in the local and state areas. >>moderater: mr. howell, rebuttal. howell: i would say we are not turning health care over to the federal government. we're having a partnership. i was part of -- when i was in the state senate we put up the health insurance exchange.

we are leaving, and there are waivers were each state does not have to participate in obamacare , but i have to tell you, our system is broken. if it was a premier system and we had everything that you count on then i would say, let's go back in and rip it out, but i'm telling you, we will have romney care or obamacare because they both know health care is unaffordable and our country today. >>moderater: rebuttal. hatch: let its understand something. we cannot afford this. the president said there would only be $2,500. save $2,500 through obamacare. we have now found that we not only are not saving that but it will cost every family $2,500. look. obamacare is a disgrace. we all know it. more federal government, more federal controls, more federal intrusions with less and more government control in what happens in who gets care.

>>moderater: let me ask a follow-up. given what you just said, will this solution be to the uninsured if obamacare is repealed? howell: this is one of the great problems. we have all these individuals who get hurt, and they don't have insurance. and you know who ends up paying for it temecula night. when they go to the emergency department they are faced with this -- we are still a compassionate society. when they go to our emergency department we take care of them and we as taxpayers and citizens and health insurance people who buy this day for them. we have to all be responsible for our own health care. >>moderater: senator hatch, the uninsured the. hatch: we take care of the poor through medicaid, our senior citizens to medicare, and those who have worked amazingly well in utah because we have very good leaders. our people actually make things work compared to maybe four states where it doesn't work.

the children of the working poor , a state child health insurance program. >>moderater: our next question comes from a business manager at the international brotherhood of electrical workers. >> most of the members would agree that partisanship has increased in washington d.c. in recent years. and this trend of having a negative impact on both the ability of congress to get things done and then public trust in and support of congress. do you agree with this observation? if so, do you want to fix it and how would you go about correcting it? >>moderater: senator hatch. hatch: much too much partisanship. there is no question about it. a lot of it is caused by too many people on the far left. i will say just for the senate. the senate has gone very far left on the democrats' site

command we have had some people go pretty far right. it is very difficult, but i have to tell you, as somebody who has worked over the last 36 years, i have been able to bring both sides together from time to time very, very important legislation . and working with conservatives but by trying to bring both sides together so that we get things done in the best interest of our country. we can do it. we can do it without federal intrusion as well and we can do it in a way that saves money, helps the taxpayers, and brings us all to a condition where we are not totally dominated by the almighty federal government. >>moderater: mr. howell. howell: my opponent has not been a great collaborator. in the early days you were three close with senator ted kennedy. they had a great relationship. extreme liberals working with our senators to bring about things like the s chip. the one thing i learned when i was in the utah state senate,

you have to reach across the aisle, be willing to sit down and understand each and every personality that is there. gridlock is in this country. we have to put an end to the obstructionism that is going on. i will tell you this. when harry reid stands up and says, hey, i heard a rumor that mitt romney did not pay his taxes and mitchell, stands up and says i will make you a one-term president, they are acting like kindergartners. we need new leaders that will go back and say, we are now working for the american people. forget politics, forget party. it is time for us to move forward, and when i am back in washington i promise you i will work with either president. >>moderater: senator hatch, ever bottle. hatch: a very difficult precondition time. you have to win. it wasn't just senator kennedy. dozens of others. let me give you an illustration.

henry waxman is the most liberal guy in the whole house of representatives, but he is brilliant. we did the hatch waxman act and created the modern generic drug industry done in my office. by anybody's measure it has caused consumer growth. >>moderater: rebuttal. howell: i appreciate our senator talking about the past. he has gone so far hard right in order to win this election that he does not have that collaborative spirit any longer. he has lost that. and, ladies and gentlemen, we have to be focused on people. we have to be focused on the politics of our country. give up this political nonsense and this party stuff. i work across the aisle every single day, and when you are in utah you have to work with republicans or you don't get anything passed. >>moderater: our next question is from students. >> military engagement in afghanistan, what course should the united states pursued in

this country specifically in the middle east generally? >>moderater: mr. howell, you are first. howell: listen, the middle east is such a powder keg over there. we have to move forward cautiously and with effectiveness. one thing i am telling you right now, i want us out of afghanistan tomorrow. we are not winning the war that no one will win. the british tried, the russians tried. we spend $300 million a day. we spend $80 billion on the infrastructure of afghanistan. ladies and gentlemen, we have to move cautiously, but we have to get out of there quickly and efficiently. we have to make sure that iran will never have a nuclear weapon. we can do that through sanctions , intelligence that we have back in our country. ladies and gentlemen, we must protect the assets of israel. they are a friend, and we must be able to be over there and make sure we are doing the right things for the right reasons. i am telling you right now

there, we have had to unfunded worst which has led this country to a financial catastrophe which my opponent voted for both times. >>moderater: senator hatch. hatch: we on the three dozen americans were killed and we cannot sit back and not respond. i have been to afghanistan. we have -- been to iraq. as 70 until this committee for longer than anybody in history. i have been there. i have gone to the tough places, and i have got to tell you, we should be listening to our military leaders. this president is not. and we should -- we are all telling to withdraw by 2014. both sides have agreed, but this president withdrew in afghanistan right at the war fighting time which is the worst time that you can withdraw. and, frankly, it was a bad decision. we are trying to add trained as people so that they can take care of themselves. in the middle east, i agree.

we are a big proponent of is ralph. and modern arabs, we believe that israel deserves protection. >>moderater: rebuttal. howell: thank you. my opponent said on the intelligence committee, and we never did find those mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction. we need better people on those committees that can help us to understand. we need better intelligence. i agree on this point. we have to make sure that the middle east is taken care of, but ladies and gentlemen, they could not solve afghanistan. we cannot either. let them be themselves. if we do anything, let's send missionaries. i think they could do a better job than what we have done. >>moderater: teefor, for their rebuttal @booktv let's face it. we can't just walk away from our obligations. one of the obligations is to fight and let people know that we are not going to be just

people to step on. we have to stand up. and sometimes it is a costly proposition. now, the fact of the matter is i have been there. i want to praise our military for the work that they have done, the sacrifices they have made, the kurds they have given. by gosh, they represent as well, i have been there with them. >>moderater: a quick follow-up. with both of you favor deploying u.s. forces are weapons if necessary to take out an iranian nuclear capacity, nuclear war capacity? howell: that was going to be my second option. i believe that we have enough technology that we can prevent that from happening. of course, if there was a line in the hand that and/or a threat to america we have to take decisive action and show our might and make sure. i don't want to get to that point because committees and gentlemen, we have the technology. their bombs are not sophisticated enough and they don't have it. we need to prevent them from

getting that technology. we need to stop that immediately of course, if our sovereignty was never threatened or our friends in the middle east, we need to go after them. >>moderater: senator hatch keys. hatch: much i would agree with. that most certainly includes israel. i want everyone to know how deeply i feel. also, during war with modern era so that we can have a relationship. we simply cannot allow the country dedicated to the destruction of israel and others to have the atomic weapons. we cannot and will let them. ..

