change in congressional control, the policy was once again approved although it was not adequately funded. with regard to president obama's 2010 plan, i have yet to find a person in nasa, the defense department, the air force, the national academies, industry or academia that had any knowledge of the plan prior to its announcement. rumors abound that neither the nasa administrator nor the president's adviser on science and technology were knowledgeable about the plan. lack of radio -- lack of review normally means that there will be unwelcome consequences. for this plan that is worrisome. america has invested substantially for more than half a century to acquire a position of leadership in space. for any organization, a public

utility, airline, university or nfl team to maintain a leadership position requires a steadfast determination and a continuing investment in the future. that investment must be made wisely. i believe that so far our national investment in space and our sharing of that knowledge with the rest of the world has been made wisely and has served as well. america is respected for the contributions it has made in learning to sail on this new ocean. if our leadership is simply allowed to fade away, other nations will surely step in where we have faltered. i do not believe that would be in our best interest. i am very concerned that the new

plan as i understand it will prohibit us from having human access to lower earth orbit on our own rockets and spacecraft until the private aerospace industry is able to qualify their hardware underdevelopment as rated for human occupancy. i support the encouragement of newcomers to provide lower-cost access to space. but having cut my teeth in rockets more than 50 years ago, i am not confident. the most experienced rocket engineers with him i have spoken believe that it will require many years and substantial investment to reach the necessary level of safety and reliability. if these experts are correct, the united states will be limited to buying passage to the international space station from russia and will be prohibited

from flying to other destinations in lowercase earth orbit or destinations in the outer space frontier. -- in the lower space-b sorbate or destinations in the outer space frontier. i believe that if the national space plan is subject to the normal review process of this congress, the aerospace industry and the reliable experts that we know in the military and the aerospace community, america will be well served. thank you.

>> thank you, mr. armstrong, very much. mr. cernan. >> one month ago, neil armstrong and i released an opinion paper expressing our concern over the administration's proposed space- bar budget. we spent a great deal of time -- proposed space budget. we spent a great deal of time choosing our words, words like ."ediocrity," slid we particularly wanted to avoid

,ny political overtone because from the beginning of nasa, we have avoided partisan politics. we have transcendent national differences. there is talk about a decision yet to come about building a large booster which might ultimately someday almost take us to the far reaches of this universe. there are, however, no details, no specific challenge, and no commitment as to where or when this exploration might come to pass. when one examines in detail the 2011 budget, and nowhere can be found one penny, not one penny allocated in support of space

exploration, yet there has been much rhetoric about heavy lift propulsion, research, robotics and missions. these are all worthwhile endeavors, yet nowhere do we find any mention of human space exploration, and nowhere do we find a commitment and dollars to support this endeavor. we have come to a unanimous conclusion that this budget proposal presents no challenges, has no focus, and isn't that a blueprint for ambition to know where -- and is in fact a blueprint for ambition to know where -- nowhere. there are those who say they can achieve this goal in little more than three years and that they can do it for something less than $5 billion.

based on my personal experience and what i believe is possible, i believe it might take a full decade in the cost maybe two to three times as much. although i strongly support the goals and ideals of commercial exploration, those who propose such a limited architecture do not yet know what they do not know. there are a myriad of technical challenges yet to be overcome, safety considerations which cannot be overlooked or compromise, as well as a business plan and investors will have to satisfy. all of this will lead to unplanned delays which will cost the american taxpayer billions of unallocated dollars and blank and the gap from shuttle retirement to the day we can once again access lower earth orbit, leaving us hostage as a nation to foreign powers for some indeterminate time in the

future and. this may be a sensitive point because i am going to mention something about a dear friend to have the ultimate respect for. we had a briefing last week. it was in that briefing that charlie expressed some concern over the potential of the commercial sector to be successful in any reasonable length of time. he indicated that we might have to subsidize them until they are successful. i can say with authority, because i wrote this down, and to put the word, "wow," right next to weapon -- right next to because it might be the largest bailout in history.

the united states has spent half a century learning what we did not know, finding answers to questions we were not smart enough to ask the time, developing technology that was needed to meet the challenge and get the job done. we came from alan shepard's flight in 1961 to the international space station today. we made a trip to the men along the way. oon along-- to the m the way. this was due to the courage, dedication and self sacrifice of elements of americans allowed us to come this far this -- of thousands of americans to allow us to come this far this quickly. it is because of american

continuity that everyone who went to the man came home -- went to the moon came home. is this the nasa we want to transform? for the sake of time, i will not go into my thoughts and concerns about changing technology without a goal or the fact we may or may not make a decision about a heavy lift booster, or i have majorhat concerns about an orien-lite. many come back to what has been through a detailed review process and been vetted by every important agency that has any ownership interest in any technical, scientific budget, or

benefits that might be derived from human space exploration. an arsenal of the best engineers and scientists, many of them yours, and experts in the aerospace community, added their knowledge and expertise to the review of the proposed constellation architecture before it ever became a program worthy of consideration. appropriately, as has been said already, under the law, both houses of congress overwhelmingly, with bipartisan support, agreed that consolation should go forward. should golation forward. it is and noun how much thought went into the proposal for the budget for -- is unknown how much thought went into the proposal for the budget for 2011.

this leads to one of the conclusions -- one to the conclusion that this proposal was most likely formulated in haste with in the office of management and budget with little or with no input. by his own admission in previous testimony, the nasa administrator, or a senior nasa management, and if that were the case, the originators were quite likely promoting their own agenda rather than america's commitment to space exploration. this is not an entitlement. it is an investment in the future, in technology, jobs, world leadership, and perhaps most importantly, in the

inspiration and education of our youth. you asked how much of the budget has gone into education. the inspiration for our youth came when neil armstrong walked on in the man -- walked on the moon. it is a freebie. the people at nasa did not join the team to design windmills', but to take us where no one has gone before. the american space flight program has come up for half a century, risen above the partisan differences. the challenges and accomplishments of the pasteur those of a nation, not of a political party -- accomplishments of the past

worere those of a nation, not a political party. the flags flying on the moon or not blue -- were not blue or red. they were american. now is the time for wiser heads in america to prevail. now's the time to overrule this administration's pledge to mediocrity. now is the time to be innovative, bold and wise in how we invest in the future of america. thank you for allowing me to share with you my passion. that, quite simply, is the future of our country. >> thank you. mr. augustine. >> members of the committee,

thank you for permitting me to speak and represent my colleagues on the human space flight program. i should probably begin by saying that it would be very difficult to gather a group of four people who i admire more than the two gentlemen beside me and the two coup appeared before recipe -- who appeared before us. certainly, the science to be derived is not unimportant. the same could be said of the economic impact. certainly, engineering achievements have been very significant indeed. of these things are important, it was the view of our committee

that taken by themselves, they are not sufficient to justify the cost of the program. one has to justify the program based on intangibles. the fact that they are intangible makes them no less significant, in our view. this program can blaze a path for humans to move into outer space. it inspires young people to study science and engineering. so many of the scientists and engineers today were inspired by the to the gentleman beside me and others like them. more importantly, it says to the world with the american people can accomplish with our system of government and our system of free enterprise. all of this comes with a little less than a dime a day per citizen, which seems to be a very great bargain. a great deal could be done with robots, and that is certainly true, and it should be.

but there are certain things the robots cannot do. one thing would be to make the first repair to the hubble telescope program. i cannot imagine a robot could have done that. similarly, there are the intangibles. does anyone remember the name of the first robot that step on the man? launching a rocket to the top of everest with the flag in it, is quite different than sir edmund hillary climbing to the top of everest. i was asked to make a few brief comments on some of the conclusions from a study in shared 20 years ago on the space program as a whole. some of the conclusions perhaps relate to the issues of today. the first was, at that time, 20 years ago, we concluded that

nasa was being asked to accomplish grand goals but being given resources but did not match the bulls. the was a very dangerous thing to do -- did not match of the goals. that was a very dangerous thing to do, particularly in space. second, we thought was likely we would lose another and shuttle. sadly, that proved to be the case. we said the heavy lifting was the gateway to letterspaced. -- gateway to outer space. strongught the tr technology program was being starved. we said one of the consequences would be the future decision makers would have very few options.

finally we said the we needed a balanced space program, balanced in terms of human spaceflight, robotics, science and so forth. the recent review of the human spaceflight program -- we had 10 members of the committee. our findings were unanimous. the first question is, why not just continue the consolation program? -- the consolation -- constellation program? when the program was begun five years ago, nasa believed that they had good reason to accept

the budget profile. be that as a day, they received only two-thirds of that amount each year. the consequence, coupled with technical problems that the program has encountered, is the during the four years, it slipped somewhere between the three-five years behind schedule. when in addition, we reconsider the but the goals of the program, which was focused on going back to the moon, rather than something more aggressive such as going to mars with some intermediate stops. when we talk to young people, we found the when we said, 20 years from now we will be going back to the moon, most of their response was, well, we did that

60 years ago. that led us to be concerned that our nation would not be able to continue to support a program that would go through five administrations, nine congresses, and 18 budget cycles. that program fairly closely approximates one of our options, option 5 tb. we were asked to provide options, not recommendations, so the we could be neutral. we're trying very hard to do that. the president's program, in our view, we do consider to be a viable program. we offered two very important

caveat. the first is that a vital part of that option is its funding profile, not just for the next few years, but for the life of the program. the second was the decisions truly be made on the schedule that they have been planned. i'm sorry to report to you that just as we tried, we could not find any interest in the program for the amount of money proposed. the most important request i would make to this committee on behalf of my colleagues was that whatever program was improved that its goals matched the budget. -- was approved, that its goals

matched the budget. otherwise, we will be right back here having the same conversation. america can have a strong human space flight program. my concern is that it be a a program worthy of a great nation. thank you very much. >> capt., you indicated that we are potentially headed on a journey to know where. -- nowhere. in a substantial skeptic of human spaceflight -- i am a substantial skeptic of human spaceflight. but cannot support going into

space as an end in and of its bid -- in and of itself. i agree that we need a human spaceflight program, not one solely bound by time in space. my mind is not closed, because i am not an expert. i want to understand the value of human space flight, by bringing another dimension to it. i am asking this of any of you, not all three of you, but any of you. i am asking that not just be the matter of space flight, but that it also relates to the human condition, not only in the world, but in our own country.

i think nasa was conceived brilliantly with the idea of simply doing something that had never been done before. we have done a noun. a number of times. -- we have done it now. a number of times. i do not mean to say by that that we should stop doing it, but i do think we should stop doing the things the same way. nasa has received a lot of criticism over how it has run things. various analysts have worried about over expenditures and things of that sort. so i want to understand the value of human space flight. i want one of you to tell me how nasa's human spaceflight programs advance the agency's

overall mission today and in the future, and i also want you to explain how human space flight, in that context of other priorities for nasa, helps the human condition sufficiently to its budget in america. >> you are asking for a lot. i will do my best and i will certainly let my colleagues tell me if they would like. if you want to talk about technology, take what you have in your hands today, the

technology that communicates around the world, the technology of communication itself, the technology that i have in my iphone today is technology the was given birth to 30, 40 years ago. i skipped over my comments about technology. exploration drives technology and innovation, not the reverse. you cannot block a group of the smartest men and women in a room and say, go develop technology. for what? there has to be a purpose. they have to know what they're trying to accomplish, what the goal is, and then develop the technology gets the job done. going to the man -- moon, the

technology the was developed, what into our hospitals today. what in your classrooms. is that a benefit to us humans here on. today? i would like to think that it is. let me get more philosophical. curiosity is the essence of human existence. where are we? where do we come from? where are we going? is there life on mars? is mars what earth is going to look like in a billion years? what ditmars look like a billion years ago? i do not know. but i want to find out. it is within our hearts and souls to desire and find out knowledge. we have been there, but we have not been everywhere. there is a bottom to the ocean. you can walk to the top of the highest mountain on this planet

and go to the depths of the deepest ocean, but you're still on earth. there is a difference between the frontier of space. i know enough to be other reasons to go, but that is one of the driving things. it is our destiny, i believe, to explore the and noun -- the unknown, to find answers to those questions. we have more questions about the moon now than we did before we left, before we went there. i am probably not being as explicit as you would like me to be, but the benefits to humans on this planet, whether it is communications satellites, weather satellites, predicting storms, on and on.

those things were given birth to when kennedy said we are going to go to the moon. he was asking us to do the impossible. he was asking us to do what most people did not think could be done. we did not have the technology to do it. that technology is we have what we have today. in every walk of life. i have overrun my time. thank you. >> i would just add to what captain cernan said. is it an improvement of our life on earth that we can put a satellite, a guided missile into a window from 3 miles out and

instead of killing 500 civilians, you kill the enemy that you are seeking, is that an improvement? that is what has happened because we explored in space. let me talk about the future. the nobel laureate from mit talks about what we can do in the space station in the future to study cosmic rays which are most intense in space. not honors. -- on earth. that is the kind of science we're talking about. not just going into space to go into space. you have asked a valid question. if that were all we were doing, i would not be pushing this. i am pushing it because if we continue our priorities in space, we will be the ones that can capture the cosmic rays and

have the energy, renewable energy sources that will keep us from having to drill for oil and gas and go to the renewable energy of the future. that is why we are doing this. it is the future and we want to do with rather than having others do it so that we harness it. i want to ask the question, because i want to go to said inng dr. cernan ai his testimony. that is talking about putting all the money into private contractors but having nasa take the step back rather than having it be a nasa project with private contractors. you said we assume that this goal says that these private contractors that are not yet tested in a little more than

three years for less than $5 million can put people into low earth orbit in a new vehicle. it assumes you can design and flight test the spacecraft along with the infrastructure required. this includes redesigning the requirements and developing the support and training simulators, writing technical manuals. developing the synergy between the network and the newly designed space vehicle. these are a few of the developments and the support requirements to put a new manned the system into space. what you went on to say is you predict it would be 10 years, not three. it could mean bailing out the companies. we could not do that under $5 billion.

