presidential debate between president barack obama and the republican nominee mitt romney. this debate and the next three are sponsored by the commission on presidential debates. tonight's 90 minutes will be about domestic issues and will follow a format designed by the commission. there will be six 15-minute segments with two-minute answers for the first question then open discussion for the remainder of the segment. thousands of people offered suggestions on questions via the internet and other means. i made the final selections. they were not suitted for approval to the commission or the candidates.

the segments will be three on the economy -- one each on health care, the role of goverment, and governing. there will be an emphasis throughout on differences, specifics, and choices. both will have two-minute closing statements. the audience has promised to remain silent. no cheers, applause, or other noisy, distracting things so we may concentrate on what the candidates have to say. there is a noise exception right now as we welcome president obama and governor romney. [applause]

welcome to you both. let's start with the economy. segment one. let's begin with jobs. what are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs? you have two minutes each to start. the coin toss has determined that mr. president goes first. >> thank you very much for this opportunity. thank you, governor romney and the university of denver. 20 years ago, i became the luckiest man on earth because michelle obama agreed to marry me. i want to wish you happy anniversary and let you know that a year from now, we will

not be celebrating it in front of 40 million people. four years ago, we went through the worst financial crisis since the great depression. millions of jobs were lost. the auto industry was on the brink of collapse. the financial system froze up. because of the resilience and the determination of the american people, we have begun to fight our way back. we have seen five million jobs in the private sector created. the auto industry has come back. housing has begun to rise. we have a lot of work to do. the question here is not where we have been but where we are going. governor romney has a perspective that says if we cut taxes, skew toward the wealthy, and roll back regulations, we will be better off. i have a different view. we have to invest in education

and training. it is important to develop new sources of oil in america, change our tax code to help small businesses and companies investing in the united states, that we take some of the money that we are saving rebuild america. it will be up to the voters what path we should take. will we double down on the top- down economic policies that helped get us into this mess or embrace a new economic patriotism that says america does best when the middle class does best? i look forward to having that debate. >> it is in honor to be here with you. i appreciate the chance to be with the president. congratulations to you, mr. president, on your anniversary.

i am sure this is the most romantic place you could imagine, here with me. congratulations. this is a tender topic. i have met people across the country. i was in dayton, ohio, and a woman said, "i have been out of work since may. can you help me?" yesterday was a rally in denver. a woman with a baby said, "my husband has had four jobs in three years -- part-time jobs. he lost his recent job." we lost our home. can you help us?" yes, we can. it will take a different path, not the one we have been on. not the one the president describes as a top-down tax cut for the rich. my plan has five parts -- get us not american energy independent to create 4 million jobs. open up trade in latin america.

crackdown on china if they cheat. make sure people have the skills to succeed in the best schools in the world. get us to a balanced budget, champion small business. it is small business that creates jobs in america. over the last four years, small- business people decided america may not be the place to open a new business because new business start-ups are down to a 30-year low. i know what it takes to hire people. i am concerned that the path we are on is unsuccessful. the president has a view very similar to what he had four years ago that a bigger government spending more, taxing more. trickle-down government would work. that is not the right answer for america. i will restore the vitality that gets america working again. >> please respond directly to

the trickle-down approach. >> let me talk about what i think we need to do. we have to improve our education system. we have made enormous progress drawing on ideas from democrats and republicans. they are starting to show gains in some of the toughest-to-deal- with schools. we have a program called race to the top that has prompted reforms in 46 states, raising standards, improving how we train teachers. i want to hire another 100,000 new math and science teachers and create 2 million more slots in our community colleges so people can get trained for the jobs that are out there. i want to make sure we keep tuition low for our young people. when it comes to our tax code, we agree that our corporate tax rate is too high. i want to lower its for

manufacturing. i want to close loopholes that are giving incentives for companies shipping jobs overseas. i want to give tax breaks for companies investing in the united states on energy. we agree we have to boost american energy production, and oil and natural gas production have been higher than they have been in years. we have to look at the energy source of the future like wind, solar, and biofuels and make those investments. all of this is possible. we have to close our deficit. we will discuss how we deal with our tax code and how we make sure we are reducing spending in a response away and have enough revenue to make those investments. governor romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of the extension of the bush tax cut. $2 trillion in additional

military spending -- without dumping the cost on the middle-class americans. that is one of the central questions of this campaign. >> you have spoken about a lot of different things. governor romney, do you have a question you would like to ask directly about something he just said? >> i do not have a tax-cut scale you're talking about. we have to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. i will not reduce the share of taxes paid by high income people. they are doing fine in the economy. the people who are having a hard time are middle-income americans.

under the president's policies, they have been buried. middle income americans have seen their income decreased by $4,300. this is a tax in itself -- the economy tax. gasoline prices have doubled under the president, electric rates are up, food prices are up, health-care costs have gone up by $2,500 per family. the question is how to get them going again. it is energy and trade. the right kind of training programs. the president mentioned those ideas. education. it is key. it is the future of our economy. we have 47 training programs. they are reporting to eight agencies. we have to get those dollars back to the states and to the

workers so they can create pathways into training they need for jobs that will help them. taxation. we should bring the tax rates down. for corporations and individuals. for us not to lose revenue, i lowered deductions and credits and intentions so we keep taking in the same money when you account for growth. energy is critical. the president pointed out that production of oil and gas in the u.s. is up but not due to his policies -- in spite of his policies. all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half. if i am president, i will double them. i will get the oil from offshore and alaska. i like coal. people in the coal industry feel like it is getting crushed by your policies. i want to get america and north

american energy independence so we can create jobs. i am not looking to cut massive taxes and reduce the revenues going into the government. my number one principle is that there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. no tax cut that adds to the deficit. i want to reduce the burden being paid by middle-income americans. i cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income americans. any language of the contrary is not accurate. >> let's talk about taxes. it is instructive. four years ago when i stood on the stage, i said that i would cut taxes for middle-class families. that is what i did. we cut taxes for middle-class families by about $3,600. we do best when the middle class

is doing well. by giving them those tax cuts, they have a little more money in their pockets so they can buy a new car. they are in a better position to weather the recession we went through. they can buy a computer for their kid who goes to college, which means they spend more money. businesses make more profits and hire more. governor romney's proposal that he has promoted for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion cut. he is saying he will pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. he has been asked how he would close those loopholes and deductions. he has not been able to identify them. when you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper-income individuals are

taking advantage of, take those all away. you do not come close to paying for $5 trillion. that is why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet governor romney's pledge of not reducing the deficit or not adding to the deficit is by burdening middle- class families. they would pay about $2,000 more. that is not my analysis. that is the analysis of the economists. that kind of top down economics where people at the top are doing well while middle-class families are burdened further, that is not what i believe is a recipe for economic growth. >> what is the difference? let's stay on taxes for a moment. >> everything he said about my

tax plan is inaccurate. if the tax plan he described were a tax plan i were going to support, i would say no. i will not put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. that is part one. no economist can say mitt romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion. i will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. you keep saying that. it is not the case. i have five boys. i am used to people saying something that is not always true, repeating it, and hoping i will believe it. that is not the case. i will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income americans. i will not raise taxes on middle-income families. i will lower taxes for middle- income families.

there are studies that looked at the studies you describe and say it is wrong. a study said you will raise taxes by $3,000 or $4,000. i want to bring down rates, lower deductions and exemptions, and so forth so we keep getting the revenue we need. small-business pays that individual rate. 54% of america's workers work in businesses that are taxed at the individual tax rate. if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people. this is about jobs. >> do you challenge what the governor said about his plan? >> for 18 months he has been running on this tax plan. now, he is saying that his idea is never mind.

if you are lowering the rates the way you described, it is not possible to come up with enough deductions that only affect high-income individuals to avoid raising the deficit or burdening the middle class. it is math. it is arithmetic. governor romney and i do share a deep interest in encouraging small-business growth. while my tax plan has been lowering taxes for 98% of families, i lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times. i want to continue the tax rates we put into place for small businesses and families. for incomes over $250,000 per year, we should go back to the rate we had when bill clinton was president when we created 23 million new jobs.

we created a lot of millionaires. by doing that we can not only reduce the deficit, we can not only encourage job growth through small businesses, but we can make the necessary investments in education and energy. we have a difference when it comes to definitions of small business. under my plan, 97% of small businesses will not see their income taxes go up. governor romney says those top 3% would be burdened. under governor romney's definition, there are millionaires and businesses who are small businesses. donald trump is a small business. he does not like to think of himself as small anything. that is how you define small- business. that kind of approach will not grow our economy because the only way to pay for it without

burdening the middle class or blowing up our deficit is to make drastic cuts in things like education, making sure that we are investing in basic science and research. everything that is helping america grow. that would be a mistake. >> just for the record -- we are over our first 15 minutes. we are still on the economy. we will come back to taxes. we will move on to the deficit. >> mr. president, you are right. 97% of the businesses are not taxed at the 35% business rate. those businesses in the last 3% employ half of the people who work in small business.

they have employed one quarter of all the workers of america. you plan to take their rate from 35% to 40%. i talked to a guy with four employees. he said he and his son calculated how much they pay in taxes. it added up to well over 50% of what they earned. your plan is to take the tax rate of successful small businesses from 35% to 40%. the national federation of independent businesses says that will cost 700,000 jobs. i do not want to cost jobs. my priority is jobs. i bring down the tax rates, lower deductions and exemptions, the same ideas of bowles-simpson to create more jobs. there is nothing better toward

getting us to the balanced budget than having more people working, paying more taxes. that is the most efficient way to get this budget balanced. >> you may want to move on to another topic. if you believe we can cut taxes by $5 trillion, and add $2 trillion in additional spending, that the military is not asking for, $7 trillion -- over 10 years -- that is more than our entire defense budget. you think that by closing loopholes and deductions for the well-to-do, you will not end up picking up the tab. governor romney's plan may work for you. math, common sense, and our history shows us that is not a recipe for job growth. we have tried both approaches. the approach that governor romney is talking about is the

same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003. we ended up with the slowest job growth and 50 years. we ended up living from surplus to deficits. it culminated in the worst financial crisis since the great depression. bill clinton tried the approach i am talking about. we created 23 million new jobs, but from deficit to surplus, and businesses did well. in some ways we have some data on which approach is more likely to create jobs and opportunity for americans. i believe that the economy works best when middle-class families are getting tax breaks and those of us who have done well because of this magnificent country we live in that we can afford to do more to make sure we are not blowing up the deficit. >> he gets the first word of

that segment. let me make this comment. let me repeat what i said. i am not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. my plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. that is not my plan. let's look at history. my plan is not like anything that has been tried before. my plan is to bring down rates and credit so the revenue stays in but we bring down rates to get more people working. my priority is putting people back to work in america. they are suffering. look at the evidence of the last four years. it is extraordinary. we have 23 million people out of work or have stopped looking for work. when the president took office, 47 million were on food stamps.

economic growth is slower than last year and last year's lower than the year before. going forward with the status quo will not cut it for the american people who are struggling. >> we are still on the economy. this is the second segment on the economy, specifically on what to do with the federal deficit. you each have two minutes. governor romney, you go first because the president went first on segment one. what are the differences between the two of you as to how you would go about tackling the deficit problem in this country? >> it is a critical issue. it is not as an economic issue. it is a moral issue. it is not moral from my generation to keep spending more than we take in knowing those burdens will be passed on to the next generation and they will pay the interest and principal for the rest of their lives.

the amount of debt we are adding is not moral. how do we deal with it? there are three ways that you can cut a deficit. one is to raise taxes. another is to cut spending. number three is to grow the economy. if more people work, they are paying taxes. the president would prefer raising taxes. the problem is that it slows down the rate of growth. you can never quite get the job done. i want to lower spending and encourage economic growth. i will eliminate all programs by this test if they do not pass it. is the program so critical is it is worth borrowing china to pay for it? obamacare is on my list. i use the term with all respect. i will get rid of that.

i will stop the subsidy to pbs. i like pbs. i like big bird. i cannot keep spending money to borrow from china to pay for it. i will take programs that are good programs but will be run more officially at the state level. i'll make government more efficient and cut back the number of employees and combine some agencies. my cutbacks will be done through attrition. the president said he would cut the deficit in half. he doubled it. trillion-dollar deficits for the last four years. the president has put in place almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined. >> when i walked into the oval office i had more than a trillion dollar deficit greeting me. we know where it came from. two wars paid for on a credit

card, two cuts that are not pay for, programs that were not paid for, a massive economic crisis. despite that, yes, we had to take some emergency measures to make sure we did not slip into a great depression. let's make sure we are cutting out things that are not helping us grow. 77 government programs from aircrafts that the air force ordered but were not working well. 18 government programs for education that were well- intentioned. they're not helping kids learn. we went after medical fraud in medicare and medicaid very aggressively. it saved tens of billions of dollars. i worked with democrats and republicans to cut a trillion dollars out of our

discretionary domestic budget, the largest cut in the discretionary domestic budget since dwight eisenhower. we have to do more. i put forward a $4 trillion reduction plan on a website. you can look at the numbers. what cuts we make and what revenue we raise. $2.50 for every cut we ask for a dollar of additional revenue, paid for by asking those of us who have done well in this country to contribute more to reduce the deficit. romney mentioned the bowles- simpson commission. that is how the bipartisan commission suggested we do it -- in a balanced way with some revenue and some spending cuts. this is a major difference that governor romney and i had. you are looking for contrast. when governor romney stood on a

stage with other republican candidates for the nomination, he was asked, "would you take $10 of spending cuts for just $1 of revenue?" he said no. if you take an unbalanced approach, that means you are going to be cutting our investment in schools and education. governor romney talked about medicaid and how we can send it back to the states. that means a 30% cut in the primary program we held for seniors in nursing homes, kids with disabilities. that is not a right strategy for us to move forward. >> what about simpsons bowles? >> i have my own plans. if you want to make adjustments, make it. go to congress and fight for it.