and frankly, every state is bound by that i can live with that. that's not going to happen and everybody knows that. now, look, our state is very, very important. we stand up for it. i stand 36 years there doing it. i have to tell you, when it comes down to seniority. , i hardly ever mention it. i think experience is what counts. seniority does too, when you have somebody who knows his way around that place is respected by both the house and the senate, which i am, and stood up on so many issues, which i have done, and has the ability to bring both sides together, which i have done as well, you know, and who might be and probably

will be the chairman of the senate finance committee, the most powerful committee in the senate. you want to listen. >> think about this for a minute. when i was elected to state senate, i had been there two years and ran for leader. and i remember some of my colleagues said you don't have enough gray hair in your beard to be leader. the seniority system is breaking america today. we need to break that immediately. ladies and gentlemen, we cannot continue to perpetuate this notion. i learned about seniority early on my mission when i was made a senior companion and i said this guy has been out there for 18 months. he's 22 years old. my mission president said, scott, seen jourty is not about age or time and service. it's about creativity, innovation, and new leadership. that's what we need in washington, d.c., today. we need new leadership that looks at this differently.

we cannot to continue to perpetuate the seniority system that causes the 109% approval rating. 10% approval rating in our country is sun accept. >> moderator: rebuttal? hatch: that's not caused by the -- that's caused by stupidity and loophole in the united states congress and frankly if you were to go back you would be in the middle of the liberals who not going to let do you anything but liberal. that's why the gridlock has come. we have some our side who want gridlock by wanting everybody to be conservative. we have to get together and work together to save the country. >> moderator: mr. howell? howell: whether you're liberal or conservative it's not on behalf of the america. think about this for a minute, we continue as my opponent said continue to elect the same

people and we get the same -- we wonder why we get the same results. think about far minute. we need new blood. mitt romney last night in the debate was right. we need business leaders back there that can change the face of the country from the outside in. not the inside out. it's time for change. >> moderator: our next question comes from karen from voices for utah children. >> thank you. poverty in the united states has risen to 26% from 2005 to 2010, in utah one in six kids lives in poverty of 45% increase should the federal government make a national commitment to ending childhood poverty within a generation, and what is the role of the government in addressing this situation? >> moderator: mr. howell you're first. howell: when i hear this, it makes my heart very saddened. one out of seven families in utah are food-resource strained. we have to have a partnership.

now i've been speaking to different clubs, rotaries, and united way we need to have a partnership why where we can feed our chirp. in fact, i was reading this morning about a great leader king benjamin who talked about the responsibility we have to protect our children. in the last conference we talked about we need new political leader that will be the voice of our children. labeling, -- ladies and gentlemen when i stated in the state legislature i was the lobbyist from the children. there were lobbyists that came from the different industries. the voices of utah children and other entities we have to end this. it's not right to live in america and have starving children. when we have a better prepared child that can go to school and learn we will get them off the poverty cycle. >> moderator: senator hatcher. hatch: the first respect control of the house during the clinton administration, we were able to balance the budget for the first

time in over forty years. the poverty level was not -- kids were taken care of. you were looking at passed children legislation to help. it and nobody in utah should suffer and go without. mitt romney coffered last niect -- covered last night how important it is that we have a good economy, and we get people back to work. and we get jobs that's why he's going to win the presidency. regardless what happened last night or what the pundits say, romney was right. that's the only way we are going to pull ourself out. when the people took over 32 million people were on food stamps. today 47 million a year or two later. we have to change it. i agree with scott, we need to change it for the benefit of children. >> moderator: a rebuttal. howell: i don't think there's a rebut dahl. we know we shouldn't have starving children.

my plan is different. we need to end the fraud and abuse of those who take advantage of food stamps and work collaboratively with the private enterprise with unitedway and rotary service inspect is catholic service and lbs service to end the problem. ladies and gentlemen, that is not a liberal or a obama promise. this is our promise, and we need to forget about politics and take care of children. i will be in the voice of the children in the future of the great country. hatch: i have the reputation of always standing up for children. i believe the states can do a better job than the federal government. they do it abuse -- because they are closer to the people. they have to be responsible. i commend scott for any work he did in the state legislature. that's different from being in congress, by the way. especially in the state letture. let me say something, both of us would fight our guts out for our

family and children. certainly. >> moderator: are both of you willing to commit if elected elected in 2013 and 2014 when we're facing serious budget cutting you are willing to stand we will not cut children for poverty. howell: yes. hatch: yes, i think so. you have to look at the programs and make sure they're not programs that aren't -- some of them aren't. >> moderator: thank you. utah senate debate will continue in one minute. we will take a brief break. >> a student from byu. >> how should our immigration policy be reformed. howell: i didn't hear you. >> first of all we owblght to treat everybody with care and consideration. i believe that -- i believe that, you know, you're looking a the fellow who did the dream act. it was well reasoned and thought

out, and i thought we could pass it because i don't think children should be blamed for what happens -- what their parents do. you're looking a the fellow who brought the secure committee programs to utah in 14 counties to give them the authority to be able to handled the matters or to the [inaudible] program for winston county. i believe we ought to be a nation of laws and i brought the first immigration clerk to utah with two judges and i also brought a office for i.c.e. that handles immigration matter. i have a long history of doing this. we have to be combination -- compassionate and have people obey our lawyers. howell: i support the scream act. i walked with those act and senator hatch, as he said he supported that at one time. now in order to secure the nomination of the republicans he

abandoned that. something that once that he championed. i was disappointed in that one time i sent him a letter and congratulated him for the great work on that. he did lead on that. you know, anybody welcome willing to work hard to learn their citizenship should do so. a grace period during which the people will have the opportunity 11 million documented workers we need to find them work visa. we can no longer allow them to live under the shadow. if we get them legal citizenship they will become better taxpayers and workers. they will come out of the shadows. we have to have a humane and logical support. approach. -- that will be the framework i'll use to have a immigration reform from day one. hatch: there's no use -- the

democrats made the dream act a thing and -- [inaudible] i had to vote against it. there's no secret to bring it up to begin with. let me say, look, i don't want anybody mistreated. i think our hispanic and latino friends are terrific people. we have to come up with solutions here. i believe romney will do that as president, i'm going help him. i'm in a position to the committee and on want finance committee. >> moderator: a rebuttal? howell: i wish you would help president obama inspect is the essence of the problem. he's only going to help president romney. ladies and gentlemen, this is what the problem is back there. we have become so isolated. i'm going work with governor romney who become president or president obama. we have to make sure that we tackle the problem. for 36 years my opponent has been back there, we haven't had an solution. in ibm in the position you don't fix the problem, you are

terminated. >> moderator: go to the next question the ceo of the farm bureau. it will go to mr. howell. >> senator hatch, mr. -- howell good to be here. a burden for the financial well being what do you propose to do to reduce government spending, cut the debt and secure our national security for the future. howell: thank randy. randy was one that mentored my farm. the biggest country we have to face in the country is the debt and deaf deficit. we have to solve it and make challenging cuts. now i have supported the simpson bowels. ladies and gentlemen, if we don't fix the debt and deficit, your future and my future and our children and grandchildren will be at the challenge, they'll never enjoy the

blessings and benefits we've had in the country. i believe that we have to immediately implement changes. and one of the things is to look at our defense carefully. when we spend $300 million a day, we can no longer afford that. we have to go through and do a performance review on each and every department within the federal government to make sure that we're getting effective government and technology is used in order to give the return on taxpayers something that hasn't happened for the last 36 years. hatch: i appreciate the farm bureau and their support for me. no question about it. i supported them. they do a terrific job for the farmers in utah and across the country as well. let me say that, look, i'm the ranking republican on the senate finance committee, that's the most powerful committee in the whole congress. [inaudible] the fact of the matter is if we're going solve the problem in the country, it's going to be that committee that does it.

