is trending heavily into voting republican this term over republicans. -- republicans over democrats. guest: whenever it looks like there is an opportunity for the other party to end up in power and controlling after an election, the donations tended to follow a pattern in a move towards people in that party. thank youe d'aprile, for being with us. "the hell" is continuing looking at district around the country and continuing to fall. we will be checking in with "the hell" as the closer to the midterm elections. thanks for watching "washington journal" today. coming up later on c-span, we will be covering the national commission on the bp deepwater horizon oil drill at 1:00 p.m. eastern this afternoon. we spoke about offshore drilling earlier in the program.

we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> president obama travels to asia after the midterm elections and today, deputy secretary of state james steinberg will discuss the administration policies toward asia. that conversation will be alive at 12:25 eastern on cspan 3. the national oil spill commissioners will talk about preliminary findings to date related to the causes of the gulf of mexico oil spill are they will also talk about options in mitigating future oil

spills. we will have live coverage here at 1:00 p.m. eastern particle --. first lady michelle obama for the first time she is heading the campaign trail paris she begins with a fund-raiser in milwaukee for the democratic incumbent. mrs. obama is set for 10 fundraisers in seven states over 12 days from milwaukee, she will head to chicago, denver, ohio, washington state, california, and connecticut. a new poll showing florida voters favoring republican senate candidate marco rubio by a wide margin over charlie crist. mr. rubio is favored by 44%, governor chris 33%. congressman meek has trailed throughout the contest. our prime-time coverage of the midterm elections will continue tonight at 7:30 eastern with

live coverage of the first televised debate in the delaware senate race between the republican christine a tunnel and democrat chris koons. then california candidates jerry brown and matt whitman and a campaign reporter from the hill. another first of three televised debates scheduled among north carolina's three u.s. senate candidates. early voting starts tomorrow in north carolina. a high point university poll before the debate showed that senator bird is leading 45%-31%. >> this is the north carolina u.s. senate candidates debated this program is sponsored as a public service to the citizens of this state by the north

carolina association of broadcasters education foundation. here is our moderator3. >> good evening, it is my pleasure to serve as moderator for this u.s. senatorial debate. let's introduce the candidates for the candidate to my left is ms. keylay marshall. she holds a law degree from temple university and served in the north carolina state senate and is currently the north carolina secretary of state recanted take to my right is mr. richard bird, the republican candidate for the u.s. senate who holds a b.a. degree from wake forest university and served in the house of representatives and is currently a u.s. senator from north carolina. before we begin, here are the rules. the debate will begin with opening statements and following that, the candidates will respond to media questions provided by members of the state's electronic news media

and the debate will conclude with closing statements by each candidate. the order of the opening statements, the questions, and the closing statements was determined prior to this debate and has been agreed to by the candidates. mr. burr will make the first opening statement and take the first question that thank you. welcome to north carolina once again. >> let me say thank you to the north carolina broadcasters and unctv for this wonderful opportunity. november 2 will decide the direction of this country for the future. if in fact you believe that this country is headed in the right direction and you are supportive of a government that costs too much and is too large then i am not sure candidate for it if you believe that our future has to change direction, if you believe that our government needs to be

downsized and we need to figure out how to get more bang from auerbach from the standpoint of your tax dollars, then i am asking for your support. i am asking for your support so the next generation can enjoy the same opportunities we have had. this november, i need your support and i need your vote, thank you. >> ms. marshall? >> thank you so much. i want to thank the broadcasters association, senator burr, this studio and all the folks out there watching. as i travel around north carolina, i find that folks are very frustrated. they are saying that the american dream is slipping away from them and their families. they believe washington is not listening. they are correct. washington is not responding to the needs of ordinary americans. instead, they are listening to lobbyists and special interests. they are having their way. senator burr has been in washington for 16 years and is part of that club but i am not.

i grew up on a farm and have been a teacher and a small business under. i have fought hard for the citizens for north carolina for lobbying reform. i have taken on wall street and i have sued people who have -- i've prosecuted people will have -- who had cheated people. i would appreciate your support in this race and iq all very much for 29 internet. >> let's go to the questioning. the first question will go to mr. burr. you have one minute, 30 seconds. you are both traveling the state and talking with voters. what is the most important issue that people are bringing to your attention and what should congress do to address this issue? >> it is jobs, quite frankly and the economy. we have over 10% of north carolina that would like to

work and are unemployed today. over 9.6% of americans. we have held above the 9.5% level for over one year. what the american people what is an opportunity to work again and it has to be matched with policies in washington that encourage the job creation that we need. we have gone to 18 months of the government trying through their checkbook to generate economic growth. after a lot of money, we actually saw unemployment go up and more americans were hurt. we look back in history and we need to do the things we know. let's make tax rates and regulation predictable. let's give private capital a reason to come into the marketplace and expand businesses. create jobs. this country was not built by government. it was built by hard-working americans that took risks and there was a reward at the other

end. unfortunately today, government stands in the way for them determining what that reward might be and it freezes that money on the sidelines where it does not go in a productive way to create a job for an american privilege change the policies and we will change the employment picture. >> indeed, jobs is the most prevalent thing that folks want to talk about out there. we have got to help small business. we have got to provide provide the credit they need so they can create the jobs we need. america has to get moving again. i have been a small business are and i know how hard it is to start and get going. i have worked very hard in north carolina to cut down on the red tape it takes to get for starting a business and growing the business and getting financing. many folks with -- would upgrade if they had the credit to do that. we need to help the private sector to create jobs. we need to have sound tax policies that reward job creation here in america, not

reward shipping jobs overseas. we have to make sure that our tax policy allows them credit for job creation, credits for research and development, the ability to have a menu of different options. there is no one size fits all answers to different industries out there. we need to quit shipping jobs overseas with unfair trade agreements and the tax policies on top of that that encourage it. we have to think about investing for the future. we have to have jobs that really can't be shipped away. that is why green energy, renewable sources of fuel are so very important and for north carolina, we are in great shape with our schools, our research universities, our community colleges, we can have a good work force that in our great living right here in north carolina. >> north carolina has made the fastest transition from traditional manufacturing to 21st century economy.

we're the home of the largest biotech industry in the country as far as percentage of growth. we will be the vaccine hub of the world with the new novara's plant. what chase jobs offshore? overregulation and too much taxation? they are uncompetitive and we need to make sure this is a national ever to make companies competitive. >> under question number 2, this one is directed to mr. marshall. do you think the american recovery act or stimulus worked? do you think the country needs a second stimulus? >> the stimulus package did put a bottom to the free fall for it kept us from going into the great second depression-era america. i don't think it has enough focus. don't think we need a new stimulus at this point.

when a long-lasting jobs in the grain economy. the jury is still out on the affair -- total effect of the first stimulus package i am hopeful and i believe we are seeing jobs come from that. it did stop the freefall after wall street went wild to keep us from going into a really great depression. >> i think that after $787 billion, the secretary is right, a lot has yet to go out the door, about 1/3 of it. there is every reason for us to take those funds and devote them to things that we know will have a positive impact on employment. when we look at the temporary jobs that were created, most of us saw it on our way down here

as we saw the highway being re- page. they had to use the money quickly. that is not the best use of taxpayer money i am convinced that we need to rethink where our investment go. we need to look at this with a much longer vision in place. that we need to try what we did and expect a different result. to the millions of americans out of work right now that have not felt the effects of this stimulus package, it is hard to convince them that this really kept us from going off the cliff and making it worse. for every unemployed american, this is as bad as it gets. >> indeed, the stimulus package has yet to be fully deployed. north carolina. shell already is a nice phrase but there were many things that folks were not fully developing,

to be able to accept or apply for these funds. i am anxious and encouraged that they will put people back to work. that highway out there and needed it. >> our next question is directed to mr. burr. the social security administration has announced that north carolina residents are worried about their retirement. would you support for the reforms of wall street and what would they look like? >> for the reforms on wall street? i thought you were going towards social security. >> i was for a moment [laughter] "would you support for the reforms and what would they look like? >> as we learned after the financial crisis, congress was asleep and regulators were asleep and there were products that have been created in the financial markets that nobody ever took time to assign a

regulator to. it is those products that many cases spiral out of control parts and contributed. they did not do them by themselves for it with companies that went along with this and took advantage of public -- products that the american people should never have been exposed to. there was congressional legislation that said we should make sure that every american of the house of the 12. the legislation went so far to say that it does not necessarily mean that to qualify for a loan. we have to work out from under eight her pet -- a horrific housing market. anything we do a new regulation should be focused on the things that make a difference at incompetents to our financial markets but not toward things that bring additional regulation and frees capital from finding its way to job creation in this country. >> i think financial reform

needs to go a bit further. i have been a regulator here in this area. when they talk about the fed being asleep at the will, that is absolutely clear. even whistle blowers can to them and explain what bernie mann of was doing and they did not jump into action. i have prosecuted folks for taking away and stemming people for the financial area. it is absolutely imperative that we strengthen paul law and that would include making the co- conspirators the subject to criminal action. it is time we fully fund the sec and make sure they have the tools. when we did conflict of interest cases when people had no idea what the product was and they were told it was good and in fact there on the payroll, the lobbyists are walked through the halls of congress and got our authority taken away from us. that is the culture that is driving wall street and some of

the other special interests walking around congress. a state regulator does a good job and all the sudden mood to good deed goes unpunished. >> we have laws on the books that are intended to prosecute people who break the law. to date, few people have been prosecuted. there are many out there who deserve to go to jail over the money they have scammed from investors in this state and across the country and i hope the government will do it. >> back to social security. ms. marshall, the social security administration announced this week that it will not give adjustment increases to security recipients in 2011. what do you say to younger people from north carolina who want to count on social security when they reach retirement? will the mandatory age requirement need to be extended?

