children and grandchildren? >> that's talk about who's money it is. it's our money. when he said we're squandering that money. it will create the confidence businesses need to go forward. as i said before. they are holding back because they can only see a climate of taxation and regulation. :

squandered with two wars, taxes that were not paid for, and now 11 trillion dollars debt. we have to meet the demands of this country and pay it down. we need to reestablish the paper. >> we're going to go to closing statements right now. senator reid, you have 45 seconds. >> i have to find my little notes here.

lots of paper. thank you very much for what you have done here. my opponent favors big banks. , insurance companies, i have a different philosophy. everything that we talked about here tonight, renewable energy jobs, she mocks them. she says they are designer jobs. i will continue to fight for what is best for the american people. >> people often ask me why i smile so much, i am an optimist. like ronald reagan, i believe in

american exceptional as and. we need to cut back on the spending and take back the economy by repealing policies like obamacare. we have the right contract with america. lower taxes, stop the spending. we have the right angle for the u.s. senate. i am sharon angle and i ask you for your vote. >> thank-you to both of you and the nevada broadcasters, thank you for being part of this event. do not forget to vote. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> midterm elections on november 2. c-span is showing you debates from key races around the country. next we will hear from the candidates running for governor of california. later, the missouri senate. >> c-span coverage of 2010 elections continues today with a debate between jack conway and ran all in kentucky, live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, patty murray faces gino rossi in the washington debate here on c- span. >> "q&a" tonight, justice stephen briar. >> sometimes it is hard to avoid your basic values, how you see

the country and the relationship between law and the average person in this country. what you think is about. those basic, fundamental, and legal battles are a part of view and they will sometimes approach where the question is open. >> steven briar and his new book, tonight on c-span. >> now, the third and final debate between meg whitman and jerry brown, running for governor of california. moderated by nbc news' tom brokaw. this is about one hour.

>> good evening. from dominican university in california. welcome to the third and final debate of 2010, a crucial time for the nation. showing daunting issues on the economy, jobs, pension, immigration, and health care. tonight we will get answers to those questions and more. the democratic candidate, jerry brown. the republican contender, meg whitman. let's review the rules of engagement. each candidate will have 90 seconds for each question. rebuttals and follow ups will be allowed at my discretion. there's a great deal of ground

to cover, of course. a coin toss was held to determine who gets the first question. at the conclusion of the hour, we will get the last question. it seems to be lost in american politics, 50 years ago this january, john f. kennedy famously said to ask not what you what -- what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. bottom can -- modern campaigns spend most of their times talking about what you can do for them. speaking to the voters of california, what can you do at

this crucial time? >> thank-you to the university and to you, tom, sorry about your ankle. i am delighted to be here tonight. by bill get started telling you why i came to california. my husband wanted to be a doctor. i wanted to be in business and raise our family here because everything was possible in california. i was very lucky, running one of the great internet success stories, living the california dream. today what i see is the california dream as broken and not everyone has the chance to be successful doing what they love. that is why i am running for governor.

people will have to make some tough tradeoffs. we've continued to spend more money than we have. everyone will have to make a sacrifice to get back on track. we have an incredible opportunity, this is a great state with tremendous people. we are going to have to pull together. i believe that what we can do together, none of us can do alone. >> mr. brown? >> i do thank the sponsors of this debate and dominican university for allowing us to come into your homes. john f. kennedy did ask americans not what you could do for yourself, but what you do for your country.

we have to make tough decisions, living within our means. we cannot scapegoat government employees, immigrants, or neighbors down the streets. we have to rise above the poisonous partisanship, our own identities, ethnic, gender, partisan, religious. we really have to think as californians for the first time. members of these other categories second. we are a great state with tremendous potential. while the people on the east coast declare this to be some kind of failed state, it is not. last year the wealth created by the people and businesses of this state before the $1.80 trillion, more than most of the countries in the world. this is a wealthy, fouled -- fabulous place with a great

environment. i have lived here for my entire life. i think that i can fix it, with the know-how and experience, which is exactly what i want to do if given the chance. >> this year in a poll 40% of voters said you could affect the state budget by 20% without changing the services they got used to. to make that kind of a cut in the state budget he would have to give up prison, transportation, and welfare. have the voters of california become utterly unrealistic about the realities of the budget situation after year after year of crawling to the finish line? >> i think they have the right instincts. they know that government is not run efficiently and effectively. the first thing that we must do to get this budget back on track is putting californians back to work. for families, the solution is a

job. that is the solution for the budget. i have identified $15 billion worth of savings but i think, actually, if we achieve that, it will make california a stronger, not weaker. we need to shrink the size of government, fewer people working in the government, using technology to do more with less. then we have to make tough reforms. the first is the public employee pension system. we have a pension system that the taxpayers cannot afford any more. a $100 million unfunded liability, meaning that taxpayers of california 0 more than they can afford to pay. welfare, we have become the welfare state. 12% of the population lives here and we have 32% of the welfare cases. we have the longest time on welfare. not the right thing for our

budget for our communities. lastly, we have to run the government more efficient -- efficiently and effectively. the bay bridge is a perfect example. seismic repairs were supposed to cost $1 billion, this cost $4 billion. overbudget, simply not acceptable. what happened in sacramento was the party is simply blamed each other. >> have the voters in california become unrealistic based on the polling? >> look, we are all unrealistic when it comes to pain and sacrifice. we do not like to face the tough choices. a long time ago, i think government was facing limits and people did not like it. it was denied, but it was true. we have limits and they must be recognized. we have the choice to choose one thing over another. with the complexity of this government, the budget process must start not in january, then

going along until june and october, i would like to start this process in november. i want to do it in sacramento, with all 120 legislators. i want to go to the southern valley and san diego. i want the people of the state to reflect on what it is their state government is doing. how much do they really want? what does it cost? will they pay for it? we are suffering from a gap, caused not just by over-spending in sacramento, but also because of the wall street meltdown, the washington inability to regulate the banks and scam artists. we have received many the judgments on that fact. i think we can return power to the local level, where the people can judge more quickly. $18 billion in fraud and abuse, i do not believe it is that

high. those of the top should cut first period lead by example, which i will do as governor. >> ms. whitman, let me raise what has become a holy grail in this state, proposition 13. i was here when it with the limits on property taxes. many people see it as a boulder in the road to reform. others do see it as a sacred part of the tax code. can you go forward and achieve the goals you have outlined without reforming, in some fashion, proposition 13? which has been in effect in this state for almost four years? >> proposition 13 is absolutely essential to the future of california and i want to defend it. what it does is keep a lid on property taxes. i was in diamond bar not long ago, in the home of an older woman.

she was able to stay in her home, even after her husband died, because her property taxes were low. if they have escalated without proposition 13 they would have been $6,000 more each year. i am running to defend proposition 13. the only sustainable way to increase tax revenue is create more jobs. the more jobs that there are, the more companies and individuals are paying taxes. the only way we will do that is by reducing taxes, degreasing and streamlining regulation, which is strangling businesses of all sizes. and we must compete for jobs. it is not ok at many big companies are leaving california for neighboring states. for example, the headquarters of a health care service company in los angeles announced they are moving to denver, colorado.

the reason is because it is simpler and easier to do business in neighboring states. we must compete for those jobs by being competitive, being a help to small and big business, as opposed to putting a stop sign in their way showing that doing business in california will simply be harder. >> is it sacrosanct even for commercial properties? >> there are no sacred cows over the long term. but i do support the move with -- implementation. howard jarvis, the author of proposition 13, voted for me and did a campaign commercial. they made it work because they build up a $5 million surplus that did not exist prior to that. coming out of the recession, we held it down. the actual business side of the

role for homeowners contributed the same in taxes with success values growing. we have got to find ways to live within our means, making tough decisions, returning the authority to the local level. because the state provided bailout and money, the state took more and more power, micromanaging the schools, sending controls to cities and counties, special districts. i will do my utmost to return decision making to local communities. one thing i would not do to cut down on the budget deficit, i would not totally eliminate the capital gains tax, which my opponent wants to do. that capital gains tax benefits mostly millionaires and billionaires, adding billions to the budget deficit. much of that money would have to come from public schools, which i do not believe is right. >> quick opportunity for

rebuttal. >> jerry brown is wrong about this. the tax that he likes so much is a tax on jobs, job creators, and investment. we compete with other states. three other states. washington, texas, and nevada have no capital gains tax. if we eliminate this tax, what you will see is more jobs, more businesses, more tax revenue to invest in the things that we really want to invest in. we are not competitive with neighboring states. the recovery effort that i have planned, tax cuts are a big part of it. >> first of all, 82% of the benefit of this tax break will go to people making $500,000 per year and there is not one guarantee that they will spend that money in california. ms. whitman, how much money will you save? [applause]

>> you know what, i am an investor. investors will benefit. so will job creators. i was a job creator. we have got to get someone in office that knows what the conditions are for small businesses to grow and thrive. my track record is creating jobs. my business is creating jobs. your business is politics. you have been doing this for 40 years. you have been a part of the war on jobs in this state for 40 years. you have made it more difficult for small businesses to grow and thrive here. >> those last three statements are demonstrably false, pointed out by our home town newspaper. by the way, regulations in sacramento, i have not been

there for 28 years. if there are more regulations, which there are, you can call those people to account. [applause] >> let me move on to another subject, if i can. >> i have got to answer that, if that is all right. what you just heard is a classic politician answer, half and dishonest. jerry brown talks about having created these jobs when he was governor, but the fact is that unemployment nearly doubled to a then record a 11%. there were more californians without jobs at the end of his term than at the beginning. that is the kind have answered that is the reason that people do not trust politicians. spending went up by 100%. by the way, deficit went from a $600 billion surf + 2 $1 billion budget deficit. >> i have got to make two points.

talk about have answers, we will get to that later. we have something called a business cycle that i would presume that you as a businesswoman would know about. booms and busts. when we are in the recessionary period, we come back. seven times since world war ii. we did create jobs during a recession in years later california was booming again, as we will. if we make tough decisions and live within our means. >> this is an opportunity for me to engage in something called a fact check. the numbers of the end of the term of mr. brown in the middle of the ronald reagan recession, there were four republican states -- illinois, ohio, michigan, indiana, and tennessee, with republican governors and higher unemployment rates because of the recession. just for some perspective.

we have just been three torturous process here in california. it took 100 days for the legislature and governor to reach what everyone agrees it is a budget of smoke and mirrors. they say they have balanced the budget in some fashion, but the numbers to not hold up. you have said that the process is the plan and you have outlined something very similar to try to get to a balanced budget. has the experience of the last 100 days not undermined the authenticity to the plan that you want to put forward to the voters? >> a very good question. i will tell you why it is different. first of all, i do not have to learn on the job. i have done a bed -- eight budgets. i have done this before. my plan is not to present one in january with everyone sitting around until june, getting around to it in august and

september. i believe that the next governor should call 120 comal all of the legislators into the room, and they should start going over the budget in detail. then they should go through the special interest groups in november and december, taking it on the road, going to los angeles and san diego. earlier you said that people had certain ideas about the budget. this may or may not be true. we must articulate in a clear way what the california government is. what do we want in our water works and prisons? not the fund-raising, not all of the gimmicks and perks that we see in sacramento, that is the status quo. i also want to start of the top. i want the governor to cut from his budget. and then the legislature. and a number of other cuts i

will outline. >> taking a look at the budget that was just passed, what alterations would you like to make in the budget you are about to be handed if you are elected? >> the next governor must have a plan. you are exactly right, the process is the plan. if you like the process, if you think this works for california, elected jerry brown. if he goes to sacramento, it will be the same old, same old. i bring a very detailed plan that will engage the legislature. by the way, when the governor says that he will start by cutting 15% of the governor's budget, do you know how much it is? >> much bigger than what i was there. >> the governor's office budget is $18 million. if you cut 16%, you will save $2.7 million, less than 1/1

hundred of the deficit that we face. if that is your plan for fixing the budget, we have very big problems ahead of us. i have a very detailed plan. that is a part of leadership. you have to declare your plan to get california back on track. you have to make sure that you have the right appointments. the governor must have a plan and a way forward. if you do not know which way you are going, any road will take you there. that is the problem with californias dysfunctional government today. do we need a fresh approach and different approach. you know what is great about silicon valley? when we have a problem we cannot solve, we figure out a way around it, going over it, hundred, but in sacramento they do the same thing over and over again. it will not work in the future. >> kenai elisse respond?

i know what the budget of the governor is. a fraction of what it is today when i was there. but the point is that i want those in power to lead by example. i want to see them feel the pain and the sacrifice. if you do not leave from the top it is hard to arrest those blow you to do things. by the way, she does not have a detailed plan. $14 billion in cuts? she does not say who they are or where they are. by the way, you have got to get the legislature on board or nothing happens. >> mr. brown -- [applause] let me come to you with the 100,000 pound gorilla in california, public pension programs. california is being compared to greece in many sectors because of the amount of money being paid, you have 12,000 state employees making more than $100,000 per year in retirement.

