houses. we know that the bill does accommodate certain commercial users. we think that that is inappropriate dividing line. i think that we need to hold the line to serve 90% of the transactions with financial entities. it is a horrible place to sit in the treasury department to think about if you can let a bank fail? if you let it fail, it might bring that down with it. all of a sudden, that treasury secretary will say that they cannot let the bank failed. we do not want to let the foreign credit system go. . .

>> you need not use a central clearing trading. in addition, if you are talking about a contract that is not a standardized contract that the firm in needs, that is also not

subjective the center requirements. there is enormous flexibility built in to the chairman's bill with respect to the need for commercial firms in our economy what we want to avoid is a situation in which the financial sector avoids central clearing and transparency requirements. the want to have a system in which anh bank should be using central clearing and exchange trading. that is important to the safety of our system. it is important for protecting the community banks from large wall street firms on the other side of the deals. there is a central counterparty. we think that is critical not to open up the possibilities.

>> iwas going to point out some differences at the appropriate time, but i'd the key race inappropriate point. we ought to discuss this now. room there are not many differences with the changes that have them made. >> then we will go to your amendment. >> with respect to the exchange trading issue that the witnesses have talked about, endusers are not asking for the mandatory exchange trading. the exchanges themselves simply will not work. it is a practical matter. it will not work. the only advantage we sell was in post-trade price reporting. we agreed to. we think it ought to be done.

that is part of the transparency the one thing that you and i have agreed on from day one is the fact that at the end ofthe day, there needs to be 100% transparency of all transactions that are taking place. today we have minimal transparency. that only came about in recent months. we agree on that. where we disagree is with the 10% of the contracts. let me give a couple of examples of why i think this is so important. why the change senator lugar referred to it is not covered here. the treatment of the end users are going not to exempt our

community banks who may not use derivatives on a regular basis. they do from time to time. all of a sudden, if they are plenty treated like goldman sachs or jpmorgan or these other major dealers on wall street. i do not think that is what we intended. we got a better decking to you in came to me. that me quote a provision. i think this highlights the unintended consequences of the provision. what this letter dated yesterday says, "under the provisions of the bill, farm credit would be required to submit swaps to clearing organizations and ultimately trade them on exchanges despite the fact that they are being used only to manage commercial risk and enhance the product flexibility. there are additional costs associated with these requirements which will impact the farmers, cooperatives and

others. -- and others." those ridges the unintended consequences of the chairman's mark. if we make it more expensive for these lending institutions to hedge risk, they will be forced to raise the prices to cover the costs. i think they require a swat transaction that is required to be clear and be traded on an exchange that is a new type of exchange that will be operated like an electronic trading platform. i know this is your idea. we cannot understand it, because the compromise that we have required clearing in public reporting -- i understand what

the purpose of the mandatory trading is the still have to be cleared. thirdly, the chairman contains a provision from preventing anyone from being able to borrow money or receive any type of federal assistance. this is characterized as an anti-bailout provision. frankly, the effect of it is much more than just preventing bailout. large banks need to maintain access to the fed's discount window. with this provision in place, large banks are not going to be able to access that discount window if they engage in swath dealing prevent the account for 99% of the u.s. market. if we get them out to the market, the end users and not want to have another party that they can engage in.

the chairman's mark states that capital for those transactions that are not cleared should be significantly higher than those that apply to transactions that are clear produce everybody agrees -- i talked to secretary timothy geithner last night about this. pan am chairman lincoln does. we all agreed that there are some transactions that should not be cleared. they are not systemically risky. they are specifically given the end user exemption. if we are going to be quiet those folks who are not 6 the merkley risky to oppose -- systemically risky to pose higher remarks, it does not make sense. they need this capital to buy

airplanes or equipment to manufacture tractors fop's. senator lugar, i think there is the opportunity to get this done and to close this gap even more. some of the things i talked about i think are the unintended consequences and the chairman would agree with me i know secretary geithner would agree that we need to move in that direction. i hope that whether we are able

to do it right here or whether we are going to be discussing this at a table with all of this over the next couple of days as this bill comes to the floor, and that we can reach forward on these changes which are significant, but at least they are minor in number. with that, i hope that clarifies it. >> this to say they you are right. we are not that far apart. there are some definite differences. financial institutions are financial institutions. i think that is something that all of this have been concerned about. certainly, in terms of the capital requirements, those individuals have a choice in terms of what they can do.

i do think it'll be important that the capital requirement exists in some form or fashion to be able to insure that that is the back of. -- back up. >> it hank you to the chair. i wantto thank you. we have had a lot of good discussions in your office with dawn and martha. they will not be swap dealers or major swap participants. unless they decided to be. they are farm credit banks and

not in the business of buying and selling swaps and making markets. i recommend that the transactions -- if they enter into a transaction with the big wall street stock produce what dealer, we want to protect that community and that credit system. that major bank one day may fail. every three or five years, it looks like banks fail. i believe in america we should have the freedom to fail. these major banks should be allowed to fail. we are all grappling is that the taxpayers not standing behind it. every exemption makes it more likely that the tac payers stands behind the bailout.

on the spot execution, i know that i have been an advocate on the benefits of transparency. i think this helps every end user to have public transparent trading. and now we agree on that. i do think that these swap execution facilities grant a little more for the small transactions. there has to the volume in it. the manager amendments include additional language that says there has to be block trading exceptions. those would not be -- do not

have to show a billion dollar trade to your competitors before hand. where there is high volume -- i think trading does bring additional bigger to economists. economists say it actually lowers costs to commercial end users. the fourth issue and then i will turn to the third --the commercial end users are not on to be caught up in margins if i'm reading this correctly. i do not know that is a clarification for the ranking member. as i read the bill, the large swap dealers would have to have

capital stand behind it. the reason to have higher capital is that they keep it on their books rather than moving it to clearing. then they have more risk. that is why they have to have higher capital. but the chairman does the says that is not one to be necessary to have that margin. the federal reserve and treasury has to think through these issues. i do think that what the chairman and is trying to address is how do we avoid taxpayer standing behind the swap dealers. we need to do that by bringing the 90% that this is doing into this clearing house, bringing

this transparency comprehensively. >> thank you for the conversations we have had. it is part of our mutual effort to get comprehensive financial reform passed th. i do think we have made enormous progress together and bring greater transparency into the derivatives market. and improving the resiliency of the system for t and for major participants in the market.

i would decreagree that the existence of pre trade transparency contribute importantly to reducing costs and the system overall for our country as a whole, for completion of -- for commercial and the users. it will require some adjustment. it will mean lower spreads for swap dealers. that is one to be an adjustment. i think it is going to be good for commercial and users what did they trade their exchanges.

it will improve pricing in the system. that function will also improve the ability of regulators to measure and assess the risk that they are facing in their own transaction. we think it is an important tool for that reason as well. i would agree that it is important to distinguish the end users community from the question a major swap participants. this goes to the question of, should we think of farm credit institutions as being in users? we agree with the chairman ginsberg that financial institutions should not be end users. there participants of the system. there are significant risks that will increase the chance of failure and that system.

the financial institutions are not treated that swap dealers. major swap participants have important capital requirements. in addition to those that would otherwise be required of them but it the exemption from the central clearing requirement is with respect to the central clearing requirement. it is a separate requirement from provincial oversight. with respect to capital requirements, we do think this is important for the financial world's that if i'm a financial company that i need to post a higher margin for and cleared

trade picture and a provider of trade, i should hold higher capital. we are in the -- protecting the taxpayers. that is an important effort of the financial reform effort. it is embodied in the basic approach here. we would be happy to work with the chairmen, with the ranking member and others on the provision in question we make

sure that we do not push activity into less regulated spaces. i think there is room to work together on these issues. >> thank you. i will say that i certainly count our ranking members as a close friend and partner. we have worked together before this legislation. the board as partners together on developing the major part. we will remain working partners after this committee finishes their work here today.

crack>> thank you. you have a very good bill here. it is one i am supportive of. some of the recent changes i must say concern me. the test to do with the definition of end user. every exemption shows a link

between the the year in the bailout. every size of the financial system we cut out would allow one bank's failure to spread like fire. i'm trying to get a handle on section 113, page 27. i'm trying to understand this but if i'm not mistaken, i believe to be close to the eron loophole. a thing that distemp -- i'm goio the financial entities. illus national gas and electricity it says in teaser

clearing exemption subject to cause two. it says that it counterparty who is a commercial user -- and user may elect not to clear the swap purda. it seems to mea that i do know that these have to report it in real time. i got that. that is wonderful. i question whether not have the capability . how much personality going to require to the that every transaction that comes in in real time to be able to discern whether there is abuse going on? will these things as pilots?

barry down there was a transaction we almost pried open the in line -- the loophole with them. >> i think you and i share to concerns that i heard. one is the resources. two is having any end user exception. i felt as this debate has evolved consistently that we should bring all the transactions into the clearing house. i appreciate there has been a tremendous and help the debate

the non financial entities mfg. prada -- manager. we would like to continue our relationship with wall street. we have an honest difference. in the manager's amendment, i think a very logical distinction statistically -- the non-financial and users, the commercial ones that are carved out our 9% for the world wide interest-rate. it covers 90%.

they are more prone to fail. if they walk in and say we are going to bring down the credit system, so i think this provision here covers the 90%. >> and do not know if it is 10% or 15%. i'm not certain it is 90%. what it is 10% or 20%, you do not have the personnel. these are reported.

i'm not so certain about that. it could be offset by because the would-be incurred. >> everyone that meet me get my pie charts. on the cause, i think there to things we need. we need about two injured 15 more staff. did we need about 250 more staff. we are also going to need a lot more spending on technology. even in the futures market today, we need to use 21st

century computing power to look at these markets. we are embarked on that. >> i mentioned that. i will still continue to but that this. i just have a great concern about your ability to catch these. i still think the more transparent any of the swaps are, every swap has to be transferred. everyone has to be put out there for everyone to see. even if it is the customized swaps between two people. it may involve a derivatives that have a profound effect on a lot of the economy. if these are not caught early on, they can build up. i am concerned about that. maybe my concern will be debated

as we get into this. i do not know. that is one concern. whether or not the -- i know these financial entities are those that are closely aligned with the manufacturing that type of thing. quite frankly, it occurs to me that those kind of over-the- counter swaps -- that has been my position for a long time ago. we are going to have over the

counter swaps. hopefully we can give you the authority to print them out for transparency. the key field and let the leading to an abuse, and does have a real concern about this card out. >> thank you and nothing any of us assume that is going to be capable of doing this. i think that'll be up to appropriators to make that happen. there are several understanding that they will need a staff. i think that is important .

i would say to the financial pieces you were talking about, this is something that we are particularly interested in. you have done a tremendous job in helping us figure out an awful lot of the things that need to happen. you work on resolving those issues. >> if i can make a clarification. the draft anticipated the extent issues that you are talking about, the capability for the commission to actually oversee all of these uncleared swaps that may be occurring and how you are able to sort 3 them.

they are all to be reported. one is a clearing house that has trade surveillance and monitoring capabilities. we are actually catching upper to fraud or manipulation separately, the swap dated depositories. there will be receiving the trade. there are built into the requirement. they must have automated systems in place for receiving, analyzing, and screening unfair swaps so they can use the data as their file cabinets. it is not like throwing a bunch

of 7 to the file cabinet. it to have an electronic system that can be used for monitoring data. they do not have the ability to sort through this depository brities. >> it to be on page 46 under subsection c, duties of the suppository. i would point you to c-5 that says it establishes automatic systems for monitoring,

screening, and analyzing swap data, including frequency of the in the using clearance claims. >> of one to be able to read this. >> i'm looking at my revision. i have it on page 46. line 27 through 30. i just found it.

