have tended to vote democratic, but i think it's important to note that susana martinez who is the current governor and two as you mentioned is running for reelection this year, she is republican. we don't have an exit poll from 2010. i know there were some other polls that were done prior to the election by deliver the exact figures for them, but susana martinez, i don't think she one significant share of hispanic vote, at least not compared to some of the candidates, but you might have a better sense of that than i do. ..

the other interesting state is florida and the governor's race and there is a lot of attention being paid to central florida in the orlando area where there is a huge number of puerto ricans. it's an area that has more than puerto rico is solved. so florida in that region and in general in the past elections florida has been pivoting. >> mentioning florida and i know it's important to note as well that republicans have brakes got

-- rick scott and we have carlos running into those are tight races where we are seeing republicans being competitive even in the years past democrats have leaned towards the democratic party we are seeing republicans being competitive in new mexico winning in the same way that happened so we have plenty of hispanic communities so that is an important notice to make. can you identify who you are

with? [inaudible] my question there is an article in a washington publication yesterday i believe about republican leaders in washington already planning and included in this front page article are the plans for having full control of the congress in washington and so what it says is to appeal the affordable care act that is

providing care to millions of latinos. so my question you mention that you are talking to the leaders and they wonder what do you say to them? we know people that are benefiting from the act so what do you say to them to get them to really vote for republicans you voted some 50 times and affordable health care this time because it is discrimination but

knowing how many families are affected and hurt plenty of people at the grassroots say my son was killed in gun violence. if they said to you why is it blocking any kind of legislation by what people at the grassroots say to them is what i'm wondering.

>> to answer the first question on obamacare and why we have seen that it has given access to people we have also seen that it has canceled plans for millions of families and it's not as affordable and accessible as it claims to be. people are receiving cancellation notices and doctors are not taking new patients. was obamacare the solution packs it seems it is not and that is the story that we hear each and every day. we want to make those decisions between the patient and the doctor. the government should not be involved and tell you this is what you and your family need and this is what we are hearing.

that is the issue that we have. obamacare wasn't a solution and there have been efforts to fix certain parts of the healthcare. >> name one. >> small businesses right now are hurting because of the mandates that have been put in place and they are having to close their doors. that hurts the wages as well. >> and the minimum wage?

>> there have been certain efforts on both sides and i would leave that to the policy side and the political aspect of things but i would leave that to the decisions made in that big building that is in the center of the city but the non- minimum wage i would say the fact that you saved them minimum wage is an important issue and it needs to be deleted when it comes to election time. when election time rolls around you want to talk about that issue. increasing the minimum wage on the federal level won't necessarily work in california as in texas and it will hurt certain businesses and we have heard that from small businesses so these are things that guess we need a serious dialogue but

you can't bring it up just for the election time talking to point. >> [inaudible] good question. in a recent survey 62% of latinos say we should have some form of gun control and protect the rights of americans to own guns. how does that compare? 45% want gun control and 53% say to protect the rights so definitely a difference. on the minimum wage they favor raising the federal minimum wage and among the federal government that is 73%. they are of a different opinion than others. in terms of health care,

obamacare doesn't cover some types of individuals so if you are in the country without authorization, you will not be able to participate but healthcare is one of the top three concerns largely because insurance rates have been lower than they have been for the general public particularly for the foreign-born under the age of 18 therefore you've seen a relatively low insurance rates. [inaudible]

i'm wondering if you could give your comment after the last midterm election to push for the negotiation but in the last couple of businesses [inaudible] there's a there is a lot of talk about the enforcement so if you do want to make more how do we reconcile.

and we wonder how to make inroads. >> about perception that you pointed out is important and that is one of the perceptions of the ndh meant efforts focused on changing and revealing the truth about who we are as a republican party. so as far as immigration reform goes in the senate it was republicans like marco rubio and jeff flake and senator mccain who championed the reform. with mario diaz-balart into the very conservative members as well like sam johnson in texas. so we saw in the laboratory the members of the republican party

that have very different views coming together to try to solve the problem and as the chairman said we have an immigration system and we do need to address that and i think that those feelings remain and have been pretty consistent since the 2012 evaluation that we did after we lost the white house. so it is yet to be seen what the legislators have in mind that i think that as the party platform stands when he to address immigration reform and an aids to secure the borders. we saw over the summer we saw more than 60,000 children making a dangerous life-threatening threat from honduras, guatemala and el salvador over to the u.s. going through and dealing with the drug cartels in a very dangerous path to make it to the u.s. and there is nothing humane

about that and we cannot encourage and give our neighboring countries to signal that people can come here and be able to say we do welcome immigrants. we are a nation of immigrants and. as far as immigration goes, we are pretty confident we will take the senate is tuesday or maybe it's louisiana and georgia we will see what happens but we have the momentum on our side. but it remains that immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed and solved whether it is a step-by-step for whether it is going to be a step-by-step but it's an issue that remains a top priority.

as a congressional journalist that has been covering for eight years and as a congressional journalist i have to cover both sides, and i talk and am known as im by stephen king. it's the word left out when you talk about immigration reform and the comprehensive. and everyone agrees that there needs to be -- i'm not sure that it's broken but the law that we are talking about is going to be 50-years-old next year and there's a lot of changes that have happened in a lot of things that need to be changed.

and whereas the republicans talk about piecemeal there are a lot of pieces of immigration reform that both sides agree to. both sides are very interested in getting green cards to foreign students that have advanced degrees in the field. most sides agreed with ebay or if i is something that should be made a national requirement. both sides are for increasing the investment fees. last july after july, 2013 after the senate passed the comprehensive immigration reform bill in june, the house subcommittee had a hearing on what they are calling the kids

act which is a dream act to propose legalizing all dreamers and 100% of the democrats were against it so adamantly that he got off the panel and went to the witness stand to argue against the act saying that it was un-american to give legalization to just a small segment of the population that's here illegally and in other words it had to be comprehensive. and ted cruz said if the democrats are going to keep insisting on all wore nothing i think probably the biggest thing that may have been on immigration reform if the republicans take the senate is that some of these pieces will be passed and it will be very interesting to ask latino

advocates particularly and house members if they would vote for a stand-alone dream act i think that is an interesting question and that is a possibility. so when you talk about immigration reform just as we are talking about the hispanic population versus the electorate but think in terms of comprehensive versus piecemeal. >> we did see a lot of the unaccompanied minors that cross the border but i think the important thing to remember it was something that was sensationalized and it's that most of the kids that came across the border so that wasn't

necessarily that we have these porous borders so i just want to clarify that part and the other thing is that these children were making its treacherous. so we just want to make sure that it is an issue that was initially we see more in its true light and in terms of what kind of implications it has for immigration and immigration reform. if the bipartisan action with significant senate support and nothing was done in the house. so i think it was an opportunity and as peggy mentioned, once you

take things piecemeal the system has so many problems and needs a comprehensive approach so we will see what happens. >> other questions? [inaudible] [inaudible] >> it is a number of things. for americans there has been a decline in support for the president so the approval ratings have been down for the last two years and it's not just latinos that are the ones committed not just among the latinos in the presidential approval rating. so immigration reform is a part of that because when you take a look at we asked hispanics immigration reform hasn't happened who do you blame for

the progress today among all latinos it's interesting 40% blamed the republican party in congress that 40% blamed the president and the democrats, so equal blame. a year ago republicans were more likely to be lame than democrats when we first asked the question. when you look among the registered voters however, republicans do get one of the blame for not passing reform recently than democrats, the democratic numbers are up as well so i think that immigration reform is one part of a larger story about many americans disapproving of the way for the the president is handling the job as president. so it isn't just a story about immigration although that is a big part of it i think it is also a story about what has been happening more broadly in the united states on the number a number of policy france and latinos just like the general public we have seen the approval