do think that money ought to be spent with nasa redoing their plan, so that they are in control, not just with blinders on. it seems he was saying with in my budget, we can do this. how about being more creative in your budget? how about not just doing constellation but a new configuration of constellation? what about the return vehicle that can take people into space as well but put our money not into termination contracts at two. filed -- and to $2.50 billion. not into renting space on soyuz and developing our techniques so we can gain these advantages. would that be what you are

proposing in your statement? >> i think you asked at first about all the infrastructure that is needed to support the commercial sector which was one of the reasons why it cost to go up. a report was done that this would not take -- this would take 10 to $12 billion and it does not count the infrastructure. the simulators, the mission ators, everything you have to develop. a lot of people think we play handball and when it is time to fly, we jumped in a spacecraft and went to the moon. we went spent -- we spent years

helping the engineers and helping design, develop, test, we were out their 24-7. whatever number of years it took .o get the space tcraft how and when is that going to be prepared for and what is the commercial sector -- how well they handle it? are we going to subsidize that? is it the nasa program or program that nasa pays for that we're someone else run or will they respond to the requirements and safety? i do not think these have been addressed properly and they have not been looked at. as far as i think what you of asked, -- have asked, i am concerned in the near term about the gap. in the long term, i am concerned

about exploration because that is my bag, exploration. going where no man has gone before. doing what has not been done before. others could not or would not do. that is exploration. in the near term, we need to and i know how you feel about shuttle extension. i do not know anything about the capability. we ought to stretch the shuttle out and close the gap. we ought to have something that closes the gap on the back end. i do not believe that this commercial space -- it is something we have invested $9 billion in, get it up and running, and instead of a potential gap of a decade, we might not get down to three or 45 years. at least we will tell the rest of the world that we're not going to stay slaves to what they say we can do or cannot do

in space. we will have our own answers. even if there is a gap of a few years, we will get there from here. get that done and while we are in the process of doing it, if you want to redesign constellation's objectives and build a new booster or whatever it takes, that is the time to do it. >> thank you. >> i want to thank you for the personal attention you have given this hearing, being here the whole time. i am profoundly grateful for that. my answer to your question, why space, is because we as

americans are by nature, explorers. we have always had a frontier. when this nation was developed, we had visionary leaders like thomas jefferson, who paid initially about $2,000 for lois and clark to go westward. -- lewis and clark to the westward. that cost $36,000. it was fulfilling our destiny as a people, which is by nature, we are explores. adventure is. -- we are explores and debentures. if we give up that characteristic of a we will be a second-rate nation. that frontier is no longer westward. that frontier is upward. and as gene talked about, we are

inquisitive. we are curious. look what the hubble space telescope has opened, a new vistas of knowledge, paring back in time to the beginning of the universe. once we get the james webb telescope up there, we may be able to go back to the origin of the universe. is that valuable to us as an inquisitive people? as citizens of planet earth? i think it is. that is my answer to your question. may i ask a question of dr. augustine? thank you for your steady hand throughout the years.

you have heard strong opinions expressed by these american heroes. the committee that you headed contained representatives across the entire spectrum of government and aerospace. it included military as well. it included some astronauts. can you describe how this administration's plan and you can say how it has been amended as the president demanded it down at the kennedy space center, can you describe how it compares with the options that you laid out in your report? >> i would be happy to do that. we had a possibility of up to 3000 options based on the parameters we looked at. we limited it to five main options.

this option 5 b is close to the one the president has proposed. there are two possible differences. one is at our option went ahead with the development of the launch vehicle ride away, up to five years. the other areas we had a funding profile. $3 billion a year. our funding profile was substantially greater than the one that we were offered by omb. we could not find a good answer with the omb profile. the ride manages to slipping the start of the heavy lift launch vehicle. it gives you time to let you lay more advanced technology and

helps the early budget pressures when you are trying to keep the station going. you pay the price and you lose time in being able to pursue the program. the biggest risk is when five years comes or whatever it is, you do not restart. that would be a tragedy, in my opinion. to be the biggest risk. the auction we looked at, -- option we looked at is closer to the president's program. i have not seen the funding or any details, so i cannot testify to that. assuming it is fully funded, we found it was a rather exciting program. rather than wait 15 or 20 years and land on the moon, after a few years, and every few years thereafter, it accomplishes an

objective you can point to. you can talk with an asteroid or tried to move one. you can go to a lagrange point and you could circumnavigate mars. you could orbit mars and land on one of mars' moons, and from there, control robots operating on mars which overcomes the problem of robotic exploration. it takes up to 40 minutes to get a signal back and forth from here to mars. it offers all those rather exciting it manages, -- advantages. that brings me to two other aspects that were similar to ours. the only way you could avoid the gap is to keep the shuttle going.

the gap was created five years ago. that is a fait accompli. if you want to avoid the gap, we [unintelligible] to lower the orbit. our view is it will be a seven- year gap. not a five year-gap. you have to get used to the idea. if you continue to operate the shuttle, you can avoid much of the gap but then, the shuttle consumes all the money you want to use. to replace the constellation. it kept coming back to how much money do you have available. you get all these trade-offs that are hard to make. if you started heavy lift launch vehicle now, that is much less you have to improve the iran. the one thing is to add $3 billion a year and i know how difficult that is in today's

agreement. -- today's environment. >> the -- what center nelsen indicated, the word exploration, i agree is the nature of what americans have always been. what i think is also worth considering and why ask in my question to the captain, how human based flights can contribute to the condition of humankind on this earth, had another dimension to it. there are various forms of exploration. one is doing the undoable and the -- in the physical exploration cents, lois and

clark.e, lewis and you caught the world. the world's heart stopped. it also stopped but unnoticed in 1878 when sir isaac newton came to open a new medical university called johns hopkins. he said that in the 2000 years previous to that date, there had been known advances in medicine at all. during the civil war and other wars, often, diseases were considered to come from outside into the body. which is why powders were constantly being applied to the wounds but not necessarily

diseases come from inside the body which we know to be different. he did something and johns hopkins did something. there was no federal funding for research of any sort. this is 125 years ago. there was no federal funding for medical research. there were no requirements. yale and stanford had a medical school. you did not have to have a high school diploma to get into medical school. much less a college degree. they took you and talk you nothing. -- taught you nothing. what john's hopkins did when sir isaac newton said you follow the truth wherever it goes -- takes you in medicine, there can be no compromise in that. you do what you have to do to

follow the truth in science, in madison -- medicine. as a result of that, literally, the medical education in the u.s. has been completely revolutionized. we all understand that now. that is also -- that is not space flight. it is doing the undoable, taking on the unknowable, challenging with no federal resources -- other private foundations had to be activated to this idea of activating medical research. you could read about all of that in "the great influenze epidemic."

i wanted to say not to rebut anything that has been said, the exploration is a broad word. the american search for newness finds many outlets. most of them quite glorious. but not all of them. i thank you. >> senator nelson will continue to chair the meeting. >> a great discussion. these are the kinds of hearings we should have all the time. why not do what capt. cernan suggested? phase out the shishuttle. this is one of the things that drives me nuts. we start stopping space programs all the time. we put $5 billion on it and it drives all folks crazy.

constellation was underfunded by one-third. why not go the route that capt. cernan said, move forward with constellation? >> that is a good question. it is question we addressed early on. i have written more articles that i would like to annett about do not change programs, do not start and stop them. if you are starting democrat of -- starting them, finish them. it is tragic to write off $9 billion but it is a sub cost and it contributes to the building of the heavy lift launch vehicle sometime in the future so part of the money is recoverable. the issue comes down to the fact

that when the program was started, the area at issue, the constellation program has four parts. the aries 1 and altair lunar lander. be lateter were not able to started. one part is the orion which is program, most's of that will go on. it is the area's one -- aries one that is the issue. one primary mission was to support the international space station. the second was to -- to be part of the space exploration program

15 years from now. the third was to provide technology to build a heavy lifter version of the aries. it slipped five years. by the time it is developed, on the planet was being developed, the international space station is back in the ocean. if you add five years to the life of the international space station, by the time the aries gets developed, it will have two years to support the international space station and you will have a 15-year hiatus. it will be there the most expensive way in the world to put people on earth into orbit or after that, it will be useful again for the exploration program, but there is this long downtime. the program made sense when it

started. it is not a bad program today. the issue is not can we do it, but should we do it? at least in the form it was laid out. >> you do not believe we should do it? >> i am trying not to choose sides but it was one of the least attractive as laid out. >> we do not seem to have a plan. we were working off of a plan. i agree with the low earth orbit. i want a plan to go on. this seems to put that off for five years. the budgetary numbers are such that even if you took the

shuttle money, you cannot get there with the plan that we were on and so you are better off going on to something else. >> it was our conclusion that the budget -- with the budget that was presented, there was no way, particularly with the high fixed overhead costs, to conduct a human exploration program that would be meaningful and safe. at all. >> i hope this is the beginning of the discussion. we have got some good thoughts laid out here. i hope this leads into getting elbow grease and digging into how it is we move forward. thank you for your service. you are great american heroes and i appreciate you continuing the fight for exploration that you started and to give us an

exploration for and you do not give up. that is worth a huge amount even if you cannot measure. it will enhance the exploration that is for future generations. >> >> i have heard budget as the reason stated for why we cannot keep the shuttle flying and close that gap. putting talking about $6 billion into the private sector companies, some of which are not developed yet or tested, and then we talk about having to if they do not make their budgets, having to bail them out because you put $6

billion in i would rather talk about what is the best plan and to determine the priorities so that you stay within the budget, but not become wedded to only one way of doing it but determine what is the right plan to get us where i think all of our goals is, that is to be able to use the space station. to explore and to assure that we are getting the scientific products that we have invested $100 million in. if we let the space shuttle -- station be in jeopardy of even being useful by not having the backup system that we control, i do not know that is good budgeting either. i have a problem with what i am hearing and the lack of

creativity in what we do within that budget. i saw in the first panel. i would like to ask mr. armstrong on the safety issue. your written statement, you talk about the service will be buying from the russians and sources -- soyuz and not necessarily the safety standards would have on our shuttle. would you talk about the safety issue? >> thank you. the prime recommendation of the columbia accident investigation board, with respect to new

vehicles in the future was that safety be considered the prime consideration. who can argue with safety? you cannot put all the money into safety. it has to be balanced with program requirements and others. an acceptable level of safety has to be determined. that is where you are searching for. the -- we have pretty good confidence on the shuttle right now. we have had a number of safelights and -- safe flights. it is an old 40-year-old technology but it could continue to be operated safely as we have

in the last two years. it's pretty good confidence level on that. the aries one was projected by outside safety experts to be the safest vehicle that we could project in the future. it was perhaps two or more times better than its competitors, including the shuttle launch aries iv and expandable combinations. they did not compare the commercial and trees because they did not have enough data on those configurations to project an accurate safety value. >> taking the soyuz and the

capability we have to judge, they are using the same technology, probably 40 years old that the shuttle probably is. our capability to discern the safety of the soyuz and the new commercial vehicles, do you think that safety would be at a disadvantage with the shuttle as compared with the new spacecraft that we do not have tested yet and the soyuz? concerns about the soyuz? >> it is difficult to reject that answer until the commercial vehicles have gotten into a

flight environment and are more carefully configured and described in detail. the soyuz is safe to return to earth on. the -- the shuttle would continue to be safe for some years. we could depend on them. it may take extra but it is doable. i think the key on the ares is it was designed with the recommendation of the cafid, safety first. it was designed with that in mind. the commercial vehicles, i just do not know what safety

considerations they have in their design. they are good. i just do not know. >> in your testimony, you also comment on the orion light, which has the capability to bring people back but not go up. it will have the capability to to other destinations in lower orbits. do you think that is the best use of our budget constraints, to have the orion light which has that limited capability as opposed to putting the same capability into the orion, which the president has said is his goal, doing an orbit around

mars or the other destinations beside the space station? >> i do not think it would be a good use of that segment of the funds in the budget. i think not because it would be quite inexpensive vehicle to design and test. it would be quietly before would be ready and it would not be able to service the space station very long after was finally completed. the configuration is probably not very good for some of the most serious emergencies, like a medical emergencies where we have to depart and returned to earth because of the configuration of an orion type vehicle is poor their nautical

performance. it will come down in the ocean or the land. if it is an immediate emergency departure. >> senator, we have in the with the wo soyuz capability to put a third of their. the redundancy puzzles me. the fact that the soyuz lands on land and the shuttle lands on a runway. we will have a ballistic and maybe slightly lift capabilities spacecraft much like apollo. it will have to land in an ocean. we have to regenerate the recovery forces. it is not the cost. the vehicle that has to have men

in it before you can put men or humans in it to bring them home safely, you have to man rate it to start with and you have to recovery forces standing by summer to recover the spacecraft. but caused no one seems to recognize or noacknowledge. there is an underlying cost in developing the space craft that will have half the capability of the one we need. if i may, we talk about budgets and cost of everything. i want to remind the american people out there and some people in congress that it costs little more than half a penny of every tax dollar that you and i sent to the federal government to pay for space. shuttle, station, hubbell,

opportunity and spirit on mars, a little more than half a penny. i do not think the american people know that. if we put a box in the 1040 and said would you give a penny to nasa, we would not able -- we would be able to afford everything almost want to do. >> i think people would believe that the investment we have made has proved -- improved the quality of health. mri is and things that people can get. it has transformed health care. there are so many things that space exploration, the preparation for a has given us in quality of life. i want to make sure that we do not lose that advantage and the capability to manufacture those products in america for the quality of life in america and the world. we do have a boat.

i will close my part. vote. do have a we have to speak out and try to better planer in a that has been put forward so far. i kind of think the general is going to try to work with us to see if we can come to a plan where everyone can feel is the right approach for america and our future. both economically and for the scientific productivity that we hope to encourage our children to pursue. >> did your commission determine that ares would be much safer than the existing

shuttle? was it by a factor of 10? >> i find myself in a bit of a situation. [unintelligible] is skeptical of the reliability of the safety models. so i would be reluctant to make it a comparison. the ares was designed with safety and reliability in mind which should bode well in that regard. by the same token, i would like to say this about the commercial launch vehicles. there are two things that have not,. one is that nasa in the plan that has been put forth, we have

responsibility to oversee reliability. that part of it is nasa's responsibility to see. the general understands that. the other comment is that in talking about the commercial launch companies, we tend to talk about the start of companies. our options -- anyone who wants to bid. they can bid and at least in the case of one of the commercial, the larger companies, they have a large vehicle that has 90 straight successes. i would like to make one other comment. just to put things in perspective. we tend to think that it is a big jump for industry to get to

a safe launch vehicle. i do not want to understand the difficulty. there is risk their and anywhere in space. i was thinking as we talked again in terms of the advancement of technology over time, how much industry must have progressed since these gentlemen went to the moon. the time for the wright brothers to we went to the mud is the same amount of lapsed time as when we left to the moon and returned to the moon under the plan that was previously in place. it is interesting perspective. >> disappointing. >> disappointing. >> mr. armstrong, you made the case in your statement. we will insert in the record jim lubbell's prepared testimony.

you made the statement we ought to go back to the month, and i want you to tell us why you think returning to the surface of the motion is important, as opposed to a lunar flight by and ian pointshe lagrang and ultimately to mars. >> thank you. e is believe that ther ei value in returning to the moon. we know 1000 times more about the moon than before paulo. there is still so much of it that is undiscovered and unventured upon. there may be valuable minerals

or other materials on the lunar surface that can be used when at such time when permanent settlements will be made there. it is worthwhile knowing about those. i do think there is value in going to the surface. there is also value in using the moon as a location from which to do with their activities. other positions at leonard distance that can be reached easily by communication with only a second and a half time and allows mission control to be involved in the efficiency and safety of the aberration. we can learn in the lunar

regions, many of the things that are still unknown or undeveloped in our current state of knowledge about interplanetary space travel, particularly things like radiation protection and so on, where we have the possibility to get out of real trouble when we get in it because we're so close to home back to earth. that is the possibility that we will not have once we find ourselves months away from earth. there is great value in continuing to include moon as an integral part of the space exploration program as we go forward. >> i will just close by saying that mr. augustine said that they deliver did this on the

panel. they pointed out that one of the things is you have to sustain the support from the american people and what the chairman of the augustine commission wanted to do was to get that excitement returned. there was a legitimate question raised. can you go -- get that by going back to the moon? perhaps you can if we know what our goal is. the president has stated that goal. let's see if we can achieve it. thank you all very much. the meeting is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> a look ahead at the midterm elections as charlie cook joins senate editor jennifer duffy. they talk about the congressional and gubernatorial

races. beginning at 8 eastern. the senate california race with the first debate between barbara boxer and republican candidates carly fiorina. >> there is nothing about finance that is like a rocket science. this is the most frustrating thing. the biggest ponzi scheme for wall street is telling someone who has worked really hard to earn about that they are not smart enough to understand how that is going to be invested. >> meredith whitney was the first to predict losses for lehman brothers.

