mashals in the dartment of justice. in the coming months we will work tosecure the necessary funding to permanently maintain these augmented funding and staffing levels. fourth objective, implementation of the northern border strategy in the development of a maritime strategy on the coast areas are the key to the continental security and safety. each border, norern, southern or maritime has its own characteristics and challenges and we mu tailor our approach to meet the threats, challenges and opportunities presented not only north and south which we have done along the canadian u.s. border and the u.s.-mexican border but alo the maritime borders for mean to miami and seattle to san diego. strengthening the cooperation with canadjust as we have with mexico is critical to protection

of the homeland. last month we engage with canada's beef of customs and border service agencyon our vision of the perimeter security on the continental scale. we also reached out to the canadian mounted police to discuss ways to deepen our collaboraon along the border between the ports of entry treated these engagements have ven rise to a series of specific bilateral initiatives covering such disparate issues as watch listing the consultion on the ports of entry, the pre-clearance and joint operations between the ports of entry. equally important as i indicated is the development of a cbp strategy for securing our coast lines be essential for homeland security over the long term. cbp in the coast guard closely coordinate on maritime aircraft systems nd work together to

identify and address requirements including sensors, command-and-control data exploitation, logistics and training. the fifth goal and connected to the development of a particularly of a strategy in concert with the coast guard the unmanned aerial system, the so-called uav is key to american situational awareness. the of the argest air force in the world a putting both rotary and fixed wing aircraft, and our predator unmanned aerial systems, or uas. it gives an aerial perspective but nothing else can and plays a key role in the water operations. it's an essential platform or vigilance and situtional awareness. secretary napolitano recently announced pressure flights of corpus hristi texas withhe deployment of the uas command to

the police now patrol the entire self west border from the sector of california all the way to the gulf of mexico and texas providing critical aerial surveillance assistance to the personnel on the ground. but together with our technology laid down on the border, mobile surveillance systems, remote video surveillance systems, econ three devices available to our agents we begin to see a sweep of technology that will permit us to detect and respond to incursions on the border. i believe that the uas is critical part of the border security efforts for this reason. we need to fully integrated capabilities to support our officers and agents while standing ready to provide the assets when they are needed for the other purposes whether it is disaster response as was the case in floods in north dakota

two years ago or helping the coast guard national authorities to monitor the gulf spill that's just been successfully resolved in the gulf. the sixth goal, the trade is key to the economically prosperous and competitive country. while much attention has been paid to cbp border security mission, it is important to recognize international trade is as much a matter of national security as keeping terrorists out of our country. trade and security are in many ways winked and equally deserve our attention. promoting economic prosperity in this country and maintaining north american economic competitiveness is a dimension of national security to which we must attend. we are committed to strengthening our relationship with our trade and business partners and are working even more closely with the trade community to expedite the illegal trade, protect intellectual property rights,

ensure the input safety and enforce trade laws that protect american businesses. we are also reaching out to the trade community itself to solicit their input and reacon to a variety of initiatives that have been commenced. this month for a simple we will present the trade community with a peliminary proposal for creating industry specific centers of excellence and expeise to deal with various industries pharmaceuticals, and electrical products, oil and gas and textiles. we will also present a berliner proposal to create an industry specific account executive who will hve both fossilization and enforcement duties. the way that we've handled our customs responsibilities is on a line by line treatment of imports and exports. we import into this country to a trillion dollars worth of products a year.

we export 1.8 trillion. traditionally we have handled this transaction by transaction. well we have to do is move ward an account based management of our imports and then our exports. this is a fundamental transformation in our relationship in the private-sector, one that significantly enhances supply chain security, in prison instead of the trade law and expedites legitimate commerce. it an important step and one that we will be conducting on a pilobasis so we can react organically and make midcourse corrections as we have to as we affected this transformation in the way in which we handle business at th nation's borders. seven and finally is a proposition our leadership team is proposed through the agency and to the nation is that improved and eanded information infrastructure

technology and human capital are key to accomplishing the mission. one of the most recent examples of improvement in these areas is the creation of the office of technology innovation and acquisition that will help us better integrate management technology acquisition. it is no surprise and it is something that we are working very hard to correct that cbp as it engaged in several large-scale technology integration projects whether sdi net on the southwest border with the automated commercial environment with regard to trade and commerce that haven't been proded on time or budget. we need to work to implement and integrate these to the delivery and we are endeavoring to do it in the systematic fashion. we expect meissner tia to ensure

that all of our technology efforts are properly focused and better performed and the integration and promise of technology is delivered to our function. these seven principles of our near-term goals and build on our previous achievements. since cbp was created in 2003, we have accomplished great deal of both to secure our borders and to keep them open for business in a time of transition and tumult. we've added more border patrol agents cctv officers and now have more than 20,000 border patrol agents between our officials ports of entry and more than 20,000 cdp officers at the ports of entry. think about operation gatekper when commissioner meissner had something just about 3,000 border patrol agents we've increased that sevenfold and

very dramatically in the last year and a half. we oubled the personnel assigned to the border enforcement security task force is working with immigration and customs enforcement. we tripled the number of intelligence analysts along the border since secretary napolitano announced the southwest border initiative in march it wasn't my view on the northern border we have established five to assist in responding to incursions'. the northern brder is 5400 miles of terrain and maritime environment. southern borders are just under 2,000 miles on the land border. as i mentioned we've deployed uas d secure funds for a 11 new marine units, six of which are on the northern border. we've upgraded many of our ports of entry to meet today's security standards and a house

tomorrow's technology. we've expanded the trusted traveler programs from century on the south texas on the north, global one tree on the airport's and the with the initiative on the southern and northern borders of mexico and canada. we've also created a trusted shipper program with partners in trade. the customs trey partnership the aids terrorism, just under 10,000 companies worldwide have enrolled in distrusted program need to update it, modernize it and deliver security and trade facilitation at once. with our international partners, we've created the container security initiative to secure maritime containers bound for the u.s.. we worked to get the international community to adopt the world customs organization framework of standards which further expands the security and facilitation strategy to the global shippg lines. on the southern border we completed more than 600 miles of

fencing. fencing recommended by the border patrol based on the circumstances in each of the sectors from brownsville to santiago. we added more technology including infrared seismic sensors, a video surveillance and mobile systems. we've also strengthened our partnerships across the board with private industry, with other federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies, with other countries particularly with our north american neighbors of mexico and canada. we are working more closely than ever before with mexico to stop the illegal movement of drugs, both cash, guns and human trafficking. as a result of this, and in ways i hope we trust we will explore on the dialogued is as the french poet said, "t challenge of our time is the future is not

what it used to be." the relationship wih mexico is of the kin that we practice daily on the southern border was unthinkable, even three to five years ago. as a result of all these activities, it is true that the southern border is more secure today than it has been in decades, but in fact by any objecte standards such as the fbi crime statistics, the southern border is also savor and someone who has lived and looked on the border and family remains on the border in fact in places like san diego and el paso, phoenix and most of soft texas of the border safer than it's ever been. that does not mean that we do not have incidents of violence. that should be able to organize it be based in mexico. we do. but in fact, given the resource

base that we have come nd get in the partnerships that have been created, there is no time in american history where the border has been more secure and in which the communities have been safer. that does not mean that there are not threats. there are, there always are and this does not mean that there is notsignificant additional work to be done. there is, and we will continue to pursue, but we need to maintain a proper perspective on where we are as we work toward a comprehensive immigration reform for all we've accomplished our country has yet to grapple with this issue of immigration reform that is in trouble to who we are as a people. and how we are perceived as americans buy our neighbors and people are around the world. we know the debate over the reform in the recent years has been contentious, but the heated

debates aren't an excuse for inaction. both republicans, democrats can agree the immigration system is badly broken and the status quo is unsustainable. that's why president obama's fiercely determined to stop kicking the can down the road, and once and for all to have an honest discussion, a conversation, a debate among americans over the long issues surrounding immigration. with me prove some historical perspective. during the years of president clinton for the first time policy makers acknowledge the reality that mexico and the united states has no where else in the bilateral relationship carry equal weight at our shared border. serious and substantial efforts of the cooperation on a variety of fronts beginning with law enforcement lead to a sovereign debate and one unprecedeed

candor. doris meissner played a role in the serious discussion with mexico both in the civic and private sector as well as the government sector. for the first time, the united states and mexico talk seriously and publicly about their situation. the clinton discussion steepened between fox and bush on both political levels. the nations discussed the notion of immigration from mexico and immigration to the united states as an appropriate subject for a bilateral agreement. but the event of 9/11 brought thdiscussion screeching to a halt in all effts turn to securing the border. with the inauguration of felipe lderon and the election of the u.s. president in 2008 came the prospect for the reasoning constructed discussions. this past may is part of the second visit of the obama

administration president obama and calderon articulate the vision for the sierra. the creation of the 21st century border. one that enhances our security and mutual economic competitiveness and increasingly globalized world. the president emphasized both of the united states and mexico have a shared responsibility for addressing issues that are a rising along our common border. and that we must, quote, develop the border and manage it in holistic fashion and in ways that facilitate the secure efficient and rapid flows of goods and people and reduce the cost of doing business between the two countries. underlining this new vision is a paradigm shift, a change in how people view the border. historically governments of approached the border management as essentially holding the line the order is in an isolated place disconnected om the interior of mexico and the

united states. we do at the border has affects felt faraway from the juriictional lines, especially in an era of international trade and global supply chains. and conversely what happens in the interior as an enormous affect at what transpires of the border. though policing the line will remain a key element of jeffrey border management approach, we must shift our thinking and to get more holistic order management, one as i indicated before that is based on the concept of securi flow of trade and travel of people and goods as they move across the globe and approach our homeland. the traditional understanding of border management, trying to find a balance between security and facilitation does jstice to security or facilitation. on the contrary if we look to secure the flow of goods and people we can put secure and

expedite commerce and travel simultaneously ths is a change i had in the thinking since the time that doris, i worked with doris on the century program in san diego to oe in the 1990's, and even then we looked at security and facilitation as being mutually exclusive if not in direct contradiction of one another and we used talk about the need to balance security and facilitation on the notion that there was a zero sum game that if we had more security we would have less acilitation and vice versa. i believe that this is a false dichotomy and an inadequate way to approach the challenges we face. and as i indicated earlier in my remarks the notion of risk management traffic segmentation, the idea of making trusted travelers and shippers in

haystacks smaller means that in fact we need to facilitate lawful commerce and trade the movement of all travelers in order to enhance our security profile so that the two are not even have two sides of a single client but properly practiced and implemented the are the same phenomenon. we move lawful trafficked and people and that gives a better ability to actually identify the risky traveler or cargo. so as we approach the notion of the secure flows and we look at the role of immigration reform in creating the environment one of the elements, what are the elements that will create for the first time a legitimate leader market between the united states and mexico?

three necessary elements for far too long the debate over immigration has been dominated by those wo argue on the one hand passionately for the amnesty or even that we should ignore along the books and those on the other side who argue we should round up and report the 11 million illegal immigrants estimated to be working in the shadows of the country the fact of the matter both politically and as a question of sound policy is that neither mass amnesty nor deportation and where the majority of americans stand. with the american people agree on is every side has to be held accountable. common sense comprehensive immigration reform has to be ounded on the principles of accountability and on the principal of responsibility. responsibility from the federal government to secure our borders or the responsibility that cbp

takes seriously and marks every day to fulfill to provide a system that does so so that employers can rely on a wall legitimate work force. response was so unscrupulous companies don't exploit undocumented workers and gain an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules. and third, responsibility from those who are here illegally so that they can register and admit to having broken the law, pay a fine, payback taxes, get right with the law and learn english before tey can get on that long road to its citizenship i they choose to pursue it. when thinking through this type of common sense reform, i am reminded of the words of the spanish philosopher, george

santiana who said those who cannot remember the pastore to compete. when we bring up the topic again, and we must, we must not repeat the mistes we made in the 1986 irca come immigration reform and control act. thoswho enter illegally to regularize their status and moved to permanent residency and citizenship but it did not confront illegal immigration. it did not create a mechanism by which we could deal successfully with future flows coming to the homeland. ever since the immigration debate centered largely on the control and enforcement beginning with the quadrupling of the border control since the early 1990's. with this plan is that both approaches faileto grapple with t central issues, labor supply and demand. nor have they taken into account before enforcement more normalization can succeed

without appropriate coordination of the other policy. this is a package that goes together. we are now as we have always been a nation of immigrants we are also a nation of laws the laws we have now are not sufficient for the 21st century needs. just four short years ago, four years ago, a majority of democrats and 11 of the republicans who are still in the senate today voted to move forward on that type of common sense immigration eform. it's the type of legislation we need now, and we could make that happen if we move past the false debates and start focusing on the long-term needs of the nation. we simply cannot afford to ignore these challenges because it may be good for the next election cycle. that's where the president

instructed dhs secretary napolitano to lead administration efforts to pass a comprehensive immigration reform law we. dhs work with white house officials on this for more than a year and a half in constant communication with key stakeholders around the country including border community leaders, key members of congress from both parties, and the esident has supported several steps toward reform including a bipartisan framework senator schumer presented asell as the old line presented by senate decrats and the bill recently introduced by senator mendez that tracks the bipartisan from work. despite the refusal some to step up to pass comprehensive reform, president obama remains as committed to that goal as heas ever been secure the beginning of the 21st

century, in folk era twinisms, clauson and tourism, we find ourselves of crossroads. we also find results facing perennial truths. first, our immigration system is broken. our immigration laws need to change and change in significant ways. thcurrent system isn't working for either th economy or for security. it's not working for our country. eating an appropriate immigration from work last remain a priority for the nation's leaders. second, we urrently have immiation laws and these calls cannot e ignored. the law remains the law until this change and our law enforcement officers and agents are bound by duty and of law to

enforce them. we must enforce our laws in a serious and sensible way. that means you must apply common sense approach to immigration enforcement. we should please resources and elkader our time and those areas that ge the most return for our investment in terms of money and resources. we must focus on those who are here illegally and who a committing serious crimes to present a clear and present threat to our communities. it also means we must go after and players who are exploiting illegal labor, and we must streamline our system for applying for immigration status after having made good with the law. i know assistant secretary of i.c.e. and the director

alejandro have spoken at mpi but with their agencies are doing to address these issues, and i appreciate the opportunity to share the cdp perspectives with you this afternoon. >> it's also continue the conversation. i ask you to join us on a unique social networking site that's been set up at dhs focused on the border affairs. it is at ourborder.name.com where we find over 1500 discussions outside of dhs, outside of the u.s. government, who've come to give her to address border issues in a systematic and conversational way. please, on net

ourborder.ning.com n the ning platform to get your perspective on this national issue. i think we are at a point in which the challenge of our time is the future is not what it used to be. the issue is whether or not we will meet that challenge by reacting properly to immigration reform as we continue to bring security to the border. whether we will continue to see a security and trade facilitation is being an identity, and interest that we can implement together and get the benefits both of security and economic prosperity and competitiveness. it is a series of decisions we have begun to take in the obama administration and ones that i am pleased to discuss with you this afternoon and to respond to your questions and comments. thank you for this opportunity

and i look forward to the dialogue. [applause] thank you. [applause] >> okay. thank you very, very much. well, alan, you coved a lot of bases. the estion is which ones to pick up on, but i will try to cover as many as possible and then as i said to the audience, we will turn to the audience. let me begin with this point you made about accountability and responsibility as part of immigration reform, when it happens the responsibility to enforce our borders. that, of course, is so much of what is in the discourse and theres quite a difference of view. there is the view we cannot have immigration reform until our borders are secure and then

there is the counter view which the administration has taken that we cannot fully secure our borders without a broad reform. so whichever side one is on where that is concerned, it still leads to the question of what is at the border control is so if we put the rhetoric as i've just the borders, people getting through, how do yu in running this agency actually defined control of the border? what criteria, what does it look like? >> i think there are two dimensions. first is safety, and we can in fact ss the safety of our communities on the border, and indeed, when we look at the crime situation in the southwest border we begin to see that

according to the fbi crime statistics that the crime occurring on the border communities is the lowest has been in a generation. so we have this remarkable phenomenon and its report to don our borders on of the ning platforms. you have may years such as john cook in el paso, jerry sanders in san diego, saying our cities are among the safest cities in the united states. el paso, a stone's throw across the rio grande, right now the most violent city in the western hesphere, is the second safest city in america. so the first criteria is are people safe in terms of traditional measures of security and safety. ..

we both know probably twice as many were getting by it. over time, that has been reduced. under 100,000 of the illegal migrants will be a resting this.

if you talk to people in san diego, it they will say the reporter is reasonably manage prada -- border is reasonably manage. me thing as happened in the human factor in arizona, and also truth eastern california and much certainly in much of texas, including laredo and brownsville and mcallen. at el paso is good case in point. would hold the line began an el paso in 1893, 245,000 people were arrested trying to cross illegally for more ads into el paso. you know how many were in el paso in fiscal year 2010? >> i actually do know. but why did you go ahead and tell us.

[laughter] >> just over 10,000. just over 10,000. and of those 10,000, everyone of those represented in a large majority of people trying to remain and the apprehension of all of those. so is 17 years ago i said to you the number of people who would be crossing in el paso and arrested would be 10,000, i don't know that either of us would've thought that was possible or that san diego could be brought down to a level at which the community does not believe in any way that the borders out-of-control. so what we mean by border security means public safety in the sense in the community that the border is being reasonably and effectively managed. absent comprehensive immigration reform, to border security is.

