major campaign finance reforms will be undertaken by concerned citizens and groups, committed to democracy with integrity and to winning the battle against corrupting influence of big money on officeholders and government decisions. and washington political money is constantly discussed in terms of who benefits, the democrats or republicans. it is rarely discussed in terms of the american people, which is a larger an overriding interest in what is going on here. i believe the american people will not stand for sicker contributions being spent to influence their votes -- stand for secret contributions being spent to influence their votes. in this congress, we passed a disclosure bill in the house and came within one vote of winning it in the senate. if there is an extended post- election session, that battle will continue. otherwise, the battle to expose the secret contributions will begin immediately in january

2011. . we have one these battles before, and we will win these battles again. thank you. >> jean cummings you have an out and about covering campaigns. what are you seeing? >> what i will talk about is the

corporation's we know have gotten involved in. and basically there are two other organizations that did go public. american crossroads in particular. -- basically there are a few organizations that did go public. and they purposely formed at one part of their operation so it would disclose donors, and there is a second piece of that that is formed under different tax codes. they did that in part because they needed names of public to become a honey to attract others to their organization. it is interesting, when they first formed and were asked why are you doing it this way, they said we think disclosure could become an issue and we do not want to deal with it.

and then when would they were not -- then when they were not getting as much money as they thought, the exposure did not bother them as much, so they created a separate arm so that people could give privately to the organization. to those of us that live in this world are very familiar people. they are harold simmons, carl lindner, and bob kerreperry -- e are a group of wealthy investors who top thapped their personal check books and company checkbooks to support the campaigns. one of them financed an ad

campaign and 2008 that was aimed at tying obama to bill airs. we have seen these folks are around for a long time. and the other corporations that showed up and the files, and not just for american crossroads, but in other places -- what we find is they tend to be corporations that are dominated by one personality. that person in particular has already taken their slings and arrows and not afraid of public disclosure. we did see one public company get involved this year, and the results were pretty much a nightmare. probably all the things that the gallup report shows companies are worried about. that was target. target and best buy for got involved in a campaign in minnesota.

they wanted corporate money to help one particular candidates for governor. target was the first and the biggest donors. target date $150,000 -- gave $150,000 to the corporation. predicted the campaign. and what target did not do is due diligence on the candidates. the kid didn't happen to be socially very conservative. target has this liberal brand, so it iss customers and employees went nuts when i found out target had given them money. the focus on where he was on abortion and gay rights.

it became a public-relations nightmare for target. they apologize several times. they vowed to help other gay rights events. they wanted to send a warning to other companies, and indeed what reporting showed in minnesota after words is there were many corporations that were on the verge are writing a check who did not write the check, because they would be disclosed and exposed to that kind of backlash. and it has been mixed out there. we have that question of disclosure and will they play or will then not? that is one issue that is important. the other thing is where will they morriph? right now they are all republican.

the talks and some republican circles as where this could lead someday, that instead of having politics dominated by the democratic party and republican party, that you could have subsets of corporate parties in effect. so if you have strong ethanol interests and to get at the nominee to the other, then they go out and support ethanol candidates and does not matter if they are a d or an r. the coal industry is goionly gog after democrats right now, but there is a way to the bank group that you would have meant a package that represent corporate interests and do not care about the party. they have the ability to raise millions of dollars and go out and take on the democrats and

the republican party if they so choose. it will be interesting to see what direction rico and if there is no curb on what is happening. -- it will be interesting to see what direction we go in if there is no curb on what is happening. there will be many more american crossroads that will emerge and everything will go underground. i do not know that anyone on the republican side will be interested in disclosure if there is not any kind of repercussions from this 1. >> thank you. >> threat mention the fact that we are witnessing a see change. -- fred mentioned the fact that we are witnessing a change. jeanette just noted a number of the organizations are active are deploying different types of strategy as they pursue their

election activities. and maybe we can begin by putting this and a little bit broader context and highlighting some of the implications of what we're seeing in the midterm elections so far. i guess we can begin by noting that undisclosed bending and unlimited spending, their role of corporate money in elections is not new. this is something we have seen in other recent elections as politically active non-profit organizations became more involved with political activity. it is something we have seen in recent elections because the disclosure laws that we do have, for the most part, when it came to non-party organizations applied to their activities and expressly advocated candidates or advertising they didn't close to the election, which left a large round of an undisclosed activity. fred is right in that the

changes we're witnessing in developments are really heralding in a new era and campaign finance. i think that new era or vaults around the fact that we now have this regime where it is not he fact thatmplication, labor un treasury funds, to be used to advocate campaign funds, but that decision also cleared the way for other court decisions, such as the speech now decision, where we have capaign -- created a campaign finance system with acorda said if you are committee that only engages in corporate spending and do not make contributions to candidates, you are not subject to contribution limits. inhofwe have supertax better political committees that only make independent expenditures, and are not subject to any contribution limit. this is particularly valued now

since you can use treasury money in unlimited amounts to engage in the election activity they undertake. i would like to highlight a third development that i think is particularly in point in -- important, and that is at the same time we have had loosening up, we have had the management of the averment we had. one of the most aspects of this election is not simply the fact that more money is flowing from non-corporate region of non- profit corporations, but also that the fact that that sec has reined in decisions that have dramatically narrow the efficacy of disclosure law. even where we had disclosure in the past and still have disclosure, it is ineffective. that is because the federal

election commission has decided that while wall said if you're doing broadcast advertising you are expected to disclose any monies for the furthering of election communications so that you are expected to disclose donors and the amount you spent. sec has taken a very strict and narrow interpretation of this block, and said instead that you need to disclose the donors on your expenditures. it is the case they are giving the money for the express purpose of making a particular independent expenditure or collection of -- election communication. but if i am just giving you a general contribution, i am giving you $1 million, $7 million and letting you decide what to do with that money, it is not necessarily the case at the courthouse to disclose the source of the funding. -- it is not necessarily the

case that the group house to disclosas to disclose the source funding. and there is a real preference for independent activity that is independent of the parties and candidates, and the best way to conduct the activity is through non-profit corporations, which are not required to disclose the bulk of their funding unless they are dealing with ads that expressly advocate a candidate that is specifically designed to call for the election or defeat a candidate. and as a consequence, more money is flowing into areas that are opaque. i think it will be difficult to determine how much of that money is corporate money. it will be very difficult to determine the sources of all of that funding, but what we are clearly seeing is that at least

in the funding that their report, particularly the advertising expenditures their reports, we are seeing a surprisingly large surge in the amount of money being spent by these groups. by any indication, the campaign finance institute found that non-party groups in their reportable spending was already up 73%. and as of tuesday, the amount that was reported as having been spent by this group for around $200.2 million. if we use past as preludin anything about what we saw and 2008 in 2006 and 2004, it is and generally the case that the amount of reported spending that these groups engage in represents about 30% of their total expenditures. so that the amount of money they are spending is probably at least 60% higher than the

amounts we are getting in terms of the report. part of that is because there is a focus on corporate money and large individual donors and much of the money that is flowing through progressive groups, much of the money that is being spent by the labor unions is not spend on advertising, and therefore we're not seeing it so there is not a big focus on it. even moveon.org day is focusing on voter contacts so there is lots of money being spent on the democratic side that we're not curing much about. we tend to focus on what we can see, not what we cannot see. the second major trend that we see is more and more of this money is becoming opaque. in that regard, what struck me the most was that when the supreme court made their

decisions, they upheld the principle of disclosure and argued that one of the safeguards you would have for this independent spending is that the sources of funding and the amount would be available to the public to exercise certainty over. " we're seeing is the exact opposite take place. one survey i saw by the sunlight foundation that particularly struck me was that we now have 218 of the non-party groups that are active in this election cycle, and there may be as many as 100 of them who are not disclosing donors. they are disclosing the amount they spend, but not where the money came from for the advertising they're doing, so that in the past monies that would have been disclosed are not being disclosed as a matter of practice. i think the implication is that you will see much less transparency and much more difficulty in exercising any kind of certainty over political

spending in the future, because my expectation is that in the aftermath of the election, we're not going to see more stringent enforcement. what you will probably see is that federal election commission sanction the fact that these groups did not disclose their donors. therefore giving a green light to all of the groups in the next election cycle. and if solicits contributions without attaching a specific purpose to it and you can be free of having to disclose the sources of your funding, even if you're not a non-profit corporation. and the third aspect of this election that is particularly interesting is the changes we're seeing in the relative role of different political actors. if you look at this election we will find in the general election, and most of the key races, particularly for congress, non-party groups are

the dominant voice. they outspent the candidates and in many instances the parties. if we look their recent election cycles, we have seen a change were the parties were spending more and more money in these key races. on independent and spenders alone the parties bonds and $160 million into congressional races oput in 2006. as congress has become more and more a bottle for majority control. i looked at the party spending recently, and the parties had already spent a at $128 million on independent expenditures alone. they still had $145 million in cash in the bank waiting to be spent. i suspect we will see the parties and more than a cent in the last midterm election region more than they spend in the last midterm elections-- more than

they spend in the last midterm elections. one thing we will see in the future is the development of groups that are going to be particularly focused on their own narrow policy interests or industry area. essentially using the non-party groups as ways to retaliate against members of congress who do not side with them on key votes. you will see more of this key money being used for reprisals against members of congress, just as you're starting to see it in the lower levels. you can go state-by-state, all one of the things we're seeing is where judges have made decisions that are contrary to the interests of business organizations, where they have made decisions that are perceived as contrary to the interests of labor interests,

where dozens -- word judges have made decisions that are contrary to the view of interest, we're seeing independent groups come in and run a substantial advertising campaigns against those judges to get them out office so that the illinois chief justice of the state supreme court is facing an advertising campaign that is being waged by business interests, because he refused to support a cap on malpractice damages. we're seeing in kansas and iowa, a major campaigns mountain against judges who either did not uphold same-sex marriage order not uphold our rowling where -- a ruling where conservative groups were seeking the definition of marriage between a man and woman. iowa supreme court ruled that by with d violated the constitutio.

now they are facing substantial campaigns against them by organized groups that feel they should have made a different choice. that is the type of activity that is very disconcerting, particularly given the fact that the other effects is to increase and exacerbate the problem that we already had in the system, which is our rising pressures being placed on candidates to raise money. if you look at congress for example, if we just look at the house of representatives, the amount of money raised by the house of representatives have doubled over the course of the last 10 years. we have $1.4 billion raised by candidates in the house and senate in 2008, and we will dramatically exceed that in 2000 at 10. house candidates will raise more than $1 billion this year. one reason they are reason all of this money is because members

of congress face increasing pressures to raise money for the party into engage in collective fund-raising efforts to put more and more money into these marginal rates. in 2008, members of the house and senate raised more than $112 million that they then give away to the party or to other candidates and the form of contributions to other candidates, so that we are at a point now where a 10% of the money being raised by members of congress is being raised to meet other demands. those demands are going to increase in this new campaign environment. the parties will please increase pressure on members to fill the coffers because they know 2012 will be of very difficult election year. we have a presidential year. it is the first year after redistricting. we will have a number of first- term members of congress and it

is easiest to become a member of congress when they're running for reelection the first time. the general pressures for fund raising will increase and their risk is that on the topic we are discussing here today, there will be increased pressure placed on corporations, non- priv profit corporations and others to engage in a political arms race. the new campaign environment is with the prospect that we will see a spending race get launched where companies and corporations are encouraged to engage in competition against other business interests in a battle for political advantage. at least be encouraged to give more and spend more as a way to try to confront the competing interests they will face as they seek influence in the legislation. that runs the risk with respect

to soft money and higher risk that is once again upon us. and it is at a time when there is even less transparency than there used to be an old soft money system. and as a result, we are going to see, at least from the perspective of the business community and as the polling results note, business leaders become more concerned about transparency, which is going to be the forefront of the reform discussion now. a consensus that used to exist about transparency as having a deleterious effects in the campaign finance system are at the minimum level is now at a point where that consensus is broken down. and so consequently i expect we will see a lot of discussion in the weeks and months at about what you do to create a more

open and transparent process. >> thank you. we do have time for a few questions. there is a lot to digest. i will be the first one to ask the questions. i will ask it of someone an audience. if you could bring the microphone over to paris, and also if you would not mind stating your name and organization. and he runs a center for political accountability. one of the things i thought was fascinating was the high numbers of not just business leaders willing to disclose their political giving, but disclose their political giving two trade associations and other groups. you are in the business of reaching out to companies urging them to disclose their political giving. do those numbers reflect what

you are encountering as you discussed this with companies? >> it is extremely important. companies are particularly sensitive about risks to retain through trade associations. we did a survey in 2008 of corporate directors, and they are particularly sensitive today because they look at this is witsituation with target. it is something that the cpi -- the conference board will come out what the first and both on corporate political spending, the yen but at the center has co-author. the programs that i have been on in the past week that include general counsels, the top

executives of companies, this is a major issue and an area of great concern. how do we deal with this? the importance of disclosure and accountability. also, the relationship between companies and trade associations. >> thank you. questions from audiences. >> my name is heidi wells. i am with a single ball investment institute. -- i am with a sustainable investment institute. we just completed a study of the s&p 500 with business practices. you said there was relief last support among business leaders for disclosure, but what we found was exactly opposite and actual practice. less than 25% of the s&p 500, which is a very substantial

proportion of corporate america, has any kind of disclosure of comprehensive disclosure of direct and indirect spending and less than 20% has any kind of board oversight in place, specifically related to corporate spending. i am wondering if any of the panelists would like to comment on what seems to be a reality gap between expressed the views on the subject and the actual practice. tac>> bruce? >> heidi is right on that. the center sent out a letter to the s&p 500 companies at the end of july asking them to disclose policies and practices for handling independent and expenditures. we heard from about 60

companies. there are a handful that said they would not engage in independent expenditures. we have had this in discussions with companies. i think the major effort after this election will be addressing with companies this whole issue of independent expenditures and the indirect nature of them. 76 companies have adopted political disclosure, including half of the s&p 100. the issue after the election will be making that more robust and reaching out to companies. >> half of the fortune 100 have adopted? >> yes. >> i think you will find a number of companies that will not be willing to do this on their own when competitors are not required to do it. one of the problems you have is you have to rely on voluntary disclosure and you run into

precisely the kind of problems you are talking about. and even where leaders are prepared to disclose, you may easily run into the same organizations not willing to do it just by themselves, because it potentially puts them in a disadvantaged position. >> this is a footnote, but this whole or reno will require corporate boards to avoid what gene described. there will be a need to manage this rescue. if it is disclosed that somehow your enterprise or persons connected with its have done something of the sort that prompted all of the outburst from it consumers and employees, this is a risk that has to be candidly discussed and dealt with. are we there?