>> this is a very important issue. social security is a promise that has been made enemies to be a promise kept. social security has kept folks like my mother living in dignity. you should not grow into poverty in america because you grow old. the next generation out there, social security age niece to stay where it is part of what needs to happen to make the program solvent is for congress to quit monkeying with the trust fund for starters. we need to make sure that we have more jobs out there. everything we talk about goes back to jobs. when we have more people employed, we have a more robust economy and that supports our social security retirees. we need to make sure that wall street does not get their hands on this money either. i have seen the devastation with seniors where have prosecuted cases. it has just taken the life out of them when they realize that

what they work so hard for has been scammed away from them. if those assets were in the stock market, the devastation is horrible and we don't need to institutionalize more. i would oppose privatization of any social security assets. >> this year for the first time in the history of social security, seniors did not get a cost-of-living increase. in march of 2010, i offered an amendment on the senate floor to provide a $250 stipend to seniors. it was paid for. i paid for out of on obligated stimulus money. my colleagues and the other side of the child did not see any interest in extending that $250 stipend to seniors. when we go back to washington or maybe before, there will be many members saying we need to do something because this decision has been made.

the social security laws are in statutes. they base it on inflation. with the lack of inflation because of this bad economy, it costs seniors that a just and even though their cost of living continues to go up. let's be candid -- to a 30-year- old paying into social security today, the actuaries for sells a security say they will not get -- a -- be able to get $1 out. it is unsustainable and its current form. i have ultimate confidence that they will make a proposal that brings a change to social security that mix of financial is sustainable. to suggest anything before they come out with a commission report would be the wrong thing to do because everything should be on the table for them to consider. >> ms. marshall? >> i look for also to the results from the debt commission. they are taking their fine

tooth, and magnifying glass and looking and many programs. i am very hopeful they will find some good ideas that are ones that we can all accept. i have a good deal of confidence in that erskine bowles being able to handle the job. who will people be standing up for when those recommendations get made? are they standing up for the people are the big business and special interests in this country? >> turning now to some military issues -- mr. burr, do you support the reforms to the pentagon budget as proposed by director robert gates even if they negatively impact our bases in north carolina? >> the short answer is yes. i think the secretary has laid on the table $100 million worth of cuts at the president's request. the devil is in the details.

can we do away with joint command in norfolk? i believe we can and not impact our ability to carry out our national defense obligations. where i differ with the secretary is i am not sure you can cut 10% of the contractors doing business with the military in this country and be able to deliver the services. in many cases, those contractors are delivering services to of kasten because we don't have the capabilities any more in the united states military. they are doing work that we cut from the military in many cases. we want to make sure that every service member was prepared for combat and not for the an ancillary duties that come along with large troop movement or the responsibilities of a base in north carolina. i am happy to say that i have not seen anything in secretary gates'' proposal that would have a negative impact on any of the north carolina bases.

we also have to assure our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines that the tools will be there for them to carry out their mission. >> ms. marshall -- >> i also support the recommendations. north carolina is a military- friendly state and that has helped us. but the momentum is coming towards us. as they do other reductions, we are very well some of the military side and on the state side with the way we provide opportunities for veterans and returning soldiers. we need to turn them into good products and services for folks coming out of fort bragg and camp lejeune. we can do better contract oversight. the stories you read about in various places in afghanistan is

quite evident that there is a lot of money being squandered or unaccounted for. it is the right thing to do. we need to have elimination of no-bid contracts. that means to get our attention. i think north carolina can flourish with a reduction around the country. we simply are military-ready and military-accepting am glad to have our veterans here. they are building our state for us. that is great that we can use their resources. i recently did a program called veterans edge for those coming out to make a transition into private jobs. i am happy to lead that effort. our military presence has been good but we can flow with the times, to. >> north carolina folks should know the weekend that iraq in a very positive way. we will have a surplus of over 20,000 active troops at fort

bragg. we are the tip of the spirit in this day when it comes to military action. the president calls and our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines first. when this country needs to be represented around the world. >> the next question goes to ms. marshall. should president obama stick to a specific date for ending the war in afghanistan? >> this is something we have talked about a lot in north carolina. i think we need to pay attention to the military leaders for the withdrawal. many folks know from the democratic primary that i did not support the search uptick of troops there. i think it has taken our eye off the ball on overall fighting terrorism. to the tuna of $4 billion per month.

i think we should have an orderly withdrawal we should not put our military folks in additional harm's way. i think we ought to be doing this orderly withdrawal. i am not so hung up on secretary dates. the military leaders should have the ability to conduct their withdrawal as they best see fit. different regions will not be the same. i will rely military leaders on that one. >> i was supportive of the search for it was successful in a rock and enabled us to get out faster and turnover security to the iraqi police and military. i was a part of of the president's decision to implement a surge in afghanistan. i am not sure we will have to wait to july to figure out whether the surgeon can work. if we can determine that the

surge kantor, i will not be hesitant to call for bringing our service members tom barrett if the search is successful, i hope the president will ignore an arbitrary date. i hope he will provide all the tools that are needed to make sure that the surge is successful and that afghanistan is ready at some point to take over their own security. i am reminded frequently that pakistan is next door. i am not sure that any individuals that talk about immediate withdrawal understand what you do about pakistan. they are a nuclear country, a country that probably cannot manage all the terrorist elements in pakistan today. we have got to have a plan for when we leave afghanistan and also a plan for pakistan. >> we've got to keep our eye on

the ball. protecting us from our man those that would armagh's is the number 1 job. that means we have to be a lean, mean, and flexible wherever they are. we have to always have the right to capture, kill, take care of those folks that would do us harm in this world without regard to geographical boundaries. >> our next question goes to mr. burr. the first provisions of the federal health care reform bill went into effect last month but there are many politicians who say that health care reform is still vulnerable. where you stand on the federal health care reform and would you support efforts to repeal or not find parts or all of that? >> all of the above. i would hope to repeal it. i would vote tode-fund its implementation and work aggressively to appear replace it with something that helps the american people are. would like

to see expansion of coverage. individuals who will lead expanded coverage should be delegated to the roles of medicaid were their primary care doctor is an emergency room. 50% of the president's health- care plan puts them in medicaid. the president's plan does not do anything for cost control. if you want to bring people under the umbrella of coverage, make it more affordable the inspector general for medicare and medicaid can now during the debate and said if we pass this, it will eliminate 20% of the small and medium-size hospitals in rural america and 20% of the long-term care facilities. i don't believe the way to improve health care in this country is to reduce the number of outlets. we need to in best in a wellness and chronic disease management. we need to make sure that individuals that need treatment get it as early as possible and we certainly did not need to

steal $500 billion from seniors in this country out of medicare to fund the creation of this new program. >> we have spent a lot of time in the last two years in this country talking about health care. when you think about it, we spent the better part of the last 20 or 30 years talking about health care reform and we have not gotten there. this bill was ugly and the process was ugly. a lot of the ugliness has been worked out. i wanted to be sure that i spoke up for broader access to health care, more affordable health care costs. we want to make sure of the loopholes become eliminated and we don't create others. i want to work very hard to have a good health care bill. if there are things that need correcting, we need to fix it. it is a work in progress. the reporting that will be done by small business, i wore hard to get that out of there. i do believe it will come out.

it is a start. we've got to fix things that might be a problem. we've got to lower costs on families. the private market is modulating. they are working on a car and i hope they will be very successful. but to have the elimination of pre-existing conditions and gender prejudice are important to me and americans. i get it. i have had a very sick husband and open up bills that took my breath away. $5,000 per month for one kind of medication that he needed to live, i have been there and it is not a happy place. i had good insurance, many don't. >> the ugly is not out of this bill. we stymie innovation and devices and drugs. we basically tacet offshore by saying it will not be paid for in the future because health care will be a design based on how much money we are willing to

put an end. more importantly, in this bill we found things like a mandate on small business where when they purchase some but over $600, they have to file a 1099 with the company they purchased it from. this has no place in the health care bill but that is what happens when you don't read what you pass it. >> we will not take a short break for two public-service announcements. our questions. to many observers -- washington seems to be stuck in gridlock. if you are elected, what will you do to build compromise on major issues, ms. marshall? >> folks see that washington is broken and they see partisanship beyond compare. they just don't understand it. folks need to talk to each other and understand each other. there is a lot of middle ground

out there and we should be able to recognize that. we have to change the rules of the senate also. they currently are crafted so it is very difficult when you need supermajorities to get things passed. i will go there to represent the people of north carolina and remember to send me there. i will vote with what is right for the people of this state. i was not the washington insider in this race. i don't have obligations on that side. i can be the independence free spirit voice that i have been all along in washington. >> i passed legislation in the united states senate and i know what it is like to reach across the aisle and work with ted kennedy or other democrats. the senate by design requires a

level of bipartisanship that starts when you first begin to think about legislation. the problem is that when you have a park -- party that determines to change the process, not the rules, i would vehemently change the rules of the united states senate. when you have the majority leader deciding he will bring bill after bill to the house and deprive the minority and members of his own party for the opportunity to amend legislation, the senate is it doing exactly what it is designed to do, it is shutting down. it does not get this country any further but the senate was always designed to achieve bipartisanship through the rules. and her the process. if you want to make sure we have a functional united states senate, make sure whoever the majority leader is or what ever the party is in the majority allows the process to take place and does not short cut it.

>> every bottle? >> when people look at washington, they see it is broken. if the process is supposed to shut down, who does that honor? we need to work through these problems that are very important center burr has become the national poster child for obstruction in his party. that is not the way we get through solving our problems in america. >> our next question goes to mr. burr. 2011 is predicted to be a devastating budget year for state and local governments. what roles to the federal government play in sending funds to governments at state and local levels? >> i believe the revenue collection is on the responsibility of the states and local governments. i know we have been out of that mode for the past 24 months. we have sent money so that states did not have to make decisions about which services

they provided or how many employees they had. on top of unemployment benefits and every other benefits. we are out of money. the federal government is broke. you will not hear from many in washington but we are $14 trillion in debt. can we continue to borrow money and send it to any program we want? there has to be a federal/local partnership. that partnership and exists today. talking about expanding it puts us in deeper financial trouble and jeopardizes the opportunities of generations yet to come. i think we should roll back spending to 2008 levels right now. under this administration, the one that is currently in office, under the president's proposal, he will double the national debt in five years and triple the national debt in 10 years. i don't think that is the direction americans want to go.

i will make sure that we become fiscally responsible and that is why i voted against 32 of the last 44 appropriations bills that had been introduced since democrats took control in congress. >> i have a very different take on this. one of us on this stage has been on a federal spending spree. you voted for deficits and raise the debt ceiling. it was ok spending ban. america went to war twice and we get a prescription drug benefit for it will also gave tax breaks to millionaires. that is bad fiscal policy. we cannot balance this budget on the backs of the middle class. that would be incredibly wrong. the middle class needs to be robust in this country. sendso can't continue money to the states when we don't have it. our credit card is being held by china and that is a very

dangerous situation to our economic security that we have this level of dead bird will have to have jobs and be able to grow our way through this. we have to have sound policies that will cut taxes on people that create jobs and not reward jobs being sent overseas. we have to end the tax breaks for millionaires out there. they have to pay their fair share in order to make this whole economy work. i like programs like the race to the top where it is an incentive program rather than a payment on down. there are many things that i don't have time to talk about but we have to have jobs to be able to grow our way through this. >> i rebuttal? >> over eight years of the bush administration, we increase the debt to $2.50 trillion rate in the first eight months of the obama administration, we raced the death by $3 trillion.

