but it's also vital to the framework of freedom in our nation, and this legislation was designed to ensure the vitality of religious liberty in the hoosier state. i believe hoosiers are entitled to same protections that have been in place for the federal courts for the last 20 plus years and the law in 30 other states, but clearly, clearly there's been misunderstanding and confusion and mischaracterization of this law and i come before you today to say how we are going to address that. ..

as i said last week, had this long been about legalizing discrimination i would've vetoed it. this law does not give anyone a license to discriminate. the religious freedom restoration act indiana does not give anyone the right to deny services. to anyone in this state. it is simply a balancing test used by our federal courts and jurisdictions across the country for more than two decades. let me say on the subject of the built itself. i don't believe for a minute that it was the intention of the genoa summit to create a license to discriminate or a right to

deny services to gays, lesbians or anyone else in this state. it certainly was not my intent. but i can appreciate that that is the, the perception not just here in indiana but all across this country. we need to confront that and confront it boldly in a way that respects the interests of all involved. a personal reflection for a moment if i can. i for discrimination. -- abhor. i was raised like most hoosiers with the golden rule, that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. and i believe in my heart of hearts that no one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love our what they believe. and i believe every hoosier shares that conviction.

but as i said we've got a perception problem here because some people have a different view, and we intend to correct that. after much reflection and in consultation with leadership of the general assembly, i have come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to move legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone. let me say that again. i think it would be helpful and i would like to see on my desk before the end of this week, legislation that is added to the religious freedom restoration act in indiana that makes it clear that this law does not give this is a right to deny service to anyone. we want to make it clear that indiana is open for business.

we want to make it clear that hoosier hospitality is not a slogan, it's our way of life. it's the reason why people come here from around the world, and they come back again and again and again, because hoosiers are the kindest, most generous, most decent people in the world. let me say i believe this is a clarification, but it's also a fix. it's a fix of the bill that, through mischaracterization and confusion, has come to be greatly misunderstood. and i'm determined to address this this week, and to move forward as a state. and i know we will. indiana has come under the harsh glare of criticism from around the country. and some of us get paid to be

under the harsh glare and that criticism, so we don't complain about it. but the things that have been said about our state have been at times deeply offensive to me, and i will continue to use every effort to defend the good and decent people of indiana. i think it's important that we take this action this week. i've spoken to legislative leaders all the way through the last hour, and we're going to be working to make that happen. >> the final portion of our special program on the careers of the vice presidential candidates features remarks on the senate floor by tim kaine. this speech took place shortly after president obama began escalating military operations against isis in the middle east. secretary king express his support for the president but also calls on congress to pass a

new authorization of military force that deal specifically with the fight against isis. >> we are a nation of laws but also of value. i rise particularly today to urge to the president not just to inform us of what he plans to do but to follow the constitution and seek congressional approval to defeat isil. i do so for two reasons. first, i don't believe the president has the authority to quote one offense and wage an open-ended war on isil without congressional approval. and second, in making the momentous decision to authorize military action, we owe it to our troops to risk their lives to do our collective job and reach a consensus, supporting the military mission that they are ordered to complete. let me first a deal with the legal issue, the constitution is clear. it is the job of congress not the president to declare war. some parts of the constitution frankly are vague and open to interpretation, once due

process, what's cruel and unusual punishment. some parts are clear and specific. you have to be 35 years old to be president. the power to declare war is a clear and specific power. it is an enumerated power of congress in article one. the clear wording in the constitution is additionally a limited by risings of the principal drafter, james madison. in a letter to thomas jefferson after the constitution was ratified, madison explained the war powers clause in article one. quote, our constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. it has accordingly with studied care vested the study of war in the legislature. so a president must be congressional approval for significant military action. as commander-in-chief a president can always take steps to defend america from imminent

threats, the framers understood this. but even in those instances they intended that the president returned to congress to seek ratification of those actions. if we take the constitution seriously, as we pledged to do, we must follow the command of the president must come to congress to initiate major military action. during a congressional recess president obama begin in the middle to action against isil. dissent against military action may continue for an extended period of time. he has stated the action is evolving from a narrow effort to protect americans from threats to the campaign to go on offense in order to degrade the ability of isil to harm. this is precisely the kind of situation that calls for congressional action and approval. some have asserted, mr. president, at the demonstration need not seek congressional approval for an extended campaign of airstrikes. humbly and respectfully, i deeply disagree with that assertion. the president's assertion. the presidents article ii power allows him to defend america from imminent threat but it does

not allow the ability to wage offensive war without congress. the 2001 authorization for use of military force crafted by president bush and congress in the days after the 9/11 attacks limits the president's power to actions against the perpetrators of those attacks. isil was not a 9/11 interpreted. -- president bush sought a broader aumf to allow action against terrorist groups posing a threat to the united states. had congress granted such a power to war against isil would've been covered by that aumf. but congress explicitly rejected giving the president power to wage preemptive war against unnamed terrorist organizations without additional congressional approval. any attempt to justify action against isil by reference to the 2000 went aumf would fly directly in the face of the clear congressional action rejecting the preemptive war doctrine.

congress passed a second aumf in 2002 to allow military action to topple the iraqi regime of saddam hussein. that task was completed long ago. american troops left iraq in 2011, and did administration has testified before the senate that this aumf is now obsolete and should be repealed. it provides no support for military action against isil. there is no treaty of collective defense ratified by congress that would justify the president commencing military action against isil. the iraqi government has asked for our help which solves international law sovereignty questions but that request does not create its own domestic legal justification. and final of the 1973 war powers resolution creates is that the timing rules for presidential action and congressional response in matters of war. the resolution has been widely viewed as unconstitutional for a variety of reasons but even accepting its validity and the president, like most, almost surely does not accept its 60 60

delimitation, it does not change the basic constitutional framework vesting the declaration of war in the legislative branch. i believe that a reluctance to engage congress on this mission against isil is less due to an illegal analysis supporting broad executive power then to a general attitude held by all presidents that coming to congress on a question like this is too cumbersome and unpredictable. that attitude is shared on the hill by some of your questions of military action, especially in a difficult circumstance like this, as politically explosive and best avoided if at all possible. i urge the president and my colleagues to resist the understandable temptation to cut corners on this process. there is no more important business done in the halls of congress than weighing whether to take military action and sent servicemembers into harm's way. if we've learned nothing else in the last 13 years, and we should

have certainly learned that. coming to congress is challenging, but the framers decided to be calm and we all pledged to serve and make of it for particular checks and balances between the branches of government. remember in the days after 9/11 is anniversary we commemorate this week, president bush brought the congress a request of military action. the ruins of the pentagon and world trade center was still smoking and the search for the loss was the one going, certainly the market public would've supported the president's strong and immediate executive action in that circumstance. if president bush new the nation would be stronger if he came to congress to seek authority. similarly, president bush came to congress prior to initiating military action in iraq. so many painful lessons were learnt in aftermath of that opposition but it is important to remember that it was not unilaterally executive decision that congress was included effort to support the nation. i believe it would be a grievous

mistake after 13 years of war to have a new stretch of taking pro on no to actually off into seek congressional approval. and i particularly worry about the president it would create for future presidents to assert that the unilateral right to engage in long-term military action without the full participation of the people's legislative branch. as president obama said last year when announcing he would come to congress to seek military authorization to come by use of chemical weapons in syria, quote, this is not about who occupies the office any given time. it is about who we are as a country. i believe the people's representatives must be invested in what america does abroad. mr. president, i focus my remarks on the legal reasons for the president to engage congress than any plan to get isil. me conclude by offering an additional reason, even a more important reason about why the president and congress should work together to craft a

suitable mission of this important effort. when we engage in military action, even only an air campaign, we ask our troops to risk their lives and their health, physical and mental. of course we pray for their complete safety and success, let's be realistic enough to acknowledge that some may die or be injured, or be captured, or see these things happen to the comrades in arms. even those who come home physically safe may see or do face a war that will affect them for the rest of their lives. the long lines of people waiting for va appointments today are hoping to have their va disability benefit claims adjudicated are proof of this. in short, mr. president, during a time before we ask our troops to give their best even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. when compared against that, how

much of a sacrifice is it for a president to engage in a possibly contentious debate with congress about whether military action is a good idea tracks how much of a sacrifice is it for a member of congress to debate and vote about whether military action is a good idea? well, congressional members face the political cost on military action, our servicemembers there the human cost of those decisions. and if we choose to avoid debate, avoid accountability, avoid a hard decision, how can we demand that our military willingly sacrifice their very lives? >> you've been watching a special look back at c-span programs featuring mike pence and tim kaine. a reminder, we will have live coverage of the vice presidential debate tuesday october 4 starting at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> c-span, created by america's cable television companies and budget as a public service by your cable or satellite provid provider. >> some ideas on replacing the u.s. welfare system with programs to raise income levels. live coverage of that discussion from the cato institute at noon eastern. just yesterday the "new york times" reported russian president putin withdrew from a landmark security nuclear security agreement in a troubling sign the country's cooperation in a range of nuclear areas could be threatened. later today it's a look at the current -- the current state of arms control between russia and america. you can see that light at 2 p.m. east and. hillary clinton is making a campaign stop in harrisburg, pennsylvania, this afternoon and she will urge pennsylvanians to

register to vote with one week remaining before the october 11 deadline. c-span was live coverage starting at 3:45 p.m. eastern. more road to the white house covered with donald trump, holding a campaign rally in arizona. that's at 5 p.m. eastern and continues on a western swing through states. in 20 to vice president joe biden debated paul ryan in danville, kentucky, that was hosted by martha raddatz at abc news. they cover both ford and domestic issues. this is about 90 minutes.

