all available to you on television, radio come on line, and on social media networking sites. find our content any time through the c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle, bringing resources to your community. washington your way. the c-span networks. available in 100 million homes. c-span will bring you political debates from key races around the country. coming up next, the indiana senate candidate debate. later, debates between house candidates from new hampshire is first district and pennsylvania's third. now a debate between the senate candidates from indiana. evan bayh is retiring. seeking to replace them are dan

coats, brad ellsworth, and libertarian candidate. a recent polls had dan coats in the lead among likely voters. the indiana debate commission hosted this hour-long debate. >> the final of three indiana senate debates. >> welcome today campus. welcome to the indiana debate commission's third of three debates for the u.s. senate. i am your moderator. this is the indiana debate. voters will ask the questions and indiana's hoosiers will watch on tv, listen on ready -- radio, and tune in on the web as they listen to the candidates and get ready to cast their ballots one week from tomorrow.

c-span will be rebroadcast in this debate tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern time. the candidates drew lots for their lectern position. immediately next to me is republican dan coats, in the middle is a democrat brad ellsworth, and a libertarian candidate. they have agreed to the rules for tonight's debate. the candidates will have one minute and 30 seconds to answer most of the questions. in announced that one answer will have to vary to accommodate a general final question. as moderator, in cut off a candidate who exceeds the time limit. and they call for additional time to fully answer a question. the questions come from hoosier voters. the candidates know that they can use only small nuts and no

props. prior to the broadcast, the audience was apprised of the house rules. the candidates have 30 seconds to introduce themselves and that starts with mr. cuts. >> is an honor to be here this evening and have the opportunity to debate and discuss the issues important for the future of america and our state of indiana. i passionately believe that the leadership of our country and the president obama, nancy pelosi, supported by my opponent are leading american in the wrong direction. i will fight to get america back to work, hoosiers back to work, back on the right economic track. change can only come if we make a change. you have to pick a different direction. >> now mr. ellsworth.

>> it is great to be back in not scammony. it has been and -- knox county. i hear, and things. we need to get america back to work. work for us. keep honest. do not fall prey to a special interest. that is what i intend to do when you elect me senator. >> miss sink-burris. >> i want to thank you for watching these three debates. it has been a real pleasure. it highlights why i am libertarian rather than republican democrat. i want to stop the tennis match in washington. every campaign season we have candidates promising to end the partisan bickering, but it never stops. if a libertarian is elected to the senate, i'll not belong to

big business interest or the white house but to you, the american people. >> now we will ask the question of our candidates. >> with the passage of health- care reform, insurance premiums are expected to rise by 8.8% in 2011. what exactly would you do is a member of the u.s. senate to help hoosiers cope with the rising cost of health care? >> mr. coates. >> i would vote to repeal this massive 2000-page bureaucratic overtake of medicine by our government at a cost about one trillion dollars. there issues that need to be dealt with and we can do that with less than two dozen pages. we could do that without

breaking the bank and without putting government between the patient and his doctor or her doctor. this tax care bill was not supported by hoosiers or the american people. they do not want a one size fits all health care. held savings accounts, serving 50,000 low-income hoosiers. it significantly reduces costs. this takes that away from our state. there are a number of provisions that will add so much bureaucracy. companies are still trying to figure out how best to deal with it. mcdonald's has come full with the plan, a number of aerospace companies and others. they now have to discard those plans because it will not fit under this massive bill in washington.

we need to do sensible cost saving things with health care. but this bill was opposed by a large majority of hoosiers. i think we ought to start over. to get let's move on to brad ellsworth. >> when the health-care debate started, i have hundreds if not thousands of individuals on the phone and in person about health care. when i ran for congress four years ago, i talked to doctors and nurses and hospitals say you have to pass health care in this country. i am glad that we took it on. hear some of the things it is going to do. no one can turn people down for pre-existing conditions. closing the doughnut hole -- seniors came man and said clothes that hole. the whole idea behind this was to bring down the cost of health care in this country.

the bill was paid for. we had to find different ways to pay for that. the congressional budget office estimates it will actually reduce the cost of health care by $1 trillion. i am proud that this bill was taken on. it is not perfect. but to repeal the bill would not make sense at this particular time. we get to it or delete from it. it would not make sense to repeal it and start over. >> miss sink-burris. >> it is a real concern for everyone in indiana and the country. the main problem that we have with held car -- health care is how expensive it is. it is risen much higher and faster than inflation. this health care bill does nothing to address the costs. it is not one to save anyone any money. it is going to mean more money out of your pocket and out of

your employer's pocket, and it will mean that employers cannot absolutely offer health care insurance to their employees. i know someone in indianapolis wanting to expand his pizza franchises, and he would be playing employees more in health. then he would be paying them in salary. a business cannot do that and survive. ways been talking for about making health care less expensive. let the free market operate and control costs that way. we have not had a free market in health care in a long time. many of the issue -- many in new in this ruse -- one surgery is not covered by insurance.

and how the quality of that operation has gone up. >> sorry to cut you off. our next question there is to research singer richie is theresa singer. she has an education question. >> the notes child left behind policy has forced educational institutions to take costly measures to meet the needs of the first to the populations. however, in doing so, a vast majority of the student body has been pushed through the education system with very weak reading comprehension and less than adequate writing skills. with the cuts in education been proposed, how would schools meet the needs of their diverse population such as special education and english as a

second language, as well as the general population that is lagging behind the rest of the world in fundamental knowledge and skills? >> mr. ellsworth takes the first shot at the question. >> our daughter is the third year educators here in indiana. we've seen the struggles of teachers in this country and the education systems. no child left behind is a great concept and phrase. but you have to fully fund it and allow it to happen. we should leave no doubt the hon. we cannot have teachers working miracles. doing one test on one particular day and learned this way, some are visual, and sunday their hands on stuff.

you have to empower teachers to teach in different ways. i'm talking teachers across our great district. they bring the students and with special needs and they are taking the toss -- test. we have to look it different ways that kids learn. charter schools, we have to fully fund our education system and not punish our teachers. >> rebecca sink-burris. >> i am a former teacher and i have been in the public system and the private school area. as a libertarian, we envision an educational system that leaves no child behind. it allows every child to have a quality education that they deserve. you do not get that from an education monopoly. that monopoly is more concerned

with employee in adults than it is with teaching children. the federal program, no child left behind, is one of many failed federal programs. education belongs at the local level, not the federal level. not a single program the federal government ever put into place has improved our education, and is used dollars from taxpayers. the solution to this is adding more choice to education and empowering parents so that they can choose where to send their children to school, whether that is private or public. the funds should follow the child. by bringing in competition, you're going to get innovation like you have never seen before. you were going to get a variety of type educational settings and more availability of specialized

teaching. this might meet a child better than the one size fits all that is happening right now. i encourage you to take a look at libertarian ideas. >> let's move on to dan coats now. >> this should not be a decision made in washington, d.c. the department of education spends an extraordinary amount of money. as ms. sink-burris said, the one-size-fits-all does not apply. what is right for new york or los angeles or miami or chicago is not necessarily right in evansville or indianapolis. that is why at the state and local level, that is where the change needs to be made. more money into washington does not improve education.

charter schools, alternative schools, i think that is good for the public system. it's good for our economic system to have competition. parents are frustrated that the state-run public school system depends upon federal guidelines and their children and not getting the education that they need. some predict for some, it is the only way to get out. but it has failed them. we need choices, we need to get parents more involved, and the last thing we need is more money into washington with more programs out of the department of education. >> our next questioner is from the area here. >> i like to know where you stand on amnesty for illegal immigrants. >> rebecca sink-burris.

>> when a libertarian looks at a problem, we try to work out what we have done. if we find that we have done things that contributed to the problem, we want to remove those things first before adding another layer to answer the problem. but we have done in immigration has been to close the door to illegal immigration for both high skilled and low-skilled workers. we have made it so that people have been forced to practice -- -- forced to cross that border illegally. what we really need to do to solve the undocumented worker crisis is to open the door to legal immigration. make it orderly said that we know who is coming into our country. work visas, temporary, and those who come in here illegally need to register. i don't think i would give those

people citizenship because they did come here illegally. but a lot of them have been 5-10 years and have been contributing to our society. i do not think that they should be deported. they need to be in part of that tax system. i talk about their tax at the last debate. it spreads the tax over everyone, legal, illegal, underground economy, no matter what you pay it is a fairtax. >> i do not support amnesty. i do not think we have secured the border like the government promised. the government did not live up to its responsibility. and the welfare system, the education system, and others have been overwhelmed. if that were happening in indiana, we too would want to take action when the federal government did not.

in arizona, you are right, we have not done what needs to be done to get it done. their laws are more than reasonable. my mother came here when the ship pulled into ellis island. her father had come to years earlier. she said that we are americans now. i do not want to hear another word of swedish. you're going to learn english and you can live the american dream. that is illegal immigration. illegal under -- illegal immigration undermines that. >> this is something that the federal car man should have done a long time ago. if they had better laws on the books, we would not be in this

situation. we did not secure the border. the desert creates its own fenced sometimes. we think of this is a national security problem. we have to let employers know that if they hire people illegally, we're going to punish them also. that is extremely important, holding them some -- responsible. mr. coase just said that he was against amnesty and yet he voted to give amnesty when he was in congress before. it was part of a bigger bill but one of his republican colleagues in the congress filed an amendment to take the amnesty portion out, and he voted against that. again, he voted for amnesty and when he had the chance to take that amendment out, he voted against that too.

>> the next is an accountant. she could not make it here so i will ask the question. recently released data suggest on capping social security earnings would solve the funding problem. do you support the wealthy continuing to pay social security tax of of the $106,000 cut off. >> social security needs to be saved from itself. the system is paying out more money than is coming in. there needs to be an adjustment to the long-term structural way that social security is set up. i think we can do that by increasing the age of retirement gradually, maybe 67.5 in a couple of months. the important thing is not to turn this into a political got

cha, have a discussion on a bipartisan basis to address this particular problem. one provisionn the benefits that go to the wealthy, if warren buffett does not want to pay social security, i think we should honor that. there should be an area where people can adjust to that and perhaps have an opportunity, given their income situation, where they do not have to take social security. but the real problem is for the people on the system. we have to address that. when i ran for congress, there was a vote -- there was an amnesty portion, but that was 26 years ago. i have had 12 or 15 votes that oppose that now.

