candidates twitter feeds, campaign coverage, and other affirmation. for the weekend, we will show campaign events, debates, and interviews, and open our phone lines for your comments. follow the election coverage through election day. >> south carolina's candidates for governor face each other in their final debate. republican nikki haley and democrince sheheen are fighting to succeed mark sanford. a recent poll shows nikki haley leading vincent sheheen. a political report shows this race leans republican. this is about an hour. >> live from the campus of frances marion university, the

2010 south carolina gubernatorial debate. >> for more than 30 years, chapman auditorium has served as the center of instruction and frances marion university. tonight public -- at francis near a university. good evening to you. thank you for joining us. i'm bob juback. for our viewers watching, also across the nation on c-span and online, we welcome you to this beautiful campus. a capacity audience of more than 400 people are here tonight, for the third in our series of debates sponsored by frances marion -- francis area and coastal university. first, the republican nominee tonight, state representative mickey haley from lexington.

-- nikki haley from lexington. [applause] in the democratic nominee, state senator vincent sheheen. [applause] also a panel of esteemed journalists will help us in the candidates tonight. oftentimes he has been named the tv statehouse reporter in the country also, jackie torok. our third panelist is rusty ray, with news 13 and has been a member of wbtw's news team since 2002. he anchors the popular carolina report. we welcome them as well.

[applause] to ipods debate consists of five rounds. -- tonight's today consists of five rounds. i will ask questions submitted as part of our voice of the voter project in rounds 2 and 3, the student government president from growth francis mary ann and coastal universities will ask questions. the candidate asked the question will have to minutes to answer, the other candidate will have a minute and 45 seconds for rebuttal. >> representative haley, south carolina this is a $1 billion shortfall, as you know. education and health care combined to account for 75% of the budget. what specifically would you do to cut funds from the budget, especially with the fact that such a big part of the budget is

medicaid? >> first of all, this is a great opportunity in that we have a billion dollar deficit. any time a business goes through the hardest times, they make the best decisions. so we look -- we need to start at zero, say what do we have to have come and work our way up. we need to understand that in our health care services agencies, we have twice as many secretaries as we do nurses. we have to look at streamlining to what we absolutely have to have. the key way of doing that is to look at every single agency, tell them we have certain reforms by the end of the year and make sure that we get that done. this is about taking the opportunity -- government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people, not to be all things to all people. we will prioritize work force centers, organized -- we will find things the government does

not need to pay for and create the opportunity where we can have the private sector do it better. in return we'll have a stronger, more competitive government because of it. >> mr. sheheen, 45 seconds. >> the key is specifics. we cannot have multiple human resource departments. we cannot have the budget control board operating administrative functions in south carolina's government. it will have to be streamlined into the executive branch. this is a great opportunity to shift the way we think about budgeting. we have to create a programmatic budget. i am not just saying that because i'm running for governor. i have pushed for a programmatic budget over the last four years, and this is the time to do it. did a subjective criteria of measuring the success as an output of any program. if an agency cannot give us a criteria, and objective criteria, we cannot have that program. we have limited dollars and we

have to be smart in how we spend that. >> jackie torok, your next question is for mr. sheheen. >> senators in the u.s. transportation secretary pointed to south carolina's state infrastructure bank model for a national infrastructure bank. i understand that will be pitched in washington in january. as governor, will you support it and make sure that i-73 is one of the first projects? >> i will and i do. let me take this first full question to step back and say thank you, francis marion and coastal for hosting this debate. i want to thank my wife, amy. i'm excited about the opportunity for the federal government to have an it infrastructure bank modeled on south carolina. secretary load also said they needed a governor who would support -- secretary lahood said

they needed a governor who would support i-73. we have to have a governor who will convene the other governors in this country who will have an input into i-73. i will do that. we have to have a governor who will support the creation of a national infrastructure bank. otherwise, i-73 is not going to be able to be funded. this is a distinct difference between my opponent and myself. i'm willing to say i will do what it takes to have i-73. it made me and tolling, it may mean a public/private partnerships. we have to make eye-73 and reality. the next secretary of transportation, when i appoint him or her, will be on the same page as i am and will support i- 73. the amount of job creation for the project is staggering -- thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs. when i have the opportunity to

vote to support i-73, i have. my opponent voted against the resolution this year would not allow for public/private partnerships and told it is necessary. if we are serious about it, we have to partner with the federal government to make it happen. >> first of all, i have always been a supporter of i-73 and will be. infrastructure is at the heart of economic development. companies look for three things when they come to south carolina -- a tax structure that allows cash flow and profit margins. they look for a skilled work force, and they look for infrastructure -- roads, competitive air fare what i did not support this year is the tolling of i-73. we will not tax people for this road. my opponent is exactly right -- we differ on this. he would support a national infrastructure bank just like he supported national obamacare.

that is going through without knowing what is in the bill. i will go to the federal delegation and say we have to have a i-73. it does not matter how they go about doing it, but we will get it done, and as governor my main concern is that we bring economic development to south carolina. >> i want to clear one thing up. they said that you supported tolling. now they say that you are against it. >> i have never supported holding. that is why i voted against the bill. >> we are not going to increase the gas tax, and the state will have to provide some funds to it. >> senator, i do not believe in taxes like you do. i think we go to the federal delegation and make sure -- this is not a small project. >> you want to bring federal money. >> this is not about $100 million, which we already have for i-73.

i-73 is going to cost $2.5 billion. this has got to be the party federal delegation decides we have to have it, they go and decide exactly where we will get it from, but we will not be part of a huge national bill just like we are part of the national health care main gate, because that taxes everybody for everything. -- a huge health care mandate. because the taxes -- that taxes everybody for everything. it also make sure that we get i- 73, and i talked to senator gramm about this. -- senator graham about this. >> she knows that i do not support mandates for health care. she throws it in because she likes to distract people from what we are talking about. you cannot just say we are going to get it done. mark sanford has been saying that for eight years, and i have not seen i-73 that far down the road. here are some specifics. we ought to have a federal

infrastructure bank. we know the state will have to match that. how are we going to do it? i have not heard anything from representatives haley. public-private partnerships have to be on the table, and so does tolling. what will not do it without the other. we have to talk about ways we can honestly move south carolina forward, or are we going to pretend that things will just happen like we have for the last eight years? things do not just happen. >> i would agree, we do need to be honest, and i think you need to be honest that it was the son news that said you supported obamacare. you also need to be at honest and say that i'm not mark sanford. i know -- i absolutely support i-73 and will make sure that we get it. >> rusty ray, to representative haley? >> some lawmakers in tullibee advocate a strong immigration

law similar to the law passed in arizona. do you support the tighter scrutiny on suspects, and do you think there needs to be a different standard other than an officer's judgment in the heat of the moment? >> everyone compares the immigration law to arizona. if i get the immigration arizona law, i absolutely will sign it. arizona did what they had to because the federal government failed to act. we have an immigration law, but it is not as strong as the arizona lottery the problem with the south carolina bill is that it does not allow us to go in and take illegal aliens, we are only allowed to call homeland security. it says any illegals caught carrying weapons, carrying drugs, or committing a terrorist act, would be considered a felony. south carolina does not do that, arizona does. when given the opportunity to

find illegal immigration, senator sheheen did not fund it. instead, he chose to support the stimulus package while i chose to support funding prosecution for a legal immigration. we have to get serious about illegal immigration. we have drug cartels going straight from mexico to atlanta and straight to south carolina as they get through charlotte. we will be very strong on that. while we are a country of immigrants, we are a country of laws. when you give up being a country of laws, you give up everything this country was founded on. >> senator sheheen? >> i support south carolina's immigration bill. representative haley said that we have -- i voted for that bill. the focus of that bill is cracking down on employers who employ illegal immigrants. that is what we need to do in south carolina. if we enacted arizonan's bill wholesale, it would weaken south

i will not support that. if there are provisions that toughen up our bill, i will support that. i do believe law enforcement should be able to call in authorities if they have reason to suspect that someone is here illegally, but we're not going to weaken south carolina bill just so representative haley can run for governor of the united states. i'm running for the governor of south carolina because i care about south carolina, and we did put funding in to support the immigration bill. in fact, we are doing it today. >> errors on its -- is much tougher, it allows our -- arizona is much tougher. the bill that south carolina has -- two years ago, we had the strongest bill in the state. right now arizona's is the strongest and we need to support it. >> a voter question right now coming from jeff gardner. he asks to senator sheheen,

"what are you going to do about the current job market, deecially in the pee region of the state? what are you going to do to change jobs going to other parts of the state?" >> thank you for asking that question. i know well that the pee dee has been ignored by this administration, and my commitment to it is the same to the rest of south carolina, and that is that you will have a governor who will travel the nation, travel the world to recruit jobs and industry back into our state. it is not good enough to sit back and think things will happen, and that is what has happened in the last eight years. i will push jobs into the pee d ee just like i difor the rest oe state. i spent the last year visiting

entrepreneurs and small businesses to learn about what they need to be successful. i want to be that governor who again believe that the governor's top priority is to recruit business and industry into south carolina. we have a convoluted tax code that places an increasing burden on small business and property taxes. i voted against an act that was passed a few years ago, at 388, which burden small businesses with property tax. i want the pee dee to be a part of our economic development plan, the county's light-because carries -- because counties like maryann cannot afford it. >> you know, we have to understand that we have 11% unemployment, but while we have a 11% unemployment, we have 64,000 open jobs that our south carolina businesses need to fill, and they are going out of country and out of state to

do it. that is a south carolina problem. the way we will bring in good quality jobs is have a tax structure that allows them to have profits and cash flow. we have to make sure we are taking care of small businesses. the way you do that is create a good business environment. the bill senator sheheen is referring to get a 60% tax reduction to primary homes for residents. i voted for that tax relief. that was a great bill. he voted against it, and that is unfortunate. the way to get businesses and support businesses through workers' comp and getting objective standards, that is what they need, through tort reform, when you go to a loose or pay system. it is to tax reform where you give small businesses cash flow and bottom line. >> our next question for robert hill goes to senator sheheen. >> i want to talk about the looming state budget crisis. if it is not possible cut

without severely hurting things like schools, health care, and law enforcement, that means raising taxes of some kind. are you willing to raise taxes, or is it any kind of tax increase completely off the table? >> i do not believe we can afford to raise taxes on people in south carolina right now. my opponent has talked about raising the food tax. she will deny it now, but she said it back in august clearly. it is important that we are real about the budget situation. it is critical, there will be cut this year. there were caught this past year. my priorities are the job- creating agencies like commerce, public education. we will still see difficult times ahead. i supported increasing the cigarette tax last year, and now my opponent is running a tv commercial accusing me of raising taxes on families. if raising the cigarette tax is raising taxes on families, we

have a big problem in south carolina. but that is just how she has run this campaign. i am not afraid to do what is right regardless of the consequences. it was right to raise the lowest in the nation's cigarette tax to help curb teenage smoking, to make sure that people who are criminals did not keep coming into south carolina, buying cigarettes and exposing them on the black market. but i do not think we can raise taxes on south carolinian is in general this year. >> ms. haley? >> we need to understand that if we were for medicaid, every state averages about 10% -- if we reform medicaid, every state averages about 10% of abuse in the system. it is all about dollars going to the teacher student technology in the classroom, and there is a lot of overhead. we are spending $11,000 a year to educate a child in this state.

85 school districts before it ever touches that teacher or school district classroom. we have to make sure that we are streamlining what we do and how we do it. it is about bringing good quality jobs to the state. in terms of the grocery tax, i voted for the elimination of the grocery tax. my opponent voted for it. i was not just talking about raising taxes on cigarettes, you have raised taxes on a lot of things. it is making sure that when we come out of this, we're more competitive and stronger. >> if i could just respond -- one of the weirdest things about this campaign is representative hayley's insistence -- insistence on things that are not true. she keeps saying 1000 because it sounds cool. there are 883, and half of them are bus mechanics. it is important that we talk the truth, otherwise we will never

move the state forward in any kind of rational way. we have got to be honest about this. >> senator, there are 1179 employees in the department of education. yes, many of them are school bus mechanics, which is why we need to privatize the school bus system. >> i asked the department education how many employees there were. as of september 1, 2010, the agency had 883 employees. >> the budget before 1179, and that is what we're playing for -- what we are paying for. >> they have had to cut back on the number of people there. >> can we agree that even if it is 1000 or 883, it is too many? >> tell me which ones -- my platform is to push the dollars into the classroom. talk specific and tell me which positions we need to let go because i cannot tell whether or not we should until you tell me what they actually do.