>> moderator: good evening and welcome to the first and only by special cell debate of 2012. sponsored by the commission on presidential debates. i am martha raddatz of abc news and i'm honored to moderate this debate between two men have dedicated much of their life to public service. tonight's debate is divided between domestic and foreign policy issues. i'm going to move back and forth between foreign and domestic since that is what the vice president or president would have to do. we will have nine different segments. at the beginning of each segment i will ask both candidates a question and they will each have two minutes to answer. then i will encourage a discussion between the candidates with follow-up questions. by coin toss it has been determined that vice president biden will be first to enter the opening question. we have a wonderful audience here at center college tonight. you will no doubt hear their enthusiasm at the end of the

debate, and right now as we welcome vice president joe biden and congressman jolly and. [applause] -- congressman paul ryan. you got your little way to the families in. that's great. are digging gentlemen. it really is an honor to be with both of you. i would like to begin with libya. on a rather somber note, one month ago tonight on the anniversary of 9/11, ambassador chris stevens and three other brave americans were killed in a terrorist attack in benghazi. the state department has now made clear there were no protesters there. it was a preplanned assault by

heavily armed men. wasn't this a massive intelligence failure, vice president biden? biden: it was a tragedy, martha. christie this was what of our best. we lost three other brave americans. i can make absolutely to commitments to you and all the american people tonight. one, we will find and bring to justice the men who did this. and secondly we'll get to the bottom of it, and whatever the facts lead us, wherever they lead us, we will make clear to the american public, whatever mistakes are made will not be made again. when you look at it president, martha, seems to me that you should take a look at his most important responsibility. that's caring for the national security of the country. the best way to do that is take a look at how he's handled the issues of the day. on iraq the president said he would end the war. governor romney said that was a tragic mistake. we should have left, he ended it. governor romney said that was a

tragic mistake, we should let 30,000 troops there. with regard to afghanistan, he said he will end of the war in 2014. governor romney said we should set a date. number one. and number two, with regard to 2014, it depends. wendie king to osama bin laden, the president, the first day in office, i was sitting with him in the oval office. he called in the cia and signed an order saying my highest priority is to get bin laden. prior to the election, prior to them being sworn in, governor romney was asked about how he would proceed. he said i would move heaven and earth. it was more about taking and murder off the battlefield. it was about restoring america's heart and letting terrorists know if you do want to america, we will track you to the gates of hell if need be. lastly, the president of the united states has led with a steady hand and clear vision. governor romney, the opposite. the last thing we need now is another war.

>> moderator: congressman ryan? ryan: we mourn the loss of these four americans who were murdered. when you take a look at what has happened just in the last few weeks, they sent the then ambassador out to say that this was because of a protest and a youtube video. it took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack. he went to the u.n. and in his speech he said six times, he talked about a youtube video. look, if we are hit by terrorist, we are going to call it what it is, a terrorist attack. our ambassador in paris as a marine detachment guarding them. shouldn't we have a marine detachment guarding our ambassador in benghazi? a place where we knew that wasn't al-qaeda cell with arms. this is becoming more troubling by the day. they first claimed the youtube video, now they're trying to blame the romney-ryan ticket for making this an issue. with respect to iraq, we have

the same position before the withdrawal, which was we agreed with the obama administration. let's have a status of forces greater to make sure we secure our games. the vice president was put in charge of those negotiations, vice president obama. he failed to get the agreement. we don't have a set of forces agreement because they failed to get one. that's what we're talking about the when it comes to our veterans we owe them a great debt of gratitude. wanted to enforce, including your son. we also want to make sure that we don't lose the things we fought so hard to get. with respect afghanistan, we agreed with a 2014 transition. what we also want to do is make sure we're not projecting weakness abroad and that's what's happening. this benghazi issue will be a tragic in and of itself but, unfortunately, it's indicative of a broader problem. that is what we're watching on our tv screens is the unraveling of the obama foreign policy. which is making them more

chaotic and us less safe if i want to talk about right in the middle of the crisis governor romney, talking about this again tonight, talked about the weakness, talked about apology from the obama administration. was that appropriate right in the middle of the crisis? ryan: on that same day the obama administration had the exact same position or they disavowed their own statement that they put up earlier in the day in cairo. we had the same position but it's never too early to speak out for our values. we should have spoken out right away when the green revolution was up and starting, when the mullahs in iran were attacking the people. we should not have called the shower of reform when he was turning his pashtun on his own people. we should always stand up for peace, for democracy, for individual rights. we should not be imposing this devastating defense cuts because what that does when we

equivocate on our values, we show we are cutting own defense, it makes us more week. it projects weakness and when we look we, our adversaries are much more willing to test is, more brazen come and our allies are less . biden: with all due respect that's a bunch of malarkey. not a single thing you said i could. first of all, i will be very specific. number one, this lecture on embassy security, the congressman here at nbc security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, never one. so much for the embassy security peace. number two, governor romney before he knew the facts, before he even knew that our ambassador was killed, he was making political statements. it was banned by the media around the world. and this talk about this weakness, i don't understand what my friend is talking about. this is a president was gone and done everything he is that he was going to do.

this is the guy who's repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again. this is the guy who brought the entire world including russia and china to bring about the most devastating, most devastating, the most devastating efforts on iran to make sure that they, in fact, stop. look, these guys bet against america all the time. >> moderator: let me go back to libya. what we first told about the attack? why were people talking about protest? when people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. why did that go on? biden: we were told by the intelligence community. the intelligence community told us that. as a learn more facts what exactly happened, they changed their assessment. that's what is also an investigation headed by tom pickering, a leading diplomat from the reagan years, who is

doing an investigation into whether not to any lapses, what lapses that were so they will wd never happen again. >> moderator: they wanted more security. biden: we told -- we did not know they wanted more security. and by the way, at the time we were told exactly we set exact with intelligence committee told us, that they need. that was the assessment. and has the intelligence committee change their view we made it clear they change their view. that's what i say we will get to the bottom of this. usually when there's a crisis we pull together, we pull together as a nation. even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the government was told a press conference here was holding a press conference. that's not presidential leadership. >> moderator: mr. ryan, i woulwantto ask you about the roy campaign talks about no apologies. he has a book called no apologies. should the u.s. have apologized for americans burning iran's in afghanistan? should the u.s. apologized for u.s. marines urinating on

taliban corpses transport gosh, yes. what we should not apologize for our stand up for our values. what we should not be doing is saying to the egyptian people, while babar is cracking down on them, that he's a good guy at the next week say he ought to go. what we should not a doing is rejecting claims are calls for more security in our barracks come in our marines. we need marines in benghazi. when the command on the ground says we need more forces for security. there were request for extra security. those were not honored. look, this was the anniversary of 9/11. it was libya, country we knew we had al-qaeda cell their come as an al-qaeda and its affiliates are on the rise in northern africa. and we didn't get our ambassador in benghazi a marine detachment? of course this investigation so we can make sure this never happens again, but when it comes to sticking up for our values we

should not apologize. here's the problem. look at all the first issues that's unraveling before our very eyes. the vice president talks sanctions under and. traffic let's move to iran. i would like to move to iran because there's no bigger national security this country is facing, both president obama and governor romney has said they will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even if that means military action. last week former defense secretary bob gates said a strike on iran's facilities would not work and quote could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations. can the two of you be absolutely clear and specific to the american people how effective would a military strike be, congressman ryan? ryan: we cannot allow iran to get a nuclear weapons capability. now, let's take a look at where we've come from. when barack obama was elected, they had enough fissile material

from nuclear deal to make one bomb. now they have enough for five. they are racing towards a nuclear weapon. they are four years closer. we've had four different sanctions, three from the bush administration, one here, no reason we can't is because russia watered it down and prevented a sanctions committee the central bank. mitt romney proposed the sanctions in 2007. i've been fighting for the sanctions since 2000 the administration was blocking us every step of the way. only because with strong bipartisan support will be able to overrule their objections epidemic in spite of the administration. imagine what would've happened if we had the sanctions in place earlier. ..

