insurance because she has epilepsy, a pre-existing condition. my opponent said you could have sent the person to the state high risk pool. well, no, we fixed that situation, and know the high risk pool at the state of new mexico does not even accept people with epilepsy under that program. ..

>> she is going to way people are and you won't even take responsibility for what you're doing small businesses across the state. >> i think small businesses are critical. so is people's health health care. people should have access to health care. if that means that i have to pay

$1.10. >> moderator: now we come to the end of this debate. each candidate will have one minute for a closing argument. my priority is keeping our college more affordable for everyone. the wilson has had all the wrong priorities. she supported and voted for the wall street bailout. she voted for the bush tax cuts that exploded our deficit come and now wants to give even more tax breaks to millionaires. congressman wilson supports the radical plan called cut, cap and balance that would require deep cuts to social security and medicare. let me be clear that i will never balance their budgets the budget on the backs of our senior citizens. i can hold job fairs and i can

raise my family. i have always thought about the steps that mattered most to the people of new mexico. if you give me a chance to serve the u.s. senate from i will continue that fight and i will be honored to have your vote. >> moderator: go ahead and apply the. [cheers] [applause] >> moderator: let's move on. heather wilson, you have one minute for closing statement. wilson: over the last four years, we have lost 30,000 jobs. gasoline is up. college education is through the router in roof. a household income has gone $4000. congressmen martin heinrich once you put in a cap and trade system. it will increase the cost of electricity by $1000 per

household. it will cost another 11,000 jobs here in new mexico. he wants to raise taxes in the upper income brackets, half of which are small businesses, which will cost us another 4300 jobs. right here in new mexico. he voted for us across the board. it will cost us 4000 new jobs. we need some and will fight for the strong businesses who will struggle with the tough decision to have to make because of the lousy policies put in place and for spending. we need to get back to strong economic growth and job creation. that is what i am going to do in the united states senate. [cheers] [applause] >> moderator: thank you, audience, for holding your closet till the end. and thank you for joining us for tonight's u.s. senate debate in 12 days. make your voices heard. please vote.

join us on election night for complete coverage. in the meantime comest, see you tonight on the news at 10:00 o'clock. good night. [cheers] [applause] >> the new york 24th district today debated. this debate is part of the central news in new york. >> tonight, the debate of the candidates for 24th congressional district. here are your moderators. >> good evening from the studios here in syracuse. we welcome you to this election, this 2012 debate.

this evening we will hear the candidates for the 24th congressional district debate. the issue is for the first time. >> we welcome the candidates were debate tonight. democratic candidate dan maffei and ursala rozum and ann marie buerkle. >> moderator: each candidate will have 60 seconds to provide an answer. after the third candidate responses from each candidate will then have the opportunity to provide a 32nd rebuttal. >> moderator: we will deliver follow-up questions. that order was determined by a draw straws earlier. we begin with opening remarks from dan maffei. danny? maffei: i think all the stations and thank you so much.

thank you for everyone cosponsoring this debate. i am dan maffei. i was born and raised in syracuse. i went to public schools and then in college i worked at my family's small business. i have seen the middle-class struggle firsthand. i think in central new york we have what it takes to make it. we need to make sure that we cut tax breaks. we need to take oil subsidies and get enough money. when our treasure is over in afghanistan, nationbuilding there. we need to bring our troops home and instead of building bridges, those bridges and schools here.

we absolutely need to make sure social security and medicare are safe. we can do a good we have what it takes in central new york. we just have to go and do it. >> moderator: ann marie buerkle? speed-reading thank you for hosting this very important discussion. in fact from our campaign slogan is be heard in the course of the month, we have posted over 40 town halls, 60 countable units come and we have talked to many people and business owners, farmers, hospitals, and seniors. women's groups as well. you know what they did? they confirmed that the policies

and the things that dan maffei voted for have hurt people here in the state of new york. [inaudible] or that the company, because of the affordable care act has to pay 3.8% tax rate on its passive income, i began to believe that upstate new york cannot go back to these policies. >> moderator: ursala rozum? rozum: hello, i am trento. my family came here in the