rating declined. >> talking about the changing demographic because we feel that the more worthless -- more or less that will make the country? >> i think you will depend an awful lot on the circumstances in the political environment so for example texas is one of the states right now where the state has gone in presidential elections but what will happen when the latinos and many of those come of age in texas and

start to enter the pool of eligible voters. so it would have been over the course of many cycles. so, 2020 you might see somewhat of a change in the 2024 a little bit more but it also depends on who the candidates are and what the issues are and whether or not we continue to see the same level of loyalty to the democratic party that we've seen in the past. looking back i think one of the things is to look at the presidential elections the share that support the democratic candidates have been over 50%. president obama hit a high of 71%. during the 2004 presidential election john kerry only won 58% of the vote. the previous was bill clinton with 72% in 1996. but if you go back into the 1980s which was about 35% of the vote in the share to the democratic presidential candidates than was more likely to be in the upper 50s and

maybe the low 60s. so there has been a movement back and forth depending on the candidates. that may very well either accentuate the ability of latinos to make some states perhaps even the country more blue but it also made depending on the candidates not be such a strong effect. i think it remains to be seen and it depends on so many things particularly as many of the young latinos that are born here, the agent starts to impact the opinion data that we see from latinos and also from the politics. [inaudible] it's a really good point.

why are the participation rates so low to other groups? they are generally younger and so this vote is important because it is going to increase the number of potential voters but because they are first-time voters they need to be shown how to register and how to vote and also because they are young they move around a lot and they are going to college and starting their lives into buying a home, and that mobility means that civic engagement for young latinos and young people generally is generally a little bit lower. later in life that will pick up. it just so happens when you look at the eligible voters there between 18 to 29 so the general u.s. public is only about 20% so that gives you a sense of the weight of young latinos. one of the interesting things about the hispanic vote is the

record numbers. we have seen a growing potential electorate and the voter turnout rates with the exception of 2012 was gone from 40% to 50% in the 2008 and came back down to 48% that's because of the surge. the vote is generally lower were they live. california and texas haven't been that important and that has happened with hispanic voters. california and texas were swing states i think we would see a different story around a voter participation because they would be getting attention in a way they are not now and attention from the candidates, the media etc. does make a difference. the low voter turnout rates have been shown the apathy as a reflection of circumstances and

also for many when you ask them after why didn't you vote, the census bureau found one of the big reasons is they were too busy and i think that those reflect where they are so the election wasn't working. depending on the circumstances that could change about the turnout, how they vote and the relative importance of the vote moving forward. thank you. >> [inaudible] i just worry about the ineffective movement so i wonder

how they try to end the backup program how does this improve them getting a job [inaudible] and how i just don't understand [inaudible]

gladly. any other questions? >> on the program that was implemented by president obama during the election year up until about four months before november. and it's if i can remind you for a second, it was actually a republican congressman from florida who authored the dream act which is essentially a piece of legislation that does similar to what president obama did it goes through congress way the laws are written through the legislative branch and approved by the house and the senate and then then are passed and enforced by the senate. so if you take a look at those efforts the way things are supposed to be done in the

country and they championed those efforts, however, you did have the president go out for political reasons and that is an important distinction to make. it's the fact that republicans want things to be done legislatively the way that the constitution dictates and not through unilateral action like the president has done often during election time. >> [inaudible] that's what i'm telling you. it's the fact that the program was enacted by the president unilaterally, not legislatively like the way the laws are done in the country.

>> should have any importance at all in this election? [inaudible]

we actually asked about the motivation to participate in this election we find no difference that they are going to vote i think it's interesting because there was a lot of concern that they were not going to turnout the vote. turn out the vote. that may mean we don't see a change when we finally get the statistics in the spring and the second thing one says they've given a lot of thought and that is also a geek will do what we saw in 2010 so overall motivation seems to be about the same as what it was four years ago. >> we want to thank all of you for coming for the questions that you've asked and especially want to thank the panel. esther, peggy, marco and ruth. next week come because we have two representatives discussing their interpretation of the vote

in 2014 and how it impacts their organization which is off to increase entrepreneurship among what he -- latinos. thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations] if you missed any of this discussion you can find it again on line at c-span.org as we head into the home stretch we consider to show debates around the country more tonight

beginning 8:00 on the companion network and the alaska senate debate mark begich up against dan sullivan. virginia's seventh district by the former majority leader before his primary loss earlier this year the candidates are republican and democrat jack that's at 10 p.m. eastern. and a full weekend of debates will focus on the house tomorrow beginning at noon at kicking off with the second district and later the new york's 24th and the 19th of 3 p.m. minnesota seventh and the ohio 14th district on c-span.

running the tight race for governor and the speaking today in rhode island bloomberg news with the headline talking to boost the women's vote in his rhode island speech we will have that for you live at 11:10 eastern on c-span.org. he returns this evening and they are hosting a trick or treat and will be welcoming the literary families and local kids on the white house and members of congress getting into the spirit

charlie wrangle says happy halloween be sure to keep it classy and safe and the majority leader kevin mccarthy. happy halloween from my family to yours after.com and follow the members of congress. back to the campaign trail and the oregon senate race the incumbent is just merkley and he faces monica in the debate for the oregon senate. the rothenberg political report listed as likely democrat candidates is about one hour. >> good evening from downtown medford. news director i will be your moderator this evening. we're joined tonight by two candidates running for the senate incumbent democratic senator jeff merkley and a challenger doctor monica will. this one-hour senate debate

begins now. life from the studios of kobi-tv a debate featuring democratic incumbent jeff merkley and republican challenger doctor monica wehby. this is brought to you by care source, aarp will discover your real possibilities at aarp.org. the oregon association of realtors protecting your piece of oregon and working on ways to better the communities where we live. nbc five news director. >> moderator: oregon voters will decide who represents them in washington, d.c.. this is the only scheduled debate between senator merkley and doctor wehby. before they go through the studios tonight and on behalf of all of the viewers i would like to thank you by joining.

doctor monica wehby is the mother of four and a director of pediatric neurosurgery in portland. she was the first to graduate as a narrow surgeon in her field she's been involved in health care and health care policy for nearly 40 years and is the former president of both the oregon medical association and the portland medical society. jeff was born in mobile creek. the son of a millwright he was the first in his family to attend college and worked as a nuclear weapons analyst and later he headed the habitat for humanity. he was elected in 1998 as a speaker of the house. he successfully ran for the senate in 2008 and today with his wife mary and his kids. >> moderator: we have three panelists asking questions.

the next panelist editor of the mail tribune and the studio audience saved their applause for the conclusion of the debate. they have been migrated to the each candidate and each will be divided to 60 seconds for an opening statement and will receive 75 seconds to respond to the original question followed by a 752nd rebuttal from the candidate. the candidate receiving the question will then be afforded 30 seconds to respond to the rebuttal. at the conclusion each candidate will be provided a 752nd closing statement. as determined earlier, doctor wehby will have the first opening statement it received a question and we won't rates that point on. doctor wehby also has the first closing statement. you have the floor. wehby: i had a little boy with

a brain tumor and he sent me a thank you note and on that note inside if we are not here to make life better for one another, then what's the point lacks the problem is after six years of senator merkley's policies, things are not getting better. we had 60,000 go on food stamps than to find a job. here in medford unemployment is at 9% and that isn't even including all of the people that have just given up looking for work. and what has the senator done about all of this? nothing to even getting the communities back to work. senator merkley stands with bureaucrats 98% of the time and i will stand with families 100% of the time. >> moderator: thank you doctor wehby. doctor merkley?