the american people will look at this and this will seem like the bush administration was minor compared to what this president has done on the debt. >> our next question goes to ms. marshall. the race to the top education initiative which you mentioned as many people talking about revamping schools. of all the ideas being discussed, which ones do you support and why? >> i did not know that was coming next but i'm glad it came up. let's look at the role of federal government and education. education is primarily a state function. better than 60% of our funding goes to education. the fed has a role in setting a goal, an achievement out there. we are in a global economy. if america is going to be strong, our workers have to be competitive with those of other countries. the notes child left behind was a good sounding name but it

required standardization, evaluation, a teacher tests. the kids don't outstanding to you cannot public -- punish teachers for getting them to a certain level. it does not recognize the educational situation. i truly like the innovation that is emphasized with the race for the top-rated allows each individual state to figure out what is needed even county by county to provide resources to teachers for individualized teachers and give the teachers the professional support they need so they can do a good job. many kids have difficulty with learning. there are lots of pathways to learning. we have to be able to experiment with those so that schools can turn out a better product. if we don't, we will be not the society and educated innovative country that we want to be. we will not be competitive. >> i agree that the race to the

top is a good program. if implemented correctly. it was there to accelerate the creation of charter schools so there was competition in every state and community. with the public school network. no child left behind was designed to make sure every student had a qualified teacher in the classroom. it has fallen well short because there have been offered to derail or eliminate the program. i think in north carolina, we need to look at the success we have had. we have raised graduation rates, we're just above 70%. for a parent, that should not be bribed by the end of the tunnel. we have a lot of work to do but in higher education we produce the second biggest goal of higher education graduates annually than any other state except california. this is what drives economic

development and that is why companies invest in north carolina because they want to come here for our children and grandchildren because the education level is there. pell grants and other grants are important. after eight years, we have some institution that only graduate 29% after eight years. you have to cut off the pell grants at some points about the incoming freshman has the money they need. >> what the federal government does not need to be doing in education is on unfunded mandates with his weapon no child -- which is what no child left behind is all about. >> mr. burr, how important is greed energy to america's future? >> i think it is very important

and they quickly to implement what is technologically possible. i think we will see a tremendous amount of resources devoted to things like the electric cars, transition of large trucks to natural gas. i think we will see building codes changed as technology allows them to change even i have replaced by light bulbs with fluorescent. i am trying to do my part. the problem with energy policy is that you have to have the consent of the american people. we have gone almost two decades without an energy plan this country. we need to put one together. i wrote one along with saxby chambliss to compete with cap and trade which is a transfer of wealth from one state to another. if we present a clear blueprint for the american people, they will buy into it and as they do

as consumers, then we generate the interest for further development for green technologies that are not the cheapest but they are absolutely essential to our future and our economic security in this country. >> i sort of agree with the center on one part that we don't have a comprehensive energy policy that we very much made. the reason we don't have one is because of the washington special interests that craig the tax breaks that support the use of fossil fuels and engages us with foreign countries that don't like is very much. we need a comprehensive energy policy. folks are more and more conscious that the next generation has to make sure they don't spoil our air or water. it is incumbent on us that would move to green energy and north carolina is very well situated.

we have wind and solar and the best minds in the country and our great your research universities. we have the best community college in the country back and train the workers that are needed. it bothers me when the best lithium ion battery is coming from china. we should be able to do that right here. if we had an energy policy that encouraged the research and development and innovation, we would be the leader there. as a move to a green energy grid, those are jobs that will stay right here absolutely no matter what. we have to have policies at the federal level that erectus and encourage that type of activity and growth in the green energy area. >> i would like to add that an energy plan seems like an easy thing to accomplish. you don't drive innovation with a five-year plan. if we want to make a transition to electric vehicles, we will

not get there by the first generation platform. you'll get there by the third generation platform. for 20 or 30 years that means we need development investing as to what americans will ultimately by. i hope we will have bipartisan support for that type of plan. >> do you support offshore drilling off the coast of north carolina? >> when this came up even before the gulf oil spill happened, i spoke out against drilling off the shore of north carolina. we have now seen what has happened to the gulf down there. once the folks change their habits, the tourists, they sometimes don't come back. the coast of north carolina is one of our most treasured resources. the taurus and dollars that it attract to our states are tremendous.

when folks go into the cross restore and have a choice between in new orleans or shrimp and north carolina shrimp, i know what they are buying. we cannot sustain that threat to our economy and way of life. this has been my position since before the oil spill. we have now seen what tragically has happened to folks of louisiana because of what they said was going to be okay. we have the technology and was not going to happen. when folks tell and don't perform their duties, things like that to happen. >> i believe it should be left up to the people in the states about the shores. if the people of north carolina want to have offshore exploration and the federal government's wants to split royalties, those states should have the opportunities to do it. it does not eliminate the federal guidelines that need to be followed. we will find out what went wrong in the gulf. we will find out if it was a regulator that was asleep or

technology that was flawed. if you aspire to become less reliant as a national oil as a national security interests, you will still use fossil fuels long after i'm gone. will you buy it there from one of the most unstable regions in the world or are you going to turn to the hugo chavez administration in venezuela, or will you explore more here? we don't have deep water but shallow water wells that we have moratoriums on today. one is in alaska with possibly the biggest find in the world. the drilling equipment stopped in the philippines and turned to go back somewhere else in the world where they could be productive. we have to be productive >> i

think it is a national issue. there are certain aspects that are state issues but i believe it is a national issue. you are only as strong as your weakest link. the real underlying problem is the coziness between the government and big oil. the lobbyists that represent the special interests and their war chest for campaigns like senator burr here, it is clear who and why they support candidates. >> this next question is another big issue on the minds of north carolina people. that is immigration reform party where you stand and immigration reform, mr. burr? >> we desperately need immigration reform in this country. we need an understandable and legal pathway for people to determine how they come here to

work or seek citizenship. the problem that exists is that we have millions of individuals here illegally. as soon as you talk about accommodating some pathways citizenship for people who came here illegally, you begin to lose the critical mass you need to pass legislation. i don't believe that any individual should receive amnesty. i believe that every person that comes here for citizenship should come the same way and get it -- get at the back of the line. this should let their forms be processed. that is not to say that we cannot expand our guest worker program. in north carolina, we need agricultural workers. you would think it would not be difficult to find somebody to work in the field with 10% unemployment. the truth is, we can do some things that will allow us to make the economic steps forward

but there is no substitute for redoing our immigration policy where people outside the country understand it is easier to come here illegally -- legally then to come here illegally >> we clearly hate immigration reform. we need to be tough. we need to be practical, and we need to be fair. we have to close the borders to this country whether it is the physical borders or ports of entry. we need to enforce law we already have which means being tough on employers. after all, the folks arriving here is for the incentive of a job. that is what is creating our shadow economy. we cannot get out of this. there are folks that have committed crimes here and they clearly need to be deported but we cannot deport their way through this. folks don't need amnesty but they need to have a pathway to

citizenship. they need to pay up their funds if they owe back taxes. learn english but get to the back of the line. we need more workers here in certain sectors. that needs to happen. the immigration agency itself needs to be reformed to make sure that those industries that need help, fobbs 7 opportunity to get there. this is not a problem that came up just last week. this is something that has been festering for more than 10, a 11, 12 years and all the sudden, wants to talk about it. >> i don't disagree. it is not me and the federal government, it is your president and he has stopped the inspection of employers. they are not going in and checking to see if people are illegal. where they have found them, they stop the deportation. it starts of the top. you have to have the leadership

in the white house to take seriously border security. we have not still belt the border with the national guard that the president promised months ago. let's take it seriously and pass a comprehensive bill. >> what is the most critical issue facing america and how will you address it? >> this problem with immigration did not start in the last two years. the most critical issue is clearly jobs, folks that want to work america should be able to find a job. we have to create the environment for job creation. give small-business the credit they need to create small jobs brett we need to make sure that the corporations have a whole an array of tools for them but the tools need to encourage job creation here. i want to cut taxes for them.

i want to make sure they have the ability to grow and thrive right here with american workers. i am looking khartoum seeing .ade in america again ver we have to make sure that folks have jobs with separates us from the rest of the world is a great middle class. we don't have a middle-class if we don't have jobs for people. there is dignity with work and jobs and folks are seeing the american dream slip through their hands. they are working hard and play by the roles and yet they cannot manage because somebody is setting the rolls up there above them that are taking the options away. >> i have a full minute and a half.

i would concur with the secretary that the biggest issue is the economy and jobs. i think it is time we begin to look at the economy and ask why companies move. why do they not begin to hire back when we see economic growth even as anemic as it is now? it is because in washington, we we threatened to change the rules in the middle of the game. we threaten to change the rate on taxes. the congress left and did not settle what the tax rates would be for next year. they did not debated. they did not vote on it. for that reason, the irs will have to print next year's forms with a tax increase on everybody in the country and then the congress will come back and probably make an adjustment and the taxpayer will foot the bill for the new forms. what is the reason the companies that companies can't

be competitive? regulation and taxation. we should cut the corporate tax rate in this country today. we should make this the most preferred place for a company to have headquarters and do .anufacturing part ♪ move?e the company's it is a tax advantage. it is a text advantage to ship jobs overseas. we concede that free trade agreements and jobs away. tulare on top of this the tax breaks that are counterproductive to the middle class. i want to give the middle class a tax break because they consumption -- they become consumers and spenders and move money through the economy and build a more robust economy when they have money in their pockets and are not as worried about making the next mortgage payment

or getting their kids to school because they don't have a job. >> we have a closing statement from each of the candidates. >> is leaving over? wow. i want to thank everyone over there who has been listening and paying attention to this debate. we will have two other ones so i encourage folks to pay attention. election day begins on thursday, october 14. the differences are quite clear. i know who i have stood up for my whole lifetime. i've taken on the health-care industry and represented ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances and holding powerful interests accountable and taking on wall street. i know i will represent when i go to washington. it will be the focus of north carolina, the folks who sent me there. i have their stories in my head and my heart whether i learned as a schoolteacher or a small- business owner or as a small- town lawyer helping folks. i understand their frustration. i have walked a mile with them.

i ask your -- for your vote in this united states senate race and thank you for turning in tonight. >> thank you for moderating to night and thank you to the broadcasters. when i was first elected, i made two promises to north carolina. one was to be consistent and predictable. two, to provide the best constituent service that any member of the united states senate could offer. i believe i have kept those promises. i make the same promise to north carolina. i will be consistent and predictable and that will continue to offer the constituent -- the level of constituent service that not only you expect but you deserve. i need your help on november 2 and throughout early voting. thank you for of viewing this debate tonight. we look for to the next two with you. >> that includes our debate. thank you mr. burr and ms.

marshall for your participation. this program was brought to by the north carolina association of broadcasters educational foundation. thank you for watching. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪ >> michelle obama goes on the campaign trail today to support democrats. she will be joined by president obama. they will be stopping at 17

events in nine different states. it will be the first -- the first joint appearance happens on sunday in cleveland. we have more now on the first lady's campaign swing. begin with michelle obama, kerr involvement in these midterm elections. where will she be going today and thursday? what kind of campaigning with should be doing? is she going, what kind of campaigning will she be doing? >> she will be going to wisconsin to support russ feingold. then she will be going back home to illinois to support the democrat there, giannoulious. the democrats believe they can pick up some seats this year, so michelle obama is starting this

long or in which she hopes to be raising money for democratic candidates. >> onhursday, she will be doing a fundraiser luncheon for michael bennett, who is running for re-election there. he was appointed to the seat from the former interior secretary ken salazar. michelle obama's draw as a fund- raiser commonplaces how come she is -- as a fund-raiser, how come she is doing fund-raising instead of more traditional stump-style events? >> she is one of the more popular people in the country, bushe is not a politician. she is seen as outside of that. it would be unseemly, in effect,

for a first way to be taking shots at republicans won the role is really more of a non- partisan role. the issues that she will take on a while in the white house will not be part of her issues. childhood nutrition, getting kids to exercise more, rather than partisan issue that will be the cause of battles on capitol hill. by fundraising, she is sying above the partisan fray. >> from reports i have read, she can bring in some big box. if you look at senator feingold's luncheon, which we are covering, but according to one report, there is expected to be about 500 people, tickets ranging from $200 to $500. in chicago, tickets range from

five under dollars to $10,000, which includes a photograph -- $500 to $10,000, which includes a photograph. >> it is funny because in some cases, it costs more to see her then president obama. >> we will have live coverage of the debate. give us a preview. >> we have one candidate who is an experienced candidate in chris coons. he was very calm when i interviewed him a couple of years ago. now that mike castle is out of the race, christine o'donnell

having beat him, he believes he has a pretty good chance. o'donnell is a bomb threr, believes that e can get people excited for and against their campaign. i think we will see christine o'donnell tried to take a shot at coons. coons has a very big lead in the senate race. he may play it safer, defending himself, but o'donnell has a new web advertisement out today talking about him as the big tax man. >> it seems like sh is starting to go on the attack. coons has not really responded though. the thing he needs to, to you expect him to respond tonight? >> i think he needs to defend any sort of body blows, but there is not much need for him

to go on the offensive, to defend himself from a lot of these attacks, primarily because he is ahead by such a large margin. democrats are still spending money there, they are not taking it for granted, and we have seen some prominent democratic politicians scheduling events with coons, including president obama, vice-president biden, but at the end of the day, he holds a big lead becae she is too conservative for delaware. host: we want to show you a bit of an exchange from the two candidates from another race. >> its sort of like calling an african-american the n-word. have you looked into the investigation as to o use that phrase?