>> i want to privatize school buses. instead of 16 to 17-year-old school buses, we could have 3 or 4-year-old school buses. they hire the school bus people, but we do not need to have all the maintenance people. senator, you do not believe in more dollars going to the classroom because in the budget this past year, you voted against moving the% from 65% going into the classroom as opposed to the 55% that we have now. >> 70% of the dollar is going to the classroom, but you do not include in class from principals, right? you want the teachers to cook. >> you did not answer the question, senator. >> next question, jackie torok, to representative hayley. >> as long as we are talking about schools, representative haley, in the past you talk

about college and university boards in the university-tight economic development. how specifically is that going to create new jobs? >> to say if we have got this issue of funding and how do we fix it, the way i think we need to do is it acknowledge where is the problem coming from, and where do we need to go with the solution? right now we fund colleges based on football tickets, legislative of alumni, and -- that is not the way to do it do not tell them how they have to spend it is not like clemson. they need to find out how to make their schools strong. then at the end of the year, ask them what is there in state vs. out of state. at that point, take those measurable to the legislature and say that is how you fund a

college. those colleges that did great, let's bring about them and give them more money. those colleges that did not, they just got challenged and incentivized to do that. it puts more control in the hands of the college and allow the students and families to feel better about the tuition they are paying. >> mr. sheheen? >> i think the question was do you support abolishing the board of trustees. i think we need to have an empowered commission on higher education, but i do not think we need to abolish the boards of trustees. i think there is support role for them to play in governing the institutions of higher education in south carolina. we have in this state just invested in higher education over the last 10 years and the result has been a doubling and tripling of tuition at many colleges and universities. the best governor has to make a commitment over the long term, when the budget -- the next governor has to make a commitment over the long term, we have to make a commitment to the state budget for higher education.

we need to make sure the young adults have the best opportunity to succeed in the economy pick in the meantime, colleges and universities have to tighten their belts because we cannot have the tuition going up and up. >> rusty ray, for senator sheheen. >> in these budget times, we have talked a little bit about this -- how would you propose the state pay for the extra million dollars of c coverage? >> i do not support mandates on individuals, and i do not support any increased burden placed on small businesses. if there are increased burdens on state government, the federal government ought to pay for it or it ought not to be in place. i will advocate strongly. there is a difference between myself and my opponent. i believe it is important that young children who are born with pre-existing conditions are covered by health insurance. that is a good thing.

i will tell you a quick story. i have a nephew named david. my sister margaret is here today. he was born with a heart defect. margaret and her husband -- they were lucky enough to have an insurance policy that allows a pre-existing condition. but there are thousands of kids out there who are not. i believe in my christian faith very deeply that what we do to the least of these we do for him. i could not occur in the face and my family and i could not go to church on sunday morning if i did not support provisions that allow for pre-existing conditions to be covered by health insurance, or for provisions that allow -- that say to a woman who has breast cancer by her insurance premiums are high that she will be kicked off her insurance policy. but are things i do not like in the federal health-care legislation, and i have said that. as governor, i will stand up against that. but there are good things like covering pre-existing conditions for children born with heart

defects like david, and there are good things like women with breast cancer who will not get kicked off their policy. we ought to try to make those things work. >> senator, you cannot flip the cow. it is coming down, it will cost the people of south carolina $1 billion. anyone that does not participate, it will cost you $700, or 2.5% of your income, whichever is greater. we cannot sustain that. i not only will fight this mandate, i will get a coalition of governors who say we do not support this. instead, let us incentivize our small businesses to offer health care. let us pass tort reform that go to a news or pay system. let us reform medicaid. what we need for the federal government is to allow insurance companies across state lines so we can get affordable health care. obamacare is not something you can support. we are stuck with the whole cow and we have to fight it all the

way back to the supreme court. >> we need a governor with the intelligence and ability to say when things are good and when things are bad. we need to be willing to stand up to bad things, but are willing to say there is something good in it, and we ought to try to make it work. i will stand up against mandates. >> our next question comes from the student government president here at francis marion. question is for representative hayley. >> first and foremost, thank you for being here, and we're privileged to have you here. as a young person pursuing a college education, i have typical debt, a part-time job, and when i graduate, i will have student loans to repay. i understand how important a bachelor's degree is to my future, and i am dedicated to my education. what i'd like to know is, what specifically, two or three things that you plan to do, that

will benefit young south carolinian is like myself? >> first of all, thank you for having us and we are very proud of you and what you accomplish. first we have to understand that you have a lot of graduates trying to find jobs. it is so important we recruit big companies to this state. we do not need a bowling every 20 years, and i will be very aggressive -- we do not need a company like bolling every 20 years, and i will be a very aggressive for that. small businesses are getting 91% of those contracts. that is jobs for you. that are-that if things i know we can take care of. we need a business friendly climate. that we invite companies here, and i will make sure we get all the companies we need to so we can match you up. the second thing is making sure we have good work force centers for you so when you get out into the job search, if you do not

find something, you have a privatized work force working with you to make sure you get into the jobs you want to. my goal is to keep you in south carolina. i do not want to lose you. >> mr. sheheen? >> first i will tell you, please stay in south carolina. we lose too many of our young people. we are used -- we are losing mwait to many of our young people to sister states, georgette and tennessee. we have been the butt of late- night television jokes for years. i will make you proud of your leadership again. i want you to also know that i am committed to create a division of mantra and ownership and small businesses in our department of commerce with the existent -- of entrepreneurship and small businesses in our department of commerce. they will be there to help you navigate the sometimes difficult bureaucracies in the state and federal government. i want to offer opportunity to

young entrepreneurs in south carolina because they're really the future of the state. stay here. >> thank you. robert kittle the next question for representative hayley. eing.u just mentioned bowli where do you stand on offering big companies incentives to get them here, like bmw and boeing? >> we are not against instead of spirit is a cost-benefit analysis. we have to make sure that our small businesses benefit. not only is going here for the long term, we are already talking about expanding with them. 91% of the contracts are going to south carolina businesses. that is something that needs to be negotiated on the front end. we need to make sure it is small businesses benefiting from the big corporations. we need to bring in the big corporations that will stay here. we need to be -- once they stay

here, we need to make sure that we are linking them up with technical colleges so that we are getting the skilled work force that we need. what we do not want to do is bring in companies that take away south carolina business, and we have seen retail outlets and things like that come in. i will vote against things that take away from south carolina small businesses. >> mr. sheheen? >> i will aggressively use incentives to recruit business and industry into south carolina. i want to make sure those incentives give the bang for their buck. right now we have been allowing other states to out-recruits south carolina. we used to be a model for economic development and recruitment in the southeast. right now we are the best thing other states have going for that. i will change that. i thought bringing boeing in was the most important economic development vote that we had in our generation. i was there that day, representative haley was not there for that vote.

even up in the pee dee and the midland's in kershaw county where i live, we are aggressively using economic development -- >> thank you, senator byrd next question is from jackie torok to senator sheheen. >> senator sheheen, there have been calls for attorneys to serve in the state legislature like yourself to recuse themselves from votes that have a direct impact on their paychecks. how can you reassure citizens that your actions as governor will not be a conflict of interest? >> once i am governor, i will not be practicing law anymore. right now, we have a legislature where we have our own occupations. i happen to practice law. the key haley works as an accountant and also works for a government hospital. there are times when there are issues relating to the law, so every law we passed in the general assembly relates to the

law. i recused myself on the ethics laws say i should recuse myself. it is important that we have a citizen legislature, a part-time legislature. nikki haley as accused me of suing the state often times, but the truth is those cases that she refers to are really cases where my law firm was defending the state. i have been proud that members of my law firm have defended the state. i believe there are two of those clients here. are you here? stand up. these two folks -- their land was taken by the government. they hired my firm to defend them. they worked their whole life to build a small business, and my understanding is they hired my law firm, and by law from defended them when the government came to take their land and made sure that they got the compensation that a jury decided. i'm proud of that. i do not apologize for that and i will not apologize for it.

my opponent likes to bash on me for being a lawyer. i would rather be a successful lawyer and have a successful lawyer as my next governor than an accountant who did not pay her taxes. [applause] >> ms. haley? >> he is successful, all right. in the first two years of being the senate, he became the fifth highest paid attorney in workers' comp cases. not only does he vote on the budget to get workers' comp, not subcommittees' behind the scenes and recused himself in front, he asks for the jobs from the state, a sears businesses on the worker's comp commission, and that is the reason why he sousa our taxpayers and represents our taxpayers at the same time. -- why he sues our taxpayers and represents our taxpayers at the same time. what needs to happen is lawyer legislators should not be allowed to sit on these committees for workers' comp

commissions. we need to make sure they cannot have both their hands in both their pockets. he has made hundreds of thousands of dollars by being a lawyer and legislator. that is one great part-time job. >> if i could respond -- nikki haley, before she was elected to the legislature, did not have a job. she then got work in her own county and a government hospital, then got work working in a consulting contractor for wilbur smith in a contract with the state government. it gets old listening to her pitch to me when i have followed the ethics laws, recused myself when voting on commissions. she misled the public. you cannot act that way any longer. you cannot point the finger at someone who has followed the rules and ethics laws of south carolina when you did not. >> senator, you have spent 80% of your advertising dollars attacking me, every director of the department of revenue, every ethics commission has set i have not done anything wrong.

i have worked for my family business. they are the heart of america and they are the reason i'm running for governor. i worked for a hospital as an assistant executive director. i worked on their books, changed the way they budgeted, changed the way they did accounting. i did not work for the state or worked for a company that worked for the state. i never once was involved with state contracts. once again, i would ask you to stay on the issues. you have had a great time targeting me, but all you have done is misinform the public, and there is something very wrong with that. for someone who cares a lot about trust, you really have some issues there. >> i think it is important we do that. >> we are going to run out of time. rusty ray, to representative hayley. >> year after year, south carolina ranks near the top four the number of women killed by men in domestic violence situations.

what steps would you take as governor to help reduce this number and these crimes? >> it is something that is very sad, that is not something we want to be involved in. the attorney general has done a masterful job at really trying to bring attention to this. we have to continue to have centers to help women get out of this situation. i have talked many times about bringing faith-based organizations together to help those who need help. it will be to help women who are in those bad situations, for counseling. we have got to give them the strength and know that they have a support group. it does not take government dollars to do that. but domestic violence is something we need to take very seriously. we need to understand that as long as women are out there suffering, our men out there suffering, we cannot stop until they have a support system that they need to get them out of the situation, strengthen law enforcement, and get the stiffest and most harmful crime to those who do attend those

cases. >> mr. sheheen? >> i have prosecuted cases against spousal batters. i have seen it firsthand. we need to continue to have stiff penalties on domestic violence, and we also need to make sure that we break the cycle. it is a very real cycle, and that includes penalties that require domestic violence counseling for any batterers it should require jail sentences for repeat offenders. we cannot be tough enough on this, and we have to include for the low level offenses some inclusion of education. that is critical. >> our next question comes from taylor eubanks, the student government president at coastal university in conway, south carolina. your question is for senator sheheen. >> i would like to first think both candidates for being here this evening. -- think both candidates for being here.

i am very concerned about the future of our education in this state. as governor, what are your plans to address issues revolving around colleges and universities in this state? >> thank you for your question, and i hope you will remain here in south carolina as well upon graduation. number one, over the next four years as our budget increases come as we see revenue growth, as the economy turns around, we have to commit a higher percentage of that to higher education. over 10 years we have seen that support steadily declined. also, we need to have a more coherent system of higher education. it makes no sense to me that classes taken at one public college cannot be transferred to another public college. many can, some cannot. we also need to have an e empowered commission that has the opportunity to do long- range planning, put into place

plans that will help move us forward in a coherent, strategic manner, instead of each college and university going its own way. we have seen excellent leadership from the president here and at coastal and our major institutions around the state, but we have to have leadership from the governor's office to tie it together and work with the commission on higher education to really move the state forward. thanks again for being here. again, stay in south carolina. >> ms. haley? >> the biggest thing we can do for colleges and universities is deregulate them. it is not have columbia tell them how to spend their money. make sure they can do what they can do to make it strong. at the state level, each college and university has to have their own business plan. that is why the measure rebels are so important. -- that is why the measureables are so important. those four measureables will let

the school in numerous city know that if they hit those achievements, they will get more money every year. it will allow us to give bragging rights. the focus on higher education will come when the trust of the taxpayer is back in their hands. once they can show where their dollars are going, the state will be more likely to give them money and there will be trust between the taxpayer and the university again. >> thank you. robert has the next question for senator sheheen. >> south carolina has a lot of problems into related, from poverty, unemployment, high crime. what is the biggest single problem facing our state, and what would you do about it? >> the biggest single problem is the unemployment rate in south carolina. for about 25 years we were at or below the national average with a slight aberration during that time. over the last seven years, we have seen an incredible spike in unemployment. let me tell you why it is the

most import issue -- because we do not have the funds to fund public education and to do the necessary core functions of state government, and we will not have people who are successful in their private lives unless we have jobs. my commitment to this state is that the next governor, me, vincent sheheen, will spend his time recruiting jobs and industry into south carolina. when i look at all the many problems we have -- poverty national -- poverty higher than the national average, many issues relating to crime, many issues in south carolina. there's one thing i've learned over the last year and a half as i've traveled from the low country to the upstate. the one thing i've learned is that people in this state still believe we can do it. if we believe we can do it, and we have a leader with the vision who can bring us together, we can do it. i am going to be that type of governor. we can do it again, ladies and

gentleman. >> robert, i talked to a company and they said they interviewed 100 people, and of the one of the people they interviewed about half of them could not read or write properly. of the half that were left, half of them failed a drug test. we have a cultural problem in south carolina that we have to acknowledge. the way we will do that is we will always work on economic development bringing jobs, but we have to work on what are the cultural issues that we have in the state, and that is why you will see me bring in a huge face-based coalition. we will have a statewide committee plan about how to go into the poverty stricken areas, and we will do mentor programs. this is about making sure that people see something they do not see right now. when someone is unemployed and they are going 3 our time, they will have a community ready to help them. when they see someone who is not successful, we'll have a mentor show children what they can be.

it will be through that faith- based organization that we will do that to tackle the cultural problems in the state. >> jackie torok, next question to representative haley predominant the state ethics commission said you did not have to disclose 42 at -- >> how you reconcile this action with calls for income disclosures from every state legislature? >> i was not summoned room for politics. i had not planned on doing this all my life. when i came in to the legislature, i noticed there were a lots of voice votes. for two years i was part of the voice votes. i push to get legislators to start voting on the record. the same thing happened with income disclosures. every year i would sit down with an ethics attorney and say which of this to i need to disclose. i always disclosed what was appropriate. but when i saw how much every legislature had to go through that, that was a wrong that i

saw needed to be right. i issued a bill that said every legislator should have to disclose their income -- not their dollar amount but their sources of income. because two things would happen. legislators would know when to recuse themselves from votes they should not be taking, and i felt like south carolina policy would move in a way that would help the people and businesses of the state had not the pockets of legislators. i disclosed income i did not have to disclose after filing that bill. senator sheheen has still not disclosed his clients. in congress, every lawyer disclose their clients, and that is something that should happen. it is a good way of seeing exactly what those resources are. now we have -- >> mr. sheheen? >> most troubling is that the key haley nikki haley at the end of a debate was asked, have you

disclose all your income? because i heard you might have done some work for wilbur smith. she said, "i have disclosed it all." she looked in the camera and said that. it was not true. five days before the election, she released that she got that money from wilbur smith. she has not given a copy of the anybody.rn for i cannot disclose all the clients than i have in south carolina because i would get disbarred. and she knows that as well. what is public record is any dollars that she talked about tonight that in any way involve state government. i think it is important that we do what we say. >> thank you, mr. sheheen. rusty ray's next question is for senator sheheen. >> we are going to talk about crime one more time. each year statistics right communities like florence and

sumter and others as having the largest per-capita crime rate in the nation. what can you do to help fight crime in smaller cities and communities in south carolina and perhaps raise community awareness about prevention of those crimes? >> try a time i was a prosecutor in camden, south carolina, and for the long term we have to be beefing up our police forces. we're operating are highway patrol on numbers that were there at least a decade ago. we have a difficult budget crunch right now, but we have to commit to at least maintaining law enforcement, then growing the number in the long term. we need to look at alternative sentencing programs for nonviolent offenders. right now costs you and i and taxpayers an incredible amount of money to lock up a non- violent offender. if we have someone who is addicted to drugs who has not committed violent offenses, we have alternative programs like

drug court that can help them beat their problem while punishing them and also saving the taxpayer dollars. violent criminals have to be put away. they have to be put away and the sentences should be tough. i have worked closely with law enforcement and will continue to do so as the next governor. >> ms. haley? >> i have always said that the government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. we have to make sure that we give sheriff's and law- enforcement everything they need. that is a priority in south carolina. that is a part of the budget we cannot and should not cut. we should not see it drop. we have to give them what they need. this is about being able to strengthen them, so i will maintain a strong will ship with our sheriff's department, strong relationship with our law enforcement teams and the fire department to make sure that safety is in place. that is one thing we never compromise on. >> time now for our voice of the

voter question. "with the economy sliding into the ditch and democrats driving it down further, why should we trust either republicans or democrats? both make promises, either have delivered. both candidates will have one minute 30 seconds to answer. representative haley, what do you say to voters like cavan? >> he is right. both republicans and democrats made mistakes, and through that the birth of the tea parties came. they are not a party at all, they are republicans, democrats, independents who say they have had enough. what i love to see is that as we go across this state and look across this country, i have never seen people more spirited about their government and elected officials so scared. it is a beautiful thing. that is how we will make sure is accountable to the people. making sure that government knows the value of the dollar, making sure jobs and the economy

come first. it is something we go to kevin, something we owe to the people of the state in this country. that is why we're seeing the excitement and the spirit come alive again. >> mr. sheheen, why do you think people have lost faith in government? >> i agree with what kevin says, and i do not want anyone to vote for me because i'm a democrat. and i do not want anyone voting for nikki haley because she is a republican. at the end of the day, we have to flvote for people because they are good leaders. we had a treasurer in south carolina who went to jail for drug dealing, and agricultural secretary went to jail for bribery, a governor who pleaded no contest to 60 ethics violations. who would not be disappointed? i have travelled around south carolina over the last year-and- a-half. these people who are running south carolina are not the people i know in south carolina.