>> but you did take the vote -- when the amendment was there to take amnesty out, you voted against that. going back to his thing, we need to put america back to work. create an atmosphere that creates jobs and our country. i am opposed to raising the age. that might be fine for someone who is keyboarding or pushing a pan, not someone on the end of a jackhammer. mr. coase has endorsed a plan to privatize social security. i am totally against that. at the last debate, he said we need to work together in a bipartisan manner. but this would stop that. that is not what the people of indiana won.

we should work together to work on this in a bipartisan manner for all of these problems facing our country. that is what we should do. now's the time to raise taxes. >> ms. sink-burris. >> it is important to save social security which needs changing. it is insolvent. we should not hurt those who are already depended on social security and those who are near retirement age. unfortunately, according to the supreme court, you may have paid money into social security your whole life. that does not mean that you have a right to that money coming back to you. the government can change what he gives out to you at any time. i would like a more secure system for our elders and for those working now and who expect to retire in the future.

one plan i like is using your payroll taxes that you pay and your employer pays to have that going into an account that the worker would fund, so that you could not -- they could not take it away from you on a whim. the other half coming the other 6.2% would continue to pay benefits for current retirees and disabilities, etc. the social security administration has says it has plans to keep the system solvent in the long run. they would not raise taxes or raise the age of benefits. >> our next questioner is an analyst. >> the u.s. worker cannot compete with cheap labor.

how you plan to curtail freetail fta, which such as naphth continued to take jobs out of this country to places like mexico? >> probably the number-one issue in campaign is putting in keeping america back to work. it is clearly the atmosphere that allows for private at best -- private jobs in this country. we need to create things and make things and a country that sells things. that includes trade agreements. nafta, 50,000 jobs in our loans are directly related to this. multiplied that across the country. you want to repatriate ties jobs, but when dan coats ship

jobs overseas, he was a lobbyist for that company. we had -- that creates another dip -- another government program. they are eligible for the employee assistance program. >> almost every time that government make something, you can bet the result is going to be opposite of the name. a free-trade agreement ends up being a trade for favored company's agreement. if we had true free trade, the world bank has figured that each person -- each citizen in this country would benefit by almost $8,000. from lower prices on items. to make jobs in this country, we need to change the tax system.

i mention the fairtax earlier. if you have not looked at the fairtax, look at our website their tax -- fairtax.org. when companies overseas are asked if united states changes that system, what they would do, they said that they would really cade and start building facilities here in this country. -- it would relocate and start building facilities here in this country. we need to get back to work by changing the way we tax and the complicated system that we have now. we have to stop the spending right now. and we have to lower our taxes on business. we're the second highest on business taxes in the world. that sends labor and capital away from this country. we need to lower that down to 15% to be competitive with the world market.

american workers can be competitive. >> the worst thing that this country can do would be to enter into a trade war. that happened after the great depression. our economy was flat for over a decade. we ought to open trade barriers. we have urged the democratic congress to move forward on opening trade. one in five hoosier jobs are due to exports. if we throw up trade barriers, that will not happen. it is so important to employment in this part of the state. to adopt a policy where we on not allowing businesses to compete worldwide in a global

system, because our taxes are so high, because regulation is so high, because of health-care mandates on businesses, miss sink-burris is again correct. we need to get money to repatriate money back here and get them on an even playing field with our competitors worldwide. even amnesty on taxes would bring companies back here and invested here with new jobs and new equipment and new hires. >> a software consultant near columbus, they do so much for making the trip down today. >> well experienced professional engineers and technicians and other professionals along with

recent graduates remain jobless, companies continue to import professionals for overseas under the visa program to fill technical positions, knowing that there are available qualified candidates here. the you think that this is a problem or is it an expected component of free trade? what policies would you support regarding this issue? >> miss sink-burris, you go first this time. >> by bringing jobs back to this country, we will produce more jobs within this country. we will have a boost for occupation in skills and every level. for every h1b visa that comes here and fills a job, that company could add five more jobs to support that position.

but we really need in this country are more jobs. that is why i'm so enthusiastic about their tax. every indication is that we would build our economy, almost doubled in the first 15 years of a fairtax, and that is a lot of jobs. we would be bonding more immigrants to come to this country. worker compensation will go up by 40% in the first 10 years. that is the kind of growth and prosperity that libertarians want for america. and it can happen. we just have to get behind it. >> mr. coates. >> how are we going to get americans back to work? we cannot do it by passing trillion dollar programs out of washington, stimulus programs that did not stimulate. the only thing it stimulated was

more debt and more government workers. the only entity in united's. >> at this is that is adding people. that tells us a lot. -- the only entity in the united states that is adding jobs. that tells us a lot. i talk to people all over the state, and they are saying, i do not know what is coming down next. we've got to get our economy moving again. that will put americans back to work. we can talk about small statistics, but how do we get this country back on track? the policies of this administration have not solve the problem. that is simply not the answer. my opponent has supported those policies 90% of the time. that is not the right direction.

we simply need to change direction. >> i think as that to staying in the same place. we need to reinvest and give our kids energized about the maps and sciences in this country. we've got a lot of talent and brainpower. we just have to bring the jobs. in other countries -- one person said that she had a good job, and it is unpatriotic and we are shipping jobs overseas. i am for it taking our products overseas and finding new customers. companies take advantages of a loss to ship our jobs overseas and that is plain wrong. one woman made an investment in some and advanced manufacturing equipment. she told me she had at -- she

cut me out a piece of aluminum and she -- i keep it on my desk. it's an investment in our kids. american workers working here on american soil, that is the answer. >> a quick word about our questioners. he cancelled travel plans after his question was selected to be here tonight. our next questioner is a student at the university of indianapolis. he watched the first debate. he is a political science major. i don't think he gets extra credit for being here tonight. >> elected to the senate, what measure would you propose to control the growing cost of college education to keep students from graduating with a lifetime of debt? >> we have programs in place

that provide loans for students and programs for students. -- pell grants for students. i think that we have to recognize as we look to develop the work force for the future, we have to make sure that our institutions adapt to the changes that take place in our economy, that we have the kind of variety of options available. some people -- many people want to get a quarter-year education , and others want a community college education. others might want to go into a vocation. those options and those varieties need to be available to us. and i go back to the facts if we try to solve all these problems out of washington, and this administration has spent $3

trillion of the last 20 months, and predicted another $3 trillion -- it's almost incomprehensible. it will affect our military the spending for education, and a whole number of areas. we cannot keep looking to washington to solve all our problems. i think our states have taken their interesting steps to develop educational alternatives in training at low cost for students without having to live on campus. >> i would end of moderators' privilege here. i would ask a question of mine. senator evan bayh opted not for re-election cites the climate in washington and the frustration created by all the gridlock and infighting. how would you propose to overcome this obstacle and accomplish our stated goal for indiana?

i will start with you, miss sink-burris. >> as a libertarian, i have the freedom to work with anyone i want to in the u.s. senate and the government. there'll be times when i would combine my views with those of the democrats. other times more closely aligned with the republicans. that way i can bring people together to solve some of our problems. one planned cuts military spending without hurting our troops. there are some other plans out there and different ways to include the issues that we've got. they had been worked on by a group of people, not all from one side. that's the kind of thing i would combine my efforts with.

i would have the freedom to do so. i would not being beholden to special interests. i am not beholden to pay them back with special favors and helping them with everything. that is me the freedom to represent the american people and help turn our country to the limited government tradition of our founding fathers. >> when i decided to run in this race, i fully expected that i would be competing with senator bayh. a well funded candidate, someone will none. -- well none. he supported a bomb was agenda 70% of the time. i was concerned that that was

not the duration indiana wanted to go. i was surprised when he announced his retirement and i am running against a different candidate. he has voted for the obama agenda of 90% of the time. but there's a very clear choice for people i want to go and a completely different direction. let me just say that as a conservative, someone who is putting our children and grandchildren in great jeopardy for the future, totally on the wrong track. i would welcome democrats that would admit that the last two years have been a disaster. if they want to work together and try to stop the spending and this big government, social

welfare state, we would welcome bipartisanship on that basis. >> you as the most important question in this debate. when someone called the dispatch center, and he did not as if someone was a democrat republican, and i made that same pledge. that is why you did not say me saying these republicans are these democrats. i don't think anyone has a corner on the market of good ideas. you don't hear me making speeches about how bad the republicans are. when i got the congress, i joined a caucus with 25 republicans and democrats. there is not a member of the senate that i will not work with on the republican side to try to move the agenda forward. regarding that 90% vote, anyone

who tracks are votes know that this is the same old tired political thing. i could come back and say, mr. cuts, you voted with nancy pelosi 60% of the time. 54%. that should never happen. the record shows that. we have to get away from saying that these are all bad and these are all good. >> i did i get the other two candidates to answer your question. >> elected to the senate, what measures would you propose to absorber the absorbent costs -- the eight sorbent cost of college education. >> i would love to see it brought in. mr. coats and i presume this. not everyone is going to go to

harvard or yale. itve got technical schools, got middle-of-the-road schools. we've got master's programs. driving down the cost, what is the way that we can use the best use of dollars to bring down the cost for you? having jobs on the other end is the best way. when you come out with some debt, it is going to be a job that you can repay debt. you can reduce the interest rates on pell grants and putting more money in there. more money would be available for you to come back and reduce the interest rates. these are private institutions that have to pay payroll and keep the lights on. but we do not want to saddle you with that. >> now your opportunity. >> many view in this opera

critique audience will remember -- many of you in this audience will remember that it used to take a kid working to a summer at a construction job to pay for an entire year of education. that is not possible anymore. partly because of government involvement. you were sent us student loan program and the prices of college went up and up because colleges did not have to compete on a price level anymore. they knew that a student could get a loan. programs were put in with the best of intentions, but there were unforeseen consequences. this happens to be one of them. our dollar is not worth what it used to be because our government has inflated the money supply. in the 1970's, when we went completely off the gold

standard, the worth of our dollar has continually dropped. it takes more dollars to pay for your college education. getting those things back in that ourhat there i -- dollar is worth something, so that students can afford a college education without going into a lifetime of debt. the important thing is to get the jobs going so that when people get out of college, they can become productive members of our society. >> our next question is from evansville. >> indiana has been number one in the entire country in preventable child abuse deaths. since federal tax dollars are used by the child welfare agency for the prevention of abuses, why doesn't the federal government clothes are in the an

agency -- hold the agency accountable? would you call for congressional hearings for indiana as well as child welfaretes' agency? >> the first answer is mr. brad ellsworth. >> i look back at my career protecting people no matter what the crime was or whether was against children. we prosecute them fully when that occurs. it is horrible when someone hurts a child. i'm very proud of my record of going after the bad guys seeking successful prosecutions of those. certainly, as in any federal program, of oversight, if we're sending federal taxpayer dollars into the program, it should have federal oversight. when it is not being in ministered, you approve that or you pull the program. >> rebecca sink-burris.

