>> the question that will come from a panel of reporters. . .

>> first of all, thanks to all the stations for hosting us tonight in this important debate, and i'm really looking forward to an hour-long conversation with you, the louisiana voter. i'm very proud to have the support of the tea party movement in louisiana as a strong louisiana conservative. and i believe the tea party

represents mainstream values in america, not extremism as my opponent has said. now, my opponent on several occasions has denigrated the tea party, quite frankly. he compared it to the far left activist group, moveon.org, which i believe is a real insult. he said during the debates over obamacare that people like that were fear mongering. >> what does it mean to say, we have come to take our country back? what does that mean? >> well, if i could continue, yes, and he also made comments similar to nancy pelosi saying these folks are un-american, i believe what a lot of american citizens, tea party members and others, what they mean by that is that, in the last few years, we have gone way to the left in policy out of this very liberal administration and very liberal congress, and it not only threatens our fiscal future, it also threatens our values,

fundamental freedoms in america. >> thank you. mr. melancon? >> i've been endorsed in the past week by four newspapers because they say that i am effective, independent, willing to reach across the aisle, and in contrast to david vitter, who is one of the least effective members of the senate, an idealogue, a punchline. nationally, he hasn't earned a second term. this is what the takeback is all about. but it shouldn't be take back to the right or take back to the left. it should be take back to the middle, where america was when john breaux and all our people that precede me and mary landrieu, exempt for david vitter. >> first to mr. melancon. >> voters believe you're most

likely to support president obama and his policies. you have said in the past you give the president an a. do you stand by that still? >> that is what mr. vitter said. i give him an a for effort on the response or the intentions of the response to the b.p. disaster. i gave him an actual c for the administration. >> according to the quote, you have is a you gave him an a for effort, and for his policies, trying to get his policies in, but that you give congress a lower grade because of getting in his way. >> well, part of the problems we have with the congress is the partisanship -- >> do you stand behind that comment, you give him an a still for his effort, but you think that congress -- >> well, i've gotten away from giving grades. let teachers do grades. i'd say that he's got an average response for his administration. >> do you regret giving him that a? >> no, at the time, i thought his effort was good. >> do you feel satisfied that you are close to mr. obama and his policies? >> if you look at my voting

record, i'm rated in the right and center of the house of representatives. david vitter is always to the far right. as a matter of fact, they say he's one of the extreme right people. i vote with the president regard of who he is when i think he's right, and i voted against several of his very important issues that he didn't like, and i'm sure my leadership didn't like. but that's my independence and that's what i do better than david vitter ever has. >> mr. vitter? >> the key question is, do you want a u.s. senator who's going to strongly support mr. obama's policies, or do you think we need real checks and balances in congress to get away from this lurch to the left? the differences couldn't be clearer. they strongly endorsed barack obama for president, and this year, just like you said, greg, he gave president obama an a. charlie supported the agendas, the bailouts that president obama supported. he supported the trillion dollar stimulus, which is a

failure. he supported the obama budget that triples our debt in 10 years, and he's against repealing obamacare. i've taken the opposite position on all of that, so it's a very crystal clear difference. >> our next question goes to mr. vitter first. jeff? >> senator vitter, you have supported extending bush-era tax cuts for even the wealthiest 3% of americans. with that alone costing an extra $750 billion over the next 10 years, it's going to have to be paid for. what three programs would you first think could be cut? >> well, first of all, i disagree with the premise that in order to keep tax rates where they are and not increase taxes, somehow we need to pay for that. i think that's washington-speak, not louisiana speak. i don't want to raise taxes on anyone right now, particularly in the middle of a recession. my opponent does again. once again, he supports the obama position.

i think it would be economically disastrous to raise taxes on anyone, including small businesses, which need to be the engine of job growth. >> what would you cut? >> having said that, i'm certainly for cutting spending in washington and reducing the debt. i'll tell you where i'd start, unspent stimulus funds, $232 billion, the stem husband has been a failure. then i'd go to other programs. we have billions of dollars of unused federal property. we could have a program to sell and get rid of that unused federal property, $4 billion in one year alone. we send checks to dead farmers through government programs. we need oversight. that could save over a billion dollars a year. >> i would save this, though. it's a misnomer to say that this bush tax cuts -- i mean, this continuation for the top rich wouldn't have to be paid for. you would have to pay that $750 billion because it was supposed to fund that, that's not an increase. >> just to be clear, your premise that i disagree with is that to avoid a tax increase,

we somehow have to pay for it. it's not the government's money, it's our money. that's the point. >> mr. melancon? >> well, if he wants to pay for it, he should have voted for pay go 15 times. he should have voted for the cap, the % maximum cap in spending increases that we passed through the house and senate over there that they keep putting on hold and not passing. david vitter voted for the prescription drug program, which costs this government and the taxpayers of this country more than the stimulus, the tarp, and the bailout for the automakers, more. and if you have mr. vitter's way, $4 trillion more over the next 10 years. if you repeal what he wants to do on the healthcare rather than try to perfect it and make it better, $100 trillion estimated cost to repeal and go back and start over again. >> all right, the next question goes first to mr. melancon. >> a recent investigative report said that some of the