>> of the to draw your attention to two provisions above that which are also intended to make it. section 2 requires that a confirm with both counterparties with the data was submitted. i would sit in your livinookingt 4. it has to provide direct electronic access to the commission so it can utilize the systems in debt and that they have. this is intended to permit the depositor to be used on a daily basis. >> we will continue to work with you. we understand your concerns.

we will go to that amendment. thank you for the patients. >> i want to go to the question of repositories obverses repository. in my mind i, but but there is going to be one repository. as i read this and go through it, it becomes clear to me that there would be the possibility of multiple. is that correct? >> that is true. today that our swap data repositories both in the u.s. as low as europe. they are actually existing today. it seems like it is possibly breaking down on a regional basis as opposed to being an international side .

>> the concern that the raises in my mind is, how you have ordination between potentially dozens or hasnhundreds of repositories? it strikes me that it could create its own complexity. somebody help me understand how you coordinate if there are dozens or hundreds of repositories? >> though i do not think there will be hundreds, i think you raise an important wine. information will be housed the clearing houses and repositories. i believe the bill has clear authority from the sec to write rules about how information is brought in, how it is shared. i would envision we would have public hearings. we really looked to make sure there is a uniformity with

regard to identification codes and key information. we will need to abrogate this information. we are policing the markets f. it is a very real issue. we will have to quickly and electronically link persistence. i believe it gives a statutory authority. -- to oversee the information issues. >> tonight to say in a previous life itself that the mundane thing to do. i worry very much and see the potential for many repositories. how you coordinate

identification codes say you do not wind up with a pilot garbage at the end and nobody can make head or tails. >> we complete the share your call. we are grappling with the global market. we would like to work with the. we really think that the sec needs a clear statutory authority to write rules to narrow that, recognizing there will be some geographic repositories. >> i would just like to care fly to care f -- clarify. it specifically is on standard settings. odata collection, i did vacatio. we address that directly.

we are making sure that everybody is using the same codes so that they can talk to each other. >> let me pursue that if i can. this is a u.s. law that we are talking about. this is obviously involving international transactions. how do leisure ordination between depositories around the world? i understand that you have done the best he can do with respect to the u.s. law. how do we fisher that this is done with international entities

since many of these are international transactions? >> i think you have hit on exactly the right point. we need to focus that we have the standard position necessary so that they can link with the tether. they can have adequate authority to make standards are built them. there will need to be a to witness to the sec process. it keeps the standard uniform and interoperable in the united states. we have been engaged in greeley conversations on this topic since the beginning of the administration. we are working international to raise the standards. we have been focused on the derivatives conversation.

they have been deeply engaged in the process. >> the me ask one final question. it goes back to the farm credit issue. you said that as you read it, farm credit will not be considered a swap dealer nor a major swap participants. there it only be a swap dealer if they went out and made a market burd. i do not think anyone does that. there are three major in the

dialogue. i am not familiar enough with their physicians. it is incidental to hedge their business. before we get to the floor, could we get a written analysis from treasury? with respect to specific analysis of credit on those issues? >> we would be happy to try and assist the committee on that. >> i will not be for others.

we will not support saying a particular kind of financial institution is excluded from the system of derivatives regulation. to the extent that just flipping the approach a different way, to the extent that it is a swap dealer, they should be regulated like a swap dealer. the extent that a farm credit institution is engaged in a swap transaction, they should essentially clear and exchange trading in that transaction. we do nothing there should be any special rules for the farm credit system. we think this approach will lower costs for agricultural businesses, commercial businesses, and to improve the resilience of the system. instead of having a large wall street firm on the other side of the transaction, you had a regulated central clearing party.

the point is to wring extra costs of the system. >> @ asaph did they support that. i know there is a thing called in and curtains. -- inadvertence exists up there. the biggest of the and the definitions. we have every intention of making certain that anyone who is the majors was participant gets treated that way. >> what is your expectation? -- as to whether or not as a practical matter the farm credit system would not be defined as

an end user? >> we would agree with the approach that says to financial institutions, regardless of their particular form of character she not the end users. they shall not be exempted as in the users. they should not be treated as end users. we would suggest treating farm credit institutions the same as other financial institutions. it is a standardized transaction. they are able to get centrally cleared. it then they should do so. we do not anticipate that such an institution would likely be a major swap participants are swap

dealer. to the extent that they are, they should be treated the same as any other financial institution engaged in that transaction. >> as a practical matter, and not aware of any -- that it is actively a swap deal. i will go back to the mark up. which probably get to the issue

at hand . that to be the amendment. >> he raises a good point. but me just say that in the farm credit council letter, they talk about the fact that the farm credit system has complete access to all of our swap information. i do not know how much they are engaged. they obviously are engaged. this bill would require them to have higher capital standards this is one area that we need to cover. this is one of the things we have concerns with.

but we quickly and the aegis fella did my concern. on page 52, for the over-the- counter there is a significantly higher capital requirement. that is an issue that has to be resolved. you made the statement that the execution facilities will not require additional cost on the part of the user. here is the way i see this. right now you have wanted wants to enter into a swap

transaction. you've got an entity that handles swap transactions and put a and b together produce. it is going to marry up of those two parties in a swap transaction. it is likely that the same entity is going to be the facilitator. that is the way i see this working. they are going to charge this manufacturer a fee. then they are going to charge a fee as the facilitator. then it has got to be clear. rattigan sanctus country dews costs, i think it is going to be more.

we are going to have to think through and find out a way to make sure we do not increase the cost. dealers are required to clear. it has to be resolved. they are dealers. they are going to have to clear. but they cannot have access to the discount window, it is not going to work. thanks to going to have to have access for the discount. those are the four issues that i think we are not going to resolve here this morning. >> there is a recent wall street is opposed to the requirement.

it shifts the information advantage slightly to war corporations and their produce toward corporations and their customers. they do shifted. -- shift it. this is not the goal of the legislation. it gives you a sense that trading requirements wall street interests are to keep inefficient markets. this chair is promoting efficient markets. >> that is what my amendment does. the idea of elimination of too big to bear has been agreed to buy books on both cited the aisle.

the one to make sure we accomplish that. community banks may be dealing with someone that ultimately might fail. a one to shade -- i want to make sure we are protecting them. we need to make sure they are not systemically risky -- i think they some what i am reading now is that the potential is there to do that. we just need to maintain this dialogue and try to make sure we get it right. with that, i would ask a question. >> i appreciate that. >> just to reiterate, i do appreciate some of your efforts in the process. there are some tough decisions that we came to.

you and i work together. we had on this conversation. we did simply ran out of time in terms try to find a way to do with those differences. we are talking about an increased cost to them. it is such a minuscule part of their process. i have to believe that there is some place to -- for us to be. we make sure we will return concerns. i thank you for that. >> i would just like someone to briefly explain the difference between your mark and the institute.

>> there is concern about the end user exemption. secondly, the chairman did a good job of expanding that. this requiring swap execution facilities to handle transactions such going to be cleared in u.n., -- anyway, i do not know the rationale for that. the provision that says if you are a bank and you are a dealer in swaps, they did not have access to the discount window.

fourthly, the requirement for significantly -- a significant increase in margin requirements for over-the-counter trades. >> they can choose with their in user exemption . they can choose to clear and where they clear. they are subject to the capital requirements and regulations. they become more systemically relevant to the economy.

>> i have been waiting patiently. >> i know you have. >> on the bipartisan agreement. could of the recognized? >> absolutely. >> i appreciate all the dissertations offered by the witnesses. i feel that they all deserve this. i want to speak comparted the bipartisan substitute amendment the we are going to consider dry now. i really want to think the chair and ranking member for working so diligently to come to an agreement. that has been a six month

effort. staff has been working for six months to come up with the bipartisan agreement. i hear our constituents calling for democrats and republicans. of what is to roll of our sleeves and do the work. we like to think that we do that i have enjoyed working as a bucket to tear in the house. it has been my observation that the differences are reasonable not political. we do not really patterson of sun the back. at the ended the day, we know their positions.

i am very disappointed in listening to all of this and give -- to all of this. i know we want to work together and move forward.

>> "washington journal" continue straigs.

host: joining us is jon- christopher bua of the sky news. joining us on the phone is the sky news political editor who moderated last night's debate. what is your general reaction to last -- yesterday's debate? guest: the extraordinary thing about their reaction to the date is that it continues to keep this general election absolutely alive, and the debates are clearly transforming the british political race in a way that nobody expected. basically what is happening is that the liberal democrats, headed by nick clegg, are running in second or first place. this really completely open some -- opens up what could be the outcome when the british people vote on may 6. host: are you surprised by how

the debates, which is the first time an american-style debate -- both of you, are you surprised about how they have been received over there? guest: well, at sky news campaign for these debates, and we always thought they were an obvious way, frankly, to bring up politics closer to the people. approved in the pudding has been in the eating -- but the proof in the pudding has been in the eating. millions of people have watched these debates, and when asked about them, they are showing that the debates are shaping and changing their opinion on how they are going to vote. it is what you expect the debate to do. it is true that the moves we had seen in the british general election as a result the debates are unprecedented. guest: high, -- hi, adam,

a great job last night. great being your colleague. this was the master stroke, believe are not, by the head of but sky news, who fought vigorously to get this entire concept of a live televised tv debate into the british electoral system. he worked hard and furious and it did work. as we saw last night, the product was one where people really fell engaged at were really excited about the concept. i think it has changed british politics forever. i think you don't need much time to catch up. host: let me ask you about the style of the debate. how did you decide the format, the rules, and if you could address where the candidates stood last night? guest: well, once the principle of agreement from the three current party leaders was reached, the broadcaster's collectively, pdc -- bbc, itv, and sky set up common rules for

the three debates which were going to take place. they are fairly close to what you have seen in your moderated debates and the united states, perhaps a little bit shorter. one of the issues, as you say, is where the leaders stand. it is a bit of a problem, because gordon brown, as a result of a schoolboy injury, has only got sight in one eye. he is stuck at the podium on the right of your screen as you watch it. clegg and cameron have been swapping around between the other two podiums. last night, at nick clegg was in the middle, which some people might see as more appropriate for a centrist party. but previously he was on the left-hand side of the stage. for the final debate, taking place next thursday, i understand there is going to