3000 teachers earning more than $100,000 per year in retirement. what is the role of current pensioners? should they be required to start cutting back on the amount of money that they feel obligated to receive? >> very interesting issue. pension reform. i have a very detailed pension reform plan on my website. everyone has got to face facts. opinions are shaped by the stock market, the of -- employer and employee. existing employees? they can contribute more to the pension. you can increase the amount of money contributing, the quickest way to inject money. the problem is that the pension system has told the politicians that you can keep expanding it. they have expanded it quite a lot. i put in the budget act two- tiered pension system as soon as possible.

i was ignored. you have to sit down with labour groups, as arnold has, already having received some significant concessions. it is all based on actuarial data. what will the stock market give us? what can we expect? if the employees do not kick in, we will have to lay off people, roos -- reducing wages to pay it. i think that a knowledgeable governor can get the pension compromises that the actuarial numbers require. >> in your judgment, does that mean that those receiving pensions now are taken off the table? >> existing pensioners, we cannot touch them. they struck a deal and need to have what they have burned. listen to what jerry brown said. very do as i say, not as i do. look at oakland. when he was there the highest

paid city manager in the country was his city manager. you can retire as a civil servant at 55 years old with much of your salary and health care benefits until the data to die. i bet that virtually no one in the audience tonight has that kind of deal. that lavish pension benefit is squeezing out other things that we care about. fees have gone up at the university of california. tensions have gotten so big for the faculty and staff that it squeezes out the students. if we do not resolve this pension issue, it will cause california to run out of money. to give you a perspective, in

2000 we spent $300 million for year supporting the pension. today is 3.9 million. we need a new program for rank- and-file. for those that carry guns and defend our people, i think that they need to stay on a defined benefit program. but the rank-and-file deal has got to be entirely different. we cannot afford $3.9 billion every year. >> let me follow up with another question, if i may. looking at the retirement program in los angeles, they have officers that have retired on pensions from $265,000 to $150,000. by the way, and army general retires at a number lower than that. around $149,000.

the city of los angeles will be on the hook for pension programs and the cost will come to sacramento at some point. should there be a state law as well that oversees the pension programs that they have? >> here is where the governor needs to exercise true leadership. one-third of the city's budget could go to support budget benefits. as i said earlier, we have a $100 billion unfunded pension liability at this state. unless the governor sets the table for the rest of the unions in california, here is the difference between myself and jerry brown. jerry brown is beholden to these public employee unions. they are paying for all of the expenditures in his campaign and attack ads against myself. i am spending my own money in this race, which gives me the independence to go to sacramento. i will not owe anything to

anyone other than the voters and i will have the independence to take on this problem. we have to find a solution that is fair to government workers and the hard-working taxpayers of california. i do not think that anyone thinks is fair to retire at $300,000 per year when a four- star general retires at half that. [applause] >> we are doing pretty well on time, just please keep track of the lights that tell us where we are. >> go to the tribune where some of the comments that meg whitman made about what i did or did not do in oakland are refuted. she distorts the facts. by the way, the woman that i appointed that got a lower salary than the man there before, voted by the previous mayor -- by the way, one more elephant in the room, she says she is going to exempt fire and

police from her pension reform and they are 25% of the pension costs. i say that everyone has got to sacrifice and we have to make it fair to the workers and taxpayers. and i will do that. [applause] >> let me answer that, if you do not mind. i did not exempt public pension reform. the age has to go from 50 to 55. investment must extend. public safety must contribute more to requirements. i do think that they have burned a defined benefit program. i am not exempting that part at all. one of the biggest leverages that the governor has is the number of people that work for the state, which has increased by 33,000 over the past five years. we have a government that we can no longer afford and we must shrink the size of government to make california stronger. >> mr. brown, you attempted to

reach out to the police union. the telephone message was left on, in a tory as part of the campaign in which someone referred to ms. whitman has a horror. a campaign spokesman described that as salty language and apologize after a fashion. we have heard no outrage from you about that kind of language used against women. have you taken charge in finding out who is responsible for using that phrase? >> this is a 5-week-old private conversation, picked up on cell phone with a garbled transmission, very hard to detect. this is not what i want to get into, the term and how it is used, but the campaign did apologize promptly and i affirmed it. >> you are repeating it? >> i am sorry that happened and

i apologize. >> it is not just me, but the people of california who deserve better than sellers and personal attacks. that is not what california is about. it is not our better selves. i think that every californian and especially women know what is going on here and it is a deeply offensive term to women. >> have you chastised your employee that called the congress whores? >> you know that that is a different thing. but the fact that you are defending your campaign for a smaller and personal attack on me is not befitting of california or the office you are running for. >> an unfortunate, a private conversation, with consent from all parties.

again, i am sorry that happened, but it does not represent anything other than things that happen in a campaign. the issue as pension reform and the fact that you got the endorsement of that union and i did not, set up as too tough on unions and pensions, which i will take. [applause] >> can i ask the audience -- please, we have a lot of things to cover and we would like you to not be as demonstrative as you are. >> i got better endorsement because that unit knows i will be tough on crime. jerry brown has a 40-year record of being soft on crime. he appointed judges that were called back by the voters. that union knew exactly where i stood on pensions because i put out a detailed plan in march of this year and that decision was

made late in the summer. they said i would be better defender of the death penalty, three strikes and your out, and a friend of law enforcement. that is why i got that endorsement. [applause] >> briefly, i received the endorsement of the california police chiefs, the largest organization of the management of the police chiefs in california, as well as several devi the organizations. they know i am tough on crime, tough on three strikes, and i have defended the death penalty as attorney general hundreds of times, possibly more than anyone else in this state. >> moving on to another subject, if i can, the contest between ab232 and proposition 13, rolling back carbon levels to 1990 by -- until 2020.

you said it was a job killer. then you said you would spend it for a year and examine it. are you saying that george schulz is wrong when he claims that proposition 23 will kill a bill that will actually create green jobs for the state of california? >> first of all, 32 was the law that was signed into existence in 2006. the notion was -- could we leave the environmental movement in the united states to stimulate green jobs? that was the plan. however, today we have a 12.4% unemployment rate. from what the people need to understand is that only 3% of the jobs are green jobs and 95% are in the other part of the economy and ab32 will do real damage to the jobs in the

economy. it is not fair to the manufacturers, trucking, all of the industry to drive those jobs out of state. so, i called for a one-year moratorium -- by the way, it was built into the law, freezing and fixing. that is what i want to do, freeze the implementation and fix it to see if we can not nurture green jobs but at the same time not drive the rest of the economy out of the state. that is my plan. with regards to proposition 23, that would have effectively n.m. -- eliminated 32. i thought that a one-year moratorium was the way to go. we can be green and smart, but we cannot jeopardize the jobs of the people working so hard and barely making it because of californians waking up without a job, which must be our first priority in, keeping the people

employed. >> i will tell you what is wrong with that, it will turn back the clock, stopping and starting, creating regulatory uncertainty. the board just adopted as a goal for california a requirement that one-third of our electricity use be from renewable energy. i have a plan that meets that goal, 40,000 megawatts by 2020. when you stop that requirement, you create uncertainty and doubt for investors. another part is the low carbon fuel standard. that incentivizes biofuels and other substitutes for oil. by the way, the people that are crying are two oil companies in texas and a big conglomerate from the west. they said that we will use less

in california. [applause] >> let me answer for a moment. he did not answer the question that you asked, which was what is he going to do about the jobs that will be hurt by ab32? there was a provision that was the right provision, we have so many of our fellow citizens without a job. i was in lancaster, california the other day, this woman approached me in tears, she was not sure they would be able to hang on to their house. truckers will be hurt by this. what is wrong with stopping, being smart and green, protecting the 97% of the employees who are vulnerable to a blind implementation of this bill? >> wait, there's no credible study that says 97% of the rest of the economy will be hurt by

this. that is silly and a faulty economic study that came out of sacramento state. yes, the oil companies are screaming, but let me tell you, if you put thousands of people to work retrofitting buildings to burn less energy, it will save money for consumers and when i was governor i adopted those fuel efficiency standards and over the last 30 years it has saved california $30 billion. i want to do that again. >> i would like to move on to another area, if i can. mr. brown, what has been the role of the teachers' union and the state of education in california currently? >> the role is very important. since they represent, through free elections, hundreds of thousands of teachers in california classrooms. they are a very strong advocate for more money for schools. which is very important, particularly when you have people like meg whitman coming

around to cut the capital gains tax and put in holes that will come from schools. arnold schwarzenegger learned that the teachers are involved and you do not go to war with the major elements. she has raised $30 million for the people that will benefit for the capital gains tax. i am getting support from labor unions and businesses. you have to be tough. i took away the pay raises for state employees twice. i said we need a future pension system 28 years ago. independent at this stage of my life and i feel that i have what it takes to do the right thing to work with people and stand up when they resist the things that california needs. >> i think that jerry brown needs to get out and campaign more, because every campaign stop i have, every week i hear a story about someone in jeopardy of losing their jobs because of this.

i promise you, we have to protect every single job. i want to fight for every single job in california. let me turn to the teachers' association. we have a mess on our hands. we are now rated almost at the bottom of all 50 states. you know who is part of the problem and not the solution? the bosses at the california teachers association. we have got to change how we do things with more charter schools, paying better teachers more, and the teachers' union, fighting for change every step of the way. there's a parent teacher association, california teachers association, but there is no child association and want to defend the children and have the best public school system in america. we will have to make radical changes. [applause] >> ms. whitman, this brings me to something else. it is well known that you are

spending $120 million at least of your own fortune on this campaign. money that you have burned and have a legal right to spend on this campaign. but a lot of people wonder that if you were so interested in saving california, why you did not vote for all of those years? get involved in state commissions or other parts of public life? is there something about how you have used your fortune for the good of california that we do not know about? something you would like to share with us? >> i have a lot to say on that. i am not proud of my voting record. i take full accountability and responsibility for it. you are right to look at that. every candidate is a package of strengths and went -- weaknesses, but i think i have a lot to offer california. the reason i have invested a lot of my own money in this is because i think we can make

california a lot stronger, reviving the dream for everyone. i am up against some pretty big entrenched interests. public employee unions have poured so much money into this campaign, $300 million to control politics in sacramento. that expenditure of my own money allows me to be independent, no strings attached. if jerry brown gets to be governor of this state, there will be meeting. he talks about bringing people together, there will be meeting of the union bosses there to collect the eye of you for funding his entire campaign. that ability to invest my own money allows me independence. of course we have a family foundation that supports higher education and health care. but my focus right now is turning the state of california around. i bring tremendous expertise from the private sector. i can bring a common-sense

approach from the real world. this was always supposed to be a citizens democracy where you would be anchored in the real world, facing challenges from the government's. that is what i bring to this race. [applause] >> first of all, my entire campaign has been supported by many businesses and individuals. we have raised $2 million on the internet alone. ms. whitman, in addition to her $121 million, she has raised $30 million from the corporate executives that will benefit directly from her economic plan, which is not to invest in schools, but to invest in her rich campaign contributors. i have stood up to teachers' unions. when i ran for attorney general of the teachers' association, my opponent was supported in the primary. i created two charter schools.

they're both doing quite well. my family foundation put in $1.1 million because they needed the money. i really appreciate charter schools but i also appreciate the fact that 97% of the kids go to regular schools, which is where we have to put our attention. not by changing the numerical grade to a letter grade, but by including the best teachers that we have letting the people closest to the students have the power and authority to make the tough decisions. >> mr. brown just said something that he knows is not true. i want to continue to invest in education. i have a different plan and how we spend the money.

of all the money that we spend, only 60 cents of each one goes to the classroom. we are starving the students and is why the next governor cannot be beholden to the teachers' association because they want to protect that bureaucracy. the jerry brown independent expenditure attacking me is the california teachers association. >> moving on, if i can, as we are counting down on the clock, going back to immigration and the debate on that, unresolved questions. you said that businesses and households should be held accountable for undocumented workers. at the same time, you discovered you had an undocumented worker. a fairly shed very the documents that she had hearing in.

if you could not find someone in your own home, how you expect businesses to do that? >> we went through an employment agency with three forms of identification. our housekeeper falsified those documents. it broke my heart, but i had to fire her and let her go. this is why we need a very good system that allows every side to look at the documentation to know if it is real or not. illegal immigration is a huge challenge in california. estimates are that $6 billion to $7 billion of the budget goes to services for illegal immigrants. we have got to get our arms around this challenge. what i would like to do is to secure the border. border patrol agents need more resources.

finally, we needed temporary guest program in california that allows people to be here on a temporary basis, working in all kinds of areas for agriculture and hospitality. i did not think it was right for california. one of the major challenges facing the united states, i think i have a great plan to do it. [applause] >> you are the chief law- enforcement officer of the state of california, why should business is not be held accountable >> businesses should, but this is a federal government responsibility under the constitution. almost every police chief that i know it is not want to be in the business of raising -- trading businesses. as attorney general i have

signed agreements with the federal government so that those illegal immigrants that are arrested, their fingerprints are sent back to washington to my office and if they are illegal, they are deported. the biggest problem is that we have millions of people that are here illegally in the country and california. they are in the shadows. what will we do about it. is she going to deport them? we need a comprehensive reform that the federal level. without a path that citizenship, we have no way to deal with the people who are here. i think we need to think about this very carefully. not just from a political point of view, but from a human point of view. these are real people. they have this fear of, the fear that her housekeeper had. after working for nine years,

she did not even get her a lawyer. the other thing that i want to say is about the temporary workers and farmers. two, doing right by their employer, can get a path to citizenship. she says no to that, basically treating people from mexico as semi-sefrs, which is not human or right. [applause] >> let me move on to another dimension of the entire issue of the relationship between california and mexico. in a state of near anarchy because of drug violence, much of the blame is often focus only on mexico. , based -- based on the enormous

purchasing power of states like california, i have heard neither one of you talk about cracking down on illegal drug consumption in california, which could go a long way towards helping mexico for our southern neighbor deal with southern cartel violence. you are the chief officer of the state, which has not been a high priority as far as i can tell. >> as part of my department of justice, we have the bureau of narcotic enforcement. we have had several take downs of these operations. prison connected drug- operations in the imperial valley. it is tough. the cartels are murdering people below the border and are beginning to infiltrate. not a lot, but the specter is there. we have task forces, the

legislature cut $5 billion out of that. i feel very strongly that this drug operation. >> you are opposed to the proposition. what would happen if tomorrow, marijuana was legalized, license, and controlled by the state, it is no secret that in this state and across the country, people can get it wherever and wherever they want to. >> i am firmly opposed to proposition 19. this is not the right thing for our young people for the citizens of california. every single law enforcement member in the state is against this proposition. jerry brown says he is tough on

drug crime, they have examined our record and chosen to endorse me. they know that i will back up public safety in california. this is one of the biggest differences between myself and the attorney general. our point of view of law enforcement. jerry brown is soft on crime and has been for 40 years. he is against the death penalty. as i mentioned, rose bird, she fought against all 64 cases of capital punishment that came her way, she was ultimately recalled because she did -- they did not like her stance. you have to look at the peace officer association, the police protection league of los angeles. there is no more front line police organization than the cops in los angeles. they know that by -- that i will back them up and be tough on crime.