>> first of all, i do not agree. this was a five-month old conversation with data reception. i do not want to get into the term. the campaign apologize promptly, and i repeat that tonight. i am sorry it happened. i apologize. >> it is not just me, it is the people of california who deserve better than slurs and personal attacks. that is not what califoia is about. i think people know -- every californian, especially women, and know exactly what is happeninhere. >> can i interject? have you chastise your chairman pete wilson who called the congress whores to the public sector union? >> that is a completely different thing. the fact you are defending your

campaign. the fact you are defending your campaign for a slur, -- a personal attack on may -- it is not be fitting of californi the office you are running for. >> it is unfortunate -- private conversation. i do not even know if its legal. again, i am sorry it happened. that does not represent anything other than thing that happened in the campaign. >> that was last night's california gubernatorial debate. reid wilson, you heard the audience reacting to the candidates. how is it playing out with the voters? >> this is exactly the wrong thing that jerry brown wants to be talking about three weeks from election day. the race is all about him now. meg whitman was smart to turn this race into a referendum on essentially what jerry brown or one have is aides said or did

not say on a phone message. it knocked him off of his message, and now this is all we are talking about. i like to call this the race of the october surprise. we already had revelations of a former employee of meg whitman who was an undocumented worker. she took heat for that. now it is brown's turn to come under the microscope. this is the kind of momentum changer that night with needed. she has noteen getting a lot of traction lately. some women may have been turned off by brown's comments. , sir.nk you sai if you want to watch more of that

>> our prime time coverage continues tonight with the televised debate in delaware. cristina del -- christine o'donnell. this is fall by a discussion of the midterm elections. coming up, the house debate between jim marshall and republican challenger austin scott. this race is rated as a tossup. we'll show you sunday's debate in a moment. first, a look at the candidates. >> these vehicles are traveling the country as a look at the close races leading up to the

midterm elections. >> how are you doing? >> we have to have that for our agenda. whenever he comes out, nancy pelosi and his people will represent we might get some people to vote against one item or two items. but the blue dog democrats are delivering each and every vote she needs to pass the agenda. >> i do not think -- what i do is the obligation to the generation. we do not want to pass on the debt to the next generation. the physical stimulus it was

appropriate. i did not agree with some of what was in it, but you hardly get everything of what you want in washington. >> he is a conservative democrat. the challenger is austin scott, a state representative from georgia. there are some rural areas and the metropolitan area in the county. robins air force base. the district is a republican- leaning district. mccain picked up 57% of the district in 2008. this is a district that john mccain won. about one in four mccain voters actually voted for marshall. sense to run to the rights of those democrats. he is not terribly reliable when

it comes to things like health insurance or s-chip, which came two years ago. he has maintained a strong connection to people in the middle. perhaps his best -- he has two good assets. he has to tie themselves to the robins air force base future. he has spent time with them to keep the base open. people at the base seat jim marshall working hard on their behalf. he has done good work in burning things home. you want to see things come back to the district. particularly in rural communities. so you talk to county commissioners, they will say i do not like the fact he is a democrat, but he works hard for

the district. austin scott is about 20 years younger than jim marshall. he is a state representative hub inn agricultural the southeastern part. he exudes confidence. he is running for governor. it is a crowded republican field running for governor. it looks like jim marshall might be somewhat vulnerable and he is doing quite well and making a lot of connections. he has a lot of enthusiasm and he projects a useful five -- youthfuul vibe. austin scott talks about a balance budget amendment. they talk about preserving the

base and the visibility to be a major employer. they talk about the service and doing a good job. i think the major issue will be that jim marshall is a democrat. that may be enough to be a winning race for austin scott. i do think money will start flowing into this race. this is a race that could provide the tipping point to get control. i think this race is becoming more and more favorable for make republican perspective. what the republicans task is to convince republicans, not democrats, that the republican candidate did not vote for marshall. republican friends said they do not vote for democrats ever except for a jim marshall. >> the content of vehicles are traveling the country as we get some of the closely contested

house races. for more information on what the local content of vehicles are up to come visit our website, c-span.org. the 2010 of lancet press club today. now the race for the eighth congressional district. >> welcome. this is the debate between the candidates in georgia's eighth congressional district. it is located in middle and south georgia. it includes portions of 20 counties. it includes making and dublin.

now let's meet the candidates. they are jim marshall, serving his fourth term. and austin scott, the republican nominee, owns an insurance brokerage. the first round, the candidates will each answer a question. in the second round, each candidate will ask a question of his opponent. in the third round, the panelists will continue questioning the candidates. then there will be a closing statement. let's meet the panelists. first we have josephine bennett, a reporter. that would have an editorial editor. our third panelist is seasoned percy -- susan percy, an editor.

takoma candidates will be asked a question and the candidate will have 60 questions to answer the question. >> mr. scott, you say you would have voted against the stimulus package. georgia has received $3.6 billion per it would people have been better off if we did not receive that money? >> china received almost $2 billion to create jobs over there. i think we would have done better if we did not get the stimulus money. the money needs to be repaid by the american working people. >> all right. andre jackson is next up. >> in this election, what distinction should voters see between democrats and republicans? >> i have been an independent since i have been in congress. i try to do what is best for my

people, and i will continue to do that. people know i am a conservative democrat who tries to reflect the damage -- the values of those he represents. i find -- i think that is the choice they have to make. they think i am effective and that i am on this. i tell the truth when i talk to people. i think that is probably what they will make their decisions based on. >> it is now time for the candidates to question each other. 60 seconds for the answer. mr. scott, you will start. >> you claim to be a fiscal conservative, if you voted for the stimulus bill and spending nearly $2 billion to create jobs in china and sending millions to

inmates and dead people. did you not read the bill? or did you not care to stop it? >> the stimulus bill has been looked at real heart by different economists. one of of us marc sandy -- marc zandi. "how the great recession was brought to an end

it is about one trillion dollars 2.7 million jobs. zandi said we should not extend the bush tax cuts at $250,000. he said that would cost us 770,000 jobs. >> you have 30 seconds. >> you voted for the stimulus. you voted for the $700 billion wall street bailout. you voted to raise the debt ceiling to $14 trillion. look at the georgia voters. >> mr. marshall, it is now your turn to ask a question. >> you voted against a law that

would impose a transfer tax on people who are illegally here trying to transfer money out of the country. you have explained that in different ways. you believe immigration reform should be about protecting america and not punishing individuals. could you explain what you mean? >> absolutely. i read the bills before we vote on them. you could have seen that banks and savings and loans were all exempted from that wire transfer cafe -- fee. it cannot make sense. it is you and the others in washington that have failed to secure the border. if you want to know why we have the problem of immigration, it is in washington, d.c., and some of you are going to have to be replaced. >> you have 30 seconds.

>> i would like you to answer my question. the quote was about protecting the americans. concerning the specific transfer tax, you said that we should not be punishing these people. they are just poor folks. could you tell us what you mean when you say we should not be focused on individuals? we should be focused on protecting america. >> you have access to the transcript. you know that i said congress had failed to support the border, and that we need people in washington, d.c., that we will pay more than lip service. that is all that you have done. >> that concludes our second round. this is the debate between the candidates for georgia's eighth congressional district. we will return to our panel of journalists who will ask

questions. the candidates will be allowed 60 seconds to respond. i will determine if a rebuttal is necessary. we begin with susan percy. >> i am wondering what you would have done differently from mr. marshall during the last two years had you been in office, any specific bills you would have voted against. >> i would never have voted for nancy pelosi to be the speaker of the house. had she not been the speaker of the house, you would have had an open and honest dialogue of what should have been done with regard to the economy. when you talk about things i would not have supported, i would never have co-sponsored that. he voted to raise the national debt to $14 trillion.

we will have to pay that money back. so yes, there are many issues that we would have voted quite differently on. >> you have 30 seconds to respond. >> i am sure there are many differences between us. i will take each vote as they come and try to figure out what is best for the country. that is the way i vote and is the way i have voted for a long time. i could talk about specific votes. >> our next question. >> you have been supportive of a strong defense. would you consider defense cuts in order to reduce the budget and the deficit? how do you do that at protect robins air force base at the same time? >> there are deficiencies we can introduce.

the defense department is very cost conscious right now. this would be the wrong time to be even discussing cutting the defense budget. we are involved in afghanistan. we're going to have challenges with defence is concerned. i think people will demand we spend more money on our security overall. i think robbins -- robins well poised for the future. the best thing we can do is to get health care right. that would reduce our federal debt. we have to tighten our belts across a whole range of things. we are at war. >> our next question. >> mr. scott, which would be the largest burden on the u.s. economy, maintaining the status quo on immigration or paying for an arizona-style immigration

reform? some groups say it will cost up to $45 a day per inmate. >> maintaining the status quo is the greatest threat. what congress has done is ridiculous. they have not secured the border. they have not maintain the integrity of our laws or are planned. >> susan percy -- or our land. >> i would like to ask mr. marshall. having to do with immigration, is there any legislation you would support that might include a pass of citizenship for citizens who are already in the united states? >> i have a piece of legislation that does none of that. it enhances our electronic employment verification process.

it increases vary dramatically penalties on employers that in -- who failed to use the electronic verification process would suffer. then it gets rid of the subcontractor exemption. the problem we have here is that people come for jobs. if we can cut off the jobs, that is the most cost effective way for us to stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming into the country. i voted for every piece of legislation that would improve our defense along the border, increasing border patrol and funding for ice. the fundamental way of dealing with this problem is not to grant amnesty and to incur more of it. should stop the jobs. >> we continue with our panelists questions.