she's our guest on "q&a". >> the president spoke today in the rose garden after the august jobs report came out. >> good morning, everybody. as we head into liberty weekend, i know many people across this country are concerned about what the future holds for themselves and their families and for the economy as a whole. there is no quick fix for the worst recession we have experienced since the great depression. the truth is it took years to create our current economic problems and it will take morai. millions of our neighbors are living with that painfully everyday. i want all americans to remind themselves there are better days

ahead. even after this economic crisis, our markets remain the most dynamic in the world. our workers are still the most productive. bee remain the global leader in innovation, discovery, an entrepreneur ships -- we remain. we're losing 750,000 jobs a month when i took office. new figures showed the economy produced 67,000 private-sector jobs in august. the eighth consecutive month of private job growth. additionally, the numbers in july were revised upward to 107 ,00. that is positive news. that reflects breaking the back of this recession, but it is not good enough. we have taken further steps to create jobs to keep the economy going, including extending tax cuts for the middle class and investing in the areas of the

economy where the potential for job growth is greatest. in the weeks ahead i will discuss some of these ideas in detail. one thing we have to do also right now, one thing we have a responsibility to do right now is to lift up our small businesses, which accounted for over 60% of job losses in the final months of last year. that is why i am calling on congress to make passing a small business jobs bill its first order of business later this month. this is why this is important, up until this past may, we were not only raising fees for entrepreneurs who took outs belongs, we were also encouraging more community banks to make loans to responsible business owners. these steps are part of the reason about 70,000 new small business administration loans have been approved since i took office. i think sarah up for the

outstanding job she has been doing and the administrator of the asba. we have been fighting to extend the loan enhancements. a bill that woulmore than double the amount some small- business owners are able to borrow to grow their companies. it will completely eliminate the capital gains taxes on key investments so the small business owners can buy new equipment and expand. it will celebrate $55 billion in tax cuts for businesses large and small that make job-creating investments in the next 14 months. ke in mind, it is paid for. we will not add one dime to the deficit. so simply put, this piece of legislation is good for workers, good for small business people, good for our economy. yet republicans in the senate have blocked the bill. a needless delay that has left small business owners across

this country to put off hiring and expanding and put off plans that will make our economy stronger. i have repeated since i ran for office, there is no sver bullet that is going to solve all of our economic problems. there are certain steps that we know will make a meaningful difference for small businessmen and women. the primary drivers of job creation. there are certain measures we know will advance our recovery. the small business jobs bill is one of them. i am confident we can put partnership aside and be leaders the american people need us to be if we are willing to do what is best not for the next election but for the next generation. we are not only going to see if america's hard-working families and small businesses bounceback, but rebuild america's economy stronger than before. thank you very much.

i will be addressing a broader package of ideas next week's. we are confident that we are moving in the right direction, but we want to keep this recove moving stronger and accelerate the job growth that is needed so desperately all across the country. >> [unintelligible] do you regret the administration decision to call the recovery --? >> i will have a press conference next week. we will bi to answer some specific questions -- we will be able to answer specific questions. the economy is moving in and a positive direction.

jobs are being created. just not being created as fast as they need to, given what we experienced. we will have to continue to work with replicans and democrats to have ideas that will frederick celebrate the job growth. i am confident if we can do that. the evidence we hav seen this summer and over the last 18 mont if indicate we are moving in the right direction. we just need it to speed up. rappeport writes about

the unemployment numbers. the rise in u.s. private jobs, private sector jobs raises hope. how does an uptick in the jobs number provide a little hope? >> the number was better than expected overall. there was -- the headline number was digital declined. that was due to the census layoffs, the temporary workers the used over the summer. there was revisions to the month before and i in june. we saw the economy was not as weak as people were expecting. >> how many new jobs were created in the month and where are those jobs coming from? >> private payrolls were up by 67,000 and we saw there were increases in health care, education, and temporary workers, which was a good sign. >> what is the biggest obstacle

to getting the jobs, the employment rate to increase to get jobs building across the country? >> what is interesting is -- what is holding the economy is demand remains weak. consumers are cautious and spending cautiously. the housing market is holding things back. people continue to have lost equity and a lot of household wealth because of that. it is slowing down the overall back drop of the economy and companies are cautious about hiring. the backdrop is still so uncertain. >> i read a piece earlier that it is not just about the lost jobs, but it is the jobs machine. the way the u.s. used to be able to create jobs in the 1960's and early 2000. what will it take to get the jobs machine working again? >> there are concerns that we are facing sort of structural

employment change. we may be facing unemployment at 10%. there was one bright note. long-term unemployment, people who have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks fell back and that is encouraging. when people are unemployed for that long, there starts to be problems with their skills eroding and they are much less unemployable. -- employable. we need to see better matching in terms of companies being able to fund the types of employees they will need to go forward. >> how did they markets reacted a? the markets were pretty enthusiastic. expectations were so low. there was a sense this could have been much worse. there was some enthusiasm there and other data that came out later of which was less hopeful. that brought things back a bit. >> is their enthusiasm for some of the remedies that are being

talked about, another round of stimulus, small-business lending, other items that the administration may bring forward in the next week or so? >> that is a big issue with the midterm elections in november. the president called for small business jobs bills and called for a middle-class tax cuts. those initiatives are being held up. next week, some possibilities there. one issue facing the administration is whatever they're able to do will not show up on payrolls by november. >> you can read his writing at ft.com. thanks for joining us. >> the president goes on the road to talk about the economy. he will kick off liberty weekend

on monday with remarks at the afl-cio labor fest in milwaukee. we will have live coverage. he travels to ohio and on friday, holds the white house news conference. >> this is c-span. public affairs programming courtesy of america's cable companies. the staff of the cook political report looks at the races in the 2010 elections. then the candidates in the senate race in california face off. later, a >> a discussion of the house, senate, and governor races. this interview was on monday on "washington journal." this is just under one hour.

>> continuing our summer series this week -- if you have been turning in this hour, you have seen as two different subjects. this week we will take a look at politics and what goes into campaigning. tomorrow, we'll take a look at political and retirements -- political advertisements. on thursday, a look at the science of pulling and accuracy and how it affects elections. on friday, we will talk about political fund-raising. today, we are going to take a look at those hot campaign 2010 senate races. we had the cook political report bank. charlie cook, david wasserman

looking at house races. i do not think we have had this before. >> this is the first thing -- the first time we had done anything like this before. >> charlie, let's begin with you. i have seen two different headlines of the past week. i think that rings true for the past couple of months. they will keep the house. no, they will not keep the house. what is the prediction now? >> the house is looking tougher and tougher for the democrats to hang on. if you look at it from a top- down perspective, it looks like it is going to go republican. the race by race account is not quite there. it is almost there. they will go more into the micro political. from the national perspective, when you take in independents are swinging and all of these dynamics, it is looking tougher

and tougher for democrats to hold onto the house. my hunch is a hunch only -- that they will come up short. host: it was said on friday that they're going to cut out, -- he did not say the executive like that, but it looks like dems might cut out here. guest: it is looking like certain people probably cann be saved and these people can save themselves over here without any help. those're going to save who are right on the bubble, still salvageable, but need help. it is the process that the republicans went through at this point in 2006. host: how about the senate? guest: six months ago, three months ago, it was aurd to say

that there was any chance the republicans could get a majority in the senate. now, i think it is tough for them, but not observed. you could count 11 seats that could possibly go republican that a few months elier before barbara boxer's race became very close, was fine gold, category -- and west fine gold. the numbers are getting bigger, but more likely th not they will come up a little short. host: jennifer duffy, do you want to add to that? guest: no, i think charlie is right. three months ago, you could not have given up the seats. but the races that are too close to cal right down 10 to proportionately -- this proportionally fall to one party or -- they tend to disproportionately fall to one party or another.

in 2006, one party won 89% of all of the seats we had in tossup. now we have three democratic seats that i think republicans will win, plus eight tossups. it is not a pretty picture for democrats right now.

there is a lot at stake for the parties. host: david, which type of seat do the democrats need to keep in order to keep their majority, -- keep their majority? guest: the whole house is up for grabs. there is going to be a big change in the house. there is more risk for democrats right now.

right now we see 37 democrats. the elections happen before labor day. when you add those two together, that is the number of seats republicans need to take the house. the parties made so much progress in the past 10 years in the suburban districts. they will pick up a lot of seats in territories where they are on the upswing. there are a lot of older districts. that is where republicans start to make gains in the house. host: we want to take your calls right now.

why is tennessee a competitive race? guest: a gospel singing farmer got into a race with the democrats. when tanner decided to retire last year, it became a free for all. democrats ended up with a pretty good candidate. he dropped out of the governor's race to run for the house.

he said that no one would al doggett or al run him. -- out god or out run him. to see steven fincher spending 2 million or $3 million against what the democrats are going to spend, this will be an expensive race. it is an open seat. host: why do you think that race is number one on the list? guest: to me, david built one profile where things could be toughest for democrats. we do not disagree. the midwest, small-town, rural america, working-class -- these

are the kinds of districts that fail to republicans and long time ago. john tanner was so strong he was able to survive. in his absence, this is going to be a very tough district for democrats to hold onto. republicans have a better candidate than they deserve. he is a very good candidate. it is a tough one. there are some districts in ohio that might be more representative nastily of what is going on. host: jennifer, anything on the ticket about this house race that might help or impact these candidates for the governor's race? guest: the primary was a couple of weeks ago. the mayor of not spell on a very large chain of truck stops --

knoxville owns a very large chain of truck stops. i would be stunned if this race got within single digits. that ought to help any republican stay on the ballot. host: let me give you the list david put together. hawaii is first. virginia is fifth. south dakota, michigan -- washington is third district. new jersey is third district. what does that say to you, david? guest: week rattled off 10, but we are monitoring 120 house races out of which a majority of democratic seats are at

serious risk. there are some marquee races around the country that will be a barometer of what will happen on election night. there are a couple in particular that are interesting. --eh's first district -- thes first district democrats have won nominee on the ballot. she was the second place finisher in the special election. i am not sure he is going to lose. he has a good shot at winning a full-term. then we have a race in south dakota that will be a very good indicator of the republican's progress.

host: our first phone call comes from amarillo, texas. caller: i have two questions. does the country seem to be coming more pro-life? number two, how republicans doing in the florida and nevada senate races? guest: this election is about the economy. it is about the broad direction of the economy. this is not about any wage issues. -- wedge issues. when the economy is doing bad,

issues like abortion, issues like gay marriage, issues like the new york mosque get attention, but that is not what people are worried about. they may be expressing their discontent with the deficit or the economy. this is a big issue election. this is not a wedge issue election in any way. when the economy is good, you see the little issues rise up, but not in this kind of election. guest: i cannot disagree with philip. on the basis of the caller asked about, these are two of the most fascinating senate races. in florida, you had a three-way

race. charlie crist was a republican just months ago. he left the party. the race shows how dependent on each other all of these candidates are. rubio needs meek to run a good race. mmek needs rubio to consolidate the republican vote. this may change. this is going to be a fascinating race. -- pendencts nevada is another fascinating race.

you have the top incumbent in the country in harry reid. angle does not have a lot of experience on the campaign trail. she is sometimes engaging her mouth before her brain. there is another option on the ballot called "none of the above." if you do not like any candidate, you can literally vote for no one. that actually may save senator reid in all of this. independence, they are not breaking strongly in any direction. this is a very close race and will stay close until election day. nantucket ono to the independent line. caller: we reside in

connecticut, but we are here for the summer. i would like to ask mr. cote, when youmr -- . -- mr. cook, where you predict that the democrats will lose i will tell you right now, the independent voter is terrified of people who are absolutely out of their minds. host: have you ever voted for a republican? caller: certainly we have. guest: how many states had been in in the last 12 months? caller: at least six. guest: i had been in 35 or 38. i am out there all lot.

i am poring over survey data. we are not getting a lot of debt in washington. this is what i do for a living. host: can you talk about what goes into doing your job? part of the series this week is looking at what goes into the industry up politics. guest: jennifer and david are meeting with candidates from all over the candidates. and the candidate said he met with so far? caller: -- guest: close to 100. guest: they are meeting with candidates. host: why is it important to me with the candidates? guest: we look at the polling data and, with our own conclusions about the race. it is the ability to take the

candidate home, to see who they are, to see if they are cut from the clock of the district. that gives us an idea of how their campaign will progress and what their message is going to be. host: do they know what it takes to win? guest: many come in with a poor idea of how to run a campaign and what it takes to win. i ask them to tell me their life story. if you cannot tell me your life story, how can you answer the boater's hard questions? hard questions? we do not say "gotcha." we want an honest exchange with

these candidates. it really is important. i call it kicking the tires. you would not buy a car without looking at it and test driving it. why would you get behind a candidate without really knowing. host: it is not a problem to set up these meetings? guest: the only candace that generally do not come by to see us are the self-finders. political action committees, the political elite -- a lot of them get our stuff. this is a way for the candidate to communicate with potential donors. the self-funders do not have to come by and see us. most of the normal ones do. we do not chew off 250 million all of the airlines without

meeting with a lot of people all over the country. unless somebody is a traveling salesperson, they are probably not getting around the country and seeing as many people as i am. host: on the democratic line -- is there a specific race you are watching? guest: pennsylvania predicted that arlen specter would win over joe says neck. that is going to be the same way. forget about it. it is over. we had increased registration by 300,000 people since the last election. take a look at the registration. forget the polls. thank you very much. guest: show me the poll we took. we do not take polls. i am not sure what you are talking about. host: specter was, in fact, i

had going into the primary. guest: i talked to arlen specter for so long, he always beats the odds. my feeling was that he might beat this one out. i look at the general election and i have yet to see a poll in the last 60 days that actually has sesnick ahead in this race. it remains a close race. the only thing i can say about registration is that just because you register for a party does not mean that you vote for a party. we see that all the time. it is incredibly diverse. you have voters registered to vote republican. guest: pennsylvania is one of

the oldest race in the union relative to age. they had been betting that way for a long time. host: our next phone call is from missouri. susan on the republican line. go ahead. susan, are you with us? let's talk about misery. i think we lost her. misery is -- missouri is the one state the president wants to win. guest: there is one that marked the race in missouri. he represents rural missouri. he has been there since 1976. his campaign is focused on issues that republicans want to talk about. he wants to turn his campaign into a referendum.