have to be a negotiation between the teams to decide whether clegg or cameron takes center stage. host: adam boulton, our viewers who are used to watching american-style debates are used to seeing a red button that says the time -- some sort of device that says the time is running out, time has expired. do you have that yet? it seems like you had to jump in but you had to jump in once there was more of a free style debate happening. each candidate had one minute to address the question and then one amende -- one minute to respond, and then it was kind of free-for-all. guest: that is right. they were remarkably well- behaved. we did not put a clock or red button, but within their i said, there was a clock ticking down. by and large they stuck to that. but we did allow a free style debate where there was no guarantee that everyone would get time on each question,

although i had to keep an eye to make sure nobody quite hogged it. overall, again, i think what we have seen is that the british political leaders -- you know, i tip my hat off to them for agreeing to hurt do this, making sure that david and -- for agreeing to do this, making sure that they really understood the rules when they got into the studio. that said, the critics of the debates in the conservative party in particular bought on the labor side as well are saying that big mistake the parties have made was to ever go on stage with three parties, because nick clegg has really gone in and stolen about 1/3 of the votes out there that the liberal democrats have never had before, and that is what is upsetting the apple cart in this election. host: i think a lot of american viewers are going to be watching this for our next elections, and

allowing a third party or promoting more of a third-party candidate in this country. guest: i mean, let me put an idea to you. we know that on both sides of the atlantic, there is a lot of disenchantment with conventional politics. just suppose that the tea party movement ran an independent candidate, not republican or democrat. what sort of impact would that have on american debate? host: we will talk about that more with jon-christopher bua, but before you go, i want to ask you how you prepared for your job as a moderator. guest: i, like most of your working moderator's -- like most of your moderators, and a working journalist. i obviously had to understand a lot of the technical process of how the debates work. and i did get the chance to talk to all three leaders before hand

and tell them individually what i saw as potentially the problems of the debate. but beyond that, in this debate, the questions were submitted by the live studio audience. we had to spend a lot of time going through the questions in advance that the audience what to ask, making sure that we picked out the best ones. host: last night after the debate on your show, you talked to dan rather. did you watch american moderators and debates to prepare? guest: i did, and there has been a lot of documentary coverage, because this is the first time we have never had these debates on british television. in the build -- we have ever had these debates on british television. in the build to this, i spoke to dan rather, i spoke to a jim lehrer, a number of other people who have been involved one way or another in staging these debates. that has been very important for

everyone who was been involved in the buildup. although we are beginning to sit down our own british precedents as well. host: what did you take away from those conversations? guest: i think i took away, and this is slightly different, if you like, from the british tradition paternalism -- i took away the view that these are serious and important events which should be treated as such. they are not just a kind of outsider tv entertainment. host: adam boulton, moderator of last night's debate and political editor of the sky news, thank you for joining us. guest: pleasure. host: let me turn to jon- christopher bua and talk about the americanization of these debates. there were american consultants in fall. how did this come about? guest: it came about because this is the first time the

british candidates have ever done this. we have been doing it in america for 30 years -- the first televised debate between kennedy and nixon in 1960. we went to american consultants to discuss and to coach, literally, hands-on, and sometimes it was obvious, and sometimes it was obvious for me, having been in this town for almost 20 years and knowing each one of those -- i will tell you who they are -- host: consultants? guest: consultants and handlers who coached the various candidates. really in the first debate more than the second, greta, you could actually see that and ha -- the hand on each candidate. host: why not say who they are? guest: it is not my role. i do not want to cause any

issues on the final debate but we will just leave it at that. but you see the to petco -- you see the gepetto-like a puppeteering. but, greta, you can only go so far. if a candidate is pushed into being a certain way, obama-like, for example, or reagan-like, you can see that. if it does not work, the candidate is very, very uncomfortable. one of the reasons mr. clegg it did so well in the first debate was that he was very comfortable in his own skin to things that people said about barack obama even way back, that he seemed comfortable in his own skin. sometimes you could see the advisers handiwork. the second time you did not see it as much. maybe it was internalized by that time and they were able to be their own demand. people can see through that. host: what about gordon brown's

performance and his comfort in that? guest: he is the older of the two, he is solid, he knows the policy issues. he is a little bit uncomfortable, for obvious reasons. there was a bit of the knicks in a radio factory those who would hear gordon brown -- there was a bit of the nixon radio effect. those who would hear gordon brown might think better of him . he also chose the technique of trying to make the two of them look a bit infantile. whether that was to his advantage, i don't know. host: 1 at the things dan rather said last night after the debates was that he felt that mr. cameron and mr. clegg really missed the opportunity to say, "why haven't you changed and solved these problems? you have been in charge," to gordon brown.

guest: i was with dan rather in the green room when they did the debate. i agree with him. he is a veteran of these. it took a few minutes into the second debate before the account and came around and said, "you have been running despite -- before david cameron came around and said you up and running this place for years. an american politician would have gone after that guy out of the box and basically male panda. excuse me, mr. president, you have been running this country -- and basically nailed him. excuse me, mr. president, you have been running this country for eight years. prime minister brown got away with that one. host: other aspects of this campaign -- has there been other aspects of american-style campaign?

guest: if you heard change one more time, you could be pretty upset. hillary is the change agent, obama is changed, i am experience so that i can be the change person. that was very clear and obvious. it's hard for a sitting prime minister to say he is going to be for change. and if you are on the progressive side, it is hard to imagine someone on the conservative side is saying he is the change agent. into the breach oppose mr. clegg, -- >goes mr. clegg, and because he is new and different and very young, he can seem obamaesque, the new guy. host: let's show our viewers a little bit of what all three candidates said about america. >> on the point that gordon brown says about anti- americanism, i have a simple attitude about our relationship with america is an immensely

important, a special relationship, but it should not be a one-way street. we should not automatically to what our american friends tell us to do. we have to make sure we act on the world stage in our interest. >> i persuaded the americans to be part of the g-20 to deal with the banking crisis and i am pushing the americans to deal with climate change as well david, it is the big society at home, but a little bit and abroad. you have to rethink your policies. -- the little britain and abroad. you have to rethink your policies. >> i think they don't want a britain that stands for itself in europe. host: they're calling each other by their first names. guest: you would not hear candidate obama saying -- well, he did say hillary, but you would not hear ronald mooror

ronnie. the british public also called them by their first name. it is kind of charming, in a way. host: do you have a reason why? guest: i think it is a smaller country. our president is seen in a different way. the parliamentary system is very different from presidential elections but we basically elect a star on inauguration day. the party affiliations are very different than the parliamentary system, where you basically vote for the party. that is going to be interesting to see exactly what happens, if there is a hung parliament pr. host: mike, you are the first phone call. caller: good morning, greta. it's a pleasure to speak with you. guest: thank you. caller: when i did watch the debate, i heard the word change

quite a bit, too. now, i myself am a registered democrat, but long before that, i was a card-carrying greenie, and the only reason i registered as a democrat was because i felt so strongly about obama becoming president. he is not as near to the left as i would like him, but i also have to understand that if he were more to the left like i would like, somebody out there were tried -- it would try to kill him. that scares the hell out of me. but my point being that we do need, in my estimation, a viable third party in this country. host: all right. guest: i don't disagree with you. every element of -- in terms of this electoral process is an important one, and every person should be represented. you do, as president kennedy

said, get the leadership that you deserve in a democracy. i think he made a valid point. it was interesting that you mentioned the environment. they brought up a question about what do you do every day to save the environment in terms of being a green citizen? they all mentioned it taking the train. i thought that was very interesting. host: coverage in the u.s. papers of last night's debate is in most of the papers, a story within the papers. the only paper that has it on the front page is "the washington times," and their headline, "civility to the u.s." -- "britinons debate servility o u.s."

guest: no one could imagine lbj eight debating -- lbj debating goldwater. can you imagine? that would be fascinating. i think americans were turned off to debate. we had 30-some mind-numbing debates. some people think enough is enough. i also think it is a great thing. it is a great to hone your skills as a candidate and a great opportunity but the american people who have television to make a decision. if you can see that candidate every week for a year, you can make a choice. they have become more contentious, and one of the women who put it to get -- when the women who put it together and the voters, parties took it over, it did not go so well. it was better when the league of women voters were in charge of

the show, and the american people should realize that this is part of our democracy, a good thing. if you don't want to watch it, fine, if you want to watch it later, fine, but is there. these people will be in your living room for the next nauseating for years, so you better appreciate them on tv. you might as well go out and make the toys, and tv is a great way to do that. -- make that choice, ntt is a great way to do that. host: if you want watched the debate, but the c-span.org - -- if you want to watch the debate, go to c-span.org. caller: good morning, greta. i was originally a u.k. citizen. i am i u.s. citizen now. but i was in the u.k. during the 1997 election when tony blair

came to power. it was largely because of the influence of the sky news and "the sun" newspaper that people shifted in that direction i am not saying that there is anything necessarily wrong with that, but your test ought to explain -- your guess on to explain that sky news is park rupert murdoch's organization, whose prime oregon here is the fox news and "the wall -- st. prime organ here is a fox news at "the wall street journal." guest: i am i yank, and i work for sky news, and there has never been any political influence i have received from the folks at sky news. it is a 24 hour news network, and i have enough to do to get news on the air, and they do a remarkable job and i'm happy to be part of the team did a double

the size, as you know, being born at -- a great they don't politicize, as you know, sir, being born in britain. you cannot do propaganda, you cannot be the propaganda arm of the shadow government. unlike here, we have all sorts of light and you can make a choice in terms of -- all sorts of lineups, and you can make a choice and terms of what you watch. sky news does not make political statements or support any host: republican line. caller: i'm calling from austin. of course at sky news has a political bias. rupert murdoch supported the neocons in america and add tony blair, a neocon lackey in britain. now they are pushing us to attack iran. there was a documentary that

talked about the protest israel lobby influence in england. -- pro-israel lobby influence in england. host: we will leave it there. our guest address to the first time. next call. caller: i have a question about the terminology in glen or britain or scotland -- terminology in england or britain or scotland -- i was wondering what will english nationalism really kick in, if the english people will vote on english matters only. guest: we may have tried to keep adam on the line lager for that as much as i try to have as much a british politics ruboff on me and policy, i am not the authority on that. the proper term for england, scotland, wales, and northern ireland is the united kingdom.

that is the word i stick with. host: "the washington post" writes about the debate, saying that opened what it appears to shape the outcome of the vote more than a -- anyone here that "it appears to shape the outcome of the vote more than anyone imagined." guest: nicholas cage -- sorry, nick clegg, has shown that he is not an also-ran. he can be a kingmaker. there is a hung parliament, then his influence, which right now -- there are not many seats in parliament run by or taken by the liberal democrats. it is 62, as opposed to the conservatives, 193, and the labor party, three outer 45. -- 345.