i will be a leader that we can trust in this state again. i'm tired of being the butt of late-night television jokes. i know you are, too. south carolina deserves so much better than we have had from our leadership over these last few years. my goal is to restore integrity, trust, in the leaders of south carolina. kevin hit the nail on the head. >> with all due respect -- >> i am pretty sure that we had one minute to answer that question, a minute 30. i did not interrupt you and i would appreciate you not interrupting me. >> time now for the candidates' closing statements. >> first of all, thank you for having me here today. it is hard to believe it has been 18 months and it is hard to believe we are down to a week, but there is a real decision to be made. as we came to the primary, i went across the state and said

if you think government should be accountable for a dollar, if you think elected officials need to remember who it is they work for, and if you think jobs and the economy should go first, join our movement. but i always said do n-- never make it about an election, you have a clear and thchoice cominp in january. this is about saying no to a obamacare, about saying no to -- about saying yes to a government that will fight all the way to see supreme court. this is about saying no to bailouts that we do not need, and the governor who says we will bring fiscal discipline back to our state house, we will any physical taxes. this is about saying no to lawyer legislators that sue businesses for a living and yes to an accountable business person who understands the struggle every business goes through every single day and

will work hard to strengthen their bottom line. this is about saying no to the status quo political insider hierarchy and saying yes to real people who know what it is like to have common sense and say the people deserve to have the power of their voice again and have the power to take over the government again. this is an exciting time in our state and our country. i will make sure that we have a 10-year business plan. we will make sure to see what dr. lino wants to be when it grows up. my goal is that everybody looks back at south carolina and says that is how you do it. please join our movement, and i ask your vote today. >> senator sheheen, two minutes. >> thank you again for hosting this debate, and i think the voters for south carolina for listening. i ask for your support and your vote next tuesday. i am not looking for a movement. i am finally looking for a governor. we need one again in south carolina. i want to be that governor for

you, a governor that you can trust. this is about having government that we can trust again. i have been honest with the state of south carolina, and i will be as your governor. we are really at a crossroads, and the question is, will we continue to do what we have done for the last eight years, the eight years of mark sanford and nikki haley? the eight years of distrust and embarrassment and scandal? we do not need a governor who does not pay her taxes on time. we do not need a governor who will say something that is simply not true. we need a governor who will once again make us proud. it is written in the book of proverbs that without a vision, the people perish. my vision as governor, who will once again travel to recruit businesses into the area, who wants to make sure that we have people in the -- that we have discipline in our classrooms,

that we have smaller class sizes. we have to take some basic steps to get government working again. we have to make sure we consolidate state agencies and combine because we cannot afford the government south carolina had 40 years ago. four years from now you will will make yound i proud, and i will always tell you the truth. thank you, good night, and god bless you all. [applause] >> have a quick question for each of you. do you like each other? >> yes. i used to. [applause] >> it has been a contentious race, but we only have one more

week to go. senator bentsen sheheen from camden, representative -- senator vincent sheheen from camden, representative mickey haley, thank you for being with us tonight. -- nikki haley. we also think viewers for submitting those questions. we thank our voice of the voter viewers and readers and subscribers also for submitting questions for tonight's date. we also want to express, and we can give a big round of applause to dr. fred carter here at francis marion university. he has done a great job. [applause] at let's not leave out the president of coastal carolina university. [applause] both universities and university presidents have been

instrumental in putting on these debates in the primary and the general election. finally, to our viewers, we say this. you have heard a lot tonight from the two gubernatorial candidates. exercise your right and vote in next tuesday's election. my name is bob juback. have a great night, and please vote on tuesday. [applause] >> thank you very much comet is a great pleasure. -- thank you very much, it is a great pleasure. >> counting down to the midterm elections, now just six days away. each night here on c-span we are showing debates from key races around the country. here's our lineup for tonight. we start at 7:00 eastern with live coverage of the candidates

vying to be rhode island's next governor. at 8:00, the candidates for florida cost next senator. an hour later, the first of three house races being the focus of -- west virginia is third, the 17th congressional district from texas. from politico this afternoon, the new rasmussen poll is showing republican sharon and go up by four points in her bit against senator harry reid. the survey, in one of the most high-profile senate placraces shows sharron angle with a lead. fox 5 is reported in a few early voters are complaining that their ballots already have senator reid's name checked before they market. sharron angle has accused senator reid of "attending to

steal." this is all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media networks. find our content any time through c-span pvideo library. we bring our resources to your community did it is washington your way, the c-span network. now available in more than 100 million >> next, a debate between the first house candidates of new hampshire, frank guinta and carol porter. carol porter was done to be telling him 42% against his 47%. she is seeking a third term, having been elected to the u.s.

house in 2006, becoming the first woman from new hampshire to be elected to a national office. this lasts about one hour. >> appearing at tonight's debate, the two-term congresswoman, carol porter, and her republican challenger, former manchester mayor, frank guinta. and now, the granite state debate. [applause] >> good evening, and welcome to the first of four debates. tonight, the first congressional

district. questions will focus on the major issues facing the country, as well as questions that have come up during the campaign. for the most part, candidates will have one minute to respond to each question. four major topics we may expand that to 90 issues to get more details. we will allow 30-second rebuttals if i or the panel sees fit. most questions will come from the three panelists and we will also have questions from your and reader a mess. have two candidates, and their position was determined by a drop earlier. republican, frank guinta and democrat, carol porter. [applause]

we have three panelists tonight, a reporter from the union leader, josh from a station, and one more. >> mr. frank guinta, your critical of the government and big spending, but without the federal system is another short- term programs this year, wouldn't even more americans be without a regular paycheck this year? >> first, i want to acknowledge my wife more again -- it is our 13th wedding anniversary. secondly, the stimulus was not the solution for unemployment reduction or for job creation. what we should have done in the country, with every small- business owner was looking for in new hampshire, was to cut

taxes, allow the small business community to grow jobs. it is not the federal government that grows them, it is small business owners here. it is a fundamental difference between my opponent and myself. she believes in big government solutions. i believe and limited governance. that is what new hampshire will get if they send me to washington. >> next question. >> the unemployment rate nationally has been at 9% or greater threat most of obama's presidency. is the hard evidence that shows democratic policies have worked to create good jobs? >> if you look at the economists who said that if we had not pass the stimulus package, the job loss would have been twice as big. we lost 8 million jobs during that time because the previous

administration refused to pay attention to wall street. mark zandi said we would have lost twice as many jobs and gone into a depression -- and he was the chief campaign adviser for john mccain. also, the stimulus package was just on abc news --they did a fact check -- they did show that it had created jobs. the mayor did receive money from the stimulus package. but he and i know that it helped. >> can you indicate a couple of areas where there have been private sector jobs, long term? >> yes, the economy has been burned. it is moderate, still not where we need it, but in new hampshire our unemployment rate is now 5.5%. it is a combination of the federal with the state partnership.

>> next question? >> both of you have spent the last several months talking about job creation of a lot. specifically, where have you helped to create a job? >> as mayor of the state's largest city it is importing when you are the administer of a $300 million budget that you focus on taxpayers and growing the economy. in my first year as mayor we cut borrowing in half, having bipartisan support to do that -- secondly, my second year we had bipartisan support for the first tax cut in a decade. that creates 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. but it is a small business where

a small business owner would invest his own money and time into his business because we had an economic strength and manchester. or whether it is one of the 300 businesses now thriving as a result of economic conditions and tough fiscal discipline that we had in manchester. i will tell you what the stimulus did not work. $923 million in new hampshire was spent. it created 2734 jobs, or according to recovery.org. that is $337,000 per job. no one thinks that math makes any sense. we should have been cutting taxes, cutting spending, putting the money back into business owners' hands. >> congresswoman carol porter? >> we have talked about job of the specifically i would like to know where you have been instrumental in

creating a job. >> before i came in here abc news was talking about how the stimulus has created millions of jobs. the mayor knows that because you requested and received $30 million from the stimulus money to save teacher and police jobs, and it did grow jobs in the private sector -- pike industries and many others hired because of it. the accounting and is only there on the job, that position. but many other people on the pipeline received work because of that. we also brought a lot of funding to places like the ports, and put a lot of money into the fba which regretted available. the real problem for small businesses was getting credit. we worked in a number of ways to create jobs. >> stain with the four first response on next question? >> as long as congress is using the state taxes, are they

effective as a way to bring money back to the state? >> yes, the idea is that we centex dollars to washington. you should not be a donor state. you should receive the money back. -- we send the dollars back to washington. like in the labor yard. we had to do reform. i am proud of it. you have to sign an affidavit. all of my earmarks are on my website. when i had the 13 town halls, i handed out the list to everyone so they could question. we can still do a lot to make it more streamlined and help people to see that -- what the earmarks are about. we you don't want to send your tax dollars to alaska and become a donor state. >> there are two problems with that theory. we had 9000 earmarks last year. at the addition of carol shea- porter, i did look at her

website. not only has she requested earmarks for new hampshire, but also for california. the idea here is to get rid of waste will spending, ensure that federal dollars are going towards federally responsible jobs throughout the country, but through the general fund process. we need to start bringing accountability back to federal spending, just like we do at home. we have to identify a budget, pass it, and administer it. this is not happening at the federal level. i think people are tired, fed up with it. they want to see a different approach in washington. >> we now live to our first- round of candidate to candidate questions. congresswoman carol shea- porter, you one of the drop earlier in the afternoon so even

as the first question. >> for many months now your republican party, including your employer did not endorse you in the primary, has questioned the money you found in your account. you did not reported in 2009, or in 2010. they have been asking where you got the money? the former congressman bradley said if you not? bennett, you should step down. you claim it is a matter of principle. don't you want to clear this up? we'll show everyone your bank account with just that money in it, to prove this is not an illegal contribution? >> i think that new hampshire is tired of personal attacks on candidates. it is not only happening here, but all across the country. the incumbent democrats do not have the ability to defend the stimulus, cap and trade,

spending at the debt and deficit, the unemployment rate. this should be, and is supposed to be about four years of carol shea-porter not been able to deliver for the rest of us. i have stood on principle on this particular issue, complied with the rules and regulations that the fcc has asked of me. i'm standing on principle. at some point you need to not do what is politically correct, but personally correct. >> your chance to as the congresswoman a question. >> upon being first elected to congress in 2006, you stated "i pledge to restore a moral budget while reducing. reducing. " at that time, the deficit was approximately $248 billion. after your four years in office, the deficit now 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? >> when i was running for congress in new the bush administration and republicans have not done a very good job. but i had no idea how wild they let it was the giving of former head of the federal reserve said, when a party gets to what, it is time to take away the punch bowl. we saw what happened in october 2008, and remember the headlines from december. they were talking about a possible depression. i would also like to remind you all of those debts were for two wars, for the top 1% of the wealthy for tax cuts -- and we have had to take care of our

infrastructure, and so many things that were neglected. the republican push to extend be unaffordable bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. he is the former head of the omb for president reagan. i'm sorry that we have not been able to completely get this under control. we're working on it. >> to go. one minute to respond. >> i want to refer back to the question just asked. setting aside with the money just came from -- why should voters trust you to read and understand massive legislation when you have trouble by your own admission with the campaign form? >> i voluntarily corrected the mistake made on the disclosure report. i also did not disclose that i was a board member of liberty house, of veterans shelter here in manchester.

i made a mistake. i have corrected that. i think people recognize and respect. the talking about substantive issues at their kitchen table. if my opponent wants to continue to talk about this, we tend to talk about the 27 time she amended her report, the seven times the fcc forced her to do it. she does not disclose any of her bank accounts on her report. i think it is a mistake she made. i would be happy to continue to talk about it. people in new hampshire want to know how we will continue to move the country for word, to reduce unemployment, get people back to work, and reduce the debt and deficit. >> congresswoman carol shea- porter? >> first of all, you did not voluntarily do that. you broke the law. you did not take care of either

2009 or 2010 -- the republicans pointed out, not the democrats. also, those corrections are technical corrections you mentioned. it is not personal finances. i am certain that frank guinta frank knows the difference between technical and the personal, which everyone does. he did put other banks' accounts on. he knows the rules, but did not do that. >> there are different rules for a member of congress. apparently, she did not disclose her bank accounts. there are different rules for members of congress than the rest of us. people would like to focus on issues. >> carol shea-porter? >> integrity is an issue. i'm sure that he read the forms. your poor the bank accounts that are interest-bearing.