1940s. they came to the united states believing that this is a country where if you work hard for me would have a good life for your family, and unfortunately, that american dream is just too far out of reach for most people. we have seen skyrocketing unemployment. yet for too many people. that is what i support, positive progressive solutions. i support a public jobs program. i support medicare. i am running because my poems represent the failed policies of the major corporate on the parties. they are talking about dollars for dollars instead of solving problems. solutions can't wait. >> moderator: thank you, ursala rozum. thank you to all of our candidates. it is hard to be a candidate and hard to serve the people. we appreciate all of you being here. so the first question is. it is about the fiscal cliff.

it is about the bush tax cuts and the sequestration cuts and the debt limit crisis in august 2012. both come due in december. both presidential candidates are recommending that we cut the deficit. yet a partisan impactor means. 75% of voters polled and nbc wall street journal poll this week that they want congress to find a compromise and end up out of debt. what do you think compromised is and what you think it will do as far as undermining voters? we go to ann marie buerkle verse. buekle: you are absolutely right, thank you very much for the end of this year will signal the largest tax increase. we expect it will affect 90% of the american people. i have voted for the simpson-bowles budget.

i think there is a lot of opportunity and room for us to make compromised so that we can reach across the aisle. i was one of 38 members of the house who voted for simpson-bowles. it was a bipartisan effort and in the present commission before this plan. i believe, morally, what we are doing to our kids into the future of this country is immoral. we have to stop spending. we cannot address this deficit issue by increasing taxes. we have to put progrowth economic agenda in place. we can't cut her way out of this debt. what we need to do is create a solution. you are not the problem. >> moderator: ursala rozum? rozum: you can go in any direction. i will support the tax reform

balance the budget. ann marie buerkle says we can't cut and spend our way out of this. well, she hasn't come out in favor of cutting things. i'm not sure what she means that we kick our way out of this. in the past 40 years, we have seen people's incomes stagnate. we have graduating tax income at the top 10%, and i also possess an transport process of corporate tax rates and cutting the military budget by 50%. any corporate tax loopholes and giving away and cutting the drug war. >> moderator: thank you very much, ursala rozum. dan maffei? maffei: we need to balance the budget, but we need to do it in the right way. not like ann marie buerkle said,

where we need to raise the age of social security. the thing about the budget, they are either one side or the or the other. a few tried attacks are way out or cut her way out. but the question is about compromise. i think that is one of the central things that is lacking in our representation today. ann marie buerkle and the tea party statute has kept congress from ever finding an agreement on anything. we talked a lot about reducing debt, but the debt hasn't been reduced one pennies and she's been in office. that is because she won't work with president obama. we do need to work together across the aisles. democrats, republicans, and independents. mono

>> moderator: federal deficit reduction is threatening state economies and budgets. states depend on federal grants for 32% of their revenue. knowing that the cuts flow downhill, knowing that the city of syracuse and many other municipalities may soon face financial insolvency, what would it take for you to consider either voting to help the debt ceiling in the city. buekle: i think it is because of the federal government, federal mandates that the government places on him, whether it is from education or medicaid. that is a shared responsibility. a lot of the problems in our city faces are because of the

burden for the federal government places on them. i wanted to go back. i want to go back to this budget issue. and the willingness to compromise. simpson-bowles is a compromise. it is a discussion of how we will get this country back on a fiscally sound clip that is bipartisan. i was one of 38 who voted for simpson-bowles. to say this is a better way. let's do this bipartisan approach and what is best for the people in this country. >> moderator: thank you. ursala rozum, a follow-up question for you. if there is a 10% across-the-board cut in all federal grants, new york could lose more than $6 billion. according to the rabbits report, states interests should be on the table when federal reductions are being debated. analyzing the overall impact on the state, if you win this

election, do you promise support a mechanism for consulting with states about the upcoming federal changes and their impact on state and local government? rozum: of course, i think that people are affected by the decision. no one wants bureaucrats in washington making decisions that are going to be affecting them. the times that we had a balanced budget, we were talking about this kind of deficits. talking about compromise, i think compromise is important, but it is also important to take a position and not compromise before the fighting starts. this would allow the bush tax cuts to expire for those making over a million dollars.