you need a majority of 326. mr. brown could lose and remained the leader as well. left with 18 days of not being able to form a proper government, the mark steps in -- the monarch steps in and will take the time to say, excuse me, mr. brown, former government, or i will choose. host: the queen can make the decision. ohio, good morning. caller: the british people are always in my prayers. my father works from scotland. i was kind of wondering what are the main issues in britain were, and i'm kind of wondering what they felt about being part of

the eu and how the british people feel about that. i just listen to your call. thank you, god bless. guest: thank you, sir. we have a strong relationship with the united kingdom, goes back to two world wars. obviously, our declaration of independence was written about king george and getting ourselves free from great britain. however, we are very close, personally, and a lot of us have very strong personal connections with people in the united kingdom. that, i think, will stay. you really want your question answered in terms of the politics, the eu and the "special" relationship, you might want to watch the debate again, because these candidates have more to very clearly what the difference is in dealing with --h av have marked very

clearly what the difference is in dealing with the eu, which is a contentious issue. host: the candidates talked about how they differ on that it was at the beginning of last night's debate. let me show you a bit more of the interaction between the three candidates. >> president obama said last week, quite rightly, that the greatest threat is not the cold war threat of old, but terrorists getting a hold of dirty bombs. let's move with the times and take decisions when we need to take them and have this review, which i talked about after the election. >> i have to deal with these decisions every day and i say to you, nick, get real. iran, you are saying, might be able to have a nuclear weapon, and he would not take action against them, but we have to give up our trident -- get real about the danger we face if we have north korea, iran, and other countries with nuclear

weapon -- >> this is extraordinary. to say get real -- what is dangerous is to commit to spend all whole lot of money we might not have won the world has changed and we are facing new threats and more military experts -- you want to hold a review and you want to exclude the one big issue which should be right at the heart of that review. >> i thought i would never utter these words, but i agree with gordon. host: that back-and-forth, change versus experience, it should sound very familiar to this american audience. guest: 8 is. we saw it with candidate hillary clinton, her famous advertisement, to a cop in the morning. saying she has a -- experienced 2:00 in the morning, saying that she has the experience. but barack obama had less amount of baggage and votes you could hold against him. it is a tossup.

but change and experience is definitely part of this. prime minister brown wanted to make the two of them look like sonny boy's but whether he succeeded or not, and he -- and whether he came out looking more dour, that is up to voters. host: one thing similar to our country is instant polls, who won the debate? for the most part, they showed that brown came in last, but the other two, it went back and forth. guest: a conservative organization immediately put cameron had won a two 0.3 the more liberal organizations but nick clegg ahead of -- you points a conservative or it -- a conservative organization immediately put cat and ahead one or two points. the multiple organizations but nick clegg ahead. host: california, good morning.

caller: i had a question about nick clegg's comments about dealing with america last night but it seems to wants to distance himself a little bit more. what do you think the british people think about this, since we have are really tight relationship with them? guest: i think that is really good question, and i think that the british people are as mixed as the three candidates you saw. what was great about this debate was that each one of these candidates represented a different way of thinking in the united kingdom, and i agree that what we will see is that where the majority, or, hopefully come up with a hung jury -- the hong parliament, is that there is someone at that policy will go through. the relationship with with the the united kingdom is strong and extremely personal. as the no. 1 tourist destination for american citizens.

host: another moment from last night's date is when he talked about faith. >> we agree to a visit from the pope but does that mean we agree with everything he says? now. -- no. >> my wife is catholic and my children are being brought up in her face so i have a little of insight into the intense feelings of anguish among catholics here. they feel is extremely torn apart about what has happened, and they want to see the catholic church expressed greater openness and repentance. you cannot keep a lid on sin and you have to move with the times. i do welcome deparle's visit, but i hope all -- the kindthe p -- i do welcome the pope's visit i hope he does acknowledge that

there is an immense scarring on people's lives and we need openness and he cannot undo the tragedies of the past, but you can be open about them so that people can start to move on. host: be taken american audience -- do you think and american audiences would accept candidate who says, but what i am not a man of faith"? guest: when nick clegg said that, dan rather and i said that would be the moment in the united states to pull the plug, it is over. the united states is considered a very religious country. if you are not a religious person -- barack obama has been taking some hits because he has not decided which church wants to go to every sunday. you can imagine that if a candidate says i am not a man or woman of faith, it would be the

end -- host: how will that play out with nick clegg? guest: it is a different culture, not a big issue. we would never talk about the pope, either. it is more of the third rail than social security. you just stay away. host: akron, ohio. caller: i am just curious about gordon brown. i don't know much about him, but on youtube, you see speeches where he talks about the same thing, bush, hillary, the new world order. i'm wondering if jon-christopher could explain what the new world order is. guest: i wish i knew what the old world order is. i don't see him as an underlying forces for any kind of evil. i think that what you see is what you get. maybe people have seen enough. i don't know.

that is a question up to the british people. host: our viewers on at c-span are used to watching him on prime minister question time. it is something we cover on c- span. how did last night's debate differ from that kind of style, and why is it even necessary to have a debate like they did last night when they do prime minister questions? guest: 1 1/2 spyware -- one of the hats i wear is that i am the sky news white house commentator. people have said, wait a second, brits have never done debates on tv? what about prime minister's questions? which, by the way, you cover wonderfully. a very popular show. people think british people to debate because of the oxford debate style they develop. prime minister's questions are much more control, even though

it seems like a rock this time. -- like a raucous time it is not citizens asking questions, it is their opponents. they are much more at ease with that format, even though they are fired up, that the three of them sitting there, being judged, questions from the audience. it is an interesting thought. host: pat, on the democratic line, at your next rep -- you are next. caller: at time when it terrorism and everything going on now, and they're talking about closing nasa, why would we turn our operations to the chinese? we tried to help everybody in the world. i think all of these people -- i can see where the -- i cannot see where the thinkers and doers are in this country.

guest: you ought to address the question to mr. gibbs, the president's spokesperson. i do not work for the administration. i did work for the clinton administration, but i was on the other side of the podium, and now i am on this side of the bottom. host: are you at the white house every day? guest: considerable matter today, and i spend wednesdays at georgetown university, where i am an adjunct professor on politics and the media and the american-european perspective. it is the greatest time i've ever had it is a graduate school, german and european studies, and it is a wonderful group of young people. i hate to be ending this mr. b -- the semester. host: republican line. caller: i have a comment which

has to do with my response to the weight of the english language -- i am shocked that they make so many mistakes. i was brought up to respect the language. i would have thought that it would be on top of it on that level. the use the word "between" to refer to three people report. and others. guest: i would be delighted. i write a blog and i make sure that when it is edited, i use "amongst" instead of "between." if i don't, they send it back and say, "j.c., i had to change

a few words. it is their language. we are using it." host: independent line, you on next. caller: i want jon to explain how the liberal democrats fit into the political spectrum. in the united states, it is left, right, and nothing else. if the liberal democrats picked up a lot of seats', how would that affect american politics? i remember nick clegg saying something about how the american-british alliance is over. i would like for you to comment on that. guest: i don't think that will ever be the case. perhaps, as greta was alluding to earlier, maybe three party races are important here if you would think of this -- the liberal democrats had 63 seats

and they will not get that much more, i don't think it out because of a coalition that has to be formed, clegg will be brought in to discuss positions in the newest government, minister positions. he may have some influence. it is an open debate. the relationship with america and the new president is always there, always on the forefront of everything that goes on in the world. the united states has that kind of influence. host: 1 is the next debate? -- when is the next day? guest: we do them on thursdays. it is on the 29th, on bbc. credit goes steto itv and bbc as well, who want to do it for the american people to see and for the british people to be part of. and c-span has been fantastic in

giving this opportunity. it has become quite a story in the united states and is quite exciting and i thank you all for that as well. host: democratic line, good morning. are you with us? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: they say that our relations with the bridge and people -- britain people are deep and personal, and i'm wondering, in what way are they deep and personal? guest: my goodness, just talk to your dad or grandfather preparing for the invasion under general eisenhower to liberate france and europe from nazi nomination, or those who fought in al alamein -- from nazi domination or those who fought in el alamein. there is a new show called "the

pacific." the americans and british have worked together on democracy. don't forget, winston churchill,

>> how were you? nice to see you. i want to make a few opening remarks. i will be happy to take your questions. first, my compliments to our caribbean and canadian finance ministers who hosted this meeting today. they did a nice job

demonstrating in this. our meetings were about growth, about greece, and about financial reform. i know that the world economy is coming back stronger and more quickly than many people expected. countries around the world showing encouraging signs. we have all lot of work to do to reinforce that recovery. we want to make sure that as we are working to reinforce the recovery, we want to make sure that we lay conditions for a more balanced global growth pattern. that will require a substantial set of reforms.

i spoke to the greek finance minister this morning and i want to say that i very much welcome the sense of urgency that we are seeing and i want to encourage the greek authorities to move quickly to put in place a package of strong economic reforms and substantial, concrete financial support. on financial reforms, we are getting to the decisive moment, both in the united states and i am very confident that we will have broad support for a very strong package of reform. the u.s. is moving to address key vulnerabilities that helped contribute to this crisis. the rest of the world should see that we are not going to be a

source of instability in the future. of the u.s. can be a source of strength, a source of growth and a source of stability. it is very important to us, as we move in the united states, that we improve transparency in the financial sector and that we are doing so across the major financial centers across the major economies. i believe that we have a very broad consensus on the core elements, but as you know, the key test will be when we transfer that into a new global agreement on capital standards. that is the most task -- the most important task ahead of us. we have to get down to the tougher judgments. i want to make it clear that we will incest on fighting there -- we will insist on fighting very

hard for a very strong set of more conservative constraints on leveraging. that is the most important thing that we can do. again, i think that we have very broad support on the basic elements of reform. this will bring derivative markets out of the dark. it will develop better mechanisms for putting financial problems to rest. with that, and with statements that i made in my original statement, i will be happy to answer your questions. >> your career and counterpart said there was a central discussion on currency. was that true and was a

disappointing for you if it was true? >> we discussed, as we always do, the broad policies that are important to have a more balanced pattern of growth. what that means to us is that in the united states, it is important that we are taking steps to make sure that we are strengthening private investment and that we are putting in place a more financial -- a better financial system to rid we are borrowing much less from the rest of the world. as the recovery strengthens, we will move quickly to bring this down to a more sustainable vision. if you look beyond the u.s., countries around the world are

recognizing that they do not want to rely on the u.s. consumer to provide a source of growth. in the major surplus countries that are lagging the global recovery, we would like to see more policy reforms. that will be very important to us. in the emerging markets, you are seeing a substantial shift. we want to see that accompanied by a shift where it is obviously important to move to more market oriented exchanges. this has brought a consensus -- this meeting, like all our meetings, as those dimensions

and you can see some encouraging signs of shift, but we have a lot more to do. >>yes? >> mr. secretary, the canadians seem to believe momentum is swinging their way. >> all things are swinging canada's way. they won the medal in olympics and that is a good sign for canada. >> are you going to accept a fee as well? >> what me tell you what we're trying to do. we are trying to establish the basic principle pta. we propose a fee on risk.

it would cover the cost of our emergency financial rescue. that is a simple, basic impaired. there is significant support among other countries. the imf gave us a very thoughtful paper that achieves that directed. that was helpful. we will move in the united states because we think that is what we need to do. when countries see what we do, they will wait to see how we do it in the united states. i think that you will find other countries moving to adopt similar measures. i cannot tell how far it will go. obviously, as you have seen from canada and other countries, they have a lack of enthusiasm for that idea. if you look at how canada faired

in this crisis, they came out relatively well. it is no surprise to me that you saw a diversity of views on this. we are going to do what is necessary within our interests. i think that the world will want to watch what we do and i suspect it will provide a basis for other actions across the other major economies. i think that will be good. the basic imperative should be that we are designing incentives for future risk-taking. we established the proposition by our actions that we should not have the taxpayers bear the burden of solving meese -- solving the financial crises. >> i just wonder what you got from the premier when he visited beijing?