top criminal investigators from the e.p.a. were in favor of banning b.p. from doing any business with the u.s. government because of serious environmental and safety violations, and that was before the massive gulf oil spill. in light of that disaster, do you believe such a ban should be put in place? >> i think the laws, in spite of what mr. vitter voted for, which was take the police off of wall street and let them go crazy and tell i.n.s. don't worry about what's going on out there in the oil field, we need to make sure that the laws are there, that safety is number one. we should never have to worry about another b.p. explosion. >> mr. melancon, what about banning b.p.? >> as far as for banning a company, if they're bad players, you know, i'm not a total -- you make one mistake or you demonstrate it, but if, in fact, when we finish with the commission and we get the information, if they've been that bad a player, then maybe we ought to consider maybe some additional fines fines or

penalties. but it's good jobs in louisiana, it's good for the economy. i want to make sure that right now b.p. stays as solvent as possible because i want them to pay those fines and penalties because i want the coastal restoration money, and the i'm not right now ready to take on or shut down somebody that's going to be a bailout for the people. david vitter wants to pay -- >> so right now you're saying no? >> no to that. >> ok. mr. sitter? >> we should make sure b.p. is held fully accountable for all the damage it has caused without limits. my opponent, sadly, has completely misrepresented my actions in this regard, and so i want to say that real clearly, without limits. second, we should apply the same standards to everybody who wants to drill in the gulf or elsewhere if they meet those rigorous standards, fine, including b.p. if they don't, anyone who doesn't meet them should be

shut down and disallowed from that activity. >> should she be banned from doing business with the government? >> not per se, but knowing we need stringent safety regulations, and everyone has to be able to meet those. >> our final question of this round comes from kno-tv. it goes first to mr. vitter. >> one of my viewers, her name is linda, wrote in and said that she hasn't been hearing a lot on the campaign between all of the attack ads about something that she really cares deeply about right now and is concerned about, and that is putting people back to work. give us two examples of how you will create jobs to boost the economy. >> first of all, end the failed stimulus and do not spend any $232 billion. the stimulus has been a failure. mr. melancon supported it. he said he would create 50,000 jobs in louisiana. in fact, even by the white

house's own estimates, which i don't necessarily believe, it's saved or created 9,000. we have gotten .4% of the stimulus funds into louisiana. in terms of the jobs that has saved or created, that's 342,000 dollars per job. that is wildly irresponsible, and it's a boondoggle. >> so what would you do to create jobs? >> well, it goes to creating jobs to stop the spiraling spending and debt, and that's part of the big problem we're in. secondly, we should keep taxes where they are, not increasing taxes on anyone. again, my opponent wants to do it, he adopts the obama position, increase taxes on small business, even in a recession. >> mr. melancon? >> the amazing part is he's a pathological liar, folks. when you believe something just because you said it, there are tax breaks in the stimulus package for small businesses.

there was a bill several weeks ago that senator landrieu passed that provided small breaks for business. taking moneys from the tarp that is paid back to government, the stem plus, 18,000 new jobs -- i have a proposal -- i've want only been a business owner and have made the cuts, i understand how to do it, i've got a small business proposal that cuts taxes. david was the deciding vote against small business bell. i support the oil and gas industry. that's about revenue for the country. on education, investing in education, and doing, unlike david vitter, making the biggest cuts to education in the history of this country, $8 billion, we need to be investing in these kids, whether it's in technical learning or college. everybody can't be a college graduate, but we need to invest in america. david vitter believes to do nothing is the answer to everything. >> thank you, sir. that concludes our first round of questions. now in the second round, each candidate gets an individual question and he has three

minutes to respond, and it's a discussion with the panelists and i asking follow-up questions. we'll begin with a question for mr. melancon, and it comes from sally ann roberts. >> mr. melancon, the associated press report that you were one of 10 members of congress who took part in the 2008 trip to ant ark at that to study climate change. and cost taxpayers $150,000. the trip included a cable car ride through the australian -- you took -- a rain forest, a tour to the penguin breeding ground. is this a good use of public funds? >> every session of congress, every two years, the science committee from the house of representatives goes to antarctica. i was on the science committee and invited. mr. vitter didn't get invited because he wants people with open minds that are going to take a look at where we're spending money. we were 65 hours flying time, 11 days, 35,000 air miles.