i do not think we aren't there, and i think wlip service is easy. this is another area frrow for kangas to work on. >> my experience would be that most ceos it there or in to give major contributions of any type of mixture the lead director of the board knows about it. to gohmert @? -- >> meredith? >> hi, meredith with the campaign legal center. i have a question specifically for the cdu leadership. the other day there was a column basically asking the rhetorical question, is a worrisome that americans spend less on political advocacy saitn

they do on potato chips? from a business perspective, how do you react to that kind of analogy in which the spending of the money is equated to a robust political conversation, versus concerns about corruption. >> i happen to agree with george will. i would like the same people to spend the money that by the dictatorships. -- that buy the potatoe chips. i do not think that is what he meant. [laughter] >> well said, ed. any other questions? >> ken cooper.

my question is more to ced. back in the 1973 to 1975. when the illegal corporate money finally came to light because of special prosecutors, i do not know if you will see the justice department did indeed on this, but does ced have a strong enough will to go beyond the ceo who date authorized the corporate money and go directly to the board members who may have been left in the dark on this? using the example of rupert murdoch and his stockholder meeting recently with the issue of the $1 million contribution to 527 groups of the republican governor's position. it was discussed and talked about it, but he also knew, and it was later disclosed that they made a $250,000 contribution,

which he never mentioned during the stockholder meeting at all. when you have ceos, in many cases, a pleasing -- approving these types of payments, maybe six losing the border from knowing about it, is there any effort to go directly to the board members of these corporations and asking them, do you know what you're ceo did with corporate political money? to>> role of the board of directors in the past 10 years has changed dramatically. their role of the board has been balanced in relationship to the ceo. the all powerful ceo is gone. the balance has been reset. i would say in most public companies that are not controlled by individual shareholders, most ceos would be very careful about going too far in that arena today because

they will lose their jobs if they do. >> that is a principle we can all subscribe to in one way or another, but the concern that comes out about the comments that threat made earlier and gene davis some inkling of with the subcultures of party interest, a corporate interests exposes the risk that the individual parties in private companies of great wealth and resources will have increasingly larger influence in the political process. ced can work like hell to bring greater awareness to the public about this. we can enjoy social networks that can achieve this social transparency that the most aggressive top-down approach cannot, but it is very difficult for any of us to see a

way to control the influence of the private individual who is indifferent to governance standard, indifferent to the public interest and to the public sector. i am one of those that subscribe to all of the principles we have talked about as a way to get at this, but i think we have to be realistic that is, as a part of this sea change that takes place over a longer amount of time as the ocean deposits this layer of pearl, it takes a helluva long time to make a pro. this is likely something that the ced will not be able to stop talking about. he will not stop talking about it. you have to work with the neighborhood and a individual political action committees to alert people and to alarm people about the influence of big money and decisions in the

public sector. and i endorse everything that' kangas told us to do, but i want to say we have more work to do and more initiatives that some of you can come forward with. >> on >> i do not believe we are going to be able to stop this or necessarily should we stop an individual that wants to make a major expenditure of his or her wealth. most congress people are honest, hard-working people. it takes a unique individual to try to do that job. i applaud them. they would love to be in a position where they did not have to cater to the rich and powerful and the unions and corporations. they have no choice because they must have the money to run at campaign -- ca campaign.

so let's flood them with money so they do not have to listen to and take money from the other people. [applause] >> i want to thank everyone for coming. it has been a very interesting discussion. stay tuned. and we will have a lot more to say about these issues after the election. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> with the midterm elections now only five days away, each night on c-span we're sharing debates from key races around the country. tonight we start at 7:00 eastern with a debate between louisiana's and that senators. -- next senators. then at 8:00, the debate on oklahoma's next governor then that, the illinois senate debate. from the washington post, a republican political operatives are suggesting that the reason rakowski may be on the verge of winning a three-way race to reclaim her seat.

and-- lisa murkowski may be on the verge of winning a three-way race to reclaim her seat. she has surged because of a series of missteps by joe miller. >> which with days until the election day, go online to view archived debates. is that our politics page for twitter feats, upcoming event coverage, campaign ads and other resources. this weekend, see the jon stewart rally saturday at noon eastern. through the weekend we will still lots of campaign events. follow election coverage right through election day.

>> more campaign 2010 programming with a final senate debate, the final debate between new hampshire second district. charlie bass and and the customer -- and annie kuster. annie kuster leads 43 to 56% -- to 36%. >> a former six-term congressman from peterborough, charlie bass. the democratic activist, annie kuster.

now, the granite state debate. [applause] >> good evening, and welcome to the second night of our grand estate debate being held at the new hampshire institute of politics. tonight we're covering the second congressional district. questions will focus on the major issues facing the country, as well as issues that have come up during the campaign. here is a general look at the format for tonight. candidates will get one minute to respond to the question. and we may expand to 90 seconds to get more details on complicated issues. we will allow for 32nd rebuttals. most questions will come from the three panelists. there will be two rounds of questions from the candidates to one another. we have two candidates and tonight's debate. there positional was determined

by a drop earlier today. they are republican charlie bass and democrat annie kuster. there are other candidates on the ballot but said notdid not meet our requirements to participate in the debate. at this time we welcome the candidates. [applause] we do have three panelists tonight. they are -- mckellen -- josh mkelven, and josh rodger. >> did a good evening. since president obama has taken office, unemployment has hovered around 10%.

the white house is taking credit for it havnot going higher. in your opinion has this administration done anything right on the economy? >> thank you all for being here tonight. i want to think channel 9 for making this debate possible. i want to thank my opponent. i will say the record at the obama administration over the past 20 months is abysmal. as you said, unemployment was 7.7% now it is 9.7%. the debt of the nation is going up by $4.8 billion per day. unfortunately the president and harry reid and nancy pelosi embarked on a course of spending to get us out of the recession. spending almost one trillion dollars. the average cost of a drop in

new hampshire under the stimulus was over $300,000. we're no better off now than we were 20 months ago. did it save jobs? maybe it did, but the number of jobless people in new hampshire is higher than it was 20 months ago. it is time for a change. we need change in washington now. we cannot afford to wait another two years. >> thank you. it is great to be here. congressman bass has been in washington for 12 years, took 15,000 votes and voted for all its economic policies that cause this economic crisis in the first place. the bottom line is that we were losing 800,000 jobs per month and doing nothing was simply not an option. and i do not believe the stimulus was handled appropriately, and i think they could have done a much better

job at creating good jobs right here at home. the fact is that congressman bass cannot have it both ways. he said the stimulus says not create jobs, but frankly the company and board for which he says is applying for millions of jobs of with the stimulus right now. congressman bass is trying to say one thing on the campaign trail and another in the boardroom. that is the problem with washington, it is double talk, and we need a new approach. >> what is the best evidence that democratic economic policies are working? >> i am not saying they are working, i think we need a new approach, but we need to create jobs by cutting taxes for small businesses. the truth is that congressman bass voted all through the bush administration to reward companies that ship jobs

overseas. we lost thousands of jobs. i have a job as planplan laid on the website that starts with helping small businesses right here at home. i would care more about main street and congressman bass voting record, caring about wall street. >> you heard it, she said i do not think they are working, meaning the stimulus. now we have an $800 billion expenditure on the part of nancy pelosi and barack obama and harry reid that my word the upon thy opponent has just admitted did not work. if ever there was a reason for a change in leadership is now, because the democrats and my opponent will be wanting to double the size of the stimulus of to see if they can make the

economy turn around better than it did in the last 20 months. >> thank you. >> the new housing -- new hampshire finance housing sector is going to set the record on foreclosures. what should they try to do to bring relief to the foreclosure crisis? >> one thing we have to do a sort out the foreclosure crisis. judges right here in new hampshire have seen the problems coming. and there have been many hearings where they have asked a person to see the paper. the reality is that with all of the changes that went on during that amount of time, they have no idea who even holds the mortgage. they bundled mortgages. congressman bass voted for the kind of deregulation of wall street that led to the economic crisis.

what we need is reasonable reform. we have to care more about people in their homes in new hampshire and the wall street banks that bundled all of these mortgages and has no idea who holds the mortgage now. to >> if there is fraud or negligence committed, they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but we have to get out of the problem. this is not the time to talk about blame, this is the time to work on solutions. those solutions will involve turning the economy around so that unemployment goes down and the people that are in house is better about to be foreclosed on will get jobs and be able to earn a living and pay the mortgage. that is the real answer. if these banks have been committing fraud or negligence, they should be prosecuted. so i support getting this economy turned around and doing it in such a fashion so that we

have real economic growth and not just more taxpayer spending and higher deficits. >> mr. basse, you support the creation of a government committee to look at where to make cuts within the federal government. why do you believe such a committee would be more effective than previous efforts? >> because it is modeled after -- this is a committee that would be a committee and house and senate and offset the spending and taxing of the ways and means and appropriation committees in both bodies. it is modeled after a committee that was the effect upon the current system was established. we would not have all the depression-era programs. i have modeled my idea after that, because i believe universal terrorist -- jurisdiction would use spending

reduction act of any other jurisdiction and bring those issues to the floor. the american people could get real engaged in the business of trying to reduce spending, whether than -- rather and then just taxing and spending. -- rather than just taxing and spending. >> can you explain how much money should be spent? >> i think what we need to do is focus on creating jobs here at home. there was not enough accountability and provision that required that the jobs be created right here. i think we need to go beyond bridges and projects that can are being done.

i have met people all over this district that definitely want access to broadband communication, and they're trying to run a small business or get their children off to college in the western part in northern part of the district, and they are on dial up. people are falling behind with their businesses. i think it needs much more greaccountability. in mind? >> i do not think we need more stimulus. and i do not to think we need to keep spending. what i think we need to do is focus on accountability and creation of jobs here in new hampshire, not jobs that will get outsourced overseas like the 16,000 jobs we have already lost to china. >> it is all about federal taxpayers' money being spent to create jobs.

they do not create any real well. there is 200 billion worth of stimulus remaining that should be returned to the treasury to reduce the death. office of management and budget, president obama is owned agency says the remaining stimulus will not create a single job. >> thank you for the sequence of questions. we have received a lot of questions. tonight we will go ahead and pull that acquisitions and here are a response from the candidates. -- tonight we will go ahead and showed accusations and hear response from the candidates. >> since the day he has became president, the deficit has grown every single day. since pelosi has taken control, they have pushed unemployment to nearly 10% sen.

>> obviously this goes after your message of change. you have one minute to explain why it is wrong. >> i do not understand any of the advertisements that are comparing me to members of congress that are already there. there quarter shopping my picture to an advertisement that can be used anywhere in the country. -- they photshoppeoshopped my picture into an advertisement that could be used anywhere in the country. he voted for deficits, she voted for earmarks, spending that was wildly out of control. the debt went from 4 trillion dollars to eight trillion dollars while he was in washington. and what i know is the voters of new hampshire do not want to get the keys back thto the person

that drove his car into the ditch. >> this is factual and actual. and the debt is going up by 8 trillion dollars per day. the person that annie kuster will vote for the first issue is an office is a third of the reason why. the democrats have had 20 months to make a difference in the economic crisis we face today, and the results are zero. i would point at that my worthy opponent says she works for small businesses, but she lobbied for a law firm. i have signed the fraonts of paychecks as much as tehe back. >> let's have a look at another

advertisement. >> for every single job outsourced in america, two new jobs are created. charlie bass biggest outsourcing jobs is a good idea. >> give us the context in which you meant that outsourcing jobs creates jobs. >> no outsourcing is ever good. i never made any such suggestion. i do not lead to see any job outsourced under any circumstance, but it doeis not always preventable. i would suggest that cutting off trade in this state would be very serious for our economy. this is according to the u.s. trade representative, barack obama's own trade

representative, 3.1 trillion dollars in exports in 2009 alone originated in this state, and almost a quarter of all of the jobs in this state are either directly or indirectly related to exports. i was in charlestown, new hampshire, the other day and i asked him how much of the business is exports, and he said 25% or 30%. >> having heard what you just heard, why do you think advertisement -- >> i will let advertisement speak for itself and his own words. he voted for a tax break that rewards companies that shift jobs overseas. 16,000 jobs in new hampshire. i have met people all across this district. i met a third-generation papermaker in new hampshire, and the last of the paper mills

closed just last week. all across the district i have met people whose lives are really hurting, and they know it is congressman bass that voted and does not care. he cares more for the profits of these companies instead of their lives and their pain. >> candidates, thank you very much. we will now move to the first round of canada to candidates question. -- we will move to the first round of the candidates to candidates questioning. >> my question for you, will you vote for nafta pelosi on january 4, 2011 if you are elected to congress? -- will you vote for nancy pelosi/ ? >> the answer is honestly i do not know. and congressman bass talked a lot about the committees and leadership. i know you will vote for the

republican leader that is put forward. i obmay vote for her, but that is not what i am focused on. i am focused on creating jobs for people right here in new hampshire. i am not going to congress thinking about the committee or leadership. i was raised in the republican households, and i know about bipartisan working together, bringing people together to get things done. that is the kind of work i have done in new hampshire, and that is the kind of work i will do to help police right here in the second district. . .