>> well, that brings us to a couple points then. it brings us first of all to the question of the current job market in the united states and the recession because the reduction and apprehension is that you've said really dramatic and especially dramatic in a couple places on the border. but at the same time, we know that there has been since the recession began a real reduction in job demands. and so, that really -- i mean, it's things that are working together. so if we see growth again and if we see an increase in job demand, what would be your sense of what happens at the border? >> two points are not. first ds, people say it's really the economy since the financial crash of 2008, the great recession nlb lleviated, but

it's really the economy that accounts for the decrease in apprehension that the flow of person. the fact is if you look at the trend line, the steep decline began in 2000 the height of the plane economy. that's when the numbers started coming down in the trends have continued in that direction. so yes, the economy is having an impact, but the trend in the direction of enforcement actually have been established now for 10 years in this country. so when it such that the only place on the u.s.-mexico border were apprehensions are taking place at a triple digit level, more than a hundred thousand is in the tucson sector that i discussed from pharmacy to phoenix. the nature of the resources at

the u.s.-mexico border, now with 18,000 border patrol agents, the 20,500 on behalf of the numbers see ppos and ports of entry, it means that in fact when the pressure begins to mount again and smugglers have groups starting to grow any attempt to come back after the christmas season, i expect that we will see the effort maintained and that we will see greatest success in the tucson sector. and then our challenge to do what you and i have watched for 18 years, which is when you heighten the enforcement effort at this part of the border, the traffic moves east or west. so in fact, i described the numbers in el paso and san diego. what we saw was a movement of

the traffic west from san diego and been centered now in the tucson site you're. but when there is a displacement, if there is a displacement activist side as a result of patent enforcement in tucson, the difference is that we are stronger in the human fact there, new mexico and el paso family were as this movement during the nht a 90's, the first years of the 21st ctury saw a tape place. we are differently resourced border now. and whe the traffic tries to move, i think that smugglers will finthat the border considerably less amenable to crossing and was the case in the past.

>> that has a lot to do to them that with technology and how technology plays into all of this. one of the things he talked about was the somewhat checkered history of technology initiatives for the border is concerned. fbi now has abandoned a lot of money was spent on it. for setting up a new office. what's the technology decision for the border now? what role does the play and what kind of technology? >> i would say the secretary napolitano ordered a freze. she will be in due course announcing an approach to the fbi situation. but generally, what we're looking at is the detection, the ability to detect attempted illegal crossings. and over time you do that with a variety of devices based on the terrain that you face in a 1900-mile border that differs from sector to set her.

but the theo of action is the same. use a combination of radon photography. and to be able to detect attempted entries across the border and to have the personnel deployed in such a way that you can respond efficiently and affect only to those efforts. and not theory of action is governed be efforts of border enforcement would continue to do so. and as we expect the ability to protect through the use of forwarlooking infrared at night and through greater covera of radar and video and the use of sensors along the border, we will be able to more effectively deploy our agents to stop the attempted illegal entry. >> let me ask you about the optimum size there is one of order efforts on the southwest

border. i mean, i recognize obviously as you well explained that borders ar much more -- and border control is much more than simply the southwest border. but it is the southwest border that is in the news and in the political discourse as the real joke point politically immiation reform are concerned. and when we can't see legislation, we have one default we can agree on. and that is more resources for border enforcement, largely southwest border enforcement. so now you have a new $600 million emergency appropriation, a thousand more border patrol coming in on top of the 20,000. it's an $11 billion plus agency. how much is enough? do we have a sense of what it takes and when we will be at the point where steady-state would be the name of the game?

>> i think what we have to build into the border patrol, when we bring the tuson site are into line with the rest of the u.s.-mexican border in terms of both safety and security in terms to describe is to increase the agility, flexibility on the border patrol that we have so that we can react to changes in patterns of attempted illegal migration. i can't say with ay specific degree of certainty until we faced this new challenge of sustainability, that we've attained a secure southwest border from brownsville to san diego anwe are maintaining and sustaining i think will then be in a better position to say w many more agents do we need? remember, the three elements here are infrastructure, technology and personnel.

and i think you're right in your previous questions that put great emphasis on technology. we've increased the size of the border patrol seven times. we've sevenfold. i can't say that we ned x number of agents. i'm not even prepared to say that another thousand more in the range. but we're certainly hearing and on that compared to where we were. but as i said, i thi the key will be once we've reached a state where sustainability is the goal, will be able to make that judgment for that president and the congress and the american people. >> okay, let me turn to the floor and ask you to raise your hand and wait to ask your question until you have a mic so that we can hear. and please tell us who you are. >> and stephen diamond from the "washington times."

i'm wondering if -- and the border patrol and geo-use the term oration control. the percentages under operational control? and does that need to be 100% before congress tales of compreheive reform? >> the notion of operational control as control to manage and not under control is a judgment made about specific pieces of real estate. and as i understand it, because that was introduced after it left and before i came back. it's a useful practical notion that could be used by commanders in the field. and it certainly an approach that we -- we encourage our people to do when looking at their own site or spirit i think it's less useful when you're talking about border secury and the way in which eisner asked about how do you define a border patrol?

well, i don't throw out that measurement. i don't think that it gives you the complete or even a completely useful view of this. i can't give you the specific tactical percentage thatour commanders or border patrol would consider sector bisect dirt. but for example, talking about an operational control in san diego and a tiny site is a completely different matter for talking about operational control in the sense of which you've used the term and that we've used it for the big dance in texas. very few people actually comes through the sector of big then. but i'm not tactical definition of control, we don't have operational control of the hundreds of miles better in the big bend. so yeah, it's one to the

problem, but not only an exclusive one. >> edwin border from c news.com. the latest performance report by the department of homeland security stated that by the end of fiscal 2009 there were approximately 939 miles under -- border miles under control. my question is, do you have a goal in mind to when the approximately two miles southwest border will be under effective control click >> this is a little bit like the same question to your colleague to your left just past. you know, if you decided by that characterization in the piece of real estate, there are places on

the border where it's not in useful characterization. and i have not seen nor have i developed my own estimates about when you seem not tactical definition, when some final and stable occur. i don't think that's a useful way to look at the border as an exclusive lens. what we have to look at the border is in terms of as i suggested public for communities and the sense in which the borders being effectively managed. absent a legal -- absent comprehensive immigration reform, people will attempt to enter this country illegally, joined by the job market. it's our job to stop the thing. we will do our best to do that. we're doing better than ever before. but this is not about real estate. it's about the flows of people in securing the border by deterring and preventing illegal immigration.

the best way to do that is to have a legitate labor market between the united states and mexico. absent that, we will manage the flows and protect the american people in terms of both the public safety and in terms of effectively managing the border. >> is jack here? >> i think back to the 1990's. >> jack martin, federation for immigration reform. i remember back to the 1990's in san diego when we discussed your resonating about what point do we prosecute against recidivism of people reentering the country illegally. and i'm very pleased that the ministration right now is compleng the program. the pilot program basically prosecuting illegal entrants at the border, even though it's the first time they've come into the country. and finding great success in

that. but of course, you'd also want to know ho many times that person has come into the country. and that's the question i put to chief aguilar on several occasions over the years is to win the border patrol is going to now -- is going to be able to distinguish between the number of apprehensions and the number of people apprehended because of the fact that you identify recidivism on the basis of fingerprinting. then the question is, when are we going to reach that point? because you say were always very close but not area. and also, just related to that i'm wondering if in that program on the border and the people who entered the country illegally if some of those people are not entering t country in what is happening. i think we should continue this discussion because the

technological capacity to identify people by fingerprints has grown enormously. we can give you the individuals who have been entering the country. and part of the databases i referred to in my remarks, part of this massive databases being able to identify when people entered illegally, how many times they've tried to enter, where they've tried to enter. when the three of us started this in the early 1990's, border patrol didn't have the ability to record identities. that was part of the effort of those years. the first time i want to the board -- border patrol agencies had shoeboxes filled with three by five boards and i would write down the name. and of course they were given -- they were not given their real names of people they were apprehending. when you're apprehended today,

we can tell you whether you try to toss -- in tucson whether you've been in el paso the week before coming sadiego the week before that. in the second point is yes we believe very strongly in consequence delivery. the need to uphold the rule of law by delivering a conseence. and we'reoing that in arizona now for nine out of 10 cases of people beingarrested for illegal entry. they are facing a consequence. either they are being taken in by the interior repatriation program that john morton i. think talk to you about, where they are being taken to a the extremes east or west of our border. or they're being prosecuted by streamline or they're being processed for expedited removal.

but yes everyone is facing a consequence. and yes, as you come in the second or third or fourth time, you are more likely to be set for prosecution. and the u.s. attorneys are more likely to accept that case. so i take your point and we are equipp now to be able to distinguish between first-time crossers and people who have tried to numerous occasions. >> i think i saw a hand over here. hi, i'm a critical national formation and my question is about the way a person is found. all around the country local police make traffic stops and call border patrol during stops when ever anyone is not fluent in english. this turns into an investigation. my question is, is that the cdc

policy and that is what you call a serious simple law enforcement or federal use of law enforcement click >> it depends. there are places in the country most of the tickets to the border. we typically wouldn't find in the sector of the country, border control agencies responding to police calls. but in the border states you would see that. but it's not -- this is not -- we don't have people who are just waiting to be called by local police to translate. and in act, when there are interior enforcement actions, there are criteria that governess and a sensible way and were cooperating very closely with immgration customs enforcement agents to make judgments who ultimately make judgments about when we come across someone, how they are to

be treated. interior enforcement are a part of this -- a part of the overall enforcement scheme. but we don't -- we have relatively few resources in terms of the border patrol direct you to that activity. and that's mostly done in support in the assumption of the ice ages come and not as an exclusive service to the local law enforcement. for example, in chicago you wouldn't find agents or new york border >> it continues tonight with the rallies. there is a debate from kansas city. the family will head south to arkansas. later, present the and vice-

president by then to attend a campaign rally for chris coons. you can watch all of these events tonight here on c-span purda. >> it is sometimes hard to avoid your basic values and how i did see the country and relationship between law and the average person's country, what you think lott is about. that basic value i think is part of the. they will approach or the question is very open. >> stephen breyer and his new book sunday night on c-span.

>> at today's state department briefing, topics included a deal between venezuela and rusher. and thes against iraq on jerusalems impact on the middle east peace process. >> good afternoon, and welcome to the department of state. this evening, secretary clinton will deliver remarks at the commonwealth club in san francisco on innovation as an engine of america's global leadership. she will affirm the obama

administration's commitment to fostering american innovation at home and promoting it abroad. the secretary will discuss her 21st century statecraft agenda which leverages new tools and technologies to advance our nation's interests and values around the world. turning to europe, ambassador holbrooke today attended the third ministerial meeting of the friends of democratic pakistan, which was hosted by the european union high representative catherine ashton and co-chaired by pakistani foreign minister qureshi. also attending were the foreign ministers and senior representatives of 20 countries and four multilateral institutions. the friends of democratic pakistan reviewed the international flood response effort and discussed the government of pakistan's plans for post-flood recovery and reconstruction. and coming up on monday, ambassador holbrooke will participate in the meeting of the international contact group on afghanistan and pakistan, hosted by the government of italy and chaired by the german special representative. senior afghan and nato officials will also participate. and this is an opportunity for

the envoys to discuss the way forward on transition and receive an update on the kabul process of reform launched at the kabul conference in july. the united states welcomes the decision by the japanese oil company inpex to withdraw from its investments in iran. the company's actions are part of a strong and emerging consensus not only of governments, but also from the private sector, and has come together to send a powerful and united signal to iran that it should meet its international obligations and begin to engage seriously on its nuclear program. inpex's decision today, once again, underscores that there are risks in dealing with iran.

inpex's decision is consistent with the measures in un security council resolution 1929 and the government of japan's recent sanctions on iran, which, as secretaries clinton and geithner stated last month, mark a significant step forward in the international community's efforts to combat proliferation and prevent iran's development of nuclear weapons. deputy secretary of state steinberg announced on september 30th that four european energy companies -- eni, statoil, shell, and total -- have withdrawn from iran. these actions now complemented by inpex's are further evidence that sanctions are having a major impact on iran. the united states remains committed to a diplomatic solution that resolves the international community's concerns regarding iran's nuclear program. we will continue to work with our partners to pursue a dual- track strategy of engagement and pressure to achieve this objective. >> anything on middle east peace process? the housing starts on 204 -- 240

new houses for east jerusalem. >> mm-hmm. >> what impact do you think it will have on the peace process? >> well, we were disappointed by the announcement of new tenders in east jerusalem yesterday. it is contrary to our efforts to resume direct negotiations between the parties. we will continue to work as we have to try to create conditions for direct negotiations to resume. >> were you informed ahead of time about their plans? >> yes. >> and what did you tell them? >> we told them just what i told you, that we felt this was contrary to what we were trying to do to get direct negotiations resumed. >> an israeli official has said that there is a tacit understanding between the u.s. and israel regarding this issue. >> the government of israel is well aware of our concerns about this. >> the arab league will ask the united nations next month to recognize the palestinian state. what's your position toward such a step? >> well, we continue to promote

direct negotiations as the best way to resolve the conflict and see the emergence of a palestinian state that meets the aspirations of the palestinian people and security and stability for israel and the rest of the region. as we have said many, many times there are critical issues involved in this process. they need to be negotiated

between the parties, and we oppose unilateral steps on either side. >> how will you vote on such a resolution? >> pardon me? >> how will you vote on such a resolution? will you veto it or -- >> well, michel, we have our -- we are doing what we think is the best way to end this conflict, and that is our position. as to how we will vote, obviously, that's a hypothetical question. >> venezuela and russia -- >> one final point on this. saeb erekat has asked the u.s. administration to hold the israeli government responsible for the collapse of the negotiations in the peace process after the announcement of planning new buildings. >> look, let's not get ahead of ourselves. we are working intensively as we speak with the parties directly to get negotiations to resume. we are doing everything in our power and we are making clear to the parties that we want to see this direct negotiation continue, so we're not focused on what happens "if." we're focused on how can we create the conditions that allow the parties to continue. we believe it is in their interest to continue in this process, because otherwise there's no other avenue to create the state that the palestinians deserve and the security and stability that the israelis deserve.

>> senator mitchell -- is he still planning to go to the region? >> we're still evaluating what the appropriate next steps are. i've got nothing to announce. okay. >> new topic? >> sure. >> venezuela and russia -- reaching an agreement to build the first nuclear plant in venezuela, how is the u.s. responding? >> well, any new nuclear program or activity should be conducted in accordance with the highest standards of nonproliferation, safety, and security, including iaea safeguards. so whatever happens with this announcement today -- venezuela and russia have international obligations and we expect them to meet those obligations. >> have you been in touch with the venezuelan government to express your opinions or your position, or to find out what's -- >> i'll check, but i doubt it. >> -- any details on that? >> we don't currently have an ambassador in venezuela, as you know.

>> i have a follow-up on that one. >> i'm sorry? >> i have a follow-up on the venezuela-russia. >> okay. >> does it ring your bell the fact that it's venezuela? i mean, it's not another country and venezuela has been having a little bit of ties with iran or -- is there a little bit of concern on your part? or -- >> well, this is something that we will watch very closely. as we've said in the context of all countries that are signatories to the nonproliferation treaty, they have rights and they have responsibilities. it is certainly a right of any country to pursue civilian nuclear energy, but with that right comes responsibilities and we would expect venezuela, russia, or any other country pursuing this kind of technology to meet all international obligations. >> can i follow up -- what about the cozy relationship between medvedev and chavez being that first there was weaponry and now a nuclear plant?

>> countries are sovereign. they have the right to associate with whoever they wish. the relationship between venezuela and russia is not really of concern to us, but clearly, we want to make sure that for this particular civilian nuclear cooperation arrangement that all international obligations are met and that whatever results from this announcement is done in concert with the highest international standards, because the last thing we need to do is see technology migrate to countries or groups that should not have that technology. >> let's put it the other way. have you been in touch with russia to talk about that? >> again, this announcement just occurred today. i don't know that we've had any conversation. >> but do you foresee that the u.s. could play any role -- advisory role or --

>> well, again, let me repeat. countries have a inherent right to pursue civilian nuclear energy. that's not an issue. the real issue is how do they do it, and -- but we have confidence in russia. in the context of iran for example, it has made sure that cooperation that it has with iran with respect to bushehr has been done with full cooperation of the iaea. and we would expect any arrangement that might go forward based on this announcement would meet international standards and ensure, and also full cooperation with the iaea. >> what --

>> not only iran, but we're talking about china, turkey -- they're entering talks with other nations, even the czech republic. so what is the new role for russia as the administration sees it? >> but again, this is -- this issue is not about russia. it is about making sure that as civilian nuclear energy progresses around the world that countries fully cooperate with the iaea and they meet the highest standards in terms of protections and safeguards to prevent proliferation. that's why we support the iaea and that's why the international community come together to make a clear stand with respect to iran because what iran is doing is contrary to iaea safeguards and contrary to its international obligations. but it's why we also, at the same time, are willing to sit down with iran and we -- we're obviously aware that catherine ashton has suggested a meeting date next month and we await

iran's formal response. we recognize that countries will pursue nuclear energy. it is within their right to do that. but how they do that does matter to make sure that we don't see an already significant danger of proliferation expand even further. >> the announcement has taken the u.s. by surprise? i mean, the venezuelan announcement or -- >> this is an area that we've been watching for some time.

i don't think that this necessarily is a surprise to us. >> change of subject? >> sure. >> before the start of commonwealth games in new delhi, u.s. had issued a travel alert about the possibility of this attack in delhi and other parts of the country. now the game has -- it's over. is the u.s. considering pulling it back, the travel alert for the u.s. (inaudible)? >> if we do, we'll let you know. i mean, normally travel alerts are for a particular period of time and i would expect that we will issue a revised one at the appropriate time. >> one of the meetings yesterday in brussels -- ministerial meetings between the u.s. and turkey -- and turkey -- foreign minister yesterday stated that turkey's conditions to approve the deployment of the anti-missile system on turk soil. and one of the conditions is iran and syria not be cited as threats. i would like to get your comment on that. and second is, would you be able to describe the meetings

from your -- >> i was here, not there, so i'm not really able to go into any significant detail. we have had conversations with turkey about plans for missile defense within europe in association with nato. we did have meetings with turkish officials yesterday. but that said, the basis of our proposed phased, adaptive approach, the defense concept for europe, is expressly to address the emerging missile threat from iran. >> yes. >> so that is the basis upon which we are advancing this issue. i think our european allies recognize the clear threat that iranian missiles pose to europe, and that is what we are talking to our allies and nato about. >> i'm from the middle east news agency and this is my first time to attend (inaudible).