merkley: thank you i'm delighted to be here in in southern oregon tonight particularly since i come from a small town of southern oregon. i grew up and live now in a working-class neighborhood and i fight for the working class in the u.s. senate. i've taken on the big banks, the oil companies, insurance companies and tobacco companies and they are not happy about that area that's why the coke brothers have come here to spend millions of dollars to elect my opponent. they want a senator that signed onto an agenda for the wealthy and well-connected not a champion for driving families and a growing middle class. the first three words in the constitution are we the people. i believe in an america by and for the people, not the body and for powerful special interests. there is a difference between where i stand and where my opponent stand and i look forward to debating those differences tonight. >> senator, thank you very much in and the first question goes to patty. >> moderator: last sunday's

newspaper said that it cannot support either one of you. a few, doctor wehby wehby they questioned her judgment and self-control and said your weakness is a highly partisan record. please respond to this. wehby: i am not a career politician and i think at this time that is a good thing. this is the first time to run a campaign for me and things haven't gone totally perfectly in the campaign, and i think a lot of their criticism focused on running the campaign. i think however they are accurate with senator merkley and that he really does not represent the middle class. he tends to be the champion of the middle class but all of this has happened over the last six years are the labor force participation the lowest it's

been since we have been reporting it in the history of oregon. one in five are on food stamps now. our middle-class income is down $3,000 per family. it just doesn't sound like this is working out for the middle class and he is so extreme that he is even too extreme for oregon. we need somebody that will represent all of oregon and not just one segment. he was rated the most extreme in the senate either national journal and that is not who we are. we are much more independent-minded than that. i saw to undertake a problem-solving environment and so i created something that hasn't gone anywhere else. two democrats and republicans republicans had a bill together. they were guaranteed and therefore the chance to pass the bill on to the floor of the house.

the result of the session was an agenda in which many said was the most problem-solving best session in decades. i've taken the same approach in the senate. i reach across the aisle all the time to take on the secret law to end the war in afghanistan and with pat toomey in pennsylvania to have a way to cut red tape and with senator collins to take on the nondiscrimination act. it is a pieces of legislation like the teaser rate mortgages that have been haunting the housing market and restore code ownership or middle-class families. >> all of us talk about bipartisanship.

senator merkley has a way of trying to silence his opponent and he was one of seven democratic senators that wrote a letter to the irs asking them to investigate the groups based on their political beliefs. i don't think that oregonians would be very proud to know their junior senator used a federal agency to silence his opponents. >> most have long been dependent on natural resources as a job place and get those jobs have been damaging the past two decades. merkley: my opponent has raced raised in the commentary and i didn't lobby them to stop the use of the groups as political groups, something that i think they strongly agree with and as the son of a timber worker i am fighting for the economy. i worked hard to create a

strategy in partnership with colleagues in which we would have to plan to provide the middle and the result is we were able to hire or they were able to hire additional workers and this is a big deal in a small town and that's why we've taken on the key water infrastructure to fly the water infrastructure to increase clean water supplies so their economy can grow and why i took on the savings plan and test it because it creates construction opportunities for the industry and comes to rebuild buildings to make them energy efficient and it's why i have taken on and succeeded in getting $15 million to make sure the infrastructure in the small towns is not overlooked. this battle is something i've done from one end to the other including taking on saving the post office and i will continue to fight as a u.s. senator.

>> there are several pieces of legislation trying to make it through the house and the senate and the senator has worked to try to get sustainable use of force and senator merkley refused to sign on to that legislation at this point although i do think that the plan is superior to senator merkley has not participated in helping get them back to work. the senator's plan and the timber industry industry need to know there's a certain amount they can cut of bacon cut and a certain amount of income they can have and some protection from these lawsuits that tends to stop progress once the timber is starting to be cut and i think what's important is that every time there's a problem,

senator merkley's answer is another big government bureaucracy and another big piece of legislation. they want to get back into the independent on the government program. merkley: my working with the senator to bring the community together to get out of the paralysis of the court to create more jobs and we need to give incentives to have them going overseas here in oregon and by the way my opponent got a jobs plan in april and it never mentions will oregon. it's the difference in death by fight for rural oregon. >> moderator: next question for doctor wehby. >> moderator: the state's minimum wage is not keeping pace with the cost of living and says he would work to increase it. do you agree?

wehby: i think that it is important for our workers but i do think that our economies are local and in oregon we have chosen to have the second highest number of wage in the country and i think that says something about the states here that i believe that we do have to keep in mind the most important thing is jobs and there is a concern that raising the minimum wage may he creased the number of jobs. senator merkley's policies have made it difficult and have led to the highest unemployment we have seen in oregon during a entire percentage point higher than the national average and a senator merkley is a zero wage senator because there's no jobs here. the timber industry jobs, those are not minimum wage jobs those

are good paying jobs and he is refusing to help get those jobs going. merkley: i strongly support the minimum wage for $10.10 based on what it takes a family of three to stay out of poverty. i believe if you work full-time in america you should not live in poverty here in america and this minimum-wage bill creates an index just like we have in oregon and you might say that it's modeled on the plant. it creates a level playing field across the country which is very valuable and it lifts millions of workers out of poverty and the largest percentage of those are women and many are women raising children so we are not just talking about helping adults we are talking about creating a better foundation for parents to raise their children so this is why i strongly support this minimum-wage bill

and my opponents in the primary she thought there shouldn't even be a federal minimum wage. that is beyond the tea party off to the right no federal minimum wage. that would test people in many states across the treat to be almost earning nothing and that is absolutely wrong. i is a pretty strong minimum-wage. wehby: you know that isn't true i never said there shouldn't be a federal minimum wage. i did say all are local our local and it should be left up to the states where they would like to put it begin here senator merkley is fighting for the minimum-wage economy and instead of getting our economy growing and making better paying jobs for example the aca moved a full-time workweek from a 40 hours to 30 hours now meaning people have to find more than one job to feed their family.

>> next question goes to doctor wehby. >> moderator: many have called for gun control changes. with changes if any would you support in the gun law? wehby: i'm a strong supporter because it is a constitutional right and i do think the problems that we have our every time we see one of these massive shootings at the mental health issue and being a narrow surgeon and doctor i care very much about that and i think we have to find ways to determine who is at risk for these acts and try to find a way to stop those. i don't support further legislation on the law abiding citizens but i do think the key is to curtail violence based on mental illness. of course we do want to keep them out of the hands of criminals as well.

>> i'm a strong proponent as an individual right. i'm also a strong proponent of common sense which means we have to sort of background checks that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and out of the hands of the mentally ill and that is exactly what we have in oregon. they adopted this initiative and in the united states senate i have supported this extension of the plan. my opponent has been endorsed by the nra and as she said now she opposed any federal legislation that would provide the same background checks we have in oregon across this country and furthermore it says it's supported her because baby leave she would vote against them as justices who support the same kind of commonsense controls on guns that we have here in oregon so i do believe we have the right answer. it is a background checks to

keep their hands out of criminals and at the hands of the mentally ill. wehby: we have adequate laws on the books we just need to be enforcing the ones we have. >> moderator: let me apologize i gave to questions in a row to doctor wehby so we will send the next two to you. >> moderator: you have been described as a progressive champion and a close ally. you've been linked to the brothers and the conservative party so we have one link to the conservative and one for liberals. are you comfortable with those kind of labels? >> if it means that you are fighting to get the wealthy produced in this nation absolutely. if it means you are fighting to enable students of the country to be able to finance the loan to take advantage if it means new student loans will be at the

same interest rate of the federal reserve when they borrow or the big bang's pay when they borrow the federal reserve because we should view the investment in education and higher education as a republican investment and want to be promoted and not a situation where the students are afraid to go to college for the fear of a mountain of debt that will haunt them so whether it is fighting for the good investments in infrastructure and education, the fair loans and therefore a fair shot for anyone in the society, call me a progressive. wehby: i'm a very independent-minded person and i can't say the same about my opponent here. senator merkley votes 98% of the time with his party, and that is not who we are as oregonians. we are very independent-minded people. we don't agree with anybody 98%

of the time and to be voting 98% of the time with one party doesn't mean that we are representing all of the states. oregon is a red state. to be able to represent all of us, we have to look at all sides of an issue and i think that is something very important to do. if you are always voting along with your party, then you are not always doing what is best for oregon. i will look at each issue as it comes up and i will listen to the patient and listen to the state and look at the data and i will make a diagnosis and treatment and do what's right for the state and not just what's right for my party. i do a job today but i love that makes a difference everyday. i could never go and just see a rubberstamp. i am i as well not be there. >> moderator: are you're not comfortable with that level?

wehby: i'm a very independent-minded person and i will do what is right for oregon. >> moderator: senator? merkley: she said she's independent-minded but we have seen that she is turning into a right-wing kitchen cabinet. she lifted her healthcare plan from karl rove and word for word to take the tax plan that makes it cheaper and easier to shift jobs overseas and she took the rest of the economic plan and environmental plan from the coke brothers -- koch brothers. they want to have it setup so that you cannot control the pollution from the coal-fired power plants. certainly, these are extreme advisors. these are extremes that the policies and it is not the oregon values. it's about the oregon values on the one hand, and the koch brothers values on the other hand.