it's because this administration has no credit building on this issue. it's because this administration water downed sections and tried to stop us from putting the tough things in place we have them in place because of congress. the key is to do this peacefully to make sure we have credibility. under the romney administration we will have credit building on this issue. >> vice president biden. >> incredible. look, imagine had we led the republican congress and let them work out the sanctions. do you think there is any possibility that entire world would have joined us, russia and china and all power allies? these are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period. when governor romney asked he

said we have to keep these sanctions and we said we are talking about doing more. are you going to go to work with mac we went to prevent war. >> how are they going to prevent more? they say there is nothing more that they say we should do than what we've already done. that's number one and number two, with regard to the ability of the united states to take action to militarily, this is not in my purview to talk about classified information, but we feel confident we could deal a serious blow to the iranians. number two, the iranians are that is really an united states are military intelligence communities are absolutely seven exact place in terms of how close the iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. they are a good way to wait. there is a difference between our view and there's your quit my friend talks about material, they have to take this highly

enriched uranium, get .% up and then they have to be able to put it in something. there is no weapon that iranians have at this point. the israelis and we will know if they start the process of building the weapon, so all of this bluster i keep hearing, all of this loose talk on the what they talking about? are you talking about to be more credible? what more can the president do, stand before the united nation, and darkly communicate we will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon period? >> martha, let's look at this from the view of the ayatollah, what do they see. they see this administration trying to water down sanctions in congress for over two years. they are moving faster towards a nuclear weapon. they see as saying when we come into the administration when they are sworn in, we need more space for the ally, israel.

they see president obama in new york city the same day benjamin that yahoo is an instead of meeting with him he goes on a talk show they see that these options are on the table and the secretary of defense walks them back. they are not changing their mind. that's what we have to do is change their minds so they stop pursuing-- >> had you do it so quickly. you saw both-- you both saw benjamin that yahoo hold of that picture of a bomb with the red line and the red line being in spring, so can you saw this if the romney ryan ticket is erected can you solve this in two months before spring and avoid nuclear-- >> we can debate the timeline whether it's that short of time or longer and i agree it's probably longer. number two, it's all that-- >> you don't agree with that? >> i don't want him to go into

classifieds of, but we both agree that to do this peacefully you to get them to change their mind. they're not changing their mind. >> let me tell you-- the ayatollah sees his economy being crippled. the ayatollah sees there are 50% fewer exports of oil and the currency going in the tank. he sees his economy going in the free fall and he sees the world for the first time totally united in opposition to him getting a nuclear weapon. the president has met with-- he has spoken to bb as much as anyone. the idea-- i was in a-- just before we went to the un i was a conference call with the president-- or with him talking to be be well over an hour and in the stark relief of detail. this is a bunch of stuff. look, here's the deal. >> what does that mean, a bunch of stuff?

>> he's irish. >> last thing, the secretary of defense has made it absolutely-- you can't walk anything back. we will not allow the iranians to get a nuclear weapon. what bb held that there was when they get to the point where they can enrich you name your-- uranium enough to put into a weapon, they don't have a weapon to put it into. lets calm down a bit here. iran is more isolated today than when we took office. it is totally isolated. i don't know what world-- >> thank heavens we have these sanctions in place in spite of their opposition. they have given 20 waivers to this sanction and all i have to point to are the results. they are four years closer to a nuclear weapon. >> can you tell the american--,.

>> they are closer to getting enough material to put in a weapon if they had a weapon. >> you are acting a little bit like they don't want one. >> facts matter, martha. you are a foreign-policy expert and facts matter. all of this loose talk about all they have to do is get to enriched you naming a certain amount and they have a weapon, not to true. not true. and if we ever have to take action, unlike when we took office, we will have the world behind us and that's what matters. that matters. >> what about bob gates statement. let me read that again. could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations. >> he is correct, it could prove catastrophic. >> and what it does is undermines our credibility by backing up the point when we make it that all options are on the table. the ayatollah see these kind of statement candidates think i'm going to get a nuclear weapon.

when we see the kind of equivocation that took place because this administration wanted a precondition policy, so when the revolution started up they were silent for nine days and when they see as putting daylight between ourselves and our allies in israel, that gives them encouragement. when they see russia watering down any further sanctions and the only reason we got a un sanction was because water-- russia watered it down in the first place, so i see this kind of activity, they are encouraged to continue. >> martha, let me continue. >> what is worse, were in the middle east, another war in the middle east or nuclear arms and neck i will to you what's worse, a nuclear armed iran which triggers a nuclear arms race in the middle east. this is the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and they have dedicated themselves of a wife being a entire country off the map and they call us a great satan.

we can't live with this. >> war should always be absolute last resort. that's why these crippling sanctions were with benjamin netanyahu says we should continue, which i'm not mistaken governor romney says we should continue. i may be mistaken. he changes his mind so often i could be wrong, but the fact of the matter is he says they are working in the fact is that they are being crippled by them and we have made it clear, big nations can't bluff. this president does not bluff. >> i want to bring the conversation to a different national security issue, the state of our economy, the number one issue here is jobs. the percentage of unemployed fell below 8% for the first time in 43 months. the obama administration has projected that it would fall below 6% now after the addition of close to a trillion dollars

of stimulus money, so we'll both of you level with the american people. can you get unemployment to under 6% and how long will it take? >> i don't know how long it will take. we can and will get it under 6%. let's look at the facts. let's look at where we were when we came to office. the economy was in freefall. we had the great recession hit, 9 million people lost their jobs. $1.6 trillion in wealth lost and equity in your homes in retirement accounts with a middle-class. we knew we had to act for the middle class and went out and rescue general motors and went ahead and made sure we cut taxes for the middle class and in addition, when that occurred what did ronnie do? romney said no, let detroit go bankrupt. we moved in and help people refinance their home peer governor romney said let foreclosures hit the bottom, but it should not be surprising for

a guy that said 47% of the american people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own life. my friend recently sent you% of the american people are takers. these people are my mom and dad, the people i grew up, my neighbors. they pay more taxes than governor romney. they are elderly people, that are as a people fighting right now. i have had it up to here with this notion that 40 set-- it's about time they take some responsibility here and instead of signing pledges not to ask the wealthiest among us to contribute to bring back the middle class, they should be signing a pledge saying to the middle class we will level the playing field and give you a fair shot again. we are going to not repeat the mistakes we made in the past by having a different set of rules for wall street and main street, making sure we continue to hemorrhage these tax cuts for the super wealthy. they are pushing the continuation of a tax cut that

will give aid additional 500 billion-dollar in tax cuts to 120,000 families. they are holding hostage the middle-class tax cut because they say we won't continue the middle-class tax cut unless we give the tax cut for the super wealthy. it's about time they take responsibility. >> mr. ryan. >> joe and i are from similar towns. is from scranton pennsylvania and i'm from wisconsin. do you know what the unemployment rate in scranton is today? >> sure do. >> 10% picked you know what it was the day you came in? a .5%. that's how it's going all around america. >> that's not how it's going. it's going down. >> two-minute answer. >> did they come in and inherit a tough situation? absolutely, but we are going in the wrong direction. look at where we are. the economy is barely moving along, growing at 1.3% picked as

lower than it grew last year and last year than heretofore. jobs growth in september was lower than august and august was lower than july. we are heading in the wrong direction. 23 million americans are struggling to work today. 15% of americans are living in poverty today. this is not what a real recovery looks like. we need real reforms for real recovery and that is exactly what mitt romney and are proposing. it's a five-point plan, get commit-- america energy independent, help people who are hurting and give them the skills they need for the jobs they want get this deficit and debt under control. make trade work for america so we can make more things in america and sell them overseas and champion of small businesses peered don't raise taxes on small businesses because they are job creators. he talks about detroit. mr. romney is a car guy. imitate at the mitt romney i now. this is a guy who i was talking to a family in massachusetts, the other day.