we know what will happen on january 4. there will be new leadership in the washington. there will be real change. to the extent that he party movement for the first time in my career has been about reducing taxes, spending, deficits, and getting the government under control. i support it. i think it is a good idea.

i have been in favor of less government and lower taxes for a long time. i got a desk plate when i entered congress that said "it is the national debt, stupid." >> would you end social security? >> of course not. >> a question from one of our viewers. it comes from charlotte, located over in swansea. she writes in the current attack-style climate, republicans refused to work with democrats, and vice versa -- what will you do differently to get others to work with you? >> thank you, that is the most important question of this entire campaign season. i was raised in a republican house will. -- household. i had a bipartisan of bringing.

i care about bringing people together to solve problems. that is the work i have done in new hampshire to help families, with the creation of the college savings plan, bringing together the business community, to help a family is saved, tax-free. thousands of the lease across the state have benefited. we have even be able -- been able to create scholarships to attend right here. those are the types of things i have done working across party lines. that is what i will do in congress --get past the bipartisan bickering. we need a new approach. not the 12 years prior with president bush and dick cheney and newt gingrich. >> responding to the mill question -- >> for your four months ago my opponent characterized a mission as "i want to go to congress to

for the barack obama agenda." on health care it is my understanding there was not a single, a bipartisan meeting on health care reform until after the massachusetts election. my opponent will support nancy pelosi and barack obama and harry reid. [unintelligible] when i was in the congress i never made a partisan speech on the floor. i have worked with members of the other party on the transportation and intelligence committees. i will continue to do so in the next congress. going to congress to further the obama administration agenda is not a definition of working with the other side. panelists, back to concerning the military question. >> mr. charlie bass, on don't

ask, don't tell -- is it time to let gays openly serve in the military is are seized the decision needs to be made by the commanders, people in the field. it is regrettable that the administration forced commanders to a conclusion prematurely so they could get an election-year vote from congress. as a result there is a court case now in and out. that is unfortunate. this kind of decision is not about politicians in election years making decisions. it is about those that must command troops. making a decision on whether it is in our best interest of national security to do it. if their decision is to eliminate the policy in the final report i will support it. if not, i will oppose it. >> i think it is fair to say that congress man charlie bass plans to rejoin the party of no.

i have taken the same pledge we all take -- for liberty and justice for all. i will stand for equality. i'm proud of that we have here in new hampshire. it is a very important principle. yes, we should work with the military -- but the reality is the joint chiefs of staff have already urged congress to move forward on the issue. it was the republicans and the party of no the stood in the way of moving forward. how can we ask someone to give their life for the country and not recognize their personal values and beliefs? yes, i support equality for all americans. >> a question for mrs. anne kuster? >> the war in afghanistan is in its 10th year. it be used in a remark she made in the summer when you said it is time to defund the war right now? >> i did not say that -- i said not build up the war. i feel strongly about not

getting drag in deeper into the war in afghanistan. charlie bass voted for the war in iraq. he was to build up the war in afghanistan, and dragons in deeper. pedestrians to our national debt. we have lost nearly 10,000 lives between the two wars. it is not making us safer. i have sought counsel from many military leaders and members of congress to have been very helpful in me understanding this. the bottom line is, we need a much more narrowly defined mission of counter-terrorism, not the open-ended counterinsurgency. but we need to do is focus on keeping america's sake. al qaeda has moved from afghanistan to pakistan, to yemen, to somalia. we need to coordinate intelligence of be more focused on attacking the terrorists wherever they may be. getting in front of a threat, not getting drag in deeper to a long war. >> charlie bass, when will we

know it is time to leave afghanistan? >> when the mission is defined by our commander in chief, barack obama, or whoever succeeds him, is fulfilled, not at a specific date certain. i would hate to think that somebody like anne kuster would be in congress and vote against president obama's surge. i don't know where that would leave our troops. i don't think it is a very wise approach. i must take issue with the president's position with respect to the mission. i don't think it is practical to expect representative democracy in this country. we should build our intelligence capacity in intelligence and -- both technical and human. low-up?

>> i want to go first to josh for question. >> china currently holds trillions in u.s. bonds. it seems to be crimping the flow of raw materials to america and other manufacturers. is a time to rethink our relationship with china? >> the reason they have so much of rss we're buying a lot of their product. secondly, we are running such massive deficits that the federal reserve must monetize it. -- the reason they have so much of our treasury bonds is we are buying a lot of their product. we need to get the debt down to little have to sell these treasury bills around well. china does have 90% of the rare earth materials in the world. if they were not part of the wto, they could tell us to do something else. we have agreements with china

that will force them to negotiate with us so we can be equal trading partners. i don't like currency manipulation. i would urge the administration to do all they can to persuade china to end the practice. but for us to end trade with foreign countries will be very difficult -- devastating for our domestic economy. >> the truth is he has not been representing the people here in the second district. so many families have suffered. 16,000 jobs we have lost to china. the currency manipulation is a real problem. right now we have a complete trade imbalance. that is not fair trade. let me give you the example of the paper industry. it is important in northern new hampshire. china has subsidized there's to the point where we have lost every single job, not just thousands -- but not done to the very last job in late new hampshire at the cascade mill

last week. there are couple of bills hanging on in the state of maine, but it was the policies that charlie bass voted for during the bush administration -- outsourcing and rewarding companies that shipped jobs overseas -- that is hurting new hampshire families here. i will represent new hampshire families in congress. >> let's talk about immigration. >> anne kuster, you have said the controversial arizona law regarding illegal immigrants is not only wrong, but unconstitutional. can you explain why? >> back to equality and equal protection laws. i don't know if you have the opportunity to see the footage -- the attorney general's office tried to make a film for the police to enforce it. it cannot be done without arbitrary decisions. you have no way of knowing if it is an illegal immigrant, or not.

i had the opportunity to meet with people all over the district. particularly in a given region. i met a wonderful gentleman at hispanic festival who was so proud that he was going to have the opportunity to vote for me. i think that we need legal emigration, need to enforce the laws at our borders. i support the president for sitting in the national guard. we need to focus on employers from attracting illegal immigrants into the country because it is undermining our work force. it is unconstitutional because of our equal protection laws. >> yes, charlie bass, the same question -- where you stand on the arizona law? >> my opponent avoided talking about amnesty. that is what she supports.

amnesty for illegal aliens in this country. i know a lot of good constituents in the county who are hispanic. when i was in congress our office help them to become legal citizens. they do not like the illegal immigration situation. as far as arizona is concerned, i don't blame the governor for doing what she did. not only are the problems of the border about entering, but about drugs, murder, people who rigid law-abiding citizens who live near the border have been their lives threatened daily. i believe it should -- is perfectly legal to ask a foreigner in the country for his or her passport. why is there such a big problem asking anybody to show you their driver's license or any other form of identification? >> of like anne kuster to have the opportunity to respond -- i would like her to have the

opportunity. >> amnesty is a word that he is using -- i have talked about a legal path to citizenship. congressman charlie bass would have no better success in forcing this law than they have had down in arizona. how can you tell, congressman, one hispanic person from another? it could be the governor of new mexico, anyone. unless we want to lose the values that we stand for, equality -- do you want to carry your passport all the time? do you want to have your driver's license check all the time? how do you know? it is not only arizona. there are dozens of states that are considering this legislation. i know as a citizen of new hampshire i don't to be stopped and pulled over arbitrarily. >> i will give mr. charlie bass 30 seconds to respond. >> "legal path to citizenship"

means allowing illegals to become legal citizens without leaving the country -- that is amnesty. that is the issue. there is no question. i don't support the idea that people who have been in this country illegally, just because there are so many, should get legal status. if 50 of us went down the highway over the speed limit, the police cannot do anything about it -- that is no wareasono raise the speed limit. we can work out emigration, but not this way. as you don't have to pull people over based on the color of their skin. >> we can continue the discussion by moving to our second round of questions. it can it will get 30 seconds to ask the question, and thereupon a will get up to 90 seconds to respond. you go first this time around, mrs. anne kuster. >> you had 12 years in washington and you voted for all

the policies that devastated our economy including the deregulation of wall street. you voted to allow big banks to trade risky derivatives and credit default swaps that led directly to the crash, and then after the crash you represented a group of republicans who cheered on and advocated for the wall street bailout that i post. but when it came to reforming wall street, you called the bipartisan reform law " extremist." what you keep standing up for wall street banks over new hampshire families? -- why do you? >> first of all, that is a ridiculous charge. you have accused me during the campaign for voting to raise and veterans benefits which never did -- whether to lower them. for bernie madoff, the bp oil spill -- for at the loss of 4000 jobs in the county that apparently never existed, and

now you have this complicated sort of train wreck some time a cast of what you're there that did something that caused the entire ruin of the u.s. economy. this is not a campaign about those kinds of issues. this is a camping about where we need to be a year ago from today -- it will not be where we are today. the choice you all have before you tonight is between someone who has spent the last three months talking about my issues in congress, and picking apart my voting record. i am proud of my voting record. and she is trying to ignore the real issue here. why is unemployment at 9.7%? what we have $1.50 trillion deficits? we need change in washington now. >> your question for mrs. anne kuster? >> for years you have supported a state income tax for new hampshire. do you still think that is a

good idea? >> i do not support an income tax. what this campaign is all about is federal taxation. here is what i am opposed to -- taxation that rewards corporations over people in their real lives. congressman charlie bass voted for taxes to encourage companies to ship jobs overseas. i think we need to close those tax loopholes. i want to focus on tax relief for middle-class families, for hard-working new hampshire families, families i have met all across the district. that is where we need to focus tax relief, and small business. 65% of new hampshire people worked in small business. i proposed tax relief to repeal the capital gains tax, for investment in small business. congressman charlie bass as opposed that idea. but i want to stay focused on tax relief for middle-class families so that we can create jobs and get everyone back to work. that is what people want and they need a new approach in washington. >> we want to go to will recall

some hot topics directed to you individually. >> mr. charlie bass, your praise in 2006 for helping the company for your advocacy of renewable energy legislation, and for setting up a meeting between its president and a cabinet member. just three days after you left congress, if you bought at least a half million dollars of its privately traded stock. you began working out this private bill before you were a private citizen. can you explain how that was proper? >> first of all, josh, this has to be the most ridiculous issue i have ever run into. i i did not own a single share of newman wood pellet until 2007, and i submitted stock certificates to prove it. there was no special meeting -- a photograph opportunity for 30 seconds, an amendment i think is important.

frankly, this is a sad commendation -- condemnation of a very good company in the state that is in the alternative energy, carbon our business. i put my own resources on the line because i believe alternative energy will create new economies and real jobs. not government-paid jobs. >> another hot topic question. >> given your extensive background lobbying for the pharmaceutical industry, how do voters now you give them an honest deal? get real. congressman charlie bass has been working for a lobbying firm and made over $500,000 in the past four years. i want to move ford for the people of new hampshire. i worked on a project called the

medication bridge, to create a program for free medicine for low-income people and seniors in need. >> let's move over to the topic everyone is talking about -- health care. we will give candidates of to 90 seconds to give their answers. we will let their opponents have 60 seconds to respond. we want to kick it over to joshua will direct a question first to mrs. anne kuster. >> in the healthcare debate you have been a strong supporter of the single-payer system. >> i do not support the single- payer system. i have never said that. >> ok, how would government control over overall health-care costs without watering down quality of health care? >> no, i'm all for the quality

of health care, and access to affordable health care. congressman charlie bass tried to say he would repeal the entire health care reform. i don't want to repeal the reform that would prohibit an insurance companies from denying coverage when you need it most, if you have a pre-existing condition, or have been paying your premiums and you finally get sick. that was what was wrong with the system. we needed a change. i met a young woman 25. we were having a wonderful discussion. she let me know she had not had healthcare sensuous 20. she was so excited that now -- since she was 20. she was excited that she could now go on her father's coverage for one year. she planned to get a rude canal. that is the kind of coverage people need. -- to get a root canal. i want to focus on the needs of people with affordable health

care. this is where my republican roots come in -- i believe in increased competition to bring down costs. creating competition among insurers. the unsustainable costs for small businesses with the skyrocketing increases in premiums -- when i get to washington we need a new approach. we need to tackle the cost issue. congress was in gridlock, and they did not take up the cost issue. it is killing new hampshire families. >> you were in congress for a decade. healthcare reform was not a top party for the republican party. why should voters think republicans now have the correct healthcare solution? >> reference the last answer from annie. there is only one registered lobbyist on the stage now -- it is not me. she supports the public option

for health care. the public option, if implemented, would result in single payer healthcare. and she was quoted a couple ionths ago as having savid " don't think of all medicare goes far enough." medicare cuts, five under $75 billion. -- $575 billion. 87 million americans who have coverage to they will lose benefits in have to go to some other type of coverage. that is from the department of labour. up to a 15% increase for people me who have helped savings accounts. >> your time is up. >> i definitely need a rebuttal given that i have been

misrepresented by the congressman. he talks about repealing the entire bill. the reality is new hampshire families need help. small businesses cannot afford these double-digit increases. i never talked about the single- payer. i'm talking about the option as with the public university. we have private colleges all over the state, as this one tonight. i'm talking about an option for those who cannot afford the skyrocketing increase in premiums and are being left with no insurance coverage whatsoever. congressman charlie bass would repeal the whole bill and we would be back where we started. he spent 12 years in washington and did not do a single thing about providing access to affordable health care for new hampshire families. >> one more minute. >> when was the last time that tuitions at public or private institutions went down? it is a great example. it indicates the health of --

the cost of health care will not go down. it will go up. this bill started out with the public option. it is eventually single-payer healthcare. it was dropped because there was not enough support even among democrats. now we have a great expansion of government bureaucracy and coverage without the public option. the effort in the next congress has got to be to change this legislation so it is more competitive, not less. that there will be more availability. health care is universally deductible, and you can get a policy across state lines. that we have meaningful tort law. no word of tort law reform in the bill. these things would make health care in america better. not a great conglomeration of power in washington. >> thank you.