>> moderator: ague, ursala rozum. a follow-up question for dan maffei. counties are crying out for the release of the medicaid costs. a new health care lobby support will increase the cost of medicaid even further. how you justify that on top of the fiscal crisis. the municipality and what it's facing in part to unfunded mandates and health care costs remapped. maffei: i think we need to combat unfunded mandates. the other thing that we must do is work very closely with our counties. when i was in office, i worked very closely to make sure that we haven't excellent first responder on environmental issues and et etc. i do think it is important that we do work together and compromise. people say those making over a million dollars to go back to the clinton era rates. they were doing just fine then.

one of my colleague calls out an extreme position. if you don't do that, if you're not willing to compromise there. where are you? at what point do you start holding small business hostage to tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires? monarch certainly the big issue in this campaign, all the polls show it, you have all talked at. ursala rozum, we want to start you with you on this issue. what would your priorities be to increase jobs? what evidence do you have those ideas will produce jobs? do have an idea outside of the public sector creating these jobs? how would you do it for the private sector as well? rozum: that is a very great and important question. my platform is modeled on what we call putting people back to work, transition to a renewable energy economy, and meeting community needs. yes, during the campaign, i have been focusing on public jobs.

i would focus on 21st century employment and training act. it is along the lines of the wpa. the benefits of the public jobs program is that it would be a puts money in the hands of working people. they can then go out and spend in their communities, which is a stimulus to the private economy. i support a program that has direct government employed employment and that would have an effect on the private economy. people don't have money, they can't spend it as a private business. so then private businesses and have an incentive to hire. >> moderator: dan maffei, what incentives do you have your ideas would work? b1 welcome welcome you cannot spend your way or cut away at

us. we need to balance the budget and the right part of that means making sure they do make investments that will create jobs. two areas. one of the structure. particularly transportation. here in central new york, it is difficult to even find where. you have to be at the airport extremely early. even to fly to another city on the east coast. we need another discount airline and we can get it. in the long run, we need high-speed rail and we need to put us back on the map. this is 200 years ago, the founders put us back on a map of the erie canal. the other area that i do think will increase business' research and education. we need to make sure that the other workforce can do the job necessary. this is why education eats away needs to be a national priority and why it is important that we make sure that we have this position in research funding. even mitt romney said he will modify the research funding something by fivefold. >> moderator: ann marie buerkle, what is your priority to create jobs in the next five years?

buekle: unemployment remains high throughout the last 40 months. you know, jfk, reagan, and bush come you could not raise taxes and tax breaks help the economy. that is very important to do that. they voted in 2000 had to extend all of those. what we have done is repealed affordable care act. we know that here in the sticks are, therefore will correct is going to challenge small medical device producers, it is going to hurt the economy. so i voted to appeal the affordable care act. we voted for bipartisan support. it is really going to aid upstate new york and increasing number of experts from my district. >> moderator: we have time for rebuttal. dan maffei, do you regret your

vote on that? maffei: i think the recovery act is absolutely essential. first of all, there were lots of tax cuts for small businesses and individual families that were absolutely essential to those families. secondly, it kept police on the streets and teachers are being laid off. in our classrooms from blowing up. and it had firefighters. so we certainly had to do something. the thing that i'm really confused about is a did the right thing on the taxes, apparently. but now some of the economy seems to be fine for millionaires and billionaires. and doing the wrong thing for asking them to pay their share and yet, we need to balance the budget, but where's the money going to come from? none of it adds up. >> moderator: ursala rozum, what are your reactions to appealing the affordable care act remapped. rozum: i think it would be immoral at this point. there are too many good parts to it. we need to be moving forward.

this would make it much easier for employers to hire workers and to provide health care for them because they will be paying a simple medicare payroll tax. for example. the provision of the affordable care act was on medical devices and it hasn't proven to be true because there should be increased demand for medical devices under the affordable care act. i am not compelled by representative ann marie buerkle's arguments. >> moderator: ann marie buerkle, what is your rebuttal. buekle: some of the workforce is indicative of the affordable care act. how it's going to affect jobs and the economy. our largest employers in our district, and the portal track going to dramatically impact medicare reimbursement to our hospitals and physicians, along with sequestration. if our hospitals are not alive and well, you can have the most conference of health care plan in the world. if you don't have hospitals and physicians who treat these

patients, and our health care system is going to fail miserably. so i would say that you are absolutely right that we need to repeal the affordable care act for jobs and the economy. >> moderator: going back to ursala rozum, you see some comparisons and how do you compare the two? rozum: because the obama administration stimulus was not meant to be a permanent public jobs program. the cost of those jobs were skyhigh. it cost almost $800 billion, yet a number of jobs, the numbers we are talking about some 800 million -- 800 billion, excuse me, that could create over 10 million jobs. so yes, public employment is a little bit different than giving tax breaks to companies to create jobs. because the job creators to start getting it done. they are not creating jobs.