>> mr. scott, if you have one specific goal you were able to achieve in congress, one that differentiates you from your opponent, what would that be? >> if i could only write one, it would be the first time you felt a drug test will be the last time you received an unemployment check. >> ok, straight to the point. >> representative marshall, what to congress to at the federal level -- what needs to be done to help resolve georgia's water raise -- worries? >> three states in dispute cannot seem to get together. i have told my colleagues in florida and alabama that they were not going to cut off georgia's water supply,

atlanta's water supply. i wanted one of them to stand up, but none of them did. some reasonable withdrawal of money for the atlanta metro region is going to occur. the question will be the details. i am hopeful that the governors cannot get together and resolve this. there is a deadline. if a cannot seem to make progress, -- there are lots of different places that have the same issue. this will be challenging. we not going to cut off atlanta's water and nobody will vote to do that. >> and mr. scott, a question about immigration. assuming that no legislation passed that offers a pass to citizenship, how would you propose to deal with the 10

n or 12 million illegal workers who are here now? >> i think we need to return them to their homeland, just as we do it with those we are able to catch. we need to step up the number of people in those positions. >> and josephine bennett, but you are next in line. >> you voted against the health care bill. if you could write your own, which provisions would be in it and why? >> i would start where we are and margaret toward a system that has a functioning market. we don't have one in our current health care scheme because of the third-party payor system. money comes from an insurance system or the government. this bill will increase. when i -- a catastrophic policy

with the insurance company and not being involved in health care until you get to the catastrophic level. health savings accounts that will so that more consumers are encased with their physicians and talking about costs. the standard of care would change dramatically and costs would drop. we can save as much as $600 billion a year if we could migrate to a reasonable free- market system. it is terribly important that people understand the spirit i have published a piece "the national review" and folks can pull that up. >> u.s. sat back there, he did nothing, and waited until there were 218 votes to pass and then you walked down to cast a vote

no. you said you would not vote to repeal it. turned around and referred to it as a disaster. why did you not fight to stop that piece of legislation before it passed? >> i wrote about it before it passed. i appeared any number of times on fox and local news shows. i talked about it at the local town halls. this started in july of last year. i was consistent through that entire time. the bill as it was taking shape was a disaster for the country. what it is going to do is increase costs. we cannot afford it. so i have been opposed to this since july of last year and i have been extremely vocal.

>> we move on. >> , my question is for mr. scott. you mentioned repeal the last comment of the health care bill. what solutions we used to propose to cover the uninsured -- to cover the uninsured in this country? many >> simply choose not to purchase insurance. believe it violates their constitutional right not to purchase that insurance if they choose not to. maybe the states have a right to do that. but the constitution does not give the federal government the ability to impose the additional taxes on citizens if they choose not to purchase debt health care product. >> susan percy. >> are there any provisions of the health care bill as passed

that you support that you would like to keep? >> there are not. there simply are not. >> we will move on. >> mr. marshall, we can talk about health care or immigration. most people care about the economy. what plant deal specifically have that will benefit georgians when it comes to unemployment and when it comes to helping our economy here? >> we have done an awful lot of the federal level, most of which i have supported to stop this collapse, to stop it from becoming the second great depression, which is where it was heading. i just recited the figures from mark zandi. lots of economists have waited on this. most of what we would do, i would hope we would pay for as

we do wit. think the economy is picking up. you can see it. you can see it in the stock market. and i think we're heading in the right direction. the government cannot do this for us. we have to do it for ourselves. the government needs to back off on the spending cut tighten its and i think the economy will take care of the needs of georgians. >> my question is for mr. scott. what you said about getting the federal government out of the way -- what should washington champion? what should they be out in front of that will best help the georgians and people in the united states as a nation back to work and in a more competitive global economy? >> i understand that we need to

check it private sector job growth. the way to encourage that is to stop the discussion about cap and trade. stop the discussion about this bill that jim marshall co- sponsored and voted for that is driving jobs overseas. if you look at america and american industries, there is a lot of cash sitting on the sidelines. if we have a tax policy for 2011, i think that will help to get the economy back on track. how irresponsible could a group of people beat? >> i do not know if a rebuttal is called for. the government has an awful lot to do with what our trade policies are and the exchange rates. we're working on exchange rates. they are used strategically by countries like china to

disadvantaged us economically. our trade policies have been a disaster. there is no strategic thought. we are exporting the economic strength of the united states. that is a clear example of what the federal government can do. >> we move on with our questions. >> my question is for mr. scott. bipartisanship is something we hear a lot of but we do not seem to see much of. can you name a specific areas where you believe congressional democrats and republicans are close enough to make a bipartisan solution feasible, or is that just off the table? >> i almost think -- and this might not be the answer -- i think is a generational issue. for my generation, when i'm talking to a 40-year-old

democrat, we understand we need to work together to solve problems. generations ahead of us are not willing to work together because they are stuck in their ways. for those of us in my generation that are 40 years old, we understand if we get to a position where we agree on 90% of it, it is time to move forward. i think it is more of a generational think. >> could to be specific about issues that are ripe for bipartisan action? >> when you take small business owners that are democrats and republicans, we will agree on reducing the federal control and the rules and regulations of our business. >> 30 seconds to respond. >> it is not a response. i agree with what he said. the problem is the institution itself. there are a few members of

congress that have voting records like mine. i have been about 60% towards the republican side and about 40% towards the democratic side. that doesn't happen. there are only about 40 of us who do that. many do not vary on substantive issues. too many extreme views on both sides. >> mr. scott, you said when it came to illegal immigrants, he would send them all home. for george's agriculture committee, a lot of those immigrants are important and all of them are not legal and the are here helping our farmers. is that kind of a blanket statement, and is it realistic? >> we have a program that allows farm laborers to commend

and then to leave once the crops are picked. there are farmers abiding by those rules and they are at a competitive disadvantage to those who are not. the work program is there. we need to make some adjustments to that. there is a way to make sure we have an adequate number of work permits to pick the crops and make sure we protect our agricultural economy. one of the things i will tell you i am adamant that we need to address in this country is this issue of birthright citizenship. the child as somebody born here illegally should not be a united states citizen. >> our next question please. >> my question is for mr. scott perry will -- my question is for mr. scott. >> how would you reduce spending? >> the first thing i would address it goes back to one

issue. if we have people who are receiving unemployment because they failed a drug test, when they apply for the job, i would much for anybody who is receiving social programs was not using illegal drugs. if we're giving them a check and they are purchasing illegal drugs, we are enabling that activity and that is something that needs to be stopped. with regard to the federal government, i think the bureaucracy and the number of federal employees put on the perils is probably the first place we could look for a significant but -- budget reduction. >> mr. marshall. >> i agree with most of what has been said. the biggest thing we can make would be to get health care right. it would be a win-win for everybody because cost would go

down and access would cooperate the medicare trustees estimate the current liability for medicare into the future is about $37 trillion. we have to do something about that. >> mr. scott, you alluded to the costly bureaucracy and yet you have set you believe that drug tests should be administered to welfare recipients and also you said you thought individuals in the country illegally, 10 million or 12 million, it should be sent home. do you believe these things could be accomplished without adding to the bureaucracy? >> i think that you could turn around and reduce the bureaucracy in certain areas and hire people that work with boots on the ground to get the job done. i am talking about the people

carrying out the work. we have too many bureaucrats in washington telling bureaucrats in atlanta telling bureaucrats at the local level. i believe we could reduce the bureaucracy and still have the number of the employees there to get the job done. >> i think that if we did what i would like to see done where illegal immigration is concerned and that is cut off the jobs, you would have people who would want to lead because they could not make a living here. without that help, you are quite right. this is an enormous task. the best way to address this is to use the market and cut off the reason people come here. >> mr. marshall, you are considered conservative. what philosophies of yours if any are democratic? >> i do not think of myself as

having democratic or republican philosophies. i think of myself as worried about the country and the folks that i represent and the future for my kids. those are american issues. and i feel pretty strongly about them. what you see if you watch my voting is a sort of pick them. it is rare that something that is controversial that we vote on is ideal. they all have problems with them. they are not the ways i would have drafted them. i don't think of this from a democratic or republican perspective but by what is best for the country. i'm al little shift for the republican side, but i am in the middle is where i am, and that is where most americans are.

you want to keep those in congress because it is hard to do. >> you vote with nancy pelosi about 90% of time. you vote with their on fiscal issues a higher percentage of times then that. you voted for the wall street bailout. you voted for a 87% of every spending bill that becomes law. you are a fiscal liberal. >> may i? to say at the with nancy pelosi 90% of the time -- newspapers have come not to say these assertions are false. the highest figure you could possibly get if you take into account all of the feel-good votes is about 66% of the time. "the national journal" rates

you're voting and they have me during the time that ms. pelosi has been the speaker, i was 55% no, 45% yes one year. i was in disagreement on the bills that "the national journal" looked at as those bills defining the difference between the parties. >> representative marshall, he spoke about your worries about the future of this nation. what worries you the most about the status of civil discourse in this country? >> we have too many sound bites going on. people are telling untruths to secure political advantage. americans are busy. there is not -- be used to be if

you turned on the tv and left it on about 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. at night, you could see tv shows. there are more or less saying the same thing. americans don't pay attention to this. the discourse is awful. there are a few weeks calm, measured voices. i've gotten to the point with a lot of these folks, i do not time reading what they watch because i know it is not intended to tell the truth. it is intended to skew things for advantage of political gain. i do not know how to stop that. people should recognize that is what is going on and not tolerate that. >> 30 seconds. >> again, this end justifies the means -- this is something that

my family and i are feeling right now. we'll have plenty of time to discuss that later. you voted for the stimulus. you voted for the $700 billion wall street bailout and for 87% of every spending bill that has become law. andwhen you're on tv telling the general public you are in favor of a balanced budget -- >> we have to move on. you have 30 seconds to respond. >> my question is for mr. marshall. during the primary, something like 20% of georgians turned out to vote. the expectation is that it will be a higher turnout but still nothing decisive. do you believe the general negative tones of candidates has contributed to the low voter turnout? >> both sides tend to turn

voters off. you can imagine mcdonald's and burger king across the street from each other saying that the other will kill you, that their meat is poisonous. that is kind of what is going on. it is a very unsettled -- uncivil level of discourse. >> that is the time. aey're now is time for closing statement, 30 seconds. >> thank you. i promise you this. i will vote in washington the same way i speak in georgia. i will work to create jobs in georgia. i understand the economy is the number-one issue. we are going to let them drive this car out of the ditch and get america back to work. >> jim marshall. >> thank you for all of this.

i grew up in tough times. my first job was 7 5 cents an hour. i worked as a school teacher, a mechanic, whatever i could to make ends meet. if we can pull together and have some sensible policies that work for america, we have great days ahead of us. i think people need to believe that and have some confidence that that is what is going to occur. >> jim marshall, ballston scott, thank you. josephine bennett, susan percy, thank you -- ballston scott, thank you. general elections will be november 2. our thanks to the candidates and for the atlanta press club for arranging this debate. for more information, you may visit atlanticpressclub.org.

this particular broadcast has been screened live and will be available on demand at gpb.org. thank you for joining us for this general election debate. we invite you to stay with us for the next debate and that is coming up next. thank you. >> the debate series is made possible by the nations from the late tom brown and from emory university. >> our prime-time coverage of

the midterm elections will continue tonight starting at 7:30 tonight of the delaware senate race. candidates for governor of california, jerry brown and meg whitman. president obama travels to asia after the midterm elections. today, james steinberg will discuss the policy towards asia. you can see that discussion live with this afternoon. it starts at 12:25 and it will be on c-span-3. preliminary findings related to the gulf of mexico oil spill. we'll have live coverage here run c-span beginning at 1:00 p.m. >> students, get working on

videos. $50,000 in prizes. the theme is "washington, d.c., through my wlens." >> elect now at some of today's campaign news. joe sestak has pulled into a tie for the open senate seat in pennsylvania. the committee poll shows mr. sestak with a 2% lead. in wisconsin, russ feingold is trailing his republican opponent in a poll, 49%. 36% say senator feingold is best to produce jobs.