you know the difference. -- report the bank accounts that are interest-bearing. it is the same rules for members of congress as those who like to be members of congress. integrity is the issue -- public office is a public trust. >> congresswoman, i have another reading comprehension question. can you honestly say that you read every piece of legislation that you vote on? or do you rely on party leadership to tell you where to vote on certain issues? a> i think we would make thi mistake to rely on party leadership in each time. on the massive bills, we read them. on the smaller stuff, you sit on the committees and know the work on them, and people on the other committees. you talk these over with them. we cannot read every single

word, but you better on the major pieces of legislation. there are thousands of them. they do not belong to a particular party. they belong to the members, so you ask each member. 435 members. >> the next question comes from of you are. in both discouraged and angered by the left of cross-party cooperation, especially in congress. what we do to foster cooperation to get things done? >> first, our incumbent congressman just as she does not read every single building of that is unacceptable. we should have awaiting period. when someone votes on my behalf -- [inaudible] [no audio]

begin a different type of approach, a fiscally-responsible type of approach to government. working with democrats to try to change the focus to accountability, to effectiveness and efficiency of delivery of service. i'm very proud that my fellow colleagues who happen to be democrats worked with me to cut borrowing and taxes for the first time in a decade. it is that spirit i will bring as a member of congress. people no longer want the partisanship. >> carol shea-porter? >> first, mr. frank guinta did not even read the form, so if he says he will read every bill -- it just cannot be done. there are something like 10,000 bills that get submitted. you read the major pieces. much of it is small stuff, such

as naming a post office. he has a lot of reading in front of him it . as for bipartisanship, we work together well on committees. you see trouble on the floor, but the bill's get butted on with bipartisanship. this is fundamental difference about the way we see the country, so we have disagreements about where to go next. >> staying with you, a follow- up? >> you're both elected officials in this district for three years. can you name one time when you worked well together on one issue to benefit the first district? >> yes, frank guinta asked for earmarks, and we were able to do that.

he also was very interested in stimulus money, received $30 million in stimulus money. it was important for many projects in manchester. >> the board of aldermen was the entity looking for a stimulus and earmarks -- as mayor i was sitting as a city we should not rely on the federal government. we should push back on the state of new hampshire. wish to get through challenging times. when i was mayor in the first part of my tenure, i invited the congresswoman to manchester. she came, and we had a great experience looking at how we could focus on improving the largest city in the stick. i applaud her for that. >> we have heard a lot from voters on the town of your campaign ads. they have been filling the airwaves for months. many times the focus on your opponent.

we want to take just a couple of those accusations tonight. >> congresswoman, your record is under fire in a number of campaign ads including this one. >> in the washington, carol shea-porter [unintelligible] voted for the following -- she once bigger government and more spending. >> what is your response? >> you have to laugh. it is political trash talk. he has outside groups that are running much worse. it is political trash talk. the stimulus did work. you can fact check over that. it is what they have to say to take out an incumbent. i have worked very hard for the middle class. most of the heavy-lifting is done by outside groups investing

in republicans, major, multi- national companies running these. >> first of all, she does support higher taxes, bigger government, did support healthcare, and a stimulus. it is a comparative ad regarding what she advocates compared to what i would do it. when she is concerned about the outside money she knows neither candidate on the stage tonight for this week has any influence over the. should not complain when $2.50 million was spent on her behalf --[no audio] none of us like it, but the candidate should focus on substantive issues. here we have big government in our existing member of congress. >> thanks. you characterize this as campaign trash talk. your opponent has starred in a number of your ads as well.

>> can we trust frank guinta to protect social security? first of this -- eliminating social security? [no audio] >> i'm talking about the fact that we put more money into social security every week -- more money goes in then goes out. the problem is 60 years from today when my kids are retiring, there should be a different system in place. we need to make it solvent, ensure that the promise made to every american is a promise kept. it was in that context that i was saying that we need reform on social security. if we go down the continued path we are in today, it will be broke. we need to do something about it. >> we will get to a broader discussion on social security in a moment. why is this a fair ad in your

opinion? >> he has been talking about either abolish of lacing -- abolishing, or privatizing it. the reality is, we can protect social security and leave it as it is. he is just marching in step with the washington republicans. it has been their goal to put the money on wall street. he is just going back to what the previous administration wanted. i am not surprised because the head of the republican party said we will not be any different than we were before. >> she says that the head of the republican party said we will not be any different than we were. i believe you are referencing congressman john boehner. republicans want to focus on

economy, reducing debt and deficit, and solutions. our incumbent congresswoman is trying to use social security as a scare tactic. people know we should be looking at substantive issues. she wants to raise taxes and attack me. you have to earn every vote. >> next question? >> i want to drill down a little deeper on social security. there are a number of options on the table to fix it. they include raising the retirement age, raising cobra, and the payroll -- ? >> i don't believe in raising taxes at a time when we have record debt and deficit. that's a different position than

my opponent takes. she does want to raise the cap, which raises taxes. i don't think people in new hampshire want that solution. first after this next congress gets elected, we sit down in a bipartisan fashion and try to find a long-term solution including making sure that anyone receiving a benefit continues to get it -- secondly, in the last 20 years, we have been stealing from the trust. we need to set the town where we will not take money from it. -- we need to set the town. -- tone. what should not happen is this back and forth and bickering during the campaign season to try to scare people. >> something you would

consider? >> everything should be on the table for consideration. you come with respect and decorum so all members -- looking at them as colleagues and asking what that things are to consider. come up with a bipartisan approach. >> did he say yes or no? the reality is he did not say anything. when you are down there, you have to take a tough vote. it is not true that everyone's taxes will be raised. they will be increased on of those to make more than a certain amount -- not most of the people in this room. $100 sweater -- they say the $50 has is free.

it is a burden on middle-class. i don't want to raise taxes on middle-class. there you go again, mr. frank guinta -- you know you have to take a position. if you raise the cap, you will protect and guarantee social security. he does not want to answer. he has been asked several times in several debates. i have heard his position three different ways so far. >> raising the cap raises taxes, is a tax hike on every small- business owner and employees in the state. we had four years of that and people are rejecting the. >> a let's move on and talk about health care. each of you have 90 seconds to answer a targeted question. we will allow the opponents' 60

seconds to rebut that. >> you yourself said it was important to pass something on health care and fix the problems later on. besides the massive legislation, why push something through without making sure every detail was worthwhile? >> i have never known a perfect bill, nor perfect human being, nor perfect legislator. to stay on square one and say we will not do anything until it is perfect -- that is what we have had all along. we have had to do something. i am proud of this bill. another will have to be things adjusted. we will continue to do that. for the first time it offers insurance to everyone. this was the republican plan a decade ago. it is a good, solid plan. it offers insurance. you cannot be removed if you get sick. your kids stay on until they're 26. if you are on medicare you get your done a whole reduced --

donut hole reduced. there is no cap. it also has a lot of insurance reform. we will stop along the way to make the changes that need to be done. but you'll never find anybody or anything perfect here on earth. >> i don't think perfect was the objective. the objective was to reduce costs. i don't think anyone thinks we reduced costs when it was passed about seven months ago. the single provision i would like the congresswoman to explain is why she would vote for a bill knowing it had a 1099 present requiring every business owner to do that when this and more than $600 during the course of the year with the vendor. that in of itself is a burden on small business owners, and a burden on anybody that does any kind of business in this country.

i believe that her answer was itingshe either did not realize was in the bill, or that it was a mistake. >> am happy he keeps returning to that. first of all, the bill is paid for, and everyone knows it. we knew there was the provision that was a little too burdensome for business. we tried to change that. but it is paid for. we have a program called pay for, which is now law. we're going to take tax subsidies away from special interest -- republicans would not vote for that to pay for it. i don't know what he brings a that, because it does not make his party look good. >> the notion that you needed the republican party to pass this makes no sense. the democratic party is in the majority. the party can do what ever they want.

they don't need republicans. either they did not know was in the bill, or realized the mistake was made, and still cannot correct. either way, new hampshire and american taxpayers are at risk. >> we will stay on the issue of health care. >> this brings us to the new question. many say the healthcare bill needs to be repealed in tow. the reality of that happening is unlikely -- but senator gregg recently said it does not need to be repealed, but that the healthcare a lot to be effective if just week. is it fair to say that your statement is political rhetoric, rather than the true ability to repeal this? >> no, republicans can agree to disagree on certain issues. i think this is not

constitutional. more than 20 states believe it is not constitutional and are trying to get it repealed through the court system. forcet believe we can americans to purchase a service or product. if you truly did want to improve the cost, there are more targeted ways to address that. reasonable tort reform, allowing small business the opportunity to pool to get to the 100- employee threshold. then they can negotiate with insurers. i did that as a mayor. finally, we should allow people to purchase health insurance from anywhere in the country. as with automobile insurance. in n.conway one of the primary issues of an employer, one man

said, was that he had a policy from arizona the would have saved him money monthly hong each member, but the law prohibited it. congressional members are supposed to listen to their constituents -- this would have been a better start to reform the and the bill that we have. >> it is a republican plan, but it is interesting to me to see all the insurance money spent trying to repeal the program. he worked for an insurance company. reality is, there have been tremendous costs to the taxpayers. this is fully paid for and will be a way to reduce costs. he brings up three things. we already have that in the bill. they can pool together. he wants insurance companies

from mississippi to come into new hampshire without having to meet the same consumer rules. that would be a race to the bottom. you don't have the same consumer protection. people and the states can form a compact if states agree, a regional compact, and do exactly that. small businesses would get a tax --35% this year,yne -- and more next year. they could have done this, but did not. we finally have a program that will help the american consumer. >> just a quick response? >> an example of how the bill has been detrimental. this week we're hearing that boeing may reduce or eliminate its health care for every employee it has.

it is cheaper for them to go on to the federal system. it is exactly what our member of congress wants, the growth of the federal government. we have an insurance carrier here who dropped medicare advantage with 22 dozen people because they attributed this legislation directly. one of those members is jim prentice in seabrook. >> living not to candidate questions. each of you will have 30 seconds to ask the question of your opponent. but then the upon a will have 90 seconds to answer. >> congresswoman carol shea- porter, during your four years in congress, you stated you had voted with nancy pelosi 90% of the time. all the polls indicate that the

people of new hampshire do not agree with nancy pelosi. you promised to stand up for the rest of us. if you are to be reelected, would you pledged today to vote against nancy pelosi for speaker? >> first of all, nancy pelosi does not vote. she is not even in this election. i'm running for the people of new hampshire. that is just your washington talking point. there you go again. you have been to washington frequently to pick up special interest money, and return with a talking point. the speaker of the house is not standing here now. i am an independent voice. if you look at where i have disagreed with the house -- you can see there have been times i stood on my own and said it was not right. i'm happy to go through a list of those. if you keep bringing up the speaker of the house, you think that she was running in all 50 states.

every single one of you has exactly the same talking point. >> i am repeating a, you made in the newspaper regarding her. you had nancy pelosi come to a fund-raiser for you in boston. -- come to a fund-raiser for you in boston. we disagree. i'm simply asking if you would vote for her, or not, if you were to be reelected. >> i hear you saying that democrats will win the house. i'm happy you have acknowledged that. since you're going to use a quote, it was when we are passing the six for o-six, it had to do with raising the minimum wage, the miles per gallon. that was in march, 20007. the six for 0-six was exactly

what the people in this country wanted. >> yes, no? >> yes, i would vote for her as speaker of the house. mr. frank guinta, you have claimed this is all political and the people don't want to talk about social security. you have used phrases that say absolutely nothing. i'm going to 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 after that? if so, how are you going to pay for it? or, your other shore was that you want to abolish it. you said you wanted to privatize or abolished. or you would make it a means test, a welfare tests. tell me what you do for all those senior citizens, and

people -- because it is for disability, and helps those who have been widowed along with their dependants of and. what is your plan for the people if you succeed, and your party succeeds in abolishing social security? >> the first part of the question was a yes or no answer. yes, it should be available. for anybody watching this evening, if you are receiving social security, the country made a promise to you. we and commitment. let's not allow partisan, negative, personal attacks to scare you into voting for one person or another. i'm asking for a partisan group in the next congress to put their political differences aside, bring everything on to the table, and the side have to make social security solvent for the future because it is not sold in right now. goes out today then

comes in. it will not exist in 2037 unless we do something about it. i hope that i have the opportunity to serve you. you'll get from me thoughtful consideration in a bipartisan way to make certain that senior citizens recognize the benefits they have earned. >> that is not what i asked you. i asked what you would do -- do you plan to support social security for the next 100 years? i did not ask about senior citizens who are on the right now. what about the rest of the people, the disabled? my mother depends on social security, along with many others. what is your plan for them? >> i answered yes the first

time. >> 30 seconds, mr. frank guinta. >> i answered your question -- yes. it should be made solvent because it is a promise made. but the reality of where we are today is that more money goes out and and. that is a fact. --. in. it will become insolvent in 2013. american people don't want partisan attacks that try to scare the electorate. it is discouraging about politics in america when all people try to do to save their job is to scare people. that is not becoming of congress, no. what the american people ask of us when we assumed office next year. >> fresh response to carol shea-

porter on this next question. >> there are millions of illegal immigrants and many are employed and low-level jobs. are they are not an important part of the u.s. economy? >> the problem is employers are hiring them. the way to control this is for employers to be held accountable when they attract people across the border by offering low paying jobs. it is not fair to american workers, and not fair to those who have come over. the way we deal with the problem is to prosecute the employers. you would see a solution pretty quickly. if canada offered jobs at $100 per hour, many americans would be tempted to go there. but they prosecuted the canadians who offer those, then we would see that drive up -- if they prosecuted them. it is illegal.

the solution is to go to the root of the problem. it is the employer. they know it is illegal, and need to be held accountable. >> there are two components to the problem. if you are business knowingly employing some of to its illegal, you should pay a certain price. the problem is the federal government has failed the entire country. they have refused to enforce existing laws, nor have they agreed to complete defense on the border. arizona had to act. they felt their sovereignty was at stake. the reality is, if you are breaking the law, we are nation of laws. someone here illegally is breaking a law. that should not be allowed. i have personal friends here in manchester, max and andrea who came here legally, spent years making sure they could raise their family here legally. my wife and i were invited to

the naturalization ceremony. they are part of their heritage, but proud of america. that is what we want. we want people coming here legally. make something better for themselves, and for our country. undocumentedse immigrants working in low-level jobs, aren't they an important part of the u.s. economy? >> the jobs themselves are. i believe that those jobs will be filled by american citizens, or legal immigrants. >> dan, over to you? >> the u.s. has spent billions of dollars supporting the taliban, and there are now reports that the afghan government is considering negotiating with the taliban for a peaceful governance. if they become part of a government there, how you feel about the u.s. opening of

dialogue with the taliban? >> part of our responsibility to our country and to americans based on our constitution is to defend this country. if there is a terrorist to once to kill an american, we need to defend ourselves and nation against that. we need to do that wherever the terrorists exist. i don't believe 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 support a terrorist entity or organization anywhere in this country, and i don't think america should either. >> if the karzai government wants to talk to the taliban, frankly, there is nothing we can do. our footprint is too large there. we do have terrorists who want to harm us. services the armed

committee, so i know. we do need some footprint there. we have to hunt down the terrorists. there is a difference in the taliban -- they are an awful group, but the reality is that they are very woven into the communities. if the afghans want them to be thrown out, they will, as they did after the 2001 attacks. the problem is, the taliban -- we do not even know who they are. they work with us during the day, then attacked our troops at net. karzai is corrupt. i have met with him and told him we were concerned -- he said that was our problem. we have a leader of the country there that we are not able to control. we have to concentrate with the leiter footprint of special forces to catch the taliban who intend to harm us -- with a

lighter footprint of special forces there. >> david has written asking if new hampshire will have a full- service va hospital that includes inpatients instead of having veterans go to other hospitals? >> we have been working on that since i arrived in congress. i was a military -- and my husband is a veteran. we are the only state in the country without a full-service hospital. however, i would be happy to have a card or they could go locally. we are pushing for that. look at the manchester va, and clinics around the state, and you can see improvement. but we still need a card for everyone to go locally.

we send far too many to massachusetts and vermont. it is an average. we need to keep the pressure on the va. >> as i speak to veterans throughout new hampshire their greatest concern and complaint is they are traveling to massachusetts or vermont too often for medical needs. that practice should and. i will do all i can to make sure it happens. for those veterans who would like to see a full-service va here in manchester, they have earned it. we need to prioritize within our budget to make that happen. but also for those who seek a different alternative, going to any hospital they choose and the state, they should be able to. it is as simple as giving them a card. treating them with dignity and respect. we will make sure that we take care of you when your needs arise. next question -- education.