to get into antarctica, minus 19 degrees, by the way, at the south pole at that time of year. it's not like it's a junket. we spend the most money at the south pole -- there were two teams from l.s.u. that were there physically at mcmyrtle station. the penguin grounds that we saw was about the signs of what's gone on, what's happening with the ice flows, with the ice masses that are down there. the research being done at antarctica, we went and looked at the barrier reef. we met with scientists. these were not just get in a buggy and ride. we met and spent hours with scientists in every location, up at 5:30 in the morning, bags on the airplane by 7:00, 8:00. so this was learning. when we come back, we're asked to take a look at what we're appropriating, where it's being spent, what's the information and the data we're getting that we can be informed to make the decision. mr. vitter sticks his head in

the hand and says no to everything. >> but what did you learn? it was also reported that you were studying coastal erosion. it's odd that you would have to go to the south pole to study coastal erosion. >> because of the ice melt that's gone ork the masses of ice that have fallen off that continent. >> what did you find, sir? >> the ocean rise is going to be a severe problem for a state like ours and a coastal area like ours. but if you want to pick on one little item -- >> the year -- a paris, a trip that was paid for with public funds, and your wife accompanied you. >> my wife likes to be with me. >> and what do you say to people who are struggling right now and they see lawmakers taking these trips and they wonder if this is a good use of public funds. >> the amazing part is people want us to legislate as an informed member. i went to the energy and

economic commission that is part of nato, that's there in paris, and that's what we did. we met with them to talk about what was the projections for energy, what were the projections worldwide consumption, who was playing with whom, because it was at that time, we had georgia and russia playing with each other, and that was about energy. we're in a war with iraq and afghanistan, that's about energy. looking at the entire picture globally, because every vote that we make as a member of congress and decisions that is made in the united states affects every one of our nato allies, whether it's england or france or general mane, it doesn't matter. it has an impact on them, going to war without seeking consultation with our allies puts them in harm's way. and if you look at what happened to us in afghanistan and iraq, we are paying for that by a lack of supported from our allies. >> thank you, mr. melancon. our next question comes from

greg meriwether. >> mr. vitter, we received a number of emails basically viewers questioning your involvement in the d.c. prostitution rick. you've called it a serious sin. what was your serious sin? >> well, greg, three years ago when i discussed this directly with louisiana citizens, i did say in a very direct, sincere way, i committed a very bad mistake in my marriage, a very serious sin. this is going back now about 10 years. there was extensive reporting about it in terms of the phone calls, etc. and i said i fixed that in my marriage several years ago. i had received a long forgiveness from my wife, windsy, from my children, also i believe from my god, and i committed to the citizens of louisiana to redouble my effort on their behalf. greg, i'll be honest with you, i think louisiana citizens all around the state heard me, and

i think they understood me. and they understood what i was saying. i got two never whesming reactions after that from louisiana citizens. first of all, an outpouring of prayers and support and well-wishers. it was very humbling to me, and it was very touching to wendy. and i think it shows the gulf, quite frankly, between how louisianans think and feel and operate and how washington political acts think and feel and operate. the second reaction i got, and i got this reaction as i held town hall meetings all around the state, i do at least one town hall meeting in every parrish in congress, means i've done over 200 as louisiana's u.s. senator. i do -- >> what was the reaction, sir? >> i'm interacting with folks

all the time. and in terms of the concerns and the questions unfiltered that they brought to those meetings, it was, quite frankly, not about my past 10 years ago, it was about our future. >> well, mr. vitter, you're a former prosecutor. you're an attorney. did you violate the law when you committed this sin? >> i'm not a former prosecutor, first of all. >> you're an attorney. did you violate the law when you committed this sin? >> dennis, again, you can look back, you can continue to write stories about it in the media, that's your decision. it's a free country. i looked the voters of louisiana in the eye. i spoke to them sincerely. and i think they -- >> if i could just follow up with you -- >> knowing they heard me, and i think they understood me. and now i'm looking forward, i'm not looking back. >> i understand k. can you look to the camera right now and tell them, did you violate the law? >> i just did look in the camera. i just did -- >> did you violate the law, yes or no, sir? >> again, you can ask those

questions. you can look back 10 years, you can stay fixated on that. my job, i believe, is to look forward on behalf -- >> can you offer an answer tonight, please? >> it's a question of accountsability, mr. vitter. >> i understand. you've asked the question, i've given you -- >> we haven't heard an answer. yes or no. >> you may not like the answer i've given you. >> i'll offer the opportunity to give a yes or no and explain either one. >> i'm not going to take that opportunity, because i think the people of louisiana have understood exactly what i said to them. i think they want me to focus on the key challenges we face as a state and as a country. that's what they tell me directly. it may not be what the media badgers me with, i can tell you what is what they tell me directly. >> next question comes for mr. melancon. it comes from jeff farrell of ksla-tv. >> mr. vitter has said that you have a troubling record on immigration reform. he claims that you voted against stopping taxpayer