his republican opponent very closely identified with the social conservatives in the district. sarah pailin has endorsed her campaign. it will be a test of whether the voters will set by. their attitudes towards washington and president obama are at an all-time low. guest: it is one of the swingiest of the swing states. you have a race between two political dynasties. you have carnahan, who is the secretary of state. she is the outsider in this race. she comes from a long line of

political officeholders. her father was governor. her mother was in the senate. her grandfather was in the house. blunt is the problem in washington. democrats went on the air against him. they ran tough ads. the call them one of the most corrupt members of congress. blunt does have the environment on his side in a year where that matters. he is ahead, but carnahan needs to get some momentum. she needs to turn this race around. guest: if you were going to say what a microcosm of challenges facing democrats in this election, it would be missouri. the challenged the democrats have of having the african- american boat out -- vote out --

they are not mobilized. they are having a huge time picking them immobilized. at the same time, the small- town, rural voters and older voters, they have turned against democrats very strongly. you can actually see everything you need to see right there in missouri. caller: the comment i would make is that in the past i have voted for democrats and republicans. however, the last couple of sessions i have gone independent because my concern is not only the economic part of it or the other side issues, but the main concern that i have is the

direction that the country is headed and where we -- what our perceptions of our of with the country is headed. i think we look at the individual person and we do the research on that person to see what he has done in the past. party, to me, makes no difference anymore. host: is this a specific district senate race? guest: i think voters do not trust any party. they are open to the possibility of voting for an independent. very rarely do you see an independent candidate, along that is not more of a french candidate. we have seen people swinging back and forth. in 2006, independent voters voted democratic for congress by a 15-18 point margin.

they voted for senator obama by an eight point margin. they have been swinging towards republicans. they are looking for change. they do not think they like the chance they got. they are swinging over to the other direction. they are very fickle. in general, straight party voting has been at the highest levels in marty -- in modern history. the ec more swinging back and forth. host: let's go to california. marie on the democratic line. caller: i do believe that all of the people here -- you have no dissenting voices here. i totally disagree. i think barbara boxer will make it.

i think she will survive. when it comes to harry reid, he is ahead. i just want to say that i do not think you told the young people and the black people. i believe that because republicans are betting against things like unemployment, i do not believe that they will pick up as many seats as you think they are going to pick up. hispanics, muslims, blacks, and it days will be a factor. thank you. guest: i am not blaming one side or the other for anything, but when president obama was sworn into office, the unemployment rate for african-americans was 12.6%. among 16 to 19 years old, it has

gone from 20.8% signed -- 20.8%. these are the people that pushed the democrats up to these incredibly high levels. right now, they are not happy people. they are not enthusiastic. that is one reason the gallup poll week before last -- 46% of republicans are enthusiastic about the team this year compared to only 23% of democrats. in the wall street journal poll, we have seen huge gaps between democrats and the publicans'. we are not sitting up here working for republicans. that is wrong. we are the ones who started writing the first week of august that it look like democrats had a 50-50 chance of winning the

senate. we call it as we see it. if democrats do not like what we are seeing, the reality is, things look bad for democrats. do not shoot the messenger. geez. host: you must hear from these candidates. guest: i do not mind people saying we are wrong, but to say that we are sitting behind a desk and looking at a ouija board, it is a misunderstanding of what we do. caller: my point is this -- when you talk to people, do you ever ask them why are you a democrat? what are your republican? i started doing that to the people i know. one man who has a wonderful position and is about to retire, his answer was "my parents or."

another person said, "i am a retired schoolteacher." these are supposed to be intelligent people. she said, "all will have to think about it." host: the ask that question? guest: absolutely. i think the problem for democrats this year is that they are trying to run against the republican party as a whole in this election. beach for policy asking -- of the dccc asking. that is such a huge advantage for them when they can tie the democratic incumbents to washington.

in delaware, democrats have a shot of were -- of picking up a republican seat that is leaning their way right now. democrats have lieutenant governors -- the former lieutenant governor of delaware john carney in this race. he could pick up mike castle's seat and there could be a split in the delegation there. host: next yes, go ahead. caller: i am a cpa. republicans say they do not believe in government, so why would you hire someone who says they do not believe in government to run the government? the other thing is, some people

have radios in the background when they are working. i usually have c-span. i would watch the hearings because they have discussion about tax laws and the future of the tax laws. without fail, every bill that republicans put up hurt the middle class taxpayers. and worked to the advantage of the really wealthy. that is what turned me off on the republican party. guest: one of the questions that pollsters like to ask is, do you think government should do more to solve our nation's problems, or do you think government is doing too many things that are better lt to businesses and individuals? we have never been lopsided one way or another, but over time,

we see it change a little bit. but we started seeing a switch about a year ago. -- it is which among independents about a year ago. host: and that was an independent voter. guest: yes, we have seen a switch that the government should do less revenue than do more. the credit crisis into timber 2008, we have seen to the extent -- in a september 2008, we have seen that to the extent that they can, people have been saving more and spending less. they have been investing more conservatively i think the numbers came out recently that for 30 months in a row people have been investing in bond funds than mutual funds. -- rather than mutual funds. we are seeing a cocooning down among peoples in the stock market drop 800 points in one day.

and we have seen that with the voters as well. voters are less receptive now to the idea of an expansive government than they were two or three years ago. and that with a wind at the back of republican candidates in a wind in the face of the democratic candidates. it clearly seems to be happening right now. host: danny on the line in atlanta, georgia. good morning. caller: president obama has said that republicans are calling on and asia -- counting on an major from the nation. i just do not see how the republicans as a wall can take back the senate -- as a whole

can take back the senate. alan grayson will win. in my opinion, the floor dade is the bellwether. host: let's get your opinion on this. guest: alan grayson, he is a puller. the difference here is that michele bachmann represents the most republican district in minnesota. alan grayson represents a district that is by no means democratic. when you have on race and running against a candidate who may be a conservative republican, but a boring conservative republican like dan webster and just won the primary on the republican side last

week -- who just won the republican primary last week, i think a large share of the vote goes to independencts. i think anyncumbent should be worried. 40% of voters are standing with alan grayson renown. i think this race is bound to become much closer. host: jennifer duffy, the caller was from georgia. the georgia governor's race is number two on your list here. guest: it represents something of a phenomenon that we see. there are five former governors who are running for their jobs back. one is in georgia, bob barnes. he has been out of office for

eight years, but would like his job back. he is being challenged by a former republican congressman nathan deal. you have seen barnes troubling stayed pretty much apologizing for his first term and saying he would like another chance. deal is regrouping after a tough primary runoff. he does have some ethics problems the democrats will remind voters of on a daily basis. i think this is going to be a close race. host: we have about 15 minutes left with the coca of pitical reporting. -- the cook political report gang. next call from indiana. caller: if you compare this race

with 1994 with newt gingrich coming in, is it similar to that? guest: you have that sense that all politics is local and then you have these brave elections. in 1994 you had a pub -- republic wave and in 2006 a democratic wave. it i not exactly the same dynamics that existed in 1994, but ose enough. democrats had a lot of open seats in that election, lot more retirements that left them vulnerable in a lot of ways. but on the of iran, the economy in 1994 was -- but on the other hand, the economy in 1994 was stronger. the elements are not identical, but for all intents and purposes, this is comparable.

it tends to be a referendum on the party in power. and it is by neera. people are not happy with the republican party. binary.it is by ner i tell my republican friends that voters do not like you and have not forgiven you, but the good news is that this election is not about you. this is about the democrats. but in this kind of environment, as jennifer suggested, any incumbent needs to be worried. even under normal circumstances, incumbents -- well known and well defined incumbents do not get a lot of decided voters. and once you are over 50, no matter and what your margin over

your opponent, things get tougher. we are seeing polls, david is seen polls come in and -- david is seeing polls come in where a democrat is running against a republican that is basically unknown and running even. david, was the statistic you had about the number of incumbents that were behind at this point? guest: there were 32 democratic incumbents that have traed rs.ir republican challenge at this point before labor day, there were only 11 democratic incumbents against republican challengers. host: next will call, houston, texas, henry, independent line. caller: i want to ask two quick questions.

how is this going to affect life in texas? and now that the floodgates have been opened for corporations, how will this affect republicans? guest: governor perry is running for what is a second full term for him. i actually like this race. i think is a very interesting race. one, because democrats are very competitive in a cycle like this in texas. perry has left no stone unturned. they have the idiom hard on the integrity, education, the budget -- they have hit him hard on thintegrity, education, the budget. the bad news is that governor

perry refuses to bait bill white because he has not released his tax returns. that is one exchange i'm looking forward to. guest: on the citizens united case, i think this will have a lot less impact than people seem to think. allowing groups like that to use their on treasury dollars as opposed to political action money, but treasury dollars on behalf of candidates -- my hunch is that with a couple of exceptions, you will not see is changed much in this country. 20, 30 years ago you would see up.any's lineulining but they have cut costs and done

everything they can to boost productivity, and they did not go through all the pain -- and they are hoarding money because they are opera -- apprehensive about where the economy is going. the thing is with unions, they are not really excited right now. they will do a lot, but they will not go 10 out either, i think. they're not really happy with what the democratic press has done either. many of these companies feel that their survival is at stake and they will jump in whole or did they. but the average company, i do not think there or to stand up in front of a shareholders' meeting and say your profits are lower because we spend your money, your shareholders dollars deposito give to candidates. i do not think you will see that. to them, they see it as a

survival issue. when people see it as survival, they behave differently. they may like red jerseys better than blue jerseys, but they did not draw of this money at candidates. host: jennifer, tell us about the candidates in california. guest: you have about -- you have meg whitman and you also have a former governor, jerry brown. this is a very close race, which i think surprises democrats. they find whitman to be athe ote

senate race, something i did not think would end up at the top of a column. barbara boxer is running and her opponent is carly fiorina, a former ceo of hewlett-packard. not spending quite the money that boxer is, but she's very feisty and aggressive than giving boxer a tough race. host: susan, with that, go ahead. caller: i'm calling from california, and mybservation is that the american public that

you speak of, moton -- mostly , isblican represented theire proposing that we are going to have and asia. we are not. -- we're going to have amnesia. we are not. california's economy is in trouble. we have a republican governor who put it in that problem area. ms. whitman is running on a republican ticket. she is not going to win. there is no one there representing the democratic vote at all. host: we will leave it there.

weigh in on how much attention barbara boxer is getting from the white house, fund raising in campaigning, and will that continue? guest: it will continue. the president has done these events for randy vice-president will -- for her and the vice- president will be out there. the party needs to do whatever they can to help her. the problem is, we call it the great scene called for money. -- the sinkhole for money. host: here is james, republican from california. caller: i think a lot of people are confused, it seems. we do not have a democracy.

ther are witnesses to a democracy th we are not ready for yet. host: what are you driving at? caller: we do not have a healthy enough electorate to really be able to make these judgments. and lately, we do not even know what right and wrong is. host: what kind of judgment are you talking about? caller: and change it into what works and does not work. one thing that does not work is a state of territorial organization. [unintelligible] otherwise, i do not have freedom of speech. we're working from in president -- premise as to -- we are working from a wrong premise as to what a state is. host: we will leave it there. next call, go ahead.

caller: the house race in my district, which is the first term incumbent, martin heinrich, john perella, the republican, and the albuquerque journal this morning said that heinrich's behind by six points. i heard you say something about if an incumbent is under 50, [unintelligible] verses bharal, who is 41. how much is health care affecting the decisions that they are making? guest: this is a fascinating house race. there are two comtitive house races out of the street -- the three seats in mexico. democrats are more likely to hold on to robert d. because it

is a more democratic district than in southern -- hold on to the albuquerque district because it is a more democratic district and southern mexico. republicans need to make inroads in the hispanic vote if they are going to win other districts. i expect hispanic voters to make of the least 30%, 35% of the electorate this go round. the polling here has been mixed. we have seen heinrich thursday very positive. there was a poll -- we have seen heinrich stayed very positive. we do not really know how this race is going to be governed.

democrats are probably on their way to losing of least 40 seats. guest: i think you could broaden it back up and say, democrats need a few things to happen. number one, they need unemployment to come down and come down a lot, and it just does not happen. the second thing they need is a public perception of the health care reform to have fundamentally changed. and it has shown very little changed in that. and the third thing is, democrats need to control that. we have seen north korean ships and south korean ships, the deep water rise in mess, the crisis in europe.

it has kept them from being able to make up all of the time that was devoted exclusively to health care and meanwhile, the economy is still in lousy shape. we are facing a tough election. the house is in grave danger and we have republicans attacking as back in 2006 when we are talking about the likelihood of democrat gains. caller: -- host: st. louis, missouri, go ahead. caller: listen, democra -- all i've heard is the demrats are

going to lose this year. they are going to have a hard time. if we're going to get anything done in this country, democrats, listen up. all we have to do is get 63 seats in the senate. forget the 60. we have people that are just not going to vote with the democrat party anyway. but the of thing is, nevada, listen, harry reid has done a great job for this country. he has been good for america. do not let him lose that. i smiled when he said that -- guest: i smiled when he said

that because you had republicans win a seat that is something as a rhod islander i did not think i would see in my lifetime. when you have a party without much power, they canctually push back a little bit. 60 seats might solve the problem -- solve some problems, but create a bunch of others. host: we >> degree political report recently examined the state of the midterm elections. it reports that republicans have an outside chance to take control the senate. for more on that article and other coverage, the to cook

political.com next, the candidates in the california senate race face off in a debate. after that, the arizona governor race debate. then, the nevada gov. race debate. there will be a talk about congressional policy and legislation. jendayi frazer has the latest on the situation in sudan. charles peters talks about his autobiography -- his biography of lyndon johnson. >> there is nothing about financed that is like rocket science. that is what is interesting for me. the biggest ponzi scheme for wall street is telling someone who has worked hard to earn a buck that he is not smart enough

to understand how that but will be invested. >> meredith whitney predicted losses for citigroup. she is our guest sunday night on c-span. >> search the term "in mid east peace" on line and you'll get more than 1700 programs and more than 8000 transcripts. interviews, panels, and forums all the way up to zero this week's middle east peace talks. it is washington and the world your way. >> now, at the first debate between california democratic senator barbara boxer and her opponent farina. this debate was organized by a television station. the candidates answer questions

from a panel of california political reporters on the economy, immigration, and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. a poll released last week showed senator boxer it with 44% of the vote. both -- this race has been rated as a tossup. this is about one hour. ♪ >> welcome to the campus of st. mary's can't resist. this is the debate -- st. mary's campus. good evening. i am the political editor for a television station. let me a tradition to the journalist who will be asking '.

please [applause] >> thank you both for joining us. democrat barbara boxer is a three term united states senator. she served since 1993 and she served in the house of representatives for 10 years. the republican is running for elected office for the first time. her background is in business.

thank you both for joining us tonight. let's get started. before tonight's debate, your campaign for a dissipated in a coin toss to see who would answer first in the opening remarks.

paying for everybody else. i want to see the words made in america again. >> a few guidelines. we will get up to 90 seconds to answer questions. we will have up to 60 seconds for a bottle. we have a lot of questions tonight. i am sure our audience would appreciate a brief answer. it is possible, i am sure no one would complain. >> listed to the economy. he supported tax cuts for business and the wealthiest americans.

you opposed to recent job bills. it would bring 16,000 jobs to california and the other is a small business jobs bill. how do you justify help for the wealthiest americans but not for average californians who might be out of a job and listening to this debate tonight. >> we need to start by describing what the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts really were. tax cuts that would expire in january. the vast majority went to middle class americans. those tax cuts if they are not extended, could spend $1,600 more in taxes. it is also true that small business owners in particular are struggling under the way. the death tax will skyrocket to 55% on january 1.

we have 88,000 farms in this great state. that our small businesses and our family owned businesses are freed from strangling regulation and free from taxation. i think that in the middle of a terrible recession, this is the worst economic crisis since 1979 and since 1929. just think about it. we have 12 metropolitan areas with unemployment above 15%. we have 23 counties with unemployment above 15%. meanwhile, in the last 20 months, the federal government spending has increased 10% each year and federal government employees have increased 14.5% over the last two years.