>> that is what we have done. >> you have been president for four years. he said he would cut the deficit in half. we still have trillion-dollar deficits. if you are reelected, we will get to a trillion-dollar debt. you have said you will cut the deficit in half. you find $4 trillion in cuts. we still show trillion-dollar deficits every year. that doesn't get the job done. let me come back and say why is it that i don't want to raise taxes? i don't want to raise taxes on people? and actually you said it back in 2010 you said i'm going to extend the tax policies that we have. i'm not going to raise taxes on anyone because when the economy is growing slow like this you shouldn't raise taxes on anyone. well, the economy is still growing slow as a matter of fact it's growing much more

slowly now than when you made that statement. so if you believe the same thing you don't want to raise taxes on people. and the reality is rich people like donald trump you're taxes. it's all those businesses that employ one quarter of the people in america. you raise taxes and you kill jobs. that's why the national federation of independent businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. i don't want to kill jobs in this environment. i will make one more point. >> we've had there discussion before. >> the idea that in order to reduce the deficit there has to be revenue in addition to cuts. >> there has to be revenue in addition to cuts. governor romney has ruled out revenue. >> look, the revenue i get is by more people working getting higher pay, paying more taxes. that's how we get growth and how we balance the budget.

but the idea of taxing people more, putting more people out of work, you'll never get there. you'll never balance the budget by raising taxes. spain spends 42% of their total economy on government. we're now spending 42% of our economy on government. i don't want to go down the path of spain. i want to go down the path of growth that puts more americans back to work. >> you're saying in order to get the job done it's god got to be balanced. >> if we're serious we've got to take a balanced approach. and this is not just individual taxes. let's talk about corporate taxes. now, i've identified areas where we can right away make a change that i believe would actually help the economy. the oil industry gets $4 billion a year. in corporate welfare basically they get deductions that those small businesses that governor romney refers to they don't

get. does anybody think that exxon mobile needs some extra money when they're making money every time you go to the pump? why wouldn't we want to eliminate that? why wouldn't we eliminate tax breaks for corporate jets? my attitude is if you've got a corporate jet you can probably afford to pay full freight and not get a special break. when it comes to corporate taxes governor romney has said he wants to in a revenue neutral way close loopholes deductions, he hasn't identified which ones they are but that delish bring down the corporate rate. well, i want to do the same thing but i've actually identified how we can do that and part of the way to do that is to not give tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. right now you can take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. i think most americans would say that doesn't make sense. and all that raises revenue. and so if we take a balanced

approach what that then allows us to do is also to help young people the way we already have during my administration make sure that they can afford to go to college. it means that the teacher that i met in las vegas wonderful young lady who describes to me she's got 42 kids in her class. the first two weeks she's got some of them sitting on the floor until finally they get reassigned. they're using text books that are 10 years old. that is not a resip for growth. that is not how america was built. so budgets reflect choices. ultimate hi we're going to have to make some decisions. and if we're asking for no revenue then that means that we're going to have to get rid of a whole bunch of stuff and the magnitude of the tax cuts that you're talking about would end up resulting in severe hardship for people but more importantly would not help us grow. as i indicated before, when you talk about shifting medicaid to

states we're talking about potentially a 30% cut in medicaid over time. now, that may not seem like a big deal when it just is numbers on a sheet of paper but if we're talking about a family who has an aut stick kid and is depending on that medicaid that is a big problem. and governors are creative but they're not creative enough to make up for 30% of revenue on something like medicaid. what ends up happening is some people end up not getting help. >> jim, we've gone over a lot of topics so it's going to go from medicaid to schools to oil to tax breaks and companies going overseas. first, the department of energy has said the tax breaks for oil companies is 2.8 billion a year. and it's actually an accounting system that has been in place for a hundred years. and in one year you provided

$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. now, i like green energy as well but that's about 50 years worth of what oil and gas receives and you say exxon and mobile actually this goes to small companies to drilling operators and so fords. but if we get that tax break down to 25%, that is on the table. of course it's on the table. that's probably not going to survive to get that rate down to 25%. but don't forget, you put $90 billion -- like 50 year's worth of breaks -- into solar and wind. so sol inddra and -- i had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers. this is not the kind of policy you want to have you want to get america energy secure. the second topic is you said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. i've been in business for 25 years. i have no idea what you're talking about. i maybe need to get a new accountant but the idea that

you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case. what we do have right now is a setting twr i would like to bring money from overseas back to this country. and medicaid the states i'm not sure where that came in except this. i would like to take the medicaid dollars to go to states and say to a state you're going to get what you got last year plus inflation plus 1% and then you're going to manage your care for your poor and the way you think best. and i remember as a governor when this idea was floated by tommy thompson, the governors, republican and democrats, said please let us do that. we can care for our own poor in so much better and more effective a way than having the federal government tell us how to care for our poor. so let's -- one of the magnificent things about this country is the whole idea is states are the laboratories of democracy. don't have the federal government tell everybody what kind of training programs they have to have and what kind of medicaid they have to have. let states do this. and by the way, if a state gets

in trouble, we can step in and find a way to help them. but the right approach is one which relies on the brilliance of our people and states not the federal government. >> still on the economy but another part of it. all right? this is segment three, the economy. entitlements. first answer goes to you two minutes mr. president. do you see a major difference between the two of you on social security? >> i suspect that on social security we've got a somewhat similar position. social security is structurally sound. it's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by ronald reagan and tip o'neal. but it is the basic structure is sound. but i want to talk about the values behind social security and medicare. and then talk about medicare. because that's the big driver of our deficits right now. my grandmother some of you know

helped to raise me. my grandparents did. my grandfather died a while back. my grandfather died three days before i was elected president. she was fiercely independent. she started as a secretary ebbeded up being the vice president of a local bank. and she ended up living alone by choice. and the reason she could be independent was because of social security and medicare. she had worked all her life, put in this money and understood that there was a basic guarantee, a floor under which she could not go. and that's the perspective i bring when i think about what's called entitlements. the name itself implies some sense of dependency on the part of these folks. these are folks who have worked hard like my grandmother and there are millions of people out there who are counting on this. so my approach is to say how do we strenten the system over the long term. and in medicare what we dwid was we said we are going to have to bring down the costs if

we're going to deal with our long term deficits. but to do that, let's look where some of the money is going. $716 billion we were able to save from the medicare program by no longer overpaying insurance companies, by making sure that we weren't overpaying providers, and using that money we were actually able to lower prescription drug costs for seniors by an average of $600 and we were also able to make a significant dent in providing them the kind of preventive care that will ultimately save money throughout the system. so the way for us to deal with medicare in particular is to lower health care costs. when it comes to social security, as i said, you don't need a major structural change in order to make sure that social security is there for the future. >> first governor romney you have two minutes on social security and entitlements. >> well, jim, our seniors depend on these programs. and i know any time we talk

about teements people become concerned that something is going to happen that is going to change their life for the worse. and the answer is neither the president nor i are posing any changes for any current retirees or near retirees. either to social security or medicare. so if you're 60 or around 60 or older you don't need to listen any further. but for younger people we need to talk about what changes are going to be occurring. i just thought about one. i was wrong when the president isn't proposing any changes. he is on medicare. but on medicare, for current retirees, he's cutting $716 billion from the program. he says by not overpaying hops thals and providers. actually just going to them and saying we're going to reduce the rates you get paid across the board everyone is going to get a lower rate. that's not going after places where there's abuse. some 15% of hospitals and nursing homes say they won't take any more medicare patients under that scenario.

we also have 50% of doctors say they won't take more medicare patients. we have 4 million people on medicare advantage that will lose medicare advantage because of those 716 billion in cuts. i can't understand how you can cut medicare $716 billion for current recipients in medicare. now, you point out well we're putting some back. we're going to give a better prescription program. that's $1 for every 15 you've cut. they're smart enough to know that's not a good trade. i want to take that $716 billion you've cut and put it back into medicare. by the way, we can include a prescription program if we need to improve it. but the idea of cutting $716 from medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of obama care is in my opinion a mistake. and with regards to young people coming along, i've got proposals to make sure medicare and social security are there for them without any question. >> first of all, i think it's important for governor romney

to present this plan that he says will only affect folks in the future. and the essence of the plan is that he would turn medicare into a voucher program. it's called premium support but it's understood to be a voucher program. >> and you don't support that. >> i don't. and let me explain why. >> again that's for future people not for current retirees. >> so if you're 54 or 55 you might want to listen because this will affect you. the idea which was originally presented by congressman ryan your running mate is that we would give a voucher to seniors and they could go out in the private marketplace and buy their own hins. the problem is that because the voucher wouldn't necessarily keep up with health care inflation it was estimated that this would cost the average senior about $67,000 a year.

in fair -- $6,000 a year. in fairness what governor romney has said is he'll maintain traditional medicare alongside it. the insurance companies are clever about figuring out who are the younger and healthier seniors. they recruit them leaving the older sicker seniors in medicare. and every health care economist who looks at it says over time what will happen is the traditional medicare system will collapse. and then what you've got is folks like my grandmother at the mercy of the private insurance system precisely at the time when they are most in need of decent health care. so i don't think vouchers are the right way to go. and this is not my only my opinion. aarp thinks that the savings that we obtained from medicare bolster the system, lengthen the medicare trust fund by 8 years. benefits were not affected at all. and ironically, if you repeal obama care -- and i have become

fond of this term, obama care. if you repeal it, what happens is those seniors right away are going to be paying $600 more in prescription care. they're not going to be having to pay copays for basic checkups that can keep them healthier. and the primary beneficiary of that repeal are insurance companies that are estimated to gain billions of dollars back when they aren't making seniors any healthier. and i don't think that's the right approach when it comes to making sure that medicare is stronger over the long term. >> we'll talk about specifically about health care in a moment. but what do you support the voucher system governor? >> what i support is no change for current retirees and near retirees to medicare and the president supports taking $716 billion out of that program. so that's number one. number two, is for people coming along that are young. what i do to make sure that we can keep medicare in place for

them is to allow them either to choose the current medicare program or a private plan their choice. and they'll have at least two plans that will entirely atno cost to them. so they don't have to pay additional money. they'll have at least two plans. and by the way, if the government can be as efficient as the private sector and offer premiums as low as the private sector people will be happy to get traditional medicare or they'll be able to get a private plan. i know my own view is i would rather have a private plan. i would just as soon not have the government telling me what kind of health care i have to get. but people make their own choice. the other thing we have to do to save medicare, we have to have the benefits high for those that are low income but for higher income people we're going to have to lower some of the benefits. we have to make sure this program is there for the long term. that's the plan that i put forward and the idea came not even from paul ryan or senator wide whon is a coauthor of the

bill but also it came from bill clinton's chief of staff. this is an idea that's been around a long time. we're just saying let's see if we can't get competition into the medicare world so that people can get the choice that different plans at lower cost better quality. i believe in competition. >> if i can just respond quickly. first of all every study has shown that medicare has lowor administrative costs than private insurance does. which is why seniors are generally pretty happy with it. and private insurance has to make a provet. nothing wrong with that. that's what they do. and so you've got higher administrative costs plus profit on top of that. and if you are going to save any money through what governor romney is proposing, what has to happen is that the money has to come from somewhere. and when you move to a voucher system, you are putting seniors at the mercy of those insurance companies and over time if

traditional medicare has decade or fallen apart, then they're stuck. and this is the reason why aarp has said that your plan would weaken medicare substantially and that's why they were supportive of the approach that we took. one last point i want to make. we do have to lower the cost of health care. not just in medicare and not -- >> we'll talk about that in a minute. >> but overall. >> that's a big topic. >> i want to -- all i want to do before we get out of time. >> the president said the government can provide the service at lower cost and without a profit. if that's the case then it will always be the best product that people can purchase. but my experience is the private sector typically is able to provide a better product at a lower cost. >> can the two of you agree that the voters have a care choice between the two of you on medicare? >> absolutely.

>> so to finish quickly briefly on the economy. what is your view about the level of federal regulation of the economy right now? is there too much? and in your case mr. president should there be more? beginning with you. this is not a new two-segment just start and we'll go for a few minutes and then we'll go to health care. >> regulation is essential. you can't have a free market work if you don't have regulation. as a businessperson, i had to have -- i need to know the regulations. i need them there. you can't have people opening up banks in their garage and making loans. you have to have regulations so that you can have an economy work. every free economy has good regulations. at the same time, regulation could become excessive. >> is it excessive now? >> in some places yes in some places no. it can become out of date. and what's happened with some of the legislation you've seen regulation become excessive and it's hurt the economy. let me give you an example.

dodd frank was passed and it includes within it a number of provisions that i think has some unintended consequence that is are harmful to the economy. one is it designates a number of banks as too big to fail and they're effectively guaranteed by the federal government. this is the biggest kiss to new york banks i've ever seen. there's been 122 community and small banks have closed since dodd frank. so there's one example. here's another in dodd frank -- you want to repeal it? >> replace it. you have to have regulation. and there are some parts that make all the sense in the world. you need transparency, you need to have leverage limits for institution. let me mention the other one. >> let's not. let's let him respond. so this specific on dodd frank and what the governor just said. >> i think this is a great example.

the reason we've been in such an enormous economic crisis was prompted by reckless behavior across the board. now, it wasn't just on wall street. you had loan officers that were giving loans and mortgages that really shouldn't have been given because the forks didn't qualify. you had people borrowing money to buy a house they couldn't afford. you had credit agencies that were stamping these as a-1 great investments when they weren't. but you also had banks making money hand over fist churning out products that the bankers themselves didn't even understand in order to make big profits but knowing that it made the entire system vulnerable. so what did dwow? we stepped in and had the toughest reforms on wall street since 1930's. we said you've got -- bank, you've got to raise your capital requirements you can't engage in some of this risky

behavior that's putting main street at risk. we've got to make sure that you've got to have a living will so we know how you are going to wind things down. in the meantime by the way, we also made sure that all the help that we provided those banks was paid back every single dime with interest. now, governor romney has said he wants to repeal dodd frank. and i appreciate and it appears we've got some agreement that a marketplace to work has to have some regulation. but in the past governor romney has said he wants to repeal dodd frank. and so the question is does anybody out there think that the big problem we had is that there was too much oversight and regulation of wall street? because if you do, then governor romney is your candidate. but that's not what i believe. host: >> that's just not the facts. look, we have to have the

regulation on wall street. that's why i would have regulation. but i wouldn't designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. that's one of the unintended consequences of dodd frank. it wasn't thought through. we need to get rid of that prostrigs. let me mention another regulation. you say we were giving mortgages to people who weren't qualified. that's exactly right. that's one of the reasons for the great financial calamity we had. so dodd frank correctly says we need to have qualified mortgages and if you give a mortgage that's not qualified there are big pements but they didn't define what a qualified mortgage was. it's been two years. we don't know with what a qualified mortgages yet. so banks are reluctant to make loans. try to get a mortgage these days. it's hurt the housing market because dodd frank didn't anticipate putting in place the kinds of regulations you have to have. it's not that dodd frank always was wrong with the regulation.

sometimes they didn't come up with the clear regulation. i will make sure we don't hurt the functions of our marketplace and businesses because i want to bring back business and good jobs. >> now let's move to health care where i know there is a clear difference and that has to do with the affordable care act. obama care. and it's a two-man new segment. -- minute new segment. two minutes each. and you go first governor romney. you wanted repeal. you want the affordable care act repealed. why? >> i sure do. in part i comes again from my experience. i was in new hampshire, a woman came to me and she said look i can't afford insurance for myself or my son. i met a couple in amton, wisconsin. and they said we're thinking of dropping our insurance. we can't afford it. and the number of small businesses i've gone to that are dropping insurance because they can't afford it. the cost of health care is just prohibitive. and we've got to deal with

cost. and unfortunately when you look at obamacare, the congressional budget office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. so it's adding to costs. and as a matter of fact, when the president ran for office he said that by the year he would have brought down the cost of insurance for each family by $2,500 a fam lifment instead it's gone up by that amount. so it's expensive. expensive things hurt families. second reason, you cut $716 billion from medicare to pay for it. i want to put that money back in medicare for our seniors. number three, it puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. i don't like that idea. fourth, there was a survey done of small businesses across the country said what's been the effect of obamacare on your hiring plans? and three quarters of them said it makes us less likely to hire people. i just don't know how the president could come into

office, facing 23 million people out of work rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the kitchen table, and spend his energy and passion for two years fighting for obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the american people. it has killed jobs. and the best course for health care is to do what we did in my state, craft a plan at the state level that fits the needs of the state and then let's focus on getting the costs down for people rather than raising it with the $2,500 additional premium. >> the argument against repeal. >> well, four years ago when i was running for office i was traveling around and having the same conversations that governor romney talks about. and it wasn't just that small businesses were seeing costs skyrocket and they couldn't get affordable coverage even if they wanted to provide it to their employees. it wasn't just that this was the biggest driver of our federal deficit. but it was families who were worried about going bankrupt if

they got sick. millions of families all across the country. they had a preexisting condition. they might not be able to get coverage at all. if they did have coverage, insurance companies might impose an arbitrary limit and so as a consequence they're paying their premiums. somebody gets really sick low and behold they don't have enough money to pay the bills because the insurance companies say that they've hit the limit. so we did work on this alongside working on jobs because this is part of making sure that mick families are secure -- middle class families are security in this country. number one, if you've got health insurance, it doesn't mean a government takeover. you keep your own insurance. you keep your own doctor. but it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around. they can't impose arbitrary lifetime limits. they have to let you keep your kid on your insurance plan until they're 6 years old.