>> how does that improve manchester schools, which -- they were struggling during your tenure. >> education is an extremely important issue. first, we need more parental engagement in how their kids are learning. when the department of ed was created, and has not done anything substantially to help manchester. when i speak to the superintendent, principles, or teachers, they're frustrated with no child left behind, with the lack of funding for the mandates. they would prefer direct support in classrooms. i would like to see local control --people on the local school board making decisions, rather than a bureaucrat in

washington. i trust my school board member more than the federal government and bureaucrats in washington. >> question on >> education > other than funneling money into the states, what does the u.s. department of education do to help schools like those in manchester? >> first of all, may your frank guinta received $10 million for the school system. at one time he had to those of people who were so angry with him because of the failing schools. they came to talk about his failure there. -- i sit on the education and labor committee. we look at all the communities around the country and make sure the funding is there. there are many budgetary

constraints, we know, but we make sure they have money for the basics. the doe sponsors a lot of great research that helps local communities. we make sure there are standards meant, important for children. whether a child is born poor, middle-class, or rich, they should all have access to a good education. education is the key to prosperity. it is in our best interests. my father used to say that the next generation of those who account your pills, make sure they know how to do it. >> instead of a closing statement we will ask closing questions. the candidates will have 90 seconds to answer. they can use it to make their final pitch to voters. >> congresswoman, how is the recession, has it affected you and your family >> > it has been

difficult. i have an extended family, and everybody has had a story to tell. we saw the 401k and by you of our house drop, and my daughter had trouble getting a full-time job. she did not have health insurance. luckily, with the economy improving she was able to get a good, full-time job and now has insurance. i also see it in my neighborhood in rochester. the good news is the economy is now growing. the bad news is that there are still those left behind. we have to make certain we are creating jobs, and that we also provide unemployment benefits for those still seeking them. and that we grow the jobs in the grain sector. part of the job of the department of education is to research technology to invest in that. well we have a ways to go, the

economy is finally growing. for myself, i see my 401k to me back, and so do other people see their investments coming back. we are great country. i believe in the middle class. >> thank you, i would like to think the institute of politics and wmur, and the panel for being here. this is a critical election in new hampshire. i have to earn your support on november 2 and bring fiscal responsibility and discipline back to washington. the last question is very fitting for what we're all feeling. my wife and i have had to change our budget, and the investments we have made for our kids for their college education, and had to make different long-term plan decisions. we do not see stability in the economy. we want to see that unemployment

rate that is a 9.6%, more than 20 consecutive months over 8%, want to see that come down. we want to see new hampshire residents and americans back to work again, excited about the opportunity to provide for their family. we want to see a budget passed, see a balanced for the first time in years. we want to see the $1.50 trillion deficit eliminated. we want to see the $13.60 trillion debt that has been amassed on the decline. people have been asking me how will focus on their issues if i become their next representative. i'm here to ask you to vote frank guinta for congress. you get that honest, forthright, and fiscally irresponsible, disciplined u.s. representative in washington. >> thank you. with that, we will wrap up the

granite state debate. our next debate is tomorrow. it will feature the republican and democrat in the second congressional district race. you can find full debate coverage online, as well as "union leader" -- that website. until then, have a good night. [applause]

>> the midterm elections are six days away, and each night on c- span we are showing debates from key races around the country. here is our line at 4 tonight, beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern. at 8:00 p.m. it is between the candidates for the florida state senator. then, the focus is on new hampshire, and then west virginia, and then texas. camping is from politico -- a four-day but return not program is being launched saturday. it includes 5.6 million phone calls, four million door-to-

door visits, and fliers being passed out at work sites. the three top candidates will join the effort by visiting seven states, including pennsylvania, illinois, ohio, kentucky, california, colorado, and connecticut. the union group says that turnout will be the deciding factor in many of those races. >> c-span's local content vehicles are traveling the country to look a the most closely contested house races and this year's midterm elections. >> here at the historic theater, voters in the first congressional district of west virginia will have their first opportunity to see the candidates on the same stage. >> i want to see washington take a different direction, to begin that journey. my first vote in congress will be to replace nancy pelosi with

a leader who can create jobs in the private sector, and reduce the size of government, and it here to the constitution. gun, andlife, pro- committed to fiscal responsibility. i believe that washington has gotten the wrong, especially during these past two administrations when it comes to dealing with this enormous entity that we call the federal >> government > there are two candidates in the first district. the democrat, a state senator, and republican david --this seat was held for many years by alan, a democrat, who was defeated in the primary. mike oliverio has run for secretary of state before and has lost in that race. he has always had -- always had

aspirations for higher office. mckinley has been involved in politics off and on his entire life. he was in the legislature a couple times. he has run for the governor before and was unsuccessful. he has been there as well. when the mood of the country in fault -- the fault, mckinley's saw this as an opportunity. the first congressional district covers the northern portion of virginia and runs along the och river. west virginia is a predominantly democratic state. in each of the district, it is roughly 2-1 democratic. west virginia is also a conservative state, so there are many democrats who are in name only. >> the big issues are obama

health care, which is very unpopular, cap and trade, the government. >> the economy, fixing the debt, and drain jobs back to west virginia which is so rooted in industry. >> doing away with the tax cuts will hurt a lot of people. >> jobs, the health care bill. things that i am not for right now. >> i do not want a salesman. i do not want somebody who spouts on first stickers. i want somebody who can work with the others, even if he does not have the same if used as i have. >> when you compare that to, they may not like this, but they

are probably closer on a lot of things than in some races across the country. mckinley is a conservative republican. oliverio is a conservative democrat. they're probably closer than the campaigns would have you believe. there is some new ones on the health care bill. they both are against cap and trade, which is a huge issue. there you have agreement. they would have a nuanced fight about it, but they would both fight about cap and trade. even though they have differences, philosophically, they have similarities. you might see -- might say that it's a policy is -- nancy pe

losi is running for office in west virginia. pelosi is not very popular in west virginia. the issue has been the obama administration, nancy pelosi. >> we are making it clear that i am not running for congress to get established with the washington leaders. >> there is a tremendous amount of ads running. the last couple weeks, every commercial has an ad for these two. campaign has gotten nasty because the polls indicate this is a close race, and each

candidate that a half of a percent is a viable. it was said a candidate ran a positive ads and the lead evaporated. he said he was done with that, so they have been aggressive and charges have been flying back and forth. >> this has been historic in west virginia. we cannot throw out incumbents. this year mollohan was defeated in the primary, senator robert byrd died in june. the national trend has a republican in the third district in western virginia. we have a close senate race, which we have not had in years, and we have close congressional races. we have not had that in a while.

>> leading up to the midterm elections, we travel the country and visiting congressional districts where some of the most closely contested house races are taking place. for more information, visit our web site. >> with just days until election days, followed debates every night and go online to view archived debates. is it the politics page for upcoming event coverage, campaign ads, and other resources. this weekend, see the rally at noon on c-span. follow election coverage right through election day on c-span. >> james carville and leslie

sanchez participated in "the daily beast" summit in new orleans. other panelists include harold ford. this is about an hour. >> we are calling to have some midterm rumble. i would like to thank george stephanopoulos. post mortems, he said when he was in the white house that the results were not spinable.

here are the 18 political analysts. james carville, welcome. harold ford. thank you for coming, harold. howie kurtz. he wrote the book on the spin cycle, which was 24 hours when he wrote it, and it is not down to one minute. leslie sanchez. welcome to our panel. political rumble. we have to hear from the pollster extraordinaire, who has things to say, doug. >> be brief.

what i am going to do is summarize for you today the results of the 75 responses we got our survey, which if nothing else is food for thought. we injured by it -- interviewed 73 people. we wanted to assess their assessment of the political landscape and your predictions, how will your assessment match the panel's. the mood of the country has a decidedly mixed one. 23% say things are headed in the right direction. 53% say they are headed in the wrong direction. among an audience of the most heat people you can get together, there is a sense that things are off track. that being said, there is also a

sense that things will get better. the optimism that the american people typically show is evidenced here. 36% say things will get better. 16% say things will get worse. we asked a question that in most surveys gets a mixed or negative answer. will you pay more taxes in the future? most people say i do not want to pay more taxes unless it is for a socially desirable purpose, and then they voted against it. this group has said they will pay more taxes, 56% to 32%. there is a preference that pay more. in terms of the role in the world for america, the economic primacy in the world it, is it over? 44% say no.

there is a sense of division about america and what our position is going forward. 53% say barack obama will be read all -- will be reelected, notwithstanding what the polls are currently showing. you all believe that barack obama will be able to come back, 53% to 22%. will sarah palin get the nomination? it will be interesting to see what leslie census has to say. 7% say yes, 70% say no, and this is a decidedly democratic audience. if we were in a republican audience, they would give a different answer. who will control the house? 16% say the democrats will, 66%

said republicans will. you are betting with the polls that there will be a change of control in the house of representatives. who will control the senate approved james carville had something to say, saying that the democrats will control the senate, republicans, only 19% said the republicans will. divided government, something that rarely ever happens in america. it is very interesting, do we have the will to solve our problems, or do we lack the political will? 60% to 25% say we lack the . on the issue of will problems resolved or unresolved, 67% said they will remain unresolved until after the 2012 election, and only 19% say we will be able to solve our -- some of our economic and budgetary problems

and for that contest. as i suggested, for it to% are democrats, 60% republicans -- 42% democrats, 16%, republicans. we now have a snapshot of what you think of the political landscape, and it is up to the panel to try to offer their own commentary on what you have said. thank you very much. >> i am exhausted of defending you and disappointed where we are right now. ♪

>> thank you all very much. it seems like this group is more optimistic than the rest of the country. it tells you something about where the country is right now. let me move that up a little bit. how is that? great. we will talk for several minutes and get everybody's views and take questions and will try to work everybody in. we are nine days out, and since we are in new orleans, would you give me your thumbnail -- you still cannot hear?

what kind of a hurricane are we looking at on november 3, category 3, which would cause the democrats -- cost the democrats the house, category 4, taking two or three days after the election to determine control? >> if you are a democrat, the hurricane is coming. it is not want to change course. what is unknown here if it is category 3, which would translate the 30 or 40 hours, -- 30 or 40 seats. most people say we are looking at a category four. is there a chance it could be a 3?

no party has ever had a big election where they went in as unpopular or more unpopular than the other party. the republican party is no more unpopular than the democratic party. there is also evidence that the in party clothes is slightly better. it has been a rule of thumb that the out party has the better close. that has not happened in a couple instances. having said that, even i would say the most likely outcome would be a category four, and i believe, if somebody can tell me the last time the house changed and the senate did not, i would be grateful for that date, because i cannot remember it. the idea that you can have a big house victory but the democrats are going to hold on to the senate does not comport with history.

>> that is true, except it has been more than 50 years since any party won more than 10 senate seats, which is what it will take this time around. leslie, is that work with the resurgent republicans -- is a category four what you are seeing? >> that is such a negative connotation. we see this as a positive thing. i will say a lot of excitement, not only in the number of seats, but the amount of money that has been raised. that has really gone up nationally for the party. that surge of dollars is important as well. >> harold, let me bring in here, your role as chairman of the democratic leadership council, because this is a debate beginning among democrats. was this inevitable?

is something like this where you see a massive turnover in the house and potentially the senate what comes when a new president comes in and has his first midterm election? is it inevitable when you have more than 9% unemployment, or is there something that the president and his party could have done to lessen the damage? >> we live in a time where -- is so important. the president made a lot campaign promises. people projected onto him what they thought that would get in terms of leadership and legislation. i think in one level, my party forgot that the number one way you stand up for the middle- class is you create jobs. we did not forget it as much as we did not pursue vigorously the course. on the legislative record, this president and congress has a lot of pride about. allow to be proud of. no one is showing the benefits of it.