>> let me ask you about a proposition that has been getting a lot of attention. proposition 8, banning gay marriage. how important is that the california, and to you, personally, on a scale of 1 to 10? >> i am running for governor because we need to do three things. first and foremost, jump-start the economy and get the people back to work. we have to cut wasteful spending. our k-12 education system is a huge mess as we are denying children a chance for grade education. personally, i was opposed to prop 8. i think that marriages between a man and woman but i was in favor of the progressive civil union laws that we have in california. the question is -- what is the obligation of the attorney general to defend prop. 8 so they can have its day in court? in the ninth circuit and in the supreme court. i think the chief law

enforcement officers need to defend that lawsuit, regardless of your view on gay marriage. 52% of the people voted for that amendment and they need to have their day in court. it needs to go through the appeals process. jerry brown has refused to defend that, which is dangerous, because you cannot have people deciding which parts of the constitution they will defend. that is not the judgment call that we want made. we need a governor and attorney general that will defend the constitution of the state of california. >> when the prior attorney general refused to defend discriminatory initiatives, because i believed in the 14th amendment, which i took an oath to uphold, banning this kind of discrimination against same-sex marriage, i was not entering the court. i was not going to appeal it,

because it can be appealed by the parties. but when something is so fundamentally wrong, after a long trial, to hear testimony from both sides and the judge said that this violates the 14th amendment, i will not be the one to take that up. the cops, i have the police chiefs in my pocket because they know that i am tough on crime. >> [laughter] you mean your back pocket? >> sometimes, unaccustomed as i am to politics, i stumbled through my phrases. i have the backing, not because of the ones that are backing you, because they know that you will not be as tough. one of the police unions said that brown was going to be too tough on unions and it was one of the reasons why we were supporting that whitman. .

i think obama is doing a good

job. [applause] >> ms. whitman, a real force in your party is sarah palin. she will be in california on saturday. will you see current price on what you may do for california -- will you seek her advice on what you may do for california? >> sarah palin has a real following in the republican party. you know how of actually supported of their presidential nominees in our party -- how i have actually supported other presidential nominees in our party. i will be talking about jobs. i promise you, if we do not cut taxes, if we do not streamline regulation, there is no way to get out of this financial mess. you know what jobs do? think about jobs. jobs put the family bought it back together. what more jobs in california

will do is put the california but it back together. i have to say one thing -- the notion that jerry brown is going to be tough on unions is just a fairy tale. he has been joined at the hip with them for 40 years. >> we're giving to a quick close. we have just a couple minutes left. i have a question that think is central to california. in the 21st century, is that -- does california have to reform its fundamental political structure -- do you have to go back and build the state, politically, from the ground up? >> i think there is a way forward with some fundamental reform. the budget plan that i have is first to increase tax revenues by more companies, more jobs being in california. we have to get our hands around government spending. we spend more than we take in. it is not sustainable. there are three reforms i want to pursue. the first is a two-year

budgeting process. the one-year process does not work anymore because it does not allow us to make the investments we need. it does not allow for a long- term perspective. >> your at the red -- you are at the red light. >> i will take the world as i find it. we have to wrestle the budget to the ground under the existing rules. i hope we get a majority but vote, not for taxes -- a vote -- a majority vote for the budget. i want to have a pay-as-you-go rules. the unions and businesses are all influences, interest groups, part of the democratic process. i have taken the heat. i know what it is to say yes or no. she has been in the bleachers. i have been in this government. i love california. i know how it works.

i have the fortitude to do what is right. [applause] >> thank you 3 much, attorney general jerry brown, meg whitman, ceo of ebay. thank you to everyone here. we hope you have enjoyed it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> midterm elections are november 2nd and c-span is showing new debates from around the country. next, the candidates for the delaware senate. after that, the missouri senate debate. at 7:00 p.m., the candidates for some debt -- for the senate in kentucky. after that, the washington senate race debate at 10:00 p.m. >> in january, the supreme court struck down laws limiting corporate spending in elections. lawyers, political scientists, and journalists will discuss the case known as citizens united

versus fec. live coverage begins at noon eastern on c-span tomorrow. in the final weeks of campaign 2010, the c-span video library is a great resource for voters. hear from candidates, party officials, strategists, and reporters. it is all free, online, any time. delaware's u.s. senate candidates republican christine o'donnell and democrat chris coons met in their first televised debate wednesday night at the university of delaware in new york. the debate was, moderated by wolf pulitzer -- comoderated by wolf blitzer and a colleague. this is 90 minutes.

♪ >> let's introduce the candidates, christine o'donnell and chris coons. we also want to bank a-- thank aarp and the american cancer society for their support. >> let's go over some of the rules for this debate. it is divided into two parts following the two-minute opening statement from each candidate, we will pose questions peer responses to the initial question are limited to two

minutes with a 01-minute rebuttal from the other candidate. and there will be the opportunity to get into discussion and follow-up. is how the first 60 minutes will go. that will be followed by a 30- minute segment during which returned to students at the university of delaware. they have questions. responses to their questions will be limited to one minute from each candidate. each candidate will have to commit at the end for closing statements. our live audience here understands, we hope, that there will be no pause during tonight's update -- debate. want everyone to be quiet and listen and learn from these candidates. the determined was -- the order was determined by coin toss. we begin with two-minute opening statements from each candidate. chris coons. >> thank you. thank you to the president of the university, to our moderator's, and to our host.

there's a great deal at stake in the selection for our families and our country. regardless of our political leanings, we recognize that washington is broken. as i traveled up and down the sick the last nine months as a candidate, listening -- up and down the state the last nine months listening, i've heard their frustration with washington and elected officials were putting narrow partisan agendas ahead of our country and do little to help millions of american tour of the work -- americans who are out of work. there is more than 35,000 delawareans who are still out of work. these are not just numbers. these are our neighbors. we cannot simply stand by and watch washington ignore us or them any longer. in this election, the voters' basic fear an important choice dr. --, on the one hand

the voters face an important choice between, on the one hand, my opponent who has extreme positions -- extreme positions, and a candidate with a proven track record of finding bipartisan solutions, working with delaware cities, large and small, helping create jobs and spur growth. i look forward to the chance to share with you my ideas and not use. delaware values that i learned growing up here, working here in newark . i take seriously the idea that this campaign is a job interview. tonight's debate is about giving delawares motors and insight into which candidate has the experience -- giving delaware's molders insight into which candidate has the experience

necessary -- delaware's of voters insight into which candidate has the experience necessary. >> i'm running because i'm concerned about the direction of our country. the america we grew up with is being threatened in a serious way. in just three years we will be paying $1 billion per day on the interest alone on our national debt. the common sense men and women all across delaware know this is not sustainable. yet, my opponent wants to go to washington and rubber-stamp the failed spending bills that are coming -- at a cost us to 0.5 million jobs. this is wrong. ago sam needs -- failed spending bills that have cost us 2.5 million jobs. this is wrong. i want to fight to have our nation become debt free. i want to stop the tax hikes that are coming in january. i want to reach a stable energy independence, support the military, and string and the security of our homeland. i want to fight to safeguard

social security and improve education and protect our constitutional liberties. in an election year when so much is at stake, just about every candidate says this, get what distinguishes one candidate from the other are the proposed solutions to reach these goals. i look forward to getting down to brass tacks with all of you over the next 90 minutes, because i believe there is a clear choice in this election. a vote for my opponent will cost the average delaware family $10,000 instantly between january's tax hikes and his vote for cap and trade. most of us cannot afford that. if you think that government is too small and that you are taxed too little, if you have question whether america is a beacon of freedom and justice, then he is your guy. if you want a senator who will stand up to the washington elite, who will put your interests ahead of the special interests, and make tough decisions needed to rein in out of control washington, then i humbly ask you to vote for me

for u.s. senate. >> not to the question portion of the evening. i will begin with -- now to the question portion of the evening. i will begin with chris coons. americans voted overwhelmingly for democrats during the last election because most felt that the writ -- the democrats would be of the fix the failing economy. unemployment is at 9.6%. almost 3/4 americans and the most recent poll said that the economy is still in recession. why should the voters of delaware trust the democrat this time around? >> thank you for the question. the boaters should trust this democrat because of my combination of experience -- voters should trust this democrat because my combination of experience and my engaged work with the chamber of

commerce and other groups who've risen -- to represent business large and small. i have a concrete and real ideas. there on my website. -- they are on my website. i would advocate for an r&d tax credit that is combined with the new manufacturing tax credit that advocates for companies that and then on things here and make them here getting extra incentives. i think we need to change the crazy tax policy in washington that gives incentives to american companies to shut down operations here and send jobs overseas. there are other things i have proposed, is bending the home office tax credit, expanding a tax credit for starting a new business, fighting harder in trade policy to make sure that we're not letting our trading partners demanded just in trade deals that were signed over previous years. doing more in investment and innovation. at the end of the day, delaware has a long tradition of investing in manufacturing

world-class products. the best we get out of the recession is to grow your the best way to grow is by expanding the skills and -- the best way we -- the best way to get out of the reception is to grow. we need to give it the rent -- we need to give the the energy and resources it needs. we need to create high-quality, high-volume manufacturing jobs. >> one minute for your rebuttal. >> we are to keep in mind that my opponent has a history of promising not to raise taxes on the campaign trail and then breaking those promises once in office. unemployment rose -- almost doubled in the last couple of years under his watch as new castle county executive. when it comes to the policies he has spoken of, he will continue to rubber-stamp the spending policies in washington. we were promised that the stimulus bill would create jobs, instead it cost is 2.6 million

jobs. we were promised it would keep unemployment at 8%, instead we see unemployment at 9.7%. the democrats are bragging that unemployment has leveled. while it has leveled, more people have been on food stamps and welfare. this is not the right move. this is not a move toward real economic recovery. this is a move toward creating a culture of dependency. i believe the best -- >> that is time. now we'll open it for discussion. >> what would you do, specifically, to create jobs? >> the best and the government can do to get our economy back on the real economic recovery is to get out of the way of the small business owner, to get out of the way of the entrepreneur. we make sure the tax hikes to not come in january. we roll back some of the regulation that has forced them to close their doors. i am proposing a temporary two-

year tax holiday on the capital gains tax to give investors the money may need to reinvest in business, to permanently cut the death tax and create 1.5 million jobs. >> this is the discussion portion. you can interject here as we discussed this. >> i am not sure i understand what she means when she says this is simply creating a culture of dependency. if her primary objective -- she denounces the obama administration, says it has done nothing to promote job growth. a new bill that would expand sba loan capacity -- $30 billion worth of new lending capability, t.a.r.p. funds that are being reported -- repair best all- around united states -- real and concrete steps are being taken. i cannot imagine where she from the numbers that unemployment doubled in just the past year

under my watch. we will need to keep a close eye on the numbers that go flying back and forth. >> where did you get those numbers? >> the department of labor and statistics will have them on their website tomorrow. he says we're not creating a culture of dependency. how would you explain what is happening when unemployment has levelled out of more and more people are on food stamps? what we want delawareans to be receiving -- food stamps or paychecks? >> we would like americans to be able to receive the benefits they need to get your incredibly difficult times. to simply denounce people as being dependent because they are applying for and receiving food stamps is frankly slandering people who are in the incredibly difficult times. >> that is not fair of you to say. that is not at all what i'm doing. i am not the person who would cut the benefits for the disabled and low-income senior citizens as you did as county executive. what i am proposing is to make

sure that the tax cuts for all delawareans do not expire this january. you have said he will stop the tax cuts for the so-called rich. what you fail to realize is that the so-called rich but the small business owners, the dry cleaner, the pizza shop owner -- they make $300,000 before they pay their employees, before they feed their families -- >> we're trying to have a conversation, rather than just a diatribe. it would be helpful to have an exchange of ideas and let us take turns. thank you for moderating. we need to look at some of the things she has thrown out on her website. some of them are slender, some of them are just factually untrue -- some of them are slenander, some of them are just factually untrue. much of what you put out and how

you characterize my record is incorrect. if we simply sit here and say that is not true, that is not true, we're not going to make progress. >> should the bush tax could be extended for all americans are only for those who make under koon and $50,000? -- $250,000? >> i do not think it should be arbitrary. we have a tough choice to make. every increase and extension will cost us. it will increase the deficit and add to our debt. here is the primary value i would dip -- i would apply. i think we should do those tax cuts that have the best chance of getting our economy going again. >> we're at a time for this discussion -- out of time for this discussion. we kept you will have time to get back to this -- this is issue #bang one -- >> you will

have time to get back to this. the issue is jobs, jobs, jobs. i want some specific, meaningful cuts. if you were elected delaware's senator, what would you cut in the federal budget? do not just say waste, fraud, abuse. everybody says that. regret that is a great question. first of all, we have to tackle the deficit -- >> bat is a great question. first of all, we have to tackle the deficit. when your deficit rises over gdp, your currency collapses. >> what would you cut? >> cancel the unspent stimulus. put a freeze on discretionary spending. but a hiring freeze on non security personnel -- put a hiring freeze on non-security