very lovely. let's go to josh rogers for the >> next question > on social security, what is your approach to fixing its finances so that it is still run for young workers who are still paying in the system? >> thank you. i know that the congressman once privatization. and that with a woman in a bakery last week who was 92. i suggested that he supported privatization -- she looked at me with tears in her eyes. she asked what would have happened to her? she knew what happened on wall the meltdownout was true. social security is a secure now until 2037. \ we need to insist on stopping the raiding of the trust fund. we need to get people back to work. the focus of my campaign has

been jobs. when people work, social security will be more secure. we do not need to increase the age, cut benefits, or do privatization which is what the congressman is suggesting. >> stopping the raiding of the social security trust fund when you have a $1 trillion deficit -- get real. personal accounts and not about the stock market. it is not about anyone near the age of 55 or 65. it is about preserving and protecting social security. for better or worse, my opponents approach is the ostrich approach. i have an idea. social security is not about republicans, democrats, liberals, or conservatives -- is about america's retirement them.

the people should be involved in the resolution. we should have a national commission. their recommendation should be put to the congress after an election. >> josh, do you have a follow- up? >> most issues people talk about is that the options on the table -- you can look at raising the cap, raising the age, modifying benefits. >> i think congressman usually says a commission is his answer. i just fell out -- do not need to increase aid to modify benefits. we need to strengthen social security by stopping the raiding of it's just fun, and by getting people back to work. frankly, it has been a big scare tactic in the campaign by well-

financed wall street companies. congressman charlie bass was also a big proponent of bailing out wall street. we need to put people first, not the big banks. >> as you know, raiding the social security trust fund is not the solution -- i have not heard anyone propose that. the problem is two-thirds of the spending is entitlement spending. i don't think i will be elected to avoid facing real issues. social security, medicare are the two biggest the country faces over the next 10 years. we need to attack them, not avoid preserving the programs. >> let's talk a little now about high-speed rail. >> yesterday just over $2

million in federal money was awarded for a study and planning grant on a commuter rail service to connect concord through boston via a could end up costing $250 million or more. is this a good investment? >> first of all, i never thought it would cost as much as it has. when i was in congress we worked on a plan that was unique that involve the state, federal government, and the owners of the rights of way. the rail system could have been put in for less than a quarter of $250 million. the ball the introduction of a bill to allow this to happen. now they're talking about amtrak, or something similar that will cost a lot of money. i support passenger rail and

made it a priority on the transportation committee. there. funds to move in this direction -- there were funds. over the last four years, there is no discussion going on between the parties involved. the only way that it will happen is with a huge amount of government money going in. i can do it differently. >> i also support passenger real, but am concerned about the high cost. the congressman wants it both ways -- to spend, and act like he is frugal. i am a conservative on financial issues -- i'm a frugal yankee. i want to see passenger rail come to new hampshire. i think it can help families get to work and participate in their communities. i spoke to some money and the southern tier who spend so much time to meeting that they cannot participate in their communities

or with their families. i want to use the most frugal approach and not just throw money at the problem. >> thank you. because of time we want to give you each 30 seconds in the last group of questions. this is what we call a lightning round. >> many question whether the government is doing enough when it comes to regulating the internet and social-networking. what should there will be? >> i do have concerns, having raised two sons. we always kept the computer in the kitchen so i knew what was going on. i have concerns for families with the bullying in schools. we do need to take an approach that is protective and will root out criminals and people who want to pray on others on the internet. >> as annie mentioned, i believe misuse of the internet is a serious problem. but it will not be solved by the

federal government creating new regulations. i don't support taxation --we need to promote new technologies to provide the protections of the home we need to keep young people from getting into areas they should not be. i have worked on this issue is when i was in the congress on the committee. >> instead of a closing statement we will ask a clause in question. candidates will have 90 seconds to answer. if they feel is appropriate, should use it to make their final pitch to you, the butter. josh has the question. >> the names bass and mclean are prominent political names. for decades your families were prominent leaders in the moderate or republican party -- today one of you as a liberal democrat, the other increases

the tea party. why have you both moved away from your moderate money inched? >> first of all, thanks a lot for the tough question. i am running for congress because i believe that new hampshire's people want change and want it now. nancy pelosi said in july that unemployment insurance is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. it creates jobs faster than almost any other initiatives. this is the person that anne kuster will be voting for for speaker of the house next year. tonight we have a clear choice between an experienced fiscal conservative committed to real change in washington next year. on november 2, we will decide the direction of our nation. i am running for congress because i care about america. i care about where this country lucy,be for jonathan and ;u

and other children. this election will make the difference between america going to economic ruin, or turning in a dear friend -- in a different direction. this administration has been going bump, bump at the bottom, and there is no reason to believe it would change. on november 2, please, for me and my children, for yours, but for change, and vote for it now. i would appreciate your support on the second of november. >> why have you moved away from some of the moderate philosophies your family embraced? >> i have always supported the fiscal conservatism.

the record from the beginning has been for less government, lower taxes, and living within our means. i consider that to be -- could be a moderate, conservative position. it is what i believe. >> thank you. the party was originally known as the progressive republican party. as my mother said, she did not move. teh tent moved. congressman charlie bass is following this ride out to the tea party, to abolish the department of education, and so on. i'm running as a moderate with progressive ideas on social impacts that impact our state and country, to help families to get back to work. the truth is, the old, broken ways that congressman charlie bass followed in his 12 years in washington will not help us to solve these taunting issues from the jobs crisis and from

afghanistan to the gulf. we need a new approach. instead of tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping jobs to china i want to shut those down and growth companies right here at home with tax benefits that will eliminate the capital gains tax on small businesses and help them to grow. instead of deregulating wall street and using our tax dollars to bail out the big banks after they have failed, i think that we need to make them pay back that bailout in full. it is your money. that is our money. we need to use smart reforms to bring stability to the market. instead of exploiting the national debt by voting for court projects, it is remarks, subsidies, and tax loopholes for big oil companies, and want to end those and freeze congressional pay until we have balanced budgets again. on every one of these issues congressman charlie bass voted for the old ways. on november 2 i ask for your but

for new approach to put people first. >> thank you to you both. we have run out of time. that wraps up the debate. we want to thank everyone for taking part. the next biggest ron and on the contentious gubernatorial race with the incumbent and the rebel republican challenger. >> with the midterm elections not only five days away each night here on c-span we're showing debates from key races around the country. looking tonight we begin at 7:00 m. eteg candidas wanted to be the next senator of louisiana. the incumbent is running against the democratic counter. at at o'clock p.m., a debate. one hour later the focus is on

the illinois senate race. the new hampshire, and minnesota. republicans have wiped out the advantage held by democrats among women, catholics, and less affluent americans according to an analysis of the news poll by cbs, and "the new york times to get all these groups supported president obama. >> cspan, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, "washington journal." and weekdays watch the live coverage of the u.s. house. weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forums. every we can look for our signature interview program on saturday evening, on sunday nights -- also the popular prime

minister's questions. through november, campaign coverage. our programming is available at any time online. >> coming next, the candidates to be the governor of rhode island -- frank caprio, lincoln chafee, and john robitaille -- a poll of 750 voters released october 2 found lincoln chafee leading the other two, 35%. the cook political report reads the race a tossup. they're joined by four third- party candidates at this hour- long debate. >> rhode island needs a new

leader. the election is only days away. tonight seven men -- only one will become the next governor. it is up to you to decide who will. live from bryant university. >> the candidates are all here. they answer your questions. you can hear how they stand on the issues that are most vital to citizens of rhode island. we're hosting the debate with the league of women voters. they have gathered the candidates and expert panelists. i would like to thank the seven candidates who are here. we will follow up with a post-

debate analysis. let's begin by introducing the seven candidates. first, ronald algieri. john robitaille. . joseph lusi, frank caprio and kenneth block andl. the order has been determined by a drawing. >> my name is ronald algieri, and i want to be our next governor. ideas are the cornerstone of democracy. i have many ideas that i believe will help the people of rhode education, social issues, energy, and government. the main thing of my candidacy is that the state government is too large. there is a much duplication of law and bureaucracy. the cost is ultimately passed on

to us all. i know this cannot be changed overnight. it will take the dedication of all branches of government for a long time to reduce the duplication and waste of resources, and allocate saved once to problems that have been neglected. i'm running because i want to make a difference in our world. please go to my website to read in the till my ideas to change our state. thank you for your consideration on tuesday. >> mr. john robitaille? >> good evening, my name is john robitaille, and i would be honored to be your next governor. i've from central falls, graduated from rhode island college, and served as a u.s. army officer. i spent time and labor relations. third then i came back to rhode island and started a small business and ran it for over 20 years. rhode island is in tough

financial stress right now. as your governor i will tell it to you straight. we need to cut spending, lower taxes, and create jobs in this great state. career politicians created this mess. they cannot fix it. together we can. >> thank you. mr.. >> i want to be next governor. i have a family-owned business. i understand labor. i want to be the people's governor and advocate regarding for closure, home sales protection, the job creation. i will in foreclosure. i would have a first of its kind revolving fund. people can have the opportunity to refinance the loans if the banks will not modified. all homeowners and small business owners need access to

cash because banks are not lindsey. i will create a public-private work project administration and bring back the wpa. i want to freeze property taxes, and have a a program -- onward bond. i will operate of understudy. we would get those who are taking away the major purchases in the state. >> joseph lusi joseph? >> i would like to think channel 6, the league of women voters, and others for having integrity to include all candidates. this is a historic election because the country faces immense challenges, and they're showing up in every state. the first one is very simple. is money, the issue of money and politics. i will put the challenge to every undecided voter, 30% or more.

i challenge all the voters to take the money out of politics by not voting for any politician putting more than $100,000 in this race. there is absolutely no necessity for having money in politics today. i can have a youtube posting at, as effective as a television ad that cost me $10,000. let's get into the future and take the money of politics, and vote for someone who is a real, true independent, like myself. >> mr. frank caprio, you have one minute. >> good evening, i want to be next governor. i want to thank all of you for turning in tonight. this is an important debate with fine and up on this pudding. we need to make an important decision as to who will leave the state. in the most qualified. i have met with some rhode islandrs and small businesses over the past year.

we all have a lot in common. my grandfather came here and not speaking english without money or formal education. he had the ability to get up every morning and work card. his biggest job was a neighborhood milkman. but it didn't matter. what the country and state afforded him was the ability to see his kids get a good education, and his grandkids do things he could never dream of, like run for governor. when i get to the state house of will fight every day for you. i know you're wondering how you might pay the mortgage next week or pay the rent next week. i know that things are tough. we will turn the stayed around. >> mr. kenneth block? >> i owned two small businesses. i have a first and third grader. i started a political party. i have a wife who has the understanding and tolerance of the sand. i can tell you why i did it.

i have not been happy with the job our elected officials have been doing, republican or democrat. i feel like the two-party system does not give this a good choice. we have candidates -- we ultimately want what is in the middle -- good jobs, prosperity, a quality education. we do not get that. in my professional life and businesses, state governments come to me for interest and help. i want to help our state government do better. i believe we can fix the problems we have. we just need quality individuals running who are not wrapped up in politics and into the parties of republican or democrat. we can work together and together we can make a difference. >> mr. lincoln chafee? >> thank you. i like to thank channel 6 and

all your viewers, and the university. through the course of this campaign i have been talking about the challenges that face us in this state. we have high unemployment, a budget deficit that might exceedh $300 million mightow will we turn that around -- that might exceed $300 million. how would turn that around? a focus on the abc's. we have made a huge investment in the people-mover. economic development that will then occur around this inter-modal system. b -- we need to solve the budget deficit with an honest approach. c-- we need to clean up corruption in the state. the key is an economic development. >> we will begin with issues, questions, discussions.

some questions are submitted by viewers. candidates will have 45 seconds to respond, and seven wild cards. this will give the candidates another 30 seconds to talk on an issue. let's turn things over to tonight's debate panel. mark? the brown university professor, and scott, a political analyst for the npr station of rhode island. mark, we'll start with your question. >> let's start with the question and get it out of the way. my phone has been ringing off the wall the last 48 hours. people on one side say this was undignified and you don't speak about a president of the u.s. -- any president that way.