>> let me press you on that. are you saying that the press that made a mistake, even though he put up health care reform on the board as a legislative , making aement political difference now? >> i think a lot that they did will pay off in the long run. people feel like their taxes are going up, businesses are having to adjust this year, yet no one has received or their people believe they are benefiting from it. if i shared with you a $60,000 car from mei ledger, a lot of americans are sensing that. i sense the optimism in this room. everett but it is not sitting in a hotel here in new orleans on a saturday morning. inside the white house they

place the blame on the press. a lot of resentment of the press right now, even though the one concession that the president and his top aides will make is that maybe they could have done a better job communicating with the have the. they do not make any apologies for policy choices that have made. assess the coverage of the president. is it as president clinton said the debate exactly what all presidents have in their first two years, or is the worst post, probably a more normal adversarial relationship. they came down from the mountaintop. the only real debate is whether he should be compared to fdr or lincoln. the people in the white house are frustrated. the press deserves some blame because we're talking about

bloggers and cable hosts and people on twitter. it is a large piece is an important word. i fink there is a -- i think there is a sense it is that we have not given the present and not credit. he got it done, financial regulations. the day after it was done, they wrote their second-base store, which moved on to the oil spill or lindsay lohan. >> the white house seems shell shocked about it, and we were talking in the hall, about a week ago, the front-page story across "the new york times," obama cut taxes for 90% of most americans. it is a failure of the minister should tell people we did this for you add that they have to be

reminded of it this time before an election is not a good place to be. >> thank you for everybody for coming and bringing this quality of gas out here is remarkable. it is just what we need. i did want to thank you for that. i think from day one, the problem is not the policy. the problem is they never tell people their strategy. they did not say they are going to pass the legislation and try to get it back. we're going to fix that crisis, we are on to demand that the people who got in here put more skin in the game and crack down on these things. the third thing we are right to do, we're going to address health care. it may take us awhile, but we have a plan in place. what they did is they put policies -- to people at the but

the answer was spent more money. one thing was not connected with the other. the recovery act was not connected to tarp, which was not connected to financial reform. they never drove the narrative. they said we are smart people, we have smart people around us, and trust us, we will do it. when reagan came in, we got up plan in place. franklin was a fire -- franklin roosevelt had fireside chats. bush would have said misunderstimated theeverity of it.

they were understandably -- they did not tell people that we are in a deep hole here. >> the president has been there on the airwaves constantly for two years. i wonder if you think it is too much and diluted the airwaves? but the difference i have with james is the frustration of the former secretary. it is always a communication problem here. the argument you can make, is once he decided to do health care and you know it will be a six- to nine-month investment, that will get in the way of everything else you are doing

and will reinforce the concerns over big government, even if it will and the long run be a political hit. >> they make appearaes, but they do not drive the narrative at the at parents as. it is not how much you are out say.e, it is what you wha i a creigh with most of their policies. individually -- i agree with most of their policies. if we went back to paying the same tax rate, 1998, and i do not believe that we were under socialism in 1998. we not 3.8 trillion dollars off the deficit. >> we are trying to put on a band-aid. it is not necessarily a condition message with the exception of running off course.

it deviated from a narrative. we see it differently. there was the high expectations. what we are seeing now a science the midterm course correction is that people felt with obama care it was overreaching, and that was the catalyst. they needed a detonator in the same way the collapse in 2008. the detonator for a lot of these independent voters started with obama care, then the stimulus, and now the push for divided government. it is not divided government in terms of what the framers envisioned. it is in terms of a populist government. he watched some of the candidates that republicans have nominated, and there is great consternation and around the country about it. your point about obama care, no

doubt, that was the organizing force. one thing the white house failed in, these people are being nominated. most americans are saying if all you people in washington are so smart, why did you screw up so bad. maybe we need an idiot. these are some of the things i hear democrats say. we have to be very careful. >> i do not think she is the brightest bulob. >> one of the most startling numbers, how willing would you beat the vote was somebody with no experience in politics, no understanding, versus somebody who had 10 years' experience? the number was people would rather vote for someone with no experience. what we ought to be doing is ask, why are people thinking about that?

>> some of that is the media coverage that has made christine o'donnell the most famous senate candidate in america. .he will probably not win carl paladino, 80 points down, he is always same weird stuff. >> pat toomey may be in a dead heat with joe sestak. all this media coverage a with christine o'donnell is spilling over into the philadelphia media market. >> if you look at a fund-raising

letters, again, i cousel a lot of women counter this, and they say they do not want to be palinized. it moves around so fast and is a viral and has an impact because it is a quick and hard for candidates to respond. they do not want to be put into that situation. they are trying to run their own campaign. >> how you run for president if he cannot name one thing that you read, you see russia from alaska, and you look like a million dollars, and you are always saying things -- how do you not -- i cannot get enough of sarah palin? honest. you are coming in and you can cover sarah palin or you can

cover anybody else. if you are running for a -- [unintelligible] >> christine o'donnell, joe miller, had they taken a massive historic take both houses here and turned it into something a little more moderate? >> i do not think so. i think harold has the right point. a lot of independents have a hard time putting faith in people three years of that policy. i've of hard -- they have a hard time believing it can be corrected. they're not running on the

social issues. there is a strong appeal, especially when you have floating voters moving back and forth. people underestimate that appeal and the appeal of monks conservative or moderate women. you see a lot of that where you have a fresh, different perspective. >> the day after the election, i will throw out some kind of category, 48-seat pickup in the house, republicans have control. eight seats in the senate, the democrats maintain control. what would you counsel president obama to do the day after both, i would invite the winning governors from across the country to the white house three or four days later. i would give a speech if i were the president. there are a lot of you who have excitement about their candidates' been elected.

i want you to know you have an open door to the white house. i want to have an open door with you. i want to work with you. we have real problems. i can only help -- hope that we can learn from our mistakes. i would use that moment as a turning-page moment, because it will not work with john boehner. in the senate i agree with james. if they win 48 seats, they'd win the senate. i hope i'm wrong. i do not know how you win 50 seats and you cannot win the senate. i assume you're right. whether they win it or lose it, that is what i would do. in fairness to democrats, where closing and a lot places. if we find ourselves with narrow majorities, i would still do that if i were you. >> first of all, what really got

to me is when -- peter baker ? the question people have is they are not saying. i would say i got the message the country wants change, and i will have the new speaker and the senator mcconnell and and ask them to put on the burke table -- on the table proposals that we can act on. i would -- i would invite them and given three weeks to come back and let's get busy. >> no leadership, just putting an agenda forward. was to tellic' -- them to put something on the table, there is no leadership

there. they will not be able to put anything on the table. the best thing that he can do is to be very, very political. put it right back on the republicans and say, you have one, the public has expressed the interest to change a direction, make out something that we can react to. >> i do not think the public -- the message is we did not believe in one-party rule, republicans nor democrats are very favorable right now. anybody who does not feel that two years after this that the republicans have done any better, they will throw them out and start spending the pot all over again. it is job security. they want to look at the economy. the republicans realize that will focus like a laser beam on the economy and job creation because that is the only -- >> the only thing we hear the president's run on his the

public says they want to see both sides work together. to go to james's point, is there any agenda conceivable that the president might be able to sign onto that the new members of the house and senate on the republican party could ever agree to? >> ideally, they could. a lot of people feel that the president was bullied by nancy pelosi and harry reid. i would like to know what james thought about that. republicans are very open to what have that spirit that and understand the political reality of losing these positions as well. >> john boehner will have a hard time keeping everybody together. there are two things they agree on. they want tax cuts and to repeal parts of the health care plan. outside of that, they have a big fight. senior republicans want earmarks.

if you are john boehner, you have to hold them together, and they do not like obama and taxes. they will rally around as to issues, and james is right, you guys cannot win it right now. you have responsibility. if he did not live up to it, you will lose it, the president will be reelected. >> the republicans cannot be the default option in this election. not the word no against the obama agenda. it is a short-term strategy. the other thing that we have not talked about that is important is the selection so far, because of 2012 and the redistricting, republicans can pick up over 500 state legislature seats. that will determine who controls the congress for the next decade. there is a lot at stake right

now. >> i am still trying to figure out the hurricane that will happen in nine days. because we have been so wrong this year and we thought that -- i do not know who will turn out. what looks like a wave is powered by the fact that a certain kind of of the electorate turns out. the thing that i have done this time, because every year for the last five presidential cycles i have looked at the ads. what message does each party and set of candidates try aid to put out? been down here, i saw had at last night with the democratic candidate was being accused of, he is for obama and not for you. you have republicans running against obama. in the last week, you have democratic party hats, not

candidate ads, not talking about the budget, health care, going after certain candidates on a personal basis, taking them as unethical sleazes. there are negative ads every cycle. both sides use them and they work, and i am not decrying them. there is an ad against somebody saying he threatened his wife with a knife. when candidate to use those kinds of personal attacks, i say they are not wanting to run on the may issues -- on the main issues. >> the one thing we may agree on. >> there is -- they ran a

message, the democrats, about the middle class and about what happened to wall street. you can take it even in the polls. look at the poll where they did with greenberg and cos and npr. seldom in a way the election can one party have an actual policy message. the white house message is wrong. the white house says what we are doing is working. people get mad. i have listened to people get angry when they say that. if they had the right message, they could cut the losses and a lot shorter. they did not have that. the candidates are out there and talk to these campaigns and they say we cannot win --

my point would be that there was a better message available to the democrats that they did not take. >> what is preventing 200 democratic candidates -- >> sestak is running this kind of campaign. he had the greatest improvement. i was in out in the night before last. -- in altoona the night before last. the have >> if the tea party candidates are so cranked up, the candidate and the campaign matters.

if it is category 5 -- >> a similar thing is being done in illinois. both illinois and pennsylvania should be solid blue, no >> this is a bad year for democrats. when it is a good year, that will happen. >> one other point, what is going to happen the day after it is not that somebody is going to plan over the course of the next year. it is in the media. when everett comes back in november, the congress will have to decide what to do about taxes. if they do not take action, everybody's taxes will go up on january 1. james, i am wondering what your sense is. , the one policy proposal that the democrats have that you go back to the rate of people

making over $4 million a year. i have no idea why we did not do that. it would actually win. peoples want to do that. it costs me over $50,000 a year to send my dollar -- my daughter to school. she can get that ellis you for free. i have to pay $50,000 to send hurt the middle school, and there is this thing where you have a b average, everybody goes tuition free, that is not. it is not that we have that -- it is nuts that we had a huge income disparity, and the party in power cannot go back to a tax rate that was the best time this country has had since people can remember. it is crazy.

>> i do not disagree with james at all, but november 15, when congress reconvenes, they will vote to extend all the tax cuts. democrats that are running, and most democrats running in the house, they are pledging to vote for it when it comes back. >> what would a veto mean? >> i lot of good things happen after 1994. you had telecom reform. all those different things. there is a positive model to look at. >> after the government shut down. >> we took a beating on that

one. >> i wonder if obama with a key for that because he ran on this in his campaign. if he did not veto it, then i think he would take some heat. you already have 40 blue dog democrats who say they want to extend that. if they lose and you come back and some of them want to vote for it. i am not seeing it is the right thing, but i think they are trying to do it. >> they passed the bush tax cuts. it was going to trickle down. 2002 to 2007, the height of the recovery, what happened in comes in the middle class? they went down $2,000. the only argument you can make is that argument that i am making a lot of money, so i

ought to keep more money i make. he cannot make the argument that these things work. >> not in a downward economy that this will be the right approach. >> somebody is making $2 million a year gets $50,000 tax cut, are they going to spend the money or will they put it in the bank? they will put it in the bank. thedcbo or anybody else, the least effective way, time and time again, people say the least effective way in a recession to help people is to give tax cuts to the wealthy. you get a tax cut to somebody making what a hotel maid makes, that is going right to the -- >> president obama getting reelected in 2012? >> i think he does. it depends on the economy. >> hard to say.

>> yes. >> i think so, too. >> a question. >> hello, i could-founded a company in new york that creates jobs for freelancers. i was living at stanford, and tonight george of the bush won there were tears and candlelight vigils. then i brought obama won, my proudest moment as an american, unbelievable. as we talked about this narrative, i wonder why we are skirting around the race issue. is it not inevitable or obvious that we have such a moment or a leap forward for american and elected a black president, and for these reasons it is obvious there is going to be some collective retraction after it? fox news is not losing sight of that they shall -- of that racial narrative. i want to put a question to you

and is say -- is that not an obvious part of it? , that is nothing to do with it. when you have 10% and clement, it's just is not racial at all. >> if the president or white, i do not think that is what -- i do not think what his race is is a primary factor. >> neither do i.. if unemployment was at 7%, every pickup truck driving white guy -- >> where did you get 48.5% in tennessee? in louisiana, we had the first indian governor in united states, our senior senator is a

woman, and our three largest known as polities are covered by racial minorities. we have a black mayor in freeport. take that, connecticut. >> i have covered technology, so as i think about these things differently. this is an innovation summit. i love the sport of politics. a lot of us would agree that despite whatever these disagreements are over all sorts of minor matters in the bigger scheme, and we can identify the major issues that are going to determine the long term success of the united states. even the income success of the average american. it has a lot to do with innovation, company formation, entrepreneurship, education. my question is, despite how

interesting and fun it is to talk about this type of inside baseball stuff, which i could use a different word than stuff, much as i like to hear about christine o'donnell, what is the chance that the american electorate is ever gone to be able to focus on the real issues that are going to lead this country to prosperity in the face of global competition? >> this election and the one after it is about some big issues. we're having a serious debate about the size of government and about taxes. no question that a lot of these other matters, innovation, how we compete with china, are not getting the attention they should. i partially blame the media because what are the things you know about the races in council -- in california? you know that jerry brown called

the other candidate a whoe. re. in some expense you have to plan the candidates. if you want to talk about tough choices, if they are on this, they also have to talk about sacrifice and pain and politicians do not like to do that. a sweet things like social security under the rug. >> one of the things that has changed, because that aspect, is the uptick about education reform, which the media is driving that. that is one of the hardest conversations to have. it is usually like you are running it in the first lady's office. it is clear that it is a national conversation. the issue of competitiveness. once you deal with the job issue, the two are going together in terms of globally. that is a positive thing and it comes from the outside putting

pressure on these candidates. >> who was against innovation? [unintelligible] it is not like they have an added innovation called us up there. -- caucus out there. >> the fight isn't over what kind of innovation you are going to have. what should of role of government be? should government stepped in and write new rules over the government press over the financial system or not? he did not have a bigger questions for government than that, and all of them are implicated in these debates. >> the problem is that the country that the banks do what

they wanted to. they will act in the interests of society, which there was something about the invisible hand which slapped us in the face -- we do not have to worry about it. look what happened. >> this is joe stephanopoulis from new orleans -- sorry, the microphone has a life of its own. what is stopping innovation? bank loans, small businesses, they cannot get loans. there's an issue. when you say that tax benefits for the very rich, which is that $250,000 people, we all

know that is -- the point is the uncertainty and all that is discouraging to innovation to taking a chance. he did not know where the hell you are going. how does the health care reform going to turn out in terms of cost? the water may be 70 degrees or 30 degrees. think that the lack of demand has something to do with that? nobody is thinking of a new product? >> we had a much greater stimulus package. now that the reaction in congress we are inclined to get, we are not going to go anywhere but backcourts. >> i am all for innovation.