benefits from going to illegal immigrants and made it harder for police to stop and detain smem. some of these famous ads we've all been seeing, cup clear up your record on immigration reform? >> i shouldn't have to defend it, but since it's been lied about, i guess i need to. i'm one of the hawks in the house. i've got a better record than three of our congressmen on border. mr. vitter voted against an amendment to put 1,000 more people on the border, national guard and patrol people. i been supportive of protecting our borders and making sure illegals are not in here. some of the people that mr. vitter gets supported by want cheap labor in here. they don't want him voting, and i don't want him coming in willie nilee either. but as far as my record, i been a staunch hawk on border protection and making sure -- there's no provisions for social security or medicine care or medicaid. i've never, ever wavered from

that, and he knows that. mr. vitter has a problem with the truth. you just heard it. he will not admit that he lied, that he broke the law. now, you can be a policeman if you haven't broke the law. you can be a teacher if you hadn't broke the law. you can be a fireman if you hadn't broke the law. but if you've broken the law, you can't. but we're going to have a u.s. senator that broke the law? >> what are your solutions for illegal -- >> we need to do a complete reform on, but i can tell you amnesty isn't in the part. >> you do not support a path to u.s. citizenship? >> i support anybody that wants to become a citizen to go through the process of becoming a citizen as allowed by law, not to give them some extraordinary ability to come in and move to the other line. >> so no to new ideas about a

path to citizenship over a five-year period. >> no, no. it's just like mr. vitter, you broke the law. go back and started the process and come back in the right way. >> you've got 20 million americans, do you want them all to leave? >> well, they're not americans if they're not illegal. >> should they be sent home? should 20 million immigrants -- >> well, i don't know how you gather and correct them. and that's going to be a problem because we don't have the money or the wherewithal to bring them together. but if those employees that are knowing, that's where we put the enforcement down. that's where we start collecting. what we saw after hurricane katrina, thank god some of them are here. although we'd still be waiting right now. so there is a lead. >> you're saying they helped us? >> well, there's immigrants that helped us, whether they're

illegal or legal, so that's all based upon documentation. >> they don't support a path to citizenship. you want them all to leave and that's going to happen. >> i need to know what the path is. that's been the problem, nobody's been able to give us some suggestions of how we get to the path. >> the number one suggestion is letting them join the military. >> that doesn't sound leak a bad idea, but they need to speak english first. >> our next question from blue. blue? >> mr. vitter, also on the topic of immigration, you have been strongly criticized by a number of groups for a campaign ad criticizing mr. melancon on immigration. it was described by some as blatantly racist and some, including the louisiana hispanic chamber of commerce and catholic charities, called for an apology. do you offer them an apology or stand by the ads? >> i stand by the ad. let me tell you why. i support a legal immigration process to allow people to come

here and pursue the american dream. that's one of the great things about our tradition and history. i absolutely support that. what i don't support is a free and open border, unfettered, completely open to access with hundreds of thousands, millions of illegals coming across it, and that's what we have, particularly at the mexican border. now, we have an illegal immigration problem, and a huge part is the mexican border. that is a fact. that's not a stereotype. 97% of our apprehensions of illegals is at the mexican border. over 80% of the 12 to 15 million illegals in this country have come through that border from mexico and south american countries. that is a fact. that is not a stereotype. now, there's one thing that is offensive, and those are mr. melancon's votes that the ad highlights. and let's be perfectly clear. he tried to muddy the water. he tried to move away from them. but there are three votes.

they're all documents on my website, davidvitter.com. let's talk about what they are. one vote would resist clamping down and having strong enforcement against illegals who fraudulently get taxpayer -funded benefits. there was an effort to clamp down on that. mr. melancon voted no. a second vote was the same thing with regard to actual welfare checks. there was an effort to clamp down to have real enforcement to prevent that from happening. we know it happens. mr. melancon voted no. the third vote would authorize police to arrest and detain illegals like under the arizona law. i think that's a key part of the solution. i support the arizona law. mr. melancon voted no. those three votes, i believe, are offensive. i think those three votes really should be the basis for an apology. >> and mr. vitter, how do you respond to the hispanic chamber

of commerce, the catholic charities, the archdiocese of new orleans who say that this ad played into racial -- offensive racial stereotypes. >> what is a stereotype? >> they're talking about the images seen in your ad. >> is this a stereotype that folks coming across the border, that's a problem and they look like that? it is a fact,not a stereotype. let's take our head out of the sand. >> so what do you say to catholic charities and the archdiocese -- >> let's get away from this -- let's face the problem. and let's solve the problem. i'll tell you the fundamental problem all of these groups have with me on the issue. it's that they support amnesty and i don't. and that's a matter of public record. all of these groups you're talking about supported the 20027 immigration bill with a big amnesty provision. i fought that on the floor of the senate, and thank god we won. we defeated that bill. >> ok, thank you very much. now we move to the third round