>> moderator: we begin with senator. you can address it later on in the closing statements. >> moderator: oregon could recreational marijuana. the youth support it why or why not? merkley: i'm concerned about the access to marijuana by the young folks by different products and we need to do everything we can to make sure that as the law and envisioned, they are available only to adults. i'm also concerned, however, about the huge amount that we've spent in the criminal justice system, rising marijuana. i think on balance those could be much better used. wehby: as a pediatric care research and i have concerns about the effects of marijuana on the developing brain.

we know that it is linked to the difficulties with the brain some say even iq points dropped as much as eight points. it's related to an increase in motor vehicle accidents and it also makes it very difficult for the law enforcement agents to know who was intoxicated and it's not like alcohol. i prefer when the scientific method as a scientist read i am but we will wait and see what happens in colorado and washington and let them be our test cases and to be our pilot study and see how things work out as we push this ahead. merkley: i'm going to take whatever organ decides and defended as a government. that's what i've done with medical marijuana and in the federal government you have plenty to do with the drugs and

so on and so forth. you deal with that but do not try to enter and what my state has decided to do with medical marijuana. i will take the same approach in terms of the current initiative. >> moderator: next question. how would your friends and family describe your idiocy wehby: my dad called right before i came down here, and daddy always said that i was mule headed and stubborn and determined, and i think that's true but my friends will tell you that i am very kind hearted and a very caring and loving person and that i always do tend to put other people above

myself. .. merkley: my friends would say i'm tenacious and determined and sometimes taking on things that seem a little bit crazy. for example, two years ago i decided to try to do an ironman

length triathlon. as a middle-aged man, a little bit overweight, it seemed a little crazy but by the end of your i did manage to complete it. similarly in 2009 when i became a u.s. senator, several people came to me and said someone has to take on the big banks because they're using our taxpayer subsidized deposits to run a big casino putting the entire banking system at risk. what the crazy thing for freshman senator to take that on. but i decided the right. if it would be tilting at windmills i would her take on these very powerful groups that replacing our economy at risk. every now and then would it take on something that seems impossible, take on what determination to music seat. in this case i did and we did pass the volcker rule and we did pass taking out the teaser rate mortgages that were honking american homeowners. a little bit over focused at times, but sometimes to good effect. tran for any rebuttal? 30 seconds. feel free.

wehby: averages say that when i was trying to decide whether or not to run for senate i had a conversation with senator tom coburn about this. is another physician who is innocent. and i said, tom, how did you decide to leave your practice and go and run for senate? and he said, monica, we need you. you can make a difference. you are doing it for all the right reasons. and he said that, that was, since my heart was in the right place, that i didn't need the job, that it met i could really help out. >> moderator: our next question for senator merkley. >> senator, the endangered species act has been praise for protecting department and criticize as a job killer. deeply the current language is acceptable or do you think there should be a revision? what would some of those revisions be?

merkley: thank you, bob. the endangered species act has done a lot in a very rapid role to protect critical populations. there's a lot we can do so doesn't obstruct our economy or our form of wrenching along the way. for example, i meet in every county every year with the local theaters and one of the things that keeps coming up is the sage grouse in oregon. with the sage grouse i then worked to get sizable group of funds, about 15 of those to run pilot project if you want is working dozen. in order that we might be able to get ahead of the game in oregon, provide some of those protections and in the course of did not end up getting enlisted by the endangered species act. better to work on the ecosystem on the front and in to protect the population in ways that are harmonious with our economy, with our ranchers, with our fishermen than to be caught later on when the species is on the brink of extinction.

wehby: us i went around the state i did a lot about the sage grouse as well. they kept telling me it was the spotted owl of the ranching industry. a lot of concern about what sort of devastation can be caused to arranging industry is the sage grouse was to be listed as an endangered species. i do think we need to revamp this law and look at it. my understanding is that they really don't have a good way of tracking when a species comes off the endangered list, as so many times these species get on or just never taken off. so i do think we need to find a way to where we can tell, when we are achieving the goal of trying to achieve. and i also think it's important when every going to live, list the new species on the endangered species act that we do and economic assessment and see what the effect is going to be on the economy and on the people as well.

>> moderator: in response? merkley: you go around the state and to see bald eagles, blue herons that were virtually completely gone when i was growing up to do ddt. now we've been able to take the bald eagles off the endangered species list. walls are coming off in different parts of the country. -- walls. it would work together in partnership, we can find ways to create ecosystems and a portion of our land to make sure that these species survive, and we can celebrate the great diversity of life on this planet. but without doing economic damage that would harm our ranchers, farmers our industry and other ways. >> moderator: next question for dr. wehby. >> a viewer wants to talk jobs. why has job growth outside the valley in your opinion been so sluggish? what specifically would you about it? wehby: i've talked to hundreds

of small business owners and people that work in these businesses over the last year all through the primary, and i've done all over the state. and i always ask them, i say, what is it that's making so difficult for you to grow your business? the first thing they tell me is uncertainty. they say there is uncertainty about regulations. 's senator merkley's answer to everything is always more regulation, bigger regulation. he says, it's like a noose around the neck of our businesses. it makes it very difficult for them to grow. so many other businesses tell me that they would never be able to start today a business that they started 20 years ago because there's so much paper and so much regulation. for me as a physician, my staff spends more time dealing with paperwork and regulation than they did in patient care. the next thing that's a problem

is taxes. we have one of the highest corporate tax rates, business taxes in the world. actually the highest in the world. that takes money out of the pockets of our business owners. they can reinvest in their businesses and hire more people and grow. and then finally the aca, the health care law is make it very difficult as well for them to provide health insurance. merkley: i already mentioned i thought it anyway financing water efficient deferral committee said this is so important and which greatly savings program to put our construction industry to work in rural areas. i can tell, made in to her, what folks told me was that they said first we need to reverse the effect of no child left behind, which left our shop classes behind because we do have a track and which can convert to work with their hands and be part of the manufacturing enterprise. second can financing. so i thought to create an

extension of small business act as subsidized loans for small businesses and strengthen our community banks. i wrote and passed the crowdfunding act that will unleash a volume of new capital to rural industries, small businesses across oregon and across the country. the third thing they said is we need a level playing field with china. he can't compete if we are competing directly against an economy with very low wage standards, very low environmental standards. so i've parted with senator wyden to take on the dumping of solar panels and i'm working now to highlight the problem with currency manipulation which operates as a tariff against our products and a subsidy to the chinese product. i'm going to keep fighting to strong jobs in rural oregon. try for dr. wehby, your chance for a rebuttal. wehby: first we would have to rein in excessive regulation, have more congressional oversight of these regulations. lower our business tax rate and