[unintelligible] >> the question, can we get back to sarah palin? leslie, d want to take that? -- do you want to take that? >> sarah palin has a see that it intact. it is not just her, but it is also hillary clinton. what happened in 2008, meeting the money test, showing these can be viable candidate, generating the amount of support they get, change the landscape for political women. especially for political republican women. she is still devoid in leadership on the republican side. she can talk to national issues,

and there is nobody on the left two matches her. and there's nobody on the right to match her in raising money. because of that she is an important voice and she has been historically on the presidential ticket, which gives her another advantage. >> what about her as a potential political candidate? i am not convinced she is gone to run. is she a culture and entertainment force as low as a political force? >> there tends to be certain critical here when you want to run for office and you try to build your base. she has been so unconventional and everything she has done. >> she is on facebook, and

everybody know whenever she tweets. >> you saw in focus groups in 2004 and 2006, a lot of women have the sense of common sense government. she is the amplification of that. she transcended it and became sarah palin inc., and nobody else can match that. she wants to decide if she wants to be a studious candidate and prepare herself for presidential run. i have yet to see those steps being taken. >> i am a jewish kid from los angeles. my dad is a producer, and i say that because my therapist is here every week. i spent last weekend in peoria, illinois, which the youngest member of conference for three days. i went with them to places that jewish kids from los angeles should never go.

when you listen to doug's polls, and i read the paper, the one thing i think nothing -- what does not captured is that the response to obama is so personally visceral for those that do not support him, and i scratch my head because i think you look at the president of the united states and whether you agree with him or not, they are doing what they believe it. the response is so viscerally -- they hate him. they would come up to the congressman, and this guy is 29 years old. we hate him. we need to do this and that. the response to sarah palin is personal. why is that? in my lifetime, it has never been like that. >> and has always been like that. >> people would come up to the congressman and they would -- they would say he is taking away this, they would say he is taking away that.

>> 1998 with clinton, people were in the airport, screaming at him. i remember. >> even george tevi bush, the thing the democrats would say. >> i used to travel with john edwards. so i am used to it. when i used to travel with the senator, people would come up, it was this visceral, personal thing. i cannot believe how upset people work because it was not about -- it was about their entire livelihood was wrapped up into this one guy. when you read the things, watched these things in peoria, it plays there. it was the most -- is there a hurricane six category?

i'm telling you, people were screaming and yelling. in the small-town parades. there's a personal thing that they have with this president. i realize -- i respect everything you have said, but it feels very different. if you are a jew from los angeles or in peoria, and is different. >> thank you all very much. we're out of time. thank you, all. they keep. -- thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the first of the house races with the focus on new hampshire's second district, west virginia's third, and the the 17th congressional district in texas. following the money spent in 2010, from "national journal's" hot line, the democratic >> what is more telling is three of those districts are held by republicans. that means the bulk of the money will help endangered democrats or first-time democratic candidates win their races. >> it is time to get your camera rolling for this year's studentcam. make a five-eight minute video on this year's theme,

washington, d.c. you can win a grand prize of $5,000. the deadline is january 20, 2011. go to studentcam.org for details. >> a debate between the candidates running in pennsylvania third house district wuther kathy dahlkemper and republican challenger mike kelly. this race leans republican. this is an hour. >> good evening, welcome to allegheny college. i am the director of the center for political participation. i am also a member of the political science department, along with either giese i will be the co-moderator. -- along with keith i will be the co-moderator. we wanted to help young americans understand the potential of politics.

we believe in elections, civic engagement. all that has changed over the last 200 years. a fundamental truth remains, candidates are called upon and call upon us to judge their views, character and to win . they are applying for a position and the voters are doing the hiring. perhaps he will agree with us at the senate that there is no better way could -- to conduct this job interview than through candidate debates. these defense allow us to assess candidates without the filter of consultants and media imagery. they are open and direct. because this event is held at one of the nation's oldest and one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning,

we believe candidates have a special responsibility to provide direct respectful answers. but events of this sort are not easy for candidates. it is tough work standing up there taking questions. i am hoping that the onset that you would join keith and me in thanking mike kelly and kathy dahlkemper for coming tonight. [applause] [applause] we begin we had a few matters, if you could turn off your cell phones that would be much appreciated. candidates have agreed to a lengthy set of rules.

each candidate will have a two minute opening and closing statement. the order has been decided with a coin toss. 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 there were some cards in the program. if you could fill those out with questions and pass them to the assistance, we will use those for the second half. audience participation will be limited to short period of applause after each candidate's opening and closing statements. there will be no applause during the question and answer period. we do this to save time to get as many questions in as we can. following the debate, the college democrats and republicans are hosting open receptions. the college republicans will be right over here in fort chapel,

and democrats with kathy dahlkemper wil be in the private dining room in the campus center. last but not least, this debate is being carried live either c- span. we welcome yours from the rest of the district and the nation. let's get on with our debate. by coin toss it is determined kathy dahlkemper would open tonight's debate. >> thank you 2 allegheny college for hosting, and all of you in the audience for coming out tonight. thank you to mike kelly for joining me tonight. i am honored to be your representative. it is a responsibility that i take very seriously. i am kathy dahlkemper. i am the wife to my husband who is my partner and our landscape business. i have five beautiful children

and two grandchildren. i have grown up in this region and i love this region cannot raise my family here, it is a region of what to be strong to grow and thrive so that my children and our grandchildren have the opportunity to stay here, have a good job, and truly lived the american dream. that is why i ran for congress two years ago, and that is why i am running today, to continue to work on the things i have been working on for two years to help this region grow. i have been focused on the economy and jobs. that is my number one focus. i have been working with business leaders throughout the district in the region. i have been working with economic released 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, 16 times. i have been working to make sure we make it in america come up that we make products here in

america. we do this by closing tax loopholes and by fighting against countries that use unfair trade practices to take our jobs overseas, such as china. times are tough but we are seeing things getting better. we have seen 14 straight months of improvement in manufacturing numbers. we have seen 863,000 jobs created this year alone. things are getting better, but there is much more work to be done. i am looking forward to tonight's conversation so that you can see the contrast between the direction i am taking the country in and where my country -- where my opponent wants to take a country. thank you all for being with us and i appreciate your vote come november. [applause]

>> i want to also thank the congresswoman for being tonight and the service she has performed, but there are two different views of the way things are going. i don't share that same enthusiasm for the last 22 months. our views are completely different. you will see a contrast. i believe in a smaller government. i believe the people are the best way to get there. i believe the small business is the best way to get there. i believe this should be a limited government. what we have seen in the last 22 months as we were sending people that are going to go to washington to change washington.

what we got our people who changed america. i would like to see this country returned to its greatness because i believe america's best days are ahead of us. that we can get their 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. the right direction -- wrong direction you can fix it. it is totally fixable. our best days are ahead of us. the the i relish the opportunity to be with you. -- i relished the opportunity to be with you. i welcome the opportunity. thanks so much. [applause]

>> we would like to start off with a question related to the economy. stimulus' bills was pumped into the economy. the economy still remains stagnant. we are looking at roughly 10% unemployment. should congress consider another stimulus bill to try to jump- start the economy, or should we be putting in tax incentives to help small business grow? what should those incentives be? >> certainly we recently passed a very good stimulus bill. that is the small business piece of legislation. this is a small bill going to our community banks that we know and trust to lend to small does

the says. we were trying to get this bill through the house and senate for months because we knew this was -- we finally got that through and two brave senators came forward and voted for that piece of legislation. that will help spur the small business as we know are the job creators. i voted for a 16 tax cuts. republicans voted with us on one of those tax cuts. they are also helping our small businesses to create jobs. we want to find those tax incentives for our small businesses to continue to create jobs. my opponent says he is against stimulus. yet as a member of the authorities of redevelopment authority he has asked for a stimulus money for butler county. it is one thing to say you are

against the stimulus, but it is another thing to say please give us money. we have to find ways forward for our small businesses and tax incentives come up with 34 green energy jobs. i had a piece of legislation that the that would give tax breaks for those who want to develop wind turbines. either very important to our energy needs going forward. those are the sensible tax credits that will be there until 2020 and will give the industry time to get a hold here. those are the smart tax incentives i would like to see happen. >> i find it interesting that somebody who voted for $1 trillion stimulus that raises taxes -- we have the second highest taxes in the industrial world come up with funds that was an incentive. the financial reform bill is

5000 pages. as much as you would like to say we have empowered small banks, there is not a bank in the world that feels confident they can lend money to any small business because of the regulations. it is a piece of legislation the -- it will help small businesses, then we say here are the rules. you tell may somehow we are helping small businesses by doing that. we can spur the economy by lowering corporate tax rates. we can make it easier for people in small business to invest in jobs. these are the things that make people and us. right now the biggest problem for anybody is the unknowing. it is en un noble risk. they are afraid to get in the game. they are on the sidelines because they don't know the next

thing this government will impose. we are so overregulated. taxes are so high we cannot move. we have made it difficult for people. these are the people who create the jobs. all government will do is grow bigger and take more of your tax dollars. >> i would like a follow up. i just want to make sure we are clear. you were talking about tax incentives. if we had the same package would you vote for a stimulus package? >> i thought you were asking something further. i would vote for the bill we have already passed in the same circumstances. that bill and the economy will tell you a kept us from going into a depression. did it do everything? no, but it did a lot.

if reinvested in the future. it will really be the game changer in this country. we reinvested in green energy technology, the the broad band. -- broadband. we are the largest recipient of broadband money. if you are a business and you have dial-up and you are trying to compete, it is impossible. we reinvested in infrastructure. this is a game changer. we reinvested in high-speed rail. i could go on and on about things that are spurring growth in the private job creation area. >> i would like a chance to respond. if i am hearing this right this stimulus bill -- it happened within a couple of weeks of the times you've got to congress.

-- you voted for over $8 billion in stimulus funds. if we do not do it then the unemployment would go above 8%. we have been hovering around 10%. the president says the biggest flaw is he thought they were shovel-ready projects. they don't know where they are. they cannot find them. this is the person who we have to do this. this idea you have to take advantage of a crisis to get things through, this has been the theme of the administration. when you start believing your parties and not your people this is the result. it is taxing people to the ends of earth and we are saying it worked. that was a disaster. >> i will remind candidates we

have agreed not to address comments to each other. i would like to switch to the deficit. this is a very important issue. recent projections suggest our national debt is approaching $14 trillion. recent media reports suggest candidates in both parties have been very vague about what they would do about the deficit. let's look for some specifics here. according to the cbo making bush tax cuts permanent would add an additional $4 trillion to the national debt. extending a tax cuts for the middle-class would add $3

trillion. your web site suggests you will fight government waste and pork barrel spending, but even the most optimistic projections of pork-barrel spending is they would total less than one-half of 1%. could you tell us what specific savings you would find drastic cuts? >> i will address it specifically. the specificity is in the process. when gov. christie got elected he was asked the same question. as a business person, you have to look every month at what you do. you have to determine whether that is the right course to be on. i am always intrigued when people say specifically what would you do? of what tear it apart.

does it work? does it not work? is it something we can improve on? there is stuff to be cut. i can tell you this. i am amazed people take this attitude that you cannot expect the government to work the way a business does. you could never expect a business to work the way the government does. when we talk about all these savings and costs, the costs are on the backs of the tax payers. the government acts like we are taking money from them, but they are taking money from us. every single penny that goes into the government comes off the backs of taxpaying citizens. we have the wrong point of view here. i would be the most responsible legislator out there. of what look at every expense

and is it performing the way it is supposed to. is this another one of those government programs? a specificness of this is getting people there that are responsible that understands what it means to make payments. you what look at that as a sacred duty. that is how we have to approach this. >> to be fair, your website devotes a video to the deficit. in that video you mentioned your office was able to give $90,000 back to the treasury. you mentioned that is a drop in the bucket but you are talking about trillions of dollars. could you provide specifics on where we might find savings. >> i certainly will because my opponent did not answer the question. [applause]

>> both candidates had agreed to the rules of the debate and we will not have applause. >> what i would do is i would not extend tax cuts to the wealthiest of the millionairess because that will cost us $700 billion over the next 10 years. we cannot afford it. well the economy is still struggling as we recover is to extend the tax cuts for the middle-class people who need to have a tax break. what i have done is we've reinstated statutory paygo. you pay for things as you go forward. last august when there was a need to keep teachers in the schools and fire and in the

firehouses i said i will not vote for this unless it is paid for. we paid for it by closing tax loopholes that allow jobs to go overseas. every republican voted against that. i am on a balanced budget amendment. but balance my budget every month in my business. i balance it at home all the time. i went to congress and said if i ever ran my business like this it would have been out of business. i understand that, so a balanced budget is necessary. we have to look at how we can cut programs. we need to look at all the different programs that are wasteful money. at night time you watch c-span -- there is some of their speaking and no one else in the house, that cost us $22,000 an

hour. you don't see the security out there. $22,000 an hour every night. that is one thing i would cut. >> i would like to switch with the a connolly and international relations. china is heading towards a currency board. we have the u.s. dollar not as valued as the chinese dollar. it is hurting our industries. we are looking at the possibility of trade sanctions against china to equalize the playing field. what sanctions would you support the with regard to this? what would you support we go after? >> i already voted for a bill that would go after china for the currency manipulation.

this is something we have been talking about for years. one of the national radio programs was saying going after china would create half a million jobs in this country. there are some people who think we should be happy about this because we can buy cheap products that at the stores. what those means this american jobs have been lost. we need to go after china because they have been cheating for a long time. i have been a vocal supporter of looking at that manipulation. we voted that out of the house last month and to get it in the senate. i am willing to go after china for all their trading practices. i have testified regarding steel projects. we have won all three cases. the last administration would not take on china.

these are products brought illegally, and yet we will not go after china. we cannot let them travel on our businesses. we have gone after china and will continue to go after them when they unfairly dumped products into our country at prices below what manufacturers can make up. we need to go after china when they try to corner the market. let me tell you about a piece of legislation that is money that we passed through the house regarding rare earth minerals. china controls 97% of the world's supply, products that are used in great products, all the energy products. products such as night vision goggles and a lot of hybrid batteries. we have got to go after china

for these unfair trade practices. >> i have no problem with free trade as long as it is fair. most would agree the problem with china is that we don't enforce trade agreements. we force ourselves to go by the rules and allow china not to go but the rules. i understand it is a global economy. why do these companies go overseas? we have overregulated. we made it almost impossible for some companies to stay in this country. then we want to blame the chinese. when we start to look at what will make us grow, it is encouraging business to invest in the states. don't make it too hard to compete. the rest of the world has been waiting for america to take a stand with china. when china was part of the wto

we did not enforce the rules. now it is time, let's make sure china plays by the rules. there is nothing wrong with competition. we have always welcomed competition. we don't take a back seat on anyone. what i do challenge is a government that over taxes and makes it impossible for these companies to stay in the u.s. we are being a little bit hypocritical to say we will penalize china because of our inability to see what is going on. we have to do this with the rules that make sense and enforce them. >> i will switch our topic stayed with domestic politics and talk about health care reform. what is wrong with the recent

health care reform initiative? do you want to repeal it the the tax would you replace it with anything? >> how can anybody vote for a health-care package that penalizes our seniors? and penalizes neonatal set -- neonatals? if the idea was to create affordability we did not do that. who did we penalize the most? the seniors who have lived within the rules will have paid their dues. who do we put that burden on? it is 8 $500 billion cut in medicaid. the other part of that package was the abortion package. i never would vote for a bill that penalizes the unborn.