of questions, and in this round, we open up the discussion to vote candidates. we'll set aside 2 1/2 minutes for responses to each question. we'll call this the jump ball round because whichever candidates jumps in first and starts the discussion, and we'll make sure that each candidate has equal time. we'll begin with a question from john denison. john? >> nothing has galvanized viewers so recently as the recent news about social security and the fact that there will be no cost of living increase next year. that's for the second year in a row. the system is obviously in distress. there are discussions on pushing back the retirement age and how to fund social security in the years to come. specifically, how would you gentlemen support limited privatization or raising the retirement age? >> well, when mr. vitter ran for office last time, he talked about locking away the social security trust fund and never touching it again. then he wanted to privatize, which means give it to his big buddies up on wall street to invest, and we know what's happening. he voted also against glass steeg he will, which took away

the watching investment people on wall street and let that happen. he's had several opportunities to try to make sure that we protect social security. if he voted for the stimulus package, he would have given a $250 million check this past year in lieu of not getting the rate increases that cost of living increase that was supposed to come. mr. vitter is, as i said, says one thing, does another thing. >> and mr. melancon, what about you? >> let me be clear. i don't think the solution of saving social security is the stimulus. and mr. melancon continues to support -- we need to come together around real social security reform. i support voluntary private accounts so people could have a nest egg that they own, understand mandatory, voluntarily, leave it up to the individual.

that's part of the solution. i support colas this year and next year. that's part of the solution for seniors in this very tough economy. those things are part of the solution. >> so you're going to change the way colas are done. i'll tell you what other thing i would change related to that. i would change this offensive system of automatic pay raises for members of congress. and i have that bill in the senate. >> knowing there's a parallel -- members of congress are getting automatic pay raises. give me a break. and we passed on a bipartisan -- >> when you're living -- your campaign funds and supporting your illicit bad habits with the money from there, if you go through the court regards, when asked about getting the information of the brothel list

so that it was squashed by your friend and former schoolmate. is there a reason -- oh, i forgot. that's what we were on, thank you. >> how would you solve it? >> but social security, it didn't become a problem last week. david vitter has been in the congress for 12 years. they had a chance to fix immigration -- >> how would you solve it? >> what we need to start looking at right now is lock ago way the funds, as mr. vitter originally proposed, but then changed his position on. and if you repay that money and you look away the trust fund, we're good for another 75 to 80 years. >> is raising the retirement age an option? >> i don't think i want to raise the retirement age. we've raised the retirement -- i say we, but past congresses have raised the age, and it's getting to the point that some people may not live that long. but what we can do is start reducing the rate and bring it up to the higher levels of income. >> all right. thanks. sally ann roberts, next question. >> a report out today says some

$4 billion is being spent on the campaigns this year, and because of the recent supreme court decision, corporations and unions can now get involved in campaigns in an unprecedented way, and a lot of people are very concerned about this, about corporations that can make donations and they do not have to release the donors that are involved. corporations and independent organizations that may very well have people from outside of this country as shareholders of their organization or contributors to their organizations. people are saying this is placing our democracy at risk. would you support or author legislation that would require full disclosure and transparency for any money spent on any federal election by any entity or organization? >> i voted for the disclosure bill. we ought to know every dollar that's being spent, and it is

actually obscene the amounts of money and the time consumed by members of congress having to raise money to run for office. those other people that were in this race, they deserve to be at this table tonight just like we are, but they aren't because they don't have the money and they weren't able to get themselves up high enough in the polls. this is america. this is about everybody having an opportunity. dade vitter has gotten over a million dollars from wall street, over a million dollars from big oil. that's obscene. >> so you would support legislation -- >> i would support legislation to reform the way we financed campaigns, whether it's through some type of public funding, putting caps on spndsing, and trying to make sure that we're not having a corrupt system, which we're having right now, that anybody that gives has to be dischoiced. if we're going to have them disclosed in these 527's or whatever they call them now, then they need to put their name on the line with their money. >> sally ann, if i can have a moment, what i believe in most is freedom and complete, absolute disclosure and transparency.

i don't agree with overregulation, a burdensome regulation by government, but freedom and absolute disclosure. i've supported that consistently. >> it says pit down who the top five contributors are to these funds that are going to spend on their own, and you were against t. >> charlie, it didn't say that. >> yes, it did. little a trial lawyer thing now. that's usually the way you go with it. >> well, if we want to talk about folks' campaign cash support, knowing we need to talk about the fact that he flew to canada during the oil disaster to pick up campaign checks there. >> the weekend they were capping the well was the weekend i went to a fundraiser. and keith jones, whose son died on the b.p. rig, was at that. do you think he was there trying to get money for -- no. he was worried about the people that were injured. >> mr. vitter, if i can have a chance, please.