personnel. we have to talk about waste, fraud, abuse. we spent over $1 billion in medicare -- medicaid waste, fraud, abuse -- pharmacies billing for prescriptions given to dead people, home health care company's billing for patients who were in the hospital, senator coburn recently put out a report called school health pork, that disclosed millions of dollars that were supposed to go to education funding that instead went to special favors. special favors are something that my opponent knows much about. he created 12 contingency funds so that he could pay out favors to special interest groups. the courts forced him to close 11 of them. one that remained open paid $53,000 for a bet -- the one that remained open paid $53,000

for a men's fashion show. when he brags about balancing the budget by raising our taxes, cutting police pay, this is our chooses to spend our tax dollars. we have to ask, do we want to send him to washington, d.c.? i would say no. he is a career politician who has proven he knows how to play the -- >> you have one minute to respond. >> there is so much to respond to. it may not be enough. let's go back to the question. what would you do to tackle the deficit and debt? we have large challenges in front of us. the overwhelming majority of federal spending is made up of defense spending, medicare- medicaid, social security, and interest. i would support a freeze on non- discretionary spending for three years, which would achieve significant reductions. and my website, i have identified a series of reductions that would support -- some in agriculture, some in

federal office space, some hiring, some federal defense. defense acquisitions at the pentagon itself has said they do not need. the c-17 or the second engine for the f-35. there are a variety of programs as we invest in making our military more modern, flexible, and responsive to the real threats we face. we could achieve some savings that have shown a real capacity to save. >> let's open this discussion on correcting financial issues are talking about some of your own personal financial problems. most people know about it by now, including our wrestling for about $12,000 for taxes and penalties -- an irs lien for about $1,000 for taxes and penalties. -- $12,000 for taxes and penalties. i've been voters rely on you to manage the deficit if you have

such personal financial issues -- how can voters rely on you to manage the deficit if you have such personal financial issues? >> the irs has admitted that is a computer error. my campaign -- i have discovered thousands of delawareans are facing the same thing. an irs mistakes has cost them greatly. we need to reform the irs. they should not be in control of health care. you mentioned education. i do not have a trust fund. i did not come from a privileged, sheltered background. >> let's stay on the issue of bills. >> i know how hard it is to earn and keep the dollar. one of the reasons why the delawareans should be able to trust me is because when i did, in this economy -- i work for nonprofit groups. they were the first to be hurt. when i fell upon difficult

times, i made the sacrifices needed to set things right. i sold my house. i sold a lot of my possessions in order to pay off my personal debt and become in a stronger position. i have worked hard in order to get to the position that i am. i can relate to the thousands of delaware families that are suffering right now. i am stronger for it. i made it through to the other side. leadership does not count in whether you fall, but whether you have gotten up. that is what i have done. >> remember we are in the discussion portion. if you look anything you want to say on this topic, go for it. >> frankly, i think we need to focus in the debate and in this campaign, not on financial issues, but on the issues in front of us, things that delawareans are concerned about. how do we tackle the deficit and debt. how do we get back to work. there has been much discussion

about things my opponent has said or done. i frankly think they are distractions from the core issues. >> you are just jealous that you were not on "saturday night live." [laughter] >> on a serious note, let's check for some of the accusations and give you the chance to respond. >> on the idea that i was responsible and being sued for that -- she is confusing me with my predecessor. >> you raised property taxes three times, 25% in the last fiscal year. you proposed new taxes on hotels, a paramedic services, even 91 calls from cell phones -- even 911 calls from cell phones. is that true? regret any research would reveal that is not true. -- >> any research would repeal

that is not true. >> did you increase taxes as county executive? >> mike opponent has repeatedly said that have driven the county to the edge of bankruptcy. nothing could be further from the truth. new castle county has a surplus. it added that as it when i became county executive -- it had a deficit when i became county executive. we have the aaa bond rating. out of its roughly 3000 counties in america, roughly 30 have that rating. >> quick response. >> you have been criticized for saying that you brought the county to aaa bond rating. you inherited that good rating. how would you justify cutting the tax exemption for low-income seniors and disabled seniors, cutting our policemen pay, when you have wastefully spent so much money on appeasing special

interest groups? we simply cannot justify that. that is a career politician. that is cronyism. we do not need more of that. >> we have to move to the next series of questions. >> there's a lot to respond to pay respect to it in 30 seconds. >> that will be difficult. proud of my record. the very hard to assist that had been made to clean up the government -- every time you get a bond rating, you earned a bond rating. each time you go to the market, you are rated again. moody's said it was because of the conservative fiscal policies of my administration that we had re-earned the aaa bond rating from all three agencies. >> now let's move on to national security, foreign policy. 100,000 american men and women are serving in the military in afghanistan. president hamid karzai is in direct talks with the taliban leadership and wants to create what he calls apiece council.

here's the question -- a peace council. here's the question. would you support a negotiated settlement that includes taliban representation? would that be an acceptable deal between hamid karzai and the taliban? >> i am concerned about the security of our troops and honoring the service and sacrifice of our veterans. the war in afghanistan was justified by the direct attack and the united states -- on the united states. in our 10th year on the ground in afghanistan, we have to look hard at whether we're continuing to contribute to america's security by having 100,000 troops on the ground. i support a negotiated resolution to the war that allows us to leave security and intelligence assets in place and allows us to reengage should the taliban take control again or

allow al qaeda to reemerge as a real threat to the region or the united states. we have spent $1.30 trillion in iraq and afghanistan. it has significantly contributed to our debt. we have lost more than 5000 american servicemen and women. i have folks who i am personally close to our deployed now for the third or fourth time. we have asked a lot of our men and women in the field. they have delivered brilliantly. the mission has exceeded the scope that we could have reasonably expected. i'm far more concerned about the threats to our security posed by an unstable pakistan, iran, and an endless war in a country where we're trying to build a nation where there really has not been one in modern times if he is serious about making sure that afghanistan does not become -- in modern times. >> if he is serious about making sure that afghanistan does not become a threat, why is he talking about this withdraw? many men and women have given

their lives. this random withdraw will emboldened terrorist come after us even more -- with a drawl -- withdrawal will embolden terrorists to come after us even more. when we reached the benchmarks is when we should withdraw. did i say iraq, i am sorry. i meant afghanistan. >> frankly, i come from a family of veterans. my family has dedicated a lot to the service of the nation. i am reminded every day of the young man who grew up next door to me who was killed in iraq in december, 2005. i do not take lightly the enormous sacrifices of our men and women have made and that we ask them to continue to make.

10 years strikes me as awfully long. i question whether your standard, your principles, give us any hope of winding up this war in any reasonable timeline. the government of hamid karzai has proven itself to be ineffective at establishing control over the country. we're doing our best. we have dedicated trillions -- hundreds of billions of dollars to this conflict. i am deeply concerned that, without reasonable and insight -- >> saying that -- >> the best way to honor our servicemen and women and their sacrifice is to come up with the plan. >> the plan should be based on benchmarks that show we have had success. you are saying that your top priority is concern for the safety of the homeland. if you seriously support this time withdraw -- this random withdraw, it will just emboldened the terrorists --

embolden the terrorists. do you support the president or don't you support the president? with the tax cuts, you're saying you don't. are you going to tell him that when he's here? >> let's stay focused on the issue of afghanistan. that is the court issued -- core issue. in iraq, there was a modern nation with the central government with infrastructure in place. in afghanistan, there has not been a nation in decades. despite our decade of incredible effort, we are not succeeding in building the nation. if the benchmark is self- governance, stability, security, we had a decent shot in the iraq -- >> when we were fighting the soviets in afghanistan in the

1980's and 1990's, we did not finish the job. we have the responsibility to finish the job. you are threatening the security of our homeland. ,> let's ask, yes or no answer is the nation more secure than it was under president bush? yes or no. >> years -- yes. >> no. >> can i say why? regret we do not have time. -- >> we do not have time. to the voter in delaware, it is the message they are receiving. we would be remiss if we did not address this issue. the comments you have made in the past, in your own words on the videotapes, have become fodder for late-night tv shows. he released an ad that opened up by saying "-- you released an ad

that opened up by saying "i am not a witch." what you say to voters who want change but are uncomfortable about your remarks? >> this election cycle should not be about comments i made on a comedy show over a decade ago. it should be about what is important to the people of delaware. how are we going to get real jobs back? how are we going to get our economy back? are we going to protect our seniors and dozens and protect our social security? -- our senior citizens and safeguard our social security? i have not welcomed this media attention. you have been asking for an interview for quite a long time. my party has been to meet the voters, go to community forums -- priority has been to meet the voters, go to community forums so we could counter these things. my opponents made a statement

then ran ads in his campaign materials going back on his words. he uses statements to misrepresent my character. i grosz's for the opportunity for the delaware voters -- by thank you -- i thank you for the opportunity for the delaware voters to get to know me. my faith has matured. regardless of my faith, when i go to washington, it is the constitution that i would use to make my decisions. that will be the standard for every piece of legislation i vote on. >> you have one minute for your rebuttal. >> i was surprised to see in the newspaper an interview -- that statement, similar to what you heard -- that you would not have your feet bsn, driver -- your

face be your central driver -- your faith be your central driver in making decisions. which constitution are you talking about? protecting a woman's right to choose, protecting reproductive freedom, things like that. we should have on the record her views on things like prayer, abortion, evolution. these are not just random statements on some late night tv show. these are relevant to her service in the senate -- what sort of judges should confirm, what sort of issues she would take up. i stand firm behind the constitution as it stands today. >> let's go to the issue of faith in politics. you're a student pastor at heel. you said you thought you would end up as a preacher -- you were a student pastor at yale. you said that he would end up as

a preacher -- you would end up as a preacher or a politician. how much influence does face have -- faith have in your life? >> faith is a general motivation to public service and to were the sort of peace -- toward the sort of peace and reconciliation that is central to our religion. my religious doctrine does not influence the decisions i had made while in public office. >> in a television appearance in you, on bill maher's who, you saidher's show,

evolution is a myth. is that true? >> let me respond to what he just said. >> do you believe that evolution is a myth? >> what i believe is not relevant. >> why is that? >> i believe that the local system should decide what is taught in their classroom. what i was talking about on that show was a caution that was not allowed to teach creationism as an equal -- was a classroom that was not allowed to teach creationism. that is an overreaching arm of the government. allow me at least a full minute to respond to what he said. he said the statements that we made should be taken into consideration when casting your vote. i would be remiss not to bring up the fact that my opponent has

recently said that it was studying under a marxist professor that made him become a democrat. when you look at his position on things like raising taxes, which is one of the tenets of marxism, not supporting the death tax, i would argue that there are more people who support my catholic faith and his marxist beliefs. >> we will clarify. >> a lot of people have learned that you did once describe yourself in college, a long time ago, as a bearded marxist. >> great question. i hope folks will read that article. i wrote that as a senior. the title and content make it obvious that it was a joke. there was a group of folks that i shared a room with -- my roommates in the young republican club. when i return from kenya and

registered as a democrat, they thought it was proof i had gone all the way over to the far left. they jokingly called me a bearded marxist. if you read the article, it is clear that it was a joke. despite that, my opponents and folks in right-wing media have endlessly spun this. i am not now, nor have i ever been, anything but a clean shaven capitalist. [laughter] >> i would stand to disagree. if you're saying what i said on a comedy show is relevant to this election, the new writing an article -- forget the bearded marxist comment -- you writing an article that says that you learned your beliefs from an intelligence, particulate marxist professor -- that should send chills up the spine of every delaware voter. if you compare that statement to your policies -- >> if that was accurate, i would agree, but that is not accurate.

>> let's talk about education. in many public school districts all across america, as they try to get accountability and cross from, it is difficult to dismiss an underperforming -- get accountability in the classroom, it is difficult to dismiss an underperforming teacher because of unions. do you feel the unions are too powerful? >> i have complemented delaware's teachers and voters for the remarkable progress. the obama-biden administration has made progress. i let the process and the outcome. they set a high bar. it offered -- i like the process and the outcome. they set the bar high. the delaware teachers union came to the table and with the leadership of governor markell

made significant changes, things that a lot of folks predicted they would not do. they embraced charters. they made it possible for schools that were underperforming to be shut down or changed. they changed the structure for teacher compensation. i think your teachers deserve our support. they have a long contribution -- long tradition of contributing significantly to educating our children and building our communities. my own mother and grandmother were schoolteachers. earlier today i was at the school -- this is national school lunch week. the work of art teachers do, from headstart come to full day kindergarten, case through 12 education -- the work is done here. -- the work our teachers do, from head start, to full-day kindergarten, k through 12 education -- the work is done

here. there are issues we have to tackle. race to the top made significant progress in making sure that our schools are performing as best they can. >> you notice he did not answer the question as to whether he thought the teachers' unions were too powerful. he got their endorsement. where we spend so much money on education, it ends up going to the six-figure salaries of our bureaucrats and superintendents, not to the teachers and classrooms. it is appalling. good teachers who want to get extra materials have to do so out of their pockets. i have met teachers. i have sat down with them and talked about their concerns with race from the top. whether democrat or republican, a lot of them expressed the we're not spending our education dollars appropriately. -- a lot of them express that

we are not spending our education dollars appropriately. we have an extremely high dropout rate. throwing money at a broken system is not going to work. we need to sit down and have conversations with the teachers, not the unions, about what they need to help them in their classrooms. >> there is a proposal to eliminate the department of education in washington. do you support that? >> i do not think it needs to be that drastic. senator coburn has released a report that shows that millions of dollars of department of education money has been abused. we have to stop that. we have to make sure the money we're putting in to education does go to the classroom and make them more effective. that is something we ignore. every time there is a problem, we throw more money to appease special interests. we're not getting to the root of the problem. we need to get to the root of