and it also says that you're going to have to get rebates if insurance companies are spending more on administrative costs and profits than they are on actual care. number two, if you don't have health insurance we're lerble essentially setting up a group plan that are 18% lower than if you're out there trying to get insurance on the individual market. now, the last point i would make before -- >> your two minutes is up. >> i had five seconds before you interrupted me. was the irony is that we've seen this model work really well in massachusetts. because governor romney did a good thing working with democrats in the state to set up what is essentially the identical model and as a

consequence people are covered there. it hasn't destroyed jobs. and as a consequence we now have a system in which we have the opportunity to start bringing down costs as opposed to just leaving millions out of people out of the cold. >> your five seconds went away a long time ago. >> governor, tell the president directly why you think what he just said is wrong about obamacare. >> well, i did with my first statement but i'll go on. first of all, i like the way we did it in massachusetts. i like the fact that in my state we had republicans and democrats come together and work together. what you did instead was to push through a plan without a single republican vote. as a matter of fact, when massachusetts did something quite extraordinary, elect add republican senator, to stop obama care you pushed it through anyway. so entirely on a partisan basis instead of bringing america together and having a discussion on this important topic you pushed through something that you and nancy

pelosi and harry reid thought was the best answer and drove it through. what we did in a legislator 87% democrat we worked together. 200 legislators in my legislature. only two voted against the plan by the time we were finished. we didn't raise taxes. you've raised them by $1 trillion. we didn't cut medicare. we didn't have medicare but we didn't cut medicare by $716 billion. we didn't put in place a board that can tell people what treatmentses they can receive. we didn't also do something that i think a number of people across this country recognize which is put people in a position where they're going to lose the insurance they have. and they wanted. right now the cbo says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as obama caver goes into effect next year. and likewise a study of american businesses said 30% of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage. so for those reasons for the tax, for medicare, for this board, and for people losing

their insurance, this is why the american people don't want medicare -- don't want obamacare, it's why republicans said do not do this. and the republicans have a plan. they put a plan out. they put a bipartisan plan. it was swept aside. i think something this big, this important has to be done on a bipartisan basis. and we have to have a president who can reach across the aisle and fashion important legislation with the input from both parties. >> governor romney said this has to be done on a bipartisan basis. this was a bipartisan idea. in fact it was a republican idea. governor romney at the beginning of this debate wrote and said what we did in massachusetts could be a model for the nation. and i agree that the democratic legislators in massachusetts might have given some advice to republicans in congress about how to cooperate but the fact of the matter is we used the same advisers and they say it's the same plan. when governor romney talks about this board, for example,

unelected board that we've created, what this is is a group of health care expert, doctors, et cetera to figure out how can we reduce the cost of care in the system overall. because there are two ways of dealing with our health care crisis. one is to simply leave a whole bunch of people uninsured and let them fend for themselves torks let businesses figure out how long they can continue to pay premiums until finally they give up and their workers are no longer getting insured or alternatively we can figure out how can we make the cost of care more effective. and there are ways of doing it. so at cleveland clinic one of the best health care systems in the world, they actually provide great care cheaper than average and the reason they do is because they do some smart things. they say if a patient's coming in let's get all the doctors together at once, do one test

instead of having the patient run around with ten tests. let's make sure that we're providing preventive care so we're catching the onset of something like diabetes. let's pay providers on the basis of performance as opposed to on the basis of how many procedures they've engaged in. now, so what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says let's use the purchasing power of medicare and medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do. and the fact of the matter is that when obamacare is fully implemented, we're going to be in a position to show that costs are going down and over the last two years health care premiums have gone up it's true but they've gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. so we're already beginning to see progress. in the meantime, folks out there with insurance, you're already getting a rebate.

let me make one last point. governor romney says we should replace it. i'm just going to repeal it but we can replace it with something. but the problem is he hasn't described what exactly we would replace it with other than saying we're going to leave it to the states. but the fact of the matter is that some of the prescriptions that he has aufered like let youg buy insurance across state lines there's no indication that that somehow is going to help somebody that has a preexisting condition be able to finally buy insurance. it's estimate that had you're looking at 50 million people losing health insurance at a time when it's violetly important. >> let's let the governor explain what the governor would do. how quowled you replace it? >> actually it's a lengthy description but number one preexisting conditions are covered under my plan. number two, young people are able to stay on their family plan. that's already offered. you don't need to have the

government mandate that to let that occur. but let's come back to something the president and i agree on which is the key task we have in health care is to get the costs down so it's more affordable for families and then he has as a model for doing that a board of people at the government unelected board appointed board who are going to decide what kind of treatments you ought to have. in my opinion, the government is not effective in bringing down the cost of almost anything. as a matter of fact, free people and free enterprises trying to do things better are able to be more effective in bringing down the cost than the government will ever be. your example of the cleveland clinic is my case in point. this is the private market. these are enterprises competing with each other learning how to do better jobs. i used to consult to businesses -- to hospitals and to health care providers. i was astonished at the creativity and innovation that

exists in the american people. in order to bring the cost of health care down we don't need to have a board of 15 people telling us what kinds of treatments we should have. we instead need to put insurance plans, providers hospitals doctors on target such that they have an incentive as you say performance pay for doing an excellent job for keeping costs down. and that's happening. intermountain health care does it superbly well. mayo clinic is doing it. cleveland clinic. others. but the right answer is not to have the federal government take over health care and start mandating to the providers across america telling a patient and a doctor what kind of treatment they can have. that's the wrong way to go. the private market and individual responsibility always work best. >> let me just point out first of all this board that we're talking about can't make decisions about what treatments are given. that's explicitly prohibited in the law. but let's go back to what

governor romney indicated that under his plan he would be able to cover people with preexisting conditions. well, actually governor, that isn't what your plan does. what your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law which says if you are out of health insurance for three months then you can end up getting continuous coverage and insurance company can't deny you if it's been under 90 days. but that's already the law. and that doesn't help the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions. there's a reason why governor romney set tup plan that he did in massachusetts. it wasn't a government takeover of health care. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. but what it does say is that insurers, you've got to take everybody. now, that also means that you've got more customers. but when governor romney says

that he will replace it with something, but can't detail how it will be in fact replaced and the reason he set up the system he did in massachusetts was because there isn't a better way of dealing with the preexisting problems. it just reminds me he says he's going to close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan. that's how it's going to be paid for but we don't nodenow the details. he says that he is going to replace dodd frank, wall street reform. but we don't know exactly which ones. he won't tell us. he now says he's going to replace obamacare and assure that all the good things that are in are it are going to be in there and you don't have to worry. and at some point i think the american people have to ask themselves is the reason that governor romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they're too good? is it because that somehow middle class families are going to benefit too much from them?

no. the reason is because when we reform wall street, when we tackle the problem of preexisting conditions, then these are tough problems. and we've got to make choices. and the choices we've made have been ones that ultimately are benefiting middle class families all over the country. >> i have to respond to that which is my experience as a governor is if i come in and lay down a piece of legislation and say it's my way or the highway i don't get a lot done. what i do is the same way that tip o'neal and ronald reagan worked together some years ago. when ronald reagan was elected he laid out the principles. he said he was going to lower tax rates. you said you're going to do the same thing. those are my principles. i want to bring down the tax burden on middle income families and i'm going to work together with congress to say what are the various ways? one way for instance would be to have a single number make up

a number 25,000, 50,000, anybody can have deductions up to that amount. and then that number disappears for high income people. that's one way one could do it. one could follow bowls simpson as a model and take deduction. there's alternatives to accomplish the objective i have which is to bring down rates and broaden the base, simplify the code and create incentives for growth. and with regards to health care. you have remarkable details with regards to my preexisting condition plan. in fact i do have a plan that deals with people with preexisting conditions. and what we did in massachusetts is a model for the nation state by state. and i said that at that time. the federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the tenth amendment which give states the rights for these kinds of things is not the course for america to have a stronger more vibrant economy.

>> as a terrific seg with you to our next segment. and is the role of government. and the role of government and it is -- you are first on this mr. president. the question is this. do you believe both of you but you have the first two minutes on this. do you believe there's a fundamental difference between the two of you as to how you view the mission of the federal government? >> well, i definitely think there are differences. the first role of the federal government is to keep the american people safe. that's its most basic function. and as commander in chief, that is something that i have worked on and thought about er single day that i've been in the oval office. but i also believe that government has the capacity -- the federal government has the capacity to help open up opportunities and create ladders of opportunity and to

create frameworks where the american people can succeed. look the genius of america is the free enterprise system. and freedom. and the fact that people can go out there and start a business, work on an idea, make their own decisions. but as abraham lincoln understood there are also some things we do better together. so in the middle of the civil war, abraham lincoln said let's help to finance the transcontinental railroad. let's start the national academy of sciences. let's start land grant colleges. because we want to give these gateways of opportunity for all americans because if all americans are getting opportunity we're all going to be better off. that doesn't restrict people's freedom. that enhances it. and so what i've tried to do as president is apply those same principles. and when it comes to education, what i've said is we've got to reform schools that are not

working. we use something called race to the top. it wasn't a top down approach. what we've said is to states we'll give you more must be if you initiate reforms. and as a consequence you had 46 states around the country who have made a real difference. but what i've also said is let's hire another 100,000 math and science teachers to make sure we maintain our technological lead and our people are skilled and able to succeed. and hard-pressed states right now can't all do that. in fact we've seen layoffs of hundreds of thousands of teachers over the last several years and governor romney doesn't think we need more teachers. i do. because i think that is the kind of investment where the federal government can help. it can't do it all but it can make a difference. and as a consequence will have a better trained workforce and that will create jobs because companies want to locate in places where we have a skilled workforce. >> two minutes. >> i love great schools. massachusetts our schools are

ranked number one of all 50 states. and the key to great schools, great teachers. so i reject the idea that i don't believe in great teachers or more teachers. every school district, every state should make that decision on their own. the role of government. look behind us. the constitution and declaration of independence. the role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents. first. life and liberty. we have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people and that means a military second to none. i do not believe in cutting our miltrifment i believe in maintaining the strength of america's military. second, in that line that says we are endowed by our creator with our rights. i believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. that statement also says that we are endowed by our create were the right to pursue happiness as we choose. i interpret that as one making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can't care

for themselves are cared by one another. we're a nation that believes that we're all children of the same god and we care for those that have difficulties those elderly and problems and challenges those that are disabled we care for them and we look for discovery and innovation all these things out of the american heart to provide the pursuit of happiness for our citizens. but we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams. and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. and what we're seeing right now is in my view a trickle down government approach which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams and it's not working. and the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. the proof of that is one in six people in poverty. the proof is we've gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. the proof is that 50% of college grads wuts this year can't find work. we know that fath we're taking

is not working. it's time for a new path. >> let's go through some specifics in terms of how each of you views the role of government. education. does the federal government have a responsibility to improve the quality of public education? >> the primary responsibility is of course at the state and local level. but the federal government also can play a very important role. and i agree with secretary duncan. race to the top not all of them but some of them i agree and congratulate him. the federal government can get local and state schools to do a better job. my own view by the way is i've added to that. i happen to believe i want the kids getting feder dollars from idea or title 1, disabled kids or poor kids or lower income kids rather, i want them to be able to go to the school of their choice. so all federal fubbeds instead of going to the state or school district i would have go follow the child and let the parent and the child decide where to

send their student. >> how do you see the federal government's responsibility to improve the quality of public education in? >> well, i think it has a significant role to play. through our race to the top program we've worked with republican and democratic governors to initiate their major reforms. >> do you think there's a difference with your views and those of governor romney about education? >> this is where budgets matter because budgets reflect choices. so when governor romney indicates that he wants to cut taxes and potentially benefit folks like me and him, and to pay for it, we're having to initiate significant cuts in federal support for education. that makes a difference. you know, his runningmate congressman ryan put forward a budget. that reflects many of the principles that governor romney

has talked about. and it wasn't very detailed this seems to be a trend but what it did do was to if you extrap lated how much money we're talking about, you had look at cutting the education budget by up to 20%. when it comes to community colleges we are seeing great work because we have the opportunity to train people for jobs that exist right now. and one of the things we probably agree on is getting businesses to work with community colleges so that they're setting up their training programs -- host: do you agree? >> let me finish the point. >> it's going well in my state. >> they're partner sog that they're designing training programs and people who are going through them know that there's a job waiting if they complete. that makes a big difference but that requires federal support. let me just say one final example. when it comes to making college

affordable, whether it's two year or four year, one of the things that i did as president was we were sending 60 billion to banks and lenders as middlemen for the student loan program even though the loans were guaranteed so there was no risk for the banks or the lenders but they were taking billions out of the system. we said why not cut out the middle man? and as a consequence what we've been able to do is to provide millions more students assistance, lower or keep low interest rates on student loans, and this is an example of where our priorities make a difference. governor romney i genuinely believe cares about education. but when he tells a student that you should borrow money from your parents to go to college, you know, that indicates the degree to which there may not be as much of a focus opt fact that folks like myself, folks like michelle, kids probably who attend

university of denver just don't have that option and for us to be able to make sure that they've got that opportunity and they can walk through that door that is violetly important not just to those kids. it's how we're going to grow this economy over the long term. >> we're running out of time. >> respond to that. >> mr. president you're entitled to your own airplane and house but not to your own facts. i'm not going to cut education funding. and grants that go to people going to college. i'm planning on continuing to grow. but you make a very good point. which is that the place you put your money makes a pretty clear indication. you put $90 billion into green jobs. and look i'm all in favor of green energy. $90 billion. that would have hired 2 million teachers. 90 billion. and these businesses many of them have gone out of business. i think about half of the ones that have been invested in have

gone out of business. a number happen to be owned by people contributors to your campaigns. the right course for america's government -- we're talking about the role of government -- is not to become the economic player picking winners and losers telling people what kind of health treatment they can receive taking over the health care system that has existed in this country for a long long time and has produced the best health records in the world. the right answer for government is to say how do we make the private sector become more efficient and more effective? how do we get schools to become more competitive? i propose we grade our schools so parents know which schools are succeeding and failing so they can take their child to a school that's being more successful. i don't want to cut our commitment to education. i want to make it more effective and efficient. and by the way, i've had that experience. i don't just talk about it. i've been there. massachusetts schools are ranked number one in the nation. this is not because i didn't have commitment to education. it's because i care about

education. for all of our kids. >> one second. we've got three minutes left. i'm not going to grade the two of you and say your answers have been too long or i've done a poor job. but the fact is the role of government and governing we've lot a pod in other words so we only have three minutes left in the debate before we go to your closing statements. and so i want to ask finally here and remember we've got three minutes total time here. and the question is this. many of the legislative functions of the federal government right now are in a state of paralysis as a result of partisan gridlock. if elected in your case if reelected in your case, what would you do about that? governor. >> jim, i had the great experience -- it didn't seem like it at the time, of being

elected in the state where my legislator was 87% democrat. and that meant i figure out from day one i had to get along and work across the aisle. we drove our schools to be number one in the nation. we cut taxes 19 times. >> what would you do as president? >> i will sit down on day one actually the day after i get elected -- with the democratic leaders as well as republican leaders and continue as we did in my state we met every monday for a couple hours, talked about the issues and challenges in our state in that case. we have to work on a collaborative basis. not because we're going to compromise our principle. but because there's common ground and the challenges america faces right now -- look the reason i'm in this race is there are people that are really hurting today in this country and we face this deficit could crush the future generations. what's happening in the middle east. there are developments around the world that are of real concern. and republicans and democrats both love america. but we need to have leadership -- leadership in washington that will actually bring people

together and get the job done and could not care less if it's a republican or a democrat. i've done it before. i'll do it again. >> mr. president. >> first of all, i think governor romney is going to have a very first day because he is going to repeal obamacare which is not going to be popular with democrats as you're sitting down with them. my philosophy has been i will take ideas from anybody, democrat or republican, as long as they're advancing the cause of making middle class families stronger and giving ladders of opportunity to the middle class. that's how we cut taxes for middle class families and small businesses. that's how we cut trillions. that's how we signed free trade deals into law that are helping us to double our exports and sell more american products around the world. that's how we repeal don't ask don't tell. that's how we ended the war in iraq as i promised and how we're going to wind down the war in afghanistan. that's how we went after al qaeda and bin laden.