>> senator boxer? >> i would like to go back to that question. we had 16,500 teachers get pink slips in the mail. they were going to not be in the classroom when our children are there. what is more important than our children? i am a product of public schools. 95% of our people go to public schools. this was a bill that was paid for. my opponent called the bill a disgrace. she called it disgraceful. i will tell you what i think she does not like it. because we paid for that bill and it was deficit neutral because we paid for it by stopping tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. every time you get past the surface, you see that my opponent fights for the billionaires and the millionaires and the companies

that ship jobs overseas. she even opposes the small business legislation that most everybody supports. >> scott, you have the next question. >> senator boxer, president obama had the combat mission in iraq and 3400 americans died and tens of thousands came home with physical and mental disabilities. my question is, do you think that the war was worth the cost? going forward in afghanistan, what will you do to say that enough is enough and it is time to bring our troops home? >> i am glad to see our combat troops are coming back from iraq. i was one of 23 that did not vote for that war. i did support the troops. i voted for 85% of all of the spending bills that we have, even though i had disagreements on that war. when i opposed any of those

bills, it was because they were not good enough for our wounded warriors. i am glad that they are coming back. i think that the reason that we are, at this point, is because america finally said that this is a date that we are coming home. you have to step up to the plate and defend your own nation. i'm believe in the nation helping, not nation-building. i felt the same way in afghanistan. george w. bush turned away from going after been laughton and went to iraq. -- bin laden went to iraq. i do want to see more time lines drawn to it i think that it is important to send that signal. this is a time frame and i am on the bill that you can read it that says that you can give us a timetable in which we can bring

our troops home. i think that we are on that track. i support beginning the withdrawal by 2011, but i am happy that our troops are coming home to the they are the bravest, they are the greatest, and now we have to take care of them. i just went to that comprehensive casualty care center and they are doing a miraculous things. >> time is up. apparently, the lights are not working. if the president does not come up with a written time line, as you have suggested that he do, will you call him out on that as you did president bush? you were very critical of president bush for not having firm time lines. >> actually, i have already stated it publicly and i am on the final bill -- feingold bill. we need to rebuild america. i think that we can help

afghanistan and iraq, but we need to rebuild our country. >> her last two answers are a perfect illustration of her rhetoric vs. reality. let's look at the reality of her record as supporting our men and women in uniform. she voted against body armor. she voted against support for brain trauma and post-traumatic stress syndrome. she voted against extended family leave. in fact, the vote that she cast so upset joe biden that he said that this is a political vote. nothing is worse -- is worth his son's life. the small-business bill that she supported could have been a great bill, but they threw in an opportunity for the federal government to take equity positions in community banks. we know how will that work for

tarp. as for the teachers bill, we were playing political football of taxpayer money. in fact, capitol hill has been fighting over who gets to spend that money. some of it may go to reducing the deficit. >> the time is up. the next question is for carly fiorina. >> every year, 65,000 men and women graduate from high school -- graduate from high school. they were brought here illegally when they were children. they are undocumented through no fault of their own. would you have them continue to live in this limbo? would you send them back to a country they do not remember zero or which to support legislation that helps them in the path to citizenship? >> i believe that the 21st century is the century of

brainpower and innovation. we need to cultivate all of the brain power that we can. by making sure that people are well educated. i would support the dream factory i do not believe that we can punish children who, through no fault of their own, are trying to live the american dream. let me say, i do not support amnesty for those that have come here illegally. i believe that the federal government must secure the border and it has not done its job. i believe that the federal government has to come up with a guest worker program that works. senator boxer has vilified the people of arizona even though the federal government is not doing its job. when a guest worker program was on the table, she was the deciding vote that killed the guest worker program and destroyed a compromise on comprehensive immigration. when she voted for the amendment that killed that guest worker program, her comment was that

immigrants represent a cheap source of labor that threatens the american worker. if you look at her long track record of 28 years in washington d.c., you will see this. she is for more taxes. she is for more spending. she is for more regulation. she is also for big government and elite, extreme environmental groups. >> senator? >> first, i have to say that i am proud of my record for veterans. i am the code-share -- the co- chair and i have a an award from doctors that were trying to find better treatments for burn victims. i got the first funding for traumatic brain injuries. my husband served in the military. i love the military in a very personal way.

what i want to say about immigration is this. my opponent calls comprehensive immigration reform a distraction. imagine, a distraction. we have 11 million people who are living in the shadows. here is where we stand. under the law, since my opponent feels that we shouldn't deal with this issue, they would have to be deported. we just had a recent store the -- a recent study that said that the way to get this economy going again is to go with comprehensive immigration reform. >> senator, i am sorry, but your time is up. >> over the past two weeks, viewers have sent him questions that they would like to candidates to answer. we will shift gears and here a couple of questions. the first question is from a democrat in oakland. >> senator boxer, you have been

in office for three terms brutal wind the you not let other people try? >> my answer is that every election is a chance. that is what america is about. i have to say this. our founders decided to put the power in the hands of the people. the people have to vote. i have been so fortunate. i am a first-generation american on my mother's side. my mother never graduated from high school. she had to work to support the family. i am in the united states senate. or why? because i 54 people. -- because i site for people. -- i have fight for people. the people can elect someone

that made her name as a c o n hewlett-packard, laying thousands and thousands of workers off, shipping jobs overseas and making a sacrifice while she was doing it and taking $100 million. i do not think we need those wall street's dollars right now. there is a clear choice on jobs. there is a clear choice on offshore oil drilling through the there is a clear choice on the issue of a woman's right to choose and many other areas that i think we will get to tonight. >> your reply? >> i think that is a good question. senator boxer is right. the choice is up to voters. i think that one of the things that voters believe is that results count. in her 18 years in the senate, senator boxer has four bills with her name on them, for pieces of legislation.

that is far below the record or even the average period of those four bills include naming a river in virginia, naming a courthouse, renaming a post office and bringing some federal dollars back to the bay area after the earthquake. it is all well and good for senator boxer to mischaracterized my record. i will remind her that it was she who voted for the wall street bailout. it was she who took many contributions from wall street executives and i would remind her that when you lead a business whether it is a nine person business or 150,000 people, you sometimes have to make the agonizing choice to lose some jobs to save more. as californians see people make those tough choices every day, federal government employees are growing at 14.5% 3 >> i am sorry. time is up.

our next question comes from mr. watson, a retired employee from hewlett-packard and he has a question regarding the outsourcing of jobs at h-p. >> while you were at h-p, you sent thousands of jobs offshore. in the defense of your actions, he coined the phrase "right shoring." he said that there is no job that is america's god-given right. what do you plan to do four jobs in california? what's this is the 21st century. any job can go anywhere. what worries me is that the jobs that we lose now cannot come back. we have to fight for every job. the truth is, california has a higher than average unemployment rate because we are destroying jobs and others are fighting hard for our jobs.

texas is fighting harder for our jobs and so is mexico, brazil, china, india, poland. i know precisely why those jobs go. i will tell you why. china, for example, like texas and brazil, gives companies a huge tax credits and help them cut through regulation and a reward or andy -- the reward r &d. i have proposed a tax holiday for every small business who will hire an unemployed worker. i have said that we should help companies cut through regulation instead of bailing out by general motors. let's bring plants back home and higher american workers and let us decide that in this country, we are going to be number one in innovation. we have fallen to 17th in the

world and we have to fight for innovation and that means that we have to be number one in the world in terms of incentives for research and development. we can grow our economy and fight for private sector jobs and i do not think there are enough people in washington who even understand why private sector jobs are created. >> let me ask a follow-up. you said that school teachers should have their pay connected to their performance. when you were at h-p, on the board of directors-and the board of directors forced to resign because of the -- and the board of directors forced you to resign. shouldn't ceos have the same standards as schoolteachers? >> absolutely. during my time at hewlett- packard, i ripped up my informant contract and put my pay up for shareholder vote. every dollar that i earned at

hewlett-packard was voted on by shareholders. just to review, in the six years that i managed hewlett-packard, during the worst technology recession in 25 years, will triple the rate of innovation to 11 patents a day and we quintupled the cash flow and improved the product line. >> we have to move on. >> i think that we are entitled. there was a severance check. my understanding is that it was taken after my opponents was fired. the stock went down more than 50%. if she is calling for accountability for teachers, there ought to be accountability with ceos. i think that the viewer that asked the question hit on something very important.

if ever we needed the united states senator from california to fight for american jobs, it is now. my opponent ship jobs overseas. we know that she fired workers, tens of thousands of them. we also know that she is opposed to every jobs bill that we voted on. the higher act, she opposed that. she opposed bringing back 16,500 teachers into the classroom. she opposed that. she opposed wall street reform 3 >> i am sorry, senator. time is up. >> many of our readers asked us to ask you this. it regards one of the repeated clips on the internet in which you targeted brigadier-general michael walsh who appear before

you in committee and he addressed you as man and you told him that you should be called senator because you worked hard to get that title. a lot readers say that you got out of touch. why did she make that comment to the brigadier-general -- did you make that comment to the brigadier-general? >> the people have the right to criticize me. this was a formal hearing. i made the call that i should call the general, general, and it would be better if he called me by my formal title. afterwards, i called the general and ask if i owe him an apology. he said no. we are working very well together. he is working on the army corps of engineer projects as we speak after the bp spelill.

that is what that is about. >> carly fiorina? >> i am pleased that senator boxer called the general and asked if she needed to apologize. i take him at his word if he says that he was not offended. i agree and that we are not entitled to our own fax. -- facts. i think it is a shame that barbara boxer would use hewlett- packard, one of the great companies in the world, whose employees were very hard and whose shareholders have benefited greatly from both my time as c zero and all the employee is that i had the privilege to lead, i think it is a shame that she would use that company as a political football. i understand that she will miss characterize my record but she

uses the company. when the wall street crisis hit, there were 20 agencies that were asleep at the switch. wall street said to ignore those agencies. they want to create a new agency with a bunch more bureaucrats. >> i notice that both of you are drifting off the question to answer something you would like to answer. i understand that it is frustrating, but if you could answer the question directly, that would be great. >> you supported proposition 8 and said that marriages should only be between one man and one woman. domestic partnerships and civil unions are not recognized by the federal government and the defense of marriage act says that gay and lesbian companies are -- gay and lesbian couples

are tonight rights. -- are denied rights. should federal law be changed to allow for legal status for same- sex couples, and if not, why not? >> i do believe that marriages between a man and woman. i have been consistent and clear that i support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. the act brought bipartisan support and the position that i have consistently espoused is consistent with that. the vast majority of senators agree. the voters were quite clear about their views on this. this is going through a legal process. whatever your views about gay marriage, i think that many of us would conclude that when voters have such a clear decision, for that decision to be overturned by a single judge

seems inappropriate. this is the beginning of what will be a long, legal process. i support the repeal of don't ask don't tell and i know that the military is getting ready to release its report on the best way to execute that decision. >> senator boxer? >> we do have courts that check the legislature and the legislature checks the president. that is what our constitution says. a lot of the laws that we passed may well go through that test. if you read the decision on this, by the way, a republican who was appointed to the state of california bench, he is clear. he says the only way to get the right is to go for marriage equality.

the only way to get the rights is to go through marriage the college. i am glad to sayi believe people are coming around to see it. i also would say in terms of what we heard about the fact that i should not talk about my opponent's stay at h-p, she is running on her record as the former ceo of hewlett-packard. i'm going to keep on telling the truth about it. >> and i am going to keep watching the clock. >> this is for the senator. it appears that voters tend to look at at carly as the one that can work with the other side of the aisle and u.s. the more partisan senator?

>> let me say that i am a co- sponsor of 500 republican bills. i can give you a list of things i worked with my colleagues -- the afterschool bill was done, and a lot of work i have done with veterans have been done with republican colleagues. with president obama at this particular point, we need an exit strategy from afghanistan. i think it is very important. that is one clear example. and i would appoint elizabeth warren right now to head that you consumer agency that is going to be looking over credit cards, because as you know, people do not read all that fine print, and we did have someone looking over their shoulder of the bank's. my opponent opposed wall street reform. it set up that consumer agency for the first time. you have someone looking out for you to make sure you do not get -- i do know one use that word -- make sure that you get

treated fairly on your mortgage and you get treated fairly on your credit cards. >> miss fiorina, your reply? >> i think the center is right. we both need to run on our record. i am proud to run on my record at hewlett-packard. i think the senator must run on her record. the truth is our record is long on talk in short of achievement. the reason it is short of achievement is because she is someone -- one of the most bitterly partisan members of the u.s. senate. after 18 long years in the senate, she only had four relatively insignificant hills with her name on them. her signature piece of legislation as the chairman of environmental and public works, she could not shepherd that to a conclusion. that bill was taken away from her and given that john kerry because it was believed that he had a better chance of getting bipartisan support. i do not happen to support her

capping trade bill. it has been called the most expensive piece of regulation and legislation in human -- in american history. it is telling that her bitter partisanship prevented her from getting her top priority accomplished in the u.s. senate. >> you are pro-life and you said you would vote to overturn roe v wade hit given the opportunity. you believe that life begins at conception. would you deny findings to institutions involved in the embryonic stem cell research? personal experiences. my husband's mother was told to abort him. she did not. her health was threatened as a result. she lived to the age of 98, and

my husband is the rock of my life. i recognize that not everyone agrees with me on this. i recognize as well that the most important issue right now in this election is the creation of jobs and getting our government under control. with regard to your specific question for, i am comfortable with federal funding for adults themselves research which shows more promise according to many scientists. i have been very clear in saying that if the embryos were going to be destroyed in any event, that i have no trouble with research. it is when embryos are produced for the purposes of destruction, for the purposes of stem cell research, that i have a great deal of difficulty and at the the judge's ruling there recently came out basically suggested that we do not have clear enough guidelines about whether embryos are being produced for destruction. senator boxer voted against this, so we know her position. they are extreme.

she has said they do not think -- she does not think the baby has rights until it leaves the hospital. a judge has said we need clarity about these rules to ensure embryos are not being destroyed. >> before the senator replies, i want to make sure that the question was correct. you do suggest that we overturn roe v wade? >> there were an opportunity, it is not an issue i am running on. the reason for that is that i am a strong believer in states' rights. voters have to make some of these very difficult decisions. i am prepared to trust the butter's judgment on offshore drilling. they have the right to choose. and californians have made their decisions on those issues. >> i respects everyone's personal view and everyone has the story as to why they come to a certain position. i respected. that is why i am pro-choice. i let people decide. but the people of california at

to understand that if my opponents of views prevail, women and doctors would be criminals. that would goaded jail. women will die like they did before roe v. wade. this is about my opponent's personal view -- about the women and the families of our state and of our country. my opponent says that i have passed four bills. she keeps saying that. she used to say three. 1000 provisions had been done, and we have a list of them on my website for udc.

the way that a bill becomes law as many facts. >> i have to be a broken record but time is up. scott, you have the next question. >> senator boxer, there's no question that president obama inherited a terrible economy, and democrats blame his predecessor. and yet democrats have controlled congress for almost a quarter years, president obama is near the halfway point maine, and the unemployment rate is the above 9% and the economy may be slowing down again. at what point main should democrats stop blaming president bush and take full responsibility for the economy? >> we are taking responsibility and action. i have talked about a number of those things we have already done, making sure teachers stay in the classroom, that small businesses get access to credit.