cheryl and mark nixon. their kids were hitting a car crash, four of them. two of them were paralyzed. the romney's did not know them. they met-- went to the same church, but never had met before. is to come over boy's wife brought gifts and he said i know you are struggling. don't worry about college because i will pay for them. the romney's did not tell this story. the next it's told this story. he has given his time consistently took this as a man who gave 30% of his income to charity. more than the two of us combined. mitt romney is a good man. with respect to that quote i think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don't not appear what-- melt the right way. [laughter] >> i always say what, i mean,

and so does romney. >> we want everyone to succeed. we want to get everyone out of poverty. we believe in opportunity and mobility and that's what we will push for in the romney administration. >> mr. vice president, i have a feeling you have a few things to say. >> the idea if you heard that 37%, you would think he just made a mistake and i have a bridge to sell you. love, i don't doubt his personal generosity and i understand what it's like. when i was younger than the congressman, my wife was in an accident, killed my daughter and my wife and my two sons of survived. i have sat in the homes of many people who i have been through because the one thing you can give people solace is to know that you have been through it and that they can, so it don't doubt his personal commitment to

individuals, but i know he had no commitment to the automobile industry. he just said let to go bankrupt period ticket lets drop out. all this talk, we saved a million jobs, 200,000 people are working today and i have never met two guys more down on america across the board. we are told everything is going bad. 5.2 million new private sector jobs. we need more. if they would get out of the way and let us pass the tax cut for the middle class and make it permanent, they get out of the way in past the jobs bill, if they get out of the way you know what us allow 14 million people who are struggling to stay in their homes because their mortgages upside down when they never missed a mortgage payment, just get out of the way and stop talking about how you care about people. show me something. show me a policy. show me a policy where you take responsibility and by the way, they talk about this great recession as if it fell out of

the sky like my goodness where did come from. it came from this man of voting to put two wars on a credit card and at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on eight credit card. i was they are. i voted against them and said we can't afford that and now all of a sudden these guys are so seized with the concern about the debt that they created. >> congressman ryan. >> let's not forget that they came in with one party control. when barack obama was elected his party controlled everything and had the ability to do everything of their choosing and look at where we are now. they passed the stimulus. their idea we could borrow a hundred $31 billion, spend it on a special interest groups and that it would work out just fine that unemployment would never get to a percent. it went above 8% for 43 months. right now, we passed the stimulus that-- >> when could you get it below 6%? >> that's what the entire

premise of our plan is all about , getting the economy growing at 4%, creating 12 million jobs over the next four years. look at the $90 billion in stimulus. the vice president was in charge of overseeing this with $9 billion with the campaign contributors and special interest groups. just at the department of energy there is over 100 criminal investigations launched-- >> cohead. >> martha, look. his colleagues spent months and months and months-- >> the inspector general. >> they found no evidence of cronyism and i love my friend here. are not allowed to show letters, but go to our website, 72 letters saying by the way, can you send me some stimulus money for companies here in the state of wisconsin. we sent millions of dollars. >> sure i did. on two occasions we advocated for constituents applying for grants.

we do that all constituents. >> i love that. i love that. this is such a bad program and he writes me a letter saying the reason we need this stimulus is it will create growth and jobs. his words. now, he is sitting here looking to meet and by the way, that program again investigated and what congress said was it was a model, less than four tenths of 1% waste or fraud in the program. all of this talk about cronyism, they investigated and investigated and did not find one single piece of evidence. i wish he would be more-- >> was it a good idea to spend taxpayer dollars on cars in finland or windmills in china? was it a good idea to borrow this money from countries like china and spend it on all of these various different interest groups? >> it was a good idea that this was exactly what we needed to stop this from going off a cliff and set the conditions to grow again.

we have in fact, 4% of those green jobs that went under and didn't work as a better at-- batting average that investment bankers have. >> where's the 5 million green jobs? >> i want to move onto medicare entitlement. i think we've gone over this enough. >> by the way, any letter you sent me i will entertain. >> appreciate that, joe. >> let's talk about medicare entitlements. both medicare and social security are going grow-- broke. will benefits for americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive, mr. ryan? >> absolutely. medicare and social security are going bankrupt, indisputable facts. when i look at these programs, we have all tragedies in our lives and i think about what they have done for my own family. my mom and i had my grandmother move in with us who is facing alzheimer's. medicare was there for us just like it's therefore my mom right now.

after my dad died my mom and i got social security is the survivors benefits that helped me pay for college and her to go back to college in her 50s where she started a small business, she paid her taxes on the promise that these programs would be there for her. we will honor this promise in the best way to do it is to reform for my generation. if you reform these programs for my generation, 54 below, you can guarantee they don't change for people in or near retirement which is exactly what romney and i are proposing. obamacare. obamacare it takes $715 billion for medicare to spend on obamacare. even their own chief of the medicare backs this up and says you cannot spend the same dollar twice or claim this money goes to medicare and obamacare and then they put this new obamacare board in charge of cutting medicare each and every year in ways that will lead to denied care for current seniors. this board is 15 people. the president is the post to

appoint them next year not even one has to have medical training and a social security, if we don't sure up social security when we run out of the ious on the program goes bankrupt and 25% across-the-board benefit cut cake seen on current seniors in the middle of their retirement. we are going to stop that from happening. they have not put a credible solution on the table. he will tell you about vouchers and say these things to try to scare people. here's what we are saying, give younger people when they become medicare eligible guaranteed coverage options that you cannot be denied including traditional medicare. shoes your plan a medicare subsidizes your premiums, not as much for the wealthy people, mort coverage for middle income people in total out of pocket for poor and middle-- sick. we would rather have seniors determine how the medicare is delivered then 15 bureaucrats deciding what, with-- if, where we get it. >> i heard that from sarah palin

and it seems every vice presidential debate i hear this. let's talk about medicare. what we did is save $716 billion and put it back to medicare. we cut costs of medicare. we stopped over pain insurance companies when doctors and hospitals, ama supported what we do. aarp supported we did and it extends the life of medicare to 2024. they want to write this out and it also gave more benefits, any senior out there ask yourself, do you have more benefits today? you do. you get wellness the net-- visits without co-pay. they wipe this out and medicare becomes insolvent in 2016, number one. number two, guaranteed benefits. it's a voucher. when they first proposed, when the congressman had his first voucher program, the cbo said it would cost $6040 a year, martha,

more for every senior 55 and below when they got there. he knew that, gets he got it all advising congress and the women in the republican party to vote for an governor romney knowing that said i would sign it were either. who do you believe? the ama, me, a guy who is fall his whole life or this or someone who actually put in motion a plan that knowingly cuts-- added $6400 a year more to the cost of medicare? now they have a new plan. trust me, it won't cost you more. folks, follow your instincts and with regard to social security, we will not privatize it. if we had listened to romney and the congressman during the bush years, imagine where all of those seniors would be now if their money had been in the market? their ideas are old and bad and they can eliminate the guarantee

of medicare. >> here's the problem. they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar tourney medicare into a piggy bank for obamacare. their own actuary from the administration came to congress and said one out of six hospitals and nursing homes will go out of business as a result. >> that's not what they said. >> 7.4 million seniors are projected to lose the current medicare they have come a 3200-dollar benefit cut. these are from your or actuaries >> more people signed up for medicare advantage after the changes. >> mr. vice president, i know you are under a lot of duress, but i think people would be better served if we don't keep interrupting each other. >> don't take all the four minutes, then. >> we are saying don't change benefits for people 55 and above. >> let me ask you this. what is your specific plan for seniors who really can't afford to make up the difference in the

value of what you call a premium support plan and others calling voucher? >> 100% coverage. we are saying support payments by taking down subsidies for wealthy people. this is a plan-- by the way that 6400-dollar number was misleading than an totally inaccurate now. this is a plan that's bipartisan it's a plan i put together with a prominent democrat senator-- >> not one democratic senator endorses this. >> our partner is a democrat from oregon. >> and he says he no longer supports it. >> we put it together with the former clinton budget director and this idea came from the clinton commission to save medicare chaired by senator john breaux. here's the point, if we don't fix this problem pretty soon, then current seniors get cut. here's the problem, 10000 people are retiring every saturday in today and they will for 20 years.

>> if they just allow medicare to bargain for the cost of drugs like medicaid can, that would save $11,506,000,000,000 off the bat. >> it would deny seniors choices >> seniors are not denied. folks, all you seniors out there, have you been denied choices? have you lost medicare advantages? >> president-- vice president biden, if it could help solve the problem, why not very slowly raise the medicare eligibility age by two years as conversation client suggested? >> i was there when we did that with a social security in 1983 i was one of eight people in the room that included tip o'neill negotiating with president reagan and we all got together and everyone said as long as everyone is in the deal, everyone is in the deal and everyone is making sacrifice we can find a way. we made the system solvent to 2033. we will not, though, be part of

any voucher plan eliminating-- the boucher says mom, when you are 65, go out there and shop for the best insurance you can get. you are out of medicare appeared you can buy back in if you want with this voucher, which will not keep pace with healthcare cost because if they did, there would be no savings. that's why they go the voucher. we will be no part of a voucher program or the privatization of social security. >> go to your mailbox, get a check and buy something, notice-- no one is proposing that. barack obama four years ago running for president said if you don't have any fresh ideas, use a stale tactics to scare voters. if you don't have a good record to run on, pick your opponent as someone people should run from. >> you are one of the few lawmakers to stand with president bush when he-- he was seeking to privatize social security. >> for younger people.