then fix these employer mandates and all with obamacare. i had one man tell me, he owns assisted living facilities. he told me he had to shut down three facilities because the cost of health insurance for his employees is so steep, was going to put them out of business so we just sold those three businesses, all those people lost their jobs. >> the oregon association of realtors submitted this question to us. a person so is typically the largest investment he or she makes in life and also the greatest wealth creator for the middle class. what policies would you propose to strengthen homeownership and make it more attainable for the middle-class? merkley: make you very much, patsy. when i was director of habitat and human of work direct with low-income families aspiring towards homeownership. i continued that work. that's why i was so disturbed by

the deregulation of mortgages that led to these to your exploding interest rate mortgages that after two years went from 4% to 9%. they proceed to have a couple features that one was the originator was getting an undisclosed backdoor to steer people from a prime loan into a subprime loan. the second future was a prepayment penalty that once you're in the zone, you are not able to get out of it. i took that on in the oregon legislature, passed it to the house. the senate said well, they should be done at the federal level. they were bright and so i took that on at the federal level and stop those predatory mortgages so homeownership will again be a source of enormous wealth building for the middle-class rather than a predatory enterprise. we are going to keep working together to find the right balance and flexibility for home mortgages. we are working to examine the strategy under which families of modest means are able to buy homes and i think we can find

potential progress there to expand the realm of homeownership in the years ahead. wehby: i think a lot of the problems with homeownership are some of these new financial finl regulations that have come into place, specifically with dodd-frank. i think that are larger banks and small banks should have to play by the same rules. i know that senator merkley, when he ran against gordon smith, was ready on him about the wall street bailouts. but then several weeks into his tenure, he voted for 350 billion-dollar bailout for wall street. i think that all these new revelations that been put on with dodd-frank have made it very difficult for our smaller banks and credit unions to make mortgage loans owed small business loans. there are so many regulations that these small banks don't know if they're going to run afoul of any of these

regulations, making it more difficult for them if they don't have a cpa or an attorney on staff. dodd-frank has not worked because now things have gotten worse. six banks control two-thirds of our financial assets. the volcker rule that went from four pages the now 963 pages, even bolder doesn't support it anymore. merkley: i had an opportunity after i was elected to lobby for a tremendous amount of money to be moved out of wall street and indirectly to of our homeowners. i got a commitment in writing from the new administration to move 50 to $100 billion out of wall street and to help homeowners. that's the type of involved, engaged advocate for organ homeowners that you want to have, a chance in this is less for wall street, more for homeowners. i push the administration hard to create a homeownership program that would work well. they didn't take many of my ideas but i kept pushing.

>> moderator: next question is for dr. wehby. >> dr. wehby commute taking heat over allegations your health care positions were plagiarism other sources. and you address that? will both details of your positions on health care reform different from your opponent? wehby: my campaign already addressed this issue, but i've been involved in health policy for over 30 years, involved with the texas medical association, president of the oregon medical association, national nurse surgical society, our washington committee. i've been a trustee for the american medical association. i've been working to try to provide high quality afford health care for americans for 30 years, specifically for five years with obamacare. i even ran ads act in 2009 talking about problems with obamacare trying to change these before they came through the i

worked with senator biden on his healthy americans act out when i was on the board of the oma. so i've worked together within four years. there are ideas that all of us that work in health policy know will work. you look at the data, you see what works. that's why you will see similar ideas because all of us to work together know what works. senator merkley of course thinks it's fine for 150,000 people to be thrown off their health plans because they don't meet the essential benefit package and find another $309 down the tubes for a website that doesn't work. merkley: we already knew my opponent to cover tax plan from romney and environmental plant from the moscow biggest polluters in the country. but i was shocked that are health care plan came from a survey written by karl rove, an extreme right wing advisor,

pilot you might succumb to the failed bush administration. we have a situation where there was so much concern over access to health care. a woman came to me at a fundraiser for ms and she said, a year ago if you got a diagnosis of ms, you are in deep trouble if he didn't have insurance, because you at a pre-existing condition. she said a year ago if you had insurance you might have a lifetime limit and you would be able to get the help you need. she said i'm so believed we have the peace of mind that our loved ones to the get the basic health care that they need. indeed, 500,000 oregonians have signed up for health or, at least 300,000 didn't have health care in the ago. why did they go through that terrible website debacle? because they were locked out of something that was so important to the quality of life. my opponent has said she would vote with senate republicans to scrap the affordable care act, sending cancellation letters to 500,000 oregonians, and that does a lot of harm.

wehby: well, i think senator merkley forgets sometimes that just having insurance doesn't mean that you have access to health care. that's the bigger problem we're facing now, is trying to be certain that people actually do have access. but remember, that this was sold as the light of you but if you like your doctor, you can keep it. no, not necessary but if you like your plan, you can keep it. know, 150,000 oregonians with the author plans. your costs are going to go down $2500 a year. no, you know, prices went up. we have the highest increases in premiums on the west coast. >> senator, with the terrorist group ices now destabilizing portions of the middle east and many analysts predicting that long drawn out conflict, do you see putting his soldiers on the ground there as a possibility? merkley: thank you very much,

natalie. basis is a brutal and barbaric group of to work in partnership with our allies to stop. we need to work with our allies in europe and work with our allies on the ground. we can provide arms of support to the courage and yet i was on which will provide an effective counter. the reason they're having trouble with was isis acquired american weapons both from the black market and from battlefield acquisitions. we can help the iraqi forces but we can provide essential airstrikes and air cover. but what we must not do come into question, is we must not turn this into an american troops on the ground, west versus islam war. that will fuel the very fires that we are working to put out. and furthermore, the administration needs to come to congress as required in the constitution to get authorization for this new battle. that's required under the war powers resolution after 60 days. very important that the president on are that

requirement. wehby: i think the problem here is that we do not have a strategy. this administration is always being caught offguard by one thing or another, whether it's isis, ebola, or whatever. it's always been caught offguard and we are always reacting. a lot of these problems happen because we have retreated as a world leader. when we retreat as a world leader in believe of acting. you can be certain that that leadership vacuum is going to be filled by someone much less benevolent than we are. this is the president who called isis the jd. this is the president who makes all of his decisions by polling data rather than military, information for ms. military strategist and military leaders on the ground. you know, i suspect continuing to gain strength but we are again behind the eight ball, and our president is telegraphing to the enemy what we will and won't

do. what kind of a military strategy is that? senator merkley has said nothing, has not held the president accountable to this, it is just rubberstamping these policies all along. we need safety and security for our children here in the united states. merkley: isis does not the democrats or republicans. but it's why it's so important that we not politicize and partisan division this issue. we need to work together to take on this terrorist threat, and terror threats around the world. there's no question this is going to be extreme elements today and tomorrow, but we must be thoughtful and careful and work in close coordination with allies, and use the right tools at the right moment and not repeat the mistakes that we had in iraq during the first war, going to war on false premises. trek the next question is for

dr. wehby. >> one of you is in congress, one of you is running for congress. what do you most dislike and like about the united states congress? wehby: i think the problem that we are seeing now with congress is this extreme polarization to we are not moving the ball forward, not getting anything done. my opponent here is the poster boy for polarization. he votes 98% of the time with his party. he does just what he is told to do. he's very ideological. i would be a very logical center, a very rational senator, not one who is just strict, a strict ideologue. also, he was rated the most extreme senator the "national journal." and we all know that when you are on one extreme or the other, you never in the room when the

problems are solved because people think that you are so far out there that you can't be part of the discussion. we need somebody with common sense who will put oregon and the united states above their political party, about their own career. that's the problem with career politicians. all they care about is getting reelected and doing what they are told and climbing up in the hierarchy. that's what i support term limits. merkley: congress is the first branch in the constitution, the first month three coequal branches because it is the people's branch this symbolizes that we the people, the first three words of the constitution. what i like about it is it can at its best section be a thorough place to debate and partner and find strategies to take on important issues facing us in america. what i dislike most is that i found one went to the u.s.