so we've seen progress even under republican control of the house of representatives. but ultimately part of being principled, part of being a leader is a being able to describe exactly what it is that you intend to do, and not just saying i'll sit down. but you have to have a plan. number two, what's important is that occasionally you've got to say no to folks both in your own party and in the other party. and have we had some fights between me and the republicans when they fought back against us? reining in the excesses of wall street? absolutely. because that was a fight that needed to be had. when we were fighting about whether or not we were going to make sure that americans had more security with their health insurance and they said no that was a fight we needed to have have. so part of leadership and governing is both saying what it is that you were for but also being willing to say no to some things. and i've got to tell you governor romney when it comes to his own party during the

course of his campaign has not displayed that willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of this party. >> that brings us to closing statements. there's a coin toss. governor romney you won the toss and you elected to go last. so you have a closing two minutes mr. tt. >> well, i want to thank you and governor romney because i think this was a terrific debate. and i very much appreciate it. i want to thank the university of denver. you know, four years ago we were going through a major crisis. and yet my faith and confidence in the american future is undiminished. and the reason is because of its people. because the woman i met in north carolina who decided that 55 to go back to school because she wanted to inspire her daughter and now has a job from that new training that she's gotten, because a company in minnesota who was willing to give up salaries and perk force

their executives to make sure that they didn't lay off workers during a recession. the auto workers that you meet in toledo or detroit take such pride in building the best cars in the world. not just because of paychecks but because it gives them that sense of pride that they're helping to build america. and so the question now is how do we build on those strengths. and everything that i've tried to do and i'm pro posing for the next four years in terms of improving our education system or developing american energy or make shurg that we're closing loopholes for companies shipping jobs overseas and focusing on small businesses creating jobs here in the united states or closing our deficit in a responsible balanced way that allows us to invest in our future all h.o.v. those things are designed to make sure that the american people, their genius, their grit, their determination is channeled and they have an opportunity to succeed. and everybody is getting a fair shot and everybody is getting a

fair share. everybody is doing their fair share and playing by the same rules. you know, four years ago i said that i'm not a perfect man and i wouldn't be a perfect president and that's probably a promise that governor romney thinks i've kept. but i also promised that i would fight every single day on the behalf of the american people, the middle class and all those strifing to get in the middle class. i've kept that promise. and if you'll vote for me then i promise i'll fight just as hard in the second term. >> governor romney. >> thank you jim and mr. president and thank you for tuning in this evening. this is an important election. and i'm concerned about america. i'm concerned about the direction america has been taken over the last four years. i know this is bigger than an election about the two of us. as individuals. it's bigger than our respective parties. it's an election about the course of america. what kind of america do you want to have for yourself and for your children? and there really are two

different path that is we we began speaking about this evening and over the course of this month we'll have two more debates and we'll talk about those two paths but they lead in very different directions. and it's not just looking to our words that you have to take in evidence. you can look at the record. there's no question in my mind if the pt were to be reelected you'll see middle income squeeze. i'll get incomes up again. you'll see chronic unemployment. we've had 43 straight months with unemployment above 8%. i will help create 12 million new jobs in this country with rising incomes. the president's reelected, obamacare will be fully installed. that will be a whole different way of life for people who had the insurance plan in the past. many will lose it. you'll see health premiums go up by $2,500 per fam lifment if i'm elected we won't have obamacare. we'll have the principles that i put in place in my own state.

and we'll focus on getting the cost of health care down. if fpt were to be reelected you'll see a $716 billion cut to medicare. you'll have 4 million people who will lose medicare advantage. you'll have hospitals and providers that will no longer accept medicare patients. i'll restore that $716 billion to medicare. and finally, military. the president's reelect, you'll see dramatic cuts to our military. the secretary of defense would say this would be devastating. i will not cut our commitment to our military. i will keep america strong and get >> next debate will be the vice- presidential debate on thursday, october 11. for now, from the university of denver, thank you and good night. [applause]

[applause] >> mitt romney and president obama will meet again tomorrow night for their second presidential debate. we see preparations are underway. undecided voters in the audience will ask questions at the town hall today. our preview of tomorrow night's presidential debate is at 7:00 p.m. eastern at 9:00, filed by your phone calls and suites --

tweetes. go to our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span to let us know what your favorite presidential debate format is. >> i watch c-span because i want to get the news without a lot of abundance adding their point of view. i can get the original script from a person and then i can come to my own conclusions. i think that is better than hand -- than having someone else tell me what i should think. that is c-span, seats and two, and c-span 3. i love book tv. c-span 3 is the history channel. they have been doing civil war series. sometimes i want to visit assented -- the senate.

i look for c-span for those things. c-span is created by american's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> tonight, we are bringing new u.s. senate races brought country. up next, dollar-asset -- the ohio senate debate. at 10:30, indiana. then, arizona. now is the senate debate from ohio. josh mandel and senator brown.

this debate is hosted in cleveland. >> good afternoon.

i am hugh mckay, immediate past president of the city club of cleveland, and i'm pleased to welcome you to the debate between sherrod brown and josh mandel. today's debate is being broadcast live on wviz pbs, 90.3, and made available statewide by wkyc. she's the bureau chief of the state wide news bureau and is the moderator for today's debate. karen, it is all yours. >> thank you, hugh. i'm delighted to moderate this debate between sherrod brown and josh mandel. this has been the most exciting raise and a large portion of the money spent has come from outside ohio due in no part to the potential for a political shift in the senate. i will let them outlined their qualification than support. this debate will be about one hour long split into four segments. there is five minutes for both an opening statement and were bottle. it is their choice as to how they want to use that time. we will hear from each candidate twice, and opening statement by each, a were bottled by each, with a total of five minutes. then we will have questions from three distinguished ohio journalists. then we will have questions from the audience and the panelists and then we will have closing remarks. we're pleased to welcome you today. i know many of you support one or the other and we appreciate you giving everyone a chance to be heard by holding your applause. mr. brown will present first. >> thank you. it's an honor for my family and i to join you today. thank you to my wife, connie,

who has spoken at the city club in number of times. thank you, mayor jackson, for hosting us and thank you to the wait staff for your service. in 2006, i stood here at the city club promising one thing -- that i would fight for the middle class. that's what i have done for the last six years and today renewed that pledge for a second term. one of my most important jobs is to listen and to learn. as your senator, i went to more than 200 round table listening to farmers, small-business people, educators, and veterans. i asked questions and take questions from democrats, republicans, washington. farmers told us how we could save tens of billions of taxpayer dollars by eliminating the wasteful farm subsidies and come at the same time, strengthen the safety net for family farmers. i went to work with senator thune from south dakota and we

wrote legislation that was passed as part of the farm bill in july. they talk about how difficult it is to find qualified employees. i wrote legislation with a republican from missouri to help the community colleges to turn our local work force training to be more attuned with local business needs. veterans told me that the job skills they acquired in the military that they wanted to put to work here at home. the only ohioan to have a full term on the veterans committee, we want to help. in the fall of 2008, i remember vividly number of conversations with small business owners with workers in the automobile industry. i saw the fear in his face and the anxiety in his voice that he worried about the plant closings. how can i provide for my family, pay my mortgage? how can my daughter continue her education at community college? so i went to work to come first with president bush in fall 2008 and then with president obama in 2009 with dick lugar, carl levin, senators from all over this part of the country. it's not just about the big assembly plants in toledo, but it's about components in brunswick, the steel and aluminum made in this city.

we talk about the owner of the diner and the manufacturers. there are real problems, real hopes and dreams. yet, josh mandel says my vote for the autumn rescue was un- american. un-american. i say that's doing my job to fight for their jobs. [applause] >> mr. mandel, you have five minutes total. [applause] >> thank you very much. i'm treasurer of the state of ohio and i have the opportunity to travel the state quite a bit. i've come to know a lot of elected leaders throughout our state.

these elected leaders have a variety of the goals. some of them, by the time they are 40 they want to be a congressman, or by the time they are 51 to be governor, or by the time they are 60 they want to be a senator. i try to keep my goals relatively simple. by the time i'm 36, i just hope to be shaving. [laughter] walking in, one of the waitresses asked how old i am. i'm 35 years old born and raised right here in cleveland, ohio.

i appreciate the city club giving us the opportunity to debate and i appreciate the business is sponsoring this and also the wait staff and giving us this opportunity. my grandparents came over here on christmas day, 1949, and they ended up in cleveland, ohio. my grandfather got a job through the united autoworkers union and my grandmother worked at a drugstore for over 20 years. their daughter, my mother come or to the public schools for over 20 years. i went to ohio state and got a law degree from case western. i decided to join the marine corps to say thank you to this country that gave my family a

shot. that's not a unique story. every one of you out here can tell a similar story about your family. immigrants coming over here, one generation sacrificing, the next generation a little better, the next generation a little better than that. unfortunately, for the first time as i can remember traveling the state, i come across many women telling me, for the first time in my life, i'm concerned that my kids and my grandkids may not happen the same opportunities that i had. they tell me about their struggles. one reason they are concerned is because they believe washington is broken.

i agree. i think washington is broken because of the career politicians who care more about their party than they do their state. i believe washington can take a lesson from ohio. let me tell you what we have done in the treasury office. i came in the wake of the u.s. credit rating being downgraded for the first time in america's history. we have earned the highest rating on our bonds, our investments, the a.a.a. rating. we had a net rate in the ohio enterprise bond. the portfolio is up over $2 billion since the day i took office. we voluntarily cut our budget

two years in a row. imagine those kind of results in washington. imagine that kind of fiscal responsibility in washington. ladies and gentleman, and running for the united states senate because washington is broken. if i want to turn ohio and washington back in a place where all of you know your kids and grandkids will have at least the same opportunity you had, if not better. unfortunately, that's not the case right now. i'm running for the senate to change washington. we can all agree washington is broken and the only way to change it is by changing the people we send there. [applause] >> you have one minute 37 seconds for your rebuttal, mr. brown. >> i told you how proud i was to work across the party lines to solve big problems and work on big issues. i'm proud to have burned the endorsement of two groups that do not often endorsed democrats, the fraternal order of police and the society of certified public accountants. they recognize the differences in this race like medicare. i'm fighting to preserve it as a benefit. josh wants to privatize the internet over to the insurance agency. i work for taxpayer subsidies to

move them away from big banks and move them to pell grants. he would give extra tax cuts to millionaires. i would work to pass a bipartisan jobs bill supported by senator port land to level the playing field for ohio manufacturers when china manipulate their currency. josh opposes it. for the auto rescue, i worked to save 800,000 jobs and he was on the other side of it. listen to those who follow these races most closely. i am proud to earn the endorsement of newspapers all over the state, most of them who did not endorse me in 2006, the beacon general, the youngstown indicator, the athens news and the chronicle. these papers do not trust his judgment because he hired the political party to do his job. they do not trust him because he believes in the same trickle-down economics that got us into this situation in the first place. i believe we need to grow the economy by focusing on the

middle class and the enforcement of trade rules and all the issues of the audio rescue. this is not a game. this is about real people. >> mr mandel, 1 minute 19 seconds for your rebuttal. [applause] >> you just heard by congress had a 10% approval rating, the lowest in the history of the united states because sherrod brown and other career politicians blamed the problems everywhere except on their cells and refused to take accountability. he says one thing in a high of yet a different thing in washington. six years ago, he lambasted his opponent for high unemployment rates. today, unemployment is higher. six years ago he lambasted his opponent for being partisan. evoked with president obama 95% of the time. he has not even passed a budget

in over three years. he railed against china and you will hear more of that today, but you will not hear it is in washington, they have not put $1 trillion on the back of your kids and grandkids from china. in washington, he voted for the largest bank bailout in american history. he claims he's fighting for the middle class. yet, in his time in washington, unemployment is up, gas prices are up, tuition is up, health care prices up, foreclosure up. senator, that's quite a record. ladies and gentleman, he has failed the middle class and he has failed our state. >> over time. >> the only time we will change that is with the new people in washington. >> out of time.

thank you. [applause] now we will turn to questions from our panelists. i would like to introduce them to you. tom beres, senior political correspondent for wkyc, 3. henry gomez, politics writer for "the plain dealer." and tom troy from "the toledo blade." each panelist will ask one question at a time. candidates will have one minute to respond to each question and i reserve the right to ask follow-up questions. there is 30 seconds to respond to a follow-up question. tom, your first. >> mr. mandel, first question for you. we have heard you say over and over again that if you got to washington would not allow yourself to be bullied by political bosses, lobbyists, or allow anyone to dictate how you vote. you have already signed a pledge with the grover norquist

americans for tax reform. are you already sacrificing your independence by agreeing to vote as they dictate? why did you sign that? what's the significance? why did you tie your own hands behind your back? "you get one minute to answer and 30 seconds to respond, mr. brown. >> i'm proud to stand up for lower taxes in our state and country which is consistent with my record. i led the charge on the first property-tax for any municipality right here in the county. as a state legislator, i advocated to eliminate the death tax, on which i feel is a double form of taxation which is why it has become the second capital of ohio. we want to eliminate the death tax right here in ohio so we can achieve more small-business is here to keep our international property year. as a u.s. senator, i will do everything i can to advocate for lower taxes across the board for the middle class and others, job creators as well.

we cannot tax our way to prosperity. if we're going to grow the economy is in ohio and nationally, we need a simpler tax code with lower tax rates, a broader base, and more fair to the middle class. a lot of republicans do not like to hear this, but when general electric -- >> your time is up. mr. brown, 30 seconds to respond. [applause] >> signing a pledge to fat cat lobbyists it is giving away your right to think, which is what that is doing. you'll never get to a balanced budget because we are just asking higher-income people to play more like they did in the clinton years. do you what else that means? it means you cannot close tax

loopholes to subsidies that we continue to give to oil companies. it means you cannot close the loophole if it shuts down and they lose their operations overseas. they can get a tax break to do that. there's no sense in that kind of tax policy. >> time is up, thank you. let's turn to henry gomez. you have the next question. >> senator brown, free trade with colombia and south korea were among the few bright spots of bipartisanship last year. what would your threshold be? i know you voted against all three, but what is your threshold when determining whether to support a free trade bill with another country? >> you have one minute, mr. brown. >> the farm bill, the transportation bill, many of the highway bills, those are things that we have worked on. these trade agreements clearly spell out the middle class. we had a $1 billion trade deficit with china and today it's $10 billion. it is because we have been forced trade laws finally in this country that president obama has done it better than anyone since reagan where we have more steel jobs in cleveland and surrounding areas. we have more tired jobs,

aluminum jobs. i have written trade legislation that, if enacted as part of the trans-pacific partnership, it would make a difference in putting trade agreements on the side of american workers and american manufacturers. we have betrayed the middle- class. we know when these chinese trade agreements have done. >> mr. mandel. [applause] >> please, if you can hold your applause, it makes things move more quickly. >> i need to correct the first, and the senator made. you take a backseat to everyone when it comes to bipartisanship. remain the most liberal senator in the united states of america. [applause] when sherrod brown went to washington, our trade gap has grown 16 times greater with china. today in ohio, one in four

people is in poverty. that's a record of failure. >> the next question. >> mr. mandel, i would like for you to clarify your position on the 2009 auditor rescue. you believe that the automobile bailout has turned to be a boon for the ohio economy and that mitt romney was wrong in advocating against taxpayer assistance. >> one minute. >> this is an issue that is personal for me. my grandfather was a member of the united autoworkers union. i will take a backseat to no one when it comes to fighting for automobile jobs and protect our jobs and to grow them here in the state of ohio. one of the problems with politicians in washington is that they create these problems.

bad energy policy, bad tax policy, bad regulatory policy, and then they tried to take credit for solving them. i would not have voted for that. it stripped the middle class retiree pensions. 60 and 70 year-old woman lost almost all of their pensions. think about the mechanics here who lost their jobs. i could not have supported a process that stripped pensions and jobs from mechanics and salesman throughout the state. i would do everything i could in washington to grow the economy through a strong manufacturing policy, but i'm not a bailout senator. he is a bailout senator. he bailed out fannie and freddie and the automobile corporations. >> mr. brown, 30 seconds. >> the steel and aluminum are made right here in cleveland and the transmission comes out of toledo. these are real jobs for real people. that's a big part of the reason that, before the auto bailout, in early 2010, the unemployment

rate was over 10.5% and now with under 7%. it's not good enough, but we are going in the right direction. he would be so out of step with senator blagojevich and senators and congressmen of both parties to be against the automobile rescue just boggles my mind. [applause] >> next question. >> did you believe the stimulus bill has been a success or failure in ohio, specifically ohio? it is a glass half full question. given the state of the federal deficit, would you be in favor of any more federal spending, infrastructure, or other job creation programs to stimulate the economy in the future? >> since this is for both of you, you each have one minute.

we will start with senator brown. >> the recovery act worked. the unemployment rate came down, not as much as people hoped it would, but it began to come down. the problems were much more serious in 2008 than anyone understood. one-third of the people in ohio got a tax cut. millions of dollars came in the state to keep teachers and firefighters and police officers on the job. as a result of the recovery act, we have that steel mill in lorraine. what i would do instead right now is to ask the speaker john boehner to look at the bipartisan jobs bill, the largest to pass the senate in 2011. senator portland voted for it. it will level the playing field with the chinese currency. it's time to stand up for the middle class, workers, and manufacturers. >> mr. mandel, 1 minute. [applause] >> with all due respect, you have had 20 years to try and solve these problems and it's only got worse.