on the other end, people thought it was brilliant. time that someone pulled off the president. mr. ronald algieri, where you fit in the spectrum? >> i fit in the middle. i understand mr. frank caprio's for a stretcher with a leading member of his own party who is denying him an endorsement, and was not favoring him or the senator lincoln chafee, a good friend of the president -- and i think it was inappropriate,. a harvard graduate should deal to speak more eloquently on an issue where he feels slighted. he could have taken a president to task, but in a much better way. >> mr. frank caprio? >> i knew that we would get the

shoving question. i have the highest level of respect for president obama. he has a tough job. however, this was not about addressing the president of the u.s. and his official role. this was about politics and back room politics at its worst. i was just looking for the courtesy of the white house let me know what it would do with the endorsement, not letting some reporter called me late on sunday night to tell me the day before the president was coming. so, with that -- put that aside. >> your time is up unless you want to use another wild card. >> i feel like i'm playing blackjack with all these wild cards. going forward, this is about what is going on in your living room now, and sending some of to the state house who will fight for you. when i said it showed it to the president, what i meant was i want to go to the state house and i don't care who is sitting on the other side of the does, whether you, someone from the

legislature, or anybody else -- and they're not looking out for the best interests of what ellen, i will tell them to shove it, and we will change the state one day at a time. i look forward to your support. i won't back down to anybody. >> anyone else? >> the fact we're even talking about this seventh thing is kind of ridiculous. the real issue lies deeper. if you were to say that obama -- means deficits been in the that is a big issue -- here is the guy who is spending $1.40 trillion then we are bringing in. when you tell someone to shove it, are you telling him to shove his money as well? we have two bond issues as well the have a letter of federal moneys coming in -- i say we don't take it. i think that no think you would have served just as well. >> anyone else? >> mr. frank caprio should have known that mr. obama and i serve

together in the senate and were friends -- after left eye was co-chair for obama and traveled around the country for him. he is in a very difficult position. mr. frank caprio should have recognized that. in fact, president obama did not make any endorsement. those comments -- mr. frank caprio says he is standing up for the taxpayer, but if you work together to get elected, surely you would have a bad relationship with the president, and that would not be good for rhode island. >> for president obama to come into our state and we with of by funded thousand dollars in donations, and not understand the pain and suffering the people and the state of going through, i found that totally unacceptable. he was playing politics with his visit for the first moment before he arrived, and i would not let it pass. rhode islandrs are looking for someone who will tell anyone on the other side of the table that we will continue to fight for what is right here.

for senator lincoln chafee to say he was working president obama in the election, that is all good. but when you have a democrat running, working hard, trying to win the votes of the people of rhode island, and he is the head of the democratic party, i think he needs a better reason than he gave not to endorse. >> mr. frank caprio is another wild card -- for those people keeping track. anyone else here? >> if only these candidates would spend more time on the substantive issues we need to soft. the whole idea of an endorsement, the fight, all the media coverage -- the headlines should scream "leading candidates have no idea how to fix the problems we have." we need to get together and move on. let's get answers to issues we care about -- jobs and education. >> mr.?

>> the outgoing governor talked about cities and town managers and how they are whining. i did not like hearing that. i was very disappointed to hear mr. frank caprio said. but inside sometimes we all think you need to say what is on your mind. i wish more political leaders would reach up to independent candidates. there is a struggle to stand up and say what is right. was having to get a phone call, and thinking mr. obama hopinghear my measured ea -- he would hear my message about the wpa. >> nearly half of rhode island public school students are knowledgeable for free and reduced price lunches. what is the main thing that we need to change to deal effectively with increasing poverty and public schools? >> the greatest cause of poverty is fatherless families. 97% of the family's living and

is subsidized housing in the state are single mothers with multiple children. where are those fathers? we need to find them and hold them accountable for decisions they made to bring to an end to this world, another believe is the government's responsibility to take care of them. we need to enforce the laws we have and look for deadbeat dads. it is not government's responsibility to feed those children -- is the responsibility of the parents. >> yes, as an employer i have met all sorts of people. people are so hungry they can barely wait for a paycheck. day labor is an important issue and the stick. we need to address it make it easy for businesses to hire employees without a tremendous amount of red tape. to the question, a good friend of mine said i cannot go to work country. i grew up hungry -- no one can go to work for a. we need to understand these issues. >> mr. lincoln chafee?

>> the question said that half of the rhode island students are eligible for free lunches. i talked about fatherless children -- i don't think half of rhode island students are fatherless -- he talked about fatherless to them. the issue is, what happened to our economy? certainly, seeing that tax cuts president bush put in with the surpluses, and the war in spending -- we were spending and cut revenue. john robitaille is advocating. >> i have a specific plan to bring jobs for our under- educated work force, nearly 100,000 people. i want to bring manufacturing jobs backed by secreting a venture-capital fund. having dollars matched by a professional firm. track those businesses. i challenge the leading candidates to tell me how you

will create one specific job. i would love to know where in your plan you have something specific and proactive. >> mr. lincoln chafee? >> to do we cut the ribbon on the connector to the train station -- the closest >> finally, we collected -- connected on, due to the leadership. >> mr. robitaille, 30 seconds. >> mr. chafee, i understand the problem. you want to raise taxes to pay for everything. we spend $3 billion on social welfare programs, and we spend too much. we have very generous programs. if we have to take care of

certain people, but 150% of the children are eligible for free lunch, something is wrong. we have to figure out why. >> mr. block, another 30 seconds. >> i have another plan to help create jobs with a tax deferment plan to put retained earnings back into their business. there are hundreds of thousands of empty spot base. what will you do proactively that will bring jobs to the state? how do you bring them index -- bring them in? >> mr. lusi? >> i find it asserted that the idea of borrowing money to create jobs is an economy. essentially, we are borrowing money for any economy.

that is not what the economy is about. if the government should not be the economy. bond issues should be passed in a healthy environment, not the economy itself. anyone loading needs to reject it listed two bond issues because we do not have it. when you are in the hall, stop digging. -- in a whole, stop digging. >> anyone else on the topic? mr. giroux? >> i want to create a public policy in administration, that means folks have access to revolving funds. we have long-term unemployment. those that have been out of work one year, for them to continue getting benefits, they need to participate in the work projects program. we can provide loans to homeowners and business owners

while working to get the unemployed back to work. >> anyone else? we will move along. your question for mr. giroux. >> this question is about political corruption. do you think cronyism and political favors adversely affect hiring practices in the public sector in rhode island, and what do you support for addressing this problem? >> every job i have had, i have had to go out and get. i knock on doors. i paddle construction. i would have a difficult time getting a job in the state without knowing someone. that is how i feel. i want to remove that barrier for the new generations that are not connected to the core business standards that are running the major contracts. i absolutely want to create a study to know where our money is going, listening to the

employees in the trenches. they know where the waste is. most studies are used to compare one flat-wage provider with another. we need to listen to the workers. we need them to feel free to speak including metal management, so we know where the waste is. that is how we will save the state hundreds of millions of dollars. >> mr. a algieri, you have 30 seconds. >> as a university of rhode island graduate, i have applied for positions with the state, and never gotten a call back. to answer the question, yes, there must be some problem, somewhere. we need an external auditing to go to our departments to see why homegrown talent is not being used in any way, shape, or form. >> anyone else on the subject?

all along. scott, your question third >> jobs and the economy have been a major focus, but a recent georgetown university study predicts that by 2018, two- thirds of the job in new england will require a college degree, yet today, only 55% of high- school seniors go directly to college. less than half public school seniors are taking the sats. we know a well-educated work force is essential, so as a governor, what do you ensure -- what do you due to insure the school system gets more students ready for college and the work force of the 21st century? >> you expect people to do their jobs, but when two-thirds of the students coming in are in remediation, what does that say for our education system? i feel the entire thing is to be dismantled for enough time for

us to get our feet on the ground. i think we are more or less and over-educated society. beyond literacy and math, we have relegated the physical realm as if it is not worthy. i think we need to embrace real work, getting things actually done. not everyone is a great student. not everyone should continue on in school. i have been an advocate for allowing people to come into craft as they would be guilds. >> mr. robitaille, you care to use your wild card. >> the state of our public schools is in need of radical transformation. i am excited about the commissioner's plans. i support her completely. i am excited about the race to the top funding. we need to ensure that the

skills of our children need are in line with the curriculum they're being taught, and that we have teachers that held accountable with kids that are measured. we need to make sure that what we are teaching them gives them the opportunity to go for the jobs they need to get in rhode island. i am not so sure i agree with that study. i believe we have a lot of advanced manufacturing and a lot tourism. we need to not be stuck on one segment of job growth. >> for those of you at home, mr. robitaille used two wild cards. intel, it was one minute to speak. no one else? mr. black -- mr. block? >> i would negotiate a at a white-collar contract with our teachers union. it is not appropriate to have a blue collar contract. we need to ensure we have good teachers in the classroom.

there is to be a four-point assessment, peer review, parental leave you, and i forgot the other ones. you think i would note. as the time pressure. you could use another wild card appeared >> i will come back to it. >> the question was about k-12 and is funded by -- funded by property taxes. we have that backwards in the state. mr. robitaille has pledged not to raise taxes, which means he has to cut state aid which means making cuts to our school system. we are seeing where gifted programs and sports are being cut. you cannot have it both ways. i'm the only one that is talk about revenue that can come in, so we do not have to cut property taxes that adversely effect arcade-12 school system. >> mr. algieri, he was a teacher

wild card. >> most of my opponents are blaming teachers, or the system they have to work under, but perhaps we need to look at students and families as well. maybe it is not enough. we are fifth highest in the nation in terms of funding education, yet for this in terms of what we get out of it. maybe -- 40th in terms of what we need to what -- what we get out of it. maybe we need to look at what we are doing, and go back to when teachers had the authority, and people respected compared >> mr. caprio, 30 seconds. >> my wife is a high school teacher. she tells me the struggles the kids in our inner city have and how we need to listen to the teachers that are in the classroom. i also support the commissioner in all of the work she is doing with the board of education when in the race to the top competition. i will be a strong supporter of her in holding the teachers accountable.

>> anyone else? mr. giroux? >> i like to see some consolidation in the school system. i support a five-county regionalization program. we struggled with busing and consolidation of small things, but we have to realize that the amount of contracts of convenience that go to out of state firms. there are tremendous savings to be had, certainly with the facilities, and secondly in the consolidation of the schools. i'm not talking out fire in a lot of people. i'm talking about utilizing -- utilize in the consolidations to provide the best of what we have learned in a charter schools and pilot school programs. i think the consolidations will reveal and allow us to find the solutions and give the time for

the kids. all of these professionals, one principal can handle several schools. the supporting administration can be spread. >> mr. algieri, you would like to use a wild card. >> a couple of things i failed to mention were in terms of teachers. as a pharmacy technician, i need continuing education. teachers are not required to get continuing education. this would help drastically, and it should be mandated by the state to >> anyone else? >> we have come around to mark curtis. your question for mr. caprio. >> let's talk about jobs. a lot of people are angry feeling that the $78 million was only given to curt schilling and his company because he is a famous baseball star. does that deal need to be rescinded? what would you do with 38

studios? >> it is a bad deal for rhode island. that deal has not closed yet. it is a little secret that has not gotten much attention. on november 3, i will be in that office, and we will find a way to put that deal on hold. if it is going to survive, it will be a deal that works for the taxpayers. right now, there is only down side. if it does not work, the people have another bill on the kitchen table. that is the leadership i will bring to the state house. i laid out an eight-point plan after the deal was negotiated, and they did not respond to any of those points. they need to be incorporated. we need to get credit to the existing small businesses across our state. there are 35,000 small businesses in 0.65% of the people working today. some of those companies do not need $75 million. some of them need $10,000 bid

that is the kind of credit i will provide one i am elected mr.. >> mr. lusi, a wild card? >> this deal is preposterous. we are borrowing it to blow it out. it makes no sense. and we have -- we do not have the luxury. everyone said there are against the stimulus package, that is not the solution to our problem. much lower property taxes and stable money is the solution. >> mr. algieri? >> the one question that was not asked, but i never heard was are the game's going to be worth the resolve? is the product going to sell? they talk about dream teams and all-star lineups, but the reality is it is a market of

young people in a crowded marketplace. will these games make money? i do not think that was asked. >> anyone else on 38 studios? mr. giroux? >> the deal, even with a new board of directors, the curt schilling deal was an inside deal, somehow, someway. i would like to personally donate and old video game, pac man, space invaders, whenever it is, and that video game will make more money than that curt schilling deal sooner, quicker and better. he got an inside deal, and it needs to go with >> mr. block, you have 30 seconds per >> i am the only cabinet that looked at the deal, said i did not like up with a better idea. isn't that what we are looking for?

instead of posturing and figure out who can obstruct the deal -- by the way, we should not obstruct the deal. much more important is to make sure we do not make the mistake again. my rhode island red program is doing all of that. >> your question for mr. block. >> do you favor changing the state constitution so the governor and lieutenant governor run as a team, and if so, who would you pick as your lieutenant governor? >> i am supportive of the idea. it makes perfect sense. when we have right now does not make sense right now. ultimately, the lieutenant governor is likely to be pulling his or her or in a different direction. the government's is difficult, and having two qualified excellent candidates working together with the same mission gets twice as much work done.

i would be an advocate for. i would push it as hard as i could. i am all the way for it. unfortunately, the woman i thought would be best for me to run what had -- had medical problems. it is unfortunate she is not in here and working with me. 0 foot, on my reelection bid. >> mr. giroux, a wild card. >> i believe the governor and the lieutenant governor should be bringing new business to the state. i would support robert ventur ini. he was out there meeting young professionals in the city. he offered me an open hand 16 years ago, and i consider him a charming gentleman. i think he would be at the pulpit ambassador for the state. to record >> -- and appropriate

ambassador for the state. >> anything else? >> this question is about the burden of prison. the other to the people in state prison, and how would you reduce the prison population? >> it is a huge cost. one thing i learned from being there is any time you have 25 -- 24-hour a day, 3 ended 65-day a year service, it is very expensive. it is very, very expensive. in answer to your question, i think some of the lesser, a victim-less crimes, we might have to look as the costs spiral. some of them are moral crimes. it is a difficult issue. we have to look at these heavy costs of 365 days a year and 24

hours a day. you might say the women part of victims themselves -- are victims themselves, and low- level of marijuana use. >> this is the only round in which you can use your wild cards. mr. alger, you of a teacher while tired. -- mr. l algieri, you would like to use your wild card. >> we begin the discussion on two things that i believe should be legalized -- paucity -- prosecution, marijuana, and gambling. these would provide us revenue immediately. a lot of these gentlemen have good plans, but they will take times to develop. the best thing we can do is to get -- is to get revenue right away to cover the $400 million deficit we face next year.