>> protecting those who cannot protect themselves is certainly within the purview of government. it is one of the duties of government. for us to be failing at that as we have in indiana is just not acceptable to many of us. part of the problem is we have allowed the government to go way beyond its core duties. that means it is not able to focus on those core duties and take of those in the way that it should. there's so many things that governments are involved and that should really be in the private sector or in civil society, that these dined -- that these kinds of things have happened. the federal program, of course there should be oversight. what i would prefer is that the

federal dollars come to the state of indiana in block grants so that the stated in the and i can decide how to use those monies -- so that the state of indiana to decide how they use those monies. it should be up to us to hold our state and local governments accountable to doing their core functions of protecting those, with the youngest or the very oldest, from abuses. i am not satisfied with the job the government has done in this. i demand better. >> when i served in the congress, i was the chairman of the committee with the problems that you name and others that came before us very frequently. one thing we learned is that congress is very good it passing programs, but not good at following up.

there were 336 programs at the time directed toward children, including abusive situations. we looked into those. which ones that did not work and why. we found out that there was tremendous overlap, one hand did not know what the other hand was doing, and there are a lot more than that now. the idea -- then we started looking at alternatives. what were the alternatives to help support in deal with problems? turn to our local communities, but also of the community and save haven institutions outside the government. i worked with big brothers big sisters, worked with an institution in indianapolis that reaches out for instance -- whether it is churches or synagogues, community groups,

volunteers, we need to get involved and get engaged with this. government cannot afford to do everything. and what the government pays for, often does not work. >> i'm going ask a question on the energy. how can you help indiana become energy independent? you have 45 seconds. >> energy like any other good or service is best provided by the free market. you get innovation, you get variety, you get a sensibility with a free-market. you do not get a program controlled by the government. i would encourage the coal industry to operate in a responsible manner, and make sure that we're not hurting our environment.

indiana as special conditions because of delay about land. we often have ozone problems in indianapolis. because of that, we have to be especially concerned with coal- burning plants. >> dan coats for 45 seconds. >> indiana relies primarily on calls for energy production. our rates are among the lowest in the country. it is a benefit to consumers. it is a benefit to our producers. the alcoa aluminum plant can effectively complete worldwide. it produces low cost energy to produce aluminum. that is true for our steel mills

and everyone in the manufacturing world. i am for using this resource. it helps make is more energy independent. >> i apologize. brad ellsworth. >> colas important to the state of indiana, no question about it. .e're 95% coal i can tell you one thing. i am a coal supporter. i voted against cap and trade. dan went to lobby for cap and trade legislation in washington. there was a billionaire they wanted to make money at of cap and trade and mr. coates lobbied for him. >> is it appropriate to ask for

personal charge like that that is not true? >> we're coming down to the end. can it did seem to be more loyal to their party. if elected, are you going to be more loyal to your party or to the people who put you in office? be honest. remember, we are watching. [laughter] so we go first to demand cuts. and you may answer however you like. but bear in mind, there is a better question on the table. >> if i'm elected to serve the people of indiana, i have one client -- the people of indiana. i know exactly what they won in washington. they want to cut spending. they do not want big government. they do not want to continue massive programs that put the future of our country into jeopardy. under represent those views. my position for lobbying have

been totally miss characterized by my opponent. our regret that. if you go to washington saying you're a conservative and you vote for $1 to find -- $1 trillion program, and you run our country deeper into debt, if you bail out the big banks, if you do not have anything else to come home and talk about except going after your opponent. this country has faced difficult decisions before. we have faced crises from the beginning of the time of our country. history -- americans have faced wars, bad economies, depressions, and each time the spirit of the american people has risen and addressed those successfully. we have a challenge in front of us today. we can succeed but we have to change direction to do it. i am confident the american people will come out and vote on next tuesday.

i would be glad to have your vote because i will fight for change. >> ellsworth. >> i think that answer did a couple of times. i do not -- that voted against my party on several issues. cap and trade, abortion is used, stem cell research, and i was one of the most independent voters on the democratic side of the house. it is all on the record. people foralking to -- mr. coates came back and talk to people for nine months. i never left indiana. mr. coats moved to virginia and bought a second home. he said he hoped to move down here. if you do not tell the good people of indiana, you can shake your head all along.

>> we had an aging parent. >> i will work with anybody to move the american agenda for. >> rebecca sink-burris. >> you elect a libertarian to the u.s. senate, the swing vote will not belong to large corporate interests or the white house, it will belong to you, the hoosiers and the american people. i know this is more difficult for the democrats of the republicans. but i have left that two-party system for reason. i will not give up principle for party. i will not badger an opponent because he comes from some other place. i would rather wake up in the

morning knowing that i have not wasted my vote on the lesser of two evils. as a libertarian, i can be an independent voice in the congress. i have not taken money from pac's, from big business and unions, from a trial lawyer associations. i am a free agent and i can represent you and the constitution. there is a mood in america to both the bums out. but we do not have new faces up here. we have old voices. it is time for change. i humbly ask for your vote on november 2. if you like to know more about my views, my website is selectrebecca.com. >> i think you for watching the u.s. senate debate sponsored by

the indiana debate commission. we also want to think our candidates, the staff, and our partners in media. and our hosts, vincennes university. also a special thanks to the voters who went of and beyond -- who went above and beyond. election day is tuesday, november 2nd. for more reformation, log on to the indian and debate commission's website. once again, thank you and good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪

♪ >> coming up next, an interview with the chief strategist for the tea party express. that is followed by debates with house candidates from new hampshire is first district and pennsylvania's third district. you're watching campaign 2010 coverage on c-span. >> one of the great features of the c-span video library is the ability to clip and share our programs with your friends. during the campaign season, that includes more than 100 debates we have erred on c-span.

wash the tutorial on how to clip and share on our web site. use the c-span video library. >> it is time to get your camera rolling for this year's student cam. make up 5-8 minute video on this year's theme, washington, d.c. through my laenses. the january -- the deadline in january 20. for the details go to studentcam.org. >> a look that the role of tea party activists in this year's congressional election. we talked with the chief strategist for the tea party express on "washington journal." this is 45 minutes. russo is chief strategist of the tea party express group. begin with the tea party express group and your

role in it. critics have said that you and others have done donefears what would be done, you tap in a movement to raise money for your own interests. people talk to your long resume, your 10 year but the republican establishment. critics say they feel like you are exploiting it to raise money for your own interests. how do you respond? caller: the tea party movement has a lot -- guest: the tea party movement has a lot of critics, but when you go back when rick santelli at his ranch, there were people who said democrats will win senate seats and hold their own in the house and they were saying the republican party will go the way of the whigs, and reagan conservatism is over and we have entered a new era of obama liberalism and in 20 months the tea party movement has totally changed everything. it is very much a grass-roots organization, but it has had enough leadership to focus some of that energy into changing the

political process in washington. as you see, we have had rather remarkable record of winning not only general elections like we did in the special in massachusetts but a long string of primaries to get people out of office that are not responsive to what i would like to refer to as the zeitgesit of the time, which opposition of the growth and intrusiveness of the government, higher taxes, onerous regulations, higher deficits, and the worst thing probably, skyrocketing national debt. host: can you speak to your background where it -- so people can understand what you have done in the past? guest: i have been active in conservative politics since i was 19 years old when i have a great fortune of meeting ronald reagan, who was not yet a candidate for governor. i went to work for his campaign in 1966 and when he got elected, went with him to sacramento as a personal aide. that was my start. i have been involved in a

concerted activities in politics ever since. i have tried to get fouled a few times but the lore of the campaign to keep things good in our country has been too strong for me to resist. i have my own political consulting firm and we have done campaigns all over the country and every once in a while we were -- would venture overseas and do things like campaign for ukrainian independence and campaigns and other parts of the world as well. guest: according to the latest figures come as of but -- host: according to the latest figures, you have spent $2.2 million so far. putting this on the screen. the breakdown of where this money has gone. most of the fall into the nevada senate race to oppose harry reid and support sharron angle. before we talk about those numbers, i wanted to look forward to the next several days. how much money do you guys have on hand? where do you plan to spend it? guest: first of all, we are a

federal political action committee and have been since the very beginning when we started the pac in 2008. everything we raise and spend has been reported by the federal elections committee. we are prohibited from taking any corporate dollars. we can only receive money from individuals. our maximum contribution has to be $5,000 or less. of the 10,000 -- tens of thousands of donors, the average contribution is $62. we start every day kind of broke. we have no reserves, no major donors who cannot give even if they wanted to because of the limitations of the federal election law. what we do every day is said e- mails out and say, look, we think it is important that we win this election for the senate in nevada or alaska, or do this bus tour to try to get people enthusiastic and get out so that we are sure to get them to vote on november 2. when we do that, are members

respond. we are totally beholden to how they respond. we are probably the most purist democratic organization as the tea party movement because we cannot do anything unless our people support it. it's good you do not have any money to spend going forward the host: you do not have any money to spend going forward? guest: that is true every day. $8 million that we raised and spent on campaigns. our people are very enthusiastic and excited, so when we put a call out every day of what we are going to do they respond so we will continue to spend the right up to election day. host: if you look at how the numbers breakdown, "the washington post" said 9000 -- opposing harry reid and supporting sharron angle. if you spent 2.2 million and almost half has gone to bat nevada senate race, it plays into the scenario, the critics -- criticism that this is just

the republican agenda. you are going after the democratic leader in the senate, by spending half of your supporters money on that one race. guest: that is certainly our priority raised but we spend money not only in direct supporting campaigns -- i did not know on the top of my head -- but probably 3 million or $4 million we spend on the campaigns, but these national bus tours, the whole idea -- and this is our fourth tour as the tea party express -- the idea of the first two tours last year if -- was there were millions of people who were frustrated with the direction of the country but they did not know what to do. we have the bus tours and rallies and thousands of people came out at each stop. the number one question was, what should we do. 80% have never been involved in the political process before, so they did not know what to do. our goal was to say, stop sitting at home on your couch

throw with your slippers at the tv set out of frustration and go out and join the millions of people who share your view. what we have done in our bus tours it is gotten millions engaged in the political process, showed them the means by which they can get involved. as i said earlier, we totally changed the dynamics of politics in this election cycle. not only are we not going to lose seats in the congress, but people who are conservative are looking at it and take control of house of representatives and very likely to take control of the united states senate. it has been a remarkable success and i can't think of another political movement going back to maybe the reagan revolution that has been as successful at the grass-roots level as this one has been. host: disagreement with you about success in the senate -- christine o'donnell, you put about $250,000 into that race in order to beat back a primary challenge but she is trailing by