by the great let younger americans in a voluntary choice of making their money work faster for them within the social security system. what we are saying is no changes for anyone 55 and above and then the kinds of changes we are talking about for younger people like myself is don't increase the benefits for wealthy people as fast as everyone else, slowly raise the retirement age over time. it wouldn't get to the age of 70 until 2103 according to the actuaries. >> the bottom line is that all the studies show that if we went with social security proposal made by mitt romney if you are in your 40s now you will pay $2600 a year-- get $2600 less in social security and if you are in your 20s you'll get $4700 less. of the idea of changing and change in this case to cut the benefits for people without taking other action you can do to make it work if absolutely the wrong way.

look, these guys haven't been big on medicare from the beginning took their party has not been big on medicare from the beginning and they've always been about social security. folks, use your common sense. who do you trust on this, a man who introduced a bill that would raise it 40 to $6400 a year knowing it and passing it and romney saying he would sign it work me in the president? >> that was completely misleading, but more importantly this is what politicians do when they don't have a record to run on. ..

a. >> moderator: other like to move onto a very simple question for both of you. something tells me i will not give a simple answer but let me ask you this. biden: i gave you a simple edge. is raising the cost. >> moderator: if your ticket is elected who will pay more in taxes, who would pay less? biden: the middle class will pay less and people making dwindling to a more will begin to contribute slightly more. let me give you one concrete example. the continuation of the bush tax cuts we're arguing the bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy, 800 million, billion dollars of that goes to people making a minimum of 1 million. we see no justification in these economic times for those and they are patriotic americans. they are not asking for this

continued tax cut. they're not suggesting it but my friends are insisting on. 120,000 families by continuing the tax cut would get an additional $500 billion in tax relief in the next 10 years and income is an average of $8 million. we want to extend permanently for middle-class tax cuts from -- these guys will not allow us. we say let's have a vote. let's have a vote on the middle-class tax cut of the to vote on the upper tax cut. let's vote on. they are saying no. they are holding hostage the middle-class tax cut to the super wealthy. on top of that have another tax cut coming. that's $5 trillion over studies point out will, in fact, get another $250 million, $250,000 a year to those 120,000 families and raise taxes for people who are middle income with a child

by $2000. this is unconscionable. there is no need for this. the middle-class cannot on their heels. the great recession crushed them. they need some help. the last people who need help our 120,000 families for another $500 billion tax cut over the next 10 years. ryan: our entire premise of these tax the corn -- reform plans is to grow the economy. it is set to great 7 million jobs. we think that cover taking 28% of family and business income is enough. president obama thinks the government ought to be up to take as much as 44.8% of a small businesses and. look, if you tax every person is excess will small business making over $250,000 at 100% it will only run the government for 98 days. if everybody who paid income taxes last year including

successful small businesses doubled their taxes, we would still have a $300 billion deficit. there are not enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending. so the next time you havens they don't worry about it, we will get a few wealthy people to pay their fair share, watch out, middle-class. the tax bill is coming to you. that's why we are saying we need fundamental tax reform. look at it this way. eight out of 10 businesses father taxes as individuals, not as corporation. where i come from overseas which is lake superior, the canadiens dropped their tax rate to 15%. the average tax rate on businesses and industrial is world is 25% and depression was the top effective tax rate on successful small businesses to go above 40%. two-thirds of our jobs comes from small businesses. this one tax would tax about 53% of small business income. it's expected to cost 710,000

jobs. it doesn't even pay for 10% of their proposed deficit spending increases. what we are saying is lower tax rates across the board and close loopholes primarily to higher income people. we have three bottom lines. don't raise the deficit, don't raise taxes on the middle-class and don't lower the share of income that is one bad income earners. it's been discredited by six other studies and even their own deputy campaign manager acknowledge that it was a correct. >> moderator: let's talk about this 20%. if refused, and again, to offer specifics on how you pay for the 20% across the board tax cut. do you actually have the specifics are are used to working on it and that's why you will not tell voters credit for different from this of administration. we want a big bipartisan agreements. i understand -- >> moderator: the you have the

specifics? >> moderator: look at what ronald reagan and tip o'neill did. they work together to lower tax rates and broaden the base and to work together to fix that. what we are saying is yours our framework. lower tax rates 20%. we raise the $1.220 through income taxes. we forgot about 1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. what we are seeing is deny those loopholes and deductions to higher income taxpayers some more income is taxed which is a broader base of -- so we can lower taxes across the board. here's why i'm saying this your what we are saying is -- we want to work with congress and our best to achieve this. that mean successful. what we are saying is lower tax rate 20%, start with the wealthy. work with congress -- >> moderator: you guarantee this? ryan: absolute. six studies have verified this math adds up.

biden: let me have a chance to translate. first of all i was there when ronald reagan tax rates competing specifics of what is going to cut, number one, in terms of tax expenditures. number two, 97% of the small business of america, make less than $250,000. let me tell you some of those other small business, hedge funds that make six, $800 billion a year. that's what they count as small business because their pastor. let's look at how sincere they are. governor romney, on 60 minutes about 10 days ago was asked, governor, you paid 40% on $20 million. someone making $50,000 paid more than that. do you think of? >> decent that's fair. that's fair. you think these guys are going to go out and cut those loopholes? the biggest loophole the ticket and jeff is a carried interest loophole and capital gains loophole. the extent of that. the reason why the aei study,

the mac enterprise institute study, the tax policy center study, the reason they all say it's going, taxes upon the middle-class, the only way you can find $5 trillion in loopholes is cut the mortgage deduction for middle-class people. cut for health care deduction for middle-class people, take away the ability to get a tax break to send the kids to college. that's why they -- directory you can cut taxes by 20% us to reserve these important preferences for middle-class taxpayers. it is mathematically possible. it's been done before. it's what we're proposing trampling it has ever been done before. ryan: that has been done a couple of times. ronald reagan . biden: now you are jack kennedy? [laughter] ryan: republicans and democrats have worked together on this. i understand you guys -- >> but we did with reagan here are the things we're going to do.

here's what he said. filled in the details. ryan: that say get things done. let me say this way. biden: a republican congress working bipartisanly, 7% rating? ryan: mitt romney didn't demonize them. he didn't demagogue there he met with those party leaders every week. he reached across the aisle, he didn't countless principals. he balanced the budget. [talking over each other] biden: why isn't he contesting massachusetts? >> moderator: what would you suggest beyond raising taxes on the wealthy that would substantially reduce . biden: but taxes are like they're supposed to upon those millionaires. we can't afford $800 billion going to people making the minimum of $1 million. they do not need it, martha. those 120,000 families make

$8 million a year. middle-class people need the help. why does my friend cut out tuition tax credit for them? why does he go out -- >> moderator: can you do anything off limits transport for higher income people. biden: can you guarantee no one is taxed make you less than $100,000 with the mortgage, mortgage deduction impacted than 40 keep trying to get think it's so movie star hedge fund guy. biden: 97% of small business and make less than 250,000 a year. ryan: this taxes 1 million people. basethe greatest job creators. biden: the greatest job creators -- think about this. >> moderator: and you're going to increase -- >> they are proposing. >> that's $2 billion. >> moderator: so no messing

defense increase? ryan: you want to get into defense now? >> moderator: id because that's another math question. how do you do that? ryan: they proposed a $478 billion cut the defense. now have another $500 billion cut to defense that's looking on the horizon. they insisted upon that didn't involve into debt negotiations. >> moderator: let's put automatic defense cuts the site. no one wants that but i want to know how you do the math and at this increase in defense spending country you don't cut defense by a trillion dollars. >> moderator: what national security issue justify an increase? ryan: we look at 80,000 soldiers, 20,000 marines, 120 cargo planes. will push the joint -- >> moderator: and one more. ryan: our navy will be the smallest it has been since before world war i.

this invites weakness. look, we believe in peace through strength? you bet we do. it meant you don't impose its devastating cuts on our military. we are single custom military by a trillion dollars. not increase by a trillion. don't cut by a trillion dollars. biden: we don't advocate that i might add the so-called i don't know to what use vanessa were sequestered, automatic cut, that was part of the debt give if they asked for. let me tell you what my friend said at a press conference announcing his support of the do. he said and i'm paraphrasing, we've been looking for this moment for a long time. ryan: can do to you what that meant? we have one of bipartisanship for a long time. biden: he voted for automatic defense cuts that they didn't add. look, the military says we need a smaller, leaner army. we need more special forces. we don't need more m1 tanks.

not some of the military. that was a decision of the joint chiefs of staff. recommended to us and agreed to by the president. that's a fact. they made the recommendation first. >> moderator: let's move on to afghanistan. i'd like to move on to afghanistan. that's one of the biggest expenditures his country has made in dollars, norm poorly in lives. we discussed the that milestone of losing 2000 troops in this war. more than 50 were killed this year under afghan forces we are trying to help. we've reached the recruiting goal for afghan forces. we have degraded al-qaeda. so tell me why not leave now? what more can we really accomplish? isn't worth more american lives transport we don't want to lose the gains we've got the we want to make sure the taliban does not come back in and give al-qaeda a safe haven. we agree with the administration on the 2014 transition.