20 years. [applause] >> please. >> on employment is up, gas prices is up, foreclosures up, health-care costs up. i mentioned it earlier and i will mention it again. that is a record of failure. the stimulus did not work. they took $500 million of tax money from throughout america. they sent it to california to invest in a company with a loan guarantee, solyndra, that went bankrupt. accurately the state of ohio, one in every four children is in poverty. that's a record you should be ashamed of. [applause] >> henry, the next question. >> i'm not for the bailout -- henry's moving on to question. >> this question is for you. you criticize your opponent two

years ago for shuffling his campaign workers ought to the public payroll yet the dayton daily news and others have reported you followed suit. you hired workers to work in the state treasury office. house is that a double standard? what assurances do we have that you'll make federal appointments based on merit and not to help you win? >> you have one minute. >> the comparison is apples and oranges. the people we hired into our office are qualified professionals. i believe there records speak for themselves. let's talk about the record. when the credit rating was downgraded, we have earned the highest rating on our bonds, on our investments. we have increased this by $2 billion. we have never graded -- we have navigated european debt crisis. compare this to washington.

the american credit rating downgraded for the first time in american history. forget the balanced budget. they cannot even pass one in three years. senator brown says passing a budget is not that meaningful. i would take a team of qualified professionals in the office and back it up against anyone in your office and i would let them change washington as well. >> mr. brown, 30 seconds. >> i think the biggest reason ohio newspapers have overwhelmingly endorsed me when they did not in 2006 is they do not trust the way he runs his office. he does not show up for work. he hires his cronies. he will not stand up for the middle class. he was against the odder rescue, does not want to do anything about china, once more tax cuts for the rich.

these tax cuts for the rich mean more cuts to a head start, food stands, the basic safety net that america needs in ohio. [applause] >> we want to hear more from the candidates. next question. >> this is for senator brown. every other level of government has to live within the revenue that it brings in. there have been efforts in congress to raise taxes on the wealthy which seems to be in a stalemate. until such time that congress is able to raise more taxes, does congress have the moral responsibility to live within the revenue it generates? >> we do and we have moved in that direction. is a good republican talking point that we have not passed a budget. it's a resolution. we pass a budget control act which was a bipartisan act and signed by the president. it cuts $2 trillion in spending. $2 trillion.

we have got to do better. we need to look at revenues. we need to look across the board at cuts. we also know that you do not sign a tax pledge by a lobbyist named rover norquist saying will never caught oil subsidies and he will never stand up to those companies so they can keep their dividend tax breaks. that is the wrong direction to get our budget in order. >> mr. mandel, 30 seconds. >> that is washington speak. here's the reality. it has been three years since they passed a budget in washington. can any of you run a small business for three weeks without passing or discussing the budget? can you go three months without discussing your family finances? it has been three years since they have passed a budget.

federal spending in washington has doubled. the debt has quadrupled. they live by one set of rules. while all of us have to live by a different set of rules. [applause] >> we will go to the final questions from our panelists. >> a question for both of you. do you believe that current federal and state regulations are adequate to protect the public from environmental dangers dealing with fracking and disposing of the dangerous liquids in injection valves? how to balance the need to protect the environment without threatening the great job potential. >> this question is to both of you. you have a minute to respond. >> the last two years, we have made great strides in energy independence. there are two criteria that affect my decision on what happened with shale development. the decision by communities and

what they will permit and my concerns about the water supply, making sure this is done properly. there is significant job growth in the energy industry in this state. i believe in job growth and energy across the board. it means solar, batteries, bio mass, across the board. we are generally moving in the right direction. we have seen that in the auto industry. we have seen miles per gallon go up and a thriving auto industry because of what we did on the auto rescue. >> i think it sounds like washington speak. the question, senator brown, was whether or not the regulations are out of place. i believe this is the first

state in america to ensure that when companies are drilling, they have to make public to citizens the chemicals being used in that process. that is a good thing. i applaud the legislator for doing that. i believe in drilling in a responsible way. and would protect the air we breathe, the water we drink in the environment. as long as we can do it responsibly, it is a win win win. affordable energy for our factories, new jobs for our state, robert tax rates for our community to take care of our communities. we are -- when we produce energy in the united states, i will do everything i can to ensure we have responsible oil and gas drilling and the ohio. -- in ohio.

>> we now turn to questions from the audience. questions addressed to a specific candidate will be answered with a 1 minute time limit. the other candidate has 30 seconds to respond. questions addressed to both will be one minute. audience, i thank you in advance. stating your questions as briefly as concisely as possible. first question, please. >> mr. mandel, in your last collection, you implied your opponent was a muslim and by implication you said it was not a good thing to be a muslim. why is it not -- is it bad being a muslim in america? >> i appreciate that question. i spent 50 months of my life

doing everything i could to protect muslims in iraq. we to do everything we can to ensure that innocent muslims, christians, jews, anyone of any race and religion has an opportunity here in the world. one of my public radical islamists that women in the middle east are treated like garbage. we are treated as second-class citizens and it is not fair. this is an issue all of us -- can all agree on. this is something we can work on together. we can go on the attack, not in a military way but an intellectual way and take on this issue of women in the middle east being treated as second-class citizens. it is not ok for women in saudia -- saudi arabia to be stoned if they go out in public wearing blue jeans. it is not fair for a woman who is right to be prosecuted or thrown in jail.

>> mr. brown, you have 30 seconds. >> we have seen this pattern of these kinds of campaigns from josh mandel. attack, attack. does not have to have a lot of substance as long as the attack. we saw in 2010. the paper said electing him would reward one of the nastiest campaigns ever waged in this state. i want to debate about ideas. i did not one conservative talking points. i want to see us talk about what does the auto recipe mean, what does the tiny -- china policy mean? >> back to the audience for another question. >> senator brown, the budget issues we face [inaudible] how are you [no audio]

>> this question was to whom? senator brown. did you hear the question? >> i did. >> i convene every year in washington to talk about how we have better access for middle- class and working-class kids to go to college. one way we do not do that is more tax cuts for the rich and then buying -- and you have to increase the interest rates on stafford loans pell grants. that is what happened too much in the last decade when the government was focused on more tax cuts for the rich and the

medicare giveaway to the drug companies. we need to balance in terms of revenue and cuts. we need to invest in the future and higher education, including community colleges, one of our most important investment in the future. >> as i mentioned, my mom went to tri c. i am a strong supporter of my family of public -- of public education. unfortunately, regardless of what he says up here in ohio, in washington, his vote and record has produced higher tuition here in ohio. you cannot talk about representing the middle class and that evoke a policy for higher tuition costs. >> let's come back to our panel of journalists. but this question is for both. the fiscal cliff is near. what should happen in the lame- duck session to address that

spending cuts and tax hike? what would you give up to make such a deal happen? >> you both have a minute to respond. >> we need a balanced approach and to telegraph that we will be serious about this. i took a backseat to nobody. i was part of the 1993 budget deal which led not only 21 million private sector net jobs increase, it also led to the largest budgets up -- budget surplus in american history. what happened after that? the iraq war. i posted. medicare privatization to the drug companies, i opposed it. >> what did happen in these next few months to adjust this problem? >> i think you follow the same tenants. do i get a minute here?

he interrupted me. fair enough. i will answer quickly than. a balanced approach. i took a back to note -- and nobody a in work on the balanced budget. >> mr. mandel, you have a minute. >> again, washington speak in a journalist called mnemonic. -- and a journalists called him on it. he ran tv ads lambasting him for not passing a balanced budget. he has not passed in the budget. i do not think we should have a military base and determining, italy, england. we are not fighting the nazis anymore. why did we have this large footprint of our military in europe? bring some of them home. you that money to pay down the debt.

to protect social security and medicare for the next generation and for current generations. also, no more bailouts. no more fannie mae and freddie mac bailouts. use that money here. a few months ago, senator sherrod brown but to give $1 billion of your tax money to pakistan. we need that for americans. >> thank you. back to the audience. our next question is in the balcony. >> this is a question for our current center. -- senator. you told us you are all about jobs for the middle class in high yield and giving us less expensive energy. yet you and your administration in washington had declared a war on coal in ohio.

to give a brief description -- >> we need to get to the question please. >> if he supports the war on coal from this administration which is closing power plants -- >> please get to the question. >> how is it the support jobs and cheaper energy in ohio when you do that? >> mr. brown, you have a minute. mr. mandel, 30 seconds. >> there is no war on coal. the or more coal jobs in higher than there were five years ago. unemployment in ohio as coming down. it is not where we wanted to be but it went from over 10.5% in 2010 to under 7.5% today because of our efforts in the of the rescue and enforcing trade rules and because of our small business tax break and what we're doing to support community

colleges. and what we are doing to support nasa and have them work with ohio state and all the kinds of things i am doing behind the scenes and individually working with schools and people to create jobs. >> mr. mandel, you have 30 seconds. >> there is a war on coal in this country. the ohio manufacturers association estimates that one new regulation called utility mass will cost a high of 50,000 manufacturing jobs. when this came up for a vote in the senate, senator sherrod brown had a difficult decision because west virginia is a very heavy coal manufacturing state. joe manson from west virginia took on as party. >> mr. mandel --time to take

another question from the audience. [applause] >> this question is senator sherrod brown. i have been breeding and i read that when he ran for office, you are in favor of term limits -- i have been doing a lot of reading and read that when you ran for office you were in favor of term limits. why did you break that pledge? >> i was wrong. i made a mistake. when i'm opposed by somebody who attend the seven years has run for four different offices who promised he would service -- serve his four year term to them within weeks was going to places like the bahamas to raise money from pay day lenders and he has

the nerve to encourage his press to ask questions about term limits when he clearly has no regard for any of that. >> mr. mandel. >[applause] >> please, let's keep this moving. >> i cannot answer his question. he made a mistake. he lied to the people of the state of ohio. he told people - [crowd boos] >> please. go ahead, mr. mandel. >> he told the people he would only stay in 12 years. after 12 years, he broke that pledge. he has now been desperate 20. when he came to the senate, average income was $53,000. today, $44,000. the gas prices are up. tripled. that is the record i would not be proud of.

i expect to our panel of journalists. the next question. -- >> back to our panel of a journalist. the next question. >> as unpopular as obamacare is, there are elements of the plan and have popular support. for example, allowing young people to stay on the parents' insurance until they're 26. how would you maintain those benefits without the requirement of people buying insurance? >> mr. mandel, you have a minute. mr. brown, 30 seconds. >> to pay to cover folks for pre-existing conditions -- if there are leaders in washington who want to do that without obamacare, you have to make significant cuts. a lot of republicans will say do not touch the fence -- defense. if we are going to have a conversation about a balanced budget, we need to make cuts to

defense. i mention some ideas in respect to europe. a few weeks ago, and indeed it, our embassy was overrun. in libya, our ambassador was killed. why is senator sherrod brown building to give our tax dollars to countries that harbor terrorists when we need that money here to pay for health care? to protect medicare, to protect social security. it does not make sense. we need that money here. we do not need to pay them to hate us. [applause] >> mr. brown, 32nd picks the was about a specific an answer on health care as hitt -- as he has given top whole campaign. [applause] the point is this, there are 1.2 million senior citizens in ohio who of cotton checkups with no co pay and no deductible. more than 200,000 seniors in ohio saved $600 on the drug costs.

families to a diabetic children or asthmatic children to not lose their health insurance now because the build consumer protections in there for those families. that is what this law is about. that is what i am proud to support it. >> back to the audience for another question. >> this question is for josh mandel. mr. mandel, throughout the campaign, whenever you are asked about abortion, your answer is very simple and direct. you say you are a pro-lifer but there are millions of american women who would like to know more about that. this roe versus wade decades ago, hundreds of thousands of women have had legal abortions. >> committed to the question, please? >> if he were elected -- if you were elected, what would you do to implement the united states supreme court decision which make legal under role was as great a woman's right to have

an abortion? -- under roe versus wade a woman's right to have an abortion? >> i did not think it is the role of the united states senator to implement the supreme court like that. i will take very seriously my role to vote for justices that i believe understand the constitution, understand that it is a document drafted many many years ago by folks who had a vision for our country and understood that vision barry seriously. i am pro-life. i believe it and the protecting life. protecting life. at the same time, the three main issues will be focusing on our jobs, jobs, and jobs. for any of you sick of the unemployment rate, set of high gas prices and high tuition rates and when your kids to have a job after college, i am your guy because he failed at it.