20 points. by using that seat, it looks like the democrats could likely hold on to the senate. guest: first of all, i would say the polls are closing. the last poll i saw had a margin down to six in delaware. on a very big issue of the day, opposition of the growth and intrusiveness of the government with higher taxes and more government regulation and a skyrocketing national debt, christine o'donnell is 100% right on that issue. a primary opponent mike castle was maybe 50-50. and her general election opponent chris koons is 100% wrong on the major issue of the day -- chris coon. number two, our goal is not to let the majority of republicans, our goal is to elect a majority of physical conservatives. host: but if you follow the money, your group has not given

her candidacy and supports as the primary. are you conceding defeat? guest: obviously not. we are at a bus tour, and we are heading to wilmington, delaware, to have a rally. our strength is, even though we put money into campaigns, our strength is weak and motivate people to get out and get involved in the campaigns and i think we will see it in delaware. she is a very good candidate and certainly right on the major issue of the day. it could teach strategist sal russo -- host: chief strategist sal russo is our guest. for tea party supporters, we have a special line -- there is an article saying "art tea party years willing to sacrifice -- "are tea partiers

willing to sacrifice?" are you willing to compromise on the issue of raising taxes in order to tackle the deficit? guest: no, absolutely not. i think taxes are too high. i think one of the big problems we have with our economy is over regulate it and overtax said. we have over $10 trillion on the sidelines in the business community because they don't have any confidence on where the government is taking things. i don't think raising taxes is the solution. i think that is a big part of the problem. i don't think we support anybody who wants to raise taxes. host: another story in "roll call" this is gop wants insiders to staff the outsiders.

the senate tea party and house candidates, it looks like republican leaders are coming up with a list of potential chief of staff that are former chief of staff, capitol hill staffs, lobbyists, to staff your tea party candidates. do you agree? guest: here is what we have done. not only have we supported candidates who are physically conservative but we look for candidates to have a strong dose of independence. the problem. in washington, d.c., it is a go along and get along culture. i don't know anyone who is democrat, liberal, conservative, who don't think we have a dangerous situation with these big deficits and national debt. i think these are the kinds of candidates when they get elected, will go to washington, d.c., looking this merry go round of spending and spending has has -- has to come to an end. people with connections to that

it takes a blend of old people and new people to make a change, and that is what we will see. if you look at the candidates that we supported, marker rubio in florida. he does have experience. then we have others like christine o'donnell, joe miller, who have never been in the elected office. in it is not all about experience but more about mental attitude, and i would cite my former boss ronald reagan. the day he left the white house, nobody doubted he was an outsider but he never joined the culture of washington, despite his eight years as president. those are the types of people that we want to represent, that will be a part of the problem, not the solution -- solution, not the problem. host: next phone call.

caller: what we should do with health care is open up interstate lines. if i wanted to buy my health care from maine, it would be a lot cheaper because there is less demand in that part of the state. the other thing, buying cars, i could buy a car for cheaper in maine not i colon how to assist a gift and i can in florida. -- then i could in florida. host: i am going to jump in. we are talking about the tea party express. talk about his comments on health care. guest: we opposed obamacare, not

for the least of reasons, it will bring the costs of health care too exorbitant amounts. we think the federal government should get out of the health- care business. there are issues that we can address, the uninsured, pre- existing conditions, there are a lot of republican solutions to the health care problems we have come without nationalizing health care, which is what obamacare did. host: houston. alexis. independent line. caller: good morning. i have a comment and a question. we get to call in once a month and i have seen you repeatedly cut people off midsentence.

i would like to know from mr. russo why your organization is racist? you put a defense stamp on who you are but you are the racist arm of the republican party. host: let's get a response. guest: that is probably ridiculous. not only do we have to be parties exploding in the u.s., we have hundreds of them growing in europe and asia. it is for the same reason, government is out of control. greece is the poster child for government getting out of control. it is a grass-roots movement and it has to do with big government crippling our economy. the statistics are each child born in the u.s. is born with a $400,000 debt on their head.

the grass roots movement that is called the tea party are people concerned about the growth and of intrusiveness of government. we publicly do not support racism. it is just a phony issue that people are using against us. the tea party movement keeps on going. host: karen, tea party supporter. good morning. caller: first i would like to address the previous caller. i am a tea party supporter. i am not a racist. i have been called a racist so many times because of my political beliefs. what we need to stress is political dissent is not racism. i am having -- tired of having the race card thrown at me.

on one occasion i was called a racist and i said, what do i have to lose, yes, i am a racist, what else do you have to throw at me to discredit my beliefs? it is a spear tactic used by liberals try to hold onto power. it is time to end all of these entitlements. it is time for every american to step up to the plate and get a job if you can. for those people who are not working, they do not want to work. if you cannot find a job in my area, you are lazy. host: on this issue of stepping up to the plate, would you be willing to compromise, representatives compromise someone in order to address the deficit? caller: i want to lower spending. i want to outlaw lobbying and

buying of our house of representatives in congress. i want the federal government out of my home, out of my life. i do not believe we should be fighting wars to protect other countries when we have people suffering in our own country because of the way the government is set up. i believe we need to work as hard as we can, even if it means fast foodburgers at a fat fo restaurant. host: there is a story about mitch mcconnell, and what the republicans face with the different factions of the republican party. he is known as a pragmatist, has been willing to compromise in the past in order to get things done. he is quoted in the paper as

saying people are not sent to washington to do nothing. if you compromise, agree to raising taxes, would your group then go after him in his next primary for reelection? guest: i do not know what we are going to do in 2012, but i can say unequivocally, we are opposed to raising taxes. the tax burden is too high. our deficits are too high. i do not think there is any compromise with the government. no, we are against growing the government. not only is it physically irresponsible and burdening our children and grandchildren, but we are expanding the government far beyond what the founding fathers intended. many t party members believe that the government exceeds the constitutional authority.

i would say we are not compromising and that is why we are opposing michael castle in delaware, please send rakowski. we want people like joe miller or christine o'donnell. -- lisa murkowski. these are people who are determined to bring the cost of the government down. the reality is, you have to give to get in washington, d.c. that does not mean that you do not have to compromise, but not on the fundamental basis that these people are running on, and that is stopping this runaway government. host: an e-mail from a viewer --

guest: first of all, saying you want to eliminate the federal on something does not mean that you want to get rid of it. i thought it was a terrible mistake to federalize education. i have a lot of teachers in my family. i do not know one teacher that believes the billions of dollars in washington managed by and bureaucrats and thousands of regulations helps education. if we took all that energy and local schoolo thesthe level, we could get a lot more out of it. it is not the role for washington, d.c. that is how the government is out of control. host: joan emails in --

guest: no, i am not saying that at all. a lot of the health care issues along with the states, not the federal level. if i was to suggest what their role in federal would be in health care, they limit so much when a state health insurance policy would look like, the cost would be unaffordable. allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines would go a long way to provide an affordable insurance program across the country. so there are a lot of things you can do for reform. paul ryan in wisconsin has a great website. heritage foundation also has a great web site. one of the thing people are unhappy about is that barack obama was elected on this idea that he was going to bring a consensus to washington. but what did he do?

he lurched strongly to the left, and that has created this rebellion across the country. hopefully, this election result will send a strong results -- message to the president as well as to the country saying we want these problems addressed, but we do not want to strangle our economies as such. host: tonya on the democratic line. detroit, michigan. caller: a lot of these tea party candidates are just plain crazy. take a look at harry reid. he was supposed to be dead in the water. now he has new life against sharron angle and he can win the election. there are one in three americans who have not made up their mind about who they are going to vote for. in november, i think the

democrats are going to take back the house and senate. guest: i think the tea party candidates are terrific generally across the country. they have stuck to the big issue, the growth and a intrusiveness of the federal government. at our rallies, we did not talk about foreign policy, national issues, we are focused on the personal, economic issues. i think the vast majority of the tea party candidates are as well, and they are perfectly in concert with the american people, and that is why the polls are showing huge gains for us. far from being crazy, i think they are your average american who is tired of seeing their government become dysfunctional, monopolized by lobby in washington, doing

nothing more than raising money to start new programs. we need to put money out there to invest and create prosperity. i think these people are going to get us back in the right direction. host: fairfax, virginia. then, republican line. caller: i am a conservative. i am very thankful for the tea party express, as you mentioned, for your focus on economic responsibilities. i am definitely against the nationalization of health care, banks, auto dealers, but tbe careful when you talk about getting away from health care.

i know some people might think that that means medicare, it may not be what you mean -- host: thank you. mr. russo? guest: thank you. perhaps i should restate it. health care is an issue that should be responded to that the state level, without federalizing every other issue, like we have done. perhaps i was over general in my statement. host: myersville, pennsylvania. caller: since ronald reagan there has been a big transfer of wealth to the wealthy. then we had president bush,

along. big tax cuts for the wealthy. -- bush come along. we had government contractors and then pharmacy companies. all the money went to them. the ordinary people of the country lost our good paying jobs through free trade. all the republicans were for renewing free trade agreements. the only thing that we have left is social security and medicare and now you are going after that. the rich have all the money. i agree with taxes, but taxes on the lower and middle class are too high. it is time to raise taxes on the well-paid so we can save our country from falling apart. host: mr. russo? guest: you gave me a lot to work

on. let me defend my old boss. i think a vast majority of ronaldans would take a minut reagan back in a heartbeat. unemployment was a way in the double digits and then he was able to create this economic boom that lasted 20 years. the private sector creates jobs, not the government. we need to create a good investment environment where people are creating jobs. when john f. kennedy was president, that is what he did. that is what george bush did. it is a tried and true way to get the economy moving. we have let the government get too big and out of control. our goal is not to make the rich people rich. our goal is to make poor people

rich. you can only do that with a growing economy. you will not grow the economy with the government raising taxes, increasing the regulatory burden. that does not give investors the opportunity to invest and create jobs and prosperity. if you look at our tax burden, it is distorted. we have too much reliance on the capital gains tax, high income, and we need to broaden the tax base. we want people who have money to invest that money. we have several trillion dollars parked on the sidelines today. we want that money invested because that creates jobs. host: a twitter viewer responds