>> what common sense? in thcommon sense in terms of agreement? >> ok, what was the mutual understanding? when did you expect that china would move? but i want to be careful how i say this. i'm going to repeat what i have said before. at nothing new or different -- nothing new or different this is china's choice. -- nothing new or different. this is china's choice. i believe that they will decide it is in their best interest. this was a very important shift. i think that they will do it because it is in their interest.

that remains my view. >> >> i am from argentina. [unintelligible] argentina does not have an agreement and they do not have a consultation process. i was wondering if we would hope to have one and to comply with this? >> that is an excellent question, but i want to leave it to the managing director of the imf to respond. >>yes? >> on the subject of derivatives, of was wondering if

you could directly address senator lincoln's use? >> there was a very strong set of reforms that came out committee on thursday. we are now working with both committees to work out technical issues involved in this very complicated set of reforms. my judgment is that we will have a very strong package of reforms for the derivatives markets. the basic framework is to move the standard as part of derivative markets on to clearing houses and onto exchanges to bring transparency to these markets. we will make sure the major markets are subject to oversight. that basic set of reforms is very important to us.

i think it is important to all the major economies. i think we have a very good chance of getting strong support in the senate for those reforms. >> [unintelligible] >> it was said that some countries might be moving too fast on the financials. what i read that. i thought, "really?" we are not moving with excessive haste. again, i spent a lot of time with people in the world that are involved in similar efforts. i think that they would like to see the u.s. move. i think that -- i will say it

this way. we will move and i am quite confident that you will see the world move with us to replicate or to put in place a similar set of broad reforms to bring transparency. >> [unintelligible] >> no, but we talk all the time. the imf is very supportive, as they should be. >> [inaudible] >> that is an excellent question. i would answer it this way. out of a basic sense of fairness, we are going to make sure that we cover the cost of this crisis in the united states in the form of a well designed

feed on banks so that banks pay in proportion to the risk that they take. the basic principle is that the government is exposed to a risk of loss, we would recoup that loss in the form of a similar fee imposed on banks. that is the basic premise. we think that that makes sense. i think there is a very strong fiscal policy case for that. it is out of fairness that we would adopt that. >> i am with aero china. how would you address this fiscal deficit problem? it is proposed that by 2011,

developed countries should start to do it. i wonder if you have a timeline? >> it is going to depend on whether -- on where the recovery is. in the united states, we will start to bring down our deficit quite substantially over time. that will be the time that she moved. we would get them much closer to the point where we are living within our means. of course, congress would have to reenact those proposals. by letting the action expire, that would be the policy measure in our fiscal deficit

over time. our recovery will be weaker as we take steps to take action around the world. we will have the ability to bring our fiscal ability to turn. >> i have a question on the greek situation. was it any agreement on greece beyond just showing concern? >> i want to leave it to my colleagues in the imf to give you any more detail on the plans ahead. i see -- and you couldn't read

this elsewhere, based on what i heard, they will move more quickly to put in place the very important thing which is the strong package of reforms. i think i need to leave you. one more question? >> could you elaborate more on how the treasury apartment will move on the r and d issue? >> no, again, this is china's choice. i will leave it there. thank you all.

>> good evening everyone. it is my pleasure to welcome you to the ualr campus, whether you are watching across the stake or if you are watching across the country on c-span or world wide. we are glad to have you. for the next 60 minutes, we will be engaged in an important discussion about the state of our state and our country. we will be focusing on three candidates. we would like to introduce the candidates to you, now. to my left, senator blanche will become -- centre blanche lincoln they will field

questions from the panel. we have four people on our panel. let's introduce our panel. to my right is christopher smith. to his right is jessica being. to her right is craig canion into his right is david catanese. the rules are simple. the panelists will ask a question and they will direct it to one specific candidate and each candidate will have one minute to respond. each candidate will have a turn. we will begin with a two minute opening statement.

the order of that was determined before the broadcast i think katv and ualr for hosting us. i have been honored to be serving as your lieutenant governor for the last three years. i would like to thank those that have embraced my family but such warmth and affection first, this means that your lieutenant governor has not slept in three years. the second thing that it means is that i have been in a maternity ward it least twice in the past few years and this is one of the great equalizers in our society. when you go there, everyone wants the same thing. they have the same hopes and dreams. but what a happy, healthy child. i have seen the parents and

grandparents as they make that silent prayer. that is why i am running for the senate. washington has added seven trillion dollars to our national debt, almost $100,000 for each arkansas family. washington listens more to special interests than they listen to us. they take special interest money and then they vote their way, rather than for arkansas families. they let wall street when our economy into the ground and then they want to take credit for finally noticing the problem that is the washington way. as your senator, i will not take a pay raise as long as the

federal budget is still in deficit and i will get in the truck and whole town hall meetings in all 75 counties around arkansas. we need to put more arkansas values into washington. >> backs, it is senator lincoln. >> thanks to all of our sponsors. special interests have been shooting at me from both sides. i will work consistently to get the best results for the people of arkansas. i know who sent it to congress. it is the people of arkansas. i worked hard and in 184 years.

the senate committee on agriculture has never had a chairman from the state of arkansas, but it does now. these are the bosses is a part of our economy. i have passed the most and is that child nutrition bill in history. this week, we brought some light to a derivative market so that lawmakers can no longer gamble with taxpayers in arkansas. i will continue to fight transparency -- fight for transparency. i stood up for special interests as i have throughout my life. that is what you sent me to washington to do, to stand up for what is good and right for

arkansas. tonight, i come before the democratic primary voters, proud of my voting record that makes me accountable to you, the people of arkansas. i would appreciate your vote at your support in this election. i would appreciate your votes in support in this election. >> thank you. >> d.c. morrison. >> thank you for hosting this. i am honored to be here tonight to visit with you. when i decided i would run for this office, i began by going all over arkansas, door-to-door, to meet people face to face to see if they felt the same way i do. they are dissatisfied with the national government but it time

and time again, people have never seen it before and their lives and they invited me into their homes -- excuse me -- and i found that their concerns are the same as mine. one thing they are concerned about is jobs. i have some ideas that i think can help our country rebuild our jobs. one of the things i would like to work on is the passage of the fair tax. it is supported by 82 current members of congress. it would abolish the irs and appealed the 16th amendment. you pay the tax on consumption and not on income. this would encourage businesses to invest in the united states insists sending jobs overseas. the tax code is called "code" for a reason. there is indecipherable rules and regulations that create -- that keeps americans in trouble with their taxes. i would like to work on this

health care legislation. how will 16,000 new irs agents and 150,000 bureaucrats improve our health care? they will not. within 10 years, private insurance will not exist and you will talk to a government bureaucrat in place of talking to your doctor. i want to do something about that. thank you. >> thank you. our first question is from a politico reporter. >> you have touted your opposition to what is known as cap and trade, where companies would be charged for their commission. in the last congress, you come -- co-sponsored a bill that would have capped commissions with the market based trading

system i would like to know why you changed your position on cap and trade and where you stand today. but i do not think i've changed my position. i have expressed that it is critically important that we focus on lowering our carbon emissions in cleaning up our environment. i think it is essential that we lessen our dependence on foreign oil for economic reasons and in terms of national security. we should see the challenges that exist by creating good, green jobs. i supported a bipartisan bill that came out of the energy committee. we look at energy standards. we make sure we but those in place. we make sure that everyone is helping to solve those problems, not picking winners and losers. the legislation that came through the house picks winners and losers. that does not include many of our industries and arkansas. we want to support wind and solar.

we want to make sure agriculture's part of the solution. we want to encourage industries to be around the table as they lower the carbon emissions. but thank you. d.c. morrison is next. >> i am opposed to the cap and trade legislation . i think the man-made global warning is a hoax. co2 accounts for 3% of the greenhouse gases. of that 3%, only 3% of that 3% comes from activities of man. i want common sense solutions. i would like to look at it. i do not like the man-made global warning argument. over the history of our earth, there was a mini-ice age. the earth's orbit caried in the orbit arounds the stem orbitunspots hand and -- around day sun. sunspots have an effect on this. we need to step back and take a but at this and do what works. >> thank you.

i would not support the current cap and trade bill without some changes being made to it to level the playing field with some of our competitors like india and china. i have been to china. i have seen the pollution . we are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage. we clearly need to meet the goals of the cap and trade bill. we also need to establish energy independence. we are spending $1 billion a day on imported oil. not only is that a drain on our resources, it presents us with a national security issue .

it is evidence of a real figure in washington. we've been talking about doing this since 1974. we have not done it. it has costas in terms of security. if you send me to washington as a senator, i will make progress. >> our next question is from 4029 news. mr. morrison will be first to answer. >> the question for you, and a lot of views that you have seemed to be those close to some republican views. some viewers are asking what kind of democrat are you and how would you define the candidates running against you? >> i was born a democrat. my mother is a democrat.

my family are democrats. the democratic party serves the state of arkansas well, very well. and lots of our county judges are democratic folks working not for the little salary that they are paid but because they want to serve their community. my problem is with the liberal democrat in washington for duke i think that we should put it -- washington. i think the way to put party politics aside. i am not happy with either political party. i am an american first. i am a member of several hunting clubs.

i am a christian. i am a father the way down the list i am a democrat. you can make of it what you want. i was born a democrat. i am a democrat. >> thank you for that statement. i would say that like d.c. i am an american and a father, a husband. i am also a very proud democrat. i am proud of what the democratic party has done to advance our nation's ideals. i am proud of what the democratic party has done in its best days in advance in education for americans, in protecting medicare and social security, in trying to give everyone a great start in life so that we can all live up to our god-given potential.