the problem, which means talking to teachers and putting the power back with the parents over where they send their children to school. >> in a recent survey of 30 industrialized countries, the united states ranked 25th in math, 21st in science. south korea was first in science. what would you do to make the united states number one once again in math and science? >> great question. as someone who spent 20 years working with a non-profit foundation -- the i have a dream foundation -- that raises money and helps provide scholarships for students, teachers, and college education, i have been hands-on and engaged with some of the toughest schools in america and teachers who are significantly under supported and who need additional resources to deliver on the promise of an effective education. there is a different role in

providing encouragement to teachers and students. we need a new generation of teachers who are fully prepared, fully qualified to engage their students in the classroom, to use the latest teaching tools, to teach to the standard that no child left behind established, and we frankly need to use collaborative learning techniques. >> we're timekeeping here. >> a quick chance to respond. what would you do specifically to make the united states number one? >> we have to empower the teachers to do what they need to do to be more effective. they are on the first line of defense. they have the most influence. we have to empower parents. i support charter schools. i support student doctors -- school vouchers. it gives parents, regardless of income, regardless of status, an

opportunity for their student to have a shot at a great education. >> let's talk about health care, which is such an important issue to millions of americans right now. under the new health care law that was recently signed by the president, children can stay on their parents' insurance policies until the age of 26. people can no longer be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. insurers -- the big insurance companies -- are prohibited from rescinding coverage if a customer can -- becomes sick. it cannot impose lifetime limits on a single -- and they cannot impose lifetime limits on essential benefits. that?nt to repeal >> our health care system did not need reform. it was insurance reform that was

needed. we have confused coverage with care. our goal should be to make health care more affordable. even with obama-care, are most of vulnerable are still left uninsured and without access to quality health care. when we pass obama-care, we promised that more people would be insured. recent cbo reports show that it is actually causing businesses to drop policies because the standards are too high. our laws when it comes to health care should not force businesses to break a law. we were promised that health care costs would be lowered. they have not. they have increased according to recent reports. what i want to do is fight to fully repealed that so that we can begin to enact real reform -- repeal that so that we can begin to enact real reform that

would allow delawareans get policies across state lines. we only have three options. that is not right. i would also fight for some sort of tort reform that allowed doctors to not have to worry and practice medicine to prepare for the courtroom as opposed to the examination room. tort reform has to protect patients who are victims of a true medical malpractice --. >> you have one minute to respond. >> i support the implementation of the affordable care act. there are significant investments to make sure there is a breath of coverage to rural areas -- breadth of coverage to rural areas by expanding support for community health clinics and making investments to try to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. there were strategic investments

in electronic medical systems that would allow medical records to reduce mistaken treatments and diagnoses. in combination, this argues for extending, perfecting, and implementing this landmark bill. it is not perfect. there are problems. rather than repealing it and going for another year or two of and less partisan bickering, this was a critical piece of legislation -- of and less -- endless partisan bickering, this was a critical piece of legislation. >> let's talk about the practice reform. democrats are accused of being too close to trial lawyers. republicans say that is why there has not been the opportunity for reform and what it was not included in the bill. if elected, would you work to include not practice reform in the bill? >> is critical that folks be able to stand up to and take on powerful interests. they should be able to seek

redress in court with the they are harmed by someone who misled them at -- with the securities product that hurt them because it was not designed correctly or a medical procedure that went wrong. i do not support caps on liability. it is only the threat of a significant recovery that allows protection for consumers, patients, investors. that is an important part of the american legal system. as i mentioned, there are significant advances in this bill that allow us to make health care safer, stronger, more transparent. if i have a major concern, is that we will reduce cost without squelching innovation. >> it is discussion. ok. first of all, you say you're concerned about reducing costs. this health care bill has caused cost to skyrocket. >> i do not know what reports you are reading. >> one out of four democrats have gone on the record saying

that they oppose obama-care. they realize that we made a mistake. what this bill does is gives massive government control over health care. >> give some concrete example. that is a great slogan. you toss that around everywhere you go. how does this bill actually put uncle sam in the examination room? if so, why did the organization that fights for and represent america's nurses, seniors, hospitals, and doctors endorse this? >> many branches on a local level have said that they do not support what the national office did. it gives the government the ability to say what kind of treatment a doctor can and cannot do, what it will fund. it forces businesses to have to apply the standards.

many businesses have said they cannot afford to pay for this compliance. this health care bill has cut medicare. >> the state chamber of commerce posted a debate premier today. i was sorry that you chose not to join us. the nurses, hospital administrators -- you are suggesting that they did not support a bill that they lobbied for. >> you oppose the government mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, is that right? >> yes, because we're confusing coverage with care. our goal should be to make health care affordable. >> let's say someone decides not to purchase health insurance, making a conscientious decision, even though this person can afford to purchase it. this person gets critically ill and is rushed to the emergency room. should we, the people who pay

for health insurance, provide him or her with that treatment or should we take them out of the emergency room and say, you made the decision, you do not get the treatment? >> if we do the things that i said -- i am proposing to help address the issue of health care, then that person can afford to buy a catastrophic- only policy from across state lines. >> what if that person does not buy it? who should take care of that person? what all of us taxpayers have to pay for that person? >> anything they do when they cannot pay -- make them pay. hold them accountable. themt now, we're forcing to. they have to get care for illegal aliens. this is something we're already doing. you're talking about a very small hypothetical, using scare tactics to make people support the health care bill. what i am proposing -- the

health care reforms i am proposing will help alleviate those situations. >> it is not such a small number. >> nobody should be forced to pay for anybody else's health care. that is what obama-care is doing. >> that is what is happening today. before the health care bill passed, all of us who have health care have been defraying the costs for those who do not have coverage. they are getting health care through emergency rooms now. that is partly why small faced double-e digit increases in our health insurance cost year after year because that is how we provide care. it is inefficient, inhumane, and not effective. >> let's move on to immigration. this question will be for mr. coons. a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants -- you support that? >> i support a pathway to being here legally. what was the question?

>> what was your opinion on the pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants? >> we have roughly 12 million illegal immigrants. it is a huge problem. immigration is a federal responsibility. the federal government should step up and fix it. the federal government has failed. we need to recognize the situation we're in. there are whole industries that rely on the labor of those who are here illegally. there is a long tradition of failing to deliver the border security that our country needs. the administration has invested millions of dollars in additional troops, services, support at the border. strengthen the borders. make it much tougher for folks to come here illegally. increase the penalties when they do. hold employers accountable, particularly those who routinely employed folks who are here illegally. give them real idea that as much more difficult to counterfeit.

allow those who are here illegally and do not commit crime to come out of the shadows if they will pay taxes, learn english, pay a fine -- say, i committed a crime, and pay the fine -- and go to the back of the line with those -- behind those who apply to come here legally. i would give them a pass toward legal residency, but there would be more if they -- a pathway toward legal residency, but there would be more to do if they wanted citizenship. i want to focus our resources -- law-enforcement resources on finding and deporting those who pose a real threat to our communities. i have seen over and over instances where neighborhoods are threatened by people who are here illegally and were priced -- where i.c.e. does not have the resources necessary. >> when you say that you support

border enforcement, this administration recently stopped the efforts to put a virtual fence on our border. when barack obama is standing with you on the campaign trail, are you going to tell him that you disagree on his immigration reform effort? i believe that securing our borders should be our first priority before we get into discussion of whether we will give social security benefits to illegal aliens. america it is a magnet for those of the country who do believe -- all over the world who do believe that america stands as a beacon of hope and justice. therefore, i support a legal pathway to those were coming here, especially for political asylum, to seek a better life and to reward those who break our laws is to cheat those who honor them. .

getting past the endless bickering and partisan divide on this. senator john mccain, before this election cycle he was a real advocate for working with democrats in congress to find a path forward. as the years of rule by, the

number of folks that were here illegally continues to grow and we are not taking the actions that need to be taken to separate those that need to pay a fine to accept responsibility and began paying taxes and contributing to our community and their benefits. i would rather have us begin to provide a passel of those who are here illegally stand up and take response ability and our deported, taking progress. >> are you going to tell the president that? that you disagree with him and you think that illegal aliens should be deported? we have to keep in mind, when we tried amnesty in the 1980's, it backfired. we have got to address the issue securing the borders and this is something that the obama administration stopped this year. we have to secure the borders first, then we begin the

discussion on guest worker programs and how to eliminate some of the bureaucracy that keeps the legal pathway to citizenship so difficult. >> we will get to student questions in a moment. but i do want to clarify one thing on the national security front on china, which is a huge issue right now. 2006, correct me if i am wrong, you said that china has a carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over america and if they pretended to be our friend it is because they have something up their sleeve. the use said you wish you were not privy to some of the classified information you are privy to. i would like to clarify what you meant. >> what i was working with humanitarian groups in china we were given security briefs regarding china's position with potentially hostile nations and security threats that my clients would be facing.

but we have to look at china very seriously. they have so much of our debt, it prohibits a lot of decisions that we need to make in regards to our foreign policy. china stands in a big way around nuclear weapons. these gasoline sanctions that we have are not enforced as strictly as they could be because we have allies like france and italy participating in the embargo, but then china comes in and takes that business. we need to put sanctions on those chinese companies, because right now when it comes to nuclear weapons, iran is our biggest threat to national security. if we go to china to say please stop these companies, they would probably spark because we are not in an economic position to hold them to that. china could be bigger allied to west and north korea, but they are not, they are not putting

the pressure down that they could. we have got to tackle the national debt and stop these things like reckless spending bills coming from washington that only contribute to our national debt. >> on the specific " that china has a plan to take over american -- takeover america, you know about this? >> look at what is going on. right now, monetarily, they could take us over with money before they used the military. >> is their response? >> it is hard for me to respond effectively to all of the issues that my opponent has made, i will just let that stand. i do not have any classified information about china and its plans. what we need to focus on in this debate in this question is the steady degradation of our security posture in the pacific rim. the australian navy engaged in joint exercises with the chinese

and specifically excluded us recently. as the chinese have become economically stronger, they are becoming militarily stronger. pushing the envelope on trade and intellectual property. it is quite a threat, also to our safety and security, widespread counterfeiting going on in china without our standing against it. >> we are out of time at this point. >> are you saying that china is a -- >> we are going to move on to the student questions, as we want to involve the university of delaware students. we have a question from a student that brings up the issue of don't ask, don't tell. >> i was wondering if you are planning to bring back up the issue of don't ask, don't tell as a possible appeal. >> mr. kunz? >> i would move swiftly to

repeal the ask, don't tell. it is discrimination, plant -- plain and simple. i met with veterans here in delaware with top-secret see -- clearances that had to deny who they were and the relationships they had. we should be recognizing the full range of human experience and repealing don't ask, don't tell, is an important step. >> there are a couple of things that we need to say about this. first of all, judges should not be legislating for -- from the bench. it is up to the military to set the policy for the best interest of military cohesiveness. the military already regulates personal behavior in that it does not allow affairs to go on within your chain of command. it does not allow, if you are married, for adulterous affairs. the military already regulates personal behavior because they

feel it is in the best interest of our military readiness. i do not think that congress should force a social agenda on to our military. >> we have another question about embryonic stem cell research. >> what our your views on the federal allocation of funds used force -- use of force them cell research. >> talking about embryonic. >> i would support medical research including an embryonic research. there are critical and dances that are being made in can be made in addressing some of the most difficult diseases the crescent -- address america. >> i think if we took an intellectually honest look at the research out there, you would see that there are incredible advances with adult stem cell research, not as much with embryonic. along with the private sector, that is where investors would put their money.

second of all, the federal government should not be in the business of creating life to simply destroy it. when it comes to the issue of so-called medical waste, i would point to the issue of the snowflake babies, where they have incredible success of adopting these human embryos that were going to be discarded, given potentially thousands of infertile couples the opportunity to have babies. the snowflake program is a wonderful program that everyone should take a look at. >> the next question brings up the issue of abortion. >> what is your stance on abortion, including cases of rape and incest? >> there has been a profound loss of respect for the dignity of human life that has been reflected in a lot of our policies. whether it is cutting tax exemptions for disabled, low- income citizens, or with abortion. i respect the human dignity on

all levels. my opponent and others will use a scare tactic of rape and incest, which is less than 1% of all abortions by america. >> i strongly support a woman's right to choose. it is federal constitutional law, part of our nation's freedom. i am personally opposed to abortion but i do not think it is my place to put that view on women. i think it should be safe, legal, and rare. >> we will get into some of these issues and go back to students' questions. on the issues of gays in the military, almost all the nato allies allow gays to serve in the military. israel, which has a fine military, as you know, has allowed this. why, specifically, do you believe that gays should not be allowed to serve in our military?