the fact of the matter is in the middle of the oil disaster, mr. melancon traveled out of the country to canada -- that's exactly what i'm talking about. how would you keep foreign money out of our campaigns? >> well, that is and should be illegal and complete disclosure would be a part of that. but again, we are talking about funding for campaigns, flying to canada outside the country, picking up campaign checks for trial lawyers, when they were literally meeting about how to profit from the victims of the oil disaster. >> no, no, no, how to help the people that you and i are supposed to represent. >> next, a question from jeff. >> this campaign has turned very personal. i think we saw some examples of that. and with pointed tax on each of your voting records and

personal character, where does that opponent cross the line and what has your opponent said that is untrue about you? >> well, the list is awfully long. i'll give you one of the biggest, that i was for limiting b.p. liability. absolutely not true, completely not true. in fact, i have a bill that charlie knows about to have b.p. be fully liable. >> that was the bill after you voted to introduce the bill. >> if he wouldn't lie as much about everything -- >> mr. vitter, please. >> knowing he's starting. >> congressman melancon knows i have a bill to hold b.p. fully accountability without limits. i also knows that i cleared that on the republican side of the senate. we were ready to pass it on an expedited basis, that it was being blocked by the leader of the democratic senatorial

committee, his biggest ally in this campaign. because of that, four local officials, democrats from coastal louisiana, wrote mr. melancon, it's dated june 7, saying this is wrong, this bill needs to move forward, talk to your party leadership, this is dead wrong. democrats saying do not obstruct this bill for unkpped b.p. liability. so that's the biggest untruth. the biggest area where you cross the line is taking and using video of my children in his two-minute, r-rated attack ad. that is clearly crossing the line. if that's part of your family values, charlie, i don't want any part of it. >> david, you've never had family values. you've demonstrated that to american quite keenly. as a matter of fact, the worst member of congress.

>> david, it's the image of louisiana that you have damaged. it is the reputation of louisiana that you have damaged. it is the people that you have broken faith with and lied to, not just your family. you railed against bill clinton and blue dress. you railed against bob livingston because you coveted his seat. but when he had a -- an indiscretion, and then you said they sin, they lied, and they should resign. you as i understand, you lied, you've broken the law, you've embarrassed the state. you have been consistent, at least i've got to give you that, yet you have not hinted once that you think you should step down. >> your opponent crossed the line in describing you, sir? >> well, let's see, he started about -- i decided to run about july and august, so he started doing direct mail pieces and these town hall meetings paid for with tax dollars maligning me the first half-hour on

whatever it is that he wanted to say, using taxpayer dollars, just like he did with fly him down to louisiana for his community service. >> thank you very much. greg meriwether has the next question. greg? >> louisiana has, i guess we can all kind of calm down for a second and think about this, louisiana has had some very painful reminders just this last week. we lost two soldiers or so in the war in afghanistan. in light of that, what do we do now? what is you're path to victory? how do you even define victory? >> what is victory? what do we win? the war that we were brought into was actually to seek out al qaeda and the taliban. it got misdirected and end up in a war. and it is expanding rather than shrinking. the attempts to try and move out of there are so complicated, but at some point in time our government, we can't continue as a country to

support the war effort for a country that will not bring itself together and govern itself in a democratic way. i don't know the answers. i look to the pentagon and to those that know all the details of what is actually transpiring there. >> would you suggest we leave? a take has been a costly war, 674 louisianans wounded in afghanistan. nobody should trivialize that, and i think nobody's going to. very costly. we also have to remember what brought us there, though, 9/11, a direct link with 9/11, a little different from iraq. that was the training ground. and in fact, it's gotten even more serious since then, because since then, the government in pakistan has become a little less stable, and they have nuclear weapons. i don't disagree that it's a tough situation. what i do say very clearly, our

national security is directly involved, and we cannot fail, and i very strongly support general david petraeus' efforts to stabilize that government and get terrorists out of afghanistan. >> thank you. >> a large majority of viewers in our statewide poll that was released this week felt that neither of you has provided a great deal of leadership during the b.p. oil disaster. where do each of you feel that your opponent has shown a lack of leadership on the oil disaster? >> blue, i'd rather not -- i'm going to talk about myself. i believe i showed strong leadership in pushing legislation to hold b.p. fully accountable without limits and also doing something charlie would never do, pushing the obama administration, saying you need to have a much more rigorous response, you need to move quickly on the barrier island program. we need more boom, we need more

dredging. i did all of that. it's because of that that i won the bipartisan support of coastal leaders, republicans and democrats. the democratic mayor of grand isle, the democratic mayor of lefeet, these were all local leaders who happen to be right in the heart of charlie melancon's congressional zrkt who looked at the two candidates and said we support david vitter. and they said that specifically because of my -- >> if you will visit with those officials, you'll find that david vitter harassed them and called them and talked about the things that as a senator he could help with. started off with a letter. and when it ended up, there was an endorsement if there. you never see them stand up to the steps of the courthouse other than this letter that he's banded around.