and everybody knows that. that's one reason why i'm running again and the primary r.n. and mitt romney has come out in full support of me. he knows once he's president, with me chairman of the finance committee or 60% of the spending is we are going to reform the tax code, we're going take care of entitlement, we're going to get rid of obamacare, and above all, we have a shot at passing a balance budget constitutional amendment. howell: thank you. you can't ride on the coattails of governor romney. you have to stand up for who you are. you have a record that's what we're talking about tonight. you have been the ranking member on the finance committee, why haven't we solved the problem today? ladies and gentlemen, i believe firmly that we need businessmen who have had the experience of having a budget, being collaborative, solving a budget,

making sure that we utilize everything we can. that's why it's time for a change. we need new ideas back there. not the same old idea of the past. >> moderator: senator hatch? hatch: i will quote romney, he said we orrin hatch back in the senate helping to lead the way. he understands how important the finance committee is. he understands how important the judiciary committee is i'm on. he understands how important the biggest authorizing committee. chaired that. with mitt romney's election, i sphwoand chair the finance committee. i hope we can do that. if we can, we're going get the country under control. >> moderator: i'm going to ask a followup. given the position on the finance committee, would either of you favor a mix of increased taxes or at least retaining the taxes on people urn earning over a quarter a million of a year as part of the overall solution with budgets cuts but reconstituting the taxes as they

were before the bush tax cuts? howell: yes, you read my platform. i said from the beginning that we have to go back and ensure that we do take that because we're facing a financial cliff. the sequestration that could happen, could devastate all of us. and for me, i propose the $2.7 trillion deficit reduction. $200 million came out of the ceo of the largest company in our country who said we can do better on technology. that's my background. i'm a guy who worked for the largest and best technology company in the world. that's the experience we need. that's what mitt romney needs back there if he's going to be president. that experience that i can bring, utilizing technology to reduce a trillion dollars of deficit. -- >> moderator: hatcher. hatch: i've been in the senate for a long time, i have seen time and time again when republicans have gone along with democrats to increase taxes in

favor of getting some deficit reduction, the taxes always go up. the deficit reductions never occur. and the only reason the democrats want more taxes is so they can spend more. that's how they keep themselves in power by spending your money and claiming they're compassionate with your money. we know it's bull. that's what is going to happen. >>howell: rebuttal. let get the elephant in the room right now. what -- i am a fiscally conservative democrat who's been in business for the last 34 years at ibm. you don't exist at ibm unless you use business principles every day and do a broad paint bush of a party. that's broken back there. i could say, senator you're in the party that wants to coaway with education and '02 part of -- you're part of the 478% that romney talked about about.

we have to end this. we have to go forward. that's what did in the utah state legislature i reached out and used my business experience to make our government more efficient. hatch: let me say this. i commend scott for being a little more conservative than a lot of democrats are. but once he gets back there he'll have to play with the democrats. i have seen people be conservative on their side. there's only one conservative in the united states and his name is ben nelson. he's going leave at the end of the year. there is no conservative. others will be called moderates. they're vote isn't needed. that's the game that's played all the time. aye only been there this period of time. time after time, they promise they're going to get us to a balance budget. they never do. spending is more important to them. and taxes is number one. >> moderator: a student from byu.

>> as part of the effort to lower deficit, do you favor cutbacks in defense spending. if not, given the large share of the defense spending and entitlement how will you lower the deficit if you don't lower defense spending. hatch: national security is one of the few things that the constitution gives to the federal government to do. the problem is you have the federal government doing everything. and you -- the right of the state. well, i'm for cutting agency of government whether fraud, waste and abuse are programs that shouldn't be sustained. that would include the defense department. it's not problem -- it's at other times. but the fact of the matter, if we -- with f we go to the sequestration that i think the

president is taking us for. it could be cut to where we could hamper and hurt the country. i don't want to see it happen. there are so many programs that deserve to be cut. i'd say defense can't be -- from that either. howell: the last 36 years have shown there are programs out there and ibm we did a performance review on each and every department we had. we found out quickly if we didn't transform or company which isn't happening in the federal government we would have gone bankrupt. our country is at the brink of bankruptcy. we have go through each and every department surgically and make sure they purchasing their duties -- performing they're duties effectively. i can't emphasize why we need to put technology in the government in order to reduce the cost. senator hatch talked about the liberal democrats, and i'm sure there's republicans back there

too that are liberal, that go back and just want to raise taxes. let me tell you how i vote. i vote my conscious, the constituents and the constitution. when i vote the three cs sometimes it's voting for republican volts, sometimes it's voting for democrat bills. it's always voting for utah people first and foremost. >> moderator: senator hatch. >> i think we want to vote our conscious, our constituents, and et. cetera, et. cetera, but the fact that i've seen is once the democrat gets back there, they go right along with the rest of the democrats. and let's face it, that's the liberal party. and they get themselves in power by using your money, claiming they're compassionate. they're not doing what they say they will do when they get in there like this. howell: that dog is not going hunt anymore. it's gone. it's had the useful life.

when i think about the last balance budget under president clinton. i thought about how we work together. the new democrats of the age are fiscally responsible and we will go back there and the most important thing is we will find like-mindedness on the republican side. ladies and gentlemen, when we put politics and my opponent keeps saying this, the democrats, when we put them before people, it ruins our country. it ruins our spirit. ladies and gentlemen, we have to change. 36 years of this same thing is what caused the problem. we have to end it today. >> moderator: let me ask a followup. given the lessons of history if you were to face a war if elected or reelected on the scale of iraq or afghanistan would you pursue that war without the tax increase as we did the prior wars with iraq and afghanistan. hatch: that's a tough question. it it may be to raise taxes if we have to defend our country and don't have the money. we don't want to -- [inaudible] we don't -- one of the romney's

point he didn't make very well there are too many people in the wagon, not enough pulling the wagon. he wants to get jobs for those. but get more people out pulling the wagon. it was 51 that brought all the 51% of the all house hold do not pay a dime of income taxes. we have to change that. but you do it through jobs. and through opportunity and getting people work where they can earn enough money to take care of themselves. >> moderator: mr. howell. howell: sometimes i run if i'm running against mitt romney or orrin hatch. [laughter] i'll work with governor romney, i guarantee you that. look, they're immeant -- imment domain our executive has to make a decision. i would not fund or vote to fund two unfunded wars. i want to remind you, that's a

trillion plus of our debt. that'ser responsibility. that is not stepping up to your responsibility as a fiscal leader and honoring your constitutional oath that you take. i would not vote for that. >> moderator: let's go to the next question from gene that for utahs against hunger. mr. howell. >> what there l you do to increase the -- [inaudible] and they're chances to move out of poverty. howell: thank you. that's a near and dear one to me. the most important thing question do is start in preschool. if we give our children the opportunity to compete in a global economy, you know, i recently read a review about children in poverty here and families in poverty you know where it starts? it starts with the education. we're not providing that quality from preschool all the way through lifelong learning skills. we have to invest in education from pell grants, all the way down to title i schools. when we have an educate family,

i call it all as a family, we are able to make a difference. i have often said, readers are leader. my father was a principal for 35 years and my mom was a teacher, when those kids came to to kindergarten prepared to learn, it made all the difference in the world. we have a word deficit for our impoverished young men and women in the country. we have to fix it. i will do everything i can to ensure quality education is what we are about as a state and country. hatch: i think quality education is important. i have to say, we have to get to -- kids can work themselves through school. i'm a strong supporter of pell grants and student loans, no question about it. the fact of the matter is, the democrats want to keep spending what i'm paying for. and then they demand taxes so they can pay for it. the fact is, we have had support pell grant. i don't know anybody in the senate that wouldn't support