>> is the military policy, same as adultery. they regulate this because they believe it is in the best interest of unit cohesion and effective military. >> if the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says that he believes that gays should be allowed, would that be enough? >> if the heads of all four branches of the military said that, it would be up to them, not me as a u.s. senator to impose my social agenda. >> what about that? what if the chairman said, you know what, we will do whatever the commander-in-chief tells us to do, but we do not think it is a good idea because of these issues you are raising -- unit cohesion and those other issues. >> one of my real heroes is harry truman. he made it difficult decision to compel the racial integration of

the armed forces at a point when most of the leadership and generals said, for the same reasons, that we should not have a racially integrated military. a brave decision and an important decision. the ultimate long-term impact has made the military one of the most progressive in terms of promotional events meant opportunities of any organization in the country. most of our allies long ago realized that we have given up the service of thousands of potential volunteers that could serve us at home and abroad. it makes no sense because of a narrow social agenda to exclude them from open service in the military. >> we are not necessarily going to open discussion on that because we want to get to two questions. the next question comes on the issue of campaign finance reform. >> what is your position on campaign finance reform? what is your reaction to the recent supreme court ruling

allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns? >> mr. coons? >> the decision to which the student is referring was an unfortunate and poorly decided decision, opening the floodgates of increase corporate contributions that could have the unintended consequence of significantly distorting our electoral process in the united states. i would support reforms that disclose who is behind these shadowy groups. sunshine is the best disinfectant. in politics is best to disclose. >> get the legislative efforts to do exactly that have failed to do that. the disclose act, the one that harry reid, from the one that harry reid has called his pet, he has done that to exempt major

corporations from disclosing. what these efforts do is only serve to infringe on the first amendment rights of private citizens. i use my own campaign as an example. from our reports, my supporters have been getting harassing phone calls. not just from reporters, but from all kinds of people opposed to my candidacy. using intimidation tactics because we are forced to disclose who is contributing. this so-called campaign finance reform is exempting corporations, on the left or the right. it is those who are in washington already, those who are over 10 years old who have half of a million members, who are already playing in the backroom deal. >> do the american people have a right to know where the money in these campaigns is coming from? >> yes and no. i believe that there are ways to do that where we can report to

the fec, but we do not have to make them public unless there is a question of corruption, preventing much of the harassment being received by my reporters. we can disclose that to the sec, but they do not have to put it in a website that makes anyone vulnerable to further fund- raising calls. over and over that is a repeated violation. even people in my party, i have said absolutely not, it is against the law. these laws are being abused. >> there is so much there, i do not know. frankly, i support full disclosure of campaign contributions. i think it is the best way to ensure that we have fair, open, clean campaigns. folks should know who the folks are that are contributing to campaigns to hold candidates and elected officials accountable. >> and others to question on the

split -- sensitive issue of religion in america. >> in light of events in the past decade, islam has been viewed of -- as their religion of terrorists and extremists. moslems like myself a test against this. there has been much controversy over the mosque being built near ground zero and a pastor making outrageous remarks regarding the koran. where is the line between us -- between freedom of speech and respect for other village -- religions? >> a great question. and a difficult one. the florida pastor that cause outrage by threatening to burn the karan showed a profound misunderstanding of the difference between the islamic terrorists that attack america and deserve our condemnation and the vast majority of muslims who participate in a religion whose fundamental principle is a commitment to peace and

embracing the rest of humanity. if that pastor had wanted to make the right point. he should have threatened to burn the teachings of -- teachings of osama bin laden. it is a key role for the united states supreme court to continue to draw the line in the first amendment between those that would call fire in a crowded theater and incite attack and riots, much like osama bin laden, and those that have religious traditions were the of our support. difficult but -- difficult lines to draw and an essential role for our supreme court. >> i would agree. the supreme court has placed restrictions on first amendment rights. i know that you cannot go into a crowded theater and yell fire. you cannot stand on an airplane and yell hijacked. however, where the question has come between what is protected free speech and what does not, the supreme court has always

ruled that the community, the local community has the right to decide. wish -- with the issue of the 9/11 mosque, that is where the battle is being fought. >> the community members, at least the city council and the mayor, the representatives that were elected, support this mosque and community center. >> and a lot of the people on the ground do not and they will have a lot to face from their constituents. maybe there re-election will be jeopardized. >> so, should this cultural center be built? >> there are already mosques in many locations in manhattan. i would refer to the decision of the local land use authority, folks elected by the community to make these decisions. i do not think it was a wise choice of location, but i cannot stand here and say that we should prevent folks from half -- from practicing their

religion anywhere in the united states. to say that you cannot build a mosque here violates one of our principles. >> united states senators to have opportunities to determine the makeup of that court. what opinions, of late, do you most object to coming out of the high court? >> gosh, give me a specific one, i am sorry. >> i cannot, i need you to tell me which ones you object to. >> i am very sorry, off the top of my head -- i will put it up on my website, i promise. >> we know that you disagree with roe vs. wade. >> let me say about that, if that were overturned it would not make abortion illegal in the united states, it would give the power back to the states. >> besides that, is there

anything else that you disagree with? >> when it comes to pornography, court decisions, federal and supreme court decisions to give terrorists miranda rights. there are many things that i believe -- this california decision to overturn don't ask, don't tell. federal judges are legislating from the bench. >> which supreme court decisions, if any, do you disagree with? >> the most recent one that i have been engaged with is the citizens united case, which takes the logical extension in a lot to a ridiculous extreme. corporations are not actually entitled to the same free-speech rights as people. in delaware you would think it would be capital for the rights of corporations, but in terms of political contributions and free-speech rights, they do not deserve the same protections of a real living, breathing, voting humans.

i would act to find ways to limit, narrow, or overturn it. >> anything else? >> that is the most important. >> we have a question from a student on energy. >> my question is, where you think of funding to be placed to move towards united states the freezing its funding footprint? >> the most effective investment in reducing emissions in co2 and things that cause greenhouse gas warming our energy efficiency and conservation. there was a significant investment in the stimulus in getting municipalities in the private sector to invest in reducing emissions, putting people to work, developing cutting edge technologies, reducing not just the missions of the operating expenses. we took $3.8 million in grants and combined it with $4 million of our own, retrofitting 20

calva buildings. we reduced emissions and the folks who work in our own community. if you look at these investments around the country, they have the most impact of anything that you can do that will actually reduce emissions. there are many more things that we need to do to improve the efficiency. both >> i think that the best thing to address that relevant to this u.s. senate race is to talk about the issue of cap and trade. the winner of this senate race can immediately served in the lame-duck session and vote on cap and trade. i do believe that we have to be good stewards of this earth. it does not need to be done at the expense of our citizens. cap and trade will do that. farmers, senior citizens, realtors, this bill is a national energy tax that will ration energy use and increase utility bills. senior citizens are concerned about the cost of the bill's going up.

farmers are concerned about the green compliance standards and raise utility bills shutting down their operation. standards are already hurting the housing market. i would have to ask my opponent, speaking of cap and trade, your family business stands to financially benefit from environmental legislation. >> half a fascinating question that -- >> a fascinating question that makes no sense. what is she talking about? >> good to recruit -- recused yourself because of your family connection? >> to the best of my knowledge there is no connection, and it is important for people to be transparent.

i do think the greenhouse gases need to be reined in and we need to deal with the environmental consequences. >> what evidence to you have? >> because they make fuel cells. they make some of the things it will be required by these businesses to regulate cap and trade. >> is that true? >> quite a stretch. gore makes over 1000 products. board does make lots and lots of products, from medical devices to dental floss to membranes of our component parts of systems in fuel cells. a cutting edge technology that sunday has the promise of being a significant contributor to

making it more energy- efficient, clean air transportation future. to me, the impact is so distant from any particular proposal on cap and trade, it took a couple of minutes to understand what she was talking about. >> yesterday the obama administration announced that they were lifting the moratorium on deep water oil drilling in the gulf of mexico. do you support this kind of offshore oil drilling? >> that raises the issue of whether or not we supported here in delaware. that move by obama would allow that. no, i do not want to see oil rigs off the state of delaware. however, it should be up to the state to decide. if the governor and legislature passes legislation for that, i should not as a congressperson overstep a state's rights. virginia wants it. again we have got to begin to wean ourselves off foreign oil.

potentially hostile countries like russia and venezuela, our own homeland is rich with natural resources, oil and natural gas. there are states that want to begin exploration. alaska, virginia. we need to support the state's that wanted. >> i am opposed to opening up the outer continental shelf. frankly, i think that delaware is a world-class speeches should not be at risk of being spoiled by an oil spill. many reasons it does not make sense for most of the coast. i think that there are natural energy resources in this country that we should exploit more fully. i would also prioritize investments by an alternative technology. the university of technology -- of delaware has been key in making when our real. offshore, solar, these are the areas where i would prefer to

see federal investment and innovative opportunities. >> we have time for one more issue before closing statements. we are drawing down on time. this is an issue that i think really illustrate the differences between the two of you. what, specifically, would you encourage you do to actually help to end any of the bitter non-partisan atmosphere in washington? >> i have had to fight my party to be here on this stage, to win the nomination, and to some extent i am still fighting my party. when i go to washington by legions will be to the voters of delaware, not a special interest. my campaign has been about returning the political process back to the people of delaware, which is a great thing to me. i would stand strong on legislation that benefits the interest of our citizens. not the special interests in

washington, d.c.. i would not just vote against a piece of legislation, but make a convincing argument to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have lost their way and given into partisanship so much that it has caused several stalemates, as to why this is in the best interest of their constituents. i would stand firm, regardless of the pressure on me from either party, for the people of delaware, not the interests of washington. >> frankly, i do not think that my opponent has pointed to one single example where she supports the initiative of the democratic party. i have a practical record of reaching bipartisan solutions in county government of working with the elected republicans with me on county council and county executive. i have a hands on record in the private sector and i and my service in partnership with the private sector of reaching out to folks of different political

backgrounds and world views, working with them to find solutions. that is the kind of record the people will look at in judging whether or not i have the capacity. >> on this specific issue raised earlier by miss o'donnell, she says that harry reid has called you his pet. >> i do not know why he said that, in no one's pet. i will be able blog for delaware. i have a significant amount of support from independents, republicans, democrats from all counties. i have a record of independence and fighting for the public interest as county executive. >> to clarify another point from earlier to make sure that we tie this up, you said you did not want to have to talk about comments that she made years ago about witchcraft and stuff like this, but in this commercial you are so widely seen in, you begin the commercial with -- i am not

a witch. >> to put it to rest. >> did you not realize that in a commercial it would be revived and everyone would talk about it? >> i would like to address what my opponent just said about being a bulldog for delaware, yet in a fund-raising record he agreed to support harry reid, nancy pelosi, and obama every step of the way, which is not independent thinking. they see him as a rubber-stamp for their agenda. there are many things that i publicly said about supporting the obama administration on. i support his decision to send troops to afghanistan, the decision for drones. the decision to treat the american who is recruiting terrorists on american soil, i support the decision for intelligence agencies to do with

a half to to take him out. i support these decisions when they are in the best interest of the people of delaware but i believe that the policies coming from this administration, for the most part, are not in the best interest of the people of delaware. we have been promised one thing and have received another. breaking promises does something that my opponent is very comfortable doing. >> many local party leaders have questioned your candidacy after the primary. you criticized the manage to be in that primary for being someone who went with what he felt was in the best interest of the people, for being someone who was borrowing republican principles but going with democrats. >> what i did in the primary and what i will continue to do is bust up the back room deals. we have developed an obnoxious sense of entitlement about who should represent who on the ballot. >> i need to interrupt just so

that we get to closing statements. >> we will begin the closing statements. most of you have a chance. >> once again, i would like to thank the coast of this debate. and i would hope that the delaware voters better understand the clear choice we face in november. my opponent has a record of raising taxes and wasteful spending. like so many career politicians, he says he will do one thing and then breaks the promises after having rubberstamp and failed policies. he is in lock step with barack obama and harry reid, which is why harry reid called him his pet. i am not a democrat but i know that what is happening in my country right now is not what my democratic friends voted for when they voted for change in 2008.

washington needs new voices and new ideas that work for the people and not the government as the solution to the economic problem with a culture of spending, waste, fraud, and abuse. spending tax dollars on men's fashion shows or paying off his cronies, we already have enough politicians in washington like that. i want to go to washington and be the voice of the people of delaware, not a party or special-interest group. i want to go to washington and represent the people that put me on this stage who are willing to work hard to get the country back on track again. i do believe that america is one of the greatest forces of good in the world and i have never questioned its stature as a beacon of justice. we will cut spending, get our financial house in order, defeating our enemies and

seeing triumph over our enemies. i hope that you will support me and cast your vote for donald for u.s. senate. god bless you, god bless delaware. >> thank you for the tough questions you have asked and the open and good conversation we have had. you have heard that there's a real and clear difference between myself and my opponent. ms. o'donnell has experience at running for office, but not deadly running anything. at delivering catchy slogans without solutions. frankly, at sharpening the partisan divide. she has focused too little on the issues that matter to the people of delaware and too much on the issues that make for good sound bites. what delaware needs and deserves is someone as their next senator that has real hands-on experience solving problems, fixing what is wrong with our community and in washington, tackling the real problems that face us in america.

i am the only candidate on this stage tonight with experience working with and in the private sector. >> thank you so much. time is up. will falter, it has been a pleasure. for those of you watching, thank you so much for joining us. good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> with support from aarp, delaware, and the american cancer society, cancer action network. >> midterm elections are november 2 and seize spanish showing you debates from around the country.

next, missouri. then live debates. at 7:00 p.m. we will hear -- we'll hear from the candidates in kentucky, afterwards the washington seattle senate race. >> tonight, justice stephen briar. >> sometimes it is hard to avoid your basic values and how you see the country and its relationships between the lot and the average person in this country. what do you think the law is about? basic, fundamental, political values that are a part of you and will, sometimes, influence and approach where the question is very open and where it admits to that kind of thing. >> justice stephen briar and his new book tonight on c-span. >> this week on "prime

minister's questions," the newly elected labor party leader poses questions to david cameron for the first time. topics include the investigation into the death of the british aid worker during a failed hostage rescue attempt. a tribute to the rescue of the chilean miners. and a government plan to cut child benefits for those with higher incomes. tonight, i caught p.m. eastern, on c-span. -- tonight, 9:00 eastern, on c- span. >> now, roy blunt and robin carnahan they sought in the first of two debates. it was held thursday at the kansas city public television studios. according to the federal election support raise the day, they raised $2.4 million with cash on hand.