senate it wasn't the u.s. senate that i knew when i was an intern for senator hatfield back in the 1970s. it wasn't the senate in the 1980s when i worked on strategic nuclear policy. what i found is deeply polarized and paralyzed institution. on the time lyndon b. johnson was first leader of the senate, there was one filibuster in six years. for harry reid it's been 281. filibuster means piracy. it's abuse of the rules, blocking the body from be able to debate amendments and to get to final vote and to address the problems we face in america. this is why i take on leadership in the u.s. senate, and we've produced the first major rule change in 39 years to restore the building of advice and consent as envisioned in the constitution. >> moderator: dr. wehby. wehby: it's funny that senator merkley brings up filibuster reform, because that is the one piece of legislation that has caused him to be quite unpopular

with the very many senators in the senate as we speak now. this filibuster reform allows a simple majority to override the will of the minority. and the senate is supposed to be a deliberative body with input from both sides, not where one side simply overruns the other. i think you will regret that when they are in the minority next year, but he won't be there because i will. >> moderator: next question for senator merkley from bob hunter. >> your opponent brought up term limits. is what you think about that idea. merkley: back when the oregon voters adopted term limits can,t that's a pretty interesting idea because it might indeed create new blood and new turnover. and then i witnessed what happened and it shifted power from the elected individuals to the lobbies. the lobby became the institutional voice in the oregon legislature. we no longer have term limits in

oregon. the course is about as a violation of our constitution. i can say that the proper authority should rest with the elected, not rest with the lobbyists, powerful interest, special interest. that's something, and this is once again sets of the framework i'm talking about, my opponent has taken a position the lobbyists want for the powerful special interests of their the institutional memory rather than the people elected by the people to represent their views but we have an appropriate form of term limits. that's called an election. in oregon in three weeks i encourage everyone to vote and weight in no matter what your perspective big because when he does citizens participate in our democracy. wehby: you know, the problem with career politicians is that they do get a hold of the special interest groups, and senator merkley knows this full well because he is funded by

several very extreme groups. our founding fathers didn't have to put term limits into the constitution because nobody wanted to go. i mean, they had to make you go do your time as a congressman or as a senator. because everybody had their own jobs and things they have going on. and i think the good thing about having term limits is that we bring people in from different backgrounds. instead of having career politicians that are year after year just legislating, we bring people and with different backgrounds like doctors. there's only three doctors in the senate now. tom coburn is going to retire. it will only be tw two and thats what is important dedicated to we need people with business backgrounds like senator ron johnson. we need people with science backgrounds, education backgrounds so that have something to contribute when they get to the senate. merkley: i think we can see the

power that comes from learning a craft, whether it be my opponent script in surgery or the work that senator wyden has done on taxes. he has worked over many terms now to become a master of these rules and he is now the chairman of the senate finance committee. to take out an address these difficult, tax issues on the finance committee without a lot of experience, a lot of study, you would not be able to take on the powerful special interests and really say this is right in this is wrong. >> moderator: time now for our last question that goes to dr. wehby spent a couple hundred oregon land owners could be forced to have the pipeline on their land as part of the jordan project. do you support the project? what is your message to homeowners affected? wehby: i think that if it can be done safely and in an environmentally friendly conscious way, that it's good to

have the jobs for our oregon economy. i think that our energy policy has to look at all different types of energy that we have to have an all of the above approach. editing energy independence is also very important. it's hard and difficult for us to have to be dependent on countries that hate us for our energy supply. and i also think that this is a great opportunity for us to grow our economy and to keep costs low for energy for our middle-class and working families but they are the ones were hit the hardest by increases in energy prices, and i think that that's the most important thing is that we become energy independent and that we can keep energy costs low. that helps us grow businesses, helps our economy thrive. merkley: people on the i'm very

concerned about carbon pollution and opposed to keystone pipeline that can create hundreds of thousands of jobs through the rebuild america act that i support and that my opponent has a post. the jordan project is different. added to support. there's going to be one outlet on the west coast for natural gas and that's 6 billion or so in infrastructure and development could happen here in oregon, strengthening the bay. i can do i'm very concerned about the pipeline strategy. i want to see the pipeline on public land so doesn't going private lender i want to be sure there's no eminent domain involved, that homeowners are paid an amount they're willing to have it on the land and that means incredibly generous. i'm concerned about the safety of the pipeline because consider they will put center walls in places that may not be appropriate. so it needs to be saved and it needs to be fair. i might add that we should absolutely be aware that carbon dioxide is working to solve our

rural resource but in this case, however, natural gas can help replace coal in china make the situation better. >> moderator: dr. wehby, you 30 seconds. wehby: i do think it's important that we protect our environment, and if you think that we've done an excellent job of doing that with similar epa regulations. i do think it's important though that we don't add excessive recollections at this point i would add a cost of 1200, the $1700 per family per year. that is very difficult for some of our working families to afford them an additional $100 a year when the economy is in better shape the then we can look at these options. >> moderator: that concludes the debate portion of our program. it's time now for closing statements. each candidate gets 75 seconds. dr. wehby. wehby: tonight you have seen two different path for organ and for

america. senator merkley says he cares about the middle-class, but the truth is our middle-class family incomes have dropped by $3000 a year. our energy and health care costs have skyrocketed. more oregonians went on food stamps then found a job. our middle-class families are something to boast and our wall street has never had it so good. you know, when barons and mean their little precious baby to take the operating room, i am accountable for that little life. it's time that we don't senator merkley accountable for his decisions. we have gotten so used to incompetence and dishonesty in our federal government that we are not even surprised by it anymore. we are told the we've got to get used to this new normal, but i don't believe that. i think we can and must do

better, get our economy back on track, get oregon back to work and keep our country safe and secure. if you like the direction we're going, vote for senator merkley. but if you think we need a change in direction, you need to change the center. i'm dr. monica wehby and ask for your vote. >> moderator: senator, your closing statements. merkley: thank you. this election posed a clear choice between two very different views. do we allow the wealthy and well-connected, the koch brothers of the world to write the rules to benefit themselves, or to investigate every american a fair shot? i'm fighting for the fair shot for all. i'm fighting to make the success of middle-class our top early. that's what i wrote a law that shuts down the wall street casino and endangering our economy. that's why with a law that banned a predatory teaser rate mortgages. that's what i find reform the broken senate so powerful special interests can't use the filibuster as a veto against investments in infrastructure and education.

it's an honor to serve as your senator. we made some progress, but we haven't gone far enough. we have to keep going to make college and affordable opportunity for every single student. to end subsidies for compass that ship our jobs overseas. to nurture manufacturing because if we don't make things in america, we won't have the middle-class in america. the few share this vision of a nation of, by and for the people, not by and for the powerful special interests, i ask for your support and ask for your vote. thank you and goodnight. >> moderator: that concludes tonight's u.s. senate debate. on if everyone here, i would like to thank you both very much for pets has been to i would like to thank our viewers are watching the we hope you join us again next monday evening for a live gubernatorial debate. that's next monday at 7 p.m. a replay of this debate can be found at kobi-tv and please

don't forget to vote in the november 4 election. good night. ♪ ♪ >> c-span scabbing 2014 is bringing you more than 100 debates for the control of congress. stay in touch with her coverage and engaged. followers on twitter at c-span and like is that facebook.com/c-span. campaign is heading into the home stretch for the campaigns and for all of us here at c-span we will continue showing the debate tonight at 8:00 eastern.