i do not know how much money will be made, but i know it is better off than clogging our jails, and click -- and keeping people in prison, not giving them any chance of redemption. these people can choose their destiny, these souls who have turned to these professions. >> mr. chafee. >> i think that he would be to make sure that in the crimes the individuals are given support, care, and instead of going to prison, another way of dealing with the crime. counseling, and the type of support that would keep them out of the aci. >> mr. lusi. >> the costs are mont -- mind- boggling.

there are ala is it there is a lot of waste in this area. -- there is a lot of waste in this area. i have been an advocate for the legalization of marijuana. i will take a victimless crime all way. >> anything else, mr. caprio? >> the reason our prisons are overflowing is because we have a bad economy. people have nowhere to turn to make ends meet. i put out a detailed jobs plan. it has been written up in the "new york times." i have been endorsed based on many of the ideas that deal with getting the economy moving. i respectfully ask it to look at my business plan and see how it will stimulate the local economy. >> mr. lusi. >> i think it would be hard-

pressed to find anyone who is lost more money in the state of rhode island and frank caprio. it is not a good record. the state is bankrupting the city of providence, by law, because they are under a fiscal deficit, the whole city is bankrupt. the rest is nonsensical talk, and everyone is looking to uncle sam to bail them out. >> mr. caprio. on behalf of the professionals that work and the treasury department that have been commended nationally for the returns of the state pension fund. it has outperformed funds -- it is outperform while cutting fees in half. the problem is is paying out one quarter of a billion more of your then it takes in, and that is why my pension reform system will sustain that system.

mr. chafee will continue to bankrupt the system. >> mr. lusi, your final wild card. >> the rate of return is estimated to be at 8.25%. that is a pipe dream. no one knows how bad it is. the candidates that are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars have the unions in their pocket. rhode island, a vote independent, a vote lusi. >> we will launch into our lightning around. the candidates will only have 30 seconds to answer, and no wild cards will be used. let's go back to our panelists. >> mr. algieri, in the 1990's rhode island's economic development was pretty good. fidelity investment worked here.

what was the economic development corporation bill in so well in the 1990's that it has not done in the previous administration? >> part of it is the general economy overall. you have the birth of the internet, the birth of the technology that took off. the economy on the whole was better. probably, taxes were a little bit cheaper in the state. my property taxes were a lot less. i see you shaking your head. they were less than they are now. i was not making enough money to pay that much in state tax, so i could not testify to that one. >> your question for john robitaille. >> do you favor full-blown casinos at twin river? >> i believe it is up to the people of the communities of lincoln and newport.

i am concerned that rhode island is number one in state lottery sales per capital -- per capita. the next highest in south dakota. we are feeling our government to the tune of close to $300 million of what is basically a tax on people who could least afford it. >> your question for todd giroux. >> are you offended by the anonymous money being spent on political ads this year? >> i've spent $3,000 on my campaign. a good percentage of that are those bumper stickers outside. i am not sure it is the only political bumper sticker. still free to check them up. it would be nice to have a more fair election process might messaging of bringing back the wpa brings so well with the elder generation who remembers mixing cement, the sidewalk, and

my messaging of foreclosure and protecting folks in their homes is so important. >> scott, your question for mr. lusi. >> rather than cut local aid, the state of massachusetts raised its sales tax. their economy is much better than ours. their unemployment rate is lower. their work forces better- educated. to lead the country in job creation last month. what is wrong with rot island? >> i think the sales tax is a good idea. let's get realistic. half of our population does not pay anything. when you institute a sales tax, it brings them on board. i am not against the sales tax. i am against it being used to go into the coffers of contracts that are unsustainable. you cannot have a sales tax and

sustain the union contracts and the government spending the way it is. >> mark curtis, your question for mr. caprio. >> how do we solve the gay marriage controversy in the state? should the general assembly, the court system, or a referendum and decide it? >> i would be in favor of it going on the ballot, but i would sign it into law if adopted the general assembly. >> mr. fitzpatrick, your question for kenneth block. >> do you favor the 10-point plan that is the proposed by citizens for an accountable legislature? >> absolutely. we need systemic reform throughout our government. the way our legislature operates, the manner in which we passed bills -- you name it. i was the first candidate to sign on. my name was on there the day they released it. i supported it. i would do it again. >> your question for mr. chafee. >> this question is about health

care. what is the most important decision you would have to make about implementing the federal changes in health care? >> i believe working with the new exchange that has to be formed. a federal law gives a great deal of flexibility to the states, and forming an exchange is the central part. working to make that a bus in a country is a challenge i welcome. >> the clock has wound down. but read it or not, we are almost up. we want to give our candidates one last chance to address you. they will have one minute, plus the time they did not use with their wild card. mr. l gerry, you have two minutes per >> i want -- mr. l. gerry, you have two minutes. >> i want to thank the league of women voters.

frank, whose experience in our legislature can help us reduce waste, and the pension sound. lincoln, his experience is unique perspective and ability to utilize washington's power and wealth to howard vantage. todd, who singleminded effort is to insure homeowners are not overrun by big banks recklessness and greed. joe's healthy skepticism of government power and borrowing against the generations. john, his knowledge of the executive branch, and as labor relations experience will be of great importance going into contract talks and the aforementioned health-care negotiations. me, a check of many trades, a man who believes the best qualities of these men and others can be combined into a team that working together will not just bring a state out of recession, but be a shining example of what can happen when good men put their differences aside and work together. if you share my vision, a vote

for me on november 2. my name is ronald algieri. >> mr. robitaille, you have as much as three minutes. >> i have a list of priorities. the first is to create jobs. the only way to create jobs is to become competitive. businesses and business owners will want to bring their businesses here and expand and create the jobs we desperately need. the only way to do that is cut spending. we spend too much money in rhode island. the general assembly passed an $8 billion budget. our cities and towns collect another $2 billion. we spend $10 billion. we have 1 million people, yet we have $10 billion. rhode island is not have a revenue problem. we do not need to raise taxes.

we need to cut spending. we have created a social welfare program that traps people into a destructive code dependency with government. when young women turned down raises for fear of losing child- care subsidies, something is wrong. we need to empower people, not enslave them. we need to insure we are giving people incentives. we do not do that now. we keep seven trapped in this awful life of poverty. we can't look at each of these programs and tape -- we can look at each of these programs and taper people off of the need and make sure they have the opportunities that would better themselves. we also have to fix the public employee pension program, which has been allowed to turn into a sticking time bomb. we have what is estimated to be a $6.1 billion unfunded

liability. promises remain to public employees, and we have to honor them, but we have to change the program. i will work with members of the general assembly and the public employee unions to stop this program, fulfill the promises we have made, but go forward with a new plan that is fair to them and affordable to all taxpayers. in the first 90 days, i will sit down with each department director, and have them submit three budget dirt -- scenarios. i will sit down and look, line item, by line item, to where your tax dollars are being spent. if i do not believe they are being spent wisely, and you are not getting a significant return, i will not approve the funding of those programs. you need a governor that is tough. i am that man. i would love to have your vote this coming tuesday.

>> thank you, mr. robitaille. mr. giroux, you have one minute 30 seconds. >> thank you. ronald, i applaud you for pointing out the good aspects of this -- of each candidate. i think we need a team. i want to disagree with him, i am not single-minded. i agree that we need to cut spending. we do not have a revenue problem. i want everyone to know that in my jobs wpa program, that is on- the-job training for a long-term unemployed, creating a property tax freeze, doing a jobs and then there study -- these are ways to discover the waste in our state. the tender study, the businesses that walkaway with tens of billions of dollars in contracts, we need to hire

people to oversee them so we do not see construction workers wasting time on the side of the road. we need to spend money effectively. our contracts need to eat -- reflect that. every foreclosure that is happening, or about to happen, the budget problems in the state -- we need accountability, budget, and consolidation. please vote for me, todd giroux, an independent candidate. >> mr. lusi. >> this has been a high honor for i think more candidates should be able to participate. the process has not been exactly democratic. it boils down to money. i am running this campaign on $50. we have millionaires spending millions of dollars.

stay independent, rhode island. vote for an independent mind like myself. >> mr. caprio, you have as much as one minute. >> thank you for listening. you have seen the choices. the choice is simple. if you want someone that will raise taxes, band lincoln chafee is your man. if you want someone to give you double-talk, like mr. robitaille, who was part of the governor association that raised property taxes, and now he runs saying he will cut property taxes. that is not the kind of leadership we need. we need someone that is been in the state house and will go through the budget line by line, making the necessary changes, and run the state the same way you run your households. you make the tough choices, you balance your budget, and we will create jobs in the state. if you hire me, the most common

phrase will be "you are hired." >> mr. block, you have as much as three minutes. >> rhode island is in a political funk. we are used to voting for the lesser of two evils. this guy is not as bad as that guy. we are not voting for the best of the less. we need to adjust our thoughts, and expect more. we need to vote for the best. we need to adjust our expectations. our political process is broken. it is difficult to express how to fix problems that are broken in 30 or 60 seconds did you get bumper sticker responses. this entire campaign has been about a lack of substance and a focus knucklehead stocks.

it does nothing to indicate the character or ideas for the leaders that will best addressed the problems we have. we have to knock it off. we have to a lot people with the right ideas. i have done two of the hardest things an individual can do in the state. i started a political party here in what turned out to be the toughest state to do so. i have started and kept open in this state of high-tech business, and resistant and urged to move across the border to massachusetts. that simple statement is the root cause of our problems. we have to correct our economy. we need to expect more from our government. we need to expect more from our leaders. as voters, i really urge you to listen carefully to not just what happened here tonight, but to what has transpired all the way through in this election and try to understand who has an

idea. you cannot passively talk about a train station and say that as economic development. bumper stickers are not policy. please, i respectfully ask you to check out my website and on november 2, i respectfully ask for your vote. >> thank you, mr. block. -- as much as two minutes. >> thank you to the league of women voters. i have to pay tribute to mr. l jury. he made an important point, and that is bringing people together. there has been too much fighting. the government has been fighting with the legislature, the unions, and the hispanic community. it has hurt our economic growth. i have a record of working well with everybody. as mayor, i had a city council of the other party.

i had four different council president. i work well with all of them. they were at different. every year i had to get aid budget through. i found myself voting against my own party. i was voting against cuts that favored the wealthy, of voting against the war in iraq, against environmental rollbacks, but at the same time, i was able to work well with my party and deliver for rhode island. we have the second highest return behind alaska. for every dollar that goes out, to dollars and 21 cents comes back. that is because i was good at working with my party, even though on many occasions i was not working with them. when the base realignment and

closure bill came up, rhode island gained jobs because of my ability to work well with everybody. >> thank you, mr. chafee, and to all of the candidates. i like to thank my partner and the league of women voters. i would like to thank the folks at bryant university. our coverage continues. the chief political analyst will join myself. we thank you so much for joining us. please remember to go out and vote november 2. >> we are focused on the midterm election. we are showing debates from key races around the country. tonight, we begin at 7:00 p.m. eastern.

then, at o'clock p.m., we will show you a debate between candidates to be oklahomas next governor. one hour later, the focus on his on illinois senate race. -- the focus is on the illinois senate race. from the asheville citizen times, north carolina democratic incumbent, congressman heat shuler said he would vote for himself as speaker over house speaker nancy pelosi if democrats. -- retain control. he says i can actually bring people together. he said that during a two hour debate with his opponent, jeff miller. >> with just days until election day, follow the key races and candidates on c-span with debates every night, and go

online to view archived debates. visit our policy page for other resources. see the jon stewart steven colbert rally by, this saturday, at noon eastern. for the weekend, we will show lots of campaign events. follow the election coverage right through election day. >> more campaign programming with a debate between texas 17th house candidates chet edwards and bill flores. it was held at kxxv-tv in waco, texas. the hill newspaper has bill flores leading. it is represented currently by a democrat. it is rated as liens republic

which r-texas less about one hour. >> let's meet the candidates. chet edwards, and bill flores. the have agreed to stand set -- side by side. they have agreed to the format and rules for tonight. we will begin with an opening statement as to the dual minutes long. we'll have a series of questions. you saw those folks a second ago. will introduce them. then, kennetts between the candidates themselves. -- the candidates themselves.

two rules i want to highlight -- the candidates cannot interrupt each other, and they must stay on topic. here are the panelists. in the elisabeth o'neill middle, and blow -- bill whitaker. this debate will be one hour long. will not take commercial breaks. mr. flores, you have to the wall minutes. >> we have an important election coming up. the reason i'm running for congress is because as i watched barack obama as soon the presidency, and nancy pelosi become speaker of the house, i have watched with great concern the direction the country both. the american dream is in the

process of being destroyed. i watched the job-killing agenda begin to unravel the fabric of our country. i watched unemployment go up. i watched the number of people on food stamps go up. i noticed that it seems like nobody took care of the primary issues that were on the top of minds of everybody -- jobs, private sector economy, and deficit spending. i decided to run at that point in time. you will hear a lot of attacks tonight. my opponent has elected to attack you personally. -- to attack personally. he will say he is fiscally prudent, conservative, and independent. you can affect check this. please be sure and verify the facts. this decision is simple. if you like the direction the

country is going under barack obama and nancy pelosi, you should vote for mr. edwards. on the other hand, if you want to restore the american dream for our children and grandchildren, then i would be humbled to have your vote. thank you. >> mr. edwards, you now have two minutes. >> did it in. i like to share why am, and who i -- and why i believe. i have two young sons. i have been a proud boy scout and little league bad. central texas is a deep part of who i am, and what i believe. my education at texas and them gave me opportunities i could never imagine growing up in a middle-class family. here, in waco, my first met my life -- my wife, and this is where her father married? at the first baptist church. this is where our sons were born.