we can talk about executive orders and we know that means nothing. we know the first thing obama did was to rescind the bush's executive order. we all know there was excellent opportunity right then. i would not have been more proud of her. she was in a position -- they need it hurt more than she needed them. if we were concerned about protecting the unborn put the language in the law. that is all it would have taken. i would have been so proud of you. but the party has too much and instead of taking the side of the people -- that is just inexcusable. we are supposed to be it representatives. i don't think we represented the best interests of the country. >> why did you vote for the

bill? >> i think it is morally reprehensible that my opponent would accuse me of not being pro-life. i have been pro-life all my life. i chose life at the age of 21 and i have fought for the unborn ever since. i am the best friend the unborn has. i believe this bill is the most pro-life piece of legislation passed. it has already passed the first test with abortion funding. new mexico had to change their language because they were informed a few do not take out possibility of abortion funding you will not get federal funds. we passed the first big test because i made sure of was the ones fighting the night before we voted to make sure abortion was not include it.

healthcare is pro-life. i voted for it for many reasons. my opponent wants to take away health care from a young child who might have on tourism. he wants to take away health care from a senior who wants to increase prescription drugs. he wants to take away tax cuts -- this is why we passed health care. it is a basic need. everyone listening will need to access health care. working men and women working hard every day do not have the access to health care that i do. it is the right thing to do. i did it with certainty that there will be no abortion funding, no abortion funding except in the cases of rape or

life of the mother which has been the standard since 1976. >> i would like to move on to some other foreign policy issues. we have troops in afghanistan, iraq, and the world on edge. there have been reports of attacks in india. if the u.s. were attacked in another country or an embassy and we know who did get some of we have the evidence, would you be willing to send troops into the country that is harboring the group that attacked the u.s.? >> certainly if our country or any american space is attacked,

and the country to know and they stood by to allow that attack to happen, at every option should be on the table. we should never go into war without looking at every option. we should always look at every single option diplomatically prior to going to war, but certainly if a country's stance by and let's terrorists attack americans here in our borders then i think certainly war is one of the options we should think about. >> the question is under attack? should we retaliate? >> such as an embassy attack or the country the the the does admit to doing it and takes credit for it, there government

stands by and does nothing, would you support sending in troops? >> i do believe in the constitutional structure where the commander in chief would make that call. would i support this decision? yes, i would carry it -- yes, i would. [applause] >> we are going to move into some of the audience questions. the first is touched upon by a number of participants. faith in the system, the electoral process. i will ask my question. there has been a trend in recent years of scholars beginning to call outside money.

money being spent in congressional races by people not located in those communities. there was a recent report from the campaign finance institute that has pulled gather this information and ranked us 16th in the nation. you have been the benefactor of most of that money. they estimate three the third quarter it has been up to $1 million. kathy dahlkemper as been the beneficiary of half a million dollars. could you talk about whether you think this outside money is appropriated. would you support legislation to disclose the sources of this information? >> the question is a good question but you don't go far

enough. you're just limited within the past couple of months what money was raised. if you go back to the beginning date congressman started off with $1.3 million. did i raise more in the last quarter? i think both of us would agree there is nothing wrong -- >> i am not asking about your own fund-raising. i am talking about groups spending money on your behalf. >> i understood that. if you are going to say about who said the money then i want to say there are filings we have to follow. i have no problem with making sure whoever gives money to any campaign, that they have to declare it. i would think she feels the same way. >> i am not sure because she voted against the bill that would require disclosure of

this. i am wondering if you could explain that and talk about this outside money into the disclosure issue. >> we have all seen the amount of money that has come into this district. anyone listening has had enough of the commercials on the air, most of them targeted against me. they take money from those beyond our country's borders. the group has been supported my opponent that is against going after china for their currency manipulation. but voted against the act when they came in front of the house because it actually had exemptions for certain groups. if we are going to pass this legislation which is crucial to

make sure we have elections that are not bought, then i think everyone should have to disclose. that is why i voted against this bill, although i feel strongly that everyone should be disclosing who their donors are so we know who is trying to buy our elections. my opponent when he was here have said the that he thought the citizens united supreme court ruling was just fine. when we were together in butler he said he had not read the bill so he could not give you an answer. yet he also said he has not read the health care bill but things we should appeal it. if you want to go to congress you better understand the issues because the you have to make

decisions and have the knowledge in front of you. this act has been out for a long time. if you are running for congress in need to know about these important issues. it has been brought to us from the audience by a resident. how will we go after china when we owe them so much money? we have a lot of our debt in days hence. how do we handle that issue? the >> certainly we have to grow after this growing deficit i have a plan we are working on. we have to have a balanced budget. we have enacted paygo rules. the we have a commission that will determine what programs are

not working. we have to look at the department of defense. we have to address our deficit. we have to continue to hold tschida accountable for the rules they agreed on. that is why we need to take them in front of the international trade commission. that is why we need to go after them for manipulating their currencies that allows them to dump products into our country. that is why we need to go after them for a rare earth. this is a pretty important subjects. these rare earth controls 97% of the world supply they had a dispute with japan and the it was over an island. they told japan we are cutting off your supply. they don't have any natural supplies, so japan is panicking because they make a lot of high-

risk motorists. we in our country need those, too, for the hybrid batteries, for the night vision goggles, advanced targeting systems for our war efforts. it also needed for these cell phones you karie. these are important products. we have our own domestic supply. china subsidizes that industry and has made hours uncompetitive. my legislation puts money back into that industry to get it back up and running looking at new ways to extract that come out looking at new alternatives. that is what we need to do to go after china on these trade practices. >> how do we go after china when they are controlling the monetary?

>> i kind of got lost in the answer. we do not have to worry about china and the debt we owe china. china buys debt because it is a great investment for china. it is very poor on our part. we have allowed china to back door a lot of things because we have not had a stomach tuesday -- to say stop. we talk about a balanced budget -- this year part of the vote the revenue -- the budget that they voted for spends $3.5 trillion. a $1.4 trillion deficit and said that will work, i could do that with my business, we have put ourselves in a bad situation by

people who go to congress and make a decision on things they don't understand but vote for bailouts and come back and point at somebody and say this guy does not get it. i don't get it. there is no way of what allowed this to happen. if you vote for a budget that $1.4 trillion in the whole it is like saying it is ok to spend $35,000 this year. we will just raise the deficit. we are so out of touch with the average people. this is what happens when people who don't understand economics say yes to a stupid deficits. it is incredible we can have that discussion. >> there are a number of audience questions that deal

with energy and environmental issues but it is not a surprise because they have taken an initiative to promote environmental sustainability. but stock about environmental issues. this is an important issue to a lot of young americans. the terms of environmental protection or anything dealing with natural resources do not appear on your web site as a list of issues. how should we interpret that? are you concerned about climate change? >> i don't think anyone would think we are not interested in environmental situations. we have technology that is cutting edge. protecting the environment is

our first responsibility. we have ways of doing almost everything the, of whether it is mining coal, we have that technology. we have so much technology in place. it is part of who we are in this district. i have seen things that make a lot of sense. there is a company that is growing grass that would be able to be a supplement to our energy needs. i would say that the technology out there -- i have no problem keeping the environment clean. >> two years ago you came here and spoke about environmental protection come up but you did vote against the energy bill,

one of the few democrats. >> i broke ranks many times with my party but certainly on the cap and trade because it would hurt the economy in the third district of pennsylvania. that is to i am representing, not florida, california. that bill because we are based on fossil fuels would have been a heavy economic burden on our industries. i have voted for a summit date wonderful pieces of legislation that will move things on to a cleaner environment. my opponent did not answer the question as to why he did not address this issue. i wonder how much he truly cares about this. i do care, i voted for the greatest increase in funding to

make sure the great lakes are protected. i have voted for protecting land drop this country. i voted for a recovery bill that reinvest in green energy technology. i know a lot about the conservation company. we have worked with them for years. there is a project around the corner that has to do with the schools and the training center coming together to put in a new energy -- cleaner energy yet for that area. they were actually able to get money from the american recovery act without that money they would not have been able to do that project that will save this community for many years. that is what we did with the

reinvestment act. we are reinvesting in our country. hybrid batteries, wind, solar, a lot of weatherizing was done. these are the good things we are doing for the environment. >> one thing we but like to ask you about is by partisanship. no matter who wins this election one of you will be going to congress in maybe the majority or the minority. what about the possibility of bipartisanship going forward? would you be willing to work across the aisle? >> i have worked with the opposite party many times since i have been in congress. one of the biggest disappointments was how quickly both sides try to tear you apart. we had a great orientation for a couple of days and then they separate you.

it is the party leadership that continues to try to pull us apart. i go every 30 warning -- thursday morning to a bipartisan breakfast. i like to see all 435 there. each week one member of congress speaks about their journey to congress and what ever they want to talk about. that allows me to get to know members of congress in a different way, so when you work with them or go on the house floor you see them in a different light. we need to have more things like that outside the house floor. i can tell you we work very hard together. i am on the science and technology committee. every bill we have brought out of that committee has passed in a bipartisan nature. i am very proud of the rare earth bill. this is the third time we pass that on the house for 325-98. that is good legislation.

that is working hard together in a bipartisan nature. i will continue to find ways that we have common ground. i am a moderate, i was ranked the eighth most moderate member of congress. i am here to represent this moderate district. that is what i do in congress. i work with moderates on the republican side, but most disappointing thing to me this year has been the constant call from the republican leadership to keep their members in line and not allow them to go on any single piece of legislation. that was an agenda of anyone who might have -- i have worked with many republicans on their legislation we have passed through the house. >> that is interesting he would be the eighth molt moderate -- eighth most moderate. on the one the bill, the most

interested bill we have ever had there was not one republican that signed on with that. when you don't invite them to the table then how is that being bipartisan? when you look at that voting record cannot it is it not true what you are saying. you may have grown up in northwest pennsylvania but you felt like you are from san francisco. these are the things that cause people to wonder are we going to be bipartisan? are we only going to be bipartisan -- [applause] whenever you talk about bipartisan you better understand what bipartisan means. intoon't we carry it over the biggest piece of legislation the country passed? that would have been truly bipartisan. i understand where you are coming from.

i will tell you that the washington may be broke. the government is just fine kut it is the people we have sent to represent us that have done the worst job. if you want true bipartisanship then invite the other parties to the table. don't make them the demons when things don't work out. >> i would like to follow up on that. would you work with democrats on legislation? can you think of any issue where you might break ranks with republicans? >> i cannot be that presumptuous. >> we have agreed. >> i am not there yet. i would hope there would be issues. i would hope we could have a debate over it. what i see going on is some recalls of because their house is on fire and two fire

departments show up and the house burns down. this is what we have seen on both sides of the aisle. i will never vote for legislation that hurts the people that elected me to represent them. i don't care if they are republicans or democrats, that is what i would be doing. i would represent them jeff and not my party. >> could i respond? >> one minute. >> republicans were invited to the table when we passed health care. there are over 200 pieces that were republican ideas. we invited republicans to everything we have done. what i don't appreciate is my opponents calling me a liar and telling me i am not telling the truth, because i am telling the truth. [applause] >> we are about at the end of our time. i will ask that we refrain from the clapping.

we are about 10 more minutes. >> i have broken with my party on a number of things. >> i am pro-choice. i am pro-gun. the majority of my party members are not. i have broken on many different pieces of legislation. i look at my conscience. i want to sleep at night. secondly, it is of my constituents. what is the best thing for the people of the third district? >> john writes there are some memories coming out the the of the number of people in the region who are in poverty. what would you do in congress that would help the working poor?

is it mr. kelly first? what would you do to help the working poor? >> when you talk about the working poor we are looking at jobs and the a economy. as the economy improves, wages would improve. when we asked what could government do the the best answer is the least government is the best. when we can get to a point where we are able to grow our business as without being overregulated i can tell you what i did with my business. every month we reinvest with our people. we invest in those types of things. step out of the way and let the small businesses grow. let them raise wages for people. the best way to fix everything we are talking about is to have a strong economy. i think it is unbelievable that

in the u.s. there is 15 million people who wake up with no place to go to work and all we have talked about is taxing, spending, we have not talked about addressing the problems. it is the government that has their foot on their throat. we have to find people that can go there and have a strong backbone to get things done we are not addressing the problems. the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the spending. there is no way we continue and think we can cure the a economy with the way we are going. we have to step back and do things that makes sense. the same as you do in your homes and york churches. it is so basic. we have let these other things cloud our minds. >> one thing i would not do is extend the tax rates for the

millionaires and billionaires in this country. that will not help the working poor. what we need to do is give them a tax break. we need to make sure they have a good education. it should not matter where you live or what your income level is in terms of what kind of education you get. we need to start with our preschoolers and youngest children. businesses are beginning to realize how important it is to make sure our youngest students are prepared for kindergarten. they will be a much student then. we need to make sure there is money for students to go to great, just -- could -- to go to great colleges. putting people back to work is the main thing. we make it in america again. we close the tax loopholes that allow american corporations to

take our jobs overseas. i call that corporate welfare. our jobs are encouraged to go overseas because of that loophole. but make it in america because those are the good paying jobs people can earn a good wage and half what they want for their family. they can have a home, educate their children, maybe take a vacation once a year. let's do that. let's make it in america. let's go after china so we can make it right here. when we have a problem with high unemployment than we need to extend help to hard-working individuals who have lost their jobs. this is what we need to do. education, but one more thing is health care. so many people who are uninsured are the working poor. they don't work for companies that offer them health

insurance. we did that for the working poor in this country. >> this is a very simple question. what do you believe the role of government is? >> i think the role of government is to provide the climate for business to grow. with research and development, to make sure the money is there for new industries such as green technology, giving them a tax break for logger than two years. extend its so those industries can be out on the private markets themselves. the role of government is to help the poorest and provide -- being one of the most important things the role of government is. >> the role of government is more of an overseas. when we talk about what has happened