>> the parties and the campaigns are getting into the spirit of the day.

a tweet from republican national committee. rnc official stress of the hollowing as democrats running away from obama and i fell on the right dress up supposedly as charlie crist but they are carrying a fan from infamous fan debate of the couple of weeks ago. from al franken, a pumpkin with a clear message, get out the vote this weekend. will find more at twitter.com/cspan. look for members of congress. more debate on c-span2. let's go to new hampshire, the first district, democratic income is carol shea-porter and shall these former republican congressman frank into, representative shea-porter lost her reelection bid in 20 and. she won her seat back in 2012 defeating him by 3.8% margin of victory. president obama nearly one enhancers first congressional district by 1.6% in the 2012 reelection. the rothenberg political report in roll call rating the race as a tossup. this is just shy of one hour. >> is a show that new

hampshire's first congressional district. the income a democratic congresswoman carol shea-porter, the republican challenger, former congressman frank guinta. that you are facing off for the third straight election. the debate starts right now. ♪ ♪ >> good evening. i'm paul steinhauser. welcome to the second of four straight nights of crucial debates in the granite state senate. tonight the race of new hampshire first congressional just. let's introduce her candidates. congresswoman carol shea-porter was a social worker, committed activist and teacher be for being elected to the house of representatives in 2006. she lives in rochester, 61.

frank guinta work and pensions business and start his own consulting firm before being elected to new hampshire's state house in 2000 it is serve as manchester alderman before being elected mayor of new hampshire's largest city. he is 41 and lives in manchester. let's be honest, there's history between these two candidates. frank guinta defeated carol shea-porter knockout of congress. should return the favor in 2012 and here we are with what many are calling the three-peat. three-peat. three-peat. how will the work to make with each candidate will get one minute to respond to questions asked of them. their opponent will be allowed 30 seconds of rebuttal. one in asking questions tonight -- before we start i would we start i wa would also like to tk our other partners of tonight's debate, the telegraph of nashua, foster's daily democrat. let us begin. with some 47 and seven employers

the portsmouth naval sugar is among the the largest employers long seacoast to the shipyard was never shut up years back as part of the since -- defense apart with base closing. what can make sure it's not on the chopping block any future and what is your vision going forward? shea-porter: thank you. i'm delighted to be. what needs be done we are intended we invested heavily in the shipyard to make sure they have the funding they needed so they would be ready for the virginia subs. we also get a lot of funding for the shipyard and just recently in our national defense authorization bill, my committee, the armed service committee put in no proximity would not have the close that shipyard. we been taking care of that. when i go to the shipyard was delighted to see those cranes. and the people are hard at work. guinta: thank you very much, paul. or the question. this is not just a shipbuilding

location here in the state to new hampshire, one of four in the country. but is also an economic engine for the state of new hampshire. it's something that i will continue to protect and ensure that i would always oppose a brac. with some of the best and finest men and women who are working there in the shipyard, were building under budget and within the time limit given by the federal government. they deserve the support not just from the state of new hampshire but from maine and massachusetts as well. i will continue to work with the regional delegation to ensure that no brac process ever, ever takes away the opportunity that we have here with the shipyard. >> moderator: for our next question let's go to laura. >> thanks a lot, paul. as paul said both of you have run for this office several times before. i 2161 of you will have had held this office for the past decade.

the "national journal" did a storstory on the race calling ia three-peat, and mentioning many first district voters were getting a little tired of having the same two candidates year after year. here's my question. if you are elected to this office what news. and what new ideas, what the approach would you bring to it that you haven't done before? guinta: thank you for the question. i've learned through the years in my service to the state of new hampshire whether it's state rep, alderman, mayor, or as a member of congress that the most important thing i can do is listen to the state of new hampshire. brinkmanship us to washington, ensure that there is a bipartisan approach so we can get the country moving forward again. i've been able to do that in the past whether it was as mayor of manchester working with a majority of democrats or when i served in congress getting three bills signed into law by this president. i think people of our state want to see action, want to see the economic growth that they've

been desperately needing over the last six years. i will bring that energy and the bipartisan approach to make sure that i always work on behalf of people of our state. shea-porter: i'm a little confused -- while the economy has been recovering we still the little people who can't find work. i think growing this economy is going to be my focus. concentrate on small business making sure we take care of main street consider wall street together think i did and will continue to do is tried and to the damage that trend to did to the shipyard in other places. i was successful and enduring one-third of the sequestered as a compromise and with as a bipartisan budget which certainly helped. we have work to do on the. we need to continue growing this economy, need to address the problem of education, how expensive it is for young people and their families and we need to do with a host of other problems that we're facing. i'm on the armed service committee of the plan to

continue working to make sure that this country is safe and that we take care of our military men and women and our veterans. try for pakistan, don't respond? guinta: congresswoman shea-porter always references the sequestered and i would remind the audience to was the president harry reid, the leader of the senate required, demanded the sequestered be included in the budget agreement, otherwise the government would have been shut down. if you're congresswoman shear porter speak on this particular issue she would've voted to shut down the government rather than try to work with the senate and the president nobody likes the sequestered but it was a very difficult position that the president and harry reid put the house of representatives in. but we got through that process. we passed an agreement on the budget and then i voted three times to find other reductions in spending throughout the federal government to replace the sequestered but, unfortunately, a democratic senate refused to take up any of those three bills. shea-porter: actually it was the

tea parties that arrived in 2010 a force this do you on the if you didn't like this at which, didn't have to continue budget slashing by supporting the ryan budget. the reality is what i'm hearing him say is that he agreed with the president and the president agreed with him on the sequestered. i don't agree on the sequestered the i think you did great damage and window we had a head start shut them. we know it hurt health centers but we know how much it hurt new hampshire. so i would not support the sequestered. guinta: i did not agree with the present on demanding a sequestered got. what the president did was said, you do not pass the sequestered cuts, the government will be shut down. so to hear her, she would've shut down the government. that is not responsible. what the president did with the democrat led senate did was not responsible and it held the house of representatives into a terrible situation because they refused to work with us on a

reasonable responsible budget. again i voted three times to replace those sequestered reductions. and we found savings within other areas of the federal government. and, unfortunately, the senate refused to take up that legislation try for a short answer. shea-porter: i'm astounded at the rewriting of history but let me just say that the ryan budget and sequestered was not severe enough for this congressman when he was there but he also voted for the republican budget which was the ryan budget on steroids. after republicans had come together because democrats only voted -- they force republicans to say no to frank guinta and the tea partiers and congress. your budget was more severe. republicans was far more severe than the ryan budget and get you supported it. not once but twice. guinta: we're going to hear from congresswoman shea-porter through the course of the

evening calling a tea party, telling people and supported by the koch brothers but these are approaches she takes to try to malign to him, the service i have offered our state. i want to go to washington to work with both sides, republicans and willing democrats, to move the country in the right direction. i think people who are listening this evening want to hear about policy, substance of the direction we're going to take -- >> moderator: we need to move on. shea-porter: that was policy and that's why that's important to you know, i think if you believe in and yo you vote for it you should stand here and defend it. so we are talking about policies. >> moderator: thank you both. health care was a major issue. and 2014 is i the again a major issue. howard, you have a question. >> good evening to both you and thank you for being you. my first question is about the affordable care act, also popularly known as obamacare.