my life is a deep part of central texas. i have learned what i am, and how to believe. i believe an important part of my job is to fight for jobs for our district. that is why i have fought for 500 important defense jobs, 1100 jobs at the hospital, two thousand jobs to build a much- needed hospital for soldiers, and for the jobs at risk in baylor's recent fire. i have worked on my own research that supports thousands of jobs. on national issues, i believe my job is to represent all the people of my district, not a party, or a privileged few. that is why i voted no on the cap and trade bill, and the health tech -- health-care reform bill because it cost too much. those are sickert programs whose bond should not be broken with

our -- secret programs whose bond should not be broken. i would be grateful for your support in this election. thank you. >> we will now begin our media panel questions. each candidate will get 90 seconds and there will be 30 seconds for a rare bottle. they have not been briefed. our first question is from bill whitaker. >> my compliments to both candidates for showing up, and having the courage and integrity to participate. mr. flores, you have won the condemnation of the 60-plus association, a group that has crusaded for the privatization of social security. he also campaigned with a prominent congressman who supports privatization also. yet, you have made conflicting statements during the campaign about that topic as well as whether the retirement age should be raised.

in detail, what is your position on these two matters, and how does it tie in with entitlement reform? >> first of all, social security and medicare are programs that is banned several generations. we need to protect those programs for today's recipients, and those that are not born yet. the problem is they are not sound today. the unfunded liability of social security is $19 trillion -- 130% of all occurred in -- current gdp. the unfunded liability of medicare is $80 trillion. we cannot fulfil the promises of those entitlements unless the sec stemson. in addition, -- unless we fixed them soon. in addition, trust fund benefits

have been spent. my view on privatization of social security is that it should not be done. i have never said we should privatize social security. i said we should look at how to better handle the trust fund. i do not believe we should raise the retirement age. i have never said we should raise the retirement age. unfortunately, i misspoke a couple of times, and left it unclear. the retirement age should not be raised. we should leave them alone. you will see that raising the retirement age does nothing to insure the long-term survivability of social security card >> mr. flores, you have 90 seconds. >> i believe social security and medicare are a sacred bond we should not break. that is why in congress, i have fought actively against those who have wanted to privatize

social security and medicare, putting at risk the security of our finances and the health of our seniors. mr. -- he is on record as a he supports private accounts. that is privatization of social security. the problem with mr. flores" plan is that over the next decade, it could take over two million dollars out of revenues needed to fund today's benefits for today's seniors. mr. flores should explain whether he would cut benefits for our seniors, raise taxes, increase the deficit, or all three. i have consistently opposed raising the social security retirement age. one week and a half ago, mr.

flores said he had no philosophical objected to raising the age to 70. a reporter said a similar thing just a few months ago. >> it is time for a rebuttal. >> mr. edwards has his facts wrong. i said i was not fizzled to -- philosophically opposed, but i misspoke. the age 70 never came up. in terms of privatization, having private accounts does not include privatizing all of social security. we need to fix social security. it has an $19 trillion on funded liability. the best way to fix it today is to put people to work. the reason the current account is running in deficit is because we have to high unemployment. >> time now for chet edwards or

bottle. >> i have been a strong opponent of privatizing social security or medicare. it would be terribly harmful to our seniors. it would take trillions of dollars out of funds needed to provide benefits for today's seniors, where it would raise taxes or increase the deficit, or a combination of all three. mr. flores has on several occasions said he was open to raising the retirement age to 70. if you misspoke, you misspoke more than once. >> our second question is coming from a list of the colonial period >> what specifically does the federal government need to do to pave the way for the creation of private sector jobs? >> first, i would suggest that we stop over regulating community banks that provide loans to the small businesses that create two out of three

every -- new jobs in this country. wall street banks created the problem. we could create jobs by easing regulation. secondly, we ought to repeal tax laws that encourage u.s. companies to ship jobs overseas. thirdly, i think we need a credible, bipartisan, long-term deficit reduction plan to create the confidence in our economy that will encourage businesses, large and small alike, to hire new people and invest in our future. if we can do those things, we can mate steps forward. at home, i know how important jobs are. i have fought for thousands of jobs. unemployment today is 20% below the national average.

>> mr. flores, you have one minute 30 seconds. >> during the last four years, since nancy pelosi has been speaker of the house, in both times, mr. edwards has voted for her. we have lost 7 million jobs in the united states. since the stimulus bill passed that was supposed to create jobs, we have lost 3 million jobs, including 7000 jobs in this district. the stimulus plan has not worked. let me make it clear that the federal government does not create private-sector jobs. the way to create private-sector jobs is to remove the uncertainty that clouds the minds of people that run small and large businesses. we could repeal obama care. there is a small businessman here that has 21 employees that is staring at a $31,000 increase in medical premiums.

let's replace it. the next thing we need to do is extend tax rates permanently. stop cap and trade. stop deficit spending. reduce corporate tax rates. >> thank you. mr. edwards, you have 30 seconds for a rebuttal. >> by opposing the stimulus bill, he would've voted against a tax cut for 95% of the families in our district. a local economist says it helped create 3000 jobs in our district. he would've voted no to 3000 construction jobs for a hospital in fort hood. he voted against the money need to support research jobs at texas a&m university. we are now where we need to be in our economy.

>> mr. edwards has his facts wrong if you go -- wrong again. you'll see the stimulus bill only created 1200 jobs at a cost of 318,000 jobs per job. stimulus bills, federal governments do not create jobs. the private sector does. we need to remove the uncertainty from the minds of people that run large businesses and small businesses, so they have the confidence to create private-sector jobs. >> thank you, mr. flores. >> one of the biggest things in the news was the passage of the health-care bill. some parts are likely to be popular with the public, and some are not. what parts of that bill, if any, would you favor retaining? >> first of all, you cannot take a bill that is 2700 pages long,

out of it that you like and put it together. "the wall street journal" said the best way to adjust the bill is to repeal and replace it. we need to equalize the tax deductions for individuals and businesses as they buy health care coverage. we need to look at medical malpractice reform to pull $300 billion of excess costs out of the system. we need to look at wellness' care, and ways to take care of the pre-existing exclusion limitation. texas law, in the last legislature kicks two issues that obama does not address. we did not meet obama. in texas to take care of -- hair in texas to take care of these issues.

any proposal needs to have two accessibility, and improve affordability. that is what it was supposed to do, but instead, you are going to cut $500 billion from seniors and medicare. you take five of its 60,000 seniors off of medicare advantage programs. how was that taking care of seniors? >> mr. edwards. >> i voted no twice to the health care reform bill because first, i believed it spent too much money, and secondly it cut too much out of medicare which was needed to support our seniors. the problem with repealing the health-care reform bill is that what you do is raise taxes by 35% on small businesses that are providing health care for employees. you get rid of protection against discrimination for

families that have a loved one who might have had cancer, a heart attack, where a child with a juvenile diabetes. we ought to retain the prohibition against insurance companies discriminating against family step pre-existing conditions pet i like the fact there is a private exchange that will help provide competitive prices. when a self-employed farmer, a rancher, small business, or family, wants to negotiate, they are negotiating with the buying power of millions of others just like them. i would suggest we not repeal the entire bill, but protect small businesses, then get rid of the bad provisions. >> mr. flores, you have 30 seconds. >> tried to fix it in that direction is like taking a

jellybean jar and trying to find the ones that you like. let's make sure we understand the facts clearly. the first time it came to the floor, he voted for the rule to bring it to the floor. he has been asked if he would repeal it, and he said now mr. edwards, 30 seconds. when it comes to providing tax cuts, it stops by discriminating against companies whose loved ones have cancer, a serious heart attacks, or serious and illnesses. this is not a jellybean story, but a real story that affects the lives of our families and important way. we ought to protect the positive things, and then repealed the

things we could not afford or hurt seniors. > > > >

there is a real question about the basket as he is being used by an economist in washington, d.c. who say to our seniors that the cost of living has not gone up. we can have retirement reform and come out with by partisans in title microform. in the meantime, i will not support privatizing social security or freezing the cost of living for our seniors.

if i listen to the seniors in our district, the costs have gone up and not down. we should stand by those who have made the country what it is today. >> i don't think that it would be fiscally prudent in the face of a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit to provide an increase that is not covered in the social security formula. i don't think it is fair for future generations that will have to pay for that deficit spending that is caused by doing that. the best way to fix social security is to fix our economy.

one out of every six of our neighbors and america are out of work. how are we dealing with that? if we deal with those issues, we would have more in the payroll taxes coming into social security until we could come up with a long-term solution that protect the benefits that seniors are expecting to day and also protect social security and medicare for future generations. let's get the economy to improve the worker economy ratios. >> i don't think that what he is proposing is fair to our seniors.

the tax cut for those families over $1 million a year would net $250 million towards the national debt. we are telling our central texas seniors cannot afford a cost of living increase, that is not fair. >> the social security system has a formula. no one is trying to hit seniors. one of the ways to fix job growth is to maintain current tax rates. but 60% of the small business jobs in this country reside with employers with in this tax

bracket. if you want to hurt jobs, raise taxes. >> time from -- for our next question. >> members of the texas legislature and other legislatures nationwide are contemplating immigration reform law similar to those passed in arizona. what does congress need to do in this area of and for some it? >> the u.s. government has two principal responsibilities. the first one is to protect us. the second one is to promote the general welfare. our congress and our administration have not been serious about securing our country. we start by securing our borders. in the immigration discussions start with securing the border. it is a matter of national leadership to get it done. we liberated iraq in less than two weeks. we have the means to secure our borders. what we also need to do once we

secure the borders -- and it will take the states stepping in -- we need to also process illegal immigrants according to the laws we have on the books today. there is no illegal act that is ever giving someone a legal right -- we should not be talking about amnesty for illegal immigrants. >> mr. edwards? 90 seconds. >> we must secure our borders. while it is impossible to literally steal them given there are thousands of miles, we must do more. that is exactly why for the last six years i have helped to lead the fight to increase the number of border patrol agents by 70%. we have expanded the p3 program, the airplane but will allow us to protect hundreds of

miles along our borders. secondly, we need to make sure we have an employee verification system so an employer can find out if a person is illegal. once we have that in place, we hold employers accountable and to enforce the laws against hiring those who are here illegally. if people cannot find a job when they got here, they would not come here in the first place. we have put nuclear detection devices along the border. we must protect our borders. we must ensure that our laws are enforced. we can do that. we can make progress. it is an important effort to stop the huge flow of illegal immigrants into the united states. >> mr. fluoresce? your 32nd rebuttal. >> it damages -- it endangers our security.

it displaces americans from some jobs. what mr. edwards says a minute ago does not jive with the facts. he has voted 17 times against measures that would have strengthened border security. that is reprehensible. if you elect bill flores to congress, they will vote every time for more border patrol agents. >> what is reprehensible is for mr. flores to misrepresent my votes on border protection. we have dramatically increased funding for border security. that is a fact. i think that is the kind of false charge that mr. flores has told the "dallas morning news." i have been a strong supporter in increasing our commitment to protect our borders including increasing the number of border

patrol agents for the last six years by 70%. >> thank you. we will go to question no. six. back to marc wiggins. >> there is a sentiment among some that the federal government has grown more interested over the years. nasa defense, border security, immigration, and entitlements -- what areas do you think should remain the domain of the state's and we should beat the federal government -- which should be the federal government's? >> i have been a national champion for a strong national defense. i am proud that the national commander of the vfw said that our nation's defense has no better friend in congress than chet edwards. the government cannot -- those

kind of values come from our faith and our families, not from the federal government. i do believe in programs that help people help themselves. that is why i believe in programs like head start and funding for our public schools as well as financial aid that helps college students try to achieve the american dream for their families' lives. i believe in limited government. in cases of medicare and social security, i believe those are important programs that we promised our senior citizens. we should keep his promises. >> mr. flores, you have 90 seconds. >> thank you. the domain of the federal government is to protect us and our general welfare. unfortunately the federal government has expanded his

duties. today it seems like it there is a problem in the country that barack obama and nancy pelosi have been out for that. that is not what the federal government was intended to do. i am reminded of the 10 amendments of our constitution. all powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government belong to the states. the federal government has gotten deeply involved in several parts of our state and local governments. they do it surreptitiously by saying they will give you money. then they add strength to the money. pretty soon you see people in washington pulling the strings. that is not what was intended. we need the federal government to shrink back to its original role. that will not hurt state and local governments because the governor and -- the government that governs best is the one closest to the people.

our federal government in washington, d.c., is about 1,000 miles from here. it does not govern as well. i would rather return those usurped power is back to the state and local governments. >> mr. edwards, 30 seconds. >> i did not hear anything specifically mr. floras would support changing. i do-that he has proposed eliminating the department of education. spotit is a supporting partner of our local schools. it provides about 10% of funding needed for our schools. it provides the largest single source of college financial aid in our country. to eliminate the u.s. department of education would hurt our local public schools here in central texas and make college affordable for tens of thousands of our students. -- unaffordable for our st

udents. >> mr. lawrence, 30 seconds. >> the department of education was created to improve student'' education. at that time, three out of every four educators was in the classroom. today, two out of every four educators is in the classroom. it has cost hundreds of millions of dollars. students' scores have gone down. a huge bureaucracy has been created. we can do better in this country. >> and ideological divide seem to open up this summer when congressman edwards was attacked for helping baylor university try to keep the big 12 conference together. looking ahead, what criteria should dictate when a congressman should get involved and when should he simply bought out? >> i did not attach commerce grin edwards on this particular issue. -- i did not attack congressman edwards on this particular issue. mr. edwards played a part in helping hold the big 12 together.