-- i want to go back to delaware. you said earlier that christine o'donnell was a strong candidate. does that mean that the tea party express will be giving her more money in the final seven days? guest: like i said, we are going to wilmington, delaware to do a rally. that continues to be a high priority. at this stage of the campaign, we are just contributing money, and at this time, $5,000 maximum. we think her campaign is telling her story, making people aware as we did in the primary, the key issue of the day, the growth of government, christine o'donnell is 100% right, chris coons is 100% wrong.

it is pretty simple. we are going to be there before the election to try to give her a pushed to the top. host: marietta. tea party supporter. houston, texas. caller: the tea party movement originally started on the principle -- that which started the american revolution. the british were overpowering the american colonists. and then they threw the tea overboard in the boston harbor. that is where this got started and it has grown almost into a political party, which is fine, but the current administration has been running over the people in this country who have jobs,

trying to control them, just like the british did in the 1700's. this is why this party was started. i just want to ask the supporters of these liberal candidate, who do you think is going to support you? this government will take away everyone's jobs. we will be back to the 1700's. host: memphis, tennessee. vivian on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i have not heard the tea party talk about those people who have lost their unemployment benefits. how about the people losing their homes? like the lady just said, people are losing their homes, jobs,

but they want to make it sound like it happened under obama. this was already happening. this was already in place. everybody is blaming this anon obama. no, it is these rich, white men who are republicans. they want to go back to the time when my grandmother was working for them. guest: there is a reality today that it is a global economy. republicans and democrats alike -- president clinton, one of his hallmarks was pushing the democratic party away from isolationism, really having their heads in the sand, and

that every president has agreed that that is the right way to move in the future. we cannot create jobs in the country and must -- unless we empower the people who will have job creation. we have been saying clearly, when you grow the government side we have done, you increase the regulatory tax burden, like we have done, you do not provide the climate in which investors will invest, create new technologies for our children and people who need jobs today. that is what the two party stands for. i think you will see the economy get better once we can demonstrate to the business community that we can have a healthy environment. our goal is not to help rich people. our goal is to help poor people

become rich. host: next phone call. caller: you must be talking about a different ronald reagan. he raised taxes 36 times while in office. he was also the one that gave all of the illegal aliens amnesty when he was in office. when bush was in office, he had the house, senate, and the supreme court. he gave us nothing but taxes for the rich. they were getting millions. do not try to blame the problem that obama has on the obama. he could not reverse in two years what bush did in eight years. i do not hear anything from you about president bush. guest: i do not think we would have a two-party movement today if it was not for the fact that

millions of americans were disappointed with both. we are unhappy equally about the spending between president bush and president obama. what we saw in 2006 and 2008, a lot of people who were concerned about this dropped out of the political process. now people are saying enough is enough, but there was no way for people to get involved. they were discouraged by both political parties. the tea party became a place to go, a place to register your feelings. that is why we have seen this remarkable transformation of the political scene. i think people are ready for change and that is what they are doing. your caller was totally wrong about ronald reagan.

he reduced the regulatory burden on the government. he innovated the technology industry that the lead us into this tremendous economic boom. everybody was more prosperous thanks to ronald reagan. we want to replicate that in 2012. hopefully, president obama will listen and can change. so far, he and vice president biden are probably the only two politicians in america that want to raise taxes, raise the deficit. it is up to the president to this election. host: i want to look at this had done from "roll call."

the senate race between dino rossi and patty murray. what will be the tea party express strategy in the washington senate race? will he give money, resources, people -- you give money, resources, people? guest: unfortunately, we are limited to where we can go, and even though we wanted to, we could not make it to washington. 3 e-mail, we are encouraging our members -- through e-mail, we are urging our members to support him out there. and we want a strong caucus in the democratic party as well to understand that we cannot keep growing the government, taxes, the deficit. that has to be stopped, from both parties. we are supporting mostly

republicans because they are the ones that understand the message. hopefully, you can see some of the democrats be opposed to obama, pelosi, and the democratic policies that got us into this mess. i think we are going to have some democratic allies that will say we have to get our country in the right direction so that we do not end up like greece. we need both political parties to recognize that. host: richard in florida. independent line. caller: good morning. mr. russo, you just talked about people from both parties being disgusted with it. you are just another wing of the republican party. you have hit every talking point

republicans have been using. you are putting all this money into these right wing political candidates, how much money have you given to the democrats? you are just another republican politician. host: care to respond? guest: as i said earlier in the program, we are laser-focused on one issue, opposition to the growth and a intrusiveness of the government. we are opposed to more taxes, regulation, annual deficits, that annual skyrocketing debt. those are the issues we talk about. yes, you find conservatives at our rallies, but you also find people who are liberal on social or cultural issues. we have a chairman in oklahoma city who is opposed to the war.

so this is a very bipartisan movement that includes republicans, democrats, and independents. our goal all along has been to encourage democrats to stand up to obama, pelosi, and read, that liberal triumphant responsible for taking the country in the direction it has. we are seeing democrats running for office against the democratic leadership. the next election there will be more democrats that we can stand with. and there are some democratic members that have told me they plans, and we are starting to see it.

i think you will start to see democrats who are not willing to go down this road of bigger and more expensive government. i think this next congress is going to be literally 100% better than the last one. host: there are some republicans, on energy, that wrotsupport government involvemt in some energy sector businesses, which goes against some of what the tea party has asked for, only free enterprise.

should these candidates, if elected, go against this? i just cannot ahead general and not taking specific -- guest: we have generally not taken specific positions on these types of things. however, what is constant is the principal. the government is expanding and intrude in in the economy to such an extent it is slowing and stopping any job creation. how you divide the money that you are going to spend, what is the right program, what is the wrong program, that is what the congressional process is all about. the bottom line is, of what i think all two party candidates are supposedly about, we are

going to stop the growing of government, higher taxes, higher deficits, the skyrocketing national debt. those are the principles. how you apply them -- some people may want to push an agenda that breaks our dependence on foreign oil. but then they will have to cut somewhere else. but instead, what you see in washington, everybody says i will scratch your back if you scratch mine. we cannot do that. as i said, every child born in the country has a debt of $400,000 on their head. that is wrong. we see what is happening in greece, portugal, italy, those countries are not far behind. and we could spend money like

drunken sailors, and that would be great if we had the money, but we do not. we need to bring some fiscal responsibility to washington. disagreeing on this and that, how you implement that, sure, that is america. but we have to stop the growth of government. host: sal russo, the chief strategist for the tea party express. if you go to their website, you can see where they are traveling around the nation. he is in little >> tomorrow, and the progressive committee campaign co-founder. we will talk with the help

reporter jon miller about how house incumbents -- the hilt reporter -- the hill reporter sean miller about how house incumbents are fair in this election season. >> for the complete schedule of authors and times, or to watch previous programs, go to look to the -- go to booktv.org. >> c-span local content of vehicles are traveling the nation to look at the most closely contested elections. >> it is important to me to bring back michigan how it once

was. i have had a family member lose a business after being in business for 60 years. >> it went down. we have nothing. >> i am concerned about unemployment, definitely. the auto industry has changed. michigan used to be the hub. michigan jobs were plentiful. i think that we need to address that issue. >> the unemployment rate is around 12% in oakland county. the state averages around 14%. the foreclosure process has been horrible all over the state, but really bad in oakland. people are losing their houses. people are losing their jobs. it just does not seem to be a big enough recovery quick enough. there is a real anxiety out there. especially here in michigan with

the auto industry, so many people have lost their jobs. we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. >> we are an industrial type of state. the auto industry has shrunk. a lot of the jobs have been outsourced. we need to recover from that. >> i have had to give businesses close that i own. i have friends that have moved to arizona, a san diego, out of state. everybody is moving out of state, dallas. it is affecting me because i am thinking of moving out of state too because i cannot get full- time work. >> i just wanted to come by personally to ask for your support. >> i am a democrat. super. try to get all your friends and relatives out there too. here in michigan, we have had such challenges. >> everything that washington

does somehow impacts us on our everyday life. everything, from our health care to the taxes we pay to how our schools are educating our students. >> there are two candidates, gary peters, the incumbent democrat. he is the first democrat to win the see in more than a century. the republican is a former state rep. he is a military that. gary peters is on the finance committee. he really wanted to bring money back into michigan, to set up a loan program so that businesses would have the ability to get some money so that they could expand their businesses. >> obama-care, make it hurt. boy, i would not want this shot. >> he does not like the obama administration.

you would like to see health care repealed. he is also interested in getting jobs to michigan. oakland county is the southern county of detroit. it has always been a republican district, but over the last 10 years it has been trending more democratic. voters have been voting for democrats for president and governor in the last four-five election cycles. just this past year, in this past election cycle, 2008, democrats won a lot of seats in a lot of different areas. >> we just have to keep working. we are hearing good things. the key thing is getting the message out. that is the thing. that is the challenge. >> they are not doctors. they have never been employed. >> a big republican here. i think if it had stayed even a

little bit of the same as it was in 2008, peters would have no problem getting reelected, but the movement of the state end of the county, it makes it a much tougher race. peters has no plans to ask the president to come in and campaign for him. the president has come in during the past two years a couple of times for fund-raisers, but he has not been back for a while. peters has said, obama is not on the ballot, i am on the ballot running on my record. it is going to be indicative of what kind of year it is going to be as far as a republican or democrat kind of year. it could very well for the majority of congress one way or the other. if gary peters loses year, i fully expect that the republicans will definitely take over the majority in congress. >> leading up to the november 2nd midterm elections, we are

travelling the country and visiting congressional districts where some of the most closely contested house races are taking place. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to this election season, visit our website, c-span.org. >> with the 2010 midterm elections just one week away, we will bring you a political debate each night until then. next, debate between the candidates for new hampshire is first district. following that, pennsylvania's third district debate. the congressional oversight panel for t.a.r.p. is preparing to produce a report next month. tomorrow, we will look at treasury department efforts to prevent market for coated the shares -- mortgage foreclosures. >> with just days until election