>> welcome. >> thank you. i'm asking -- former president carter is going to have a tour in egypt and some middle east countries. any coordination between the state department or the administration with what he's going to tackle there? >> i -- it wouldn't surprise me if we are -- that his office touched base with us before he travels, but he is a private citizen. he is free to travel to the region. he does so periodically. but i'm not aware there was any particular coordination that occurred. >> thank you. >> afghanistan? >> sure. >> what is the source of your information on the ongoing peace talks? do you have -- because from kabul the reports says that u.s. has embedded in the eyes and ears in the meetings that are going on.

>> i'm not sure about embedding of eyes and ears. there are contacts between the afghan government and the taliban. as we have acknowledged, we are helping to facilitate those meetings. a variety of officials have commented on this. but this is an afghan-led process and we are supporting them. >> yes, the question is, how you are facilitating that? >> well -- >> if you are not in touch with either side -- with the taliban, how are you -- >> well, obviously, to travel through afghanistan from point a to point b, it is best to coordinate with the afghan government and isaf so

everyone's aware of what is happening, but i'm not going to go into great detail. but the facilitation really involves the movement of people to meeting locations and -- but beyond that, we are just simply doing what the afghan government has asked us to do to promote this process. we are supporting this process, and we think it's critical to resolving the conflict that is ongoing. >> so are you saying that the u.s. -- i presume the u.s. military is actually transporting (inaudible)? >> i'm not saying that all. i'm just saying that -- >> what do you mean by moving people? >> there is -- we are coordinating with the afghan government to make so -- because you need that kind of awareness to make sure that people can

move from here to there for meetings. as to the specifics of how this is being done, i would defer to people at isaf. >> but just to be clear on that, so when you say you're -- that the u.s. is moving people, you mean that you're -- the facilitating of moving people is not the actual transporting of them as opposed to not -- >> i'm not ruling -- again, i want -- i will -- the operational details of how this is occurring and the contacts between the afghan government and security forces on the ground, my understanding is that the facilitation involves logistics. i cannot tell you whether security forces are actually assisting in the transportation or just coordinating the transportation so that people can move to these meeting locations. on the practical details of this, i'll defer to isaf. >> just to -- just one follow up. so you are getting the information from karzai government (inaudible). do you have any other -- >> this is an afghan-led process.

>> where are you getting the information? from only karzai government or any other sources? >> i -- what would all those other sources be? i'm trying to understand the question. where's -- i mean, the reconciliation process is an afghan-led process. we are coordinating with the afghan government in terms of helping to support this process. i'm not sure who else would be involved. >> same issue. how do you plan to achieve success in afghanistan without involving mullah omar in the

peace process since he's the leader of the taliban? yesterday, you said you ruled out any talks in the -- >> well, as i said yesterday, there are particular red lines, if you want to call it that, that we have agreed with the international community and afghanistan. there's no indication that we have that mullah omar has any intention of meeting the standards that we've laid out. so assuming to borrow arshad's phrase from yesterday that mullah omar has no intention of changing his stripes, then we're talking about a -- really an academic question. he has had many opportunities to disassociate himself with al- qaida. everything that we know suggests he still is closely affiliated with al-qaida, and as such, would disqualify himself from any participation in this process or any involvement in the future of afghanistan. >> and secondly, the peace process that's being led by the former president burhanuddin rabbani. he himself fought against the taliban. what is the assessment of his leadership skills in this peace process? >> we are supporting this process.

it's an afghan-led process. and president karzai has appointed members of the peace council. i think ambassador holbrooke has indicated now, now that we've got these -- the structure in place and these individuals in place, we expect this process to accelerate. >> he being a non-pashtun, would that have an impact on the peace -- he being a non-pashtun, would that have an impact on the peace process -- the success of the peace process? >> well, the future of afghanistan is going to involve building a civil society that is -- involves pashtuns and other ethnic groups. so we certainly believe in a inclusive afghanistan society, various groups that perhaps have been in the conflict in the past that can come together and join forces for the benefit of afghanistan. that is the essence of the political process that is getting underway.

>> and one of the major reasons for the reconciliation effort of the foot soldiers not changing their sites is the reconciliation programs are very poorly funded, they don't have enough money to fund those foot soldiers. is there an effort to increase that part of the fund? >> well, again, from the london conference in january, the kabul conference in july, the processes are now in place, the structure and people are in place, and we will work to support this in any way that we can. that was what secretary gates and secretary clinton made clear yesterday. >> thank you. >> another topic. kosovo government decided today to organize elections in february -- mid-february. do you think that could affect future dialogue between belgrade and pristina?

it's delay of four months. >> the secretary was just in belgrade and pristina. one of her central messages to the governments and people of serbia and kosovo is that these countries are going to have a relationship in the future. they're going to live in the same neighborhood side by side. it is important that there be a dialogue that helps build this relationship in the future whatever it's going to be. i wouldn't necessarily associate the two. it's important for kosovo to continue to advance as a democracy and it's important for kosovo and serbia to build an appropriate relationship.

those two are not mutually exclusive. >> one question related to south. in the region of south america in the malvinas islands, falkland islands by -- for the english, there are some exercises, military exercises and argentina has protested, have a claim in the united nations this week. i want to know if the u.s. has a special position about the situation, at least (inaudible). >> well, let's separate two issues. these exercises have occurred many times in the past and i think britain has been very transparent in announcing these exercises. and we continue to support dialogue between britain and argentina on the broader issue of the falklands. >> my -- related to the united nations, argentina is claiming that although england has a seat in the security council, it's not to talk. although, during the last two years in the united nations

committee of decolonization, it was done by unanimity that both countries have to talk. what's -- does the u.s. has any position on this? >> again, we are -- certainly support dialogue between the united kingdom and argentina, but how that dialogue advances is up to those two countries. >> north korea's chief nuclear envoy kim kye-gwan said in beijing that north korea will not return to six-party talks unless sanctions are lifted. any comment on that? >> there are sanctions against north korea. those sanctions exist for a very good reason because north korea consistently has failed to live

up to its international obligations. we have no intention of removing those sanctions as an enticement for dialogue. >> also, do you think mr. robert einhorn is traveling to beijing soon? >> i've got nothing to announce on mr. einhorn. >> have you assessed president ahmadinejad's visit to lebanon and the statements that he made? and what's your assessment? >> what's our assessment of president ahmadinejad's trip to lebanon? well, last month he made a trip to the united states and had some crazy things to say. and yesterday, he made a trip to lebanon and again had some crazy things to say. he's now back in tehran where his country faces an increasingly bleak future and is further isolated from the international community as our

announcement today underscores. >> why does his country face a bleak future? what's -- >> well, because we believe sanctions are increasing. we are enforcing 1929 country by country, and in the private sector, company by company are refusing to do business with iran. it is having an impact on the ground and it is contrary to the best interests of the iranian people who definitely want to have a different kind of relationship with the rest of the world. and that potential exists if iran will meet its obligations and help us understand the nature of its nuclear program and convince the rest of the world that it does not have -- is not intent on building a nuclear weapon. but as long as the international community feels that iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, then iran can expect to have these sanctions continue to bite.

>> p.j. -- >> hold on. >> are you satisfied with the lebanese government? they avoided any military agreement with ahmadinejad. >> we had expressed our concerns to the lebanese government that iran might have had hezbollah's best intentions at heart, but certainly did not have the best intentions for all of the lebanese people. i think that was clear yesterday by the tenor of mr. ahmadinejad's trip to lebanon. >> when president obama -- >> still on iran. i'm sorry, still on iran. do you have any feelings about iran's election to the presidency of opec (inaudible)? >> i'm sorry, what? >> election to the presidency of opec. iran -- the oil minister of iran was elected to -- >> i'll see if we've got a view on that. >> okay. >> p.j., you were talking about the sanctions -- >> hold on, hold on. we're still on iran. >> yeah, i'm still on iran. >> well, all right.

ladies first. >> thank you. you were saying that you've heard that the sanctions are having an effect on iran. we're hearing from the private sector that they are being affected, the private sector businessmen, especially in the uae. they're saying it has affected them and, therefore, the people, and not necessarily the revolutionary guards and those that have been designated, whereas the u.s. has been saying that the intention is not to harm the general public. >> that is our intention. and to the extent that we can, we are directing our efforts at entities that we think support the government and its policies. i don't think that we can deny that there are ripple effects and that there are impacts that go beyond that. but obviously, we want to see a different relationship between iran and the rest of the world. we want to see the iranian people have the same

opportunities to travel, to engage as others in the region and around the world have. and the only thing that's impeding iran from having that kind of relationship with the united states and the rest of the world is the government and policies of iran. if they change their policies, if they meet their obligations then certainly, as we continue to offer the prospect of engagement and a different kind of relationship, that depends squarely on what iran does and what policies it chooses to pursue. >> so maybe it is hope that the government will change its course through pressure from the people within the country? >> well, it's a fundamental obligation of any sovereign government to meet the needs of its people. and clearly, iran's current policies, its pursuit of nuclear technology -- and we believe a nuclear weapon -- is contrary to the long-term interest of its people. >> when -- during his campaign and after he took office,

president obama always said that he has a door of diplomacy open. is that door shut on iran or is it still open? >> well, not at all. >> and what exactly you are expecting from iran? >> no, not at all. in fact, as was announced, catherine ashton of the eu has extended an invitation for iran to meet next month in what we hope will be serious discussions on iran's nuclear program. we are awaiting iran's response. so we have a dual-track strategy. we're going to continue to pursue pressure on the one hand, but the door has been open to iran for some time, and really -- literally, the ball is in iran's court. we hope they'll respond to catherine ashton and hope we can begin a sustained dialogue with iran. >> you mentioned eu, so the nato and eu both are urging u.s. to include iran in afghanistan.

are you going to openly go for it? >> i'm not projecting that we're going to have discussions with iran on afghanistan. our interests -- we have the same interest in a stable afghanistan. the united states, the international community, and iran have cooperated in the context of afghanistan in the past. i believe in this meeting on monday in italy, iran may well have its afghan envoy there. i don't project that we're going to have any contact with him, but we recognize that iran is a neighbor of afghanistan, has an interest. and we would hope that iran will play a more constructive role in afghanistan than we've seen in the recent past. >> can we go back to afghanistan peace process? >> sure. >> what role do you see for pakistan in this peace process?

>> well, it's an afghan-led -- >> yes. >> -- process but we know it has been a topic of discussion between afghanistan and pakistan. and we would hope that pakistan, like the international community, will support this process as well. >> is it because ambassador holbrooke has been repeatedly saying that there could be no solution to afghanistan without involving pakistan in the peace process? >> well, and at the strategic level, that's exactly what we've done. in the president's strategy, we are focusing significant attention not just on afghanistan, but also on pakistan because we do understand that the solution to the region rests on both sides of that border. >> do you think it will be helpful to have pakistan on the table of the talks -- for the talks? >> again, this is an afghan-led process. we are supporting the government of afghanistan. >> okay, thank you. >> have a nice weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> this is c-span -- public affairs programming courtesy of america's cable companies. c-span's continuing coverage of the 2010 elections continues tonight. next, a debate in the missouri a senate race. and they'll hear from candidates running for senate in arkansas. after that, a group working to elect republicans this november. later, president obama campaigns for the senate candidate in delaware. now, missouri's u.s. senate candidates, republican congressman roy blunt and missouri secretary of state robin carnahan as they face off in their first debate. it was held thursday at the kansas city public television

studios. they're running to replace senator kit bond who is retiring. this is one hour. ♪ >> this broadcast is made possible in part by a repeat of missouri. >> my name is jim clemens, president of aarp missouri, encouraging all citizens to get out and vote. it is your right, your decision, your vote. >> after nearly 1/4 serving here -- 25 years, kit bond is stepping down. who will you choose to replace him? roy blunt or robin carnahan? you have no doubt seen their campaign ads. now, they tackle the issues face-to-face. it is the missouri united states senate debate. here is your moderator.

>> it has been a long and expensive campaign. the two major party candidates have raised more than $50 million to try and win this seat in the senate in the middle of the country. all of that money has brought lots of 30-second commercials. until now, these candidates have never been in the same room to debate the issues face-to-face. is missouri's secretary of state robin carnahan as black and white and gravy as her opponents ads make out? this ominous music always play in the background when former house leader roy blunt plays -- arrived on scene? you have a question -- the chance to hear the answers as they are peppered with questions. to maximize our time, we are abandoning long introductions in laundry-list recitations of debate rules. we will bring you even more questions and hopefully more answers. both candidates wanted to make

opening statements. two minutes was agreed upon. republican roy blunt, you are first. >> thank you. thank you to kansas city public television for hosting this debate. thank you to the other public television stations throughout the state that i think are going to rebroadcast this debate. sometime last week i did my 800th campaign event in missouri. it included stops in all 100th -- i have been to all 114 counties, round tables, lots of input on our jobs plan. our voters are more engaged in the issues and i have never seen before. where are the private-sector jobs? why is the federal government spending much more money than it has ever spent before? then there are concerns about the health care plan people believe will not work. i think they're right. it impacts the relationship between them and their doctor. the cap and trade steam -- a

scheme which would almost double the utility bill. a bad tax policy. a stimulus plan that did not work. bigger issues about what kind of country we will live in. my mom and dad were dairy farmers. i am the first person in my family to ever graduate from college. i was raised in a country where i was told that with hard work indication anything was possible. i'll was also told that nothing was guaranteed but anything was possible. this is an election about whether we live in a country where the government is bigger than the people or do we live in a country where the people are bigger than the government. i intend to fight for country where the people are bigger than the government. i intend to fight for a country where extreme policies of washington do not impact the future of our families. i intend to fight for the kind of country that i am during -- hearing missourians thought about every day. i share their values. i share their dreams for america. i think this campaign is about the issues.

>> missouri secretary of state robin carnahan is the democratic candidates hoping to succeed kit bond in the u.s. senate. >> thank you to kansas city public television for hosting this into congressman blunt for being here. the values i learned growing up include artwork, common sense, and fixing things one day and are broken -- include hard work, common sense, and fixing things ons when they are broken. have cut costs and red tape for small businesses. i have cut our office budget by 20%. we're here to talk about the u.s. senate race. i think there are three things that matter most in need be fixed. we have to fix our economy and create jobs. we need to hold washington accountable for how it spends our money. third, we need to fix the broken culture of washington that has the deck stacked toward special interest in against the

rest of us. the congressman and i see things differently. he is for corporate bailouts and i am not. he is or wasteful, earmarks -- for wasteful, earmark spending and i'm not. he is forgiving favor to his lobbyist friends and i am not. he has voted to raise his own pay 12 times. i think congress ought to take a pay cut until the balance the budget. our priorities are different. i understand why the congressman does not want to talk about his record and would rather talk about something else, because it is hard to explain how he has been there for 14 years. think about what has happened during that time. our economy got wrecked. wall street got bailed out. we got stuck with the bill. nobody in missouri thinks that is a promotion. folks are most concerned about jobs. you have voted repeatedly for tax hikes that sen jobs overseas. on behalf of those who cannot begin to ask questions tonight,

i would ask you to pledge to never again vote for tax breaks to send jobs overseas. that the tax policies i've worked for build jobs and create -- >> the tax policies i've worked for build jobs and create jobs. i will not support tax increases, even though you supported tax increases for the first 16 months of the campaign. >> it is candidate question time now. we go to a reporter for an abc affiliate. >> thank you. if you look at the campaign through the eyes of your opponent, ms. carnahan you would be a rubber-stamp for president obama. mr. blunt, you represent the worst of washington. at a time when missourians are concerned about jobs and the state of the economy, is it the best you can do? >> this should not be a campaign about campaigns. it should be about the issues. if you look at what i talked-

about at 800 events across the state -- if you look at what i have talked about at 800 events across the state, it has been a campaign about the issues. there is a difference between where i am on the issues. they are issues that people care about. i intend to continue to work for things that answer those questions i mentioned earlier. how do we create private-sector jobs? private-sector jobs are the key to our economic future. we need government jobs, but they do not pay the bill. they are the bill. we've seen a lack of focus on the things that create jobs. in the jobs round tables i have had, people start out by saying, there is just too much uncertainty. they quickly get to the fact that they are certain what the extremist agenda in washington -- with the extremist agenda in washington, all the cards are stacked against them. we talked about of utility bills with the cap and trade scheme did we talk about taking health

care benefit are the control of the employee and the job creator for the first time ever. you do not have the options you used to have. we talked about raising taxes. people do not create jobs. those are things i have talked about over again -- over and over again. i have thought this is a year to be -- where it is impossible to be more specific than voters wanted to be on the issues. anyone who has asked me a question has gotten a clear answer. it has not been something silly. of course cap and trade raises utility bills. i am not for raising taxes. i am not for doing things that stand in the way of private sector job creation. that is the biggest issue we're facing domestically today. i'm going to continue to work on things that believe that private-sector jobs are the answer. we need great certainty about the environment people are hoping to create jobs -- create certainty about the environment people are hoping to create jobs in. >> i think records matter.