>> mr. brown, you have 30 seconds to respond to requests unlike josh mandel, i trust ohio women to make their own health care decisions. [applause] >> first i would note the non answer but that has been par for this debate. i would also note that his position on women's health is more extreme even -- no exceptions for rape, or the health of the woman. that is so far out of the mainstream of ohio's women's views. >> another question from the audience. >> this question is for mr. mandel/ . i was happy to hear how much support the women in muslim

countries. my question is, your record shows that your opposition for equal pay for equal work -- the support of the heart beat bill -- >> we need to get to the question. >> what can you tell us today to give women and men who love them the confidence to support you when you're -- your stated positions clearly did not support them? >> i appreciate that question. [applause] >> i would like to recognize my wife who is here. she's been very supportive along the hallway. -- the whole way. my mother and sister are summer back there as well. i am a brother, a husband. of proud to have a good mix

democratic, republican and independent women supporting my campaign. what i hear from women is that they're concerned their kid cannot find a job after high school and college. that will be my main focus. our kids and our grandkids. our high unemployment rate has got an even higher since senator sherrod brown was in office. when i talk to women throughout ohio, what they want me to concentrate on is a better economic environment and better education for their kids. i will take a backseat to no one when it comes to that. >> mr. mandel -- >> to support public education for into the future. >> extremism and women's health is not helpful to women in this state at all. i understand the importance -- of course it is a women's issue that we provide jobs for working women. yesterday i was a that a grocery

store and a woman who was working there. was a second job. she has three kids in college. it is a women's issue that we stepup -- what you do tax cuts for the rich, he undercut funding for community college. this woman was a chance to help our kids. >> thank you very much audience for your questions. we are at the closing statements from each candidate. we had a drawing earlier. each candidate will have to and a half minutes. mr. brown, you go first. >> thank you all. this election is not about personal ambition and move it up the ladder. it is not about sound bytes but making 0 what -- washington work for all of ohio. insuring the people who work hard and play by the bulls can get ahead. my opponent belize in the same trickle-down economics that led -- believes in the same ticket

out a common -- economic that put our economy on the brink of collapse. josh mandel cannot be trusted. it is well established to cannot be trusted to show up for work and do the job he was elected to do. it is well established that josh mandel cannot be trusted to hire qualified financial people, instead hiring his political cronies. he cannot be trusted to tell the truth. as you see today. everyone in this room knows that josh mandel cannot be trusted to fight for your job because he is concerned about running for his next job. most importantly, this election is not about josh mandel or me. it is about real people with real concerns. on medicare, i want to strike the medicare. he was to turn it over to the insurance industry. when china trade, i left -- i thought china from cheating. -- i stopped china from

cheating. in the although rescue, we know that story. i believe you grow our economy by investing in the middle class. that meansauto rescue -- means auto rescue, helping small business, investing in community colleges, partnering with the private sector to create jobs. i will continue to get up every day to fight for every drop in every way i know how. [applause] >> mr. mandel, you have two and a half minutes for your closing statement. >> if you're happy with washington and are part of that & who approved of the job that senator sherrod brown and congress is doing, then he is definitely your guide. if you are sick of the

bickering, the in-fighting and politicians in washington thinking they can live by one set of rules, the nine nearby. we are not going to change washington by sending senator sherrod brown there. he has been there for 20 years. he has had two decades to try this out. i mentioned earlier if you're happy about high unemployment rates, senator sherrod brown is your guide. if you are happy about higher tuition rates, he is your guide. if you're happy about higher health care costs, cut the federal government has not passed the budget in three years where you have to manage your own family finances, senator sherrod brown is your guy. if you are happy ohio has become an exporter of kids and grandkids, senator sherrod brown is your guy. if you want new leadership, if you want to take our state and

country in a different direction, if you want someone willing to ride the partisan politics and do what is best for our state in your country, your guide. through the whole campaign and appear on the stage, senator sherrod brown blames other people. you hear him blame george bush, china, but he has borrowed $1 trillion from them. against mitted romney. he is looking for someone to blame. here is the reality -- politicians in washington, they're not holding themselves accountable. if they are not going to hold themselves accountable, we have to hold them accountable. the only way we are going to do that as by collecting new leaders to washington. [applause] >> that concludes our debate. thank you very much to the candidates senator sherrod brown and josh mandel. thank you to the panelists.

also, thank you very much to the enthusiastic and encased audience here. election day is tuesday, november 6. the star voting right now. thank you. -- you can start building right now. thank you. >> join us tomorrow for a discussion on the tea party. we will talk about where tea party supporters than on economic and social issues. alive -- live coverage begins at 4:00 eastern on c-span. host: caller: [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this is about you. if you want somebody who believes we were better off eight years ago them are now and that we ought to go back to the

kind of policies we had back then, emphasizing tax cuts many for the wealthy, here is your man. if you want somebody who will fight for you and fight to have middle-class tax cuts, then i am your man. i want to be. i doubt anybody here makes more than $330,000 a year. if you do, you'd be it into the top one percent. if everyone here in this audience was in the middle of the middle-class, the tax cuts forever -- for every one of the added up would be less than the tax cut his plan would give to just one member of that top wealthiest 1%. you judge for yourself. whether or not that is fair. >> 50 million americans get no tax relief under his plan.

we have had enough fighting. it is time to unite. you talk about eight years. it is time to get something done. >> town hall debate began in 1992. tuesday night, watched their town hall debate. c-span's live coverage takes at 7 eastern. >> coming up next, a debate between indian state treasurer richard murdock, congressman joe donnelly. he defeated senator in the republican primary. this debate is just under an hour.

to answer most of the questions. we will end with a final general statement. that describes the format. the candidates have been advised of the rules. let me introduce the candidates to you now.

as they make their opening statements. they drew for their lecturn placement. we will begin with jozef donnelly. -- joseph donnelly. >> thank you so much for having us here tonight. when i was raising my kids, my wife and i, i asked them to give 100% to play like a team. nobody ever asked anyone on the team whether they were republicans or temperatures. that is the -- democrats. that is the problem with washington. it should be about republicans and democrats. that's why during my time in congress i voted for $2.4 million in spending cuts.

those are the things we need to do. it is not about right or left. it is about america. thank you, mr. donnelly. >> now to richard mourdock. >> good evening. i would like to thank debate commission, congressman donnelly and. the final chapter is not yet been written. and each of us will have a chance to put that mark on that chapter on november 6. adds we've toured indiana over the last couple of months i've heard the understanding that washington is broken. 2/3 of americans think that this nation is on the wrong track and yet overwhelm ling hoosiers are

proud of this state and we know we're on the right track. we will talk about principles because many people go to washington well intentioned. we're looking forward to this debate because we know this is an important election and we will help to change the course of america. >> now to horning for your opening statement. >> i thank you both for bringing up the issue of bipartisan in the united states. if you look about our founders about the kind of partisan bickering we see now. they would be appalled we've divided ourselves into two sides when you can get every kind you can imagine. we need more choices than this in america. none of us like the status quo. you've just pointed out their dysfunctional. the global super power of the day and all we have to do is go into air conditioned comfort and press a button.

i'm asking to you think about the power you have in the voting booth. we already have what we have been choosing for the last 100 years. i think it's time to choose something different. >> now let's go to questions from citizens. go ahead with your question. >> the education system has never been perfect but many educators and parents feel we're headed in the wrong direction whit comes to cutting funding to programs. please specify those programs you believe are deserving and what you will do to ensure they have funding, in particular will you support the funding of our arts program? >> yes, i will and i already have in congress. and i've supported pell grants which are critical to family with middle income, lower income.

these pell grants are critical to our success and on top of that we also want to make sure we have an education that works so that people can get training in the appropriate skills. mr. murdock has said he wanted to abolish the department of education. pell grants come through the department of education. i wanted to lower student loan. that also comes from the department of education. our ability to compete as a state and a country depends on our educational level and it's critical we fund education in the appropriate way. >> thank you. i've called for the elimination for the federal department of education but not for those grants and scholarships. i think they can be done anyway different way. i don't believe the department is meeting common sense metrix. sense the education department was founded, we've seen our education scores have gone down again international competition

and our dropout rates go up. we've continued to fund the department of education, we're sending more to washington and getting less back. in fact, the average employee of the u.s. department of education including all the clerical staff reeves more than $100,000 a year in salary. that's more than twice what the average hoosier teacher makes. i think we ought to keep that money and let schools be run at the local level and state level. i think it's a much greater way to proceed. >> thank you. >> from my standpoint it's a simple question. if we're running for indiana based office there is an article that allows us to fiddle around with education. on the federal side it's unconstitutional. i have a daughter that went off to the university of

chicago. i know this is expensive. but what been doing is not working but the real issue here is we have a tug of war between bankers and whenever you have anything political you have a pie that's going to be pulled at. just i imagine who is going to win. if you look to see where the money is coming from, you're going to see most of us are not on the winning side. i think it's time we change the rules. i think we keep our paychecks and keep politics where it belongs. >> now we'll return to mr. donnelly for a 30 second rebuttal. >> those pell grants and students loans and 3 and 4%. those are what makes it possible for many families to go to school. in regards to principle, it is not unprinciple to be bipartisan and try to work with other people.

your principle is of the tea party movement. i would rather make sure we can work together in washington and in indiana to move our country forward. >> now to richard mourdock. >> i don't know that to be true. but the simple fact is the obama donnelly agenda that continues to put money into huge government beurocracies without accountability is an error. i think we've managed for our credit rating to go up instead of down. >> thank you. >> i think you've seen between the two on my right if you vote status quo again. it's always going to be a tug of war and you're always going to lose. you can change that with your vote. our founders didn't have that in

a plan. we need a peaceful eleven -- resolution to end this and put things back where they belong with equal rights for all everybody equal under law at last. >> thank you very much. our next question is from brian who works in technical support. thanks for joining us. >> can you tell us how you will work on tax reform and do you also support the fair tax bill that's in congress today? >> mr. richard mourdock. >> i think almost certainly we're going to see some significant tax reform coming through the congress and we must. our tax system is broken right now and it's not creating the kind of jobs we need to grow our economy. i don't support the fair tax because i don't think it's the answer to america's

problems. but i do think the bulk of our fax needs to be from a sales -- tax needs to be from a sales tax. one of the things that's a killer to indiana jobs is the so-called answer the tax. mr. donnelly came forward at one time to say he wanted to reduce the inheritance tax however the first time he had a chance to repeal it you voted against it. i don't think that policy is good for what we need to do to grow indiana jobs. >> i proposed the fair tax at the state level and federal level for many years. it's oh good to talk about that kind of overhaul because the fair tax would fix a lot of our programs with medicare and social security.

however there are bigger problems than just taxation and we have to address where the tax money goes and that's where most of my effort would be spent. and when you have unconstitutional spending it is in fact theft and that's where i would want to concentrate my efforts. >> i would support reducing the tax on small businesses and all corporations to 25%. and what we're able to do by that, it's able to make our companies more competitive and it will help us to be able to bring more businesses back to our country. and you mentioned the estate tax and when you mentioned that i support increasing the deductions to five million per person, ten million per couple, i'd love to do that. we have a 16 trillion debt. and to be in a place where you say we're going to wipe this out

at the same time eliminating our deficit. that seems to be the sensible thing to do. >> let's return to mr. richard mourdock for rebuttal. >> mr. donnelly is one of the key components of the obamacare bill. it came to say but you voted for the bill that included that tax but then you came and said it shouldn't be there let's put a bill to cans it will tax. now you're saying do away with it. but to taxation, you are quite correct we need to bring taxes down. >> thank you. >> now you have one voice, you could be sending one person to washington d.c. for the seat. one voice in 100. do you want to hear the

bickering on both sides? it doesn't have to be this way. if i were to be elected. it would be a punch in the gut. but we would have new opportunities to look at new options. it is not all one things or all another. there are all kinds of ways to reach across that don't involve compromise. >> mr. donnelly on this question you have the last word. >> with regards to the medical device tax, i've been thanked repeatedly by the companies to try to reduce the companies and eliminate the tax. and they have repeatedly thanked me for the hard work we've put into that. >> thank you. thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you. performance research suggest that past performance is the best predictor of future success. please share an example of a time you worked with someone who you disagreed with politically

to chart a solution to a complex problem? >> start with the only guy who hasn't had public office. i guess i can't say from a official position. but in my job every day where i'm working with medical devices all the time i have to work with a lot of issues where you're installing things and they don't always work out the way you like. so i have handled conflict in my job and my life. i have kids for goodness sake. so i have done all of that. i can't give you this is what i did as a congressman because i haven't been one. do i offer that opportunity and i'll tell you next time. >> i have kids too and it is a challenge on occasion but i've had the chance to work with my

colleagues and my friend fred upton from michigan. with the entire indiana republican congressional delegation to make sure that we had a better highway road program for our state. it's the hall mark of my career, working together across aisles to make sure we get things done. it's not about republicans or democrats, it's about america. and that's what these people have done is work together with me because they believe the same thing. and our children and our children's children deserve our work on their behalf, not on behalf of a political party. >> it is all the important that we work together and i've been amazed in watching the tv commercials. they like to paint me as one who can't work with others and i find that shocking. if that were true i wouldn't have set up a college savings plan that increased ten times the number of people saving for college and i worked with democrats to do that.

i set up a welfare to work program so we could help people move from that welfare society into work society and i was the sole republican when i carried that through. and last but not least if i were the harsh person i wouldn't have gotten the joy i found working in the jungle ws some of the poorest people on earth. in the house we've done a lot of work with democrats. we saved the banking industries protection of public funds when they controlled the indiana statehouse. so we've been proud of that record and we look forward to carrying it to the united states senate. >> i come back to the same thing i suppose. i don't know how you can support voting for the status quo again. we've been through this so many times. maybe our guy isn't that good but those other guys are so bad we can't let them in. we need to shake this up.

it is time to do something different with your vote. you can put a different voice in washington d.c. and i certainly would be that. >> we have a murdock versus murdock debate going on. you the one who said it. you're the one who said you want to inflict your opinion on other people and you're also the one who said the problem with washington is bipartisan ship. i couldn't agree more. i think we need to work together to get things done. >> i think you just argued with yourself. you took me to task and then came back to say that you agreed. so to the point that bipartisan ship, it is that you said it is so important in d.c. to have both parties come together for a $16 billion debt. i think we're seeing principle being compromised bipartisan ship and that's something we need to look at because we can't have people caving in to the pressure.

>> i'll begin by asking each candidate to make a one minute statement about his beliefs on a particular issue. then the other candidates get two minutes to rebut that statement. we will then return to the first candidate to make a one minute response. we'll go for three rounds giving each candidate the opportunity to take the lead. >> now let's turn to joe donnelly. you have one minute? >> we have to continue to work on jobs. it's the most critical thing of all. i work with senator lugar to make sure we saved over 100,000 auto jobs. he was an incredible leader for

our country. and you sent out a letter where you said he betrayed conservatives and the word betrayed. you can disagree, but betrayed. i don't see how that even fits in the dialogue. we can disagree with each other, we can have different points of view but i don't understand how you can say we tray. >> thank you. you have two minutes. >> first of all, to senator lugar he is a good honorable man and we appreciate the fact he said he's going to support us as we go forward. to the point you're racing with the chrysler decision and case let me make it clear. we have some disagreement here. i took on the fight with the interest of two groups of people in mind. the teachers retirement fund of

indiana and the indiana stated police pension fund. when the u.s. government set aside 150 years of bankruptcy law to take away the property of our retired teachers and our retired cops, someone deserved to stand up for them, they needed that. and i took an oath of office that said i would do that and i'm proud of. the bigger question is why is it under the reed obama agenda we are picking more winners and losers. i don't like the fact that government is growing and you've helped it get bigger and bigger. i've made the statement twice this evening about the fact that our partisanship is drowning out principle. and i believe that when you ran for office the first time, i believe you're an honest principled person but you said you were a fiscal conservative but since then you've voted to raise the deficit seven times.

you said you were against the national healthcare system and against a massachusetts style system, you said you were against obamacare but then once you got back to d.c. and the pressure was on you went with the president on that message. i think those are the wrong things to do. i think that principle issue is what is at stake here. and i stand with the principle that government has grown too big and cost too much. >> since i'm standing outside this debate happily which would be the case with senator horning most of the time. i guess it's important to interject some facts here. republicans have never cut the cost of government. eisenhower cut the size and cost of government. and j.f.k. before that the only constitutional president we had was cleveland. now there is zero opportunity

for republicans to say they have any history or experience in cutting the cost of government. i admire reagan's words but his actions, his administration shows no history of cutting the size and cost of government. we have both parties controlled by the same people that eisenhower warned us about, ten presidents in between warned us about it. we have been warned about a system that grows too big for its pants. they are honorable men but they can't fix the system. they operate within the system. and as cogs they cannot fix the machine. you as voters have to do this. you have to vote something different than the system. if you want to change things obama and romney both agree you can't change from within. i'm the guy on the outside when it comes to the whole system of

washington being corrupt and we all know it's corrupt. have you one person you're going to send to washington d.c. as senator. one voice in 100 of a legislative assembly. it's very little risk. on the other hand it's a great opportunity and i think you should take it. >> we're going to return to mr. donnelly to close this round out. >> how inappropriate is it to use a word like betray with an american hero like senator lugar. and that's the problem with washington. it's all on the left or right and all they do is fight. we need to fix this country and work together so we can. in regards to chrysler, i am proud to have stood with senator lugar to have saved over 100,000 auto jobs across our state. and mr. richard mourdock sued to

try to force the liquidation of chrysler. he said it was for the police women and the teachers. the truth is he turned down a settlement that was worth more than the lawsuit he pursued. so it was not about the police women and the teachers, it was about him and his tea party agenda. >> now we return to richard mourdock to begin round oh two. >> four years ago congressman donnelly you endorsed president obama. you thought that would put an end to the decisiveness in washington. you said that he would bring us all together and you said that he would get the national economy going again. in fact since then we've seen personal incomes in the united states drop $4300 per household. we've seen the cost of gasoline go up 49%, our national debt

increase almost $6 trillion, by 49%. and you've again endorsed president obama. would you explain why you think he's the right choice inner america and the right choice inner hoosiers? >> i appreciate the fact that i could not possibly have framed my argument better than you guys are doing it. i think the fact we see this bickering every election cycle what i saw when i ran as republican before. you can't fix this problem from within. if you think about how many lobbyists who would lose their jobs if they solve the problems they claim to oppose. if you think about all the professional politicos that make their living off multimillion dollar political campaigns. what do you get out of this process. what do you get after electing somebody that cost $20 million

and when trillions of dollars are at stake here and lives are at stake here and our own children are being sent to wars to protect us from guys with exploding underpants. but we are mortgaging our children's futures off. we've been doing this for so long. the last is00 years we've been taking the wrong direction. we've let the wrong people take control of the government and they're not the people on the ballot. these people are honorable. they won't change anything. negotiate one of them is capable of effecting that kind of change. we've had plenty of people from the republican side and democratic side, ryan paul, he can't fix his party. he can't do it. i saw what ron paul must have felt. i imagine you would feel some of that yourself. you can't fight those guys.