them. look, our education system in sot a good education system. we don't need the federal government telling us what to do. but i believe that we have to get things under control. and the only way to do that, seems to me, is get enough of us who are fiscally conservative back there so we can. like i say, the first balance budget in over forty years occurred mainly because of republicans. i'll give bill clinton credit too. he did it. >> moderator: i forfeit rebuttal. howell: i would like to say something quick. my opponent voted for the large bill out in the history of our country. talk about fiscally responsibility. my opponent voted for the doughnut hole on medicare that was never paid for. my opponent voted for two unfunded wars. now ladies and gentlemen, when he says the democrats go back there and there's going to vote for the programs, look, i'm

justing -- just tell the facts i believe we have to have fiscal responsibility. >> moderator: senator hatch? >> nobody believes more fiscal responsibility than i do. i believe when some group of people come in and attack our country, and kill 3,000 people, you don't sit back and say we can't spend money 0 that. and i don't care what it costs to get out there and let them know we're not going fake over the country and do these things to us. anybody that doesn't believe that doesn't deserve to sit in the united states senate. it's that simple. >> moderator: next question from mrs. simpson. >> what's would each of you change about the affordable care act. hatch: there's a lot of things. don't think you can change it. ic we have to repeal it and replace. there are some good things the republicans would have supported. the problem is the democrats would not deal with us inspect i

any time you have a bill that affects one sixth of the whole american economy, and that it's passed solely by a partisan vote, you know it's a lousy bill. they know it's a lousy bill. i chat with my colleagues, they know it's bad. it was done in harry reid's office after two committees passed it on a partisan vote. and a totally partisan vote. look, it's a terrible bill. but we do get to do things in health care. i mentioned about 85% of the american people had health insurance at the time. we are going to throw the whole system out because we have to take care of 15%. no, we can take care of the 159% in a reasonable, economically sound way and obamacare certainly isn't one of them. it's costing us an arm and leg. howell: thews a great question, my opponent and i would disagree on this. listen, i agree with orrin that

we should have had more bipartisanship back there, but the affordable care act is a stake? the ground how we're going improve it. what i do specifically is take some the republican idea to make it better. ..

disruptive, and it doesn't help the american spirit. >> moderator: the last question from the president of the utah valley of commerce. mr. hale? >> our technology companies here in utah county are asking for graduates in science, technology, engineering and math. what do you suggest be done to produce graduates? howell: this is up my alley. i love technology. this is the greatest thing. we have to start in preschool and emphasize to the young men and women that science, technology, engineering, math are the key to growing our economy, but i'd also add in "the a" word, and that's art. the software developers create the apps we use are very, very culturally aware and they are artsy, but they take science and

technology, invest beginning in preschool through k-12. from the federal government, no child left behind left everybody behind. we need to take those dollars, reinvest them into the education system here in utah today. >> moderator: senator hatch. hatch: what he's said is true. we are known for one of the best technology counties, and i'm chairman of the task force, and it's no secret everybody in silicon valley knows me. most of the patent changes that occurred have my name on them. i can go there, meet with anyone i want, i get the annual speaker, and it's also the ceo from one of the great high-tech groups. you know, i think we've got to spoon -- sponsor in this area, emphasize

math and science in school and secondary schools as well. howell: you can talk this, but you're not walking the walk. we have to get teachers and make science and math fun for students and let them know this is where the jobs are. when i look at companies like ibm and oracle, they start at $70,000-plus a year. we have to make sure the education system reflects that. you know, for me, this is very, very critical to the life blood of our country. this is where technology can improve us and make us better each and every day, but until we get the dollars into the classroom and compensate teachers properly, we're not going to have the superiority that we need in this country and technology. >> moderator: senator hatch, rebuttal? hatch: i agree with what scott said. we have to do more. we do need to put the incentives

there for the young people. there's economic incentives. it's fun. i have my iphone5, and i really enjoy it. i tell you. i really enjoy it. i use my ipad, and i even get on the computer. [laughter] fact of the matter, you young people are the brightest i've ever seen in my life. you deserve to be in the great universities, and you deserve to have the best teachers you can have, not just in the universities, but in the local areas as well, in the state areas, and i'm proud of utah for the high-tech way we are, but we have to go to h1b and retain those ph.d.es and those masters degrees that are foreigners to give them the chance to become u.s. citizens as well. my friends on the other side stop that. > moderator: time for questions is at an end, perhaps well-deserved now because you're still engaging.

there's one minute closing statements, and a coin toss determines mr. howell has the final word. senator hatch? hatch: i'm running because i'm ranking on the senate finance committee. i believe mitt romney is elected president of the united states, and i intend to help him. i'll be in a position to help him. that's why he need that statement with "we need orrin hh in the senate," and i know the man and what we can do, but those have people in the united states senate to help him. in the house of representatives, dave camp is the chairman over in the house of the ways and means committee. we're close friends. i get along well with max baucus, the chairman of the finance committee, and i respect him and all democrats willing to work with us and do what's right for our country. let me just say this. i love this country. i work my guts out for it.

i'll never let you done, and i intend to do the best i can in the next six years. >> moderator: mr. howell. i appreciate your service, senator. we all recognize that, but, you know, like michael jordan, john stockton, there's a time to retire. i am runs for the u.s. senate so our children have every opportunity to live the american dream. my life experience doesn't come from 36 years in government, but the ibm corporation. when i go back to washington, i'll vote the three c's, my conscious, constituents, and the constitution. i will not be a partisan individual ruining the country today. protect you and me from those doing us harm, threaten rights, and our liberties whether they are foreign, domestic, businesses, corporations, or individuals. i gained a representation as a

legislature committed to working together working with governor michael to balance the state budget every single year, collaboration is how problems are solved. as your united states senator, i promise you every day i'll work to respect you and the great state. god bless you. god bless u utah. thank you very much. >> moderator: on behalf of the audience and citizens of utah, we thank you both for running. the new mexico senate race where heinrich and wilson debated for the last time. this comes from new mexico. >> moderator: i'm tom, and welcome to the u.s. senate debate. our sponsor is aarp, glad you're with us. this debate is sigh mull cast on 770kklb am, and joining us on

the stage, there's democratic candidate martin, and republican candidate heather wilson vying to replace jeff bingaman who is retiring. each candidate has a minute for an open statement, and later, a minute for closing statements. the candidates have one minute to answer each question and then 45 seconds each for rebuttals. later, candidates can ask the other candidate is question, often very enjoyable. the answers will be limited to one minute, and each will have 45 seconds for rebuttal. martin won the coin toss, select to go second with his opening statement, so heather wilson, please go ahead with your companies statement. wilson: thank you, tom, for hosting this. we have two kids at home, one about ready for college, and the other who is the queen of her

universe in high school. i worry about them and whether there's jobs for them when they finish school. there's nothing more important in america today than moving forward towards strong growth and job gracious meaning keeping taxes low so small businesses can invest, grow, getting rid of red tape coming out of washington and putting a moratorium on job killing regulations, and all of the above nnch strategy. the fastest way to american jobs is american energy. it means foregoing across the board defense cuts that the congressman supported so that we don't lose another 20,000 jobs next year. that's what i will do in the united states senate, and i look forward to the discussion this evening. >> moderator: martin heinrich, your opening statement. >> my mom worked in a factory, dad was an electrician. they worked hard, stretched every dime. there were tough times along the way. i know what it's like to

struggle in a tough economy, and i'm running for the senate because i want our children, yours and mine, to inherit the country we all believed in growing up, an america where you prosper if you work hard and you play by the rules. now, i want you to know my priorities are new mexico's priorities. protect social security and medicare, tax cuts for the middle class, making college tbacial for everyone. i come home every weekend to hold job fairs, meet with new mexico and so i can raise my family and fought for the things that matter most. i'll continue to do that in the senate. >> moderator: first question. with the u.s. deficit increasing by the second threatening the economic recovery, would would you, as -- what would you as a u.s. senator do about taxes and spending. we begin with martin.