it was a joint effort of local officials, baylor officials, other officials that wanted to see the conference hold together. it did not involve -- i do not think there was any one person that was more important than another. at the end of the day, i am glad that mr. edwards got involved. i am glad that local leaders got involved. i am glad at baylor and texas tech leaders got involved. i take that we need champions like that.

but again, we need to pay attention to the primary fax the were not being addressed. the unemployment was close to 10%. trillion this year. nobody is paying attention to the big issues while we are trying to take care of the big 12. it is great we took care of the big 12, but you is taking care of the business at home that we also care about? we need to take care of those things while we are taking care of baylor. >> mr. edwards, one and half minutes. >> to people here in central texas and the greater waco area, it was a big issue. for those that care about employment, this 1600 jobs that local economists said were at risk if baylor lost out in the big 12 fight was a big issue. it was important to families. it was important to baylor's future. it was imported to the future of central texans. i am glad that mr. flores and i agree that i was involved in that light. if you check the record, while i was working in partnership with baylor as part of a great team working together, mr. flores said that the constitution does not allow a congressman to get involved like that. i strongly disagree. the constitution talked-about the first amendment and my

freedom of speech. if i cannot talk about issues that impact balers future, then what is the title of rep all about? i am glad that rather than sitting on the sidelines when baylor's future was at risk and so many jobs were at risk, that i joined hands with those at baylor to help win that fight. i did not do it alone. i was just part of the team. i was certainly proud to be part of that team. >> mr. flores, 32nd severable. >> i did not say he was constitutionally predicted from helping baylor. i am glad baylor held together. but the my in-laws are baylor graduates. i cherished the intrastate rivalry is that we have among texas tech and baylor and the

university of texas. i am glad the big 12 held together. cutif you listen to my interview, i also said that i was particular concern -- i was particularly concerned about what would happen if the big 12 broke apart. i am glad we had the right outcome. >> i listened to what mr. flores said when baylor's future was at risk. he said the constitution does not allow congressmen to get involved in a fight like that. i disagreed with and then when he said it. i disagree with them today. it was a privilege for me. we save 1600 jobs and the future of baylor university. >> time now for our final media panel question. >> everybody supposedly pace in march, yet some better than others. -- ever by supposedly hates ear marks, yet some better than others.

how this one is sure future funding for these crucial projects? >> mr. edwards, you have 90 seconds. >> i believe we ought to reduce the number of earmarks. we have reduced that number by 40%. they are wasteful. we need to cut them when we possibly can. the constitution in article one gives congress the responsibility to write an appropriations bill to a lot -- to write an appropriations bill. if we did what mr. edwards said, we would put all the power in the hands of the obama

administration to decide where our tax dollars go. if mr. flores' position prevailed, universities would have been denied money in vital research money that would have created hundreds of jobs. baylor university would have lost funding for a new research and innovation collaborative. we would have lost money -- vitally important money for roads and highways. i favor reforming the processes. mr. flores has said that he opposes all earmarks.

but with stopped a program i suggest that would have addressed mental health programs. i want to reform earmarks. i do not want to get the power to the obama administration when it comes to deciding where our tax dollars of debt. >> eric cantor recently read an op-ed. he said that earmarks were a symptom of a problem in washington, d.c. mr. edwards has voted for every appropriations bill that has come across the house floor since 2007. that is the reason we have grown the scope and size of government by over 40%. what we need to do, i think it is fine to use federal dollars for local projects as long as we meet a test. that test is that it is a critical national priority. examples of art research for baylor, a radio system for hood county, where it could be food science research at texas a&m. those projects will survive. the next thing is that process needs to be transparent. it needs to have a name on it and it needs to say how much is

going to cost, to whom it is going, and the return the taxpayer can expect to get at the end of the day. his dollars were either taken from him for this project or we borrowed 3 cents on the dollar. we need to treaties dollars as precious. >> mr. edwards, 30 seconds. >> nearly two years ago, i help to pass transparency reform for earmarks. mr. flores cannot be against all of them and for some of them. if you believe what he said throughout this campaign, he would get taken away $232 million from texas a&m on vital research. in 2002, our largest private employer was at risk of shutting down. it was an earmark i fought for

it to help save those jobs. >> mr. flores, 30 seconds. >> mr. edwards is confusing a broken process with a clear, transparent appropriations process that provides greater transparency and visibility to the taxpayer. right now, in order to get a food science research grants for texas a&m, mr. edwards is having to pay $2 million to the charlie rangel center in new york. i do not consider that a good use of taxpayer dollars. >> it is time for cross- questioning. one candidate will ask a question, then the other

candidate will have 90 seconds to answer that question followed by the question are getting 60 seconds for rebuttal. we'll start with mr. flores asking mr. edwards a question. yvette 30 seconds for your question. >> mr. edwards, thank you for joining us today. he wrote a letter in february of this year, a fund-raising letter. you said this election was about securing our future and protecting our kids from a growing see a national debt. unfortunately, six days earlier, you approved the largest single increase in the history of the national debt. you voted for an $800 billion stimulus bill. he said during a fiscal conservative. can you explain the difference between what your letter says and how you are actually a fiscal conservative? >> let me first say that nothing could be more

irresponsible for our nation's economy than to not extend the debt limits when our nation is approaching those limits. that would put us in default for the first time in our nation by street history, creating an overnight recession. not to raise the debt ceiling where we are reaching that ceiling would be absolutely irresponsible. i voted for the budget in the 1990's that left the balanced budgets.

i voted against the effort to get rid of the pay-as-you-go rules. i voted against a tree and some of dollars in spending that has increased the debt that we have seen in recent years. the stimulus bill that mr. clore as opposed was supported by the u.s. chamber of commerce in 2009. they said our economy was in a freefall. they said we needed a defibrillator to get our private sector back in place. the stimulus bill mr. flores opposed, gave a 1006 and a dollar tax cut to 95% of americans and helped to improve our economy. >> mr. floras, you have one minute for rebuttal. >> i did not hear mr. edwards say how he was a fiscal conservative. he voted for every appropriations and spending bill that has come across his desk since 2007. he has voted 114 times against amendments that would have reduced wasteful spending. also, injuring the time since the first voted for nancy pelosi to be spending -- to be speaker of the house, we have increased the debt. mr. edwards does not get it. if you want to have a fiscal conservative, you have to work

on balancing the budget. the budgets he mentioned have been balanced twice out of 20 years. >> mr. edwards, you now have 30 seconds to ask a question of mr. fluoresce. >> mr. flores, you talked about how important it is to reduce the deficit, yet your social security privatization plan would actually increase the national deficit by $2 trillion over the next decade. unless you agree to raise taxes or cut benefits that today's seniors need, you have proposed tax cuts that would add trillions of dollars to the national debt above the present projected deficit, including tax cuts for people making over $1 billion a year, including completely eliminating the estate tax even for people that are billionaires. how would you pay for those increased deficits that your proposals would create? >> mr. flores, you have one minute 30 seconds.

>> there were two questions that i heard there. helena paper social security? i have not proposed privatization of social security. that was off the table. in terms of paying for tax cuts, everybody says we have to pay for tax cuts. those taxes started out in the taxpayer's pocket. the tax rates for the highest

two tax brackets that i am talking about freezing along with all the other tax brackets include 48% of small-business jobs and 60% of small-business employees. 51 to have a lower job growth, raise taxes on those people. when you have lower job growth, you have lowered economic activity. it has been proven for *. -- it has been proven for times. -- it has been proven four times. it is not a zero sum game. when you lower tax rates, you get increased activity and you get higher revenues. it is good for the economy. it is good for the federal government. >> mr. edwards, one minute rebuttal. >> one reason i was called a fiscal conservative is because i an untapped do not make promises on fiscal up issues that lead to higher and higher deficits because they are good sound bites on the campaign trail. if we are going to balance the budget, cutting taxes is not true.

national economists would agree with that point that it is simply a false promise. the fact is, mr. flores can call it what he wants. the experts call it social security protestation. he was able to put their social security taxes in a private but account rather than a social security trust fund. that would add two trillion dollars to the national debt over the next 10 years -- $2 the next 10 years. mr. flores is the one being fiscally irresponsible by posing easy answers to complex, important fiscal matters. >> mr. flores, you have 30 seconds to ask another question of mr. edwards. >> mr. edwards, you voted for the stimulus bill. in the stimulus bill, we had a much like a dollar billion for a railroad for nevada and $54 million for the napa valley red river. we also had millions of dollars to pay for aig executives. did you read the stimulus bill? >> yes, i did. the chamber of commerce asked me to vote for the stimulus bill. did i support everything in it?

no i did not. the chamber said our country was in a freefall in the private sector needed a jump-start. let me remind you what mr. flores would have voted no on. a tax cut to 95% of americans. 3000 jobs saved or created here in our district according to local economists. a $700 tax credit for 92,000 college students at the eight colleges and universities in our district. was the stimulus bill everything i wanted it to be? nope. at least it has helped to move us from losing 25,000 jobs every single day to a situation where this year we are gaining 863,000 private-sector jobs.

our economy is still struggling. we have to keep moving forward. but i did not vote with president obama on the stimulus bill, i voted with the u.s. chamber of commerce and other conservative business groups like the realtors and homebuilders who thought the stimulus was needed to prevent a deeper recession, which would have given our deficits much higher. >> mr. clore is, you have one minute rebuttal. >> first of all, the stimulus bill has not worked. even president obama and admitted early last week that there was no such thing as a shovel ready project. it took him a long time to realize that. 40% of the people who got the task that do not pay taxes.

they basically got a welfare check. did it improve the economy? we have seen economic growth at a 1.6 per sign annual rate of growth or less. this recession -- we are not coming out of this recession the way we have in the past because we have the federal government spending too much. we have too much regulation. we have obama care. we have an administration in progress that has caused substantial uncertainty for

employers. we could have done a lot better with a payroll tax on the day than to waste the money on a stimulus bill. i think everyone widely in this that it has failed. >> our final cross question is for mr. flores. >> let me go back to social security. it is so important to seniors in our district. you are on record as supporting private accounts. most all the privatization, you can call it what you want. it will take $2 trillion out of

the social security trust fund for the next 10 years. that is money needed to pay monthly benefits to today's seniors. you say you want to it decrease the deficit, but that would increase the debt by $2 trillion. would you cut senior's benefits, raising the deficit, or by increasing taxes on americans, or all three?

th>> what misperception about this entire campaign most troubles you? >> i have not proposed privatizing social security. what i do want to do is to strengthen social security. it has a $19 trillion unfunded obligations. if you do not believe me, look at the statistics for yourself. the best way to improve the financial status of social security today is to put more people to work and have more protects is going into the trust fund. the other way to improve the sanctity of social security is to keep congress from reading these trust fund. over the past several years, $2.50 trillion of everybody's

for people in congress to or not under social security, have gone into the trust fund. the federal government has spent the money and left and i.o.u. we need to either raise taxes or we will have to borrow money from people like the chinese. we need to do a long-term solution to fix social security. it will take a bipartisan effort, but the easy way to >> if what he said was true, i would not be endorsed by the nra and other respected conservative groups. >> would you repeat the question? >> what perception about you'll most troubles you -- about you most troubles you? >> you have to look at mr. edwards false and personal attacks. what i have done since then is to quietly go about paying my taxes and creating jobs.

and this is the biggest problem that i have seen. this has been a fairly nasty campaign. >> each of you has different backgrounds. give us one accomplishment you are most proud of. >> my 32 years of marriage is the first accomplishment. being married to gino for 32 years, i'm not sure why she put up with me. i love you and i'm glad that you stayed with me. i am very proud of my two sons and proud of the granddaughter that we will have next march. >> we would both agree that we proud to have merit in both of ourselves and we love our

family is very deeply. of all of the things that i've done is writing the scholarship lot to give every military child in america who has lost a mother, child, who has lost a family member access to college. it was an honor to speak for our country and our district and say to those families that we would not forget their sacrifice. >> now time for closing statements. each will have taking minutes to make their statements. >> i want to thank the host for this debate and think -- thank you for listening. i considered a privilege to work for the people who relevance

central texas. whether it is fighting for the 2000 new jobs or working with baylor and protecting 600 jobs here in waco, it has been an honor to work with texas a&m and baylor to fight to get funding for research that makes our country stronger. i have been accused of the voting in a partisan line in this district. based on my independent minded voting record, i have been endorsed by the national rifle association. the guide also many organizations. there's no better friend in congress then checked edwards.

-- chet edwards. if all of these conservative voices of our right then my opponent is wrong. and grateful for the support of republicans, independents, democrats, and your reasupport. >> thank you. our country has many challenges but the most difficult challenge that we have is to restore common-sense security for future generations. today, only one in four of every american's think that the american dream is still available for future generations. every generation of americans has tried to leave the american

nation better off than they received. my father taught me to work hard. since then, i have been successful about creating jobs. i've helped to create several hundred jobs. in a few months we will have a granddaughter. we want that granddaughter to have the same opportunities that we had. that granddaughter will not be able to do it with a crushing debt that we had today.

we have to focus on those issues. throughout the campaign, i focus on those issues. this election has a clear choice