>> moderator: dan maffei, following up on the jobs issue, should he return to washington. could you create a more favorable tax environment for businesses or hospitals to grow so that there could be more jobs? maffei: tax reform would be very important. we need to get rid of a lot of the loop or -- loophole spread ann marie buerkle has voted to continue them. she has also voted for big tax breaks for oil companies. that is very important. i do think that there are changes that need to be made in the affordable care act. i am opposed to the taxes. i work to try to not have in the first place. i think we need to make those changes, but whenever i make any changes that were not willing to compromise. >> moderator: ann marie buerkle comedy.

you say you're going to repeal it? buekle: i'm going to put in something into place that is bipartisan. this is something that the democrats sat down and shut shove it down their throat. he came back to the district and understood how it would affect them, their hospitals, and the physicians. this cuts medicare for seniors by $700 billion. in our district alone, this law was not well thought out, it was not bipartisan. it was a very partisan approach to health care. >> moderator: do have another plan? buekle: yes, we have another plan in the house. >> moderator: another follow-up question here. as the population ages, the cost projections for medicare financially are unsustainable for the nation. so which of the several plans out there to put medicare on stronger financial footing you support, and why? we are going to begin with dan

maffei. maffei: it is extremely important that we save medicare. not just for today's generation, but for future generations. ann marie buerkle says if you're over 55, don't worry. when she voted for makes it into a voucher program. there are other ways to handle it. medicare needs some adjustments. but fundamentally, it is a program that works. what does not work is the high cost of health care. there's a lot we need to do to lower health care costs. obamacare could start the process. however, we need to do a lot more. one of the things here in central new york is electronic medical records. that is way we can avoid problems. we can work with medicare and physicians to avoid problems. we need to work together on a proposal by family physicians to

make this work. >> moderator: thank you, dan maffei. we are going to go to ann marie buerkle now. buekle: of all the distortions and disingenuous advertising and ad campaigns that have gone on, it is dan maffei's position on medicare -- dan maffei of voted for the affordable care act and needs to take responsibility that they have cut medicare for our current seniors. by $716 billion. it will dramatically affect the services that are hospitals and physicians will be able to get for seniors. every senior in the army audience should be concerned about the law of the land from the affordable care act, that dan voted for. if you want to talk about lowering health care costs, this law does not complete any. he talks about electronic medical records. the burden of electronic medical

records -- it is not well thought out. .. the only go up when they deny us care. they seek to stabilize health care costs is to take her at the do care with the medicare for all systems.

i want to talk about tort reform for just one second. i would suggest, ann marie buerkle suggests tory former senator defrancisco said what reform is not a problem and medical malpractice insurance only contributes greatly to health care costs. with the medicare for all system, we wouldn't have to worry about tort reform because we would not be having lawsuits that would cover care in the future. >> moderator: we have 30 seconds for you, dan maffei to rebut. maffei: well, i think it is important, ann marie buerkle talks about the 7.6 billion. what that was the skies to insurance companies to provide services. cuts to private insurance cease to provide cuts they had to provide anyway. this has been proven wrong and said wrong by the pro-standard. this is what president clinton mentioned. she voted for the same ring anyway. it's a divine budget. the right budget keeps the

skies. the ann marie buerkle talks about the need to do it differently. how come she hasn't quite she's been a cumbersome for two years. where is the change? >> moderator: ann marie buerkle buerkle: the affordable care act cuts care for seniors by $7 million. the medicare didn't pay 250,000,000,300,000,000,000 the cbo has estimated the cut could be even more. medicare is a federal program. it will because to the services that hospitals and physicians can provide for seniors. those of you that cuts an impact on her seniors will be real. we're already hearing from constituents, saying that they can't find a physician who will treat medicare patients. it's real as real consequence. >> moderator: ursala rozum, 32nd rebuttal. rozum: this will leave medicare for all is quite indicative of the dysfunction we see in