robyn carnahan's campaign raised $2.2 million and has $2.2 million in cash on hand. this is one hour. >> this broadcast is made possible in part by aarp of missouri. >> in the president of the aarp, missouri, encouraging all citizens of voting age to get out and vote. because it is your right, your decision, your vote. >> after almost one-quarter of a decision, kit bond is stepping down. who will missouri voters choose to replace him? robyn carnahan or roy blunt? you have no doubt seen their advertisements, but for the first time this year they are tackling the issues face-to- face. from the studios of casey pt public television in kansas

city. here is your moderator, nick haines. >> a long and expensive campaign. good evening, everyone. the candidates have raised over $50 million to try to win this senate seat from the middle of the country. all of this money has purchased lots and lots of 32nd commercials, but until now they have never step into the same room together. is rob gehant -- is robyn carnahan as black, white, and brainy as the ads have made her out to be? is there always ominous music when roy blunt is on the scene? that is how the commercials make it look. you have a better chance to get to know the candidates as they answer questions from reporters and, to maximize the time that we have, we are abandoning a long recitations of debate rules

so that we can bring you even more questions and, hopefully, more answers. both candidates wanted the chance to make opening statements. two minutes was agreed upon. republican roy blunt, your first. >> thank you to kansas city public television for hosting this debate. thank you for the other stations throughout the state that will rebroadcast of this debate. sometime last week i did my 800th campaign event, dozens of jobs roundtable. what i see is why is the federal government spending so much more money than it has ever spent before, then going to real concerns over health care plan that they take will not work for them. and i think of their right.

a cap and trade scheme in our state that would a stimulus plan that did not work in the first person in my family to graduate from college, but i was raised in a country told that nothing was guaranteed do we live in a country where the government is bigger than the people or the people are bigger than the government? i intend to fight for that country where the feeble and i intend to fight for the kind of country i hear the feeble locked at about every day and i think

this is a campaign event the issue is thank you. >> thank you both for posting this. our family has served for a long time. from what i've tried to live my life by, i have set up for consumers, cutting costs and red tape for small businesses. three issues that matter most in need to be fixed, the first is fixing the economy and creating jobs. second, holding washington accountable for spending money.

we need to fix the culture of washington that has a deck that is stacked toward special interests and against the rest of us. the congressman as for corporate bailouts, he is for wasteful, your mark spending, and i am not. he is for giving specialty favors to his lobbyist friends, i am not. he even voted to raise his own pay 12 times. i think that congress should take it takeout. our priorities are different. i can understand why he would not want to talk about his record. hard to understand how he has been there for 14 years. wall street was bailout and we got stuck with the bill. nobody think that -- nobody in missouri things that deserves a promotion. you voted repeatedly for tax breaks to send jobs overseas.

on behalf of the people i cannot be here to ask you a question, i would like you to pledge to never again vote for tax breaks to be sent overseas. >> the tax policies i have worked for build jobs and create american opportunity and i intend to continue to do that. i will not support tax increases, even though you supported them for the first 16 months of this campaign. >> candidate question time now. we go first to michael mahoney. >> if you look at the campaign's through the eyes of your opponent, carnahan, you are a rubber stamp for president obama. mr. bland, the worst of washington. at the time that you just mentioned, where the people are worried about jobs, is that the best that you can do? >> two minutes.

>> this should be a campaign about the issues. every single advertisement we have had on the air has been about the issues. there's a difference between where i am on these issues, nancy pelosi, barack obama, and frankly secretary carnahan. i intend to continue to work on the things that answer those questions earlier. how do we create private sector jobs? they are the key to our economic future. we need government jobs but they do not pay the bill, they are the bill. we have seen a lack of focus on the things that create jobs. the round tables i have had all over the state, people start out by saying that there is too much uncertainty. then they get to the fact that all the cards are stacked against them. we talk about doubling utility bills with cap and trade, taking

health care benefits out of the control of the job creator for the first time ever to where you do not have the options you used to have. people do not create those jobs. i thought that this was the year where it was impossible to be more specific than voters wanted you to be on the issues. anyone who has asked me a question, unless it raises utility bills, of course it does. that is what cap and trade does. i am not for doing things the stand in the way of private sector job creation. the biggest issue that we are facing domestically today and i will continue to work with those who believe that private sector jobs are the answer, creating a certainty about the environment that people hope to

create jobs in. >> i think that records matter. my record in missouri is not what the congressman is characterizing. you would think that i was the cause of the economic meltdown in this country. the congressman has been in washington for 14 years, one of the top leaders for most of that time. if you put someone in charge of something for 14 years and they do not get the job done and you are worse off than when you started, you do not ask for a promotion, you fire them. congressman, i know that the budget has exploded during your tenure. earmarks have gotten out of control on your watch. we have seen too much corruption, cozy deals with lobbyists, fighting that has to stop. i think that the only way to stop that is to send people out there that have different priorities. we will not be cozy and

comfortable with how washington works. we will look out for the people of missouri instead. that is what people expect and are looking for in the senate. >> 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 federal dollars to missouri for the projects here? >> 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," "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. look at where the maps show the 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 it sent in and a couple of cents beyond that. the money was going to go somewhere. the federal gas tax money was to be allocated. we fought for individual things and got back the money be sent in. >> 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 to be a performer, i think that missourians will not buy it. if you think the bridges to nowhere and potato museums are great uses of our money, you ought to vote for congressman blunt. if you think that a potato museum is a great use of money, that is what you get. >> 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 $250 billion per year

by the time it start spending money. we cannot afford it. it is a bad plan. 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-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 having a surplus in our budget to a $1.2 trillion deficit. .

>> 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, 9/11 disrupted 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. i have the enemies to prove

it. 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. greasing the call was, do not cut my program -- every single call was, do not cut my program. 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. you can look not only at the things i say i am for but what i have fought to do. the attack on the mandatory programs was to try to make the -- make things makes sense. we will sign people up for medicare and medicaid who are legally in the country. that could save $11 billion. eliminate duplication.

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. as far as i know, with the exception of veterans benefits, there is no government program i have not tried to reform financially. 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 who are in control are afraid to say what they're for. >> missed carnahan, you have 60 seconds for your rebuttal. >> i find is an amazing case of washington, d.c. doublespeak. congressman blunt has been there for 14 years. he has been in the leadership for most of that time. 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. -- it has not gone down. it has gone up. 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 of nbccity iaffiliate action news. >> mr. blunt, ms. carnahan, i know seniors who are concerned about medicare part d. the prescription drug plan. 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 -- handed me a letter from with low -- from 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 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 -- that thinks you are a protector of medicare and social security. your record, over and over again -- and do not come to

missouri and say one thing when you did something else. you were there, pushing for the privatization of social security. you said that it was a risky scheme that should have taken place years ago. 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 -- in the whole country when it comes to protecting our seniors. i've done all i can for 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 -- 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. >> i have never said that. >> we have you on tape saying that. >> 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 -- looking at 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. >> let the congressman finished. -- finish. >> in terms of 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 -- robin 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 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 ere attacked us on 9/11 wor trained. we have to stabilize that part of the world. it is appropriate that we use all means to try to work on this. >> mr. blunt. >> i am on the house intelligence committee. i have had these briefings. i have been to afghanistan. i have been to iraq.

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 with denying the dangers we face in the world today. i'm concerned that the administration is in denial. we do face dangers. christmas day, just a few months ago. the very next sunday -- this guy was on the airplane with explosives in his clothes. his strength to detonate -- he is trying to detonate the explosives. six passengers jumped on him and stop him. the next sunday, on one of the shows, secretary of homeland security janet napolitano says the system worked. clearly, the system did not work. we live in a dangerous world.

robert gibbs, that same sunday, had 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 -- i am 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 is a region where, 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- month plan for withdrawal. the taliban and announced a 19- month plan. we have to understand the world is a dangerous place. the principal responsibility is -- of the federal government is to defend the country. >> 60 seconds for your rebuttal. >> i agree that we should not

have a timeline for withdrawal. we should not have an open- ended commitment in afghanistan. you brought up homeland security. it was disappointed that you -- it was disappointing that you tried to slip something into a homeland security build right -- bill 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 -- took it out 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 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 -- $700 billion but $66 billion. congressman blunt, you voted for t.a.r.p. secretary of state carnahan, you have criticized it. in light of recent reports on the actual cost, have either of you revise your -- revised 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 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. -- on the recovered money so far. there may be a loss, but i do not know. when i negotiated that bill, it says 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 $700 billion. well, i was not for giving them the second half, they never needed most of it. president obama should have asked for $100 billion, not $350 billion.

he never used the last amount of that money. it was a plan that worked. hopefully we will never get into that situation again. i will see that we don't. it is a plan that, when 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. let's hear from the democratic candidate, robin carnahan. >> congressman blunt and i see this completely differently. he said that he negotiated the bill and it made a real difference. i'll say. we have seen the second-year in a row that 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 -- and 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. -- $10 billion to consumers. it was not something they would do on their own. i stood up on the side of missourians. we need that in washington. 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. 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 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 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 than what the federal government did. >> and another question. >> lobbyists have way too much -- influence in washington. do you think lobbyists have undue influence on legislation? if so, what needs to be done? >> i do think 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. you 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.

-- k street. we need to have a 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. it might be because he is carried water for them year after year in washington. it might be 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. and i thought 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 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 congress that occurred with 9/11. >> your chance 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. >> 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. i do not know how much of it is been instigated by people. in this cap and trade discussion -- i am for more solar, 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 -- the league of conservation voters who have not 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 who has had a 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 unthought-out plan would cost jobs and if the problem you're trying to solve worse, not better. -- and make the problem you are 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. -- have only encouraged 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. i will not subsidize oil companies. we need to encourage homegrown energy. we need to make ourselves more secure because we are energy independent. >> 60 seconds for your rebuttal.

>> the steps you have taken so far have sent jobs to china and india. that is where a lot of green energy jobs are going. 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 to fight. someone told me a few months ago -- and missourians know what this has done to their utility bills. if my retired mother's utility bill doubles, that is worse.

if the business's utility bills double, the jobs go away. it is all theoretical after that. >> our time is up. you have two minutes to make your final case to voters. roy blunt, your two minutes begin now. >> i'm glad to go first. i've been out in every county of missouri for the last 18 months. 800 events, talking to missourians about their government and how can make it better. -- how we can make it better. it is one of the most under- reported stories. there is the no-vote. 32 democrats voted with of the -- with all of the republicans against this bill fought out health care plan. over 40 democrats voted against 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, -- we see at church, at 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 an 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 -- in his family 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 -- in the 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 robincarnahan.com. learn more about my plans to fix what is wrong with the economy, create jobs, an old washington accountable for how would spend our money. -- and hold washington accountable for how it spends our money. 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's special interests. it is that simple -- washington or missouri. the good news is, you get to decide. i am robin carnahan. i will never forget where i came from.

>> they are asking you to send them to the senate to fill the retiring senator bond's seat. there are two other candidates on the ballot. if you do not like the interest you have heard tonight, -- the answer is you have heard tonight, check out the campaigns of libertarian jonathan dine and conservative jerry beck. thank you for spending part of your evening with us. good night. >> this broadcast was made possible in part by aarp of missouri. >> my name is jim clemons, president of aarp missouri, encouraging all citizens to get out and vote because it is your right, your decision, your vote. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> c-span cost coverage of the 2010 elections continues today with the debate between democrat jack conway and republican rand paul for the senate seat in kentucky. that begins at 7:00 p.m. at 10:00 p.m., income and patty murray faces republican dino rossi -- incumbent patty murray faces republican dino rossi in the washington senate debate. >> justice stephen breyer on

"q&a." >> uc the relationship between law and the average person in this -- you see the relationship between law and the average person in this country, the basic fundamentals of our party. they will sometimes influence an approach where the question is very open and where it admits to that kind of thing. >> supreme court justice stephen breyer and his new book tonight on c-span. >> hey, middle and high school students. get working on those videos for studentcam. there are $50,000 in prices -- prizes. this year's theme is washington, d.c., through your lens. >> now, a debate among the four

u.s. senate candidates in arkansas. democratic senator blanche lincoln, republican congressman john boozman, john gray, and trevor drown. debate was organized are the arkansas educational television network. this is about one hour, 25 minutes. >> good evening, everyone. welcome to debate week -- the third night here on the arkansas educational television network, aetn. two sessions. the first for the candidates for the united states senate, immediately following, the candidates in the fourth

congressional district. we begin with the senate campaign. our candidates, senator blanche lincoln, the incumbent and democratic nominee. mr. john gray, the candidate of the green party. mr. trevor brown, an independent candidate -- drown, an independent candidate. and mr. john boozman. we will have a panelist -- a panel of arkansas journalists. each candidate will have two 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 -- rebuttals 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. drown. >> my name is trevor drown and i am a christian. like the majority of arkansans, 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 experiences. like 92% of the arkansas registered voters, i, too, choose to be independent in the two could-party system. -- two-party system. 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 an arkansas conservative. that means that we have a strong belief in god and in the it is not a living and breathing document that can botch cabe chd over time. except for the amendment process. 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 oto 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 -- asking me to run. 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 tru. 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 ana retired engineer. i graduated from the university of arkansas. throughout my working career, i have solved problems in manufacturing by taking data and doing what the data tells the tme 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. 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 -- and no corporation is going to 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 -- consequences. 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 -- process. because of corporate involvement in 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 had a positive balance of trade. that means we sold more

materials and we bought. -- then we bought. 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. -- we have ever had and the greatest prosperity. the new york times wrote that in light of globalization, americans are vastly overpaid for the they need to expect -- overpaid. they need to accept an across- the-board real wage cut of 20% and get in line. >> mr. gray, i am sorry. i have to call time. thank you for your statement. >> 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. for theireful courageous service. 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. -- thank the candidates that are here. this is a great opportunity for arkansas to see us. >> with this lincoln, thank you. mr. boozman? >> thank you. a special thanks to aetn and all they do.