look, thin when i think about afghanistan i think about the incredible job that our troops have done the you have been there more than the two of us combined. versa i was there in 2000 do it was amazing what they were facing. i went to the argonaut now in kandahar before the search. i sat down with the young private and 82nd indian reservation to do what he did every day. i was in awe. and see what it in front of them, and go back in december to go to see with that accomplished, it's nothing short of amazing. what we don't want to do is lose the gains we've gotten. we have disagree from time to time on a few issues. we would have more likely taken into account the recommendations from our commanders, general petraeus, admiral mullen on troop levels drop this year's fighting season. we've been skeptical about negotiations with the taliban especially while they're shooting at us what we want to see the 2014 transition be successful.

that means we want to make sure our commanders have what they need to make sure that it is successful so that this i does that once again become a launching pad for terrorists. biden: martha, let's keep our eye on the ball. the reason i've been in afghanistan and iraq 20 times. i've been up in, throughout the whole country, mostly in helicopter and sometimes in a vehicle. the fact is we went there for one reason, to get those people who killed americans, al-qaeda your we have decimated al-qaeda central. we have eliminated osama bin laden. that was our purpose. and, in fact, in the meantime what we said we would do, we would help train the afghan military. it's their responsibility to take over their own security. that's why we 49 of our allies in afghanistan, we have agreed on a gradual drawdown so we are out of there by the year 2014.

my friends and the compass is based on conditions, which means it depends. it does not depend for us. it is the responsibility of the afghans to take care of their own security. we have trained over 315,000 molson without incident. there have been more than two dozen cases of green unglued what americans have been killed. if the measures the military has taken do not take hold, we will not go on joint patrols. we wil were not trained in the field. we will only train in the army bases that exists. but we are leaving. we are leaving in 2014. period. and in the process we are going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion. we have been in this war for over a decade. the primary objective is almost completed.

now all we are doing is putting the government in a position to build and maintain their own security. it's their responsibility, not america's. >> moderator: what conditions could justify staying, congressman ryan? ryan: we don't want to stay. look, when my best friends in janesville, reserves, is that a ford offered in based in afghanistan right now. our wives and daughters our best friend. i want him and all of our troops to come home as soon and safely as possible. we want to picture the 2014 is successful. that's why we want to make sure we give our commanders what they say they need to make it successful. we don't want to extend beyond 2014. that's the point we are making. if there was just this, i feel like we would be able to call this a success but it's not. what we are witnessing as we turn on our television screen these days is the absolute

unraveling of the obama foreign policy. albums are growing at home, province are going abroad but jobs are not going here at home translates he says we are absolutely leaving in 2014 -- >> moderator: you are saying that's not an absolute but you will talk about what conditions would justify. ryan: we don't want to broadcast to our enemies, put a date on your calendar, wait this out and then come back. we do agree with the timeline and the transition, but what any administration will do in 2013 is assess the situation to see how best to complete this timeline. what we do not want to do -- but we didn't want to do is give our allies reason to trust us less, and our enemies, we don't want to embolden our enemies to hold and wait out and then take over. biden: that's a bizarre statement.

49 of our allies, hear me, 49 of our allies signed on to this position, 49. 49 other allies set out in 2014. it's the responsibility of the afghans. >> moderator: we have afghan forces murdering our forces over there. the taliban is, do you think, taking advantage of this timeline try to look, the taliban, what we found out, you saw in iraq, martha. unless you set a timeline, baghdad in the case of iraq and kabul in the case of afghanistan will not step up. thethey're happy to let us conte to do the job. international security forces do the job. the only way they step up is safe i was, we are leaving, we have trained you, step up, step up. >> moderator: let me go back

to the surge of troops that we put in there, and she brought this up, congressman ryan. i've talked to a lot of trips. i talk to senior officers who were concerned that the surge troops were pulled out during the fighting season and some of them saw that as a political move. so can you tell me, vice president biden, what was the military reason for bringing those troops home? biden: by the way, when the president announced the search him you will remember, martha, he said the surge will be out by the end of the summer. the military said the surge will be out. nothing political about this. before the surge occurred, so you be straight with me, before the surge occurred, they said they will be out by the end of the summer. that's what the military said. the reason for that is -- >> moderator: the military follows orders to trust it, there are people concerned about

pulling out. biden: to our people concerned but not the joint chiefs. that was the recommendation in the oval office to the president of the united states of america. i sat there. i'm sure you'll find someone who disagrees with the pentagon. i'm positive you'll find that within the military but that's not the case. secondly, the reason why the military said that is you cannot wait and have a cliff. it takes months and months and months to drawdown forces. traffic let me illustrate the issue because i think this can be a little confusing. we've all met with the general out and to talk about fighting season. here's the way it works. than on past the silly with snow. the taliban and the terrorists come over from pakistan to fight our men and women. in the warm months the fighting gets really high. in the winter it goes down.

win admiral mullen and general petraeus came to congress and said if you pull these people out before the fighting season income it puts people at risk. that's the problem. we drew 22000 troops down last month, but the remaining troops that are there who still have the same mission to prosecute counterinsurgency are doing it with fewer people. that makes them less safe. we're sending fewer people out and all these hotspots to do the same job he was supposed to do a month ago. biden: we turned them over to the afghan troops. we trained. no one got pulled out that didn't get filled in by trained afghan personnel here he's conflating two issues. the fighting season that petraeus was talking about and former admiral mullen's was the fighting season this spring. that's what he was talking about.

we did not pull them out. ryan: the calendar works the same every year trim what it does work the same every year. transferred its warm or it's not the they're still fighting us. they're still coming over the passes. they are still coming in to all of these areas, but we are sending to people to the front to fight them, that's right because that's the afghan responsibility. we have trained them forever let's move to another war. biden: that's what we should sent americans into do the job instead of dashing you would rather americans going to do the job? ryan: no. fewer of them are in we are sending in more afghans to do the job. afghans to do the job. >> moderator: let's move to another war, the civil war in syria. there are estimates more than 40 -- 25,000, 30,000 people have

been killed. in march of last you president obama explained the military action taken in libya by saying it was in the national interest to go in and prevent for the massacres from occurring. so why doesn't the same logic applied in syria tragic it's a different country. it's a different country. it is five times as large and geographically. it is one-fifth the population that is libya. went to the population and five times larger geographically. it's been a part of the world where they will not see whatever would come from that war. seek into a regional war. you or any country that is heavily populated in the midst of the most dangerous area in the world, and, in fact, if, in fact, it blows up and one people gain control, it's going to impact on the entire region causing potentially regional wars. we are working hand in glove with the turks, with the jordanians, with the saudis and

with all the people in the region attempting to identify the people who deserve to help so that when president assad goes, and he will go, it would be a legitimate government that follows on, not an al-qaeda sponsored government that follows on. all this loose talk of my friend governor romney and the congressman about how we're going to do so much more in there. there. what more would they do other than put america boots on the ground? the last thing america needs is to get in another ground war in the middle east. requiring tens of thousands if not well over 100,000 american forces. they are the facts. they are the facts. every time the government has asked about this he doesn't say -- he goes up with a whole lot of verbiage but when he gets breast he says no, he would not do anything different then we're doing now. are they proposing putting american troops on the ground,

putting american aircraft in the air space? if they do they should speak up and say so. but that's not what they're saying. we are doing it exactly like we need to do to identify those forces who, in fact, will provide for a stable government and not cause a regional sunni-shia war when bashir assad falls. ryan: nobody is proposing to send troops to syria american troops. let me say it this way. how would we do things differently? we would not refer to bashar al-assad as a reformer when he's killing his own civilians with his russian provided weapons. we wouldn't the outsourcing our foreign policy to the united nations giving vladimir putin veto power over our efforts to try and deal with this issue. he has vetoed three than. hillary clinton went to russia to try and convince them not to do so. they thwarted her efforts.