washington which is why we need new leadership, new progressive leadership. the affordable care act is modeled after romney care in massachusetts and was originally developed by insurance come the executives at the company while point. so what i want to hear from our representatives and from my fellow candidates right here is how can we get medicare for all systems that provide health care is a human right and will finally stabilize health care costs? >> moderator: we have a follow-up for each of you, starting with the end maffei, referencing the richard ravitch paul volcker report. features stunning under the new health care level increments of the cut medicare prices for hospitals, skilled facilities, labs and other services over the next 75 years to less than half of the level under the prior law. according to the programs actuaries by the year 2085 in the medicare payment rates for inpatient hospital services will

have 33% of private health insurance payment rate, causing a withdraw of providers from the medicare market and severe problems as beneficiary access to care. how would you address that problem? maffei: i read the report you're reading from. there's a lot of opinions about the health care bill. these opinions before the supreme court ruled on it. i'm just not sure whether that one is true that a lot of the opinions that say hospitals will give more patient and be in better shape. but what i will say us have got to keep working. the affordable character flaw of the land. it's not going to be repealed, but we can fix it. there are things that need to be fixed. for instance, medicare should be a will to negotiate for pharmaceutical prices like the vhs. that would save a lot of money. we've got to move forward. the trouble with this discussion

as we are just continuing to argue these past issues when we do have to move forward. there's still people uninsured, still people in who are not getting the kind of care they need, even though at least now people won't run out of their insurance and won't have the worst things happen to them. >> moderator: thank you ahmed dan maffei. ann marie buerkle, this is for you. pomerantz plan retains virtually all of the medicare reductions that are in the health care law. the only difference is that he prefers the savings to his medicare overhaul. so isn't it misleading to claim these reductions are cuts that hurt elderly beneficiaries now, while failing to inform voters the right to incorporate the exact same reduction? buerkle: i think which are seen as paul ran because he had to start at the baseline that the

affordable character set, he took the $700 billion in cuts and put them back into the medicare program to strengthen the program for seniors. that's number one. number two, the study you mentioned camino coming in as a study. all dan has to do is talk to hospitals, physicians, physical therapist, cardiologists, yours, skilled nurses, nursing homes were all feeling the direct and act and are so concerned about how they will move forward with all of this cut are going to feel within the affordable care act. i think of all the parts of this campaign that have been so disturbing is the fear tag takes used against seniors that we don't want to make medicare stronger and healthier. i have a 91-year-old mother. i'm not going to hurt medicare for her. i know how important it is for her. >> moderator: president obama attempted to provide single-payer government options and failed. how would you propose to do with the president couldn't?

rozum: i'm not sure if it's quite true to say that president obama tried to bite a single-payer option. he campaigned in 2008 and gather support of many progressive voters they did want single-payer health care and the single-payer option was not on the table in 2009. so i think what we really need is more progressives in congress that will stand up and fight for what we need, which is health care for all, medicare for all, which will mean an increase in health care costs. the united states spends about twice as much per capita on health care as other countries and were somewhere between 30th and 40th and the quality of care we provide according to the world health organization. and it shouldn't be that way because we do have some of the most skilled doctors and researchers here. so what medicare for all, we guarantee access to care and we allow patients to choose their doctors, she's hospitals and

that we really have choice in a free market, where doctors are competing to be better and nurses compete to be better. >> moderator: today in the news, richard murdoch apologized for offending anyone first bank pregnant these are something got intended to happen. he accused democrats are distorting his comments, but even this year the economy being the number one issue for voters, the campaign ads in this race for some $6 million spent in television advertising have focused on positions on abortion or when does life begin, when it productive right speedways this issue this issue been so important? we begin with ann marie buerkle. buerkle: thank you. we just heard dan fac support not to look back. the lady doesn't hold himself accountable, whether it's the affordable care act, cap-and-trade can a stimulus bill, dodd-frank is to create an

distorted distress and this is a national can be and he goes right along with the democratic party. i spent 16 years as a volunteer. i understand domestic violence. i understand that things and how they suffer. i am a mother of four daughters and four granddaughters and i would not do anything to weaken the rate statues. dmsa knows that. they were deceptive, distorted in my two women and worse yet he's good behind kurds of those big guns of rape and that's reprehensible as a woman. >> moderator: ursala rozum, the way this has been handled in the public television ads. rozum: it's an issue focused on in tv advertising because it's a very emotional issue and for the record, i am pro-choice and i

think anything related to abortion or how to deal with rape is a woman's personal decision. i think we need to focus on issues that matter to us all like the economy, like jobs and resolutions. i think staying focused on this issue has been an attempt to avoid discussing real solutions for the economic crisis, how to get people back to work. it's been a way to avoid discussing things that progressive taxation because it's easy to hold onto an emotional issue and it's a lot more difficult to take on a time that progressive policy solutions that turn around the economy. >> moderator: dan maffei. maffei: these are issues people are comfortable talking about necessarily. but i'm sorry, it's ann marie buerkle's record that is the important thing here. rape is rape. it should never be parsed for any reason. ann marie buerkle cosponsored a bill that did just that.