my record is not what congressman blunt characterize as. you would think i was the cause of the economic meltdown in this country. i have been in jefferson while he has been in washington for 14 years. he has been one of the top leaders for most of that time. to me, if you put somebody in charge of something for 14 years, they do not get the job done and you're worse off than when you started, you do not ask for a promotion. you for that person and get someone else. congressman blunt, the budget has exploded during your tenure from $120 billion surplus to a $1.20 trillion deficit. in remarks have gotten out of control. we've seen corruption. -- earmarks have gotten out of control. we see corruption. we have to stop that by sending different people out there who have different priorities, who are not going to be cozy and comfortable with the way washington works. it will look out for missourians -- they will look out for

missourians instead. that is what i will do. >> we put different people in charge in 2007, 2009. look where that got us. virtually every democrat in america, including you, started talking about how great it would be when everybody's taxes went up in january, 2011. it was not until mid-2008 and that anybody started talking about tax cuts that i had worked hard for that they thought suddenly needed to be preserved. that was 18 months into people getting that message day after day. your utility bill is going to go up. your taxes are want to go up. we put new people in charge and were much worse off than we were before. this agenda is much too extreme for america. the american people will register that answer on election day. anybody you think this election is not about the issues is want to be very surprised -- anybody

who thinks this election is not about the issues is going to be very surprised on election day. >> next, a political reporter. >> politicians have ramped up criticism of congressional earmarks in recent years. campaigns are divided on this issue. congressman blunt, you have defended their marks as an important part of the process. secretary carnahan, you have called for an outright ban. as senator, what would you suggest is the best way to bring local -- bring federal dollars to missouri for the projects here? >> remarks have exploded under the congressman's watch. -- earmarks have exploded under the congressman's watch. it is a corrupt process. you have folks like congressman blunt using the process to reward campaign contributors and special interests. i think that is wrong. i think they need to be scrapped. they are reflection of the broken culture in washington.

we need to ban them outright. we need to treat our tax money like our own. make sure there are priorities. make sure you have merit and competition in how to spend tax dollars and have full transparency and accountability on how it gets spent. we're very different in this way. you have been called out for doing things in appropriately with the remarks -- with earmarks. there was a bill for private company in california. that executive went to prison. you rolled down their corporate jets. to $13,000 -- you took $30,000 in the earmarks. we're never going to get our economy back on track like this. we need to create jobs. my priorities are very different. i would get rid of earmarks.

>> i think what we have heard from secretary carnahan has been the whole problem during her campaign. the newspaper said said "misleading," "fax and do not add up." i had nothing to do with that bill -- "facts do not add up." i had nothing to do with that bill. her mother voted for it. it passed 93-to-one in the senate. it would have passed 408 to 50. my vote on that bill had nothing to do with whatever this project that she is talking about is and she knows it. in terms of competing for things that are right for missouri, let's look at the highway fund. it does not get any bigger or smaller based on how much we get out of it. what does happen is that, if you do not compete, you do not get

the money. when i went to congress, we're getting 80 cents -- less than 80 cents back out of every dollar that we sent to washington, d.c. kit bond, one of the leaders in this effort, emanuel cleaver -- we have all collectively worked to compete for that money. we got a better formula than we used to get. we get more money than we used to get. we went in and try to make the case that there is a set aside amount of money for projects of national significance. look at the map. aho look at where the projects all funneled to ward. -- look at where the maps show the project's final -- projects funnel toward. we competed effectively for projects of national significance.

we have more bridges than any other state. are we not going to compete for that money? for the first time in the history of the gas tax fund -- the federal gas tax, missouri is going to get back the dollar isn't in and a couple of since beyond that. -- it sent in and a couple of cents beyond that. >> thank you very much, mr. blunt. the debate rules allow the first candidate 60 seconds of rebuttal time. do you need that time? >> i would like to respond. it is fascinating to hear your defense of the earmark process, congressman. even after tom delay, your mentor, resigned in disgrace because of corruption, abuse, affiliation with jack abramoff and others, and you are trying to become a limited as the party, even your own party thought you were too tainted by the special deals and

relationships by lobbyists. they did not even elected to be leader of the party. to come back out to missouri and pretended the reformer, i think that missourians -- pretended to be a bad and performer, i think that -- to be a performer, i think that missourians will not buy it. if you think the bridges to know where and put it all museums are great use of our money, you ought to vote for congressman blunt -- and potato museums are great uses of our money, you ought to vote for congressman blunt. >> how do you think the recently-passed health care system will impact us now and in the future? which are the most problematic and the most-effective? >> it just spends too much money. it spends 250th billion dollars per year by the time it starts

spending -- it spends $250 billion per year by the time it start spending money. we cannot afford it. it is a bad plan. you can look on line at the 12th things i think we could do that could make the system more transparent -- you can look online at the 12 things that i think we could do that make the system more transparent. for individuals who buy insurance on their own, they should be able to do that with the same pre-tax dollars that the biggest company in america buys their insurance with. there are a lot of things you could do. they're just not in this bill. access to people who of pre- existing conditions -- there is a much better way to do that. it is one of the bills i sponsored that would expand the risk-pool concept where people could get into the risk-ball who did not have access to insurance -- risk-pool who did not have access to insurance. missourians know this will not

work. 72% agreed that we would rather not be part of this. frankly, they asked the white house spokesman the next day, robert gibbs, what this means. 72% of missouri, hundreds of thousands -- they would rather not be part of your plan. what does this mean? robert gibbs says, this means nothing. they ask harry reid the next day at his press conference, the majority leader in the senate, what does it mean? he says, they do not understand yet. nancy pelosi's comment the week that bill was passed, we will know what is in the bill after we pass it, was one of the most foolish legislative things ever said. as people find out what is in this, they know it will not work. there are appropriately concerned. they know there are better things to do. >> ms. carnahan. >> i am a breast cancer survivor myself. i have seen the good and bad of our system. i have talked to people all over

the state to have seen their rates go up 100% or more. insurance company profits have gone up more than 400% during the same time. during that time, congressman blunt has been in congress. he tells us he wants to decent about health care. if he actually wanted to do something, why did he not do something when he had a chance? when he was in charge? i'm guessing it might be because you're so close to many of the health interests and special interests and their lobbyists. if you have taken over $2.5 million from them. they do not want health care reform. they will have to spend more money on care instead of on profit. i think that is wrong. i think we need to get the money into the system where it is taking care patients again. congressman, i know they are against it. i know that is why you say you are for repealing health care. i disagree. i think it is ironic that you, as somebody who has received government health care for decades, would suggest that other people not have access to

care for pre-existing conditions. i think that is wrong. i think people should have the same access that you have as a member of congress. so, i think if you want to repeal health care reform and let insurance companies go back to their worst abuses, you ought to repeal your own first and man up and do what you're asking others to do. >> secretary carnahan, you know there is no government-provided health care for federal employees. you go to the private system. you buy insurance like everybody else. in the 10 years i was in congress in the majority, i sponsored legislation every year for medical liability reform. we sent it to every congress. we sent it to the senate seven times in 10 years. do not tell me i was not doing my job or i was not trying. when i passed the combat meth act, we took on the pharmaceutical industry and we got that past. do not tell me i was not doing my job. when we did associated health

plans where people could join the biggest group they could find and be part of a health plan that way, we sent that six times in 10 years. never got voted on once in the senate because the trial lawyers have given $500,000 -- who have given you $500,000 did not want to go to the floor of the senate. they have given me nothing because i want medical liability reform and i have voted for it over and over again. >> we will now move to new territory. >> secretary carnahan, the winner of this race will be senator for the next six years. how likely is it that the federal budget will be balanced at the end of those six years and what will you do to get there? >> it took a long time for the budget to get as out of whack as it is. it is a real problem that needs serious attention. my priorities for getting the budget in line in cutting the deficit are on my website. i have some common sense things of i think we need to start

right off the bat. we need to get rid of earmarks. what it is not the biggest part of the budget deficit, it is reflective of a mentality that money can be spent at will with no accountability. we need to crack down on overspending. no big contracts that cost hundreds of billions of dollars. we need to reinstitute pay-as- you-go rules. we used to have those before congressman blunt to go for leadership. by getting rid of spending caps -- there was a half a trillion dollar increase. you own some of the responsibility. later, we went from point to having a surplus in our budget to 01 $0.20 trillion deficit. nobody in washington -- 1.2 trillion dollar deficit. nobody in washington has credibility. we need to do common-sense things to make government work better and more efficiently. we can do those things in washington if we try.

trying means getting rid of voice and spending and not continuing to adjust bicker and complain -- getting rid of wasteful spending and not continuing to bicker and complain. we suggested there had been a deficit reduction commission. all the republicans thought that was a bad idea. i think that is nonsense. we ought to know this is about the future of our country. we need to work together to get it resolved. >> mr. blunt? >> the congress i was in were the first in decades to balance the budget. the leadership was part of helped do that. of course 9-eleven disrupted a lot of things. we had to respond to that -- of course, 9/11 these are but a lot of things. we had to respond to that. the only time we get the senate to agree to a budget that less look at where the real spending occurred, i led that fight. we cut mandatory spending programs by $40 billion. in a very public and very long fight, not a single person ever

called and said, thanks for trying to cut the programs. we will put you on our list of legislators we do not because you're trying to get federal spending under control. i would start right away by not going forward with this health care plan we cannot afford. i would start by not spending the last $200 billion of the stimulus package that clearly did not work. nobody believes it worked. i would put a stop payment on the $107 million check to robin carnahan's brother's business. there is some savings right there. the attack on the mandatory programs was to try to make the makes sense. we're both design people but for medicare and medicaid -- we will sign people up for medicare and medicaid who are legally in the country. make people do things that make sense. i have been for those things. people know i have been working

for those things. i will continue to do that. with the exception of better -- and veterans benefits, there is no government program i have not tried to reform financially. i was voted -- i voted for lower budgets than president bush would submit to the congress, let alone president clinton or president obama. we do not have a budget. we do not have a single appropriations bill. the people are in control -- the people who are in control are afraid to say what they're for. >> i find is an amazing case of washington, d.c. doublespeak. congressman blunt has been there for 14 years. we never once had a balanced budget. he says he was the leader in fighting for budget cuts. i do not think anybody listening thought that was effective. it has not gone out. to get this under control and take it seriously, we have to have folks who are ready to make tough decisions to stop wasteful

, earmark spending. we have to put real caps on spending and put pay-as-you-go requirements back in place. not just talk about it, but actually get it done. >> he tackles everything from health care to crime and education as a reporter for the nbc action news. >> mr. blunt, ms. carnahan, i know seniors who are concerned about medicare part d. they understand that the gap in coverage will be phased out by 2020. their concern is that their coverage in general will be phased out in that same time. how do you plan to protect their interests in washington? >> people on medicare should be concerned. this new health care bill is funded by cutting medicare by $500 billion over 10 years. cutting the program that every single person in america that

has worked at a job or they got a paycheck has paid into since 1965. the idea that you start a new program by cutting this program at the very time this program is about to get into trouble -- everybody thinks medicare is in trouble by 2015, 2017 -- to cut medicare by $500 billion. if we could find savings in medicare, we should. we should use them to save medicare. people talk about defending senior programs. secretary carnahan made some comment about privatizing social security. i am for defending social security and medicare. it is her side that has made the cuts in senior programs. somebody handed me in willow springs the other day from a mountain view clinic. the letter was, we're glad you have taken advantage of our foot clinic, but we're closing because medicare no longer pays for these services. whether it is medicare advantage that the service -- this

administration wants to phase out or other cuts, we ought to be figuring out how to save the system. medicare part d -- what we did for the first time ever was, instead of having a government- run and operated program, we opted to organize the marketplace. in that marketplace, it cost 40% less. it was voluntary. 90% of seniors voluntarily went into that medicare market place -- marketplace. the marketplace works. we had in that direction. the obama administration has taken us in another direction with fewer services and less support to programs like medicare. >> robin carnahan. >> congressman, there is no one here listening that things you are a protector of medicare and social security. your record, over and over again -- and not come to missouri and said that you do one thing --

and do not come to missouri and say one thing when you did something else. you said that it was a risky seem -- a scheme that should have taken place years ago. add that happened, millions in our state would have been devastated. -- had that happened, millions in our state would have been devastated. you have said this more than once. to come out to missouri and tell us that you are a defender of medicare -- you are the only person i know who has bragged about cutting $6 billion for medicare. stand up on your record. if this is what you believe, you ought to talk about it. i'm different. i believe we need to stand up for our seniors. i will not vote to privatize social security. i will stand up every day for medicare. as secretary of state, i had stood up for seniors. we have one of the toughest investor-protection laws and the countries when it comes to protecting seniors. i've done all i can for seniors

to have a disability is -- seniors who have disabilities. i will be on their side when it comes to protecting things that we owe your generation. >> 60 seconds for your rebuttal. >> she sounds just like her ads -- a phony and misleading. i have never said i was not for medicare or for protecting medicare. >> you said it should not be created in the first place. >> you do not have me on tape saying that. i have never said that. >> let the congressman finish. >> we could look at more choices for people in medicare, more access to a private system. we ought to be learned how to be more innovative with medicare and other programs. the idea that you can say you have repeatedly been for this or that and you think people believe that -- people do not believe what you're saying because it is not true.

and he ripped up let the congressman finish. >> in terms of social security -- >> let the congressman finished. >> in terms of an social security, i said, if you want to start talking about this, we will watch carefully. we will let you lead the fight. i'm not sure the system will work. it would not have worked as well as we would have hoped. i never supported it. >> that is your time. you are watching republican roy blunt and democrat ron carnahan here at the united states senate race in missouri. we go back to kansas city's abc affiliate. >> let's shift of focus. there are reports that the united states and nato are permitting senior taliban officials to travel to kabul, afghanistan, to participate in preliminary peace talks with the government. is it appropriate that the afghan government negotiate with

the taliban who gave the al- qaeda courses safe haven to launch the 9/11 attacks? is it prepared to negotiate with -- is it appropriate to negotiate with the taliban? >> i do not think the united states government should be negotiating with the taliban. they are a violent terrorist group that is destabilizing that part of the world. we should not be part of that. i'm glad that, instead of being focused on iraq, we're in afghanistan, where we should be. that is where the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 work trained. it is appropriate that we use all means to try to work on this. >> mr. lents. >> i'm on the house intelligence committee. i have been to afghanistan -- mr. blunt. >> i am on the house intelligence committee. i have been to afghanistan. it is one of the most dangerous

places in the world. trying to resolve this problem in a similar way to what happened in iraq -- you reach out to the fighting factions and bring them together. i have no problem with talking. i have no problem trying to find a way to reconciliation. i do have a problem really did the value of the dangers we face in the world today -- denying the dangers we face in the world today. i'm concerned that the administration is in denial. christmas day, just a few months ago. this guy was on the airplane with explosives in his clothes. his strength to detonate explosives. six passengers jumped on him and stop him. next sunday, on one of the shows, the secretary of commons during janet napolitano says the system worked. -- the secretary says that the system worked.

clearly, the system did not work. we lived in a dangerous world. robert gibbs, that same sunday, at the same quote. sometimes i wonder how dumb the administration thinks the american people are. there are real dangers. afghanistan and pakistan are two of those places. and generally supportive of what the government is trying to do there. i think the government made a mistake in giving a deadline for withdrawal. this region -- if others are going to be there when you leave, you cannot give that deadline. even on jay leno, yesterday, the president announces a 18-day plan for withdrawal. the taliban and announced a 19- month plan. the principal responsibility is to defend the country. >> 60 seconds for your bottle. >> i agree that we should not have a town and for withdrawal.

that -- we should not have a timeline for withdrawal. we should not have an open-ended commitment in a afghanistan -- in afghanistan. you brought up homeland security. it was disappointed that you tried to slip something into a homeland security build right after 9/11 to benefit the tobacco company, philip morris. that is wrong. even your colleagues called you out on that and said it was wrong and took it on of the bill. it is the kind of activity in washington that people are sick of. we're never going to change things. we will never get our economy back on track until folks like you are held accountable as well, congressman, for your behavior in washington. i would like to address that pierre >> we will move onto another questions -- i would like you to address that tonight. >> we will move on to another question. >> the wall street bailout bill known as t.a.r.p. has been an economic success.