day, follow the key races and candidates on c-span with debates every night. go to the archives at the c-span library. visit our politics page for campaign ads and other resources. this weekend, see the jon stewart and steven cole their -- stephen colbert rallies live on c-span. >> this is a commitment 2010 special. we present the granite state a debate, live from the new hampshire institute of politics. now, the candidates for the first congressional district. >> appearing tonight, the two term congresswoman from rochester and her republican

challenger, the former manchester mayor. and now, the granite state a debate. [applause] >> good evening. welcome to the first of four debates. tonight, the first congressional district. questions will focus on the the major issues focusing -- major issues facing the country. for the most part, a candidate will have one minute for their response and up to 90 seconds for broader topics. we will hear from the viewers via e-mail. we have to pick candidates at tonight's debate. there podium position -- we have

to candidates -- 2 candidates at tonight's debate. there podium positions were determined by a drop. go ahead and welcome the candidates. [applause] and we have three panelists to night. -- tonight. let's get right to our first question. you have 90 seconds to respond. >> you were critical of big government and big spending. without the federal stimulus and the other short-term programs, wouldn't more americans be without a regular paycheck? >> thank you for the question. before i answer, i do want to it knowledge my wife who is with us

this evening. it -- acknowledge my wife who is with us this evening. it is our 13th wedding anniversary. secondly, that the stimulus was not the solution. what we should have done, which is what every small-business owner was desperately looking for in new hampshire, is to cut taxes, allow the small business community to grow jobs. it is not the federal government that grows jobs, it is our small business owners right here in new hampshire to create jobs. it is a fundamental difference between my opponent and myself. she it believes in a government and big solutions. i believe n. ltd., effective government. >> the unemployment rate nationally has been at 9% or higher throughout most of obama presidency. where is the hard evidence that

these policies have worked in creating good private sector jobs? >> if we had not passed the stimulus package, the job loss would have been twice as great. we lost 8 million jobs because of the previous administration's refusal to pay attention to wall street. economists, including the chief mccain'st for john k presidential run, said that the stimulus kept this country from going into a depression. also, it was just on abc news that the stimulus package did create jobs. the mayor kept asking for that money to area and get to manchester. i think he knows and i know that it did help. >> if you could point to a couple of areas where there have

been long-term private sector jobs. >> absolutely. the economy has been growing as you know in the private sector. it is moderate and it is still not where it needs to be, but we have a combination of federal partnership with state partnership properly administered by the governor and the democrats in the house. >> both of you have spent the last several months talking about job creation, a lot. specifically, where have you helped create a job? >> as mayor of the state's largest city, it is important when you are the administrator of $300 million in budget to focus on taxpayers and on growing the economy. what we did in my first year as mayor was cut borrowing in have -- in half.

we had bipartisan support for the first tax cut in a decade. what that does is create more money for private citizens to use how they see fit. there are great examples of how manchester has flourished over the last five years, whether it is a small business, where a small-business owner would invest his own money in his own time into his on business because we had economic strength whether itter, or what was the 300 businesses that are now thriving because of the economic conditions we had in manchester. i will tell you what the stimulus did not work. it created two thousand 730 four jobs -- 2734 jobs at $337,000

per job. nobody thinks that math makes sense. we should have been cutting taxes and putting that money back into business owner's hand, allowing them to create jobs. >> you both talk about job creation a lot. i would like to know where you have been instrumental in creating a job. >> again, abc news tonight before i came in here was talking about how the stimulus had created millions of jobs. the mayor knows that because you requested and received $30 million of stimulus money which state teachers' jobs, police jobs etc. there were good jobs in that the private sector. i can name pike industry and many other places that hired. many other people along the pipeline were working and received work because of that. funding to a place at the ports and shipyard. a lot of money from the fda to

make credit available because, as you know, the real problem for small businesses was getting credit. we worked very hard to create jobs and i am proud of that record. >> most of us pay federal taxes. so i do support them. i think we had to do the reform we dead and i am part of that reform. you have to put your name next to a and sign an affidavit. all my remarks are on my website. i handed out the sheet to everyone. we still can do a lot to make it more and see what the earmarks

are about. they're good thing. you do not want to send your tax dollars to alaska. >> we had 9000 earmarks alone last year to the tune of $16 billion. i did look at her website. she has requested your marks for california. the idea is to get rid of wasteful spending and ensure that federal dollars are going toward federally responsible projects throughout the country. but do it through the general fund process. we have to start bringing accountability back to federal spending like we do it home, like we do in new hampshire or any other community. we have to identify a budget and administer the budget. this is not happening at the federal level. people are tired of it and fed up with it. they want to see a different

approach in washington. >> we now move to our first round of questions. each will get up to 30 seconds to ask the question. thereupon it will get up to 90 seconds. carol shea porter, you have won the draw. >> for months, your party members and your employer has questioned the money you found in your account. you did not reported in 2010. they have been asking where did you get the money. is this legal or illegal? if you do not explain it, you should step down. you have been saying that is a matter of principle. since they are questioning you, don't you want to clear this up and will you show everybody your bank account just to prove this is not an illegal contribution.

>> i think new hampshire is tired of personal attacks on candidates. it is not just happening here. it is happening across the country. incumbents have -- do not have the ability to defend the stimulus cap and trade, the spending and the deficit. the unemployment rate. this should be and this is supposed to be four years of .ongresswoman porter i have complied with the rules and regulations. i am standing on principle because at some point, the need to not do what is politically correct but what is personally correct. >> your chance to ask a question. >> upon -- at that time, the

deficit was $240 billion. the deficit stands at $1.50 trillion. would you agree that you have not been successful in achieving your initial campaign promise despite four years of democratic control of the house? >> i have to say that when i was running for congress, i knew of the bush administration and the republicans have not done a very good job. i had no idea how wild the lead will street get. a former head of the research said when the party gets too well this time to take away the punch bowl. a believed there was some kind of regulation going on. we saw what happened in october 2008. there were talking about a

possible depression. we have had to invest in this country. i would like to remind you that all those dense for two wars that were not on budget, we had to take care of our soldiers and so many of the infrastructure. i want to read what david stockman said. the republican push would amount to the bankruptcy filing. that has continued because of that. i'm sorry we have not been able to get this under control. >> one minute to respond. >> setting aside questions of where that come -- came from, it

is fair to ask why should voters trust you to read and understand mass of legislation when you had trouble with a campaign forum. >> i voluntarily corrected the mistake i made on this -- on the disclosure reports. i did not disclose i was a board member of liberty house, a veterans shelter. i have corrected that mistake and i think people recognize and respect that. why do think people want is to be talking about the substance of issues. if my opponent wants to talk about this issue, we can talk about the 27 times she amended her report. the fact that she does not disclose any of her bank accounts on her report. it is a mistake she made. i would be happy to continue to talk about this. they want to know how we're going to move this country forward and how we're getting

unemployment down. how are we getting people back to work. that is what i will continue to focus on. >> you did not voluntarily do that. you broke the law into had -- you did not take care of 2009 or 2010. it is not the democrats. your former employer. also this corrections you like to point to our technical corrections. it is not personal finances. i am certain that there is a difference between the technical which everyone does and the personal. you did not corrected for 2009 either. >> the fact is there are different rules for a member of congress. she did not disclose her bank accounts. it is something i think she made

an error on. there are different rules for members of congress. people like us to focus on issues, substantive issues about jobs and the deficit. >> we will move on. >> i am sure he read the forms that you report the bank accounts that are interest- bearing. you know the differences again. it is the same rules for members of congress versus people who would like to be members of congress. that is number one. public office is a public trust. >> back to you for the next question. >> i have another reading comprehension question. can you say honestly that every piece of legislation you vote on or do you rely on party leadership on where to vote? >> or making a mistake if you

rely on party leadership. you have to read them. i was on the health care -- one of the committees that read the health care bill. on the smaller stuff you sit on the committees and you know people on the committees and you talk these over. we cannot read every single word. there are the go to the members and ask about the piece of legislation. they also met legislation. >> our next question comes from a viewer. i am discouraged and angered by the lack of cross party cooperation. what will you do to foster a spirit of cooperation to get things done? >> i want to make a point.

our incumbent said she does not read every single bill. that is unacceptable to people in new hampshire. when someone votes, i expect they read and make an informed decision. one of the things that was most challenging is being a different type of approach. a fiscally responsible approach. working with the majority of democrats to change the focus to accountability to -- efficiency and i am proud of the fact that my fellow colleagues who happen to be democrats work was made to cut taxes. it is that kind of corporation that i will bring as a member of congress. get donewant things to

moving the country forward. >> if he says he will read every single bill, it cannot be done. there is so much. it is like to dozen bills that get submitted. you have to read the major pieces but a lot of it is small. if he did not read through the form he has a lot of reading in front of him. as for the bipartisanship, we work well in committee. uc bomb throwing on the floor of the house but those bills get past with a bipartisan effort. we do have been partisanship. there are fundamental differences about how we see this country and that is the reason we have these disagreements. >> you were elected officials in

this district. can you name one time when you worked well together on one issue to benefit the first district? provideere able to it was ks and i know important for some many projects in manchester. >> there was the entity that was looking to work with the member relative -- what i was trying to do as mayor was say is a city which should not be relying on the federal government. we should be pushing back on the state of new hampshire and we should get through the challenging times we have. when i was mayor in the first part of my tenure, i did invite the congresswoman to manchester and we had a great experience.

looking at how we could focus on improving the largest city in the state and i applaud her for that. >> we have heard a lot from voters on the tone of your campaign ads. they have been filling the airwaves. they focus on your opponents. we wanted to take a couple of those accusations tonight. and see what the responses. >> we will start with you. your record is under fire in a number of campaign ads including this one. >> in washington, carol shaver voted for higher taxes. >> what is your response? >> i have to laugh. that is political trash talk. we know how the game is played. he has outside groups that are running much worse. i sat and watched for them one after another.

it is political trash talk. you can check that and others for that. it is what they have to say to take out an incumbent. they are major multinational corporations who are running these ads against me. >> she the support higher taxes. she does support bigger government. she supports stimulus. it is a comparative ad regarding what she supports and advocates and when she is concerned about outside money, neither candidate on the stage has any influence over that. she was not complaining when $2.5 billion -- million dollars was spent on her behalf.