i got the military to fly boom in from around the world. i asked the white house to do that. i asked for the moratorium to be lifted and spruced the only piece of legislation that provided for lifting the moratorium. all he had to do was go over, so they've got a bill coming from the house. let's move it because we want the more memory lifted. >> after the house, i helped with small businesses, i brought mobile health units down to venice. as a matter of fact, the week after the oil spill, when they were down, there was supposed to be a meeting with fishermen in venice, mr. vitter didn't even bother to come. >> thank you both. our last question in this round comes from john denison. john? >> the national debt is now threatening to make america a

second-rate international country, perhaps going down the same rate as japan, and heaven forbid, greece, where it's chaos. without attacking each other and without blaming someone else of the past, tell me specifically what you will do to reduce the national debt. >> i'd love to do that. i want to immediately go back to 2008 spending levels, which we can absolutely do overnight. second thing is specific cuts like the one i mentioned, stop the stimulus, save that unspent stimulus money, $232 billion. all this unused federal property, get rid of this unused federal real estate, could yield $4 billion in one year. crazy payments like payments to dead farmers. third thing i'd do is a balanced budget constitutional amendment. i'm a leading co-author that works at the state level.

it could work at the federal level. fourth thing i'd do is push through something i'm also a leading co-author of, a bipartisan spending debt commission so that this bipartisan commission outside of congress would be told, give us a plan to reduce spending and debt on a bipartisan basis. and if they could that, with the super majority of vote, under the law it would come directly to congress, it would get expedited consideration and a thumbs down vote, no amendments possible. >> mr. melancon, how would you reduce the debt? >> well, dade talks the talk and doesn't walk the walk. having been a businessman for 20 years, i've been made cuts. back in the 1980's -- >> what would you do, sir? >> i'm getting there. >> would you break the law? >> mr. melancon, what would you do to reduce the deficit? >> first of all, i voted for the pay go rule, which is if you don't have the money, you can't spend it.

he's voted against it 15 times. that basically that says if you don't have the money, you've got to find it and you've got to go ahead and provide it for some of the sources. there's a report that comes out every two years from the o.m.b. that says these programs aren't giving you the bang for the buck. the congress should adopt that program every two years when it comes out. >> you know theals that included a $19 trillion increase in the debt limit. oh, that's great. you outspent, bought us the $10 trillion deficit it's the bigs ear marker in the house, biggest ear marker in the senate, makes it look like child play on the appropriations committee from an average when the democrats were in charge of $14 billion

in ear marks to $85 billion in ear marks during the time he was on the committee. >> now comes our final round. we're looking for short answer toss these questions. this time the candidates will respond to each question and each candidate will have 30 seconds for his response. the question will go first to mr. vitter. >> would you be in favor of repealing the 14th amendment to abolish the citizenship to children who are born in this country to illegal immigrants? >> yes, and i've specifically proposed that. i have the legislation to do it. clorle that was never intended by our founders. they didn't live in the sort of avenue where we had this illegal immigration problem. just as clearly, it is a magnet for illegals crossing into our country. it's an incentive for them to do that. so i am a leading sponsor of that legislation. >> mr. melancon? >> well, a lot of us are here because our parents delivered

us or our grand parents or great-grandparents delivered our parents or our relatives here. i believe that if you come in here intentionally to have a child to give it citizenship that it automatically be provided. but if you're here and you're having a child and you're legitimately here -- >> how do you know that? >> well, that could be cleared very easily. it's just like identifying people that go to work with their criticals. it's the businessperson that let them work without the credentials that's asing the problem. >> second question from greg meriwether goes to mr. melancon first. >> they're out there watching for sure, openly gay and lesbian louisiana residents who want to serve in the military, who want to possibly risk their lives for our country. what do you say to them tonight? >> knowing i support them. i grew up with many people, friends, relatives, they're gay they struggled with that problem going up.

they're all good citizens. they're all hard working. many went into the military, and they're good, hard working, hard fighting people. they want to be in the military, and they're the kind of people i want. >> very quickly, you said problem. you would think somebody is gay, that it is a problem? >> no, the problem i'm concerned with is their safety from people of mr. vitter's nature that would attack them. >> mr. vitter? >> i think the first consideration, greg, on this issue should be the safety and soundness of the military, being able to perform the necessary function of defending us. and so, therefore, i would turn to the military service. all of the military service chiefs had said, do not pass this right now. let us go through a process. >> watching right now, openly gay and wants to serve in the military? >> i would say our first duty, my first duty as senator is to have an effective military, and i'm listening to the military service people.

>> all right. jeff farrell has the next question. it goes first to mr. vitter. >> separation of church and state has become an issue. does the u.s. constitution calls for a separation of church and state in if you believe it does not, then do you believe the federal government should be based on christian beliefs that america is a christian nation? >> well, jeff, as you know, that exact term is not in the constitution. but certainly that concept is. and the freedom of religion cause embodies elements of that concept. i believe many folks conclude liberal activists have misinterpreted freedom of religion to be freedom from religion. in fact, they tried to shut down religious activity in a way that i completely disagree with. >> that doesn't mean we don't

provide religious freedoms to everyone. >> mr. melancon? >> i completely support prayer in school. i think clamping down against prayer in school has led to very negative trends in our society. >> mr. melancon? >> nibble prayer wherever, school or otherwise. our ancestors came here for religious freedom, but they also put in the bill of rights that there would be a separation of state and church, and there was a reason for that, because of why they came here. so, you know, there's a place for religion, there's a place for government. they started financeding religious groups. >> are we a christian nation? >> yes, we are, and i hope that we'll stay a christian nation. >> all right. next question. >> this deals with climate change and global warming, which could be a major concern for south louisiana's coast, as well as vulnerability to future hurricanes.