i do not shirk from that lightly or at all. we have done great things as a party. it is hard to put one word labels on both. i know there are a lot of folks that would like to do that. i have some conservative and moderate positions to do i think all of them are within the mainstream. i am proud of that. >> thank you. >> i'm a democrat from birth. i am proud of that. i am proud to be an arkansas democrat predicted that means we do chairs the root of our democratic party, the encompassing is so much diversity that we know is a rich part of our history. i think it is important to note that democrats are doers. we work hard. whether it is educating our children or protecting our soldiers are making sure that our communities can create the

environment where we can bring in good jobs. that is the number-one issue. i worked diligently in trying to eliminate the deficit and making sure that we create jobs. i think democrats are doers. that is where the reasons why i am a democrat. i'm proud to be an arkansas democrat. >> thank you. our next question comes from jessica dean. >> good evening. my question to you is this. this will make it easier for unions to organize. do you agree with this or support it? >> the employee free choice act is really no longer operative. if you talk to labor leaders, that is no longer on the table. what they are talking about is streamlining elections, speeding up collections, and putting in place some

opportunities for folks to make sure that they are not inhibited in their democratic decision making when it comes to whether or not to organize or not. interesting hoehling, senator lincoln was a sponsor of the employe 3 choice act. now she has been an opponent. she signaled the leadership that should filibuster the employee free choice act. i am looking for a compromise. what i've heard of the principles of that compromise i would support. >> senator lincoln is next. >> i appreciate that the bill has seen that compromise. most senators have not seen that compromise. i think the biggest issues are jobs in the economy. the countries and when it the greatest climate since they treat depression. it has traded a volatile environment. there are 100,000 arkansans letter out of work right now. we can work to bring business management and workers together to help create a good economy. i do not support the

legislation. i do not support card check. i think it creates a division as well as destruction at a time when we do not need that. we need all hands on deck. there are great strides that can be made, particularly in looking at the national labor relations board and the improvement there. i hope that we will. >> mr. morrison. >> thank you. i like to listen to mike builders. some people may can sitter me an elder produced a guide that i really admire was senator george mcgovern. last year he made a statement that he opposed card check. that he opposed card check. i would have been opposed that as well.

senator mcgovern, if you like to know about his life, you can get the book. it is a great story. he served in the senate for about 30 years. when he got out of the senate, he went back to north dakota and one is to open a business. he said at that time that if he had had any idea abou the votes that he cast while he was in the senate and how they really impact small business, he would not have done half of them. that is my point. a lot of the people in washington are out of touch with main street and the folks here. that is a good example. >> thank you. our next question is from christopher smith. senator lincoln will be first. >> what kind of judicial nominees to the supreme court would you support with your vote?

would you consider a judicial activist or a very progressive nominee? >> one of the most important responsibilities we have as a senator is to judge those nominees that the president brings before us. to look at it in a holistic way and make sure we are looking at individuals who have the background and the ability to look at the issues and to make a judgment based on the block. -- law. i do not being a judicial activist is inappropriate. i do not think it is appropriate for them to try to create law but to look at the law and implement it as it has been written by congress. i think we have great opportunities. i have looked at several of the supreme court justice

nominations that have come before me. some of them i have agreed with politically. some of which i have not agreed with politically. i based on their qualifications. . .

>> we have to get spending under control. if we keep going in our current trap, and 10-years of the national debt will be over $20 trillion. we cannot leave them for our children and grandchildren to pay off. it is like if you give someone a salary of $25,000 and bay co $25,000 to credit card companies, how will they ever dig their way out of that? excuse me. we cannot leave that. if you are a parent, would you go into your child's room and take money that they earned babysitting or mowing the lawn and spend it for something that you thought you wanted? of course you would not.

the politicians in washington are willing to do that. that is one of the reasons i am running. >> thank you. >> i am proud of the fact that for the six years of bill clinton's presidency i worked in the white house budget office. when president clinton into that office, we had a two and $80 billion deficit. it was projected to go higher. i was proud to be part of the team that balance that budget. it left a surplus at the end of his administration. since that time, washington has wrecked our budget. that is not right. there are things that we can do

and have done to trim spending. to prioritize spending. but also, we need to get our economy moving again. that will help us reduce the deficit in the longer-term. i look forward to working on these issues. a look for to balancing the federal budget. at the end, we prove that we can do it. >> thank you. >> in my first days in congress, i started a group to support a balanced budget constitutional amendment which i supported and voted for. my opponent takes credit for balancing the budget under president clinton. wheat made that a reality -- we made that a reality when we passed a vote. we need to do several things such as cutting cover spending to address the budget deficit. the mandatory spending in medicare, medicaid, we have to

deal with those. that is why health care reform has been so important. it lowers the deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years. and over $1 trillion in the second 10 years. i think without a doubt, we should be balancing our budget in the nation. i am working to put estimates in place to help to do this. that is not to mention just a certain type of of voting. >> we now will move into the second round. the signature with her votes for the tarp stimulus, right? we cannot seem to get an exact answer it how you had been in their how would you vote? >> tarp and the stimulus are two different things. i would have voted no on that

tarp bill. it has very few strings attached and accountability. i would not have voted to dicker regulate wall street in the first place. -- to deregulate wall street in the first place. this problem did not occur overnight. as president obama said just yesterday, the responsibility for this lies with wall street and washington. i also cannot simultaneously regulate an industry and then go out and solicit campaign contributions. i asked senator lincoln to give back the contribution goldman sachs made to her campaign. they are under investigation for fraud. i think it is unseemly to be raising money from the very folks you are supposed to

regulate, particularly when they wrecked our economy. >> thank you. we have indicated that we would no longer take any of those funds are deal with goldman sachs. the 45 countries that i received from the tax unfortunately has not affected what i have done. i have created an passed the toughest reform bill on wall street that anyone had seen. we bring the $600 trillion out to the dark and into the light of the dave . -- of day. we lowered systemic risk. we bring 100 and transparency to the market with real-time reporting to both the public and the regulators to do we protect municipalities. when regulate foreign exchange -- we regulate foreign exchange. i get criticized because i deny

do this 10 years. i have done the best since i could since i have gotten it. >> thank you. washington always seems to solve the problem that just happened. the financial meltdown began with misguided efforts in washington, d.c. for home ownership for every american takeovers to banks to make unsound loans -- every american. a day, worst -- they coereced bacnk to make loans. they were ignored by washington because they wanted to continue this practice.

barney frank has said that he wanted to roll the dice a little bit more. when it all came down, the taxpayers had to pick up the bill. of course wall street is responsible. any company that leverage is up 40 to 1 deserves to go broke. the taxpayer should not have had to bail them out. >> our next question is from jessica dean. >> recent polls show that the majority of arkansas voters think that the health care bill was bad for the country. you voted for it. do you still believe that vote was good for arkansas? >> asaph this lead. -- absolutely. there is no doubt there has been a lot of misinformation. we started this debate with seven different bills.

people that differenbits and pif those different bills. i started working on health care in 2004, working with senator snowe on a bill that focused on the largest percentage of uninsured, working to see how we provide a marketplace similar to what we have for small businesses to access quality health care at a low-cost. when the health-care debate happened, i heard from our arkansas. they wanted to make sure children were not born to be denied health insurance. we did that in this bill. we made sure that the 230 million americans better uninsured will be able to keep their interns in the private -- that are insured will be able to keep their insurance in the private marketplace.

>> thank you. mr. morrison? >> i think it is a job killer. health care needs reform. there is no doubt about that. i do not believe the federal government has the power to force you to buy anything, including health insurance. cleveland clinic gives us a -- a just recently published study from the cleveland clinic gives us little clue -- smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, lack of exercise accounts for 50% to 60% of the health care costs. health care costs are not tied because premiums are high. health-care costs are high because of habits of the american people. the federal government is not one to solve that. my concern is that seven or 10 years down the road, you will not be able to buy private insurance. you are going to have the same

people running your health insurance that thought home ownership for every american was a good idea. >> i think there were many good things in the bill, including an elimination of pre-existing conditions to exclude people from health insurance. you cannot be done this issue unless you are clear in what direction you are going. senator lincoln was initially for the public option. then she said she was against the public option. then she went to the floor of the senate and threatened to filibuster the public option. she voted against the reconciliation bill which would have improved to the underlying senate bill but is now the law. president obama supported that. senator lincoln has run television ads saying she oppose the public option that president obama supported. shares also run radio ads on --

she has also run radio ads on african american radio saying she supported president obama. you have to be clear and decisive . that did not happen in this issue. >> thank you. our next question is from christopher smith. >> mr. marston, since president obama was in office for two more years, how would you go about establishing a good working relationship with him? what issues would you support and issues you do not support with the president? >> if i'm elected, i am going to be working for the people of arkansas and the people of the united states of america not president obama. the issues that i would like to work on are the issues that are before us now that i mentioned earlier. i would like to pass the fair tax.

i think it will work. i would like health-care reform that would work. without forcing them to buy health care under the threat of a fine or going to jail. another thing i think that is important that is not being addressed is the board is security between the united states and mexico and our border security all around the country. it is a little disconcerting to mention. there were 17,000 murders in northern mexico and the last three years. that is scary. 650 kidnappings in arizona. something has to be some. >> i think our most immediate needs are to work on creating jobs in the united states and in arkansas. i would wear to eliminate the tax provision that action

against american companies an incentive to move jobs overseas. replace those with tax credits so that we can create jobs here at home and said the more bailout for wall street. but put those funds into loans for arkansas small businesses. i would build on a scholarship lottery to improve the training of our workforce long term. i believe we could get passed federal legislation that would build on the arkansas scholarship lottery sell arkansas students with a 2.5 grade point average could go to any public college or university in arkansas tuition free. that has been an ideal and go for democrats for years, to provide that educational opportunity so we can live up to our potential. >> i am glad to see that he is back on his a positive campaign. we would like to agree with him. it is very important to have this tax credits.

i join the governor and fort smith. we noted the mitsubishi plants coming in. making sure that we are working to provide those kind of tax incentives to keep jobs in america and not send them overseas. i already work with president obama. i already know him. i work well with them. healthcare was a big issue. i feel proud about what we did. bill thinks the reconciliation was very essential. i did not think it was essential. i think we did a good job with the health care bill. i voted for it on christmas eve. i did join the president in the signing ceremony. i believe we have made a good effort. we are making sure that people could not be denied because of an illness or be dropped because

of an illness and not to mention covering our children. >> our final question from the panel tonight is from david catanese. >> you and the senator have spared recently about the issue both social security. like medicare, it is an entitlement that is going insolvent. what is the most feasible option that basis social security? raise taxes? raise the retirement age? >> about social security, i was proud to be the deputy commissioner under president clinton. i thought president bush's attempts to privatize -- in the past, when we have needed to improve solvency of social security, which always had a balanced package of revenue increases and benefit reductions.

in the past, we have worked with raising the retirement age. that is the current law. my birth year covert to be the first at the age of 67. if you look to previous history on social security reform, you will see that we can do this. over a 75 year time frame, so security is only out of balance by about 1.8% of payroll. that is something that we have successfully addressed in the past. with a balanced package of revenue increases, we can balance social security for the long run. >> thank you. >> i certainly believe that keeping our promise to working americans will be there in their golden years is absolutely a promise we must keep a bit and do not think there only and do not think there only three ways to solve the problem.