heinrich: we have to take a balanced aroach. every single bipartisan group that's gotten together has said you can only tackle this problem if you look at both sides of the equation. if you increase revenues, and you make cuts to existing programs, we're going to have to weather some challenging cuts in the future because spending is too high. we're going to have to increase revenue, and i think it's fair to ask people at the very upper income levels to shoulder the same responsibility that middle class families shoulder today. it's not right that mitt romney, who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year pays 14% in effective tax rates, and small business people and teachers and firefighters pay more. with a balanced approach, we can meet the challenge. >> moderator: heather, talk about taxes and spending. wilson: this is an area where we disagree. he's holding the entire state

hostage for a tax increase on the 1st of january to increase taxes on the two upper brackets. half of those are small businesses, the engines of economic growth in america, and there was a study last summer studying what's the impact of increasing taxes the way he wants to do, and we lose another 3400 jobs here in new mexico. we have to extend all of the tax rates that we have now and go through a yearlong process of tax simplification taking out all exemptions and special provisions, lower rates, broadens base, and give ourselves a tax code that's pro-economic growth. we have to control spending and have growth lower than the rate of growth of our economy. we're also going to to have reform programs, and we need a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. >> moderator: martin, you made

a face over there. 45 seconds for a rebuttal. heinric h: embrace the approach that congressman wilson embraced to support the cut, cap, and balance program, a tea party approach in balancing the budget. there's no new revenues, and it is so draconian, it requires deep cuts in social security and medicare over time. we can embrace the balanced approach. that's what i support. we can go back to the tax rates under the clinton administration when the upper income earners were doing well and the economy was growing. we have to make tough choices, and a balanced approach is the only approach that i believe gets us there. >> moderator: heather, your rebuttal. wilson: it's amazing you can stand here voting for trillion dollar deficits for the last four years, the largest, fastest

debt increase in american history, and say we have to control spending. you've done nothing to control spending over the last four years, and respect to cutting cap and balance, it's amazing, also, that cutting wasteful spending, capping the ability of congress to spend money we don't have, and balancing the budget is extreme. i think it would force congress to set priorities and stop funding things like solyndra and prioritize things like social security, medicare, and education, and that's why i support a balance budget amendment. >> moderator: question two. with the fiscal cliff looming, and the president says if we don't go over, we have to cut defense spending. what would you, as a u.s. senator, do so save jobs at new mexico's military bases and national laboratories? heather? wilson: an area where we have strong disagreements. congressman heinrich was the

only member to vote for the process that will be across the board cuts in january. we already lost 30,000 jobs here in new mexico since he went to congress, and the average household pay is down by $4,000 per family for take home pay. congressman piers didn't vote for this, but congress heinrich did. i'll work to restore defense cuts and avoid the impact to the national security and devra davis sating impact to jobs here in new mexico. >> moderator: martin? heinrich: frankly, i think it's important to remember whose seat we're seeking to fill her. senator bingaman says that bill was a huge distortion, and it was. i voted to ensure as a country we didn't default on obligations. it was the tea party who forced

us not to pass a clean piece of legislation, and i think what's important is that if we bring a balanced approach to this and don't do a cuts only approach, we can completely erase the impact of sequestering. now, i stood up to my own party and fought for the bases and our national labs. i opposed my own president when he said that we should put off funding the facility at los alamos. i wish heather would have stood up when they were looking to cut plants 17% or 11%. >> moderator: your rebuttal? wilson: i voted against ryan's budget in 2007. standing up to the party on the national labs, you voted for the continuing resolution that zeroed out the funding for the national labs, and you didn't offer a single amendment or lift a finger to try to save it.

i think new mexico needs a senator that understands the unique contribution to national security and stands up and fights for it. you voted across the board cuts, didn't save the facility, lost the aircraft for the air guard here in new mexico, and we now have the smallest air guard of any state except guam. we can do better, and i intend to in the united states senate. >> moderator: martin, your rebuttal. heinrich: there were a thousand people working there before i was elected, and there's a thousand working there today. they have a job because i fund them a new mission. when congresswoman wilson failed to do that at the end of her time. they are not e flying f-16, but others. it's not just about the airplanes, but it's about the people, it's about the jobs. it's about the people putting

food on their family for those jobs, and i'll continue to fight for forward thinking and looking new missions to ensure our installations, defense and energy, are strong well into the future. >> moderator: nearly half of the people in new mexico are hispanic. unm had a study reporting last week the second most important issue to hispanics in new mexico after the economy is immigration. what do you think about amnesty for some illegal immigrants on the children who came here with them? martin? heinrich: i don't think we need to embrace amnesty, but a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. our immigration system is brokenning, and it has been for many years. congressman wilson had a chance for over a decade to do something about that. when i was elected to congress, not only did i sponsor reform, but it was the dream act of the

central ten gnat in congress. we fought for the act because those were kids who represent the best things about this country. many of them don't know another country, and they are willing to serve in the military, get an engineering degree, become a doctor, and give back to the community. i was dis appointed it took so long for my opponent to take a position on the dream agent. this needs leadership. i have shown the leadership, and i will continue to fight for a forward thinking immigration policy in the country. wilson: amnesty is not fair to those waiting in line to get in the country willing to support our laws. i support legal immigration. we need changes to the laws so that immigration is based more on talent and hard work and ability and skill so that we have a pro-america immigration policy. with respect to children who are brought here by their parents at a very young age. we need a solution to the

problem. i was asked if i had been in the house, would i have voted for the house version of that bill? the answer is yes. the problem is, the bill never made it in the senate which is why we need bipartisan approaches, and i look forward to working with senator rubio and others to ensure a law passes, not just that a single faction can pass something through the house. that's the difference between the house and senate. with respect to my work in the house when i was there, the priority when i was there was securing the border because of failure to secure the boarer over time. that's opened up opportunities to reform our immigration system. >> moderator: martin, your rebuttal. heinrich: i voted to appropriate the funds to send a thousand new border patrol agents to the border and hundreds of new customs agents, but that dozen not fix the issue. we have a pro-active community in new mexico. the faith community, the business community, the activist groups here have all come

forward saying we need to embrace comprehensive immigration reform. that is -- we couldn't get the dream act through the united states senate because the tea party had taken over to the point where republican u.s. senators were afraid that they were going to be primarieded for supporting a comprehensive sensible policy. we have to send people to washington who stand up for common sense and get this done. >> moderator: heather, rebuttal? wilson: the problem was we failed to secure the border so that immigration reform couldn't be done unless you took the first step. we started putting resources in place in 2005, and we have continued that, and the number of people crossing the border illegally has gone done substantially. the united states needs effective control of the border opening up the possibility, i believe, going forward form further immigration reform, not only to allow more people to come to this country who are

highly skilled, but also to be able to have a grease walker -- guest worker program that worked well. >> moderator: tell us about you in the campaign that irked you the most -- [laughter] and why did it irk you? starting with heather. wilson: i wouldn't say that "irked" is the right word, but there's an advertisement that congressman heinrich is running that he approved of that implies i don't care about people who depend upon social security and medicare. i found that not only personally offensive and untrue, but the reality is that my family depended on social security as a kid. i know what it's like to be afraid. i think preying on people's fears is a new low, and i just think that that was reprehenceble to make people afraid for something that was

fats, and that bothered me a lot. >> moderator: martin, anything irk you in the campaign? heinrich: i got thick skin in the last few races, and i learned to use netflix and on-demand television so that my kids don't have to watch the commercials this time of year, but i stand by the advertisements, and if you want to see the truth, go out there, get on youtube, type in "heather wilson cut cap balance" you'll see her endorse the plan, and see what the aarp says about it, the committee to preserve medicare, what the alliance for retired americans say about it. it would impact social security and impact medicare and education and pell grants in new mexico. we can take a better balanced approach.