economists from both parties have said that the bill stemmed of depression. but cbo says that the cost to taxpayers will not be $600 billion but $66 billion. congressman blunt, you voted for t.a.r.p. secretary of state carnahan, you have criticized it. have either of you revise your opinions? >> i have not. i hope we never have to do that again. if we do, and hope people from both parties are able to come together and do hard things. i helped negotiate the final t.a.r.p. bill. i was in the minority. i was not in control. the things we got out and in that made a difference. the two works things -- worst things about this injection into the economy -- a virtual forced investment into credit-giving institutions -- the biggest problem is that it was widely reported that we were giving

money to people. if you are investing in the economy in the way that task to be paid back and has largely been paid back in 18 months, that is not a gift to anybody. the government has made money on the recovery so far. there may be a loss, but i do not know. if there is any loss at the end of five years, the people who participated in t.a.r.p. -- the president has to propose a plan to recover any loss from those people. the second-worst thing is that the obama administration was able to use that number -- the total amount spent was about $450 billion, instead of 7 per billion dollars. -- $700 billion. well i was not for giving them the second half, they never needed most of the. president obama should have asked for $100 billion, not 300

fill it -- $350 billion bid plan worked. hopefully we will never get into that situation again. i will see that we don't. secretary carnahan was in santa fe, new mexico, and was asked what she thought about it. she said, absolutely. in missouri, and the reporter is not paying attention, she said, of course we needed to do something like t.a.r.p. talk about talking different. it needed to happen. it did happen. >> your time is up. >> congressman blunt and i see this completely differently. he said the negotiated -- that he negotiated the bill and it made a real difference. i'll say. wall street has had the heftiest, biggest balance sheets they have ever seen and paid the biggest bonuses. it made a big difference for wall street. it was supposed to stabilize our economy. make it so the rest of the small businesses could survive the

economic downturn. it was not of their own causing. it was also supposed to stop the mortgage crisis. it has not done that either. our state has seen the worst foreclosure rates amid the whole history in the month of august. you let the banks run wild. you deregulated. you were there when they were out of control. you were there to bail them out with $700 billion of our money. you were there when it was time to hold them accountable so we would not have to do that again in you voted on the side of wall street. i think that is wrong. i know they have given you $1.5 million and you campaign and hobnob with them all the time. i was here in missouri, standing up to those financial institutions. they said, we cannot possibly take people back. it would crush the economy. we got them to pay back $10 million to consumers. it was not something they would do on their own. i stood up on the side of

missourians. the bailout and incentives were all wrong. you still have a situation where we have four bank's controlling 40% of the deposits in our country. too big to fail still exists. it was an folks like you to washington, they will keep -- if we send folks like you back to washington, they will keep getting bailed out. folks like you have let them get by with this. it is a shame. you should not be calling it one of your proudest moments. >> one minute for your rebuttal. >> when she says -- when she is at a bankers' house in santa fe, new mexico, she has a different position. on the financial overregulation bill, there is no main street banker that things it is to their advantage. everybody on wall street said it was fine to them. money will cost more for small businesses and people trying to purchase homes.

it will be more expensive. it was the wrong thing to do. it regulated too much and did nothing with the government agencies that created the problem. i voted for legislation and reform on fannie and freddie. we send it to the senate. the senate did nothing. that is one reason i want to go to the senate. i'm tired of sending to this -- i am tired of sending to the senate stuff that never gets done. if you look better record of what was sent to the senate was in the majority, it is a different record and what the federal government did pierre >> and new question on the -- on what the federal government did -- it is a different record than what the federal government did. >> and another question. >> lobbyists have way too much influence in washington. the deck is stacked against us and for the special interests and lobbyists.

congressman blunt is the top recipient of lobbyist campaign contributions in all the members of the house. and that is wrong. the sad part, to me, is that congressman, you used to have a different view. you ran for governor in 1992. he said then that you thought there should be a ban on lobbyists' campaign contributions. you thought there should be a limit on pac contributions. thought we should have strict enforcement of campaign finance law. that is why it is so sad to see that, after 14 years in washington, you have done a complete reversal. you think it is ok to be the top recipient of lobbyists campaign contributions out of all the congress people. i do not think that is a record of promotion. what i would do is a couple of things. first, we need to stop this revolving door between washington, capitol hill, and case street. we need to have a band -- lifetime ban on members ever becoming lobbyists. i would like to see if you will

take that pledge tonight. i will take it. members of the congressional staff should have a cooling off before they can go be lobbyists. we saw something the other day that said a member of a congressional staff could get paid $750,000 to become a lobbyist. i think that is crazy. it is no wonder the deck is stacked against us. if you have special interest influence in the legislation and buying their influence, we see the attack ads on television these last couple of weeks paid for by these anonymous, big- money sources that are friends of congressman blunt. he might -- it might be because he is carried water for them year after year in washington. mib because i am their worst enemy. they know they can never by me. i will look out for missourians every day in washington. >> once again, secretary carnahan says things that she knows are not true. i was the only member of the

house running for senate for a brief time and i was on that list raising more money than other people who happened to be lobbyists. i'm not at the top of the list now and she knows that. she knows the three people at the top of the list. she has gotten $10,000 from each of them. everything is different. starting in april of last year, the league of conservation voters -- an extremist group -- ran $1 million attacking me for being opposed to cap and trade. of course i am opposed to it. i am on the side of missourians. it is a terrible thing for our country. they hired some actor. a person had oil all over him. there is no mention of cap and trade. it is about clean energy. to have more american energy -- which i am for and you can see that in our jobs plan -- you do not have to penalize the energy infrastructure that we have. frankly, she knows better

pitching knows that is not the case. at that it was cheap -- and that it was interesting she mentioned right after 9/11 when we were writing the homeland security bill. it was a different environment than we had ever been in before. there were a lot of things to try to put that bill together. what happened on that provision? someone told me that senator kohl has a bill that relates to something that just happened in st. louis, missouri, hezbollah trafficking in the stamps that you put on products. he said he would like to see that in the report. i said, check it out with the committee -- the judiciary committee. it might have taken five minutes in an evening where there were dozens of things as we tried to put homeland security together in an environment a year after the commerce occurred with 9/11. -- after the congress that occurred with 9/11. >> your chance for a bottle --

for your rebuttal. >> harry truman says, if you cannot convince them, confuse them. you have totally confused me. the topic is lobbyists and their influence in washington. you're the top recipient of all congressmen. you are. affect you have money from the three senators -- >> you have money from the three senators -- >> that really is not an explanation, congressman, of why lobbyists like you so much. i think it is because you carry water for them and do not take care of us. when the lobbyist wants something, you take care of them. mark twain had a word for that -- he said it was the best government money could buy. congressman, i think that is you. >> we have a chance for another question. we'll ask your graciousness to truncate our times for responses to just 90 seconds.

we have a pithy, insightful final question. >> do you believe global warming is real? give me a yes or no. if so, what needs to be done? >> i think climate change is real. iso not know how much of thit been instigated by people. in this cap and trade discussion -- i am for more smaller, more wind, more nuclear, more biofuels -- i have a record of this. i have fought lots of people, including the traditional providers of energy, to make that happen. the idea of attacking co2 let the league of conservation voters who have not addressed -- endorsed a single person who is not for cap and trade. the usa is not a planet. we cannot solve the co2 problem by ourselves. we can make it worse ourselves. how? we make it worse by ourselves by

doubling our utility bills. our utility bills would go up 80% in the first 10 years according to a study -- we're the only state to has had the study based on cap and trade. -- who has had the study based on cap and trade. we would lose jobs. we would send jobs to countries that care less about what comes out of the smokestack. this thought-out plan would cost jobs and if the problem you're trying to solve worse, not better. >> 90 seconds, ms. carnahan. >> i think climate change as real as well. dealing with their energy future is the biggest challenge of our generation. we have to get off our addiction to foreign oil. it is costing us dearly. it is a threat to our national security. we spend $1.2 billion every day sending money to regimes that do not like us.

congressman blunt's policies have only encourage that. we have become more dependent of he has been in congress. we have been gouged at the gas pump. it has to stop. we know the future is about clean energy that we control, not foreign oil dictators. i am for stopping the tax subsidies to big oil companies. they do not need our money. they made $500 billion in profit in the last five years. we're still subsidizing them? you are for that? you have taken a lot of money from them. i think that is wrong. a lot subsidize oil companies. we need to encourage homegrown -- i will not subsidize oil companies. we need to encourage home grown energy. we need to make ourselves more secure because we are energy independent. >> 60 seconds for your rebuttal. >> the steps we have taken so far have sent jobs to china -- you have taken so far have sent

jobs to china and india. i'm not for penalizing the current economy to grow a new economy. i believe that, in an economy that grows even by reasonable rate, our energy needs are want to double in the decade of the 2030's. there is plenty of room to do the things i want to do. it is part of our jobs plan. it is over 100 pages. secretary carnahan's jobs plan is under 500 words. you could tweet her plan in four tweets. i have fought for this i will continue -- for this. i will continue to fight. someone told me a few months ago -- and it's -- and missourians know what this has done to their utility bills. if my retired mothers utility bill doubles, that is worse. utility billsss's double, the jobs go away.

>> our time is up. you have to be minutes to make your final case to voters -- two minutes to make your final case to voters. >> i'm glad to go first. county ofout in every missouri for the last 18 months. 800 evens, talking to missourians about their government and how we can make it -- 800 even spaits, talking o missourians about their government and how can make it better. there is the no-vote. 32 democrats voted with of the republicans against this bill fought out health care plan. over 40 democrats voted against captain trade -- cap and trade. it happens over and over again. the current washington agenda is too extreme for even the democrats in washington. it is too extreme for the

democrats and way too extreme for democrats in missouri. the democrats will see a church, school, soccer games who have always been on one side might not be on that side anymore. they want to send a message, just like every missouri and wants to send a message. this is not who we want to be. we want to live in a country where people are bigger than government, not a country where government is bigger than people. as ronald reagan said, even our great country -- even where a guy who is the first person to graduate from college can run for the united states senate -- even in that country, freedom is not passed along in the bloodstream. every generation of americans has to secure freedom for itself. i think 2010 is the time when we decide, are we going to renew the lease on freedom for another generation or we going to just be like everybody else? it is clear to me that the current people in control in washington want us to be like everybody else.

i want us to be citizens of the united states of america, a country with greater opportunity, greater aspirations, greater goals than any country in history of the world. >> making her final case, the democratic candidate robin carnahan. >> thank you to all of you for watching. a long time ago, harry truman said that washington is the kind of place where it is easy to forget where you came from and why you ever went there in the first place. sadly, that is what has happened to congressman blunt. he has a record of bailing out wall street, taking care of the special interest, raising the deficit, and sticking us with the bill. i do not think that is something that deserves a promotion. most people in missouri would agree. it is time to fix what is broken in washington. it will not happen if we keep sending the same old people out there to do the same thing. my priorities are different. we need to stand up for small

businesses. we need to give them incentives. we need to have tax breaks for the middle class. not for the big oil companies and certainly not for those that are shipping our jobs overseas. finally, we need to hold government accountable for how it spends our money. we should ban earmarked spending once and for all. go to my website grabencarnahan.com -- robincarnahan.com. in the end, i think this election is a choice between having a senator who looks out for missouri's interest or who will look out for washington post special interests. -- washington's special interests. i am rahman carnahan. i will never forget where i came from. -- i am robin carnahan. and never forget where i came from. >> they are asking you to send

them to the senate to fill the seat.ng senator bond's there are too good other candidates on the ballot. check out the campaigns of libertarian john f. dinea nd -- of jonathan dine and conservative jerry beck. thank you for spending part of your evening with us. good night. >> is broadcast was made possible in part by aarp of missouri. >> my name is jim clemens, president of aarp missouri, increasing all citizens to get out and vote because it is your right, your decision, you're bot -- your vote. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> c-span's continuing coverage of the 2010 elections continue sunday with the debate between democrat jack conway and republican ran paul, running for the senate seat in kentucky. that is at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span's coverage of the 2010 elections continues tonight. next, we'll hear from candidates running for senate in arkansas. after that, a group working to elect republicans. then, president obama campaigns in delaware for the senate candidate. later, remarks in the vermont

governor race. >> "q&a" -- the justice stephen breyer. >> it is sometimes hard to avoid your basic values -- how you see the country, how you see the relationship between law and average person in this country, what you think lott is about -- law is about. their basic and values that are part of you. -- there are basic values that are part of you and it was sometimes influence and approach a question that is open ended mixed to that kind of thing. >> supreme court justice stephen breyer and his new book -- and a night on c-span. -- sunday night on c-span. >> now, a debate in arkansas with blanche lincoln and two of her opponents who participated in this debate at the university

of central arkansas. it was organized by the arkansas educational television network and is about one hour, 25 minutes. >> good evening, everyone. welcome again to debate week. the third night here on arkansas educational network. again, this evening, two sessions. the first for the candidates for the u.s. senate, and immediately following, the candidates in the fourth congressional district. we begin with the senate campaign. our candidates include senator blanche lincoln, the incumbent and democratic nominee, john gray of the green party, an

independent candidate, and the nominee of the republican party. the candidates will be questioned by a panel of arkansas journalists including bill simmons, gwenn moritz, and malcolm each candidate will have to minutes for an opening statement and then respond to questions. rebuttals are limited to one minute. each candidate will have two minutes for a closing statement. the order of introductions, opening and closing statements, questions and were bottles was determined prior to this broadcast by a drawing in which the candidates or their representatives and dissipated. our timekeeper is from arkansas quiz bowl.

with that, our first opening statement by mr. >> my name is trevor, brown and i am a christian. i choose to live my life by god and country. i am a former green beret, a combat veteran in afghanistan and i have -- and currently an officer in the air force reserve. i am a common man with uncommon s.perience as turrete the democrat and republican parties in arkansas only make a 80% of registered voters. the majority of those that choose to be independent in the two-party system, i am not arkansas conservative. that means that we have a strong belief in god and in the constitution as it is written. it is not a living and breathing document that can botch can be changed over time.

we have a strong belief in the second and 10th amendment. we believe that life begins at conception. we all have one thing in common. we swore an oath to defend the constitution of the united states. i took that oath on the battlefield of afghanistan and accomplished my mission. they took that oath in washington d.c. and have failed to accomplish theirs. many people wonder why i'm running. it is simple. april 15 of 2009, i was asked to speak at an event and people can come out of the woodwork, asking me to run for it on july 4, i was asked to come back and be the keynote speaker. i informed the crowd that they had failed to do one thing true that they had failed to tell me what office they one of the 214. i had a poll online -- they

wanted me to run for. they would need to run for the seat held by senator lincoln. that is why i stand before you today. >> mr. gray? >> my name is john gray. i was born in arkansas and i am currently the mayor of greenland, arkansas and and and retired engineer. throughout my working career, i have solved problems in manufacturing by taking data and doing what the data tells the to do. as we look around us today, there is all kinds of data that tells us that free trade is not working for the working man for the we have lost 8 million to 2 million jobs due to outsourcing. these jobs are not going to come back to the united states. not until the rules change courage no corporation is going to pay an american $15 an hour

as long as they can get cheap labor from foreigners at 50 cents an hour to build the same car, bring it back here and sell for full price and not pay any consequences to it after world war two, the rules in place were in favor of the small businessman and the small farmer. there were problems, but those problems were manageable. today, even our food is unsafe because of the inspection process. the united states has always been a trading nation and always will be. for over 200 years, we followed of the alexander hamilton rules and we had a balance of trade. we shipped goods and bought raw materials and less money to the world. now, we export raw materials, we import finished goods and we are more in debt that any nation in history. this has got to stop.

we need to build our manufacturing base and live by the rules that were in place in the 1960's that gave us the strongest middle-class boy ever had. the new york times wrote that in light of globalization, americans are vastly overpaid for the they need to expect across-the-board real wage cut of 20% and get in line. >> mr. gray, i am sorry. i have to call time. >> ms. lincoln? >> i want to thank the panelists for not only being here today, but the dedication to journalism. i want to say a special appreciation to trevor drown and those that have served in our military. i think that this election is about jobs and the economy.

without a doubt, we have the deepest economic crisis that we have seen since the great depression. there is no doubt that government cannot create jobs and need to provide a certainty for industry to be able to know what the rules are and where the investments are going to be and how we will do that and make it happen. that is critically important. this election is also about choices and real differences. real differences that matter. i know that the congressman has voted to privatize medicare and he has also supported the privatization of social security. these are critical programs and something that we cannot subject to privatization. we need to look at how we can better preserve these programs and make them stronger. it is also about independence. trevor mentioned that a little bit. i am not an automatic for my

party. i stand for what is right for arkansas and i think that that has been obvious in many of the actions i have taken. i am out there working to make a difference and to stand up for what is right for arkansas. i am pleased to be here today and i look forward to the questions. i think the candidates that are here. this is a great opportunity for arkansas to see us. with this lincoln, thank you. mr. boozman? >> thank you. it is funny how you can look back and have memories that are very vivid that happened many years ago. i can remember going with my father and go into the local bank who was -- banker, who was a friend. i do not know if it was the

plush office furniture, but it was something that stood out. my brother-in-law and brother with to another bank and we have a dream and we had a plan for the wanted to start a clinic. both gotten out of school and had no money. i had a negative net worth after graduating. the banker listened and he looked at us and he had faith in us and as a result, we started a little eye clinic. we had five employees for it we worked hard. we grew into we have 85 employees with 10 doctors went i left. that is how businesses created for that that is the situation we need to get back to, not the method were you try to create jobs by doling out government funds. when the money goes away, the jobs go away. we're trying to decide which direction we are born to go. are we going to continue with the obama method that he is

trying to push, the tax and spend and borrow mentality, the idea that we can grow government and solve problems or will we get back to the fair market principles that made this country great? in powering small business and getting out of their way and cutting regulation that is in their way. -- empowering small business and getting out of their way in cutting regulation that is in their way. the last thing that he is going to do is hire additional labor. senator lincoln is very proud of being the prevailing voice on pats -- passing obamacare. i want to go to the senate and do the repeal in -- and the repealing voice. >> the first question goes to mr. boozman. >> the arkansas lottery raise

106 million for scholarships. -- raise $106 million for scholarships. when i look at your legislation to establish a federal sales tax, i see a 23% tax applied to purchases. is that want to be a tax on the arkansas lottery and what would do to the ability to raise scholarship funds? >> i am very much opposed to the lottery in the sense that i feel that it is a situation where you are getting money in a way that solves some problems, but creates many societal problems. in regard to whether or not we need tax reform, i think that we definitely need tax reform. right now, there are 68,000 pages of the irs.