i have consistently opposed the attempts to privatize social security. i have heard that he believes there is an opportunity possible to invest so security money into wall street. where would we have been with so security with the economic crisis that we have just experienced? i introduced a bill to try to implement something if it would not be there for social security benefits this year. i hope we will pass a bill next week which will preclude members from, was getting a pay raise this year as the vessel security benefits are not [unintelligible] we want to direct that money elsewhere. the best thing we can do for

ensuring so security solvency is to getting our economy back on track and getting more people back to work. >> so security is very important. we must do everything possible to make sure it is there. it has gone to the government and we should be able to trust them to do what they say they will do. so secretive began in 1936, and we were a young nation. there were 16 working people for every beneficiary. it worked well. the money should have been accumulated over the years. currently, there are three people working for every recipient of every social security. there will soon be two people. in 1981, the congress raided the trust fund, to cut the cash and replace it with an iou. this year, we are having to cash in those ious.

we are probably barring some of the money from china. the government has to keep their promise. i would do that by cutting spending. >> we will close with e-mail questions. we go to john -- i am sorry commentary for our next. senator lincoln will be first to respond. >> do you think though "biting sound-byte" ads, that you run it to a stronger candidate? >> i am disappointed by the negative tone of this election, too. the problem is that i'm being outspent 3 to 1. there are outside groups coming in and spending large numbers of money in arkansas. those people will not tell you who they are predicted. tagline at the bottom. they will not tell you who they

are in terms of telling you who we should be in arkansas and what you should think about me. roughly 1/6 of the ads are mine. all i'm trying to do is to make sure i can get my message out and insure the voters are able to see the path of the opponents. i think that is only fair i had a 15 year record of votes. i am proud of that record. >> i have enjoyed the ads. [laughter] i used to think that talk was cheap until i found out what channel 7 charges for television. [laughter] it is worth every penny. if i had the money, i would do

it. i enjoyed one that showed children throwing money in the air. i am trying to show folks that you can do things without money. money is not the solution to all our problems. personal responsibility and hard work will take you a long way that is about all i have to go on with my campaign. i am opposed to a lot of the ads. i think we should just stay to the issues and run on your record. i think that would work better. thank you. >> i too would really love to see an improved tone. as senator lincoln pointed out, there is an ad out there that folks will not even reveal who they are. they basically charged that i was for the privatization of social security which is a lie. they will not tell you who they are.

they are still out there. i suspect they will run some more ads. that was such a distortion that jim roosevelt came out and called it an outright lie. unfortunately, senator lincoln has run ads that commentators and arkansas have called this honest, smearts. if you hours to launch another ad -- it provides a pretty girl to take down of a recent plant -- a recent ferro takedown of a blanche lincoln smear, so the lies continue. i've taken down the website that

is called bailout blanche. i would ask you as we go forward if you stop referring to me ask dollar bill. [laughter] if you would seize the mailers. let's present a positive that we want for our futures and kids. >> that concludes the question portion of tonight's debate. we will now move in to closing statements. each candidate will have to statements predicted minute. -- two statements. >> thank you for everyone being here. two nights ago i was at a pizza joint in arkansas where i met three generations of an arkansas family. the grandparents are on social security. the mother is bravely raising two daughters alone because her husband and their father died in service to our country. the 16 year-old daughter told me proudly that she had a 3.4 grade point average and that she was going to college. her 11 year-old sister spoke proudly of her dad. she said she was going to

college, too, because she was going to earn a scholarship. they are not asking for special treatment. they certainly earned it. they have not given up. neither will i.. this family deserves a senator who is on their side. together we can stand up to special interests and we can change washington's ways. in arkansas, we passed a scholarship program that provides scholarships for the two young woman. some say it cannot be done. we got it done together. as your senator, i will be proud to work with better jobs in arkansas to fight social security privatization and cuts in medicare and to balance the federal budget again. if you are tired of politicians to take special interest money and then vote their way, if you

think it is ridiculous for washington to stand by white wall street runs over our economy and now want to take credit for addressing a problem that has been there for tenure, -- for 10 years, as i would say let's change washington together. to that family in dumas and across arkansas, when you give us a level playing field, we can win. >> thank you. senator lincoln is next. >> i certainly will meet that challenge of being positive and bill will make sure that the special interest will bring down the negative attitude as well. i think it is so clear. primary voters have a clear choice beginning may 3. you know where i stand. i have proven that i will take the tough votes. i will make the tough choices when it is right for arkansas. my vote for the budget in 1993 meant that i had to face a difficult reelection the next year.

it was the right thing to do. that budget agreement led to four straight years of budget surpluses and a booming economy. fisher, my vote for reform means that i will face a re- election that is difficult. i know it is the right thing to do for arkansas. it will help stabilize our economy and offer access to more than 500,000 uninsured arkansans. as we enter the final days i want to ask for your boat. -- for your vote. you may hear a lot of guessing or misrepresentations about my state. i am proud to be an arkansas democrat. i will always say predictable and dedicated to the three things most important.

my faith, my family, and my loyalty to the people of arkansas. i'm not going to expect that we agree on everything i know you will stand with me to help our proud and beautiful state to remain strong. i can assure you that the folks in washington do not care or know much about what happened in arkansas. but, folks, i do. this is what i fight for. we want to thank all the sponsors tonight. we think the voters. -- we thank the voters. i wish my opponent well. and what thank the people of arkansas to give me the opportunity to represent you. >> the health care legislation is not one to create jobs. there are a lot of things that we can do. i'm a strong believer in the fairfax.

-- in the fair tax. as far as special interests, i have no money from special interest. my interest are first and foremost our children. a lot of this have completed our carriers. -- a lot of us have completed our careers. we should not be debt to our children. we to the they legacy. we are leaving debt. i do not think either one of these are going to do anything about it. i am willing to stand up to them and cut the size of the federal budget and cut spending in washington, cut personnel. i would cut everything but national defence and border security and use it to rebuild social security, medicare and medicaid, and cut down the national debt. i am giving the people of arkansas, regardless of your political affiliation, a chance on may 18 to send a message to washington that it is time for change. we have term limits for the

president. we have term limits for our state legislature it is almost impossible, but i'm willing to do it. i will work hard. it is almost impossible for an individual like me to compete with this. leading people in office until a eating -- but leaving people in novice until they died lot of cases they die in office before you can get the amount -- [laughter] that is no indication here for sure. [applause] we have to make a change. that is why i am running for office. >> ladies and gentlemen, or three candidates on the democratic side. [applause]

>> we hope for the audience and for those of you watching around the state that tonight has been informative. we hope that it has been helpful. for those in arkansas, the surgeon hope they will vote in a primary on may 18. that is going to do it for our debate tonight. thank you for watching. thank you for being here. good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> up next, a debate between the five republican candidates running in indiana. they will have a new senator next year. the senate seat has been rated as one of the most competitive races in the country. a debate was held on tuesday in indianapolis. it was hosted by the indiana debate commission. it lasts about one hour. ♪ >> live from indianapolis, the west senate primary debate. commission.

>> good evening. welcome to the indian in debate commission. this one features the five gentlemen seeking the republican nomination for the united state s senator. for the next hour, boaters will ask the questions -- voters will ask the questions. friday night, we will hear the candidates answers. let me marlins stutzman was a farmer. he served three terms in the senate. richard behney amended plumbing company. he is a community volunteer. john hostettler was elected to represent the eighth district in 1984. winchester is a financial adviser. he is a board member of the

chamber of commerce. - coats is an attorney. he is an ambassador to germany and served in the senate from 1989 through 1999. the campaign has drawn lots for their position on the stage. i will announce the length of time each candidate has to answer a question. most will be one minute answers. the final answer is 90 seconds. i may announce that the answer will have to very to get this to the final question. as moderator, i may have to cut off when it these five gentlemen if they exceed the time to answer a question. i hope that does that happen tonight. that question will be reviewed by the debate commission. they note to use only small notes. let's meet our first future of voter. geoffrey miller is a boat trip from indiana. thank you for coming.

>> good evening. what is your idea of a representative government? would you go to the will of the people are vote your own mind regardless? >> -- you will have 60 seconds to answer. >> thank you for posting. i i think this is one of the questions that a but the people are asking themselves, how do our representatives represent us as people? i believe as a representative we are elected . the route the campaign we make our case to the people and ask them for their support. for myself, i have my personal convictions that i would always few as very important toç me ad break my personal convictions and be the constitutional parameter for our federal government.

it is important that we listen to the people and those who have elected us and have that dialogue. when you are communicating in listening, you can better represent those who you represent at that time. it is important for us to make sure that we are listening. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. a great question. this is where i have come from this last year. this is what i've heard from thousands of users across our state that have this concern with politicians and politics, that we have strayed away from citizen representation. that is the outcry i have heard this past year. we want to get back to a people that we are that they had in mind, with citizen representation. that is what the qualifications are very clear.

so that your neighbor would go and represent you. it to be an honor and not a career. i believe in citizen representation. i will lead with my convictions and concerns and by the constitution. >> thank you. >> thank you for the commission for allowing us this opportunity. excellent question in that one of the five of us before you tonight will take an oath ultimately to uphold the constitution. that is essentially our job description. . . times prior and the people, when i took that oath, of the 8th district of indiana at that time and indiana in the future will know that it's my obligation to

and talking about how i will fill them. >> thank you. thank you for the questions. w3. . past few years is that government is not listening to the people a poll came out this week showing that four out of government is not listening to the people. four out of five people don't trust the government. we have seen our representatives go to washington and live happily ever after and ignore the will of the people. that has to stop. that is one of the reasons we are seeing this reawakening in indiana. it is because people are realizing their voices in the

past have not been heard. it is one of the reasons i am running to be your u.s. senator. i am going to washington to represent you and listen to you. >> d.c. morrison -- daniel coats. >> thank you for hosting this event. we do take a solemn oath. one of us will take that oath to uphold the conversation -- uphold the constitution. you have to listen to what they have to say. had this president done that he would not have advanced is spending agenda on the american people. i also believe it is important for a representative to state to the people he represents -- to state their basic convictions. sometimes the popular mood moves populist -- say they want to

legalize drugs. if it goes against your convictions you have to say this is not what i believe. they have the opportunity to vote you out of office, but it is important to let people know your fundamental convictions. >> joan could not join us tonight, so she recorded her question for the candidates. >> i am from indianapolis. i would like to know what do you propose to do about the lack of bipartisanship in washington? >> as we rotate the order, we began with richard behney. >> great question. it depends on what you talk about bipartisanship. right now there is this idea of compromise being good for we are as a people. i will not compromise when it comes to our constitutional

principles and values of life and liberty. i will have no problem extending a hand across the aisle when we are discussing what kind of paint color we want to have, or maybe what's jets we want to purchase, but when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, i will not compromise. >> i believe the people of indiana and the u.s. will be sending a message to washington in november, and that will be heard loud and clear on both sides. this is likely there will be a new majority in washington very similar to what happened after the 1994 elections. the members of congress will get to work doing the people's business. there will be that mandate to

work together in order to bring the federal government back to within its constitutional constraints, balance the budget. it is the result of the people doing their job to maintain their own liberty that will be practiced in november that we will see an outpouring of bipartisanship in washington on capitol hill. >> thank you for the question. i'm sorry you could not join us. nine number one responsibility is to represent you -- my number one responsibility. even if i have to be partisan, if i am doing the work you want me to do it then i am willing to go it alone. one of the things i have noticed in washington is there seems to be a double standard. it appears we want republicans to be bipartisan but there is not this move for democrats.