all we need is one republican to get that bill done when we get back. i think we will, and then we can create a million new jobs. i feel that you have to look good history, otherwise you repeated. let me tell you -- i served for eight years with bill clinton and i supported every budget and every economic policy. we created 23 million new jobs, net. and not only did we balance the budget, but we created a surplus. then i served eight years with george w. bush. i did not support his priorities in his budget. we wound up with a $1.30 trillion deficit and the worst job creation record since herbert hoover. yes, we did not get here overnight. we're not going to stop overnight. but job by job by job, we're going to solve it. there is a man out there in the

audience -- i do not want to embarrass them, j. smith, who is working because the economic activity at. 2000 workers working because of the economic recovery at. yes, we're taking responsibility, but people in this country in my state have to get a whole picture. become the summer of despair in california. in the last 20 months, our unemployment rate has gone from 10.2% to 12.3%. i have talked with small business owners up and down the state, and they are being strangled by too much cost, too much uncertainty, too much regulation. barbara boxer it is promising -- barbara boxer is promising numbers and jobs now.

when she voted for that stimulus bill that manifestly failed, and 400,000 jobs to the states. out of work. as for the fiscal deficit -- fiscal discipline, why has she voted six times against the balanced budget amendment, including during president clinton's times? why has she voted to increase the debt ceiling six times in the last 20 months alone? and voted four times about of -- against a relatively modest bipartisan proposal to slow the rate of increase in federal government spending to 1.5%? her record is crystal clear. >> this is for miss fiorina. you've taken out an ad that seem -- that seemed to equate global warming with the weather. you said that the anti-global warming lawsuit is pending. there is a proposition that would do that. i'm not sure that you have taken a position on that to you

think -- on that. do you think warble warming is real or is it -- global warming is a real or is it -- is real or it just a problem with the weather? >> the ad that you are referring to, we're really talking about national security. what are our priorities for national security? that is a very legitimate question to be asked of senator boxer who has been campaigning since 1992 on cutting our military budget in half, who believes it terrorists should be of u.s. citizens, that is what that abbas about. -- that at is all about -- that advertisement is all about. we should always have the courage to examine the science. but all scientists agree on this -- the only way to impact globala state acting alone will make a difference. what we need in this country, a priority of mine if i'm fortunate not to gain the confidence of the voters of

california, will be a national and comprehensive energy bill. if that means that it will be superseded. it would've been superseded by the cap and trade bill, but her bill was completely the wrong track. if it would have cost us -- it would have cost us trillions of dollars in lost economic output, millions of jobs. what we need to do is fund energy r and d, we need to give more to berkeley, and also take advantage in an environmentally responsible way of every source of energy that we have, including nuclear, wind, solar, and we have to acknowledge that we cannot put bills in the place -- in place that punished excessively energy intensive energy is like -- energies like farming, light manufacturing, -- question -- do you support proposition 23 which would suspend the other bill? >> my focus is on a national

policy. >> just answer it. do you support it? >> i have not taken a position. there is no question in my mind that ab32 is in the short term of a job killer. -- short term a job killerbut what we need is a national energy policy. >> senator boxer. >> you cannot take a stance on proposition 23, i do not know what you will take a stand on. this is a crucial bill. if we overturned california's clean energy policy, that will mean that china takes the lead away from us with seller, that -- with solar, that germany takes the lead away from us us with wind. i guess my opponent is used to creating jobs in china and other places. i want those jobs created here in america. i want to see the words "made in america" again.

the whole world is going green and i know my opponent has done his support from the coal -- has gotten huge support from the coal companies, from big oil. they are hoping that i do not make it. and i am asking the people of the state who care about these issues to really take note -- because if my opponent gets there, california is done for in terms of its lead on clean energy. nobel i ever wrote ever -- no bill i ever wrote ever superseded california's clean energy loss, because i honored jobs now. >> now would be a good time to go back to a couple of questions from viewers. this mess question is for -- of this next question is for senator boxer from an st. mary's college. republican. independent. >> growing up on a small farm in the central valley, one thing that has always shocked me is the fact that the largest and wealthiest agribusiness

interests collect 74% of the farm subsidies. while small family farms are unable to compete. what have you done in the u.s. senate to rectify this inequity? >> for the first time, finally, in the last farm bill, we were working together with my colleagues and were able to get the first recognition that our specialty crops need to take a place in the farm bill. we have 300 different products in our state. for the first time we were able to do that. there are very big subsidies going to ethanol, the corn, that -- going to corn that do not make any sense. i fought hard to change those. we had in fact limited some of the subsidies. if you are a giant form and -- giant farm and you're not a

family farm, you're not going to get the subsidies. i will tell you something else senator feinstein and i are doing. we want to make sure that the estate tax does not kill again for a family farm where the family continues the farming. if you are a huge farm, that is that different story. -- a different story. but if you really are a family farm, then you should not have to pay that estate tax. we want to encourage those forms -- those forms -- those arms to continue. >> miss fiorina, your reply. >> it is a lot of great words, but in the real world, actions speak louder. senator boxer has voted against that tax relief 18 times. her track record is very clear. 88,000 farms in california, most family-owned, struggle with a lack of water. senator boxer refused to lift a finger. as chairwoman of informal and -- of the environment and public

works, she could put an amendment forward to wave of biological assessment to britain -- to turn the water back on in our central valley. she voted against it. when senator feinstein stepped for to put an amendment on the -- forward to put an amendment on the table that would have waived that assessment and provide colleague to drop that amendment. here is the truth. central valley struggles with record unemployment. they need water. senator barbara boxer, the chairwoman of and our men and -- environment and public works, has stood in their way and she has over and over again refused to give them a death tax relief. >> time is up. our next viewer question is for carly fiorina. it comes from a democrat from oakland. i think it has to do with guns and airplanes, something you talked about in a primary debate. >> i read earlier it that you -- earlier that you are in favor of people on the no-fly list have

guns. i am a resident of oakland and that does not sit well with me at all. please explain your strengths. -- your stance. >> i know it sounds strange but let's talk about the no fly list for a moment. my sister-in-law was on the no- fly list. my friend of 20 years's has been was on the no-fly list. edward kennedy was on the no fly less. it is not the typically well -- is not particularly well managed. people who should not be on it are on it and people who should be on it like a christmas day bomber who almost made it out of the country, was not on it. here is the truth. we should not be taking constitutional rights away from citizens and at the same time giving constitutional rights to a terrorist. that is exactly what barbara boxer is in favor of doing. barbara boxer agrees that the vast majority of a crime committed with a gun or-are --

are committed by criminals who have broken laws to acquire their guns. let's prosecute those laws. but prosecute those criminals. but let us not deny law abiding constitutional rights to would like to do. >> senator, your reply? >> it is hard to know how exactly the start. let me say this. it is shocking to me that my opponent would say, it even if -- that even if you are on that no-fly list, there are only a few thousand. it your sister wanted a gun, that would look in the sec could have that it and that she had been in california. she would have to go to the local sheriff. as someone who authored a bill with republican colleagues which became the law that said, pilots who are trained have a right to carry a gun in the cockpit because there's so much concerned by the pilot that they -- concerned by the pilots that they -- concern by the

pilots that they be able to take action -- that is where you want to have the gun on the airplane, and not the terrorist watch list. when i saw my opponents say that, he did not get very excited but i saw him get excited. when she said this. he said, my goodness, and that was for him really getting excited. [laughter] that is so out of step, that is so out of touch, and having that you in the united states senate -- that kind of you -- view in the united states senate will harm us and make us less safe. >> unbelievably we are out of time for full questions with full answers. let me ask something quickly. you are also for allowing the ban to disappear. >> i think it is crystal clear that we have loads of laws. most of the time criminals are breaking those laws. we are curtailing citizens

lawful rights to carry guns. the assault weapons ban is extremely arbitrary, and what qualifies as an assault weapon -- senator boxer, perhaps she is truly confused or perhaps she is just -- in-line >> i am sorry. >> the terrorist watch list and the no-fly list are different things. >> we will the senator to have a quick response. -we will let the senator have a quick response. -- we will let the senator have a quick response. >> the assault weapons ban has since the 1980's. to go back to that dangerous yesterday makes no sense at all. it has bipartisan support. and my colleague senator feinstein has worked so hard to get that assault weapons ban to be in place nationally. and i have been a strong supporter and that and i hope i can go back. because we want our streets safe. >> we're not going to shift to -- we are going to shift to closing statements.

miss fiorina, you go first. you get two minutes. >> thank you so much for the privilege to be here and have a great debate with you, senator boxer. i have traveled up and down this wonderful state and i have been struck by the duty and by the -- by her beauty and by the spirit of california. i am also struck by the anger, the frustration, and even the fear. i remember meeting the immigrant who had built a small business from the ground up, only to see it ruined with too much taxation and too much regulation, and he said, this is not the country i came to. my own government is destroying the livelihood. -- my livelihood. i remember speaking to the city councilman who talked about his struggle to keep this community together while they struggled with almost 40% unemployment. i remember as well the woman who said, i have never voted before, but i am voting for you because i am afraid for my children's future.

get to washington, you will not forget us. we can turn our nation around. we can get it back on the right track. peeking get our state on the -- we can get our state on the right track. we can grow our economy. we can control government spending. but to do all these things, we must guard by changing the -- start by changing the people we send to washington. i ask for your support. i ask for your vote. and i pledge to you this -- i will go to the u.s. senate and i will fight for the millions of californians who love their country, who go about their business, who pay their dues, who serve their communities. you do not ask for frills or favors. you give a lot and expect little. you are asking for one simple thing now -- that we take our

government back, make it listen, and make it work. >> senator, you now get two minutes for a closing statement. >> thank you for this opportunity. i think you have seen this is a clear choice. and i'm going to run through some of those choices. this election is between someone fighting for jobs day in and day out. jobs right here in america. someone who had a chance, laid off 30,000 workers and shipped jobs to china. this election is about someone who is working hard so that we can see the words made in america again versus someone who was proud of her time at h- p when she sent when she stamped made in china and made in india or her products.

this is a clear choice between someone fighting for taxes for the middle class's and small business person is someone who is fighting for the wealthy few, the billionaires', the ceo's. this is a big difference. clean energy -- one of us is fighting hard to make california a hub of a new clean energy economy and the millions of jobs that go with it. the other is being supported by big oil and big coal. this is a choice between two people who differ on a woman's right to choose. i worked my whole life to protect a woman's privacy and her health. my women -- might have on it would turn that woman into a criminal. this is a very clear choice between someone who is of all her life to protect park coast and a 400,000 jobs that rely on the beautiful coast. the fisherman, the tourism industry, the recreation industry -- and my opponent does not support the legislation to permanently protect that coast. finally this is a choice between a candidate who park really hard -- who fought really

hard for wall street reform to in that mess over there, and -- to end of that mess over there, and someone who opposes the reform. i think frankly, acting just like a wall street ceo. destroying jobs for americans and taking it for yourself. i hope we do not go back to that. >> bank you both -- the thank you both. we all apologize for not getting the more questions. -- to more questions. we would have liked to. hopefully what we have talked about tonight will help people here and help viewers and listeners at home make informed decisions on what they should do, on election day november 2. thank you to our panelists of journalists. thank st. mary's college for hosting it. thank you for joining us and good night. [applause]

[applause] [applause] >> next, a debate featuring the candidates in the arizona governor's race. after that, a nevada governors' debate and in president obama talks about the rise in unemployment. >> join our conversation on the american revolution, the making of the constitution and the importance of historical study,

sunday with gordon would. it is live for three hours with your calls, females and tweets -- e-mails and tweets. >> president obama will kick off monday with laborfest in milwaukee, wisconsin. wednesday, he will speak in cleveland on the economy. friday, he will hold a press conference at the white house. check c-span.org 4 schedule details. >> the c-span networks covers politics, public affairs, non- fiction books on american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, online and on social media networking sites we

take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle, bringing resources to your community. it is washington, your way. c-span, now available in over 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a couplet service -- as a public service. now, republican gov. jim brewer, terry goddard and other candidates participated in an hour-long debate on wednesday. t was moderated by kaet-tv's ted simon. a poll showed gov. brewer had 67% of the vote and terry goddard was 38%. this is about one hour.

>> good evening and welcome to this special edition. this evening's show is a one- hour long debate sponsored by the citizens committee. tonight, we will hear from the candidates for governor of arizona. they are gov. jim brewer, terry goddard, who currently serves at the states attorney general, a currency trader and small business over and larry gift, a commercial realtor. each candidate will have one minute for opening and closing statements. we drew numbers for the order. what i want to say good evening to all of our viewers. -- >> i want to say good evening to all of our viewers. i chose to find myself traditionally. i am happy to be here in this company. i am here to represent the rights of individual. we have seen liberal democrats

sitting in the governor's office and nothing has changed. we have turned the focus of the governor's office on this sb- 1070. recapped the next candidate to give her -- his opening statement -- >> the next candidate to give his opening statement is terry goddard. >> arizona it is in serious trouble. we're in a downward spiral with our economy. after decades of leading the nation, we're number one in job loss.

since jan brewer became governor, we have lost 128,000 jobs. you're also lead in the nation in home foreclosures. we have a rapid rise in bankruptcies. it is getting worse every day. our budget is seriously out of balance. this is an emergency. this is an all hands on deck evolution. as the next governor, and tend to spend every waking moment fighting to bring jobs back to permanent -- i intend to spend every waking moment fighting to bring jobs back to arizona. that is what we need. when jan brewer took over as governor she should have done that. instead, she appointed a committee to look at the problem. their first meeting is september 24. my name is terry goddard. i ask for your support and your vote in september -- in november. >> and now larry gist. >> good evening. my name is och larry gist -- name is larry gist.

i would like to be your next governor. my first job was at the state legislature. i was assigned to the operations committee. that is where the money comes through and goes through. -- to the appropriations committee. butnot a career politician, i am also not a novice about how the process works. i decided not to go into government and went down and spent the last 35 years working in the private sector. i have been in the technology industry, manufacturing, and the financial-services industry. i think i bring a wealth of experience to the governor's position to sit down and work with private -- the private sector in how to go forward in a very positive way in creating jobs. i am ready to be your governor. >> thank you very much. finally, jan brewer. >> thank you. it is great to be here with

larry, barry, and terry. thank you all for watching us tonight. i have done so much. i just cannot believe that we have changed everything since i became your governor -- in the last 600 days. arizona has been brought back from the abyss. we have cut the budget. we have balanced the budget. we're moving forward. we have done everything that we could possibly do. we did what was right for arizona. i will tell you that i have done the best that anyone could do. we have pushed back hard against the federal government. we have filed suit against obama-healthcare and passed senate bill-1070. we will continue to do what is right for arizona.