it's one question that there are different pieces of the for each of you. congresswoman shea-porter, you make no apology for your vote in favor of the affordable care act, also known as obamacare. some critics of the aca object to the provision required all people to either buy health insurance or pay a fine. y. g. support required everyone to pay into the system works congressman, you voted to repeal obamacare. but which replaced it with? if you want to keep the popular parts such as preexisting conditions, how will you pay for them? shea-porter: thank you for that question, and the really is that this health care law brought so many people health insurance, afford health insurance and it's also been helping hospitals and doctors to be more efficient. but here's the thing about what you just asked. this was a republican idea, and they wanted people to pay for insurance. they did what people going to the emergency room without

health insurance and than all of the rest of us having to pay for the. that was called no free ride. so when we start to work on health care, and republican president and democratic presidents tried to do this for years, when we started working health care we adopted the republican idea that people should pay, but when you -- for those who get their subsidies to help them. i think there's a very fair what to do this and they can the republicans who came up with that idea. because of what has worked. guinta: i think it's clear the state of new hampshire does not support carol shea-porter's notion that obamacare is working to she supported it when it was, first came to the fore. she has double down on this piece of legislation and the state of new hampshire opposes, continues to oppose this piece of legislation to congresswoman shea-porter is not listening to the constituents of the first congressional ditch. so far in four years we've had 22000 people lose their health

insurance. just sunday in a "usa today" article, 70,000 more people in november in the state of new hampshire are going to have their insurance canceled. this is the policy that carol shea-porter says is working. it is not working. it should be repealed and replaced. spent what would you replace it with? guinta: allowing anyone can individual small businesses to purchase across state lines but anywhere you want in the country. immediate new markets for the individual, small business owner or the nonprofit. secondly, we need a transcript of but when you provide action cost of the procedure to an individual, and to provide them choice, they will start to choose the lesser of the cost. and that will pay for a lot of the things that howard asked for in his original question. third, you can pool nonprofits to pull together to build the

purchasing power. you do those three things we can change to a market-based system. shea-porter: politifact said that what frank guinta is and is not too. politifact said they did not lose health insurance. they raided that too when i said that and i'm very, very pleased and proud that because it is telling the truth. what happened there was and some was the only insurance company there, and and the tragedy the. it wasn't obamacare. anthem tragedy the i worked with anthem and they agreed to keep those policies going so it's not true and you can look up a politifact. as for yo your idea about puttig everybody together, we have that and that is going to become forward in 2016 to a last ditch did exactly that. i'm glad to support that idea because that's exactly what we did in the aca. >> moderator: thank you both very much but let's move to another issue which is but a top story. >> thanks a lot there, paul. i do question for both

candidates. the spread of ebola has become a major public of concern recently. what do you think of the government response so far? what steps do you think could be taken to stop its spread? guinta: well, i think the response by this president and this administration has been terrible. there is fear across the country that this is going to spread, never one. number two, the cdc unfortunately hasn't been able to properly take care of its own physicians and medical teams that are trying to help patients who are possibly affect the third the president has not politicize this process with his appointment of anothe another s. where backstabbing czars again in this country and it's a person with no medical background whatsoever. it is purely political. so things have to change immediately to do need a travel ban immediately. it should have been done weeks ago. this president refuses to take those basic steps and i hope that he does so that we can get

on the other side of this terrible tragedy here that could spread in the united states. shea-porter: i think the president was pretty flat-footed at the beginning and we certainly, we've been taking temperatures but i do think that we should have a ban on nonessential travel for a week or two or three weeks in those three countries that are having difficulty. because we need to get a handle on those. i thought the cdc response commission was too slow and i whispered surprise that it didn't show up right away to help the hospital. but there's also some responsibility. we don't have a surgeon general because republicans are holding it up. in washington. and we don't have the funding that we need for the center for disease control because washington republicans cut that, including mr. guinta paper to have the proper funding for the national institute of health for the exact same reason that republicans in washington counted and that would be mr.

guinta again. so we should be sitting there saying it's all political. this is really series. this is something we shouldn't be fighting over. this is something that should be properly funded, take care of this. i feel comfortable saying the president and the administration should have done more faster, and i think that frankly we should be countless and he's good a blessing he cut it is but he cut the funding for thought she is the number of congress and she served six years to she has had the opportunity to try to work with republicans and democrats to craft responsible budgets. she has declined. she has focused on supporting budget that massive tax hikes, that would hurt american families, the very common we are trying to get out of economic challenges in the country. the reality is that the president and his administration's response to this has been nothing short of terrible. that was a simple question,

simple answer. shea-porter: actually we did at a bipartisan budget. we compromise, pass it. this and did also. so we have a bipartisan budget and that very proud of the work that we did together. >> moderator: let's change years here and take a question for michael. >> disparities of income and wealth are wider than at any time since the 1920s. despite steady gains in productivity, real wages have not risen significantly in three decades. low-paid jobs represent a greater share of employment than in any other industrial democracy. the median income is slightly above its level in 1995, while the incomes of the most affluent 5% have risen 15% since then. what did you make of these numbers, and how do think government should respond to the? shea-porter: i think it's heartbreaking them and you are right that the middle-class wages have been very flat and

ahead of recovery but the recovery has benefited those in the top 1%, the millionaires and billionaires and the corporations. what we need to do is first raise the minimum wage. some people are concerned and say that they are afraid that that will somehow or another upset our economy. but the reality is, and i've read a number of reports, economists say it would help. people who live close to the edge will take the money right downtown and spend it. they won't ship it off to ireland for is the. they will spend on the economy. since our economy is 70% consumer driven, people need money in the pockets in order to go purchase tickets the purchasing power to boost the economy for. it would be good to raise the minimum wage to we see families working two jobs and still not able to make it. that's one thing we can debate the other thing is we really need to grow this economy and you have to go to the middle-class to do the. i think we should reward companies for bringing jobs

home. we lost too many jobs overseas. we need to stop the subsidies that help them stay there but give them tax advantages when they come back. so i think it takes a concentrated effort. we need a jobs bill. i've been saying that for a long time but we need to build infrastructure. there's a lot of work to do. guinta: carol shea-porter has been in office for six years and she has not been able to deliver on the very promised that she made almost sutures ago to try to help middle-class families. she has not been able to do anything of substance economically. we exception of voting for stem spill which is 800 billion that didn't stimulate the economy. we have a larger long-term debt now at 18 trillion it was a most have fat when she first took office. she continues to talk about ideas but can't seem to implement anything. i don't think many people feel in this state or in this country that we've had a recovery. we have the highest number of people out of work in the labor

participation rate is at its lowest in history. shea-porter: we did raise the minimum wage that we did create jobs and receive economy getting better. the deficit is much lower this year than it was. so we on the right track and it worked for the legislation and helped pass the. a number of small business provisions. remember, this country almost went into a depression and it was our work that saved the country from falling into depression and is brought us back. we have 50 plus months of job gains. >> moderator: thank you both. we have lots more to talk about tonight. our debate continues in a moment. ♪ ♪ >> moderator: welcome back to

new hampshire's first congressional district debate. mr. guinta campaign went up with a new tv ad yesterday criticized the congresswoman. let's take a listen to that commercial. >> carol shea-porter wants to make sure we know who she stands for. >> you know who i stand for. >> that's why she voted to collect her salary even if congress doesn't pass a budget. >> so you know i stand for. >> shiva to give members of congress first class travel and health care for life. >> so you know i stand for. >> that's right. we do know you stand for. that's why we need a change. >> i'm frank guinta and i approve this message because it's time to put people first. >> congresswoman, i would like you to address those claims and did a chance to respond. shea-porter: let me say i'm shocked because on thursday he was in they were only going to run positive ads but i'm not shocked because it's part of his business. what disappoints me is that he

uses something that's completely inaccurate it in the "washington post," there were four pinocchio's meaning it's a really, really big lie. what this is, of course i'm going to vote no on the right budget. it would hurt the middle class. in all fairness, the democrats have put it in and tried to put a poison pill in for him to. so you know, don't use that stuff. that's just political silliness. that's all. not true. four pinocchio's track for congressman, first let's take a look at to add that is also running right now on new hampshire to be. a new spot from the shea-porter campaign that goes after you. let's take a look. >> back in the '50s women's rights were restricted spent she's a woman, isn't she? >> equal pay, forget about it. >> sadly my opponent is stuck in the '50s. is never stood up for equal pay. ..

people want to hear about most, jobs and the economy. getting the budget balanced and moving the country forward and finding positive solutions for the country and where iee