when i was in office, she made sure that i read every page of every bill. thousands of pages. this is a three page bill and her staff is when they found a company try to get rid of this. it's not who you are, it's what she do that we have to look at. here she was in one of her first bills. this was the first full day session at her first statement was on this bill because it was on the particular social agenda. rape is rape. i know she's pro-life. that's fine. that is her right to be. but you shouldn't parse rape for any reason, not to decide entrance of my victims benefit and other rape victims not. it was my responsibility to make sure ann marie buerkle's record as saying. tran wanted to reflect your record? buerkle: no, it did not. the u.s. codices the forcible rape language for a long time.

kirsten gillibrand, chuck schumer, they both voted for the same language. when we saw the language comeau said this is no longer acceptable. it is the initiative had taken all my life being a pro bono attorney. here's the thing that no pope has ever taken on language. that entire h.r. three had to do with whether or not the federal government will fund abortion. he has distorted this view. he has distorted my position and he owes an apology to every woman in the district has been a victim of rape astor listened to his accusations of false charges. >> moderator: dan maffei, are you blind to apologize? transfer the reason i brought this up is because countless women came up and said ann marie buerkle is not doing the job of economy. which is here she talks about that. but in washington she follows this particular social issues agenda that she has.

she says as as soon as he was there she got rid of it. it's a three page bill. every bill he you should be reading. it's a three page bill. shouldn't the languages than i am the reason issues against abortion. okay, but even in the case of rape and. that's our position. so she sought an opportunity to maybe make it so that someone in good abortions. fine, but that's not what she's saying now. rozum: we've heard this discussion back and forth on the issue of rape and abortion. as a woman is important to realize that lots of issues affect women and that it's not just the rights that affect women. i want to hear us talk about climate change. i want to hear us talk about the drug war that has led the u.s. to have more prisoners than any other country in the world. with more african-americans in

prison now than before the civil war. i think we need to move forward and start talking about issues. >> moderator: our next issue is about energy and will have to talk about governor cuomo's nuclear power plant that supplies about a third of the electricity. you support them and not a fair? rozum: i'm yes, i do support and i hope you'll take up a similar effort to essentially shut down the nuclear power plants along with ontario. i think nuclear power is an energy source of the past. it's expensive, it's mature and should not be relying on federal subsidies anymore. the national academy of science has said that any level of radiation from a nuclear power plant is dangerous to our health. so we need to move forward.

the cost of nuclear power are socialized and the health care costs that we for people post radiation that i do support. i support governor cuomo's effort and a transition to a renewable clean energy economy come a safe energy economy that does not rely on fossil fuels or nuclear power. >> moderator: dan maffei, would you support by closing? maffei: there's no question we have to work towards a clean energy economy. were doing the research and central new york are the universities are at the center of excellence on the clean tech center at the check garden. in terms of nuclear power, well, we do need to make sure that nuclear power is safe and make sure it's environmentally sound. i am not sure we've done that yet, but it wouldn't get rid of it until it got rid of coal and oil for spirit oil depending on other countries that were beholden to them unfortunately. coal is so polluting a damaging,

so i think there's priorities here. i think what the local community wants matters a lot. i don't live at indian point. i'm not running to represent indian point, so i think we have to ask the constituents there what they want. i talk to people in this week over the power plants are and they are comfortable with it. i do think it's very, very important. that might be a completely different situation and i think we have to ask the people there what they want to do. i present the governor is doing now. >> moderator: thank you, dan maffei. ann marie buerkle, juniper is what the governor wants to do and shut it down or not? buerkle: now, i would not empty and didn't answer the question either. this country needs a comprehensive energy policy, which several administrations have failed to put together. the energy policy needs to be all sources of energy and we need to do them safely and carefully while protecting the