i ask for your vote. thank you. >> thank you. let's get to the conversation. governor, i want to get to you and an issue that has defined arizona, some say for better, some say for worse. is sb-1070 good for arizona? >> absolutely. there is no doubt. the people of arizona are frustrated. we needed to do something. i signed the toughest immigration bill in the country. i think it has not only united arizona, but america. i will not back down. we need our borders secure. we cannot afford illegal immigration. it is costing us in health, education, and incarceration. that is above our means. we cannot sustain what we're doing now. >> is this good for arizona? >> however you feel about it, is and has hurt our economy seriously -- it has hurt our

economy seriously. i'm concerned about border security. as governor brewer has said on a number of occasions, sb-1070 does nothing to secure the border or fight border crime. as attorney general, that is what i have been doing for the last seven years. i have been focused on the cartels, putting them out of business, eliminating their operations. we have have significant success enter this -- significant success intercepting the money that comes from the cartel's. i asked the governor picked up that mantle and played offense, rather than defense. it is time to go on the offensive. the only way people come across the border illegally is with organized, a criminal help. we need to do what i have been doing and cut the cartel's apart so they will not be bringing people in illegally. >> we all know we would not have this problem if we did get our

borders secured. that is why people are so frustrated. it certainly has helped. has the attention of the federal government. the secretary of homeland security and the president of the united states have made statements that our borders are as secure as they have ever been. they are not. why would they be sending more national guard and border patrol, which is not enough to the people of arizona want to feel safe in their homes and their state. it is the simple fact. a country without borders is like a house without walls. it collapses. we want our border security. >> i believe the way to deal with illegal immigration is to focus on the illegal cartels -- the people who are bringing people illegally into the united states. problem is sb-1070 does not do

that. i believe we need to focus our arizona efforts on where the problem is and take the offensive, cut off the money going to and from the cartels. that is what i have been working on. we need to take criminal prosecution into mexico to go after the cartel leaders so they will not have the facilitation of the organized criminal back up that brings people into this country illegally. >> i say secure those borders and you will not have that problem. >> you said you did not want this campaign defined by sb- 1070. >> we can secure our border. i have been up to groom lake. if we secured it the way they did -- it has been done. it is old technology. we could stop the illegal crossings except at the ports of entry. it is a defined plan on my website. i seem to be the only one who has won that physically stop it while giving a disincentive for people to come here illegally. that is key to -- to stop putting a tub of honey in our

front yard and telling the bears across the street they cannot add any. -- cannot have any. people are going to come where the opportunity is. this whole 1070 thing has become a very racist attitude of the people who are saying i support it. terry is right. it has nothing to do with immigration. >> larry, your ideas on 1070? >> it is agreed. it is a frustration bill. people are frustrated with the real issue of the border and what is going on. it has hurt us in perception nationally and it has hurt tourism. to say it has not hurt us is not true. the issue is what we do about the bigger picture, the border and securing it. even a further step back is what is the cause of why so many people want to come in from mexico or south of the border through here. >> it is not really the issue.

the issue is -- we talk about tourism. we talk about driving the economy down. it is because people like mr. goddard supported the unions that are calling for the boycotts. they want to drive our economy down and take jobs of people -- jobs away from people who desperately need them. >> the governor is trying to imply that i am in favor of the boycott. i want to make it very clear that i am absolutely not. i think the boycotts should be stopped immediately. i have called upon national groups and local politicians to back off -- not to hurt arizona anymore. what hurts us economically or false statements made by jan brewer about our arizona -- are false statements made by jan brewer about how arizona as beheadings and the desert. it is a false statement that causes people to think it is a dangerous place. they do not come here or invest here because our governor has said such negative things about

our state. i would call on you to say there are no beheadings. that was not true. it needs to be cleared up right now. >> terry, i will call you out. i think you ought to renounce your support and endorsement of the unions that are boycotting our state and tried to drive our economy into the ground. >> i do not support the boycott, no way, no how, and i have done everything i can to fight against it. [cross-talk] >> they support it because of your views and because of what you are doing. >> i have been a voice to the book got -- opposed to the boycott since the beginning. i urge anyone i talked to to get off it. i sent letters to the congressman involved in it and help change his mind. i am very proud of that. >> this is one of the biggest

issues that arizona is facing, and america. the union organizers that are boycotting arizona are supporting you because of what you stand for. >> would you start making false statements about arizona being a dangerous -- stop making false statements about arizona being a dangerous state? we have the safest and lowest crime rate that we have had and 30 years. you're demeaning law enforcement are saying otherwise. >> the federal government put signs up 30 miles south of the capital city in danger, travel at your own risk. do not tell me we do not have a problem with the drug cartels. >> it is an overstatement. >> have you been to the border? >> i know every inch of the border. >> you do not want to secure the border? why did you go? >> did you say i do not want to

secure the border? everything i have been done -- have been doing has been to stop the organized criminal threat to arizona. >> barry, i wanted to get in on this, please. >> all of this bickering is just a distraction from our economy and the depression that -- has hit every family in america. why did this not require that everybody who wants a provision of services or goods from america to prove their eligibility and leave the rest of us alone? that would have solved everything that sb-1070 begins to portend. can we get off of 1070? >> not yet. not quite yet. >> 1070 simply mirrors the federal law. >> the federal law is what is wrong. >> let's talk about fixing the problem. folks have been unable to get

immigration reform on the docket. that is a fundamental way that we can get everybody together, clear the deck, and make sure that we're all legal. that is our objective. i believe that is what we have to accomplish. barry, you are right. the economy is the elephant in the room -- the thing that we're ignoring at our peril. we're good to lose as a state. >> larry, your thoughts. >> on 1070? the bill itself -- 70% of the bill did near federal law. the last few pages did not and that is where a had a problem. we should be -- people should be legal in the country, not illegal. may i finish? regarding the last part of the bill, i think it was section 13- 28 or 29, regarding where you heard anybody in any building --

if i am a church with my parishioners and i knowingly or unknowingly know somebody is in that church with me, then i could be in trouble with the law. a police could show up and take us all off. -- the police could take us all off and then we would have to sort it out. >> i want to get what you mentioned -- federal inaction. that is what many people see as the reason behind 1070. why should the state not try to do what the federal government has so far not done? rick that the state needs to do everything it can within the law -- >> the state needs to do everything it can within the law. that is why we have been following the cartel and arresting their leaders. i believe that is the answer to solving this problem, along with solving decades of federal inaction in the area of immigration. we are paying a huge price right now. for almost 40 years, the federal

government has not paid attention or enforce the government's sanctions -- the employees engines -- employers sanctions that they said they would. it has created a problem we have today. they need to fix it. congress has been dead in water. it will not introduce the bill. they will not start the process to bring justice to our country. >> what about the original question. if they are not in -- if they will not start the process, why not arizona? >> arizona has a significance engines law appeared that is a honey pot that barry referred to a minute ago -- significant sanction law. that is a honey pot that barry referred to a minute ago. there is a very good start. in the meantime, the federal

court has taken most of 1070 and is considering it. it will not let it go into effect. we have to consider what ails arizona. that is our broken economy. we have lost, just in governor brewer's jobs, 128,000 jobs, and we are losing -- governor time, 128,000 jobs. we are losing more. >> using this has caused irreparable harm. has it, and how -- you said this has caused irreparable harm. has it, and how? >> it mirrors the federal law. if they will not do their job then we'll do it for them, then we will help them. we cannot continue to reap all the damage. when terry refers to the drug cartels -- before simply got our borders secured and 1070 was in

effect, all of this would stop. it would make your job a lot easier as attorney general. read that this whole sense of anything -- my opposition has always been seen -- >> this whole 1070 bain. my opposition has always been a singular. there is a very realistic answer to solving these problems without getting into business is in people's lives and their families and uprooting them. to give them a disincentive to be here illegally is the smartest thing to do. we do not have to grow government to carry everybody out. we have the bigger issue which is going to be can we secure our border and who are we going to let in? the feds have been very lax. they have not done anything. i advocate self-help right now. let's fix our state. there are people dying on our borders. there are people who are suffering with no security in

their homes because we have not done anything and the current governor is waiting for barack obama to do something. that has been the excuse for our inaction. we have to step on it. we should disregard the feds and not let them impose on us any longer. let's just ignore them. maybe they will go away. >> we cannot ignore what you wanted to talk about earlier -- the economy and jobs. governor brewer, what will you do to grow jobs in arizona? >> first, let me begin by saying under my administration we have brought thousands of jobs into arizona and millions of dollars in capital. as my first act as governor, i put a moratorium on rules and regulations so that business is looking at arizona, coming to arizona, they would no predictability would be here -- they would know that it would be predictable here.

i have established the authority putting leading ceo's and the private sector out there to bring this into a 21st- century approach. i believe it is important that everybody understands that but many into -- money into a job- training fund. we have to seriously look at the tax structure. we did tax reform to become more competitive with california. corporate-income tax and corporate-property tax to make it more comparable. >> she has been in office for 20 months. the idea of the congress of 40 is a good one, but it took 18 months for her to announce it -- congressional authority is a good one, but it took 18 months for her to announce it. you should have done that immediately to make our tax code more competitive, so that

businesses are attractive to do everything in your power to mention the jobs come first and you have not done that. you stop staying -- you stop saying things that are untrue and that defame our states like arizona is a violent place. we have a 30-year reduction in crime rates. we should do a great job of thinking -- banking -- banking -- thanking our law enforcement. >> we need to create jobs. we need to create manufacturing jobs. we need to get back to the basics in terms of our structure. manufacturing, not just buying from somewhere else and the settling here. building here. utilize more of our resources in terms of industrial bonds. more importantly, give some direction and leadership to the market's, to the credit markets. we're going forward.

we can get past senate bill 1070. >> i could not disagree more. i think government is what screws things up. part of the problem is that 90% of the jobs created have come from the private sector. we have so many regulations it is a stranglehold. that is why i propose eliminating many of those regulations, so that people can grow without having to look over their shoulder for the government. along with that, i propose the elimination of the personal- income tax. we cannot allow the government to steal and expect the people not to do the same thing. the property tax is really in unconstitutional. a death tax -- the revenue should come from transactions in corporate structures on a flat basis, without exception, and going to the flat 4% on the growth, at end of story, no deductions, on businesses. in dealing with the

manufacturers we have talked to, that is what they have told us. they want political stability. >> there is a line of thought that the income tax rate has gone down to you can see that it has gone down. there is a line of thinking that says, increase the income tax, but cut the business tax in order to stimulate the economy and get some jobs going. what are your thoughts? >> i called early on when i first became governor for tax reform. it is and then we need to look at to make it equitable and fair to everyone. we have to be very cautious that it is something we can afford. when i became governor, i was facing a huge deficit -- a big, black hole. as we move through those legislative sessions trying to get tax reform done, it was very difficult. we had to cut $2.2 billion out of the budget in order to get the balanced budget completed. but i am looking for to this

upcoming legislative session. it is probably one of the most important things on our list -- to make us competitive and to do righteous tax reform. >> q&a have had only two years to get started. when there is -- you have had only two good years to get started. -- two years to get started. he did not wait that long to put reform on the table -- you do not wait that long to put reform on the table. it should have been done right now. arizona is hurting badly. 128,000 jobs have left the state while jan brewer had been governor. we are number one in the nation for job loss. that is an emergency. it does not allow you to wait and deliberate. you have to put folks in action. i put out an emergency action plan. it will bring is rendered thousand jobs -- bringing out three and a thousand jobs into this state right away.

>> -- 300,000 jobs into the state right away. >> you have done us into a whole -- dug us into a hole. >> i brought hundreds of thousands of dollars into the state to keep us out of trouble. >> we have done a good job at turning it around. we've brought thousands of jobs into arizona. we brought millions of dollars into arizona on capital assets. we will continue doing that at very difficult times. >> the problem is you have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. our kids do not even think about going to arizona to start their career because they think there is no opportunity. we're forgetting one important item. arizona will never recover when our schools are dead last in the nation, we're at the very lowest level. i do not know how you can

tolerate the fact that arizona schools are failing and the support for schools in arizona is last in the nation. that is an abomination. >> maybe you could talk to your good union friends about stopping the boycotts and driving people away from arizona and taking jobs away. >> what are we going to do to get it out of the seller -- cellar? >> you do not believe that the boycotts are affecting our economy? >> our schools? i'm sorry. >> we will be to both and the back -- both on the same page. do you believe the rates need to increase? >> in these dire times, nothing should be taken off of the table. jan has started saying how we got into this mess. we had an -- that was what we

had in 2004 through 2006. when we had access money, we did not put it into a rainy day fund. where did that money go? we might not be in such dire straits had we put the rainy day money away. i would not take anything off the table right now in regard -- >> these may well be -- i think they are the most critical times. it will not be the most critical time we ever face, but it will be the most critical time with a still tomorrow. you kids in the political division between republicans and democrats is -- you can see the political division between republicans and democrats is obvious. the people of arizona should know that i represent the governor who will represent you, not preserved in the administration. we saw a property tax -- prop. 100 that jan was excited about, to get to raise $3 billion --

but that was foisted on people during a depression to cover up that they simply over hired. we have to pare government down and make it smaller. we've seen $70 million hidden in the budget. there is $750 million coming due this month. that means more taxes. obama care will be the three waves of the largest tax increases in history and the worst economic times imaginable. >> governor, respond, please. >> it was overwhelmingly supported by the voters. i led the campaign. i believe that they understood the problems and issues. i believe that they listened to jan brewer, believe me, trusted me -- because of my long record in public service. it was the right thing to do. doing the writing always means doing the hard thing. >> that is unfortunate.

the reality is the taxes did not help. they're trying to preserve the state and minister gen. at the state starts singing, the difference is going to be obvious. i want to say the people. they want to save the boat. >> prop. 100 was supported by parents, teachers, and folks all across arizona, because they felt it was a desperate situation. $1.1 billion came out of education because of jan brewer's cuts. they need any more cuts would be devastating to public education in the arizona. they do what they had to do to put prop. 100 into effect. for gender were to take credit for somehow saving education with prop. 100 is by taking credit for saving somebody from the water when you are the ones that pushed him in. you cannot save someone from drowning if you were the one who pushed him over the side. >> that is interesting commentary.

it is somewhat fascinating. i got involved in politics because i understand how important it is to our state and to our country, and to the future. if i had not have done that, education would have been decimated. it was tough times. we did not have the funds because of the prior administration. they were spending money left and right. times were good. new programs. spending the rainy days program -- rainy day fund when there was not even rain. i have gotten the job done. >> school districts are drawn up a list of teachers to fire. i have a sixth grader at home who has come home with a note from his principal saying that if prop. 100 did not pass, 130 teachers would be fired from the phoenix elementary district. that is blackmail. that is putting people against

the wall. you have to do this or schools are toast. i think that is a failure of planning. it is a failure at the very beginning of this governor's term to put the problems on the table and determine priorities. >> let's go back to what we have heard a couple of times. the previous administration fiscally mismanaged the budget and overspent. we have heard from a couple different candidates. how do you respond to that? >> is a lot of shifting the blame. at this moment, when we went into the election in 2008, arizona had approximately a $3 billion deficit. we were in the national recession. everybody got caught. i am not here to make excuses. i think she made some mistakes as governor, but she is gone. jan brewer has the job. it does no good for her to continue to shift the blame back. she needs to take responsibility for what she has done. she has failed to balance the

budget. she is failed to put a jobs plan on the table. she has failed to treat our urgent need to bring jobs back to arizona with the urgency that it deserves. >> please respond to that. >> that is a lot to respond to. first and foremost, i do not know if terry really supported prop. 100 or knocked. -- or not. he did jump on a few days before it went to the ballot. he knew it was the only solution. i, jan brewer, had moved in and correct the huge mess. in 2006, we knew because of bad -- because the big spending, new programs from smoke and mirrors, that arizona was headed it into bankruptcy. on top of that, came the recession -- on top of that came the recession. there but for the grace of god, i arrived.

i rolled up my sleeves and put my pencil to paper. i did the job. >> barry, get in on this. >> it was not overwhelming by any stretch of the edmund -- of the imagination. only 30% of the people showed up for the vote carried 67% of them voted in favor of that. it was only about 25% of the population. to make sure numbers are correct, let's not lose focus. the purpose of government education is to graduate a competent young man or woman who was capable of going out into the world without ever becoming a burden to anyone. you talked about saving the administration -- that is the boat i was talking about. i'm talking about the progress of the individual student. we're still last year near still at the bottom. that thing has happened. prop. 1013. >> here we are with more taxes.