they debated on monday. here's a look. >> will come. we want to think the other sponsors -- wellcome. the wisconsin institute for public policy and service. thanks for the staff for making this event possible. our palace tonight, robert menser, pam warnke, and eric verotek. here is the format. the candidates left opening statements of 90 seconds each. our panelists will post individual questions. the panelist will ask a fault afterwards. the candidates will have about three minutes and no more than

five minutes to respond to the follow-ups. then the candidates can question each other and respond to each other's statements. if we get through all six questions, i will ask a seventh and final question. the debate will conclude with closing statements for each candidate. we expect everyone to treat this debate with respect and dignity. outburst and other disruptions will not be tolerated. please turn off your cell phone. the theater doors have been closed for the event. if you need to leave, you will back in.let now the debate between russ feingold and ronald johnson. [applause]

now that you have applauded, i will ask you to refrain from applause until the end of the debate. senator feingold has the first opening statement. you have 90 seconds. >> thank you. thanks to the whole greater loss saw -- wausaw community for making this debate possible. i have been instilled in the idea of wisconsin independence. it has had a big impact on the way i have done this job. some say i am the most independent member of congress. i voted against the wall street bailout and against all those unfair trade agreements that sent tens of thousands of wisconsin jobs overseas. i voted against the no child left behind bill, which forces teachers -- it takes away local

control of education. i go to all 72 counties each year. you know what the priorities are. it is the jobs and cutting federal spending. i have offered specific jobs -- specific bills on these. my opponent has chosen to do nothing of the kind. he has not offered a jobs plan or a specific plan to cut federal spending. i'm still hoping we can have a discussion about this tonight. >> could evening. six months ago, i was a full- time businessman running a manufacturing plant. i had no political aspirations. this is not my life's ambition. but our country is heading in the wrong direction. families are struggling.

now stands atebt trillion. voters have a choice. they can vote for a legislator, someone who was private sector experience creating jobs and is willing to apply that lifetime experience to our nation's problems terr. that is what i have to offer. >> we have our first question. >> the health care reform law. critics argue it was pastor without bipartisan support and against the pull of most of the american people. there are many provisions in the bill that are improvements to

the system, things like closing the donut hole and prevent insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions and other things. why did you vote for a bill that most in this constant opposed? mr. johnson, you have campaigned on repealing the law, but would that also be doing with positive provisions that are included in it? >> we are going to go first with senator feingold. >> i have to reject that idea that people of wisconsin oppose this. i have done town meetings and i said if you elect me, i will have national health care legislation. the evidence we have is that 60% es favored ust

doing something like this. i had to figure out what wisconsin people wanted. but we came up with is a plan that i think makes sense. it is not the takeover of the health-care system by for like 100 years we have had a strong private insurance system here, but with strong regulation, the strongest of almost any state. that is what this bill really does. your question anticipates the big deal -- we finally have insurance companies' out of the complete control of our lives. every person under 26 can stay under the parents plan until they're 26. the bill is a good compromise that brings the country forward. the number one issue brought to me over the years -- i felt obligated to get something done, and am proud that we have.

>> you have 90 seconds. >> the healthcare bill was complex and complicated. we did not needed 2600-page bill passed over night. if you really think about the primary problems, it is cost and access. if you think about what the administration said the bill would do, first, it said would save every family $2,500 per year. the congressional budget office estimates that it will cost each family $2,100. now the families are getting a premium increases. they said they would bend the cost curve down. that has not happened. in terms of accessibility -- the other geared to they made that if you like your plan, you could do good. there agencies issued a report that said a 51% of current

plants will not be grandfathered, but be put into government exchanges. that will be government- controlled health care. it is a sham. i think that we had a consensus that addressed the problems. we could have done it with individual bills. i would have begun with tort reform. that could have saved $2 billion up to $3 billion in lawsuits. >> you have a follow-up. >> mr. johnson, you have said that you favor repealing the law. does that not risk doing away with provisions like the pre- existing condition or medicare part d? the follow-up for russ feingold would be that you argue for things like the public option, where the bill could have gone further.

do you think there's still more to be done? >> do i start? the you have three minutes. >> the individual problems could have been addressed with the individual bills. we did not have to take $500 billion away from medicare. we did not have to increase taxes. we did not have to put on 16,000 additional irs agents. we did not need to put in the provision to require every small business person to submit a government form to their suppliers and to the irs every time the purchase more than $600 worth of supplies. there is an attempt to repeal the. senator russ feingold voted against it. it is a huge overreach and is designed to go to a single pair run government health care.

that is what this senator once. >> i want what i voted for -- this bill, because i think it is the right solution. yes, i would have preferred a public option which i believe would have made it even stronger. mr. johnson thinks we should have passed individual bills. guess what? we tried. the insurance companies' killed every single one of them. we try to have a patient bill of rights for years. the insurance companies' killed all that. they have killed the ability to make sure that over 1 million citizens in wisconsin would be protected. they have let insurance companies completely prevent people from having lifetime coverage because of lifetime limits. that was eliminated and the bill. the big thing is, we finally got that does not fulfil the -- the

donut hole fill. there were senior citizens who are getting coverage for prescription drugs. we tried to do it before. so your idea of doing a bill by bill is not going to happen. it happened because we did a package that finally put us in to control and to the insurance companies out of control. i don't want that repealed. did mr. johnson? >> it will put the government in control, and that is the problem. the government will give between the doctor and patient. when these plans go into the government exchanges, the government will totally regulate which insurance companies can participate. i'm a little confused. six years ago in a debate you said that you wanted a 50-state solution. a few years later when asked about single payer healthcare you said i am fourth, always have been.

>> this is of course a 50-state solution. it is not one of national plan. that is exactly what we ended up doing. it is not yet in place. we could not possibly know what the rates will be because it is not even in place. it will be a state-based on a private system. we will finally make sure that the insurance companies do not run our lives. >> pimm has the second question. >> to the economy, some argue -- how do you respond to concerns from voters that these policies are not creating jobs are helping working families? mr. johnson, you say most politicians have no experience creating jobs in the private sector. you tie your business background as strong credentials. by you think your experience better qualifies you to pass policies than someone with a

background in policy creation? after all, the country is not a private business. what specific kinds of policies will you support to help create jobs? >> first to mr. johnson. >> you must understand where the real jobs are created. real, long-term, self-sustaining jobs come from the private sector. i have been doing that for 31 years. i have been producing products in creating real jobs. when they passed the stimulus bill, the assumption would be that the government would provide long-term jobs. it does not. senator russ feingold passed a vote, a deciding vote. he said that it would create 2.4 million jobs in the first year and 9 million jobs after three years. we are a year and a half into this. we should be up 4.5 million jobs when we are actually down two million jobs.

it does require knowledge and experience of knowing how to create jobs. what are the incentives? how did the rules and regulations' impact business? i understand it. it is a different perspective. it is sorely lacking in the washington. we had 57 lawyers in the senate, zero manufacturers, one accountant. our country is facing serious fiscal issues. a little bit of accounting background is long overdue. that is what i offered. >> you have 90 seconds. >> let's see if we can get away from attacking other people's jobs and career choices and talk about the question -- whether the recovery we have been trying is working. ron, your arguments i have heard time and again have been carefully evaluated and a booklet the milwaukee county

sentinel" and said that you are completely wrong about your claim that the recovery bill does nothing. 95% of all working families in this country got a tax cut under the bill. is this something to sneeze at and reject? under this bill we have seven times more road construction in the country than last year. anyone who tried to get here tonight probably realized it. we have more whetherization of toms -- weatherization -- it is your local heating and cooling, your local construction people doing that work, not irs people or someone else from government jobs. it did in fact according to the cbo craze somewhere between one put five and 3 million jobs. -- did create that many. finally, the hire act on top of

it provides jobs for people in the companies who have been laid off for over 60 days. the company gets a tax exemption for the rest of the year if they hire someone. these are making a difference. >> pam? >> how seriously do take the threat of climate change? we push for the creation of green energy jobs and policies? >> which ever one of you wants to go first. >> i simply do not believe that global warming is proven science. man-made global warming. as a result, the last thing that we can afford to do is tax our economy. it would be devastating to wisconsin. this is a bill that senator russ feingold voted for cloture in the senate. it would have increased the average cost of household families.

on the basis of unproven signs i would not support any cap and trade legislation. >> look, i do not substitute my judgment -- on manufacturing for you. i sure would not substitute my judgment for the vast majority of scientists in the world who said that climate change is real, and that man has something to do with it. i respect those scientists, and i think they're right. i think we better do something about it. mr. johnson has said specifically that it would be a fool's errand to do anything. that is ignored responsibility to children and grandchildren, and to our ability to have a planet that people can live onr liveon, it is not true that i voted for a cap and trade bill. after the house passed it, i said i did not want to hurt the state's economy. we have a more coal-based economy than other states. that bill was cooked in favor of

the nuclear industry. i let people know i would not support it. i am one of the reasons the bill did not go through. i am very concerned that businesses do not get hurt in wisconsin by the solution. but just sticking our head and the sand and again this is caused only by sunspots does not solve the problem. >> do you have a response to? >> certainly the senator did vote for cloture on the bill, a similar one to the house bill. it would have had the same impact. i think he did vote to move it forward. moving a bill ford said that it can be discussed and debated is part of the process. would you have me go against debating bills? if you agree with me recently. i voted to have us take it up. what, we never debate bills? i try to amend it. the amendments were lousy.

i became the only democrat not to vote with republicans who won a bid to be even weaker. you could say because i voted to debate a bill that somehow i was for the substance of it -- in the strongest advocate to make sure it does not rip off wisconsin. >> as devastating as that would have been for the economy, you should not have voted for cloture or allowed that thing to move forward. >> let's move on to eric with the next question. >> for social security according to the cbo it will be able to pay full benefits of until 2039. the concern is that the money will run out. there is a resolution that calls for no cuts to the program going through the house and senate now. are changes needed? how would you ensure that those who pay into the system now will see something when they retire?

with mr.going to start johnson and then senator russ feingold. excuse me. i mixed up. >> that is what i thought, but i was not going to argue. first of all, we now have to do this. it was done in the past. create a commission, done in the 1980's, that improves the solvency of the program, then send it back to congress and do not allow amendments. that is that we first got into the practice of raising the fica level. it was down around 60,000. they graduated that which is helped to keep the fund solvent. it only goes to about 106,000. in every county and the stick people suggested lifting the

limit. -- in this state people suggested it. i would not advocate changing the program fundamentally. i oppose privatization of social security. i oppose any attempt to cut people's accounts go to wall street where they could risk losing it. it is fundamental for so many people's lives. mr. johnson has specifically said as to those not yet in social security, everything is on the table. that obviously includes some forms of privatization. i will fight that every inch of the way. >> you have 90 seconds, mr. johnson. >> promises have been made to seniors. our country has every capability of honoring those. i am dedicated to it. but the fiscal problems have been known for decades.

they have certainly been known during his 18 years. he has done nothing to fix it. he uses it as a political weapon. instead, he has spent more money and incur more debt. -- incurred more dead. during his tenure, $2.20 trillion have been paid into social security. the american people thought is being set aside, not touched. it has been spent, spent on other government programs. i would like to take my business, accounting background and going to washington to address the problem. make social security sustainable long-term. i will look at all options. you have to have an open mind, be flexible. the only two i would take off the table would that i would not agree to a job-killing increase or forced privatization on

anyone. >> eric? >> naturally the next thing to come as medicare, medicaid. similar concerns about funding there. what do you see as the government's role in providing health care to the growing number of the elderly and needy? does the current system there need a change? >> first of all, with regard to social security the notion that the fund is currently insolvent is false. it goes until 2039. it is a scare tactic. the medicare program is in more need of being reformed near term. that is what the healthcare bill does. the bill that mr. johnson would repeal is the first act, specifically analyze to make sure that medicare is solvent for 12 more years. we don't cut medicare benefits.