the candidates should s -- focus on substantive issues. effectiveted to government. >> your opponent has started a number of your ads as well. >> first this. >> elminating social security? >> we put more money into social security every week, more money goes in and goes out. the problem here is 60 years from today when my kids are retiring there was a different system in place. we need to ensure that the promise made to every american

is a promise kept. we need reform on social security. if you go down the path we are in today it will be broke and we have to do something about it. >> in 30 seconds, why is this fair in your opinion? >> the previous president said that was one of his greatest disappointments and the reality is we can absolutely protect social security. he does not want to take any political steps. he is marching in step. it has been the goal all along. it is going back to what the previous administration wanted. i am not surprised. the head of the republican party said we're not going to be any different than we were before.

i believe you are referencing congressman john boehner. republicans are going to be different than they were in the 2000's when they had out of control spending. republicans want to focus on the economy and reducing debt and deficit. what happens every year is happening -- what is happening is she is using social security as a scare tactic. they do not believe that anymore. we know they should have substantive issues. that is not the way to win campaign re-election. you have to go in earn every vote. >> i want to drill down deeper on social security. there are a number of options.

they include raising conrad and raising the payroll cap. which one is the best solution or do you propose something different? >> i do not believe in raising taxes at a time when you have a record deficit in the country. that is a different position than my opponent does take. she does want to raise this cap which raises taxes on people in this room. the first thing we need to do is after this next congress gets elected, said down in a bipartisan fashion and identify a long-term solution which includes insuring that anyone who is receiving the benefit continues to receive it. a promise made is a promise kept. secondly, we have been stealing from the trust. we need to set the tone where we are not taking money out of it. if you have to take from the

general fund to solidify it, let's make that decision and make it solvent for the long term. what should not happen is this back-and-forth and bickering to scare people. it is not what anyone is looking for. >> is this something you would consider? >> everything else should be on the table for consideration. you come to the table with a global of respect and decorum. all members, not looking at them as republicans and democrats but as colleagues and saying what are the things we should consider and come up with a bipartisan approach that is reasonable to both sides. >> did he say yes or no? the reality is he did not say anything. when you're down there you have to take a test vote. it is not true that everyone's taxes will be raised. the taxes will increase on people earning over

[unintelligible] but they have to raise the cap. you pay tax on every dollar on a $50 sweater. that is not fair to people who are paying on every single dollar they earned. the burden on the middle class. i do not want to raise taxes on the middle class. you're acting as if it is not true. what we have said about social security and you know it is true, you have to take a position. if you raise the cap, you will protect and guarantee social security. he is -- does not want to answer and has been asked several times and i have no idea what his position is. i have heard it three different ways so far. >> raising the cap raises taxes. it is a tax hike on every small-

business owner and employee, that is not what people are asking for. we have for years of that and people are rejecting that. >> thank you and let's move on. healthcare is a contentious issue. we will allow the opponents 60 seconds to rebut. >> you said it was important to pass something on health care and fix the problems later. the size of such massive legislation, when push something through without making sure every detail was worthwhile? >> i have never known a perfect bill or perfect human being. i have never known a perfect but sutter. we're not going to do anything until it is perfect. that is what we have been trying all along. we had to do something. we have been doing that and we will continue to do that. what this bill did is for the first time it is offering

insurance to everyone. this was a republican plan a decade ago and it is a good, solid plan. it offers insurance and cannot be knocked off if you get sick. you can keep your family on until age 26 and to have preventive care. you will get your doughnut hole produced, were you have to pay for your own prescriptions and there is no cap. should you be unlucky enough to be sick you will be covered. there is a lot of insurance reform. it is a good thing to do. we will be stopping along the way to make the changes that need to be done. anythingver find perfect on earth. >> i do not think perfect was the objective. it was to reduce costs and i do not think anyone thinks we reduced cost when the bill was passed. it was past seven months ago and the single provision i would like the member of congress to explain to us is why she would vote for bill knowing that it

had a 1099 provision that required every business owner to 1099 someone when they spent more than $600 during the course of the year with the vendor. that in and of itself is a burden on small business owners and it is a burden on anybody that does any kind of business in this country. i believe her answer was she did not realize it was in the bill or she recognized it was a mistake. either way, it is a problem for new hampshire. >> i am happy he keeps returning to that. the bill is paid for and everybody knows it is paid for. we knew that there is that provision there that was too onerous for businesses. we did try to change that. it is paid for. we have a program called before which is low. we had another way to make of that income. the way that we're going to make of that lost income was to take tax subsidies away from special interests. republicans would not vote for

that. i do not know iwhen he keeps bringing that up. it does not make his party in washington look so good. >> this notion united the republican party to pass this makes no sense. the democratic party is in the majority. this party can do whatever they want. they do not republicans -- need republicans to do a thing. they either did not know it was in the bill or realized the mistake was made and they still could not corrected. either way, new hampshire taxpayers are at risk and american taxpayers are a risk. >> we will stay on health care. >> your response brings us to the new question. the health care law needs to be repealed entirely but given the political climate, the reality of that happening is stretched. it does need to be repealed and a lot can be effective if it is

tweaked. would it be fair to say that your message is more of a political statement, political rhetoric than the reality of the ability to repeal this thing? >> i think good republicans can agree to disagree on how to address certain issues. the wet look at this legislation is it is unconstitutional. there are more than 20 states were leaving it is unconstitutional and try to get it repealed. on its face, i do not believe we can force americans to purchase a service or product. secondly, if you truly did want to improve the cost, there are more targeted ways that you can address that and those are the things that we should have done. they can then negotiate with the heads of insurance carriers that i was able to do is the mayor

because i had thousands of employees. we should allow people to purchase health insurance anywhere they want in the country. if you are buying auto or life insurance, you can buy anywhere you want. one of the primary issues that the employer said to me is he had an actual policy britain from arizona that would have saved him more than $100 per month per employe. the law in prohibited him from using that cost savings. members of congress are trying to -- should listen and reflect their needs. that would have been a better start than an overhaul of a great medical system that we have. >> first of all, this is a republican plan but it is interesting to me sto see the efforts to repeal this program. i respect he may feel this way.

the reality is there have been tremendous costs to the taxpayers. it will be a way to reduce costs. i like the fact that he brings of these things. he will be able to pull together. he wants insurance companies [unintelligible] across state lines. that would be a race to the bottom. we have people in the state's performer compact and there will be able to do that. also small businesses will get tax help with this. it will be up to 50% to help them. they could've done this but they

did not. nothing was done. we have a health program that will help the consumer. that boeing may reduce or low -- eliminate its health-care for every employee that it has. it is cheaper for them to go on to the federal system, which is what our member of congress wants. the growth of the federal government. that is not in anyone's best interest. we have an insurance carrier dropped its plan because they attributed directly this health care legislation. that is not what is in the best interest of those 22,000 members. one of which is jim apprentice -- prentiss. >> moving to our second round. each will have 30 seconds to as

a question and your opponent will have 90 seconds to respond. >> of thank you. during your four years in congress, you stated you voted with 90 -- nancy pelosi 98% of the time. the people do not agree with nancy pelosi. you promised to stand up for the rest of us. if you were to be reelected, would you pledge today to vote against nancy pelosi for speaker? >> nancy pelosi does not bode. she is not even in this election. i am running for the people of new hampshire. i think you are too. that is washington -- for washington talking point. you have been there to pick up a special interest money and you come back with a talking point. the speaker is not standing here right now. i am an independent voice.

if you look at where i have disagreed with the house and it is the house. you can see that there have been times i have stood on my own and said this is not right. i am happy to go through the list. to keep bringing in the speaker of the house, you think that she was running in all 50 states. every single one of you has the same talking point. >> i am reiterating a comment you made regarding nancy pelosi. you had nancy pelosi come to do a fundraiser for you in boston. you support nancy pelosi enter principles. there is a disagreement. i am asking if you would vote for her or not if you were able -- to be reelected. >> i hear you sing the democrats are going to win house. since you're going to use the ",

we were passing the six for 2006. we had to protect ourselves [unintelligible] and it had to do with raising the minimum wage. that was in march 2007. it was what the people of this country wanted. >> do we have a yes or no? >> would you vote for her if you were reelected? >> i would. >> your chance to ask a question. >> you have punted and claimed that this is political and people do not want to talk about social security. you have used phrases that say absolutely nothing. i will ask you yes or no. will you protect social security and see it as a program that should be around for the next

generation and generation after that and if so, how are you going to pay for it? or your other story was you're going to abolish it. what would you do -- you said you wanted to privatize or abolish or you would make it a means test, a welfare test. tell me what you will do for the seniors and the people. it helps people who have been widowed and dependent children. what is your plan for the people if you succeed. yes sir know. should it be available to something like that and the answer is yes. for anybody who was watching this evening, if you were receiving social security, the prom -- country had a promise to you. let's not allow partisan negative personal attacks to scare you into voting for one person or another.

what i am asking is for a bipartisan group in the next congress to put their political differences aside and bring everything on the table to see how we can make social security solvent. it is not solved and right now. more money goes out than those in today. it is fully insolvent in 2015. it will not exist in 2037 unless we do something about it. i hope i have the opportunity to serve you in the november 2 election. what you'll get out of me is not a scare tactic but thoughtful consideration in a bipartisan way to make sure that seniors recognize the benefits they have burned. >> that is not the answer to the question i asked you. i asked you what we do -- are you planning on supporting social security so that it will exist. what would you do for the rest

of the people, the disabled and those who will pay for it to and what will they have? what is your plan for them? people need the social security. my mother depends on it and so do many others. what is your plan for them? >> i will answer again. i answered yes the first time. >> we have two very different opinions. >> i answered your question the first and second time yes. it should be something there that is solvent. it is a promise made to certain americans to make sure that promise continues. the reality of where we are today is more money goes out that goes in. that is a fact and it will be insolvent in 2015. there is no question that america wants us to solve the problem. what they do not want is partisan - and false attacks to scare the electorate. the electorate is smarter than

that. i think it is discouraging about politics in america when all people tried to do to save their job is to scare people. that is not the coming -- becoming a member of congress nor is it what the american people are asking of us when we assumed office next year. >> there are millions of illegal immigrants in this country and many of them are employed at low level jobs. are they or are they not a part of the economy? >> the problem we have is employers are hiring them. the way to control this is for employers to get -- be held accountable when they attract people across the border by offering low paying jobs and it is not fair to american workers and it is not fair to those who came over. we prosecute the employers and i think that you would see a

solution pretty quickly. if canada offered jobs at $100 an hour, there would be americans who would go there. we have seen that dry up. >> are you talking about shutting down the businesses? >> i am talking about taking them to court. the solution is to go to the root of the problem. it is the employer. they know it is illegal. they have to be held accountable. >> there is two components to the problem. if you are employing someone who is illegal, you are paying a certain price. the government has refused to enforce existing laws, nor have they agreed to complete the border. but fans. arizona had to act and they had to act because they felt their sovereignty was at stake. the reality here is if you are breaking the law, we're a nation

of laws and someone who is here illegally is breaking the law. that should not be allowed. i have personal friends in manchester. they spent years making sure they could raise their family here legally. it was a wonderful, phenomenal event. they are proud of their heritage and proud of america. that is what we want to see. we want to see people coming here legally, encourage them to come here legally and make something better for themselves and our country. these undocumented immigrants, are they an important part of the u.s. economy? >> the jobs themselves are an important part of the economy. i believe just like many others those jobs will be filled by american citizens or legal immigrants. >> over to you, next question.