>> what do you think it would do to scholarship funds? >> let me finish. what we need is a tax system that is fair and simple. what we have is not fair. it is not simple. i am very much in favor of looking at the fairfax. i think it is a very viable alternative. i would love to get rid of the irs. i would also be in favor of looking at radically reforming the system that we have right now. if we get ourselves into a situation where we do the concepts where everybody is paying taxes, everybody is contributing, we would be in a situation where we can handle things like education and have more money for that in the long run. >> miss lincoln? i do not think it is right for

arkansas. overnight 5% of our people in arkansas would see an increase in taxes. seniors would see a double taxation because they have already paid tax into the federal income tax on those resources and in their retirement dollars would again be taxed on anything that they consider the i think that, yes, we can simplify the tax code for the need to make sure that we are doing that. to put a 23% sales tax on everything that you buy whether it is bread, milk, your car, retires, your home, your form -- your form, your college tuition, all of those things. it would be disproportionately more hazardous and put at risk the hard working people of our state. i think that without a doubt,

education is a critical part of what we have to do to create jobs and put our economy on track. we need to make higher education available for as many students as we possibly can and we should not a blockade in from of that. i think that k -- 12 -- k-12 needs to be restructured. i would love to have the opportunity to talk about that as well. i appreciate the fact that a 23% sales tax is going to be a disadvantage to arkansas families and their children. >> mr. gray? >> a 23% sales tax across the board, if somebody makes a $100,000 a year and lose 25 percent of that, there would still have $75,000.

others would find it harder to make ends meet. we need to seek a fairer method of taxation than this because it is highly regressive. as far as your original question about scholarships come i am all for scholarships and building education and technical infrastructure to support jobs. it does not matter to me where the money comes from, as long as it is legal and as long as we build our educational system in this state. >> mr. drown? >> like congressman boozman, we have problems with taxes. both taxes have positives and negatives and unknowns. his 23% where it is one to stop

or will it increase to 30%? -- is 23% where it is going to stop or will increase to 30%? i can tell you that after having sat down with community leaders around the state that the buying of scholarships -- of lottery tickets have hurt the infrastructure within the state of arkansas. this is more of a state issue. if this was passed and it did affect 20%, i would not have a problem with that and i would dare say that your local community leaders and would not have a problem with either. >> mr. boozman, a one-minute or bottle. i would say that when you talk about a fair tax, you're talking about getting rid of all the federal taxes. there is a predate built-in to take care of those in poverty. i think it is an interesting concept and is to be looked at.

-- that needs to be looked at. it is interesting. we talked about school scholarships and things like that and methods of funding, the lottery system is probably the most regressive thing that we can do. ies, you look at the county i the poorest counties in the state are hurt the most. i do not know exactly how that would be affected, but i am in favor of tax reform. i am in favor of making it simple and fair. that is what the people of arkansas are asking me to do. is this something that will be decided offhand? this will take the president supporting what ever we come up with. >> mr. boozman, thank you. our next question comes from

glenn morrison is directed first to ms. lincoln. >> the last time the federal budget was balanced, which i think all the candidates agree is a desirable thing, income-tax rates were higher than they are now. if it is possible to do this without increasing taxes, where it should spending cuts come from and it is not possible to return to a balanced budget without raising anyone's taxes, please describe the tax increases for specific spending cuts the think would best guess to a balanced budget. >> in regards to the tax system that we have right now, and i know it has been frustrating to a lot of the media and others, i do not feel that i have to fit into the boxes of president tax package for it i do not agree with how he chooses to

do that. we do not need to go back and rubberstamp a 2001 tax policy when we incurred that policy during a time of surpluses. we were not in two wars. it is important for us to look at what is the best tax policy that is going to allow us to grow our economy and bring down our debt. those are the two most important things that we have to do. looking at the tax policy that we have, i definitely support extending the tax cuts. i think that the low and middle income folks will spend that money. it is going to be a huge part of gdp and we need to make sure that happens. those that are above the $250,000 level, i think it is appropriate to look, while we are fighting two wars, and not

asking the american people to pay for it, that we should look at what is the best balance of tax policy within those categories to see what is going to grow our economy and help us bring down that debt. i think it has to involve spending cuts. i have been very supportive of spending cuts. everything from the presidential spending to cutting nasa and several other places . i think it will take a combination of things. it does not have to be one or the other. it has to be a combination. >> ms. lincoln, thank you. mr. gray? >> i think that we have to bear in mind that allowing the extension of the tax cuts, everyone gets a tax break up to $250,000 in the richer only being asked to pass -- to pay 3

percent above that. if they cannot afford that, -- the estate tax should remain intact. we need to cut spending such as military spending. in the cold war stance, 1.3 million people are unemployed. we have programs such as the f 35 fighter. this was designed for russia. this thing that builds and it is state of the art. a ghost three times faster than anything else in the air. but it represents a real drag on

our economy. programs like that should be cut and it would free up money for many other things. >> mr. gray, thank you. mr. drown? >> i think that we could return to a balanced budget without raising taxes. we had a program that can online in 1980 and president reagan made a comeback -- a campaign promise to do away with it. it was a platform of the republican party for many years and they have strayed. it has taken away the education of our children from the local and state level. it is doing more harm than good. why don't we quit sending billions of dollars overseas? the people of this country are hurting. in this state alone, citizens are having trouble putting food on the table. this government is still quick to send money overseas.

i am sick and tired of the people of this nation being given second seat to the rest of the world. when it comes to raising taxes for those who make over $250,000, you have to be aware that some of those small business owners showed that they make $250,000 a year. that is gross income. that is not what they are taking home. are they to be punished for succeeding in the american dream? >> mr. drown, and to. mr. boozman? >> i think that we can balance the budget and we can do it without raising significant taxes. abnormal one testified several weeks ago when asked the greatest threat to our national security was, he did not say al qaeda, he did not say iraq, he did not say iran. he said that the greatest threat was the debt. he said that in a few years, we would be spending more on

servicing the debt then on defense. we need a balanced budget amendment. the state of arkansas has that. governor clinton, gov. how to be and our current governor have balanced the budget because they had to. we also need a line-item veto. we need the ability for this president to block the port that is added at a last-minute. we need to make it so that illegal immigrants cannot draw from programs. we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in that regard. every program, if you name what it is, we would have 60, 7480 agencies doing the same thing. we need to get rid of that bureaucracy. everyone agrees that 10% of medicaid and medicare is waste, fraud and abuse. the last thing that i would do

is repeal of obamacare. that would add 17,000 additional the term employees. after spending one trillion dollars in taxes and cutting medicare to the bone, those of the programs that i would look at. -- those are the programs that i would look at. >> miss lincoln? what i believe that balancing the budget is a good thing. i voted for a surplus. i think that it is important that we look at opportunities to give people their own money to invest. i have produced a bipartisan estate tax proposal. i do not think that we should go back to where we were before 2001, neither do i think we should leave it where was in 2009.

i believe that we should leave the dividends and cap gains in order to allow people to have more resources to reinvest. that is a great way to grow jobs and put money back into the treasury as well as make sure that people have money to take care of their families. i think that an independent voice is critical. i have always supported a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. the pay-go rules to balance the budget and make those tough choices that we have to make in congress. >> senator, thank you. our next question comes for malcolm glover. >> mr. gray, with the current state of our economy, we have an important hiring decision to make. outside of being mayor of greenland and a former engineer, what qualifies you for this high office? what are you better suited to solve these problems than your opponents?

>> the reason that i am involved in this is to make a better future for my children and my grandchildren. my experience in the workplace, since the early 1980's, i have been involved in moving production lines. i have watched free trade and nafta it evolves. -- nast that evil. evolves.afta after we got nafta into mexico, they started wanting a little bit more money. when they wanted significantly more than 40 cents an hour, the jobs went to china. so, what i am saying is that this entire religion that has

been born around free trade and trickle-down economics has to be shown for what it is. it is destroying this country and destroying the world. the mexican friends that i have in mexico or for worse off than they were before nafta came. i think he would be a good idea to revive it with the whole thing and getting out of the wto and getting out of nafta and bringing our jobs back home. >> mr. brown? >> what qualifies me for this office? the constitution of the united states. i am here because i was asked. i am the first candidate in over 30 years to be on the ballot as an independent. i am a firm believer that the people of this country knows how to fix the problem that ails this nation. i have traveled the state of

arkansas and listened to the people. as a small-business owner, i know that spending more money than you take in will's bought -- but you're out of business quick. my experience in the military as a green beret and intelligence officer has given me insight into a global threat that exists today in regards to this nation. as a ups driver, i saw arkansas in its natural state every single day, at its best and at its worst. i will put my experience up against either the congressman for the senator prior to the day they took office and i have to wonder, at this point, based on the direction of this country has gone, what experience did they bring to the table? what mr. boozman? >> i am an optometrist and i dr.

i understand the sick feeling in your stomach when the insurance guy comes by and says that your premium is going up 16%, which is happening all across arkansas right now. as an optometrist, i understand the medical care, and the medical and of things besides being a small business person. i was on the school board for seven years and had a small form. my girls were very active in forage and would show tells and that was a tremendous experience -- in 4 h and would show cows and that was a tremendous experience. i voted against the idea of stimulus spending, the bailouts for everything. i understand that you cannot tax and borrow and spend your way to prosperity. most people agree that the

unemployment numbers have come out. 70,000 people have gotten checks that are dead. the list goes on in bond. the problem with the stimulus approach is that when the money goes away, the job goes away. what we have to do is give tax credits not only to small but large business. that is how we will work our way out of this economy grew at the answer is not tremendous growth in government, the answer is the people of america. >> miss lincoln? >> thank you for the question. before i ran for congress, i had never run for anything before that except in high school. i had a deep desire to give back and i think that that desire is

still there. i come from afar family and i work for small businesses after school and also worked for my dad during the summer after school. -- i come from a farm family and i worked for small businesses after school and also worked for my dad during the summer after school. i think it is important for us to realize that putting jobs back out into our community is one to be a critical part of how we put our economy back on track. i disagree with mr. gray. i think the trade is important. my dad said a long time ago that you cannot circle your wagons and a cellular widgets' back and forth to each other. i think that opening up trade will create jobs in this country and make sure that we are part of that global economy.

that is a part of putting our economy back on track in creating those jobs. i think that certain to in government, if there's anything that we have produced in washington, is unpredictability 3 whether it is regulation or tax policy or trade policy, unfortunately, the businesses have been put in an an unpredictable situation. i will continue to fight that. tax policy is another way to create jobs. the best thing that i have going for me in this race is that i am a mother, a daughter, a wife, and i take those very seriously. >> mr. gray, you have one minute for rebuttal. >> back in 1793, it protected us for 200 years. when we got off of that track,

the asian countries got on it. they are now falling hamilton's plan and beating us to death with it. -- following hamilton's plan and being as to death with it. they need each year in order to plant their trade with each other for the next year. they had balanced trade with each other and they laugh at us because we allow these huge trade imbalances. they are using our own system to destroy us. we need to get back on the proven path and we need to reestablish control. >> our next question comes from bill simmons and in goes to mr. brown. >> -- it goes to mr. brown. >> convert -- congressman boozman you and senator lincoln had been in washington. after 10 years of -- talking

about balancing the budget and cutting taxes, why should you get another chance? >> first of all, i'd like to readdress the biggest question. having traveled the state of arkansas, you find that jobs are drying up and blowing away. every time you talk to people in this state, they will tell you that the manufacturing jobs around the state have moved out of the country after nafta can online. we need to reduce the -- we need to revisit the free-trade agreement. as for the question as to what -- you have 10 to 18 years in

office. that is long enough to show us whether or not they can lead and voice opinions. at this point, based on myself and conversations with citizens across the state, we are in agreement that it is time for change. we need to once again bring the u.s. senate seat back to the people of arkansas and begin governing from the bottom of this of the top down. >> mr. boozman? >> when the bush administration came to power, you have the bust of the dot coms. 9/11 happen almost immediately. being a small businessman, that ground our business to a halt. we immediately started to wars and we have homeland's security and wasted too much money.

the thought of having a $250 billion deficit, i think that the most deficit that bush had was for and $50 billion. -- $450 billion. we have a bigger deficit than that last year. we have deficits like that as far as the eye can see. i consistently voted no and held the line on the spending. in the last two years, we will have had a 23% increase in federal spending will got to draw the line. i'm prepared to do that. we have got to say no. i say that we do that by starting with a balanced budget amendment and then get our fiscal house in order. i think that we have learned our

lessons and the good thing is that the people arkansas and the people of america are paying attention and therefore to hold accountable. so, we have to produce. as i said, this is critical for our generation and so critical for our children and grandchildren. >> this lincoln? > the 1.3 trillion dollars - deficit that we see, we have not experienced an economic crisis like we experienced in 2008 and 2009 since the great depression for this was not brought on by a new administration. i was one of those that visited with the bush should administration and the chairman of the federal reserve controls and said that everything was ok in 2008 and then came out and said that the sky is falling.

the problem is, we have had a circumstance with an economic crisis and we have to do something about it. i hate to think about what would have happened if we had not put some of those dollars into small businesses and working families. that is what the majority -- that is where the majority of the money went. the recovery dollars serviced citizens and their drinking water. this created immediate jobs. it also created an environment where we could then grow sustainable jobs which i think is important. there is no doubt that the congressman is right. we have seen, for the first time in the history of our country, but we're fighting two wars without paying for them.

there were other things, the creation of a new homeland security agency. i am an independent voice and i have stood up to the epa and wall street and washington reform. i have been an independent voice for arkansas and i think that is most important in washington to have someone who has an independent voice that will come to common ground to solve the problem. >> mr. gray, one minute. >> what we see played out here is the two santa claus theory. one party comes to power and they spend like drunken sailors and in the next party comes to power and they say it is all on their fault. a balanced budget makes an awful good bit of sense, but until you put everything on that budget, and consider that part

of the balanced budget, you're not playing fair. to balance the budget on the backs of middle-class people, i cannot go there. >> you have some additional time, sir. >> this to santa claus theory has been playing out for some time now. if you will notice, you'll find that one party tends to start wars and one party tends to end them. if you look at a chart of expenses from the beginning of this century, you will find that when the republicans are in power, -- the democrats do a much better fiscal john the republicans do in my opinion. >> thank you. mr. drown, you have one minute

or bottle. i'd still do not see why these two should be given another chance. both voted for increasing the debt ceiling which has pushed us farther into debt and caused the deaths of to expand. the two-party -- the deficit to expand. the two-party system has run the country into the ground. what is most disturbing to me as a common person sitting back watching what was taking place was when health care became the priority when the economy was failing and people were losing their jobs. stories work. the economy should of been a priority, the four focus on health care. it took another year to address the economy of. with that being said, we need leaders in washington.

common-sense principles would get this country back on track. >> thank you, very much. our next question comes from glen morrison and goes to mr. boozman. >> the idea that the health-care system in this country was just fine until obama started messing with it is crazy. if the health care reform will work to be repealed at, as you said is your goal, law would replace it? would it just go back to the previous system that left half ns withoutarkansas insurance. >> we definitely need health reform. the major problems that we have confronting us now and confronting us before the bill came into being was controlling costs. there is absolutely -- seniors have figured out that you

cannot cut the medicare system by $500 billion, at 30% more patience, and so something has to give, and that as quality of care. the mandates that are coming down on small business people, i was in fort smith and was told that this would cost the company to he dollars a year. the system that we have does nothing to control costs through the is that you do that is that even to things left court reform and getting into the malpractice suits. -- to things like tort reform and getting into the malpractice suits. right now, you have to buy within state lines. you have to expand that so you

can buy whatever -- wherever it is the cheapest. my barber can go into the marketplace and buy insurance and get the same rate as a major corporation. those are the free market principles that we can use to reduce costs versus the other which is doing nothing about cost and we are in much worse shape. >> ms. lincoln? >> without a doubt, we have been trying desperately to figures out how we solve the issue of reforming our health care delivery system. we have the greatest doctors and nurses and research and hospitals in the world, but the logistics of our delivery system are broken and we have to fix them. we're spending twice as much more than the other industrialized nations that we compete with and we're seeing

health-care consist of 60% of our gdp. -- 16% of our gdp. the health care reform bill does allow you to buy across state lines. national insurers are able to participate in these pools and you will have a national insurance company that is selling across state lines. when i listen to people from arkansas, the latino what they wanted to see happen. -- they let me know what they wanted to see happen. i was pleased to see that a bill that i introduced in a bar part a bipartisan way, we are the only ones mandated to be in those pools.

they wanted insurance reform. we eliminated the ability for insurance companies to be able to drop you because you have become ill afford to preclude you from getting insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. people said that they did not want government reform our -- government run health care. the also said they wanted less debt. they made sure that put $132 billion towards the of a reduction. it is not a perfect bill, but it is a good start and i am willing to work hard to make it better. >> thank you. mr. gray? >> the health-care bill that was passed had some very nice elements in that for the average

person. you cannot be dropped because you get sick and and kids can be held until they are 26 third. i asked a man if you're on medicare and he asked why he did not want for his children. i told him that that is what we were talking about. having your health insurance connected to your work makes no sense whatsoever. we are the only country in the civilized world that allows for- profit health insurance to be sold. you can so cadillac policy is -- policies, but not basic health care. if we went to health care for everybody -- i sold insurance for a year. one thing i have learned is that

i do not see any reason for a health insurance company. the government becomes the insurance company. the current system, the insurance company takes about 30% off of every dollar and the doctors have to do tests to protect themselves. you spent 60% of your money before a single dollar goes to help anybody. i do not see any reason for their existence. >> mr. drown? >> the one thing i have found in debates is the reference to obamacare. i do not agree with this president or his policies, but he is the president of united states. if we are willing to be a

professional and referred to it as obamacare, then it is time to rethink who you will send to washington. we have the best health care system and the world. whenever the federal government touches anything and tries to dictate how the state will conduct business because the state knows what is best for the people of their state, that we always failed. i agree with congressman boozman that with the state mandating what will be followed in order to do business in the state of arkansas is the direction in in which we need to go. i have talked with parents of children with special needs and they have trouble getting health-care with the way the current system is in place. i am for getting rid of the health care mandate that is unconstitutional and moving to allow the states to exercise the 10th amendment right and left

them a mandate how to conduct the health-care system in their state. >> mr. drown, thank you. >> mr. boozman, one minute. >> there is already significant concern that there is going to be tremendous cost in the area of going across state lines. those of us the want to have private insurance, that most of us do have an most of us would like to keep, there is no ability to buy across state lines and reduce costs. that is a real problem. because of that, there is no competition. costs are continuing to soar. i feel like the obamacare program, and i mean no disrespect by the president, if you ask jim, this is his signature program.

the tremendous expense will rise dramatically because employees have figured out that the cheapest way to get out from underneath this is to pay the fine and push all of their people into the dorm room program. >> mr. boozman, thank you. >> senator lincoln, all the men and women that served in our armed forces, do you agree with some of the members of the joint chiefs and military brass that don't ask don't tell should be repealed? first of all, i would like to address the state line issue because it is in the bill that you would be able to purchase across the lines because the regional pools will allow

national companies to participate in those programs. i think that is an important thing to remember. we have had a recent debate in committee and i support senator lieberman in his efforts of a repeal of don't ask don't tell under the provision of the military and the pentagon, that the military would determine whether or not there was any jeopardize some of morale or treat street for troop strength -- or troop strength. i would not be supportive of making this part of that proposal to make sure that the military confirms that there will be no detriment to the troop strength and morale or the

efficiency and effectiveness of our troops. there are many brave men and women that served this country that are courageous and i am enormously grateful to them. military leaders should have that opportunity to indicate to us whether or not this is for to have any detriment to that troop strength. i don't have a problem waiting until we see what the military comes back with. the report should be due by the first of december and we're waiting to see what will come back. i support them in their decision. >> mr. gray? >> i support the repeal of don't ask don't tell. i believe that everyone deserves basic human rights. what people do in their own personal lives is no bodies business but there's -- he is nobody's business but there's.