do you believe global warming is a scientific fact or a political ploy? >> i believe that after going to antarctica and seeing the science that is being conducted, and not totally understanding all of it because it's quite complex, but we have a problem with this world that we live in. it is not a healthy world, and we need to look towards trying to fix this problem. i'm not a doomsday person, but there is a place for us to get green, not tomorrow, over time. but we need to bring it to bear so this world we leave will be healthy for all the generations to come. at the rate we're going and what we're doing to it, i am fearful that we won't leave much of a will go a for our children and grandchildren. >> mr. sitter? >> this is another honest disagreement between us. i do not think the science clearly supports global warming theory. so i would not support any of

that sort of cap and tax legislation. mr. melancon said that, yes, he would support a so-called compromise cap and tax bill. i think that's wrong. i think it's bad for the country. i think it would be disastrous for louisiana. he also voted against an amendment saying if china and india don't follow suit, we would do away with our cap and tax program. he voted against that. he voted against several other significant amendments. >> next question from john denison. >> i hope we can have goods, honest answers here. what do you respect about your opponent? >> his sense of humor. >> could you elaborate? >> you know, i could repeat some of his cajun jokes, but i wouldn't tell them as well as charlie. >> mr. melancon? >> well, i respect the great education that he got. i just wish everybody in this country would have that opportunity to get as good of education or have a system that would provide as good of education.

>> plrt. short and sweet, dennis. >> final question from sally-ann roberts. >> the people of louisiana have shown this. you championed and authored a bill calling for term limits. are you in favor of term limits for congress? >> i'm not only in favor of it, sally-ann, i'm the author of the leading bill for term limits in congress. we needed it in the state legislature. i was effective passing it there against great odds. we need it even more in congress. >> if elected, then this would be your last term? >> i did not say that, den dennis. i said we need term limits for everyone. >> this is a very important point. term limits needs for everyone, otherwise you're going to penalize some states like louisiana or others. it needs to be a rule applied equally across the board, and we need to pass this into law. >> mr. melancon?

>> when mr. vitter was in the house. he was for term limits. when he was in the senate, he said he wanted to play by the rules that were out there. which meant that he -- it's on video. it was on the news. he voted against it before he voted for it. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. it's now time for closing statements from each candidate. gentlemen, each of you will have 45 seconds. we tossed a coin earlier tonight to determine the order, and we'll begin with mr. melancon? mr. melancon? >> i want to say, first of all, thank you all for the opportunity to be here. i ask the people of this state what they want in their u.s. senator. do they want someone that is bankrupt, amoral, ineffective, an embarrassment? do they want somebody who's honest or dishonest? do they want someone who puts louisiana first or do they want someone that puts b.p. first? do they want a person who

respects women or disrespects them? how do you face your children every morning and you say i want you to abide by the law, i want you to make sure you're honest, i want you to do the right things, but i'm going to vote for the guy that votes the law in his life, and that's ok. we in louisiana are smarter than that, and we need to make sure that we elect an independent person who puts louisiana first, that worries about the citizens of this state first, and not his own career, and i promise you, i'll never embarrass you. >> thank you. and now mr. sitter? >> thanks for tuning in tonight. you've listen and had heard a lot. one thing i want to tell you is i've listened to you. i've heard you. and i bring those priorities, those ideas to washington and my work every day, and i'm going to continue to do that. i humbly ask for your vote for two reasons. first of all, so that we can have real checks and balances against the obama administration and this very liberal congress. we need to get our country back

on the right track. we need to save our fundamental freedoms and our future for our kids. secondly, i ask for your vote so i can continue effectively to do important work for louisiana, coastal restoration, hurricane and flood protection, highways, infra structure. i look forward to continuing to do that important work to move our state forward. >> thank you. thank you both. that concludes our program for tonight. thanks to the candidates for joining us. thanks also to our panelists and to the stations for carrying this program. election day is tuesday, november 2. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> with just takes till election day, follow the key races and candidates on c-span with debates every night and go online to view archived debates at the c-span video library. visit our politics page for candidates' twitter feed, upcoming event coverage, campaign ads, and other resources. this weekend, see the jon stewart-stephen colbert rally

live this saturday at noon eastern on c-span. and through the weekend, we'll show lots of campaign events, debates, and interviews and open our phone lines for your comments about the campaign. follow c-span's election coverage right through election day. >> "washington journal" is next. we'll take your phone calls. later this morning, a conversation on national security and the first amendment. the panel will examine how the media reports certain types of information, including the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the