his mailer is untrue. it cuts between $400 million and $500 million from a program that goes to wasteful advantage and fraud and abuse. if he has his way, it will eliminate the best step we have taken to make medicare solvent. we need to protect benefits. the only way is to be responsible. that is what we did in the healthcare bill. >> we are in open discussion. >> we do need to honor the social security. medicare is a huge problem. the total liability is $76 trillion for the three entitlement programs. the total asset base is $72 trillion. that is a real problem. it needs to be addressed on the

sleeve. >> i would like to respond. >> the way you do not address or fix medicare is to create an entirely new entitlement. and take $500 billion away from medicare. there are 175,000 seniors in the wisconsin that will not have medicare advantage. they like the program. this is a redistribution from singers to and a group of people. you do not fix one and, program by treating all whole new one. -- it is a redistribution from senior citizens to a whole new group of people. >> this is my point about the difference between us. i offered a specific solution to social security, raising the fica level. he rejected it with no solution or alternative. then on medicare i should we

have a specific thing in the bill he wants to repeal. two areas of the official estimates say will make medicare solvent in the future. he has no answer or plan. he just wants to say we have all this debt and these problems, but has no idea what to do. that is the easy way not to face criticism. but it is not responsible. >> we repeal the healthcare bill. it will save trillions in unfunded liability and in deficit spending over the next decades. it will restore the 5 $1 billion that has been taken out of the medicare program. -- $500 billion that has been taken out. >> the insurance companies will get their fair chunk of that back, you bet. >> let's go on to ron. >> mr. johnson, you have called the "atlas shrugged" of the

initial book for you. it is about a heroic businessmen who leaves decided to escape from the poor who are portrayed as social parasites. rand also endorses selfishness as a virtue. she read a book by that title. what is it about her philosophy that appeals to you and what makes it a foundation a book for you? for senator russ feingold, the aspects of her thought that tend to appeal to conservatives is her strong defense of individual liberty and her opposition to any form of collectivism. do you agree with the notion that much social spending amounts to a redistribution of wealth? >> you have 90 seconds, mr. johnson. >> i will first this be your description of what her book is talking about. look at the title -- atlas

shrugged. it represents the producers of america. shrugged means they have become so overburdened with regulations and rules. they don't quit all once. they quit one by one. the book talks about what happens to society when the producers of the society quit. again, because they have been so overburdened by rules and regulations and taxes. it is a warning as to what could happen to america. when you hear people talk about a tipping point, that is what we are concerned about. where we have more people that are net beneficiaries that are paying into the system. that is a serious thing to worry about. from my standpoint that is why "atlas shrugged" is a huge

warning of what to avoid it in this country. >> i believe it in committee, the committee of wisconsin -- and give you credit for being consistent. you believe that producers are very special group, better than the rest of us. if things are not going their way, you take the position that people should not have unemployment compensation. because of your view has been they just do not want to work. you oppose minimum wage. you support trade agreements. but you ship tens of thousands of jobs overseas and say well, i am a producer, said that is good. it is creative and destruction and will work out in the end. it might for you, and other people who are well-to-do and fortunate, but what about all the others in the committee who are suffering? i don't think these people should ever be allowed to not work if they can. i know the people in wisconsin want to work. but these policies to support

our making it impossible for these hard working citizens to make a decent living. i assume that that makes them shrug as well. >> you have a follow-up? >> one of the parts about this wealthy this division has to do with the progressive nature of the tax code. it has been part of the debate about the bush tax cuts which will expire. to get specific on some of these ideas, does it make sense for the bush tax cuts to be extended even for the wealthiest individuals? >> i think we have to have common sense. mr. johnson and i both have talked about the federal deficit. because of the tipping point, and i don't disagree. we are at a tipping point. can we afford to make the federal deficit much larger now?

we have to figure out a common- sense solution. it is to extend the tax cuts, middle-class, for working people. it even benefits of the people to some extent. those tax cuts just for the very wealthy we cannot afford. it is $700 billion over the next 10 years. that will create a tipping point just by its up. we need a solution that makes sense. that is the correct compromise i would support. mr. johnson opposed the tax cuts for working people that are in the recovery act -- those were for 95% of all working families in america. the art tax cuts for businesses and the healthcare bill. -- there are tax cuts. those should be acknowledged as well. >> senator russ feingold continues to put words in my mouth. i'm not opposed to a minimum wage, or the extension of

unemployment benefits. to me it shows how much of the stimulus bill. the last thing we should do is increase taxes on anyone. when talks about the top bracket he is talking about 750,000 businesses. they employ 25% of the total work force. those are the engines for economic growth. i am all for the workers of wisconsin. i export products to about 25 different countries, including china. i have that faith in the workers of wisconsin and of america. if we can get government out of the way, make sure the government only creates an attractive environment, workers

can compete with anyone in the world. we live in a global economy. we must compete. i have faith in the wisconsin workers that we can compete because i do with every day. i am extremely supportive of the workers who work for me. >> his only talking about 5% of all businesses. 95% of small businesses would not experience a tax increase if we don't extend the tax cuts for the very with a. it did for the very wealthy. most jobs are created by people of average and modest income. they are the engine of the economy. they should not be disregarded this way. >> we will now move to pam for the next question. >> the u.s. foreign policy particularly in the middle and near east is taking a massive

monetary and human toll. the war in afghanistan is in its 10th year and spilling over into the borders of pakistan. despite the end of major combat in iraq the u.s. still has 50,000 troops there. can we afford the moves abroad? but policies do you support that will bring about the successful conclusion to military presence, but also keep americans save? >> we cannot afford this and wise approach to those who attacked us in 9/11 -- al qaeda. the iraq war had nothing to do with that and was incredibly expensive. the afghanistan war originally did, and i supported it, but now the leadership is not in afghanistan. they are principally in somalia, yemen, pakistan, and other places. this cost $100 billion per year. i have taken the lead in the senate and ask for a timetable of the president would propose

to gradually bring the troops out of off. i listened to wisconsin people and first proposed that for iraq. a first people didn't think it was a good idea, but ultimately bush and even obama then endorsed it. we must have priorities. we have to go after al qaeda and make sure we don't dig another huge deficit. it is exactly what these unwise interventions are doing. >> you have 90 seconds, mr. johnson. >> we need to recognize we're still under the threat of terrorism. in afghanistan we return to deny sanctuary for the terrorists. that is where they launched attacks from on 9/11. we need to be mindful of where else they may be hiding. we need strong intelligence capability. i am not sure how mr. russ feingold has tried to weaken our intelligence capability over his

career. in terms of basic philosophy, let's acknowledge that -- people who stepped to the plate to defend our freedom are the finest among yes. they need our total support. is there a vital interest? is there a clear and present danger? i don't see the intelligence reports. president obama it does. for whatever reason, he sees something there that he decided to surge 30,000 troops. in announcing those, then he said we will start to withdraw in 16 months. and in afghanistan where we need the support of villagers and of the afghan people, to not make the commitment, it makes your chance of success difficult. i think that is unfortunate. >> i would like to respond. >> do you have a follow-up?

>> with all that, what does it mean to win in afghanistan? is that the place we need to win? >> this has been a mistake of the last nine years. it is not about invading one country after another. it is about attacking organizations present in many countries around the world. it is about destroying al qaeda. the notion that mr. johnson -- for five years i have been on the intelligence committee and worked day and night to figure out exactly where this threat is. people in the military, intelligence committee consider me to be a person who has worked hard, understands the threat of al qaeda in places like africa. the notion that you dismissed that as weakening america -- that is dead wrong and unfair. here is the other thing. we need to honor the people fighting for us when they come home, a suit. i took the lead in making sure that there are veterans centers for people who have mental

health issues and others when they return. we have one in green bay, lacrosse, and now one in wasau because of my efforts. i believe in honoring in supporting troops but there and when they come down. i have been honored by the national organization of the veterans service officers. in the number one legislator in the country this year for my work on behalf of those veterans. new [inaudible] -- you're one of 25 refused to vote for the resolution. move on got word placed what i think is a shameful ad talking about general petraeus. >> because i believe in freedom of speech. i don't think senators should be sitting around condemning people's commons. we should be dealing with the deficit and creating jobs. i'm not going to waste time by

tried to kill the speech of anybody. that is against freedom. >> it does not show a great deal of support for our troops. >> i don't think that our troops want to sit around all day passing resolutions -- and the next day we need to pass a resolution about what rush limbaugh would say. that is all we would ever do. standing around monitoring these people on the extremes is not what we should be doing. eric fort's move to the next question. >> can't we all just get along? >> absolutely. [laughter] >> it seems as though the partisan bickering and fighting is the order date in the washington. the only business being done is one party blocking the other. how do you if elected intend to get past that, get some bipartisan action going, and share the responsibility of governing that you have been given by the voters?

can it even be done? >> mr. johnson, then senator russ feingold. >> i have a record of problem solving, getting things done. over the past 10 years i have been involved in education issues. you are dealing with all types of people. the focus has been in accomplishing something. fixing problems. i would take the same attitude to washington. we're talking about record deficits. since his party gang controlled congress, our deficits have exploded. in the last three budgets we have added $3 to into the nation's debt. these serious problems require seriousness of purpose. that is why i'm doing this.

it is not my life's ambition. i am just a guy from oshkosh, a business guy. someone has to go to the plate with goodwill and a bipartisan fashion. actually go there with the dedication to address these problems and get them solved once and for all. i'm not going there to bicker or to be partisan. >> senator, you have 90 seconds. >> the question was how would you actually do bipartisan things? i have prole been involved in more bipartisan initiative than any other senator -- i'd probably have been involved in these. paul ryan and i, a conservative republican -- from wisconsin,

we proposed a line-item veto that the president has endorsed. susan collins of maine, republican, and i introduced legislation on areas where to rent cannot get adequate dental care. we were the leaders. the other night you mentioned somebody you had done cooperative work with -- he wrote a letter to the paper said that was not his experience with you at all. he supports me for the u.s. senate. >> eric? >> it seems like a lot of the contention between parties is played out with the use of the filibuster, and even the anonymous hold put on legislation, both of which seem to contradict the principle that a simple majority wins. since these are senate rules and not a constitutional mandate, do you support changing or eliminating them? >> this is a free-form discussion. of about three minutes.