environment. we have oil reserves in this country. with natural gas reserves in this country. we should be encouraging the development of nuclear power implants. if you talk to ontario, those communities embrace nuclear power. they see it as a safe, clean energy source in their great source of jobs. so i'm very much in favor of nuclear power with all of energy development. it has to be reasonable. has to be rational. i see people sitting and talking about what's best for their coming week versus was going to pander to reach agenda at the far end. some of these are emotional issues, but as a country we owe it to the american people to have a sound energy policy in place. >> moderator: we briefly touched on climate change. ann marie buerkle, do you think there's such a thing as global warming? buerkle: i think there is climate change. i've said that over and over again. what i don't agree with is a consensus on whether or not man

contributes to global warming. what i do now is to pass cap-and-trade legislation, to go for cap-and-trade that would absolutely paralyze their businesses and increase costs and decrease the availability of energy is the wrong way to go. there are reasonable approaches to develop energy in this country and we have to do it if it does mention in a reasonable manner that doesn't pander to either extreme, but define the ground in the middle that will make this country energy independent, giving all going on the middle east, we should do everything to become energy independent. we can do that while we protect our environment, while he do it straight for the american people. >> you believe there's climate change. you're not sure it's because of man's interference with the climate? buerkle: correct. >> moderator: ursala rozum, how do you think it should affect in washington?

rozum: it's the most serious threat to my generation and future generations. even the pentagon has acknowledged climate change is a serious problem. the un's intergovernmental panel on climate change that includes conservative countries to export oil have also agreed that humans are causing climate change. as soon as we embrace the fact that we're contributing to the climate crisis or addition to fossil fuels and dirty energy, but dirty energy i mean cool, offshore oil drilling. the sooner we expect these realities, we can start transitioning to a renewable economy because there's no energy independence like renewable energy. the sun is free, the wind is free verse four times as many jobs in the renewable energy sector as there is no fossil fuel industry according to a recent university amherst study. so the time now to acknowledge

the problem and start moving forward. my opponent embrace the policies by the leadership, which is in all of the above policy and that's not acceptable. >> moderator: dmsa, is there such a thing as global warming? maffei: think we need to phase out coal and get off of foreign oil. we need to do this for future generations and the good of god's green earth. ann marie buerkle used to say it's there and it's been made and she didn't like that answer, so i guess like todd akin another's meaning congress makes you an authority on science. we do need to move off of the fossil fuels and what do they not work right here in central new york. at eff, whiteout for a year in the studies department, at the center for excellence come all sorts of private companies are doing this. frankly i don't know what she was talking about. the legislation is supported, even the national republican

party put out a map inset is going to increase energy costs, but where it's going to lower them come in new york california. so i don't know where she's from because if you are from central new york, she would be going through the clean energy policy. instead, she voted when she was in office to protect the coal industry. ann marie buerkle, we don't have equal. >> moderator: that we are going to continue hydro- franking. maffei: we need to continue the moratorium. at the least to make a moratorium until we have federal regulation, until it's under the clean water act that would make sure clean water, et cetera. personally i don't feel like we should have it in upstate new york and i'll tell you why. people say well, it will create jobs. i have seen too much evidence of that kind may be a job here and there, but what it will do is disrupt the wineries that are

spotting up along the lakes. the two reason that we have, the framing, both conventional like dairy and organic farming is now going on. we have a clean water economy and i believe that our future is because of our clean water. so when politicians say we've got gold under her feet away to exploit it, i think what it is is a clean water, not necessarily natural gas. >> moderator: ann marie buerkle, same question. buerkle, first of all, let to clarify cap-and-trade 50 and voted a small mound that in this state, new york come in new york state would be desperately affected by increased energy costs. his position on nuclear power was left with the local government make the decisions in the local communities, the renewed federal policy. can handle both ways. i believe the approach to hydro-

fracturing is both ways. it's important to look at the study, to understand, embrace, detesting. i have an environmental advisory board, a panel of people who are opposed to fracturing into a group, they say to me, it's a game changer, but we've got to do it carefully. we can't pander to the extreme. we've got to make sure we protect our environment. but also when we talk about energy policy, we've got to make this country energy independent. as the right thing to do for the american people. >> moderator: ursala rozum. rozum: hydro- fracturing is the wrong thing to do for the american people and i don't think protecting care, but i'm climate is pandering. it's a responsible approach to protecting the economy and the environment a central new york and it's heartening to hear dmsa say he personally opposes hydro- fracturing and i would like them to join me in supporting legislation for a federal ban, just as they've done in france