>> moderator: do you want the rebuttal, heather? wilson: i do. congressman, you're implying something not true, and you intentionally approved that. that pledge is something i support, and i don't see problem with cutting wasteful spending like solyndra and prioritizing social security, medicare, and education forcing congress to set priorities just like all of us do around the family dinner table so that congress stops spending money that we don't have to get back to a balanced budget. there's nothing radical at all with that. by preying or people's fears, you know, i know what is feels like to be afraid and dependent, and i just think that's morally wrong. >> moderator: response, martin? heinrich: if you want to look, there's plenty places to make cuts. one place i will not cut is social security and medicare. social security had been has

been critical to many families, and my family, too. my parents are reliant despite the fact they invest it, but i'm not going to balance the budget on the backs of the senior citizens. that's not right and if we take the balanced approach or any of the other groups, they say the same thing. work with both sides of the equation. it's the only reasonable and effective path forward, and i think it's time that we actually produce some results for the american people. >> moderator: we are happy that aarp is, again, co-sponsoring a prime time debate with us tonight. joining us on stage is the chairman of the group's legislative committee. that would be garza, and aarp has the next three questions. go ahead. >> thank you, tom. on medicare, there's recent

discussions about having seniors buy insurance from a choice of private insurance plans with a fixed contribution from the government to pay premiums. this is commonly referred to as the premium support plan. would you favor this approach rather than traditional medicare? >> moderator: martin, you're up. heinrich: absolutely not. i will not see medicare voucherrized. i know this is the plan that paul ryan bet his career on, but it would immediately have negative impacts on our seniors. i think protecting medicare is absolutely essential. it's why i cut subsidies to insurance companies so that we can put more money back into medicare. that's not what you hear from my opponent, but we took medicare savings from the insurance companies, and we piled it into filling the donut hole, and we put it into preventative programs and extending the life of medicare. we won't see the program vouchered. my father's had a tough year.

unfortunately, he's used medicare a lot this year. it was have for him. it was there for my mother when she 4 to take over the the family duties that he had previously fill, so, no, i don't support that plan. >> moderator: heather? wilson: medicare's important now and in the future. we have to save it. i don't like the voucherrized approach, but i support medicare advantage. that's a program here in new mexico that four out of ten seniors choose to have. i talked to mike knowles recently getting the medicare through medicare advantage, and he likes the fact it's a wrap-around program and doesn't have to deal with a lot of different pieces, and it works real well with tricare. i support that program. congressman heinrich is the only candidate on the stage who voted to cut medicare by $700 billion in the health care act.

he says it went to insurance companies, but he means medicare advantage. that's what he's talking about. he's going to deny seniors that choice. a third of it also went to payments for hospitals, and that's why between 15-20% of our hospitals here 234 this state -- in this state, are going to go under because of the health care act that he supported and took $700 billion out of medicare. >> moderator: martin, rebuttal. heinrich: i never cut a single benefit under the medicare program, and i don't believe in cutting benefits under the medicare program. we added benefits we paid for by eliminating subsidies to insurance companies that were pulling money from medicare and into corporate profits. the ryan plan, when it came out, i fought against that, too. unlike my opponent who is absolutely silent when the ryan budget plan came out. she was not there defending

medicare. she said she didn't have to comment on it because she was not in the house of representatives. >> moderator: heather? wilson: well, i wasn't in the house of representatives, but when i was, i voted gins -- against the budget and made it clear i had concerns on medicare, and more concerns on the approach you stand here and say we didn't cut benefits. he cut the payment rate to the doctor, and the payment rate to the hospital. 40% of doctors now won't take new medicare patients, and 15%-20% of the hospitals are going to go under because of the slash in payment rates that congressman heinrich was responsible for so we'll all have benefits, but we won't have a doctor, and we won't have hospitals, particularly in rural areas in neaxz. this is the reason that the health care act needs to be repealed and replaced, and i will take that $700 billion and put it back in medicare.

>> moderator: second question. >> on social security, i heard politicians talk about raising the income level subject to payroll tax or eliminating the payroll cap entirely. do you support either of these options to improve funding for social security? >> moderator: heather, you're up. wilson: the most important thing for social security is those who depend upon it today or near retirement, the check needs to be there, on time, and in full. there are three other principles i think are important when we deal with how do we save social security for future generations. one is that i think it needs to continue to be the safety net program. it is the defined benefit program. we don't want it to be like your ira or 401(k) and invested in the stock market. it has to continue to be that safety net. second, the solution for social security should be bipartisan. there's a couple models. simpson-bowles is one, but look

at what ronald reagan did back in 1973. we have to start now because the problem is worse as we go forward into the future. congressman heinrich in june said we don't need to deal with this now, and he and i disagree. >> moderator: martin? heinrich: social security didn't create our federal budget deficit. when she was elected to congress, she inherited a balanced budget. we got to the structural deficit we have today from specific votes. she voted to get rid of the pay as you go rules that helped a democratic president and republican senate balance a budget, put us into a war in iraq without paying for it, a war in afghanistan without paying for it, two rounds of tax cuts for the wepty without paying for it, medicare part d, i'm fond of, but it should have been paid for.

that's how the deficit was created. we have to fix that before we use social security as the voice for bad decisions made in her tenure. >> moderator: 45 seconds for rebuttal, and i'm sure you want to use every second. [laughter] wilson: it strikes me that, congressman, social security is separate in the budget from all programs you just discussed. social security is a completely separate account, and the problem with social security right now is that for the last two years, we've been paying out more in benefits than payroll taxes. it doesn't go into the rest of the funds. it's completely separate, and it is in trouble. we're paying out more in benefits than we take in in taxes, and by 2013, by the year you retired, under your approach to do nothing neons that seniors would open up their checks and

instead of a thousand bucks, it's $750. that's your plan. that means cuts for every one in social security. heinrich: she says she plans to make changes to social security. i ask you, don't you deserve to know what the changes are going to be? "trust us" is not a policy, but an approach to guest back the election, and then you make policy. if we're going to make any changes to social security, if we're going to tinker with it, you deserve to know what those changes are going to be, and i will continue to press congressman wilson to know which plans she has, what specific changes she's going to make to social security. >> moderator: mr. garza, the final and third aarp question. >> do you support reducing the deficit without harming medicare and social security for current

and future generations? >> moderator: martin, you begin. heinrich: absolutely, with a balanced approach, bring in new cuts and look for savings that are not rationings. i will not cut the ability to produce results for seniors. i will not limit things they pay for, but what i will do is do a smarter job using every single medicare dollar. electronic records to root out the fraud, waste, and abuse, and prosecutor the people who -- prosecute the people who do that. pay our drays and providers in a smarter way. today, medicare has a volume based system. the more you order, the more you are paid. that's not right. doctors need to be paid a salary and bonus if they produce high quality results bringing costs down. extending the life of the program without cutting benefits.