>> the u.s. has spent millions fighting the taliban. the african government has considered negotiating to bring a peaceful government. if that becomes part of a functioning government, how do you feel about the u.s. opening up dialogue with the taliban? >> part of our responsibility to our country and to americans based on our constitution is to defend this country and defend americans. if there is a terrorist who wants to kill an american, what we need to do is defend ourselves and our nation against that. we need to do that wherever those terrorists exist. i do not believe that we negotiate with terrorists. we have a duty to protect american lives and our country. sometimes it is tough but we have to take necessary means to do it. i would not be supporting a terrorist entity or organization

anywhere in this country and i do not think american should be there. >> if the karzai government wants to talk to the taliban, there is nothing we can do. there are -- our footprint is too large there. we do have terrorists who would like to hamas and i am well aware of that. we have to have some footprint in afghanistan. we have to have special forces. it can be international or the europeans and countries that ring that area. we have to hunt down terrorists. there is a difference in the taliban. they are an awful group. the reality is they are woven into the community. if the afghans want them to be thrown out, they will do that like they did after the 2001 attacks where they threw him out. the problem we have is the taliban -- we do not know who they are. they're working with us in the day and attacking a night. karzai who is corrupted, i have

met him and i said we were concerned, he said that allows -- was our problem. fit we have a leader there that we're not able to control. we need a glider footprint to catch the taliban who intend to harm us. it is not all the taliban. >> thank you. i would like to hear our second your question coming in. david has written in saying -- >> we have been working on that since i arrived in congress. i was a military spouse. this is a problem. they should have fought. we're the only state in the country that does not have a full-service hospital.

i would be happy to have a card that could go locally. we have seen more clinics that put more money in. you can look at the manchester be a -- va and see the improvement. we send far too many to massachusetts and vermont and other places. >> as i talk to veterans from new hampshire, the single greatest concern is they are traveling to massachusetts or for mahon too often for medical needs and services. the practice should end. i will do everything i can to make sure that does happen. for those veterans who would like to see a full-service va, they have deserved it. we have to prioritize to see that happen. for those who seek a different

alternative, going to any hospital they choose, they should be able to do that. you put your life on the line for me and my family, we will make sure that medically we take care of you when your medical needs a ride. >> the next topic is education. >> how does that improve manchester's schools that were struggling during your tenure? >> education is extremely important. the first thing we need to do is have more parental engagement in how kids are learning. when the department of education was created, it has not done anything to help manchester. when i talk to superintendents or principles or teachers, they are frustrated with no child

left behind and frustrated with the wacko of mandates that come to new hampshire. there would prefer direct support in a classroom -- and classroom support. making decisions on behalf of washington. >> a question and education. >> other than funneling money into the states, what does the u.s. department of education due to help schools? >> the mayor received $10 million of federal money for the school system. it is essential. he had 2000 people who were angry with him because of failing schools and they came

from the communities that were tied into manchester to talk about his failure. what we do is we look at all the communities around the country. we make sure that the funding is there and it is not complete. we work to make sure they have money to do the basic stuff they do. the department of education sponsors research. we make sure there are standards that are meant which are important for children. whether a child is born poor or rich, they should have access to good education. education is a key to prosperity. it is an investment and in our best interest. the people who are the next generations are the ones who're going to count your pills. make sure they know how to do

it. >> we will ask closing questions. you will have 90 seconds to answer the question. if they feel is appropriate, they should use it to make their final pitch to voters. >> you have 90 seconds to answer. how was the recession affected you and your family? >> it has been difficult for everyone. i have an extended family. a lot of sisters and brothers and nieces and nephews and cousins and everyone has a story to tell. we saw the value of our house drop. my daughter had trouble getting a full-time job and she did not health -- did not have health insurance. the economy improved and she was able to have a good time job -- full-time job. the good news is the economy is growing. it is now contracting. there are people who are left

behind it we have to make sure that we are creating jobs and we also provide unemployment benefits for those who are seeking and we grow the jobs in the grain sector. it will take a united effort. the reality is we have a ways to go. the economy is growing and for myself when i see my 401k coming back, we will get there. i am optimistic and i believe in the middle class and will be able to pull ourselves all the way out. thank you. >> i would like to thank the institute of politics and the panel for being here this evening. this is a critical election and i hope to earn your support and bring fiscal responsibility and discipline back to washington. the last question is apropos of what we're feeling. my wife and i had to change the

investments we have made on behalf of our kids. we do not see the stability in the economy. locally or nationally. those of the things we're concerned about in this country. we want to see the unemployment rate which has been more than 20 consecutive months exceeding 8%. we want to see that come down. we want to see residents and americans back to work again. excited about the opportunity to provide for their family. we want to see a budget passed in this country. we want to see the $1.50 trillion debt eliminated and the $13.60 trillion debt that has been amassed on the decline. this is what people have been asking me how i will focus on

their issues. if i am their next rep. i'm here to ask you to go to frank gun -- vote frank gunta. time.k you for your cabinets and panelists. tomorrow's debate featuring the second congressional district candidates. news 9 will have a full wrap up and analysis. have a good night. [applause]

>> we will continue with more political debates. tonight's south carolina governor's debate. later, the indiana senate debate. you're watching campaign 2010 coverage on c-span. tomorrow, progressive change campaign committee co-founder

adam green. a look at health care as a campaign issue. we will talk with the hukk an miller aboutukker abiy incumbents. >> during this campaign season, that includes more than 100 debates we have erred. if your new, watch the tutorial on how to clip and share. search, fine, and share with the c-span video library. >> now debate between house candidates from pennsylvania's third district. the third district is in the northwest corner of pennsylvania and includes the cities of e

rie and sharon. >> good evening. welcome. i am the director for the center of political participation. i will be the moderator. the center opened its doors in 2002 with the aim of helping americans, especially young americans understand the potential of politics. we believe in elections and we believe in civic engagement. all that has changed through the years but a fundamental truth remains. candidates are called upon and they call upon us to judge their views and character and to [inaudible]

they are applying for position and the voters are doing the hiring. there is no better way to conduct this job interview then through the debates. these events allow you to assess candidates without consultants and media imagery. they're open and direct. because this event is being held at one of the nation's oldest and one of the most prestigious on it -- institutions of higher learning, we believe the candid its have a special responsibility to provide direct, specific, respectfully answers. evidence of this sort are not easy for candidates. it is tough work standing up there. taking questions. i am hoping you would join us in thinking the candidates for

coming tonight. -- thanking the candidates for coming tonight. [applause] we have a few housekeeping matters. if you could turn off your cellphone, that would be appreciated. each candidate will have a two minute opening and closing statement. the order has been decided by coin toss. the candidates will be asked questions in alternating order and will have two minutes to respond. audience questions will be used for the second half of the debate. i hope you noticed the there were some cards in the program. if you could fill those out and

pass them to the assistant. we will use that for the second half of the debate. audience participation will be limited to short periods of applause after each candidate's opening and closing statements. there will be no applause during the question and answer period. college democrats and republicans are hosting an open reception. the college republicans will be over here and the democrats will be by the dining room in the campus center. this debate is being carried live by c-span. we welcome the viewers from the district, the state, and the nation. let's get on with their debate.

ou -- our debate. >> thank you for hosting and thanks to you in the audience for taking the time to come out and for my khalif for joining me. i am honored and humbled to be york rep. it is a responsibility that i take very seriously. i am kathy dahlkemper. i have five beautiful children and two grandchildren. i have grown up in this region. i love this region. raised my family here. it is a region i want to be strong and grow and thrive so my children and doors and grandchildren have the opportunity to stay here, have a good job, raise their family and live the american dream. that is why i ran for congress to years ago and that is why i

am running for congress today. to continue to work on the things i have been working on for two years to help this region grow. i haven't focused on the economy and jobs. that is my number one focus. -- i have focused on the economy and jobs. i have been working with economic leaders to make sure we have in place what they need to help our region grow. i have been working to cut taxes for small businesses. not once or twice but 16 times. i have been working to make sure we make it in america. we make products here in america. we do this by disclosing tax loopholes and by fighting against countries that use of unfair trade practices to take our jobs overseas such as china. times are tough. we have seen things getting better. 14 straight months of improvement in manufacturing numbers. we have seen 863,000 jobs

created this year alone. things are getting better. there is much more work to be done. i am looking forward to tonight's conversations so you can see the contrast between the direction i am taking the country in and where my opponent wants to take the country. thank you again for being with us and i appreciate your vote come november. [applause] >> thank you. i want to thank allegheny college and you for being here tonight. it is an important election. probably the most important election of our generation. i want to thank the congresswoman. there are two completely different views of the way

things are going. i do not share that same enthusiasm for the last 22 months. i do not think things are getting better. things are a lot different now. our views are different and you will see a contrast. i believe in a smaller government and a less intrusive government. the people are the best way to get there. i believe small business is the best way to get there. i believe there should be a constitutionally limited government. what we have seen for the last 22 months is worsening people who were going to washington and change washington -- we were sending people who were going to washington and changing washington. i would like to see this country return to its greatness. america's best days are ahead of a spread we can get there together. not just as republicans or democrats, but as americans. we have an excellent opportunity to make a decision that will change forever the course of this country. if you are living we're going in

the wrong direction, you can fix that. it is fixable and the greatest country in the world, our best days are ahead and we can fix it. we're going to find out which campaign is going in a direction you like and which campaign is desperate and taking a direction you might not like. i welcome the opportunity to be with you tonight. thanks so much. [applause] >> we would like to start off related to the economy. the stimulus bill was billions of dollars pumped into the economy. economy. the economy remains