and bulgaria. i've been to pennsylvania and i've talked to people that have had their well saluted permanently the experience of livestock as a result of fracturing in their area. right down to epa's horribly understaffed and unable to do all the examinations required. so there is no way to do hydro- fracturing safely. it's really an oxymoron. josé the green party presidential candidate is the only one that they have hydro- fracturing and the obama administration could she needs to support fracturing. >> moderator: dmsa, a rebuttal to a ann marie buerkle said about your energy thought. maffei: let's talk about something she supported on her way out of congress. she supported a bill to protect the coal industry. as i mentioned the previous answer, the coal industry as they've been in central new

york. the coal industry is by far the most polluting of all the energy industries papers for radiation that comes out of the coal mines in a nuclear plant. but also in order to protect the industry, she voted to weaken the clean water act. now, this makes sense because she says we shouldn't regulate anything. well, i think that hydro- fracturing, what you're for or against it, everyone agrees we need to do it in the right way and regulation. >> moderator: ann marie buerkle, rebuttal. buerkle: first of all, dan thinks because coal is manner district it doesn't affect gas prices. it detected c, the cost of international national energy redeveloped as a nation, not state-by-state, a good energy, good sound energy policy. two of my opponents talk about renewables. let's face reality. green energy accounts for 2% of electricity being generated. if not enough for the united states of america. we have to move forward with

compromised with well-thought-out petitioning. >> moderator: and ursala. rozum: would only get 2% of our energy from renewables was correct years ago but it's no longer correct. bernat and 14% of our electricity from energy according to the u.s. energy information agency. the cost of renewable continues to go down, while the cost of fossil fuels, especially unconventional fossil fuels is going up due to the high risk, to the accidents that are going to happen if we phrack for deep arctic drilling. >> moderator: that is the question and response section of our debate. we now turn to closing statements. we hear first from dan maffei. maffei: well, want to thank everybody for participating in this debate. this indeed has been a rough-and-tumble campaign. and i do have to say that i admire my opponents. and the other day, ann marie buerkle and i come all three of

us were addressing a group of kids t-shirts on a few key issues. and ann marie buerkle got up and told them no other particular policy. they want to raise minimum wage increase and. but i think the take more courage if you told no to the tea party people. it would take more kercher she said no to her coal industry friends that aren't in the district. we need to judge the candidates. i think everybody should buy what we do, not what we say. it's not who we are. it's our actions that will judge us. when i was in office, i fought as hard as i can for the middle class to make sure they have a clean environment, but also their small businesses can thrive. and mostly to make sure the social security and medicare will be protected. i work for to know patrick moynihan. that's what he always taught me. it's very, very important that we remember when central new york have solutions that are hand. we just need our fair shot.

rozum: thank you for the discussion. i'll close by saying that i believe i'm the only person that will work for real solutions for public jobs programs to put us back to work right now, not down the road with job creators decide they want to create jobs for us. i'm the only candidate here that's going to fight for medicare for all systems to create health care is a human right. i'm the only candidate that supports funding for education, free public education through university. i think we need new leadership in congress, progressive leadership and we also need progressive taxes. neither of my opponents tax plans would actually address the deficit. we can raise $1.2 trillion of lester's deficit through progressive taxation like we had in the eisenhower years. i'll close by saying that our people and planning actions and

commitments and that's why i asked voters to vote for me on november 6 because real solutions can't wait. >> moderator: ann marie buerkle. buerkle: thank you again for this opportunity. when i ran for office had made a push of the district for the compact 25 will have to become compact 24 paper promise to be accessible, responsible, accountable and independent. we've had 40 plus town hall meetings, 60 mobile tunnel units. we have met with hundreds of people in the district, farmers, business owners, women, seniors and we've been accessible and accountable to the people. we've been responsible with taxpayer dollars. we cut our budget and on office by 5% and 6% this year. we gave back at the end of 2011 over $100,000 of taxpayer money back to the general budget. we've been responsible with taxpayer dollars. i've been independent. at the kercher santa leadership if they know the good enough enough for my