-- is nobody's business but there'irs. as miss lincoln says, these people are brave and honorable people. they serve their nation well. to lose those things over some sort of -- it is almost like the american caliban, kind of thinking. i do not understand. taliban kinderican calib of thinking. >> mr. drown? my answer in -- >> my answer is no.

we have the strongest military on the face of the earth. to serve in the military is not a right. it is a privilege. it is not a social experiment to those -- for those who do not understand what takes place from the first day of basic training until you get into combat. you have enough on your mind when the bullets start flying to worry about what is taking place next to you or what will take place. i and sang -- i am asking what you will do, such as having separate shower facilities and separate betting facilities? the only time that i know of serving side-by-side with a homosexual is when the bullets are flying, you know you were at the end of your rope and you do not care who is standing next to

you as long as somebody is standing next to you. again, my answer is no. based on my experience as a combat veteran, i do not think it is in the interest of the not states military to repeal ask don't tell. >> mr. boozman? >> is very much opposed repealing the don't ask don't tell. i think that the current policy has worked well. we have not had significant problems with it. for those reasons and the fact that the vast majority of the people of arkansas feel like the current policy is very adequate, quite content to leave it as it is. >> mrs. lincoln? >> i have a gratitude for the

men and women who serve in the armed forces. that is why i not only lott and praise them, but i do think that it is important for us to look at this issue. my support of senator lieberman and his coming up with a compromise to repeal don't ask don't tell, it will not provide any problem in terms of troop strength and routed i think the opportunity to make sure that all of the needs of the military are met. whether it is in languages or other areas. i think there is opportunity there and i think -- i will look for the report from the

military. >> in cutting the federal budget, the choice has to be made. are you for to cut it or are you not going to cut it? if you do not cut it, you work or to spend money in arkansas. will you be getting money for an arkansas or will you be cutting the budget while all the delegations get money for their states? which comes first with you? >> i am not really sure i understand the question. would he repeated? -- would you repeat it? >> senator lincoln is very good at that. congressman boozman is talking about cutting the federal budget by cutting spending. he has held himself out as the candor that would do less than that than senator lincoln. which will come first with you?

we'll try to get the money for arkansas or will you cut the federal budget? >> i think that the zero -- >> i am going to ask the timekeeper to reset the time. go ahead. >> the right place to attain dollars is in the federal budget. it is like the f 35 fighter program that i talked about before. there are 865 military bases around the world. there are so many places we can cut without doing any damage at all to our national standing for our national security. if you're trying to maintain a global economic and military empire, you have to recognize that empires do not end well. i am saying that this would be an opportunity to give back to

that and at the same time, not take money away from arkansas that arkansas needs 30 >> mr. drown? >> i am for cutting the budget. someone has to lead the way, why not arkansas politics as usual has killed this and it will continue to send us downhill. this definitely will not be the country that you and i grew up in. i am for cutting the budget and leading the way. i am for politics as usual being put to the side. >> mr. boozman? >> i am very much in favor of cutting spending. if we do not cut it, it is as simple as any thing. we are going to wind up like greece.

i have had countless tell homey in reits. i have never had somebody then on to me and asked me what i do not spend more money. republicans said that they would replace your marks on a moratorium. . .

>> i understand how important spending for infrastructure is, but along with that, we got to get control of the garbage that is coming out of washington. we got to get a handle on it. the only way to do that is look, define what an earmark is and then make some new rules with transparency so the american public can see what we're doing. >> ms. lincoln. >> thank you, bill, i appreciate the question. you know, there are rules on transparency. we do need to put our name besides the request that we make in the appropriations committee and we have to say what it's for. i don't have any apologize for the communities who come to me and ask for assistance to try to find the resources that they need, whether it's for water project or turbine. john is exactly right. those are good programs. the fact is you have to cut the

budget. i have supported amendments that cut the budget, but the fact that he didn't ask for any state-specific projects in that appropriations bill this year means that the third district got zero when the others got some of those projects. this is an opportunity for us as a small rural state to be able to equalize what we're getting back in those tax dollars. it's one of the reasons as a delegation we fight hard. the congressman had i believe it was $9 billion on his website last year that he requested. the problem was he debate vote for them. these are in the boim. they're budgeted items and appropriated dollars. if you want to cut back, you cut back the budget, not just simply asking for your state. it's going to other states. michigan, arizona, somewhere else. this is one way we have to equalize the needs that we have. it's the reason we're 14th out of 50 states in terms of the amount of tax dollars that we bring back from what we send

in. it's because it's a delegation, we work hard to get those dollars into the state for rural water projects, highway projects and others that we don't have enough of the formula numbers to be able to complete or to be able to get done. i think it's important to note the difference between just simply not asking for something or actually cutting the budget so that you can actually cut spending. i have supported cutting spending, but when there is money on the table, you better believe i'm going ask for it for arkansas. it's going to get spent anyway. we need to get the benefit of those dollars. >> mr. gray. >> well, if you want to cut the budget, if engineers we have a thing which is a statistical breakdown that says 20% of the items usually account for 80% of your expenses. so if you list the items that are on the national agenda no order of how much each costs, 20% of them spend about 80% of

the money. the first place to look, if you want to save money on anover all national budget is an analysis of the entire system and start attacking those things with the real leakage of money. there was a guy who said you go to the banks because that's where the money is. well, you go to the federal government because that is where the money is. arkansas is fine for tapping. that's not where the money is. the money is in washington. >> the next question goes first to mr. drown. >> the supreme court's recent decision in the citizens united case that corporate funding of political messages to influence voters cannot be limited is already changing the political landscape. do you agree with the court's decision and do you think that voters should have the right to know exactly who is paying for the expensive political messages that they see and hear? >> i do not agree with the decision. the runoff and primary that

senator lincoln participated in with the lieutenant govern showed roughly $12.5 million spent by the unions across this country. what is happening by allowing the corporations to do this, we are undermining the system in which arkansans are able to effectively and fairly choose whom they want to send to washington, d.c. i do not believe in the direction that the supreme court has done with this. i think they have done a huge disservice to the people of this nation and to the people of arkansas. >> mr. drown, thank you. mr. boozman. >> i agree with the ruling. i think people should have the ability to express themselves in that way and contribute however they feel fit. i very much disagree with some of the legislation that has tried to be implemented lately by president obama and speaker pelosi, mr. reid. we have a situation where you clamp down on everybody, the

exception being to a large extent the unions and people like that. so certainly even they, if they were going to come out with a program that, you know, created more transparency or whatever that it needs to be across the board and the legislation that they propose certainly doesn't do that. >> do you think it should be that the voters should know who is paying for the ad? >> i think that the current interpretation by the federal election commission is a correct one. >> ms. lincoln. >> i think absolutely voters should know who is paying for and who is providing that information to them. i love our state and that's the reason i'm running for this office. i have tremendous respect for our nation and our government for all of its faults, it's the greatest government on the face of this earth. i think it can be better. that's what i work hard every day to do. i think one of the biggest issues among the american people right now in their lack of faith in our government is because of a lack of

transparency. i have worked diligently in the united states senate during the health care debate when the republicans oned to my unanimous consent to require everybody to post their amendments to the health care bill on the web so people could see them, i did it on my own website to ensure that people across this country could see what was being debated and what was being voted on. transparency should be the rule, not the exception. one of the problems that we have, unfortunately, in campaigns and as trevor mentioned, the plea -- plethora of ads and mailers that came out during the primary. people are flooded with this information, particularly now more so than ever before, not knowing where it's coming from or who is responsible for it. transparency is a critical part of gaining the american people's trust in the government and be able to see and know what it is we do in washington, more importantly, what we're doing and what is happening in these campaigns.

so i believe transparency is a critical part of what we have to have. i think it should happen in campaigns as well. we have the most regulated contributions of anybody in a campaign. candidates have to report everything they get, every dollar they get from a person has to be reported as to who that person or group is. they have to have all of their reporting in. we have the most transparent of all in terms of those who give to us and what we say being attributed to us. i think others should as well. >> mr. gray. >> ok, i'm here because i was sued for discriminating against a corporation. i caught the attention of the green party in the process. my stance at the time was, fine, bring it on, because corporations are legal entities. they are not people. to say that wal-mart, to mention a name, is the same under the law as my mother who is 90 years old and can hardly

hear is ridiculous. to say that they have the same equal rights of speech, i think they have a bit more money than she does. now trevor was talking about unions contributing in the thing. unions contributed, sure, in the election, but the unions putting all their money together is mere pocket change compared to the colt brothers. i think the court ruling was absolutely absurd. i think it's a huge step towards george h.w. bush's new world order of corporate control of anything. because of that ruling, the window of opportunity where a citizen's vote will count is closing rapidly. soon it will not matter what the average citizen thinks because the propaganda on the television will be bought and shaped. their opinions will be bought and shaped so that this country will effectively be done for.

this law must be overturned if this nation wants to survive. >> thank you, mr. drown. >> based on this ruling, one of the recurring conversations i have around the state of arkansas, people are starting to revisit repealing the 17th amendment. i am for transparency, but by repealing the 17th amendment and allowing our state legislature to once again appoint that are going to washington, d.c., we have term limits in our state among the state lars. it would not be a recurring cycle with sending the same people to washington, d.c. that is is why based on our candidates they are very troubled with the ruling and they are looking to other means to bring the control back to themselves here in the state of arkansas. >> mr. drown, thank you very much. we have reached the point in our broadcast tonight in the

debate for closing statements and we begin with mr. gray. >> well, as i say, i'm here because i was asked to be here, but this is the first opportunity -- i have been fighting nafta free trade and w.p.o. for over three years, writing and talking. i am worried about the future for my children, my grandchildren. they inherited a world that is a disaster compared to the world that i faced when i came out of college. i was an average engineer. i had seven jobs on the table. i took one of them. i bought a house, cars, put my wife through graduate school, put my children through private schools, took a vacation every year and saved money. an average graduate cannot do that today. school was essentially free back then. you could on a part-time job put yourself through school. kids have cards stacked so against them, it makes your heart bleed. i'm saying that has got to be

reversed. we got to move back to thomas jefferson's original concept like at the university of virginia. he was proud of the fact that he provided a free education through college to anybody willing to put out the work. that is the best investment in the future of this country that can be made and we have got to get back to that. so i am saying instead of focuses on details of these trade agreements and all that sort of thing, i mean, look, we ship out right now scrap steel and cotton are two of our major exports. cotton was the major export during the revolutionary war. for heaven's sake, we have to do better than that. we had a revolutionary war because they wanted to make our shirts for us and they wanted us to supply the cotton. china has taken their place. that's not acceptable to me, thank you. >> 34r gray, thank you.

mr. drown. >> we have to ask ourselves one question, how did we get to this point as a nation and a state? as i travel around the state, i hear three occurring concerns -- the economy, jobs, and nobody is listening. the day i take office, the majority of the staff positions are coming back to arkansas. arkansans working for arkansans seven seven 1/2 county will have jobs that have the locality community leaders and have a direct line to the senate. if we aren't able to fix it at home first, how are we going to fix it on the national level. i will will have one stationary office in the middle of the state. it will have a computer-based system. when a bill comes up for a vote, unless it's illegal, immoral or unconstitutional which is where i draw the line, it's not up for discussion, i will put the bullet points up and tell you why i agree or disagree with it and welcome

your feedback. i will start off with one mobile office. if budget depends, we'll have satellite video conferencing equipment that will put me face-to-face with the community in arkansas at least one day a week in a town hall environment. it will keep this, this access will keep me grounded and in touch with the pulse of arkansas and will once again allow the people to govern from the bottom up instead of the top down. arkansas has a chance to lead and you have one choice. you either stand up and step forward or sit down and take a back seat and watch this country continue down the path that has traveled down for the last few decades. as the independent candidate for u.s. senate, i ask you for your vote on november 2. i ask that you vote trevor drown, u.s. senate, and help me again leading this country back to the constitution and the republic the way the founding fathers had meant it to be,

thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. boozman. >> thank you, steve. i can remember back several years ago seeing a patient in the clinic. this gentleman had a significant heart attack. he came in and he was concerned that his vision had been affected with his circulation or whatever because it changed a little bit. we did the test and his vision was fine. we just needed to strengthen his glasses a little bit. i got to looking at him, though, he lost 50 pounds. his block work was excellent. he was taking his medicine. he was getting the exercise that he needed and as a result, he was doing quite well and on the road back to being healthier than ever. i pat him on the knee as we got done, i said, look, this is good that this has happened to you, you're back on track and live longer than ever. i really believe that the country is in that situation right now. we have had a significant heart attack in the sense. we got to decide which way are we going? are we going the obama route of

the tax and spend and borrow mentality, trying to solve all of our problems by growing government, or are we going to get back to the free market principals that made our country great? not the stimulus approach, not the bailout approach of everything imaginable, but getting back to creating real jobs by cutting taxes on small business and business in general, giving them the tools that they need to invest in their businesses. the answer to our problems is not big government. the answer to our problems are the people of america. now, i voted against those things and will continue to do that. senator lincoln is very proud of being the deciding vote on obama care. i want to be the deciding vote to repeal it. so i ask the people of arkansas to join with me. again, we got to get things back on the right track and if you'll help me, i would appreciate your vote and i would appreciate your support.

thank you very much. >> mr. boozman, thank you, ms. lincoln. >> thank you, thanks to you, steve, and the panel, we appreciate all of your work here today. we want to thank our hosts today. you know, i still believe that the biggest issue in this campaign is jobs and the economy. i think if we put off 100,000 arkansans that are out of work back to work, if we do that as well as people all across this country, we're going to see our economy grow. i think there is great opportunity with that. i don't think government is going to produce those jobs. i think industry will. we got to provide them an environment from government that creates certainty in terms of the tax code and regulations and other things that they need to be aware of. we need to open up trade, making sure that exports are increased. we also need to look at tax policy. i have been a tremendous supporter of lowering the tax burden of small businesses and making sure that they have the ability to reinvest in themselves. i also have supported the incentive to keep jobs in this

country and taken away the incentives for companies that are sending their jobs away overseas. i think that is quite important. this election is really about choices. it's about huge choices. and it's about differences and there are differences that matter. when we talk about social security and medicare, i have worked hard to make sure that we preserve social security and medicare. we have 500,000 arkansans that depend on medicare and over 600,000 arkansans that depend on social security. it's an enormous part of our economy and we should make sure we're preserving it and not privatizing it which is what the congressman would do. putting a 23% sales tax on everything you buy is a bad idea. it's also unbelievable harmful to our seniors and our retirees. this is about having an independent voice in washington, and i have worked hard as i have been in washington to be that independent voice, but i have also stood up for my priorities. my priorities have always been

and always will be my faith, my family, and my loyalty to the people of arkansas and i will work hard to maintain that. i certainly want to ask for your vote on november 2. thank you. >> ms. lincoln, thank you. and that concludes this chapter in the debates of 2010. we are again thank our candidates for the united states senate and our panel of journalists and we invite you to stay tuned. we'll be back in just a moment with the candidates for congress in the fourth district. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> c-span's local content vehicles are traveling the country as we look at some of the most contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. >> i'm a truck driver, gospel preaching, family loving country boy from tennessee. if you elect me, i'll be your

job creating, voice cutter. >> we need good pollmakers in washington that are going to cut taxes and let the free factor to go like it's supposed to and put our economy to get those guys going. that's how we're going to get out of our recession, folks. that's what i'm going to do. i want less government and less bureaucracy. >> roy herron served for about 20 years in tennessee general assembly, about eight as a representative from his district and then about 12 as a senator. stephen fincher is a farmer who is part of an agribusiness in west tennessee. he has no political experience, no office holding experience and that is one of the big areas of his campaign. >> it's one of the race that has been named as the race that will decide congress, i think it's on the dirty dozen that will possibly flip republican. there is a lot of excitement.