>> i respect the fact that the founders of this country greeted a constitution that tries to create a balance between the house and senate -- they created it. the synod has rules to stop things from just fine there -- the senate has them. ed down the i stopped at dow window. but it is being used almost every bill. but parties have been involved. right now we need all 60 senators who want cloture who must be present. the 40 others could be in the bahamas. one solution would be 60% of everyone present. senators like their weekends. making them be there would help to reduce this abuse. i don't to completely eliminate their from thomas jefferson who

said that the senate should be the clean saucer for the house. he was a pretty smart guy. >> i agree. the senate should be delivered to a body. it is where legislation should be really looked at carefully. those rules are there for a reason. to stop something. senator russ feingold says he is bipartisan. two of the most partisan bills were passed last year with his being the deciding vote. remaking one sixth of our economy, the healthcare bill. he provided the 60th vote, incredibly partisan. the same was true in terms of the stimulus bill. they just brushed that. -- resht that. -- rushed that.

i think president obama said we won. i think that is what voters of wisconsin are objecting to. >> that is just not accurate. the recovery bill was not only democrats. in fact, i was not the deciding vote. there were 61 votes. susan collins voted for it. it was not just one party. it was mostly democrats. >> i stand corrected. >> if we're not going to have a process where you try to reach out to several republicans, that is sad for the u.s. senate. if you had to have all 100 senators vote, that is disturbing. you should give credit to the republicans who had the courage to work in a bipartisan way to do that. >> mr. johnson?

>> we have time for a seventh question because you have both been saying tonight. according to critics the u.s. supreme court citizens united decision has opened the floodgates to a unlimited amounts of cash been spent on negative campaign advertising beit bridge individuals who do not even have to reveal their identities. how dangerous is this? will it allow foreign governments or even terrorist groups to fund campaign ads? should we overturn the decision? if so, how? which we do to keep big money from anonymous sources from influencing the election outcomes? >> easily one of the worst decisions in the history of the supreme court. it says every one of you is in the same position as corporations. that corporations have the same political rights as you do. the results are being seen.

there are millions of dollars being spent by out-of-state groups in ads against me. i have not seen any ads on my behalf, and the want any like that. they are hidden. you do not know who is paying for them. there may very well before money of all. is the destruction of our political process. the founders did not believe that corporations were the same as the rest of us. we can pass legislation to try to require some disclosure of the information which i have supported in a bill called but disclose act. but we do need to fundamentally of virginia. we have to get one justice who does realize this was completely wrong. -- we do need to fundamentally overturn it. otherwise, these corporate interests which already dominate washington -- it will only get worse. >> i think campaign finance reform should be simple. i would be for total transparency and immediate or very rapid reporting on the

internet. we have that capability. we do not need to assault our individual rights to free speech. that is what i believe the mccain-fine old act did. it the intention was to supposedly clean up campaign finance -- the mccain-feingold act. it has pushed money outside of the process. there is no accountability. unlike outside group adds, attack ads. i particularly do not like them as they're being used against me. my solution is simple. let's do away with mccain- feingold and have total transparency and immediate/rapid disclosure by the internet. then we know who is supporting each candidate and we know it right away.

>> the follow-up according to analysts, campaign money spent by the outside groups is helping republicans by a wide margin instead of democrats. corporate interests are trying to weaken the new wall street regulations and preserve tax breaks that encourage companies to send jobs overseas. republicans say it is a reflection of deep dissatisfaction on the part of the american people. we are into a free-form discussion. >> mr. johnson just refuse to enter about citizen unita. it is because he is all for it. he already endorsed a. he is benefiting tremendously in his campaign from millions of dollars. i don't want them. >> will you call on them to stop? >> i have no control over them. >> will you ask them to stop? indeed that is the right to free speech. people have a right to free

speech. >> will you ask them to stop? his answer is no. here we are in wisconsin. we want to have our own election. the guide who was to be your u.s. senator will not use his free-speech to ask them to stop -- this guy. >> i agree that the reason more money is being spent on the republican side is because there is great dissatisfaction with what has been happening. people are putting their money where their concern is. that is their right and they should have that freedom. >> the oil companies, insurance companies, mining companies are all very concerned, and hiding behind these ads because we will finally get some control over them. he is hiding behind ads that turn nasty, attack ads from other state, and he refuses to call on them to stop. that is a direct attack on home-

based campaign of wisconsin. >> they have a right to send their money to a group that agrees with their position. that is their freedom. you seem to want to. you want to select two can have free speech and who cannot. >> i want everyone to have a free-speech -- as you just said, they ought to disclose. you have not called on them to disclose. you have just said you are for disclosure -- you have not called on them to disclose. [laughter] [applause] let's see. this does nothing to do with the mccain-feingold law. >> we have time for one

additional question. i don't know if we have time for a follow-up, so i will give you each 90 seconds to give us what solutions uc for the problems of illegal immigration. mr. johnson, we will begin with you. >> i believe this is relatively simple. it is a big problem. it has to be a two-step process. we have to secure the borders. but we just secure the border? i would not favor comprehensive reform. we tried that in the 1980's. it was an incentive for more people to come over. people were granted amnesty -- which i'm totally against. we enforce laws on the backs against employers hiring these people. -- reinforced the laws on the books.

you don't pass laws that creed incentive for people who come here legally. the senator has voted for social security benefits for those to come here illegally, for food stamps for illegal immigrants. that only creates an incentive for more illegal immigrants to come. it is a two-step process to first secure the border, in force the loss on the books, then look at who was left. -- and forced the laws on the books. we are a very caring society. i'm all for treating the people who remain in a a very humane fashion. >> of course i do not support social security benefits for undocumented people. that is absolutely false. mr. johnson does not want to solve the problem. this is a problem that the business community has been screening to do something about. you will let all these people be

undocumented. many work here in wisconsin. we need a common-sense solution now. not a two-step process. it is going on because of that attitude. just close the border? there are already people here. we need to figure it out. unless your plan is just to pack them up and send them back -- that is not an answer. we need to figure out penalties and temporary work permits. if they want to come back, another penalty, then did in line behind everyone else for citizenship. he does not really want to solve the problem. he is not in touch with the business community who absolutely demand we take real action. just closing the border is not a serious attempt at solving the whole problem. we need comprehensive reform as both president bush and president obama have said. do we come now to the 60-second closing statements. by the toss of the coin, ron

johnson, you go first. >> i would think the university, the county, and the voters. you do have a clear choice. the senator cast a deciding vote. he has voted for the past three budgets that have increased our national debt by $3 trillion. we cannot afford these failed policies any longer. i have been building a business for 31 years producing and exporting products, creating real jobs. i would like to use that lifetime experience to help get our economy growing again so that we can start creating jobs. america is exceptional. it is our job to make sure that it not only survives for future generations, but that it thrives. that is why i have decided to run for the u.s. senate and i am asking for your vote. >> you have 60 seconds.

>> the difference between us would be whether we proposed actual solutions to problems, as i said from the outset. i have spoken specifically about how to create jobs and how to deal with deficits. ask yourself -- who was on your side? devoted to control the insurance industry and not let them be in charge when it comes to health care -- who voted for it? who voted against the trade agreements that some jobs overseas? he thinks they're a great idea, good for wisconsin. what is good for wisconsin is protecting jobs and wisconsin values. if you give me the chance, i would like to continue to work on that. >> that includes tonight's debate between the u.s. senate candidates, ron johnson and russ feingold -- a warm round of applause for them both. [applause]

>> first buddy michele obama goes on the campaign trail today supporting democrats in the midterm election. she will be joined by the president this weekend. there will hit 17 events in 19 states. the first joint appearance will happen on sunday in cleveland and columbus. more now on the first lady's campaign swing. >> for today's campaign update, reid was in joins us. his editor in chief of the hot line. thus began with michelle obama,

involvement. where will she be going? >> michele obama is set to hold a fund-raiser today russ feingold for russ, facing a difficult reelection contest in wisconsin. then she heads back to illinois. she will support the candidate running for her husband's old seat. the democrats think they can pick up open seats this year. she is beginning a long tour to raise money for democratic candidates. >> on thursday she will do a fund-raising luncheon for senator michael bennett running for reelection, appointed to the seat -- it was mr. ken salazar who left that to take over the administrative post.

he wants to be elected for the first time. michelle obama's draw as a fund- raiser -- while she doing that and not a typical stump speech, a public event? >> her image is not one of a politician. she is probably one of the most popular people in the country, much more so than her husband or than anybody democrats or republicans can put up. but she is not really a politician. it is unseemly for a first lady in some respects to be campaigning, taking shots of republicans when the role is really more of a non-partisan role, more of a row above it all. the issues she will take on in the white house will not be partisan -- about childhood nutrition. rather than partisan issues that are the cause of battles on

capitol hill. by fund-raising she is remaining above the remainingfray. >> it sounds like she can draw the big bucks. if you look at the luncheon today for russ feingold which we are covering -- and if you want to see when it well air, go to our website. according to one report, there were expected to be about 500 people. tickets range between $200 and $500. tickets in the chicago range from $10,000 down to $500. >> one thing i find kind of funny is when president obama goes after the campaign for alexi the tickets there are less expensive than the cheapest ones that michelle will be hosting. hey, some democrats in illinois would much rather see michele

then president obama. >> let's talk about the delaware race. christine o'donnell versus the democrat chris coons at 7:00 p.m. did it will be very interesting to watch. one candidate is an experienced politician, someone who has debated before. i remember interviewing chris coons and the key in the debate between he and mike castle would have been some of the calmest, most respectful debates of the cycle. now that mike is out after christine o'donnell beat him, she is a bomb-thrower. she insights people -- incites people. i think we will see her take a shot turned to knock him down a bit. he does have a very big lead in the senate race. we will see him largely played

it safe for. but he may have to defend himself. she is out the new web and video talking about him as a tax raiser during this time as a county commissioner. >> it seems like she has finally been able to stop defending herself and is going down against chris coons, calling him that tax man. we have not seen him really respond. you expect him to tonight? does he need to? >> i think chris coons is to address any attacks federally body blows, but there's not much need for him to go on the offensive or to defend himself much. he is primarily ahead by several large margins. democrats are paying attention, not taking it for granted, still spending money there. we have seen some prominent candidates -- politicians, rather, scheduling and then sit with him, including but the

president and vice-president. at the end of the day, chris coons retains a big lead over christine o'donnell because she is probably too conservative for delaware. did let's move to california. i want to show our viewers an exchange between the two. >> we have heard no outrage from you about the use of that kind of language, which to many women is the same as calling an african-american the "n" word. have you been in charge to find out who was responsible? >> i do not agree with that comparison. secondly, this is a 5-week-old conversation picked up on a cell phone with a garbled transmission. the campaign apologize promptly, and i affirm that apology to not. >> you are repeating it to ms. meg whitman? >> yes, it is unfortunate and i

apologize. >> is not just me, but the people of california who deserve better than slurs and personal attacks. that is not what california is about. it is not our better selves. i think every californian, and especially women, know exactly what is going on. that is a deeply offensive term to women. >> have you chastise your chairman pete wilson who called the congress whores? >> you know better than that. that is completely different. [laughter] the fact that you are defending your campaign for a slur and a personal attack on me -- not be fitting of the office you are running for. >> it is unfortunate -- private conversation -- i'm not even sure that it is legal because you need the consent of all parties and there are lots of people talking. i am sorry that happened.

it does not represent anything other than things that happened on the campaign. >> that was last night's gubernatorial debate from california. you heard the audience react to the two candidates. how is it playing out with voters? >> i was reacting the same way. this is exactly the wrong thing that jerry brown wants to talk about only three weeks away from election day. the race is all about him and his comment. meg whitman i meg was smart to turn this race into a referendum on -- what she was very smart to turn it into what one of his aides did or did not say. it has knocked him off the message. this is the rays of the october surprise. we already had revelations about an employee that meg whitman once had -- an undocumented worker. she took the heat for that.