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 -- going to 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. -- we 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. employees.e employees for it w 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. -- going 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? empowering small business and getting out of their way i, cutting regulation that is in their way. the average person -- the average businessman knows that his taxes are going up. he does not know what his business costs are going to be or his energy costs. the last thing that he is going to do is hire additional labor. senator lincoln is very proud of being the prevailing voice on passing obamacare.

i want to go to the senate and the repealing voice. >> the first question goes to mr. boozman. >> the arkansas lottery raised $106 million for scholarships. when i look at your legislation to establish a federal sales tax, i see a 23% tax applied to purchases. -- applied to gaming services. is that going to be a 23% tax on 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. there is more irs agent -- >> what do you think it would do to scholarship funds? >> let me finish. 68,000 pages of regulation. 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. -- fair tax. 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. others talk of the flat tax. 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? >> well, i do not think it is right for arkansas. -- i do not think the 23% sales tax is right for arkansas, nor do i think a fair tax is. 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, -- consume. i think that, yes, without a doubt, 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, -- your farm, your tuition, all of those things.

it is outrageous. it would be disproportionately more hazardous and put at risk the hard working people of our state. i think that without a doubt, upper income would not feel it as much. that is a big issue for us as well. i think, 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. -- should not put a blockade in front of that. i think that k-12 needs to be restructured. i introduced a bipartisan bill to deal with the restructuring of no time left behind. -- no child left behind. 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's working families and their children. >> mr. gray? >> a 23% sales tax across the

board, if somebody makes $100,000 a year and lose 25 percent of that, there would still have $75,000. somebody on social security -- others would find it harder to make ends meet. especially on $750 per month. 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 -- scholarships, 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. i am all for looking at

alternatives, whether it be the fair tax or the flat tax. both taxes have positives and negatives and unknowns. we have to ask ourselves, is 23% where it is going to stop or will increase to 30%? addressing your question of what impact on scholarship funds it would have in the state of arkansas, 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 ability to fund 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 -- 23% tax on lottery tickets, i would not have tha 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. -- rebuttal.

i would say that when you talk -- >> 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 that needs to be looked at. there are other methods of reforming the current system that we have. 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. when you look at the counties, the poorest counties in the state are hurt the most. -- when you look at the counties that are contributing, the poorest counties in the state are contributing 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? -- the reality is that this will

not be decided offhand. this will take the president supporting what ever we come up with. both houses of congress, democrats, republicans, independentbang, the people of america -- independents, and, most importantly, the people of america. >> mr. boozman, thank you. our next question comes from glenn morrison is directed first to ms. lincoln. -- gwen moritz and is directed first to miss 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 -- get us 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 obama's tax package for it i do -- or the others. 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. as a part of consumption, 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 convention spending to cutting nasa and several other places. we have been able to seek cuts. i have been willing to support those cuts. 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. -- and the rich are only being asked to pay the 3% above that. if they cannot afford that, -- -- if they cannot afford that, they are baffling -- they are awfully pour rich people -- poor rich people. 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. -- the cold war has been over for a long time. we have 1.3 million people who are unemployed. we have programs such as the f 35 fighter. this was designed for russia. it is the latest-model. it was designed before they went

out of business as a state. this thing that builds and it is state of the art. a ghost three times faster than -- it goes 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 -- we have many departments. a prime example is the department of education which came online in 1980 and president reagan made a comeback -- a campaign promise to do away with it. he was unable to do so without the cooperation of the congress at the time. 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. another thing, 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. they still cannot find jobs, but get -- yetthis 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. -- thank you. mr. boozman? >> i think that we can balance the budget and we can do it without raising significant taxes. abnormal one testified several -- admiral mullen came and 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 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. -- nafta evolves. 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. drown? >> 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. -- eye doctor. 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. -- on and on. 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 it goes to mr. drown. >> 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. findu will notice, you'll 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. -- for rebuttal. 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.

-- instead, we focused 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 a million arkansans without 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. -- $2 million a year. they are looking at laying off 50 people. 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. we need more competition. 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. -- deficit 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. -- to the government 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?

if so, why wait for review? >>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 theirs. 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. -- of the american taliban kind 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. a you're trying to maintain 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 town hall meetings. 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. now we have earmarks. for every dollar we spend on one project, we get $1.40 back. that is good not only for

northwest arkansas but all the way over to jonesboro. that is a great project. on the other side, we have stuff put in at midnight the night before we have big boats. we have to get some transparency. certainly there are many worthwhile projects we need to be doing in arkansas. i am on the transportation committee. i understand how important spending for infrastructure is. along with that, we have to get control of the garbage coming out of washington. the only way to do that is to define what an earmark is, and make some new roles -- new rules would transparency so the american public can see what we are doing. >> i appreciate the question. there are rules on transparency. we do have to put our names beside the request we make in

the appropriations committee and we have to say what it is for. i don't have any apologies to the communities that come to me and asked to try to find the assistance they need for water projects or turbines. those are good programs. i have supported a menace that cut the budget, but the fact that he did not ask -- supported amendments that cut the budget. the fact is he did not ask for any appropriations mean that the third district got zero. this is an opportunity for us to be able to equalize what it is we are getting back in those tax dollars. it is one of the reasons the delegation by its heart. the congressman had $9 billion on his website last year that he requested. these are in the budget. these are budgeted items, appropriated dollars. if you want to cut back, you cut back the budget, not just simply not asking for your state.

the money is going to be spent. it will go to other states. it will go to michigan or arizona or somewhere else. it is the reason we are 14th out of 50 states because of the amount of tax dollars we bring back from what we send in. it is because as a delegation, will work hard to get those dollars in to this date for water projects, highway projects company and others. it is important to know the difference between just simply not asking for something or actually cutting the budget so that you can actually cut spending. i supported cutting spending, but when there is money on the table, you better believe i am going to ask ford for arkansas, because it is going to get it anyway and we need to make sure arkansans get the benefit of those dollars. >> in engineering we have a statistical breakdown that says

20% of the items usually account for 80% of your expenses. if you list the items on the national agenda in order of how much each one of them costs, you will find that 20% of them spend about 80% of the money. the first place to look, if you want to save money on an overall national budget is up for re tell analysis of the entire system. willie loman set you go to the banks because that is where the money is. well, you go to the federal government because that is where the money is. the money is in washington. >> the next question goes first to mr. brown. >> the recent decision in the citizens united case 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 extensive political messages that they see and hear? >> i do not agree with the decision. the runoff and primary that center lincoln participated in with lieutenant governor showed millions spent by the unions across the country. by allowing these 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 the direction the supreme court has gone and i believe they have done a huge disservice to the the nation and to the people of arkansas. >> i agree with the ruling. i think people should have the ability to express themselves in that way and to 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 and mr. reid. you have a situation where you clampdown on everybody, with the exception being the unions and people like that. if they were going to come out with a program that created more transparency or whatever, it needs to be across the board. the legislation they proposed certainly does not do that. >> do you think it should be that the voters should know who is paying for that ad? >> i think the current interpretation by the federal election commission is the correct one. >> i think absolutely voters should know who is paying for it and who is providing that information to them. i love our state and that is the reason i am running for this

office. i have tremendous respect for our nation and government. is the greatest government on the face of the earth, for all its faults. one of the biggest issues among american people right now and their lack of faith that our government is because of lack of transparency. i have worked diligently in the u.s. senate during health care debate when republicans objected to my unanimous consent to require everyone to post their amendments on the web so people could see them. i did on my own web site to ensure that people across the country could see what was being debated and voted on. transparency should be the rule, not the exception. one problem we have is in campaigns. as trevor mansion, the plethora of ads and mailers that came out during the primaries. people are flooded with information, particularly now more than ever before, not knowing where that information is coming from or who is

responsible for it. transparency is a critical part of gaining the trust of the american people in our government and being able to see and know what it is we do in washington. more importantly, what is happening in these campaigns. i believe transparency is a critical part of what we have to have, and i think it should happen in campaigns as well. we have the most regulated contributions of anybody in the campaign. candidates have to report every dollar they get. the have to have all the reporting in. we have the most transparent of all in terms of those who give to us and what we have attributed to us. i think other should as well. >> i am here because i caught the attention of the green

party. my stance was fine, bring it on. corporations are legal entities, they are not people. to say that walmart 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. trevor was talking about unions contributing. the unions putting all their money together is mere pocket change compared to corporations. i think it was a huge step newrd george w. bush's world order. because of that ruling, the opportunity where a citizen's vote will actually camp -- count

is closing very rapidly. soon it will not matter what the average citizen thinks because the propaganda on the television 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. >> based on this ruling, one of their reoccurring conversation that have run the state of arkansas, people are starting to revisit the 17th amendment. i am for transparency, but by repealing the 17th amendment allowing our state legislature to once again the point those that go to washington d.c., we have term limits and our state. therefore it would not be a recurring cycle with the party is constantly sending the same people to washington d.c. that is why, based on our

candidates, there are very troubled with the ruling and are looking to other means to bring control back to themselves here in the state of arkansas. >> thank you very much. we have reached a point in our broadcast and our debate for closing statements. we begin with mr. gray. >> i am here because i was asked to be here, but this -- i have been fighting nafta free trade for over 10 years, writing and talking. i am worried about the future for my children and grandchildren. they inherited a world that is a disaster compare 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, bought a house, put my walk through graduate school, put my children in private school, paid for three vacations a year, and still save money. an average graduate cannot do

that today. school was essentially free back then so i had no school expenses. on a part-time job, you could put yourself through school. i am saying that has to be reversed. we have 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 for 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 to get back to that. i am saying instead of focusing on details of these trade agreements, we ship out scrap steel and cotton as to our major exports. cotton was a major export during the revolutionary war. we have to be able to do better than that.

we had revolutionary war because they wanted to make -- they wanted us to supply the cotton. now china has taken the place of england. that is not acceptable to me. we can do better than that. >> we have to ask ourselves one question. how did we get to this point as a nation and as us a stay? as i travel around the state, i hear three concerns, economy, jobs, and nobody is listening. every 7.5 counties will have representative and a direct line to the office of the united states senate. i will have teams chasing down on waste, fraud, and abuse here in the state of arkansas. if we are not able to fix it home first, how can we ever fix it on the national level?

when a bill comes up for a vote, it is not even up for discussion, i will put up the bullet points and tell you why i agree or disagree with it with a copy of the bill, and welcome your feedback. i will start with 1 mobile office and possibly have multiple offices that will put me face to face with the community in arkansas at least one day a week in a town hall environment. this layered access will keep grounded and keep me in touch with the pulse of arkansas and allow the people once again 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, step forward, or sit down and take a back seat and watch the country continue down the path it has traveled down for the last few decades.

as the independent candidate for u.s. senate, i ask for your road on november 2. help me to begin leaving this country back to the constitution and the republic the way the in -- way the founding fathers meant it to be. >> mr. boozman. >> i can remember back several years ago seeing a patient in a clinic. this gentleman had a significant heart attack. he came in and he was concerned that his vision had been affected. we did the tests, and his vision was fine. we just needed to strengthen his glasses a little bit. he had lost about 50 pounds. his blood work was excellent. he was taking his medicine. he was getting the exercise he needed. as a result, he was doing quite well and on the road back to being healthier than ever. i patted him on the knee and said look, this is good that

this has happened to you. your back on track and you will live longer than ever. i really believe the country is in that situation right now. we have had a significant heart attack, in a sense. we have to decide which way are going? are we going the obama route, tax and spend and borrow mentality, trying to solve all our problems by growing government? or are going to get back to the free market principles that made our country great? not the stimulus and bailout approached. getting back to creating real jobs by cutting taxes on small businesses and business in general. giving them the tools they need to invest in their businesses. the answer to our problems is not big government. the answer is the people of america. i voted against those things and will continue to do that. senator lincoln is very proud of being the deciding vote on

obamacare. i want to be the deciding vote to repeal it. so i asked the people of arkansas to join with me. again, we have to get things back on the right track. if you will help me, i would appreciate your vote and i appreciate your support. thank you very much. >> thanks to you and to the panel. we appreciate all of your work here today. we want to thank our host as well as the aarp. i still believe the biggest issue in the campaign is jobs and the economy. if we put the 100,000 arkansans back to work that are out of work, we will see our economy grow. there is great opportunity with that. i don't think government is going to produce those jobs, industry will. we have to provide an environment in government that create certainty in terms of the tax code and regulations and other things they need to be aware of. we need to open up trade, making

sure that exports are increase. we need to look at tax policy. i have been a tremendous supporter of lowering the tax burden of small businesses and making sure they have the ability to reinvest in themselves. i also supported the incentives to keep jobs in this country and taken away the incentives for companies that are sending their jobs overseas. this election is really about choices. it is about differences that matter. we talk about social security and medicare. i have worked hard to make sure we preserve them. we have 500,000 arkansans who depend on medicare and 600,000 who depend on social security. it is an enormous part of our economy we have to preserve it, not privatize it. putting a 23% sales tax on everything you buy is a bad idea.

it is also unbelievably harmful to our seniors and retirees. this is about having an independent voice in washington. i have worked hard to be that independent voice, but i have also stood up for my priorities. my priorities have always been my faith, my family, and my loyalty to the people of arkansas. i will work hard to maintain that, and i certainly want to ask for your vote on november 2. >> that concludes this chapter in the debates of 2010. we again think our candidates for the united states senate and our panel of journalists. we invite you to stay tuned. we'll be back in just a moment with the candidates for congress in the fourth district. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

coverage of the 2010 elections continues today with the debate between democrat jack conway and republican rand paul for the senate seat in kentucky.

that begins at 7:00 p.m. patty murray faces republican dino rossi in the washington senate debate. that is here on c-span. >> "q&a" tonight -- 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 the average person in this country, what you think newt law is about -- those basic, fundamental legal values are part of you and they will sometimes influenced and approach -- a influence an approach the question is open to that kind of thing. >> c-span -- bringing you politics and public affairs. politics and public affairs. every