i don't think that is fair. my responsibility is to represent you. if i can do that in a bipartisan manner, i am happy to. we have to do what ever it takes to put people back to work. i will do everything i can to do so in a bipartisan manner. >> daniel coats. >> currently in washington there are two different views of america. the view represented here this evening by people speaking to you is a different view than what is coming out of the white house. that makes bipartisanship very difficult. two parties looking down opposite path. the issues our country faces are issues we have to rally around. we have to support them on the basis of conservative principles because they have worked. what we are doing to our economy

with this administration is leaving as down a disastrous road. to solve that problem we need support from the other side. people have to support that. they should come our way on that. the threats from abroad. we need bipartisanship in dealing with people who want to kill us. that is something we have to reach above ideology and support each other in protecting america. and when i've traveled the state as i've traveled the state over 25,000 miles talking with hoosiers and listening to them and hearing what they believe what i'm finding is there's a common thread through us as hoosiers we believe in the constitution we believe in freedom, we believe in god, we believe in our families, we believe in our communities and we believe that hoosiers are the answer to our problems, not always the government and that's the problem right now in washington, d.c we have politicians who are trying to cram legislation down our throats and taking over major portions

of our economy, for example, the healthcare legislation that just passed i believe if they would listen to hoosiers and realize the effects that they have by taking over more and more of our freedom that people are going to react very strongly in this next election i think bipartisanship is important on those issues that we agree upon, but some there are going to be issues that we just have to agree to disagree >> thank you matthew daily yea's a lawyer and lives in fishers, indiana matthew, what is your question for our candidates? >> thank you, sir my question is: if you were to be elected to the senate what would be the topic and purpose of the first bill you >> what would be the topic and purpose of the first built you would address -- dziewit draft to make law law? >> we will begin with john hostettler. >> legislation would have to deal with the deficit.

it is the single most important issue facing our country. the expansion of the government evidenced by a takeover of the health-care system by the federal government, an incremental step is such that it is important members of congress focus on this issue of the deficit. legislation i would introduce would deal with a plan to bring the budget into balance as soon as possible. that would require a discussion of many issues across the board. that is legislation i would be introducing early on in my tenure. >> thank you for your question. on december 31, 2010 the bush tax cuts will expire. the next day every taxpayer will get the largest tax hike in the history of our nation. we cannot afford to allow this

to happen, especially in a time when our economy is struggling. we have 10% unemployment in indiana. we need to generate jobs without an artificial stimulus bill. the first legislation would be to make those tax cuts permanent. it will inspire confidence that we are serious about rejuvenating our economy and it will get as that on the road to recovery. >> the same reason that the state of india struggles with the bouncing of the budget the u.s. congress needs to struggle to balance the federal budget. until we have a balanced budget amendment that forces members of congress to control spending, to stop government from exceeding its constitutional bounds, we will not have fiscal responsibility. we have run up debt that is

unconscionable. we are digging a hole that our children may not be able to dig out of. you send money to washington and it will be spent. we have to have an imposition of those under oath supporting the constitution disallowed from spending money and not bringing our fiscal situation into balance. people are depending on that. we are losing credibility around the world because we cannot stay up with it. >> time served. >> thank you for the question, as a small-business owner that is one thing i bring to the table. i have never voted for an unbalanced budget. we need to control washington the same way. there should never be a budget that is unbalanced. we would have to raise taxes and put our children at risk, whether through deficit

spending -- it is important for us to ask our government to do the same thing so many families still, to have a balanced budget. it is a very appropriate thing with the trillions of dollars of debt one of my opponents voted for a debt ceiling increase. we cannot continue to borrow and spend. we need to stop the in balanced budgets congress continues to pass. >> that is just the point, our government is creating too much legislation. i am asking hoosiers to repeal a lot of this legislation that the government is shoving down our throats. this health care legislation must be repealed. it has changed the dynamic of who we are.

we are no longer a free people. i will work to repeal this legislation, for is an economy- killer. it is a killer of our liberties. >> our next question is from a student's point of view. he is from indianapolis. >> my question, do you think taxes are a viable way of getting out of debt? do you think a limited federal government can exist in this day and age? >> thank you for the question. i have a lot of friends on the campus of iu. we must lower taxes in our nation in order to rejuvenate our economy. president reagan approved if you allow the american people to keep more of their money they know how to rejuvenate this economy. yes, you can do both.

we can lower taxes and live within our means. that will force us to make difficult choices. we have to acknowledge that the spending binge we have seen did not happen overnight. republicans were elected in 1994 with a mandate to straighten government. it only took them 12 years to lose their way. we have to rebuild trust with what we do in washington. >> daniel coats. >> you hit on a very important point. raising taxes as soon as government needs more money. right now our government is soaking up some much through taxes and sell much incentive is lost in providing support for small business and providing relief forç homeowners that our economy is stagnant. government is bloated and doing beyond what is required to do.

is spending money as if there is no tomorrow. that is destroying our economy and putting us into a difficult situation. lowering taxes -- john f. kennedy lower taxes and it stimulated the economy. what is the role of government and how will we stop this ever expanding government? this health care plan will add hundreds of thousands of people to the government rolls. stimulus has added government workers. we have to stop the expansion of government. >> i think our government can exist and we could not do better. we in indiana have done the same thing. in 2005 we had a $1 billion deficit. we have eliminated debt without raising taxes. if you keep taxes low you broaden opportunities for people and reduce the cost of business to government. you are not paying as much to the government and can put that

money in your own pocket. you have so many more opportunities. it is vital with the massive amount of debt we have that we reduce spending and keep taxes lower. i believe that is what will get our economy moving. i come from northeast india out with high unemployment rates. -- northeast indiana. we need sound policies like energy policies that will get our economy moving again rather than more government. money to buy additional equipment or employ new employees so certainly we must make the bush tax cuts permanent this year but more than that, we must simply stop the spending we have a $3.9 trillion budget that is one-third out of balance one-third out of balance that's $1.3 trillion out of budget we simply cannot continue in

that manner we must stop the spending and we must cut our budgets and make the bush tax cuts permanent and that will go a along way to help small businessmen like myself >> moderator: mr. hostettler? >> ronald reagan often said >> it is not that the government tax is too little bit is that it spends too much. i have consistently voted to cut taxes across the board in order to allow people to keep more of their money and recognized that they invest much more wisely than bureaucrats. they have created the jobs as a result of the spending. might impose to bring the budget into balance -- it is that the government spends too much. it spent trillions of dollars at

this point. the question is not can limited government be a possible -- it will take place if we do not take steps now to limit government deliberately -- it will be limited as a result of an economic disaster that we must work to avert. >> you are listening to the indiana debate commission's debate of the five candidates for the republican nomination. our next question comes from barbara. she recorded her question with the help of our friends from lakeshore public tv. >> would you support legislation about the treaty president obama signed with the head of russia earlier this month for a reduction in nuclear arms by both sides and with verification?

>> this is another one minute answer. daniel coats, you can answer this first. >> i will not support that until i find out the details. we have seen treaties proposed that once you get into the details you find out information that does not justify the decision. i have to be frank with you. i think the foreign policy of this president is someone who has not had experience -- he has gone around the world apologizing to our enemies and not representing us in a way we need to be represented. we saw the positive results that resulted from that. this deserves great scrutiny.

while it is desirable to reduce nuclear weapons, i don't want to see the u.s. give that up given the policies of this particular president? >> i would not support this agreement. it is crucial for us not only to secure america, but also protect our men and women who serve in the military. one of the responsibilities is the federal government -- is national defense. we need to make sure we as americans that we are fulfilling that responsibility and making sure our nation is secure. we are the first to help those countries in need after a natural disaster. it is important for us to maintain our freedom through that strength we had in our military.

the president continues to weaken ourselves militarily, those countries wanting to do damage and hurt our freedoms will see that as a sign of weakness. it is important stand strong in our military. >> i will not support this treaty. i believe our president sent a poor message to those who wish to do america harm. message, this gentleman is bent on creating nuclear power, nuclear weapons and a nuclear iran would be unthinkable and we need to send them a very clear-cut message that if they build it, we will come >> moderator: mr. hostettler? >> barbara, i would not support this treaty because i think the president has gotten his priorities backwards and that is before you move to disarm, limit the capability of

striking back, we must first fully develop a layered national missile defense shield when i was in the house of representatives, it became the policy of the united states government to develop a layered national missile defense shield that would be able to defense us from not only long-range attacks from, say, russia but also short and medium-range attacks so that we could preserve the security of our -- of our -- our nation and all its territories we must do that before we seek to disarm, because without that defense, without that capability, disarming would be -- would not be in the national interests of our country and would make us more susceptible to danger >> moderator: don bates >> barbara, thank you so much for the question i have to tell you there are many times when i >> thank you for the question. there are many times when i feel

like i am living through jimmy carter park two. one of my greatest disappointments with president obama is his foreign policy. he has insulted our friends and apologize for our greatness to our enemies. i would not support this treaty. i was disappointed he pulled back from the czech republic and poland with the missile defense we promised them. i believe we are sending the wrong message. instead of a message for leadership we are sending a message of appeasement. >> our next question is from stephen per ervin. what is your question for our candidates? >> where do you stand on any future semi-automatic weapons ban? >> let's start with marlin stutzman.

>> i believe it is the people's liberties teeth. it is the second amendment for a good reason. i would not support any additional restrictions on assault weapons. i don't believe in it is necessary. we need to protect those rights. back in the 99 because there were votes to ban assault weapons. we have to be vigilant in how the government and fringes on our second amendment rights. we value those freedoms we have that are guaranteed by the second amendment. this election is very important. the nra is making a clear statement how they will endorse the upcoming primary. it is important to stand strong on the second amendment issues

and would not support additional appeals. >> i believe the founders were very clear with the second amendment. they were not talking about deer hunting, they were talking about protecting one's self and one's republic. i believe any attempt to take away the second amendment rights in any way is not appropriate to who we are as a people. it gives teeth to the amendments and has kept us a prosperous people. i will work hard to protect our second amendment rights. >> i oppose any new restrictions on firearms ownership. in 1995 i cast a vote to repeal in 1995 i cast a vote to repeal the clinton gun ban put in place p