she said they were on the wrong side of each of the she was right about that. this is one more example of how the russian reason is that working. after international pressure, then president obama's had bashar al-assad should go. it's been over a year. they may have slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people, and more foreign fighters are spilling into this country. the longer this is going on, the more groups like al-qaeda are going in. we could and were easily identified a free syrian army, the freedom fighters working with our allies, the turks, the saudis, had we had a better plan in place to begin with working through our allies. but no, we waited for kofi annan to try to come up with an agreement to the u.n. that bought bashar al-assad time. we gave russia veto power over our -- to the u.n. meanwhile, about 3000 syrians are dead. biden: what was my friend do

differently? notice he never answers the question. ryan: we would not be going to the u.n. at all. biden: we don't go through the u.n. we are in the process now and have been for months in making sure that health, humanitarian aid as well as other aid and training is getting to those forces that we believe, the turks believe, the jordanians believe, the saudis believe are the free forces inside of syria. that is under way. our allies were all on the same page. nato as well as our arab allies, in terms of trying to get a settlement. that was their idea to we are the ones that say enough. with regard to the reset not working, the fact of the matter is that rush has a different pitches in syria than we do, and that's not in our interest to what happens if assad does not fall, august then ryan rexx what happens if he hangs on ask what

happens if you does? ryan: i've been keep the greatest ally in the region. he is a sponsor of terrorism. he will probably continue slaughtering his people. we will lose our credibility on this. >> moderator: so what would romney-ryan do? ryan: we agree with the same redline they do on chemical weapons. but not putting american troops in other than to secure those chemical weapons. they are right about that, but what we should have done earlier is work with those freedom fighters, those dissidents in syria. we should not have called a sharp assad a reformer, and we should not have waited for russia to give us the green light at the u.n. russia still arming the man. iran is flying flights over iraq to help bashar al-assad. and by the way, if the status forces could that the vice

president said he would bet his vice president on and about we probably would've been able to prevent that. he failed to achieve as well. >> moderator: let me ask you, what is your criteria for intervention? ryan: in syria. >> moderator: worldwide. ryan: what is in the national study of the american people. it's got to be industry get national interest of our country. >> moderator: no humanitarian? ryan: each situation will come up with its own set of circumstances by putting american troops on the ground. that's going to be within the national security interest of the american people than five we are almost out of time. country embargoes and sanctionss and overflights are things that will put american troops on the ground. if you're talking about putting american troops on the ground, old in our national security interests. >> moderator: want to move on in return for these last few questions. this debate is indeed historic. we have two catholic candidates, first time on a state such as this. and i would like to ask you both

to tell me what role religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. please talk about how you came to that decision. talk about how your religion played a part in that. and please him this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country, please talk personally about this if you could. congressman ryan. ryan: i don't see every person can separate the public life from the private life or from their faith. our faith informs us in everything we do your my faith informs me about how to take care of affordable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life. now, you want to ask basically why i am pro-life. it's not simply because of my catholic faith. that's a factor, of course, but it's also because of reason and science. i think about 10 and a half

years ago my wife and i went to mercy hospital in janesville where i was born for our seven week ultrasound for our firstborn child. we saw that heartbeat. our little baby was in the shape of a been. and to this day we have nicknamed our firstborn child liza been. i believe that life begins at conception. that's why those are the reason why i am pro-life. now, understand this is a difficult issue in that respect people who don't agree with the on this, but the policy of a romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. what troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. look at what they are doing through obama to with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. there are infringing upon our

first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on catholic charities, catholic churches, catholic hospitals. our church should not have to sue to maintain their religious liberties. with respect to abortion, the democratic party just to say they want to be safe, legal and rare. now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer-funded. taxpayer funding and obamacare, with foreign aid. the vice president himself went to china and said he sympathized or would not second-guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. that to me is pretty extreme. >> moderator: vice president biden. biden: my religion defines who i am, and i have been a practicing catholic my whole life. it is particularly inform my social doctrine. it talks about taking care of

those who can't take care of themselves. people who need help. with regard to abortion, i accept my church's position on abortion as a doctrine. life begins at conception. i accepte accept it in my persoe but have refused to impose it on equally devout christians and muslims and back. i just refuse to impose on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. i do not believe that we have a right to tell other people women, that they can't control the body's. this is between them and their doctor. in my view. the supreme court, i'm not going to do with that. with regard to the assault on the catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear. no religious institution, catholic or otherwise, including

catholic social services, georgetown hospital, mercy, any hospital, nine has to be the referrer contraception, and nine has to pay for contraception, nine has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy to provide. that is a fact. that is a fact. with regard to the way in which we differ, my friend says that -- i guess except, romney's position at the end of pasties argued there was rape, forcible rape. he's argued that in in the case of rape or incest it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. i just fundamentally disagree with my friend. >> moderator: congressman ryan. ryan: all i'm saying is if you believe life begins at conception, that therefore doesn't change the definition of life.

that's the principle. the policy of a romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. i've got to take issue with the catholic church and religious liberty kind once you have. ryan: why would they keep assuming you? is a distinction without a difference. >> moderator: i want to go back to the abortion question. if the romney-ryan ticket is elected should those who believe abortion should remain legal be worried? ryan: we don't think unelected judges should make this decision, the people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society for the democratic process should make this determination. biden: the next president will get one or two supreme court nominees. that's how close role the wait is. just ask yourself. roe v. wade. with robert bork mean the chief

advisor. who do think he is likely to appoint christie think is likely to point someone like scalia or someone else on the court, far right that would outlaw planned -- excuse me, outlaw abortion? i guarantee you that will not happen. we pick two people. we pick people open-minded. they have been a good justices, so keep an eye on the supreme court in 100 -- people who did not have an open mind did not come with an agenda and that i'm going to move onto this close in question because we're running out of time. you have cited here tonight that the two of you respect our troops enormously. your son has served, and perhaps someday your children will serve as well. i've easily spoke to a highly decorated soldier who said that this presidential campaign has left him this made. he told me quote the ads are so

negative and they're altering to each other rather than building up the country. what would you say to that american hero about this campaign? and at the end of the day, are you ever embarrassed by the tone? vice president biden? biden: i would say the same thing campus it to my son who did serve in iraq. that we'll have one truly sacred obligation as a government. that's to equip those we sent into harm's way and care for those who come home. that's the only sacred obligation we have. everything else falls behind that. i would also tell him that the fact that he, this decorated soldier you talked about font for his country, that that should be honored. he should not be thrown into a category of 47% who don't pay their taxes while he was out the

fighting and not having to pay taxes and someone not taking responsibility. i would also tell them that they're things that have occurred in this campaign, a occurring every campaign that i'm sure both of us regret anyone having said, particularly in these special new groups that can go out there, raise all the money they want, not have to identify themselves as a the most scurrilous things about the other candidate. it's an abomination. the bottom line is i would ask that hero you referenced to take a look at whether or not governor romney for president obama has the conviction to uplift of the middle-class, restore them to where they were before this great recession hit and they got wiped out, or whether or not he's going to continue to focus on taking care of only the very wealthy, not asking them to pay any part of the deal, to bring back the middle-class and the economy of this country. i would ask him to take a look

at whether the president has acted wisely and the use of force and whether or not the slipshod comments being made by my friend, by governor romney, serve our interest very well. but there are things that have been set in campaigns that i find not very appealing. ryan: first of all i would thank him for service. second of all i would say will not oppose these devastating cuts on her military which compromise their mission and the their safety. then i would say you have a president who ran for president four years ago promising hope and change it was now turned his campaign into attack, blame and the thing. you see, if you don't have a good record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone to run from. that was a president obama said in 2008. that's what he is doing right now. look at all the string of broken promises.

if you like your health care plan you can keep the. try telling that to the 20 in who are projected to lose their health insurance if obama goes through or of the 7.4 million seniors who will lose it. remember when he said this, i guarantee if you make less than $250,000, your taxes will not go out. of the to and tax increases, 12 hit the middle-class. or remember when he said health insurance been so go down, $2500 per family per year. they have gone up 3000 expected to go up another 2400. or remember when he said i promise i will cut the deficit in half in four years. we've had for budgets, $4 trillion deficit. at that crisis is coming. we can't keep spending and borrowing like this. we can't keep spending money we don't have. leaders run the problems that fix problems or president obama has not been put a credible plan on the table in any of his four years to deal with this debt

crisis. i've had to budget to do with this. mitt romney has good deals on the table. we have to tackle this problem before tackles us. the president gave a speech. we assess budget office can we see the plan? they sent us to his press secretary. he gave us a copy of the speech. tells the president obama's plan is to prevent the debt crisis. they said it's the speech. we can't estimate speeches. that's what we get in this administration, speeches. we are not getting leadership. mitt romney is uniquely qualified to fix these problems. his lifetime of experience, his proven track record of bipartisanship, and what we have from the president? he broke his promise to bring people together to solve the country's biggest problems. we don't have to settle for this we can do better than this. from what i hope i will give people time. >> moderator: you get a few minutes, a few seconds really. biden: the two budgets the congressman introduced have eviscerated all the things the

middle-class cares about. it is not, it will knock 19 million people off of medicare. it will kick to 1000 people off early education. it will eliminate a tax credit people have to go to send their children to college. it cuts education by $450 billion. it does virtually nothing except continued to increase the tax cuts for the very wealthy. we've had enough of this. the idea that these come he's so concerned that these deficits, i pointed out he voted to put two boards on a credit card or he did it turns out we're going closing statements enemy. you will have . biden: by the way, our budget, 3% instead of 4.5% like the proposed. [talking over each other] >> moderator: want to talk to you very briefly before the closing statements about your own personal character. if you were elected, what could