there is a lot of energy. there is a lot of back and forth between the two campaigns particularly coming from roy herron's campaign, the democratic candidate has raised quite a few questions about stephen fincher about his past, about financial disclosure, that type of thing. >> i'm roy herron and i approved this message. >> people are hunting for stephen fincher. an independent watch dog says stephen fincher may be guilty of a penalty. he is hiding hundreds of thousands in debt. won't release his tax returns or explan a mysterious loan. fincher refuses to didn't or ask questions about financial transactions. stephen fincher, feloniously, hiding from the truth, no wonder he is running away. >> the issues have been ones surrounding political philosophy and a matter of president obama and his agenda such as health care legislation particularly and also fincher

has taken the position that as a farmer that he is not a lifelong office holder and politician, doesn't pretend to be and doesn't want to be. >> seven generations of our family have farms, lived, and worked here. faith, family, and freedom are our values. i'm running for congress to fight for those values. what my opponents are saying about me isn't true, but this is, their false attacks only help obama and pelosi. it's time to rise above politics and do what is right. i'm stephen fincher and i approved this message because my roots run deep in tennessee, not politics. >> the district is from middle tennessee on the east ending in the southern more rural part of montgomery county where we are now, all the way across the northern tier of west tennessee to the tennessee/arkansas border. >> this is a fairly

conservative area in west tennessee. it is traditionally democratic, but it's still fairly conservative. on the issues, they're not that far apart. >> the most fundamental difference between us perhaps might be that he has already attacked his primary opponent for saying that they would work across the aisle. everything i have done in the general assembly has been helping crime victims, helping children get an education, balance the budget. everything i have helped the people in my district has been an accomplishment with members of the other party. >> this is not about partisan politics. this is about you guys. roy is hitting me on -- i said that i'm not going to work with obama and pelosi. well, folks, i'm not going to work with pelosi. [applause] >> but i'm going to work for you guys. i will work with conservatives

on both sides, but nancy pelosi doesn't represent that. >> the deciding factor in this election will be the degree to which people don't like the president. i think he is going to be standing out as perhaps the albatross around herron's neck and the aid to stephen fincher. the issues that have come up are not that significant. both talk about wanting to cut spending and balancing the budget and being more responsible, fighting crime. so in that sense, there is not a huge gap in the differences of their positions. herron has obama on his side. fincher has a more conservative constituency and a more conservative privatization sort of message that he is trying to sell for better or for worse,

that settles with a lot of folks in west tennessee. >> c-span's local content vehicles are traveling the cub as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to this election season, visit our website, c-span.org/lcv. >> c-span's coverage of the 2010 elections continues tonight. next we'll hear from a group working to elect republicans this november, then president obama campaigns for the senate candidate in delaware. after that, a debate in the vermont governor's race and later, the candidates in the missouri senate race. tomorrow on "washington journal," fiscal times senior correspondent discusses the current state of the economy and the unemployment rate. john taylor, president and

c.e.o. of the national community reinvestment coalition talks about recent developments about mortgage foreclosure irregularities among banks and lenders and mark snyder details a report by his group which looked at the cost of the american taxpayer of students who drop out of college. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. all this weekend, live coverage from the texas book festival on book tv with eugene robinson on the splintering of black america, eden betancourt on her six years of captivity in the colombian jungle. throughout the weekend, panels on medical mysteries, capital punishment and infamous fugitives. get the entire schedule on booktv.org. >> now the president and c.e.o. of american crossroads talks

about his group's efforts to elect republicans this november. from "washington journal," this is 40 minutes. c-span.org/lcv. washington journal continues. >> you've been hearing a lot about american cross roads. first on the screen is president of this group. formed this year is citizens united. headline in u.s.a. today. campaign spending by groups gone wild. they are suggesting that the tally right now at 220 million is roughly twice the $111 million similar groups spent previously. what does this mean to the public? >> there's a lot of people concerned about the direction of the country very much in line

with when we saw in the direction of president bush spending almost equal amounts this has been going on since the legislation passed. just now, republican groups are figuring out how to do it. >> for you, speech activity means contritions. jo it means to facilitate our message explain the concept.

the sense had aense going toward a liberal sense. we thought there might be a chance to get some real change in washington. we'd seen for many years, the success and other organizations that are harnessed outside energy the response has been

unbelievable. >> american cross roads is an orange formed purely for a political purposes. cross roads gps is primarily involved in issue advocacy. there will be more of that we'll see next year. we do some of that under cross roads gps. >> what are the disclosures for those groups now. those expenditures every single

month. you can go to their website and see everything american cross roads does. 501 c 4 legislation. we disclose everything to the internal revenue service. jo the revenue service could take action on it. that's been the law that prodemocrat groups used prarily and on the independent organizations as well. that's the distinction for these two groups. host: notifying who is getting to the groups heavily involved. the congressman will have you respond, please. >> this is a matter of

republicans beating you at the game when it comes to money? >> no, it does knots. some of these groups, american cross roads are spending a lot of money hear the rule these chose to operate under. we are talking massive amounts of secret money. everybody should tell the voters who is spending these monies. that is the issue. >> there is a lot of out reach going on he kws organized

labor can discuss. it's true they do make se decision closures in the labor department. the level of disclosure that organized labor does is by no means the organization it's really a red herring. if you go outside of the be beltway, most americans will talk before the fact that we have a $13 million debt. frankly, a lot we hear from fresh the facts there are outside groups like us holding

the president. prolonging our recession. to spend a lot of time talking about the campaign finance law completely misses the boat. host: $65 million you have pledged to spend. $9.6%. that's true. that's our goal. when we started out, we hoped to raise of 0. that's more than 18 million. even when cross roads gps or cross roads expresses something about a candidate, awful that is

disclosed. we disclose everyone in that orangization. . . flu

host: mr. law was the manager of mitch mcconnell's first reelection in 1990. he was executive director of the republican senatorial committee for the 1998 and 2000 cycles served in the george w. bush administration as deputy secretary of the labor department, and before coming to american crossroads he was the chief legal officer and general concert of -- general counsel of the u.s. chamber of commerce. there is a column about the chamber anduggested after the election that there is an opportunity for the chamber and the white house to make up. do you see that? guest: i think it is awfully important for the chamber and the white house to do it. there are the leading voice of

business in the country, and they represent local chambers of commerce all across the country, local small businesses that will be the engine of the economic recovery that we desperately need. i think it hurts the white house, i think it has hurt and will continue to hurt the white house to be viewed in a feud with the small business voices that are really the representation of future growth across this country. the concern that the chamber had is that the white house took it -- took a take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward the business community toward what they wanted to do on health care. frankly, the congress took a take-it-or-leave-it attitude with the entire country. they were not interested in changes to health care, and that engendered very bad feelings. again, i think the whi house, strangely, has made some significant tactical mistakes,

in trying to demonize groups that have a tremendous amount of respect and affection in th country, such as the u.s. chamber of commerce, which if you take public opinion polls, has a higher approval numb than the president does right now. they are trying to create a good relationship and look toward building the jobs that so many people are concerned about, striking 9% unemployment in this country. host: how many senate races are you invved in? guest: about nin or 10, shifting every day depending on the circumstances. host: party i the headlines frequently? guest: there all along the lines of competitive states like missouri, kentucky. pennsylvania we feel reasonably good about, but that is again one of the ones we are watching very carefully. washington state, wisconsin, florida -- again, another state we have been active in that is

now looking a little bit better. and westirginia, which has recently emerged on the scene as a significant potential pickup for republicans. a few more that i am leaving out. host: how about colorado? i see a lot of money in reports going to that. guest: certainly colorado. host: what about house races? guest: we announced this week that we will be supporting other groups that the house served. the democratic party committees are poised to outspen republicans by about two-one. it is important to note that because what democrats have done very skillfully over the st couple of yrs is shaken the money tree in washington. they have worked case treat heart, and their committees have gotten -- they have worked k street hard, and there

committees have got more mpaign to retributions and the republican campaign committees have god -- have done more campaign contributions than the republican campaign committees have gotten. host: are you spending money to support the tea party? guest: we are probably the largest outside spending on the republican side in favor of sharron angle, wis probably an essential tea party candidate -- who is probably an essential key party candidate. on the house side as well, some of the races that we're taking a look at also have tea party candidates engaged. host: moving to policy, and it looks like it has already been moved out of the studio, but i showed the front-page cover of the "bloomberg business week." "why business does not trust the tea party." more explanation in the internal headline, which sugges tt the tea party small government

slogans may be appealing, but it could throw the country into chaos. guest: i do think that what a lot of tea party candidates bring to the table, which is valuable, is a healthy concern about the size of government, the breadth of government, and the amount of government spending. they bring a healthy reminder that what this country's values were founded on this self- reliance, limited gernment, and unfortunately the- washingt seems to have forgotten that, and that is much the fault of republicans as it is democrats. more government spending and regulation is always the answer to everything, and they will not -- even if the republicans have

a great day in november -- and i certainly hope they do -- we will not have an unfettered power here in washington. we will still have a veto pen at the other brand of pennsylvania avenue, and the democrats will still have significant pow. they will bring an important voice to a debate that needs to be had about the right role of government, and that is a positive thing. host: let's get some viewers in here. white plains, new york, tony, democrats line. caller: good mning, mr. law. isn't american democracy great, where you can swift-vote arica and get whatever you want? your obsession with violence -- on the iraqis,oney-bomb the u.s. -- where does it end? it appears to be that conservatism is mostly about incomes, not outcomes. i think there really should be

an investigation into alito and his ties with ginsberg and citizens united. guest: there are a lot of issues presented there, and i appreciate the passion. i will go right into the question in a second, but i think one of the things that is significant about this election cycle -- it has been true in 2008 and 2006 -- there has been a tremendous amount of passion and energy on both sides. as a republican, i was more on the receiving end of it in 2006 and 2008, but all of the voter turnout and people getting involved, and all of what we are seeing on our side, i think are very salutary for democracy. it is a sign that our democracy is alive and well. with respect to specifically our organization, i cannot comment on a different supreme court justices. i do not know them well enough. we take the law very seriously.

we comply with it. we comply with it and it is a very important part of what we are about. even wh advertising, we try to run very clever and memorable ads. everything we do is documented and we want to tell the truth abouwhere candidates stand and hold them accountable. host: on compliance, some democrats have been suggesting the possibility of foreign donors. what are the rules? guest: you cannot use foreign money to influence federal election. the president, for reasons that defy comprehension, decided to invest t authority of the president of the united states in making a charge that his since now been knocked down by he new york times," "the los angeles times," the associated press, and cbs news. i think it was a very embarrassing moment for the

president. his staff seems to think it is a big winner for them to do it, but he is wrong. he is wrong certainly about us, and he is wrong about the u.s. chamber of commerce. it is important that he decided to spend polital capital making a false attack against a political opponent. host: so if a foreign corporation or other foreign entity offers you money, you can accept it, you jt cannot supply it to campaigns? it can be part of your organization, but you cannot spend it on -- guest: a purely political organization like american crossroads cannot. we would just say no. their trade associations that are international in scope in the modern economy, and you have to be national in scope. the chamber of commerce is relatively small compared to the rest of the organization, and not only is it -- not only is

there no evidence, but i'm confident that the chamber of commerce does not use anything for its international program other than what is there for its initial program. host: this is colle, republican line, from virginia. guest: i would love to know how the obama administration and president obama specifically can criticize the democratic -- excuse me -- criticize republican groups for the amoun of fund raising when his entire campaign was financed by democratic groups and foreign entity spirit is so hypocritical to me. guest: there were allegations of foreign money going directly into the obama campaign. not a huge amount, but there were se it ended up going nowhere. i do not know if there was anything to that or not. to us, theig issue of selective outrage, and maybe the harsher word is a "hypocrisy." the fact you have republican

groups doing exactly the same thing, taking a page out of the democrats playbook 24 hours ago, and the democrats are concerned about that, and i understand why. they are not the beneficiaries of it the way they were in 2006 and 2008. host: the next caller is from iowa. sika yes, good morning, mr. law. caller: yes, good morning, mr. law. they wanted to put a content all in that would help the contents of buy america only. we have not heard anything about that. it seems that the labor unis

and clinton have nixed that, and that is not a good deal because that would be able to load small-business a lot of money and small business could then employ people. guest: well, i guess my feeling about all that is i would hope that we would not just the satisfied with 10%. my desire and the desire i think of most americans is that we would be so competitive, have such great products and services, that it ought to be 100%. but i do not think you get there by at opposing an arbitrary government limit. the larger think people are concerned about, we have spent a lot of time talking about politics and where money comes from and that sort of thing, and obviously those are not insignificant ises, but the most people awake at night are where we are going as a country.

in washington, d.c., things are going well. in the economy -- our economy is fairly prosperous, thanks in part to the fact that the government continues to grow. but if you go to the midwest and other places across the country, people are really hurting. we have 15 million americans unemployed. the debt has reached $13 trillion, and a lot of people are wondering -- those are the kinds of issues that we are concernedbout that we talked about, and frankly the president would do well if he started talking about those things because we have got to start finding solutions. hopefully after november there will be a consensus to get our country back on the right track. host: and bob has been made in recent weeks of the enthusiasm gap -- a lot has been made in recent weeks of the enthusiasm gap between both parties. this is from "the philadelphia inquirer." the joint center for political and economic studies. local black voters are

strategically located to affect 20 house races, he said. another quote from page gardn, "at analyst who tracks the mel ehner -- -- female voters -- pointing out that in the last midterm 15 tightly contested house races were decided by 2000 votes. guest: one of our -- it is complex, there is a lot of machinery that goes to reach them even if you are not a ground roots organization. we are not that yet. that is something we would like to become. but to me, turning your vote out is one of the great patriotic things you can possibly do, so early on we made an investment

up front that we were going to spend at least $10 million, probably a little bit more than that now, on a program called the movers program. it is designed to find the folks to care abouthe issues that we talk about and encourage them to vote. i assume the democrats are doing that, i know that we are doing that in pennsylvania and ohio. good for them, good for them. more people turn outnd vote, the more people will get energized and focused on the issues. that is good for democracy. obviously it is more of our vote get o and vote, that makes our candidates win, but in the and that's what they should be about. host: the first lady, as she makes her to work with michael bennett and supporting his candidacy -- which are handicapping of the electorate, how valuable is having the first lady and the president on the road right now? guest: i think it can be. in a non-presidential year, that

is really the critical issue. voter turnout tends to decline in non-presidential years, so being able to activate and bilize your base is an important thing. people who like him a lot, that is an important thing. the first lady is very well liked, more than her husband right now, and it is good for her to be out there. they are needing to do as much as they can to get their vote stimulated. host: next to maryland, bonnie, republican mike. caller: my comment is that when the shoe is on the other foot, the democrats are raising big bucks they brag about, but now that the republicans are doing it, they are squealing like little pigs. from day one, obama has acted like the campaign manager for the democrats. is this not a double standard? he spends more time on the road campaigning than he actually does in the white house. hello? we are paying for him to go and

campaign. why does this money not come out of the campaign fund to pay f him to do this? at is my question. guest: whenever a president does political activity, a certain amount of that has to be paid for by the democratic national committee or other political sources. it is not completely underwritten by the government, but you're exactly right, this president has been very politically active. he has been one of the most political presidents we have seen in a long time. this white house staff spends more time on politics than anything we have seen in quite some time. so there are eight very political white house. their decision -- i do believe they play by the same rules in returning to the allocation of spending this past presidents have, but you're exactly right, he is very focused on politics. you are also right that when the shoe was on the other foot, they were happy to have for under $50

million spent on them to get elected. now they do not like it -- they were happy to have >> it's simple. they know i'll stop politics3ahi

approve this message because i'm nobody's senator but yours. host: tracking from october 14 suggests that $3.3 million has been spent by independent outside groups, in that campaign against senator bennet is that all of your money, $3.3 million? guest: no, we have been active there, the senate committees have been active there. host: talk about the themes that we have heard in the campaign. guest: very interesting what plays f in the band -- in the -- the adnnett ad that we just play it originated

with a "new york times" expos e. we are the group that comes into the fray to talk about that issue. it is not sthat michael bennett made a mistake and put the school board into a risky deal. the key issue is thate took money from the wall street firm that processed that transaction and ended up working out very poorly for denver taxpayers per that is the kind of thing thai think has gotten voters very upset about. the ad that you played for michael bennet, he says i'm not about politics as usual, i am not for sale -- people make mistakes, and everybody understand that. there were a lot of mistakes made in the financial crisis that we experienced in 2008, but is that kind of behavior that suggests that michael bennett is not a departure from the culture of washington. in fact, over time he has become

part of it. host: we are talking with steven , the president and ceo of american crossroads. our next caller. caller: you all talk on the education level of white working class people who call themselves republicans. how about the international companies oversee that -- overseas that you're sending jobs abroad? you have got to have somebody making the product over there. the working class republicans out there, just keep boating republican, and your jobs will go over there. go over there.