>> heather, your answer? wilson: continue to be separate as it is now. the principles that guide my approach to social security in making sure it's sol vent for the long term is no changes those on or near social security today. it should be a safety net program and not invested in the stock market. it has to be bipartisan like simpson-bowles good models to start from now. listen to what congressman heinrich said in the answer. he didn't give one conclusion how he will approach saving social security. he says, and has said in june, that it's find for the next 20 years, and 20 years from now under the current law and the plan advocating, you will have 7 # 5 -- 75% of the benefits because the trust fund goes broke. all of president obama's candidates --

candidates rare ris say -- candidates rare ris say we have to address this now or you get 20% less gnat checks than plan. ed that's irresponsible. heinrich: it does not take decades, but that approach to balancing our budget is a far more serious threat to social security in the short term than anything coming down the pike several decades from now. the things driving our budget deficit are decisions, specific decisions, that congresswoman wilson made creating the structural deficit. we can get past that and move forward, but it has to be a balanced approach. senators embraced that in the program. this tea party cut, cap, and balance, cuts only approach is a disaster not just for social

security and medicare, but the entire federal budget and the state of new mexico. >> moderator: heather, your rebuttal. wilson: congressman, and this is important. social security is completely separate. it is not part of the regular budget. the money that comes in from social security from people's payroll checks can only be used for social security. the problem is that we're living longer, and we have more retirees. the challenge is demographic so we're much better off starting to deal with that today. all of the other things that we have to do to balance the budget and overcome the fact that you voted for $5 trillion of new debt over the last four years, we have to deal with that too, but it's separate from the solvency in pension and retirement system in social security, and you have to deal with that now because if we wait until the trust fund is empty, we'll be in deep trouble, and it's under law, the plan,

there's a 25% automaticñpi cut n benefits if we don't fix this, and i agree with president obama, we've got to do this sooner rather than later. >> moderator: thank you, mr. garza, and thank you, aarp, for the questions. as part of tonight's debate, we ask kob viewers to submit questions. here's the stewart dyson with the questions. stu? >> thank you, tom. first question is from suzanne. she writes, "describe a time when you voted against the majority of your party because you felt an issue was so critical to new mexico that party loyalty took second place." >> moderator: the people want to know. heather? wilson. there's a -- wilson: there's a number of times i demonstrated independence. when i was a freshman in the house of representatives, i forced the speaker of the house

to pull a bill from the national floor because that would have been devastating to the national laboratories. i voted against the spending bill in 2004 because it didn't treat education properly and insufficient funds for title i, the schools, kids who were low income. the third is children health insurance. i voted to override the veto of the president at the time, president bush, because i felt children's health insurance was important. i got a long history of standing up to the party and being punished for it from time to time. that's who i am, and i think new mexico deserves an independent leader they can trust to stand up for them. >> moderator: martin, your annals. -- martin, your answer. heinrich: when they said we had to defund the laboratories, most supported that approach. i did not. i supported that program. i felt it was absolutely

necessary for us to meet our obligations under the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, and i voted to extend that program to refund that program. i also stood up when i was a fleshman in congress, stood up to the speaker, stood up to the majority leader saying enough with the congressional pay raises, especially in the midst of a recession, it's not right. despite the fact congress said for years, hidden pay raises and all kinds of very hard to follow procedures, we stopped congressional pay raises since i've been in congress. wilson voted for pay raise after pay raise. $6,000 over the course of her career. i stood up for my party, and will continue to do that. wilson: you voted to authorize the spenting and zero it out. it's like creating a checking account for a new facility and then voting not to put in any money in the account. as a result, 700 people lost

jobs, and another thousand won't be hired next year because you didn't effectively fight for that. with respect to pay raises, you well know that all six of those votes have been debunced, never voted to increase my pay. the week you were sworn into the congress, you got a $5,000 pay raise. did you cash the check? >> moderator: martin, 45 seconds. heinrich: when it came to the pay raise in congress those elected in that year, we stood up and said enough. it's not right anymore. we actually sponsored legislation to get rid of the cola adjustment. you have to vote for each individual pay raise. now, the previous congress voted yes. our congress did not. not only that year, but the year afterwards and to this day. i want to return, too, to the issue at the labs. when we really needed congresswoman wilson to stand up

and fight for the national labs, when the have vice presidential nominee was fighting for cuts, she was nowhere to be heard. she was silent. that speaks volumes. >> moderator: stu, the second question from the viewers. >> this is from christine cully asks "how do you plan to change education in america? i'm talking about elementary, middle, and high school, i'm a teacher, and it seems as if it's getting worst including teacher pay." heinrich: child left behind is not working for new mexico schools, new mexico students, and it's not working for new mexico teachers. it was a top-down, washington prescribed approach that congresswoman wilson embraced in congress, but it's not working. it's not working for my kids. they are in public school right now here in central new mexico. we need a different approach.

we're not going to goat afrom testing. we shouldn't test that compares this year's 5 #th graders with last years. test at the beginning of the year where it tells the teacher where each individual child is to tailor their instruction, and then do testing at the end of the year to know what kind of incremental and growth based progress they made over the course of the year. >> moderator: heather, i see you now making a face. what was that about? wilson: it was a smile. [laughter] the no child left behind act was the secretary education agent allowing federal funds to go to schools in new mexico for kids who are low income and for kids with special needs. i strongly support that federal funding to aid education, but i think that the decisions about how that money should be made should be made at the local level. what no child left behind did was push the decisions down to the local level and allow teachers and principles to move money around between any

federalling the. that's massive flexibility. in terms of the testing requirements, for a year, now, new mexico was exempt from testing requirements with their own plan and grading system. i think those testing requirements should have been tweaked and replaced probably five or six years ago, but what they did do in the first five years is narrow the gap between the rich kids, poor kids, anglo and minority with respect to achievement, and ultimately, that's what we want to do. >> moderator: martin? heinrich: go out, especially if you have kids in the public school, ask them about the last decade of service within public school in the state of new mexico. ask the teachers what the impact of no child left behind was. did it really put more control in the power of local officials, teacher, and school boards? i have not met a single teacher that has said that. they said it put lists of requirements on us with no help to meet any of those things, and

it took the creativity out of one of the greatest jobs in the world, teaching our children. ic -- i think we can do 3we9er -- belter than that in a way that supports our children, teacher, and new mexico schools. >> moderator: hitter? wilson: if there was 800 funds in federal law and couldn't use money to be for curriculum development in middle school math to help out with reading instruction in elementary school. what it gave was a lot of flexibility on any of those programs so the local school district could move money around. we want the schools to be accountable to the community for results. now, how the results were reported in hole issue of annual yearly -- ayp, annual yearly progress, i think was something that didn't work, and they were right to set that aside. we now have a different system here in new mexico, but the important thing is to look at results, not just for kids like

you and i have with middle class kids, two-parent families, but first generation americans left behind under the previous system. >> moderator: the third and final viewer question. >> okay. here it is. don hallments to know "where do you stand on renewable energy programs and related tax incentives"? >> moderator: heather? wilson: we need a balanced plan for the country that increases american made energy to get energy to secure sources of supply keeping the cost down because american energy is the fastest way to american jobs. in new mexico, we produce coal, oil, natural gas, have sun, and wind in april. i'm an all of the above energy kind of gal. congressman heinrich voted for cap-and-trade, biggest tax on energy in the history of the country costing 11,000 jobs here in new mexico, and it would increase the cost of our