look at the money. follow it back to its source. look to see how long these people have been involved in politics. on both sides you're going to find you got some of the same people funding both sides. all they care about is whoever wins picks up the phone when they call. >> four years ago we were losing over 800,000 jobs every single month. in the last two and a half years we've gained over 5 million jobs. the district i represent, unemployment was at 20%. the southern most country unemployment was at 20%. it is down in the neighborhood of 8% now. is that perfect? no, it's not. the unemployment rate has gone under 8% for the first time since february, twoit, under a republican administration.

this isn't about republicans or democrats. this is about our country. this is about jobs and you mr. richard mourdock could have sung the economy and put us in a recession if you were fortunate enough to have been successful in your lawsuit of chrysler. and you look at that and it takes your breath away when you know these families and you see what they've gone through and to have talked to them on the day when the supreme court decided not to hear your appeal. and to be with them where they talk to you and say joe, if mr. mourdock is successful, i could lose my house and my job for sure and i don't know what we're going to do for the future. that's the choice you put on the families of all the auto companies in this state. i stood with workers and always will. i said i would stand with the president because he stood with those workers as well.

but i am just as happy to work with a governor romney and if romney is the president i'll do the same as i did with president bush. i wanted him to be a success because if the president successful we're be successful. >> i can't understand for the life of me why you would want to support someone who has not caused our economy to improve, but to get worse. when you voted for the stimulus plan, we have had a net loss as of this year. for the first time our unemployment rate is below 8%, but our debt has increased, not something that we should talk about in the abstract, but the real doubt that all of us have. this is wrong what we are doing, and we need to get government back on track.

>> now for round three, we will start with andrew horning. you have one minute. >> why would anybody vote for the status quo again? if i were a voter, i should be angry. why are we not war and agree with the choices we have been given? i have not voted for anybody who has won in the last 30 years, so you cannot blame me. because i vote for losers. we have the highest percentage of citizens in prison. the land of the free should not have the most percentage in prison, we should be the land of the brave. when are we going to get wise up that the status quo is not working? how do you defend working with the status quo to change it when nobody has been able to do this

in the 100 years? >> i like to mention one thing that mr. horning said. that is in regard to our foreign policy. osama bin laden is dead. our young men and women are home from iraq. i was in iraq a number of times, and i have been in afghanistan as well. there is no war solemn duty than to spend time with our troops or with their parents. we are working right now have our young men and women come home, and when they do we need to make sure they have a job in indiana. one family i know, love family, the extraordinary lady, and her son who served in afghanistan, served protecting our country. her son now works at the

transmission plants in kokomo, when i was in afghanistan, one of the toughest places you would ever want to see on the face of the earth, i was with the indiana national guard, amazing people, and i met with them and said, what is the most important thing i can do for you? i am thinking they are going to say we need trucks. they said no. they said, joe, we need a job when we get home. that is the most important thing we can do. that is what my time in congress has been focused on and what my time in the senate will be focused on, continuing to create more jobs and opportunities for our state. that is what is critical -- more jobs, opportunities, and ending the dysfunction in washington of the tea party right and the extreme left and doing what's

right for our country instet of focus -- instead of focusing on politics. >> mr. mourdock, you have two minutes. >> we agree on a point of view as to what our men and women are doing overseas. as we stand here tonight, i have a niece and her husband serving in afghanistan. we share those concerns. we need to make sure that north america goes forward whenever the call comes that we must put our young men and women in the field that they go forward with the defense department to back them up to make sure they never ever enter an unfair fight. the bigger point, whether not people will have jobs when they come back overseas -- that is critical in light of what is going on in washington, and that you have endorsed president obama. his policies have not worked. i thought we were can have a balloon drop when they announced 7.8% unemployment the other

day. we shouldn't see that as a new normal that is somehow good enough for us. as we continue to go forward, we are on october 15, not a single small businessman or businesswoman on october 15, what their taxes will be, what the tax rate will be come jaurnings what their health costs will be, come january, whether regulatory environment will be on january, because the government is failing, because congress cannot come together with a consistent message, and harry reid will not even bring up a vote for an agenda or a budget in the senate -- for three years. it is because we see that type of partisanship and we're sending the messages to businesses to keep them from investing, and that is a dangerous thing when we have so many young people who want to come back for jobs, and if i were senator, i would be making the point of every single day.

>> the question was not answered. i was asking for defense of the status quo, and what i heard was dysfunction, and that is underlining, exclaiming, and emboldened my point. the issue for voters is simple. at this point we have status quo. you can see somebody who has been funded with just independent folks pitching in a few bucks here and there, and then you have a couple people making their living off of politics and had millions of dollars. do we suppose those millions come without strings? i ask you consider that this be the same as every election cycle as i have witnessed, the same as every election cycle -- fear mongering, pointing out the errors of the other guy, because what?

what are we looking for in these votes? >> two questions from hoosier voters. we're joined by a graduate student in crawfordsville. >> many voters are disengaged with the political process over what they see as politicians putting politics over positive results. voters get brought begin with negative campaign ads telling us what another candidate is doing wrong. if you want to connect with me as a voter, you have to be willing to openly be the bigger person. i would like for each of you to take a moment and named one policy stance from each of your competitors that you agree with and explain why. >> we will give you more type -- time to answer this question, so we will go with two minutes each, and we will start with joe

donnelly. >> i agree with richard's policy on the college plan. it is important for every student in our state to go to college. this is so absolutely critical. your ability to be employed is directly related to your opportunity to get a good education, and said that is why i think that things like the reduced student loans is critical. that is why i think pell grants are critical as well, because it enables families who may never have been able to send their kids to school before, to have a chance to do it now, and that child has the opportunity to change the face of indiana and to change the face of the united states of america. i think that is a good program. in regards to andrew, i have had a wonderful time with andrew, traveling the state and being at

the events together, from new harmony to fort wayne, where we talked with voters, spent time with voters, and andrew as a deep love for our state, a conviction about his views and issues, and a willingness to mix it up and to get out there. it has been a great time traveling to run the state with you. we were in new harmony where we spent time talking issues with voters, and probably one of the best ice cream socials we ever had as well. >> thank you, and now to mr. mourdock. >> i certainly appreciated and always have the libertarian point of view because it brings a good argument, and i am ok with a libertarian party offering choice. he did not just walk up and put your name on the ballot. you had to get 500 signatures in each of the districts just as the congressman and i did. that reflects well to your commitment to the process. i voted for a few libertarians in days gone by because i believe constitutional approaches are important, and

that is why i took the position i did in the chrysler case. i stood up for the rule of law. if the government can change the law on a whim, when they determined there be a crisis, that is not a good thing. when there is one group of americans picking winners and losers, we no longer have equal justice under law, and libertarian party consistently stands with that. the congressman donnelly, from what i understand your policies on immigration, i think we are very much the same. we want to make sure the border is made more secure and i believe we stand together in saying there should be placed for those who are here illegally to take to report themselves so they are somehow getting access and if they start to update a law, that they might check back into allow them get a worker visa. i think those types of things are good programs, and i believe

that is your position. if i am wrong, i am sure you will correct me. >> trying to get politicians to say something nice about each other, is a cruel trick. i can say pretty honestly as a libertarian, that i agreed with a lot what they have both been about for a long time. when i ran as a republican, i cannot go to a dinner without seeing you mr. murdoch. as far as the hard work and what they have been doing, i certainly appreciate that spirit, i hope you appreciate that i come from an entirely different paradigm. when they offer government as a solution, i see that as a problem. whenever something comes up where he says something is constitutional, i appreciate the fact that he is making constitutional other than a bad word, because people used to think as it as a -- document. i do not flinch when people say they are a tea party candidate. i know a lot of people

supporting him over me. while i should take that personally, i get it and i think he is a good guy. as far as mr. donnelly, i have had nothing but pleasant interactions with him. i do not want to go out with him with a beer or not, but he is a good man. both of these guys are honorable, but i operate on a different paradigm and i choose not to operate as a cog in the machine. i have nothing bad to say about them, i appreciate everything they have done, i have a big problem with what they do choose to represent. i made the same mistake myself once before. having seen the inside of that machine and having lived to tell you about it, you do not want to vote for the status quo again. >> thank you. we're joined tonight from a person in kokomo.

>> gentlemen, a tough question, but would you stake your summary view on the fundamental nature and the proper role of government. >> we will give you one minute 30 seconds for this question, and we will start with richard mourdock. >> a great question, one that we need to examine every two years. the role of government is best defined in article 1, section 8 of the united states constitution, the enumerated powers are specific and limiting what the government can do. does that mean everything the federal government has the proper authority to do, is that listed under 18 items? i do not believe that, but mr. donnelly has tried to attack me because i was once asked the constitution included the words social security and medicare, and it does not.

he runs my answer in a news clip, to make it sound like i believe the idea of social security is unconstitutional. you know i have never said that. just because that is not in the constitution, neither is nasa or the fbi. we have to make sure government lists within its means a break in the indian that we have been on the right track because we have lived in our budget, and that is different from what the federal system has become. when you voted to raise the debt limit, you have gone against what is an instinctive principle within you, but you said you were a fiscal conservative once, but that is where your principals have succumbed to the partisanship in d.c., and that is unfortunate. >> now to mr. horning. >> that was one of the best questions anybody could ask.

mr. mourdock, your answer was one of those things that makes me laugh when people say you are a constitutional test. both indiana's and the federal constitution -- if it is not in the constitution, not authorized specifically, it is prohibited by the constitution. most of what we call government and most of what these gentlemen have proposed is clearly unconstitutional. we can change the constitutions if we like. there is a process for amending them, and i have a few amendments i would like to propose and i got the opportunity. the law install and the law as it exists right now in state and federal constitutions is nothing like the government we have now or nothing like either of these gentlemen are proposing we continue.

this is a clear case where the role of government is defined in print, but to summarize, it is only to protect our rights and our bodies as described in the constitution from an external interference, not to protect us from ourselves. it is protecting our contracts and our rights. as far as the rest, it is all unconstitutional. if you want to change constitutions, let's be legitimate about this. >> now joe donnelly. >> richard, i may have been born at night, but i was not born last night. when you meet with the madison tea party and you say to them, you show me where in the constitution it allows medicare, and you show me where in the constitution it allows social security, we are not that dumb. we know what you are implying, and we know what you are driving at. you also said medicare should be turned into a voucher system.

for our seniors, that out to -- will cost you $6,200 out of your own pocket, and you tell me how many of our seniors have the ability to have an extra $6,200 lying around in their house. in regard to the scope of government, it should be as small as we can possibly make it, but what we want to make sure is that we stay out of the way of our entrepreneurs, that we enable them to have success, that we provide things like r and d tax credits, make sure we have advanced expensing so they can buy equipment and buy machinery. our job is to stay out of the way as much as possible, and that everybody succeed, and if things get extraordinarily difficult, the government is there to try and be of some help. >> thank you, mr. donnelly. a lawyer from zionsville will now ask his question. >> good evening.

the poverty rate in indiana and the economic challenges in indiana have increased. which specific federal human service programs would you maintain, and which specific programs would you reduce or reform? or what part of the safety net would you work to maintain and how? >> the first response goes to andrew horning. you have one minute. >> i will say that just about everything must go. looking at our debt, how we have hocked our children's future, we have a moral issue. it is not moral that we have put our children in debt so we could be comfortable today. that's just not right. there are all kinds of ways to deal with the issue, and east to be done through churches and fraternal organizations, their voluntary collection plate was outcompeted by the irs.

whose collection plate is not voluntary. obviously we have problems with an unsustainable system of government now. if you look at the hard numbers, there is no getting around the fact that medicare is one of the biggest things that is generating our debt. our money system alone is another one, but in terms of safety net issues, i do not know where to begin. had they worked, if you're looking at whether these things have worked over time, you will see there was a time when the difference between rich and poor was much less than now. >> and now to joe donnelly. >> first, the department of agriculture, had a farm bill. i voted -- i wanted to vote for the farm there. we could not get it to the floor, because of partisan bickering. primarily because that tea party voters did not want to allow a vote.

and the farm bill at $16 billion in nutrition cuts, but it still provided enough nutrition funding so that our students could get decent lunches, so when they came back to school after a weekend, when they may not have anything to eat the entire weekend, they were able to get something decent to eat. and it reduced the deficit by $23 billion. those are the kinds of programs that can take care of our children and reduce the deficit at the same time. >> it is regrettable, i will agree with congressman donnelly that there was not a vote taken on the farm bill. 82% of that farm bill is simply about these types of programs, the food, assistance programs, and that is a question that needs to be dealt with better. the comment a moment ago, that mr. horning made, let's go back to where we see government going today and even that last question about making government smaller, mr. donnelly, you voted for "obamacare."

you can't make government bigger than to vote for something like obamacare. we talk about the poor and needy and the elderly, it was "obamacare" that you voted for that took $716 billion away from medicare, and i know democrats like you say we did not take it away. yes, you did. the money was taken away. it was going to go to doctors to take care patients on medicare. that was a bad move. to say you believe in the government and support something as massive -- the biggest tax increase, the biggest increase ever is wrong. >> now to our final question. gentlemen, if you are sent to washington, what is the most important thing you believe needs to be done to serve the good of hoosiers back home and in the nation as a whole? we will start with joe donnelly.

>> 716 billion, mr. mourdock, you take that out of your oun budget, we put it into patient care, you do not reduce the deficit and take it out in tax breaks. what we can do for our state, this is the most extraordinary place, and it works best when hoosiers are working. when mom and dad had a job that is the best social program of all. my focus will be on job, tax credits, going after china, making sure we have american energy so we are doing oil exploration and have energy coming from every source, including ethanol, and, mr. mourdock, ethanol is a good thing, and ethanol standard is a good thing. we have to grow jobs, make sure in washington we work together. that is my history. i'm just joe. i work with both teams. i do not care if you wear and r

uniform or a d uniform. i wear an american uniform. what is most important is we make our country stronger and we leave for our children and our grandchildren and even better, greater america that is what i will work for every day, and that is the promise i give you as your united states senator. thank you so much for the chance to be with you here tonight. >> i would like to thank congressman donnelly and mr. horning to be here tonight and thank the commission. as we go forward, there is much to discuss. i am one who is convinced the federal government is on the wrong track. i entered this race with one principal, and that was that government has grown to big and it costs too much. i think washington is that place where principals get crushed and get compromised by partisanship. i believe congressman donnelly is an honorable person, but he is against your marks and when

he says he is against "obamacare," is not consistent. as we go forward, we know, indiana is on the right track, and we are. we have made government smaller. we have paid down our debt, and the exactly the opposite has occurred on the federal level. we see every american bird with a $52,000 debt, even that new -- burdened with a $52,000 debt. even with that new child born today because he said he was a fiscal conservative, but mr. donnelly has voted seven times to raise the debt limit. it is time to do better. i'm running to make sure we run washington, d.c., the way we have run indiana.