you both give to this country as a man, as a human being that no one else could? ryan: honesty. no one else could? there are plenty of the people who could lead this country. but what you need are people who when they say they will do something, they could do it. what you need is when people see problems, they offer solutions to fix those problems. we are not getting that. look, we can grow this economy faster. that's what our plan is all about. it's about getting 12 million people jobs. that means going with pro-growth policies we know the works to get it back to work. putting ideas on the table, working with democrats. that actually works sometimes. >> moderator: we'll get to the issue of what you can bring as a man to a human being? i will keep you to about 15 seconds. biden: he gets 40, i get 15 likes let me tell you, my record

stands for itself the i never see anything i don't mean. everybody knows what ever i say i do. and my whole life has been devoted to leveling the playing field for middle-class people, given an even break, between main street and wall street holding the same responsibly. look at my record. it's been all about the middle-class. they are the people grow this company. >> moderator: we now turn to the candidates for the closing statements. thank you, gentlemen, at that point house again as vice president biden starting with closing comments. biden: let me say at the outset that i want to thank you, martha, for doing this, and the fact is we are in a situation where we inherited a god-awful circumstance, people are in real trouble. we acted to move to bring relief to the people who need the most help now. and in the process we, in case

you haven't noticed, we have strong disagreements but you probably detected my frustration with their attitude about the american people. my friend says that 30% of the american people are takers. mitt romney points at 47% of the people will not take responsibility he's talking about my mother and father, the places i grew up in, my neighbor. is talking about the people who built this country. all they're looking for, martha, is an even shot. when they're given a shot, they have done it. they have done. whenever you level the playing field they've been able to move. they want a little peace of mind. the president and i are not going to rest until the playing field is leveled. they, in fact, had a clear shot and the of peace of mind. mind. until they can turn to the kids and say with a degree of confidence tiny, it's going to be okay. it's going to be okay. that's what this is all about.

>> moderator: congressman ryan traffic i want to thank you as well, martha, and so kentucky and thank you, joe. it's been an honor to engage in this critical debate. we face a very good choice. what kind of country are going to be? what kind of country are going to give our kids? president obama had his chance. he made his choices. his economic agenda, more spending, more borrowing, our taxes, a government takeover of health care. it's not working. it's filled degrade the jobs we need to 23 million americans are struggling for work today. 15% of americans are in poverty. this is not what a real recovery looks like. you deserve better. mitt romney and i want to earn your support. we are offering real reforms for a real recovery for every american. mitt romney, his experience, his

ideas, his solutions is uniquely qualified to get this job done. at a time when the jobs crisis, wouldn't it be nice to have a job creator in the white house? the choice is clear. a stagnant economy that promotes more government dependency, right and growing economy that provides opportunity and jobs. we will not duck the tough issues. we will not blame others for the next for years but we will take responsibility, and we will not try to replace our founding principles. we will be applied our founding principles to the choice is clear. and a choice rests with you got to ask you for your vote. thank you. >> moderator: thank you both again. thank you very much. this concludes the vice presidential debate. lease to end next tuesday for the second presidential debate at hofstra university in new york. i martha raddatz of abc news.

i do all of you go to the polls. have a good evening. [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the next president making appointments to the supreme court of the united states will be president donald trump spill with hillary clinton in the white house the rest of the world will never forget why it always looked up to the united states. >> c-span's campaign 2016 continues on the road to the white house with the vice presidential debate featuring mike pence and tim kaine tonight live from longwood university in fargo virginia begin at 7:30 p.m. eastern with a preview of the debate. at 8:30 p.m. the predebate briefing for the audience. at 9 p.m. live coverage of the debate followed by your reaction. the 2016 vice presidential debate. watch live on c-span, anytime on-demand at c-span.org, and

listen live on the free c-span radio app. wil trebled offers just, ray stouffer of longwood university. he is a comedic asian studies assistant professor and join us. good morning. >> guest: good morning. how you doing?g? can one find thank you. talk about your role as ae professor in the debate and specifically what they been teaching your students about not only today but this years election? >> guest: my area of research is political communications of this mess i've been teaching a class would look at how the candidates communicate. we haven't so much looking at the students feel about the candidates around issues but about how the candidates are talking issues. we see this year especially with hillary clinton and donald trump a lot of character appeals, talking about the personalityd qualities they have to become president have to become president has posted policies fowith specific things like tha. i've been able to talk about

that in my one class and then, of course, it goes on other classes as well, i teach a lot of journalism.a leadin such a leading news story of the day and also becoming to longwood come an exciting time l and lives immediate influence on politics as well hostmac have your students dash ont audit cae directly involved in tonight's event? >> guest: they all are. is an exciting. fodder since for whatever cnn, fox. with students, abc is doing a feed for all the broadcasters innocent students will be in the trailer with them. i know if some students who've been driving golf carts around and shuttling people around.ts being a media focus major w we f students all over the place anda giving an unbelievable opportunity with all the media on campus. >> host: to talk about the significance of the university and the role that is played and the hosting of the debate? >> guest: we are one of the

100 oldest public institutions in the country, and on one end of our campus, the civil into debt on the other end brown v. board of education got its start. we have a lot of history, love civil rights history. being attacked afghanistan in such a politically active and politically historic state of virginia, they campus and in itself has played a large will and to think that tracking the debate and also attracting all the media attention here. we've been blessed to have three networks to all the liveore than broadcasts, more than that even, doing all the live broadcast from the campus. i think the narrative of history and connecting civil rights and civil war and where we're going out a special with our general education reforms, longwood has played a large role in attracting the vice presidential debate house of representatives some of your involvement with your students, i and not specifically you don't engage on their personal politics but have expressed a morbid interest in voting? weatherby first-time voters when

his particularly about their specific role in the electionwha process. what you take away from theest: students? >> guest: i think a 22 students in my class and asked they won, how many of yo you a registered voter? about 17 were registered to vote.ne weeg were. last week i forced them all into the key to to sit down and registered an elegant to all 22 are registered to vote. for the most part our sins are engaged.en a lot of them is the first presidential election they will get an opportunity to vote in. they're getting sick of the candidates. we have a different year this year in terms of weight candidates are talking to voters and then out of media coverage.i we are kind of getting inundated with the coach of both these candidates. i think they're engaged. their political leanings are pretty strong to the left definitely but there are definite engaged and excited for the election, excited to get the opportunity to vote hostmac as someone who studies political

communications then, talk a little bit about my -- mike pence and tim kaine. what we tasted to the would expect in the we tell our audience as well? >> guest: this can be very interesting not to me. we saw last monday at hofstra we had a debate mostly focused on broad picture character issues. we had clinton addressing simples issue but then it will be interesting because will get a lot more policy information to a lot more policy platform.s what abuses he is what mike pence does. is he going to go more of addition republican party platform or is he going to break up some policies or expand on donald trump policies. we have heard before. i'm not quite sure what tim kaine will be discussing. more traditional republican part our something expand on donald trump are even losing some new policies from donald trump. i think the religious factor will come up a lot tonight both tim kaine and mike pence are, religion plays a large part in

their governing, their previous political life. i think the issue will come up to me. i think we'll see a lot of a different debate tonight than we did last monday and we see this coming weeks. much more policy focus and much more religious focus. it will be an interesting debate and lie like any other debate we'll see in 2016. >> host: ray stouffer is this is a professor for communication studies with an interest not only in politics but tonight's debate.ba thanks for your time. >> guest: thank you so much, pedro. >> go to c-span.org this evening for the vice presidential debate on your desktop, phone or tablet. watch live streams of the debate and video on demand of every question to the candidates and their interest. use rvu clipping tool to create video clips of your favorite debate moments to share on social media, not able to watch? listen live on c-span radio app.

it's free to download from the app store or google play. live coverage of the vice presidential debate this evening on c-span.org and the c-span radio app. >> road to the white house coverage continues today with hillary clinton making a campaign stop in harrisburg, pennsylvania, this afternoon. she will be urging pennsylvanians to register to vote with a week remaining before the october is the deadline to c-span of live coverage starting at 3:45 p.m. eastern. we will be live with the donald trump campaign rally in prescott valley arizona that starts a fight the eastern as he continues on a swing through western states. >> our c-span campaign 2016 bus is traveling throughout new york this week asking voters, what is the most important issue to you in this election and why? >> my name is mark, i'm a master student from buffalo, new york,

and i'm the president of the student assembly. i would like to see addressed in the skipping issues of higher education. diversity equity and inclusion, mental health, student loan interest rates and campus safety are critical now more than ever. what are you going to with to ensure these issues are not only addressed but the student voice is at the table? >> my name is brian higgins. i'm a member of congress from the 26th congressional district of new york. ..