electric bills by a thousand dollars a year. he's also said that coal is a fuel of the pages. if coal is the fuel of the past, low price energy bills are a thing of the past and the jobs that the mines are a thing of the past. i believe we need an all of the above energy strategy, but congressman heinrich chased a green dream costing us all in jobs and electric bills. >> moderator: martin, you're up. heinrich: it's not a dream for thousands working in new mexico today because of those policies. in fact, today, despite the fact we've been mining coal for hundreds and hundreds of years, there are four times -- almost five times as many people working in renewables directly in the state of new mexico within that industry. now, there's nothing wrong with mining for coal. my father a miner, grandfather a miner. that's hard, hard walk, but when it comes to setting policy, we need to be looking to the

future. we need to be investing in infrastructure. the national labs said if we had adequate infrastructure, we can grow 25,000 new jobs in clean energy with marrying natural gas generation, which is affordable, together with wind and solar, producing an energy portfolio that over time gets ever more domestic and clean. >> moderator: heather, your rebuttal. wilson: it didn't say 25,000, but 1200 jobs for 20 years. i'm fine with that. i support renewable energy. the difference is he supports renewable energy and not coal, oil, and natural gas. 70% of our electricity in the state comes from clean coal fire generation. we can get it at five or six cents kilowatt an hour. it's not just the direct mines at stake here though because by increasing the price of energy

through all the green legislation that congressman heinrichments to pursue, there's fewer jobs here because the big drivers of whether a manufacturing operation is going to locate here is low cost energy. the renewables he's pursuing cost two or three times what clean coal fire generation does. we need secure sources of supply at low cost. >> moderator: martin? heinrich: we quadrupled the number of rigs producing in the continental united states in the last few years, and, yet, you're paying through the nose at the pump, and i don't think it's fair to support policies she supported year in and out in ore decade in congress. she supported the tax subsidies, and companies that made over a hundred billion dollars in profits over the last year. it's time to take those

subsidies and put them to work on the jobs of the future, and, yes, i'll continue to invest in geothermal, wind, efficiency, solar, and all the jobs of the future. >> moderator: clearly, the outcome of the election will impact young people looking to the future so we've asked one student from the ap government class here in the high school to ask a question. joining us on the stage, and i understand you're concerned how to pay for college, and as a father as college students, i share that concern. [laughter] go ahead with your question. >> thank you very much. so, thank you. it is argued that the government's involvement in pell grants cautioned colleges to raise tuition fees, and students owe more than any time in history. pell grants support financial age and propose any other program to justify set the high and low end amounts for college

graduates? >> moderator: martin? heinrich: i support pell grants, absolutely critical in the state of new mexico for the students, especially the students who don't come from a family who benefited from higher education. in fact, when the ryan budget sought to eliminate enormous amounts of funding for pell grants, i at three o'clock in the morning offered the very last amendment to the ryan budget to put funding back in the pell grants. we paid for it by cutting administrative cost at the department of education, and all republicans voted no. we cut the banks outs of loans, government loans to students. absolutely critical because that saved so much money that we could put back into individual's education, making sure that those loans were as low cost as possible instead of that money siphons off to the banks and put the money to work.

>> moderator: heather? wilson: i support pell grant and always have. youd made a good point here, and it's what i talked about with universities here in knack. every time the pell grant goes up, it seems like the cost of college goes up that much or more. the public universities in particular need to spend time looking at how to control the escalating costs to college because if you look at the cost of college when, you know, when i applied to college or when congressman heinrich applied to college and the inflation rate for college education is nowhere near, i mean, it's two or three times more than how household incomes have gone up or how, the average salary has gone up pricing people out of higher education. we have to look as a community how to control costs at the public universities so that college correspondents to be accessible and affordable. >> moderator: martin.

heinrich: a breath of fresh air. we agree on something. [laughter] we have to make sure public universities think about the decisions they make, the investments, the infrastructure investments that they make, and what their charging in terms of tuition, and making sure that they focus on what they do on the core missions, not trying to be everything to everyone because when they do that, that drives up the cost of tuition within those institutions. we can do a better job of keeping those costs down, and it should be our job at the federal level to partner with our great institutions here in new mexico state and tech and unm to make sure that's possible. >> moderator: hitter, i -- heather, i think you are owed a rebuttal. wilson: there's times in the past where i served in the congress where i opposed my own party with respect to education because i think when we look forward in the future of this state, one of the things that is going to create another american

century keeping us ahead of the competitors, not only in other states, but other nations, is to have a well-educated citizenry, and that, in my view, is one of the roles of government, and it's something that i'm willing to support in the united states senate. >> moderator: as i mentioned at the top of the debate, we made time for the candidates to ask each other one question. martin, what is your question for heather? heinrich: we talked about this a little bit already, but, obviously, you know, much of this whole national election cycle has hinged on social security and medicare. i told you how important it was for my own family to utilize those programs and despite the fact that my parents worked hard and saved and invested, they still rely on social security to have the kind of middle class retirement that they enjoy. my question is if the urgency is

not undoing things that put us in a structural deficit, but the urgency is to fix social security today for any outstanding potential revenue fated into that program, what specific kinds of changes would you suggest? you said you were open to private accounts. today, you say you are not open to private accounts, but rather than a process and say "trust me ; i'll tell you after the election," there are specifics you want to change in social security? wilson: if you're going to quote me, be accurate. i said personalization. at the time, we had a budget surplus, and we talked about how to protect social security, and one of the things you were discussing was there being an account with your name on it so it was not used for something else. what's that i meant by personalization. as i said before, there's principles that would drive how

i look at it. one is those on social security today or near retirement should have the checks there on time and in full. second, it's the safety net program in a defined benefit program, not as a define contribution program. third, the solution must be bipartisan. start with simpson bowles, but that gives you a frame work and road map. fourth, we have to start now. contrast that with what you've said which is do nothing and let the trust fund go dry so there's an automatic 25% cut in benefits. i think that would be a disaster for social security. >> moderator: martin, 45 seconds for rebuttal. heinrich: personal accounts or private accounts or privatization, it doesn't change. it fundamentally changes the fabric we made in the social security program. what i'm saying is we need to

address the serious fiscal situation we have now addressing the issues most urgent and pressing us towards a budget deficit that is unsustainable. we should focus on an balanced approach, not one devastating to new mexico's jobs, social security, and medicare over time. i think we can do better than that. >> moderator: heather, your rebuttal. wilson: that tells me congressman heinrich does not understand it's separate from the budget or he believes it's okay to let it go down to zero. i think that's irresponsible so do the candidates rare ris, and on the annual support trust fund for 2012 said we need to address this as soon as possible because if we diminish the amount in the trust fund, if we get to the year you retire, there's an

automatic cut in benefits, and it's a lot easier to address this now than it would be 20 years from now or 15 years from now, or 10 years from now. that's why one of the principles that i think we have to have here is we've got to move forward and save social security for those on it today and those out into the future. >> moderator: heather wilson gets to have martin heinrich a question. go ahead. wilson: one owns two taco bells, and she told 75 of the pros she was keeping them on, narrow the profit margins and make it through together. she tells me she's been awake at nights because she knows that when this health care agent comes into effect next year, she's going to have to lay off or move to part time at least 26 of her employees to get down before that -- below that magic 50 number where she doesn't have to provide health insurance because there's only so much

profit in a 99 cent taco. what would you advise her to do as far as how to do her layoffs? let go the kids that are working there so that they can put themselves through college at san juan college? do last hired, first fired? let go or exempt the single parents with kids who depend upon that job? how should she layoff people because of the health care agent that forced her to make decisions about? heinrich: i'm not going to give business advice not knowing the individual's situation, but we did exempt small businesses up to 50 employees from even complying with the most basic provisions within that legislation. you know what that legislation was about? it was about addressing the fact that new new mexico has one the highest uninsured rates in the nation, about people like the father who came up to me and said, you know, when my daughter comes of