[cross-talk] >> there are few surveys where we are not scraping bottom one way or another. what is going on? >> part of it is the formula that the federal government uses and ties dollars that they give back to the state, how they measure our success or failure. that is part of its. the plo program -- ell program, for example. approximately 14% of the k-12 have english language and in -- have english-language learning, which means the child may read or write, but the parent does not. we are responsible to get them to a certain level. we had an arrangement with the federal government that we would have a four-year window to bring that up -- to get that right.

we shrunk that down. we get a lot of dollars from the federal government tied to that. unfortunately, the way they measure as causes a problem because of the structure they do for the ones who are non- english. it is a problem. secondly, we do need reform of where we put the dollars we have. i would be more toward classrooms first, teachers. >> same question. the idea that arizona seemed to never get over the hump in terms of education studies and research. what is going on? >> arizona is failing our children. we have a situation where we are dead last in the nation in resources per child. that is an abomination. we have to change that. according to no time left behind, we're 46 at the fourth- grade level and 40% at the eighth-grade level. n math, we're only behind d.c.

we are concerned about making sure our young people are ready to compete in an increasingly competitive world market. only 25% of high-school graduates in the arizona are ready for college. that is terrible. we have one of the highest dropout rates in the nation. we have to work very hard on making our public education system much better. i have a goal to move from the bottom tend to the top 10 in 10 years. as the time of -- the type of focus we need -- that is the type of focus we need. >> governor, ideas regarding education? it has to be more than holding back third-graders and giving schools letter grades. >> that is also very important. i am part of the education reform that we have instituted -- it is part of the education reform that we have instituted. we need to move in the direction

of what we had begun -- putting our framework together to raise to the top -- to race to the top. we did not do it so well the first round. in the second round from a person that came up 19th out of 32. -- in the second round, arizona came up 19 data 32. it is important that parents know exactly how well their schools are performing. it is important that they understand that it's easy to get -- that it's easy enough to get understand -- to understand and get away with this. social promotion is nothing. it will not happen in arizona any longer. we need to reward those good teachers that inspire us. and i think we have. -- we will require superintendents' to have their salaries based on 20% stock

performance. those are the kinds of things that we really need to do. we'll continue moving in that direction. >> we need to reward the best teachers. that is where our rewards should go. we'll not reform education by taking $1.1 billion out of the budget or by getting rid of the one thing that all the scientific studies say it works -- kindergarten. when jan brewer got rid of that, she sent our schools back significantly. >> i hate to bring this up. i am trying to change the subject -- kind of changing the subject again. where is your plan for what you want to get done? where are you want to get the money? >> we're want to grow our economy. that is what we need to do. >> you have no plan. >> your the governor. you need to have a balanced budget. you have not done that yet. >> you are an attorney general. you have to have a balanced budget. read constitution.

[cross-talk] >> that budget was $450 million of the balance. it took you 10 months to get it was way out of balance. >> we have balanced the budget. >> check your facts. you have not balanced the budget. the second year, you're $150 million -- >> why did you not do something about it if that was the case? we balance the budget. -- balanced the budget. the obama administration demanded more spending. get the money you to make up the difference.

what is your plan, terry? >> you need to have a balanced budget. >> ok. [crosstalk] barry, i wanted to get in on this. >> they have gotten way off- subject. i would say she absolutely has not balanced the budget. you cannot say you added a budget when you've added $70 billion -- $70 million to it. you have preserved the state. we have to stop focusing on the welfare school system and start looking at the education of the populace, which is something that i hold dear. we paid less than $6,000 per year, yet the state -- that and ends up with an inferior product. it is not the kids. it is the institution that has to be reformed. we have to care about it in a bigger sense and encourage

education from all sides and all possibilities, be it home schooling or sitting by the fireside. i am interested in smart kids. >> larry, does that sound good to you? >> read good books. i agree. care.'s go to health terry, you did not want arizona to join the health care reform lawsuit. it looks like it is going to hit arizona hard. first of all, it still seems to be a moving target right now. those who want to choose to join the suit are looking at maybe $11 billion over the next decade in terms of health care to get in line with federal health care. why didn't you join that suit? >> i read the suit itself and it did not stack up as a legal proposition. we would have been the 20th state. the court-appointed decide whether or not there is a

constitutional problem. -- the court is going to decide whether or not there is a constitutional problem. we should not waste arizonas resources on a vain effort -- arizona's resources on a vain effort. the bottom line is this would benefit arizona. we would be 10 -- $2 billion ahead at the end of 10 years with the reform. it does some things that i really applaud. it allows kids to stay on their family insurance policies until they're 26. it means you cannot throw off somebody who has a pre-existing edition. seniors get dental care which they desperately need. these things help make health care affordable. it is not perfect, but it is certainly moving in the right direction. arizona, after 10 years, is $2.3 billion better off than without it. >> better off than without. >> no. i immediately filed suit against the federal government

on obama-care. first and foremost, i think it is unconstitutional, as do 22 others attorney -- 22 other attorneys general. the bottom line is we cannot afford it. it is inherently wrong for the federal government to tell the people of arizona that you have to buy something and if you do not, you will be penalized. we cannot even afford the health care that we provide in the state on our medicaid program. we provide the highest standard of access. it is higher than anybody else in the country. to continue to have the obama wanting to up the ante in increase the benefits to people that simply -- and increase the benefits to people that simply cannot afford it is inherently wrong and unconstitutional. we will win. >> you know perfectly well the

cost you are talking about at nothing to do with all for reform. they're part of proposition 214 that was passed by the residents of arizona. it is not something you're doing on the generosity. [crosstalk] the only other piece is kids care. it is something i cannot understand. you eliminated that program which took almost 50,000 kids who could not afford medical insurance and knocked them off the rolls today and in the emergency rooms. i think that is just mean. it is incredibly destructive economically. >> how would you have paid for it? give me your plan. where would you have generated the money? >> here is a plan that the voters gave you. you cannot simply say i am sorry, we will not follow that. you have to get the boulders to consider it to you are trying to get rid of first things first

and going smarter -- you have to do the same thing with proposition 204 if you plan to cut the program. it is not health care reform causing this problem. we have to meet the standards that arizona has set for us. >> how do we afford all of these great, big, wonderful things that you go on about? >> we bring jobs back to arizona that have been lost during your administration. >> give us a plan. >> i have given you a plan. >> know, you have not. you have not given us a plan -- no, you have not. you have not given us a plan to you talk about spending. [crosstalk] >> by balanced and a balanced on time. >> your cut out of the same cloth as the obama administration. more government, more spending. >> i find the whole obama campaign -- it is absurd.

health care for everybody. if we get government out of our health care completely, we can lower the prices by 60% to 70%. with the government out of our private business, we would not need insurance. we could afford it ourselves. it is absurd. if we should provide anything as the state administration, it should be the county hospital system being reinvigorated. will not leave people bleeding on the sidewalks. >> the idea that obama health care reform is absurd -- agree? >> that was -- i want ad in on that year that ended as the state's right -- i want to add onto that. i think that is the state's right. we should decide how to govern ourselves. this is a state issue. i believe we live and the greatest -- the wealthiest country in the world. we should be able to find a way

to develop affordable health care. maybe not by government, certainly in the private sector. the government should put the private -- should put the pressure on the private sector to come off with a better solution for the problem health care. >> i want to shift to a terrible incident that happened in northern arizona -- the escape of prisoners from a private facility in kingman. it had tragic consequences in new mexico. this was from a private prison. you have expressed confidence in private prisons, even after the escape. are you still confident that private prisons are good for arizona? >> private persons have been in arizona for approximately 20 years. there is utilized by the state as well as the federal government. -- they are utilized by the state as well as the federal government. it was a terrible incident that took place in kingman, ariz., in regards to those people who escaped. it ended in a horrible tragedy.

immediately, i move forward with the top-to-bottom investigation of what actually took place. it was determined at that point that it was human error, unfortunately. we moved forward to get those people replaced. we move forward with the investigation. we have a site plan to see what is going on -- see what is going on in all of our other prisons. let me say, i have been honored. i got ahold of department of corrections to commend them for what they have done. i would like to commend all law enforcement given the tragedy that took place. the department of corrections, public safety, marshal's office, and the forster -- foresters who aideed the people -- who id'd the people and got lmccl -- mccluskey and welch arrested

without incident. >> is there a place for private prisons in arizona? >> i do not think that is the question. the question is, is there room for the people of arizona? 400 violent criminals or moved into a facility in kingman that was designed for drunk -- were moved into a facility in the kingman that was designed for drunk drivers. there was no increase in security or trading -- training. 117 of those violent offenders were convicted murderers. there was no information given to the sheriff of the county or the police chief or any of the law enforcement in the area appeared suddenly, these dangerous people were in their midst. the department of corrections did an audit of that prison. they made three minor suggestions as to how it could be improved. when they came in after the escape, they found out it was an absolute meltdown. there was indifference to

safety. they had 89 false alarms within 16 hours of the estate. the people did not have the proper training. they were brand new on the job appeared there was a break right next to the door that they escaped out of -- brand new on the job. and there was a break right next to the door that they escaped out of. these people strolled out into the state of arizona and the murdered two people. this is a terrible advocation of the responsibility of the state of arizona to take care of and protect the public welfare. >> abdication of responsibility. >> it was a terrible situation. we do not deny that. unfortunately, it was human error. it has been resolved. the people who were responsible have been ousted. the private prisons and the classifications or put in place -- were put in place years ago

and were reviewed again in 2005. terry goddard signed off on those new classifications to allow those classified prisoners to go into the can in prison. >> that is not true. >> he did it without any public hearing or legislative oversight. >> you know that is not true. was on your watch at the violent criminals that were removed -- it was on your watch that the violent criminals were removed to a facility that was designed for drunk drivers. 400 violent offenders or move to that facility. the bottom line is your administration gave them a clean bill of health and said everything was fine. obviously it was not. the escape was one month ago yesterday and you still have not put together what you have to do, in my opinion. [crosstalk]

>> you signed off on it. >> i had nothing to do with it. it was a transfer of violent prisoners to a facility that was classified for the lowest- possible -- >> we need to stop there. i have only about 30 seconds for your response. >> i think there is a place for privatization of prisons. before i'd shift the blame, it is a tragic situation. let's see what comes out in the review. >> the review has not been asked for. no impartial, outside the department of corrections -- >> you have about 30 seconds. >> i was -- i am all about privatization. i have had second thoughts because of this. there is probably a place for the driver's or for minimal -- for the drunk drivers or for minimals.

i do think this date should be in control of the facility. >> thank you all for your discussion. we will have one-minute closing statements. we begin with jan brewer. >> thank you. the choice tonight is very clear. i have brought thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in capital investments to the state of arizona. terry has done nothing. i have balanced the budget and cut spending by $2 billion. terry has no plan. i have supported proposition 100 and led the campaign to protect education and public safety. terry jump on board four days before the election -- after he turned his been your into a weather vane. i have supported senate bill 1070 and have called out loudly to get our borders secured. i have signed and supported proposition 200, and i have

worked hard and executed the bolder idea at the polls -- voter id at the polls. tonight, i ask you to make a clear choice. i ask for your vote. together, we can get the job done. >> thank you very much. ist., larry gu >> thank you. i entered the race after watching the news. i wanted to make a difference. i saw people losing their homes, their jobs, and i thought i could enter into the process and make a difference. getting the background of 35 years in the technology -- i think my background of 35 years in technology, the private sector, financial services, it

would all benefit arizona. conifer, cattle, climate, citrus, cotton, and i would like to be known for creating jobs. >> next closing statements, terry goddard. >> the choice is simple. jan brewer's failure track. lost schools, a broken budget. we can pull together and fight to recover jobs, fix our schools, and stop the crazy partisan bickering that afflict our state. jan brewer has said she changed everything. sadly, that is too true. we have gone from first to worst in job production. she is the first governor to fail in her term to balance the state budget. this is not the arizona that we

want. my emergency job plan would bring 39000 jobs to this day. that is the first job i would be engaged in as your governor. it takes more than lawsuits to solve the border problems. as attorney general, i have been fighting the cartels. we have seized over $20 million in their assets. that is the kind of success we need in the next governor. a proud arizona and. -- arizonan. my family loves this date. >> and now barry hess will give the final closing statement. >> i hope people will visit our website to get the whole story. it is obvious that we need someone -- a libertarian -- who can take ideas from both sides of the aisle without fearing political repercussions or reprisal. i offer the opportunity for the people of arizona to have a constitutional government, one who will stand up for your individual rights of all things. you are what we're here to serve

for. we have one purpose of government here. that is to protect the rights and property of the individual. i will do that. we have not seen that done. we have seen political divisiveness. i will give you a clear choice and a clear path toward the future where arizona can win. vote for barry hess. >> thank you candidates -- thank you, candidates. thank you to all of you for watching this debate. this is available online at our website. that is it for now. i am ted simons. thank you for joining us. have a great evening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

horizon is made possible by contributions from the members of your pbs station. >> following the debate, governor brewer told the newspaper that she will not participate in any more events with democrat terry goddard. she said the only reason she debated him on wednesday but as -- was because she had to in order to qualify for certain public funds. according to the article, the governor conceded that her performance in wednesday's debate and her refusal to answer a question from reporters afterward -- it was not well handled. >> next, and nevada governors' debate. then, president obama talks about this month's rise in unemployment. after that, our roundtable discussion from the 2010 elections. tomorrow on "washington journal," kristie arslan talks about economic policy and

congressional legislation and its impact on the self-employed. jendayi frazer as the latest on the situation in sudan. author charles peters talks about his biography of lyndon johnson. that is live it 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. -- at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span3 >> there is nothing about finance that is like rocket science. it is probably one of the most frustrating things for me. think about ponzi schemes. the biggest ponzi scheme for wall street is telling someone who has worked really hard to earn a box that they're not smart enough to understand how that is going -- earn a buck that they're not smart enough to understand how it is going to be invested. >> meredith whitney was one of the first to predict major losses for citigroup. she's our guest on sunday night's "q&a." >> search the term "mideast peace" and you'll get more than

1700 programs and thousands of the transcripts about the subject. it all leads up to this week's middle east peace talks. it is washington and the world your way. >> the candidates running to be nevada cost next governor, brian sandoval and rory reid, the date for the first time. the debate was hosted by the andre agassi college prep academy. rory reid is the son of senate majority leader harry reid. brian sandoval is a former u.s. district judge. a poll of likely nevada voters released on sunday showed sandoval had 53% of the vote and 31% for