>> i agree with all the partisan stuff, and i agree with, and i'm asking voters to fix it. there is only one way to fix it. stop voting for two parties. just one voice in a legislative assembly. vote for me just once, and you can always fire me later, but let's get on to what i would do specifically. at my website you will find specific about what i think the constitution says about the annotated version of the indian and u.s. constitutions, and yes, a u.s. senator is supposed to defend the indiana constitution against the u.s. government. i have to say that what i propose is devolving -- evolving our dependence on government. i proposed a lot of ways to get

us off these monkey traps such as social security and medicare. there are free-market ways to do it that that could pick up the slack. there are government means to get it. what we're doing is not working. it was a cynical attempt to begin with. social security, when it was devised in 1935, the average life expectancy of a white woman was 65. we expected people to die before thigh used this stuff. now that the numbers are not working out, we have to come up with other means to protect our elderly and our sick. >> thank you very much, mr. horning, and thank you for watching tonight's u.s. senate debate. our thanks to the candidates and the voters here to take part. special thanks to wfyi for providing facilities and support. we also appreciate the assistance of our affiliate organizations and volunteers for making this possible. the next in the series of

gubernatorial debates will be held wednesday at 7:00 p.m. eastern and south bend. on behalf of the indiana debate commission, i'm mizell stewart. good night. >> president obama and mitt romney meet in the second of three debates live tomorrow from new york on long island. c-span's debate preview starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern followed by the town hall style debate with questions from undecided voters. and after the debate, we'll take calls, tweets and emails from viewers around the country. that will be live on c-span, c-span radio and at c-span.org. >> bid for the town hall debate tomorrow night, we want to hear

from you. which format do you prefer? when the candidates said at podiums, sit together at a table, or participate in a town hall? let us know. during tomorrow night's debate, your thoughts and comments via social media. you can leave a comment on our facebook page or tweet us. >> i watched c-span because when i want to get the news without a lot of caucus and pundits adding their point of view, i can get the original script from a person and then i can come to my own conclusion, which i think is better than somebody else telling me what i should think. i have c-span, c-span 2, and c- span 3. c-span 2 is booktv, which i

love. c-span 3 is history. sometimes, i want to watch the senate and see what they're doing, too. >> c-span, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> now, arizona rep jeff flake debates former u.s. surgeon general and democrat richard carmona and libertarian candidate marc victor, a criminal defense attorney. this debate was hosted in tucson. it is about one hour. >> welcome to an arizona public media your vote 2012 special. tonight, a forum featuring candidates running for the united states senate in arizona. joining us at the studio are

republican jeff flake and democrat richard carmona. they are both hoping to replace jon kyl, who is retiring after 18 years in the senate. our debate is more of an open discussion. no time answers. joining us is andrea kelly. thanks for coming in. >> we will start with health care. generally, republicans are in favor of repealing it. democrats are in favor of tweaking it. this has been an issue that has paralyzed congress. if you are elected, will there be any progress on this issue? >> when you are talking about repealing its, you are talking about repealing the president's health-care law. we should do that. we have got to reform health care. we need to do it in ways we can deliver health care more efficiently. the president's health-care law

is not that. we have got to do toure reform, force insurance companies to compete across state lines, giving individuals the same pre- tax benefits. we have got to make it easier for individuals to assess health care options like a medical savings account. the president's health care law has made that more difficult. >> will there be any progress on this in the next session? >> if republicans take control of the senate, certainly. there have been a number of forms we would like to do for years. if president romney would repeal the health care law, we can move on to some genuine laws which we need. >> will there be any progress in the next session? >> i hope there will be because the public is expecting it to happen. as you can tell from his comments, they have politicize health care. i have been in health care as most of my life as a combat medic, a registered nurse, physician's assistant,

physician, a professor teaching medicine, and the surgeon general of the united states. what i learned as the surgeon general was how everything becomes politicized. the problem is, both parties have gotten it wrong. they are not arguing over the same issue. they are bringing forward business plans. this is about driving down the cost of health care and making sure people have access and making sure it is quality care. both parties have got to get themselves realigned. they failed miserably. congress has led us down. >> dr. carmona supports the president's health-care plan. accusing us of politicizing it because people do not support it is not true. a lot of us would like to see better delivery, lower costs. the president's health care plan promises lower premiums. premiums have gone up since the law was passed. dr. carmona will not say whether

he will vote to repeal it or not. it needs to be repealed and we have got to move ahead with a genuine reforms. >> again, we are continuing to politicize this issue. how do we provide the most care for people at the least cost? you do not see politicians discussing that. from him, all you hear is, as long as they are in charge, everything will be fine. they have been in charge before and we have had problems. both parties have got this wrong and we are arguing the wrong is used. congressman flake is trying to put me in a place where i it was not. from the beginning, i have been very clear to say that there are specific elements that everybody likes. i am concerned about the sustainability of overtime and having a good business plan. i criticized the plan. just like governor romney, i think there are good parts of that plan which need to be retained. i have been very consistent.

the characterization of my opinion is entirely wrong. >> with all due respect, it is not. when the health care law was passed, dr. carmona went to several town halls defending it, saying it was a good first step and the right thing to do. when he started running for this office, the question was asked, do you support the president's health-care law and he said, yes, i do. i do not know how much more clear you can get. >> let me clarify. when you look at what the congressman is saying, this is politics as usual. in the gutter, ugly politics. many of those first events that i spoke at, i spoke about the aspiration of health care. as surgeon general of the united states, i feel like many presidents before president obama, like we should have health care for everybody. i spoke to the support of

aspirations of health care for all. i was critical of some aspects of the affordable care act. congressman flake is doing everything he can to paint my position as something that is not my position. >> it seems like while we do not have agreement, there is one thing that you both agree on. the law, as it was passed, is problematic. the level of problematic is where we disagree. let's assume that one of you is elected, which should happen. what do you do specifically to fix it with in your realm of believing it is problematic, albeit minor tweaks or large changes? >> i would be happy to address that. first of all, you have to look at where the cost of health care is coming from. we are spending $2.80 trillion per year on what we call health

care. 18% of our gdp is out the door. 70 cents of every dollar is spent on chronic diseases and most of those are preventable. smoking, gaining weight, not exercising, not wearing a seatbelt or helmet. all of those things add up to increased costs in society. what needs to be addressed is the true rising cost of health care. if the public does not become engaged or work with us to pursue optimal health and wellness, the respective of whose plan is adopted, costs will continue to rise. in a decade, it will be 25% of our gdp. that is one thing. if we look within the plan and some of the issues that are there as far as funding, first of all, i am concerned that the plan calls for reducing more payments to doctors and hospitals. at a time when you have what --

when you want to put 32 million more people into the system and doctors are already struggling, that might not be the way to go. when we look at the organization's being established within the plan, if they work and if you save money, if you improve the quality, then you reach benefits that will drive the cost of the system down. there are a lot of variables i am concerned with. that does not mean abandoning it. let's hold on to what is good, go back and figure out how to do this. it will take good republicans and the democrats to be able to come up with a good plan. congressman flake feels that the republicans are the only one with the answer to this problem. >> this is going to take both sides. that is what congress is about. you've got to work across the aisle, particularly in the senate, where you need 60 votes for practically everything. you have got to have repeal first. we cannot fix this thing. the notion that we're going to

go in and tweak this and that and it is going to be ok, when you have rising health-care costs, 2013 coming and the burden will be on arizona, just getting our legs under us with respect to the budget. all, comes with the president's health-care law and not our feet out from under us again. it needs to be repealed. in washington, you have to make choices. this may not have everything i want, but i will vote for it. or we need to start over again. in this case, we need to start all over again. when you have not been in congress, it is easy to say that everybody will work together. i have been bipartisan my whole career. in this case, we have got to repeal obamacare and put in place meaningful reforms that will make health care more affordable. the biggest problem with obamacare is that it does not

make health care more affordable. it does not do anything to address the cost of health care and therein lies the biggest problem. >> the cost of health care is going up because of the chronic diseases. people have to participate. even if you use congressman ryan's plan, it is not going to stop the rising cost of care. all you are doing is transferring risk from one population, the government, out to the population because the government is willing to put our health care at risk by privatizing. i am not willing to do that. those are not entitlements, they are earned benefits. there is a clear difference between us. i have been in the health field most of my life. i have been surgeon general of the united states. these are clever sound bites that the congressman has memorized based on the playbook of their party. they are not solving problems. the public has to be engaged. there are good elements of the

affordable care act. even governor romney said there are some good things in there. the doughnut hole, making sure kids are covered until 26, non- exclusionary criteria. that protect the public. but it is a partnership. the public has to do everything they can to keep their cells healthy. over time, we can drive the cost of health care down. that is where the costs are coming from. congressman flake is not addressing that. he is addressing it as a political issue. it is a health issue. >> you talk about a voucher- izing medicare. what he has talked about is not supporting it at all. his plan takes money out of medicare. how are you supposed to pay doctors for what they need, to keep them in the system, or make sure benefits accrue to currency nears -- accrfeud to seniors.

the notion that whenever i bring up a difference, i am politicizing things, but when you bring up something, it is based on policy, that does not wash. >> it does wash. you are a politician and i have been practicing in this field my whole life. the issue of the $716 billion, this is the same that congressman ryan has in his budget as well. it is not taking away. we are supposing accrued savings over time that could be reinvested. a r p look at this and said this helps to extend medicare another several years. we have non-partisan people looking at this. you are not taking money from the people. you are able to generate savings by what they do, to be able to reinvest in medicare so we can

prolong medicare. i do not expect the congressman to understand because he had never worked in the health industry. he has cleverly-ridden sound bites that come from his party playbook. >> a chronic politician is one that changes his position based on the situation he is in. >> you have done it quite well. >> when he started this campaign, he said, i support the president's health care law. now he says he does not support it. >> the congressmen feel that if he says that enough, the people will believe it. absolutely false. >> the one thing we agree on is that we will not agree on this. rather than spend the whole hour talking about this, there are some other topics we want to get into. >> this sets us up for something of one that asked you guys. partisanship is one of the problems. everybody fights in washington right now. one side or the other side, what is each side going to do?

not just on health care, but how you get past this? how do you make any solutions on any issue in congress? >> i would be happy to answer that. my whole life, i have been an attendant. i was surgeon general of the united states for a very conservative administration. i was recruited during a time of being surgeon general. republicans thought i was such a good person, being recruited for governor and congress. i refused because i did not go to washington to use it as a stepping stone to another job. my job was to be the doctor of the nation for four years and that is what i did. unlike congressman flake, whose voting record is very clear in line with his party on just about every single vote. i work both sides of the aisle very successfully. when i worked for the republican administration, i worked closely with the democrats to get health issues done. my job was to help with the

safety and security of the nation. i worked with things like obesity, cardiovascular disease, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, avian flu, regular flu. all of those things are not partisan issues. i had to work both sides of the aisle and i was successful in doing that. my focus was not keeping a party in power, it was doing what was right for the american public and not allowing either party to politicize science, which they both try to do at different times. >> congressman flake, how do we get past this partisanship? >> you have got to have the temperament to work with both sides. that has been my history. i started in washington doing and internships. i have seen the other side. i worked with democrats all along the way. during my time in congress, i passed more amendments on the floor of the house than any republican by a longshot.

in the last four years, no republican or democrat has passed more floor amendments than i have. you cannot do that unless you work with both sides of the aisle well. i have taken tough positions against earmarks but i have never made it personal. you've got to do that in washington. in the senate, you got? 60 votes for nearly everything. you've got to work across the aisle. barry goldwater once said, "politics is nothing more than public business. sometimes you make the best of it." we know that compromise is needed. house republicans have put our stake in the ground by passing the budget. a lot of the ads that are run against me are st., jeff flake believes in this budget, that budget, would cut this or that or that for this. we cannot get harry reid and the democrats to put their stake in the ground, their budget, so we can say, we are here, you are

here. let's meet in the middle. that is frustrating for many of us who are used to walking -- used to working across the aisle and reaching an agreement. you have got to have the temperament. dr. carmona was surgeon general, recruited by a republican. he was not asked to stay on for a second term. that is part of the record and temperament issue we are talking about. >> let me address the issue. congressman flake speaks of his record. when we look at his record, in a 12-year period, the citizens' paid him about $2 million. he participated in somewhere between 1213 hundred meetings and sub-committee meetings of which she was absent from two- thirds of them as he traveled the country and the world. some of them paid by special interest groups to go to resorts when he should have been at

committee meetings that he did not go to. as it relates to my tenure as surgeon general, i served honorably and with distinction because i stood up for what was right for the american public. surgeon general's typically do not say more than one term. in the old days, they used to. it is a very tough job. the important thing to note is when i had to, because of the partisanship and people trying to force me to change our reports or opinions that were based on science, yes, i did create a little bit of discomfort for those republicans i work for and, at times, some of the democrats. my job was not to be surgeon general of the republican party or the democratic party. my job was to be the doctor of the nation and stay above the politics. on each and every issue, i did that. sometimes, you create some controversy. each party wants the side of the surgeon general. you cannot let that go to

politicians in order to push ideological issues which have no basis in science. i refused to do that. i am proud of the fact that i serve my country well and stayed focused on staying true to science. >> i want you to comment on your attendance record. >> i have been on the foreign affairs committee during almost my entire time in congress. you never do it when congress is in session. the notion that i have missed those because i've been overseas is simply not true. >> committee meetings and sub- committee meetings. >> you are wrong. when congress is in session and you have committee hearings, you are not traveling. you just do not do that. i have served on three

committees most of my time. you will have three committee hearings going on at the same time almost every week. you have to decide which one of the assigned committees can you attend. what he is talking about is typical of any member of congress. >> i don't think so. >> you know how congress operates. if that is the way congress operates, i would not want to be part of it. that is a very dysfunctional congress. what about your trip to palm beach? how was that benefiting the american public? you said that the government requested due. we looked at your record. two-thirds of the time, you were not at committee or sub- committee meetings. over 800. >> you do not travel overseas or domestically when congress is going on. when you are in session, if you are assigned to more than one committee, almost invariably,

almost every day, you have committee meetings going on, multiple hearings. if you do not like that about washington, you should not go to washington. that is how it is. one of us will be assigned to several committees. you have to pick and choose which ones are relevant. if you have a staff member in each meeting to tell you when you need to run in to vote, when you need to testify. >> you are telling me that two- thirds were irrelevant. how can the public trust you? >> not at all. >> you are trying to conjure up a washington that does not exist, where you are on one committee meeting -- you are on one committee and have one committee meeting going on at a time. that is not the way it is. you have to move around, you have to go to the floor. it is different. >> when you became a congressman, you said, "i am

going to serve no more than three terms." than on television. how do we believe you? >> i went to washington and i believe term limits were the right thing to do. i got there and saw the mess that was washington and things that needed to be reformed, like the rampant earmarking the was going on. i realized that you had to stay longer than three terms. i stayed and i am glad i did because we were able to get rid of your marks in my fourth and fifth term. had i gone after my third term, we would still have this pernicious practice of earmarking that you actually favor going back to, this rampant earmarking that has landed some of my colleagues in jail. the abramoff scandal, the bridge to nowhere, tea parties. we could not go on with that. it took longer than three terms. i thought it would not, but it did. i am glad i stayed. >> he lied and now he has an

excuse. that is the way operations work in washington. lots of excuses and they do not take responsibility for their actions. that is the problem we have with washington and the politics. it is so dysfunctional. nobody is in charge. the people suffer because people like congressman flake are not representing us when they are gone two-thirds of the time from meetings they should be at. >> let me jump in and remind everyone that this is an arizona public media at your vote 2012 forum featuring the candidates running for senate in arizona, democrat richard carmona and republican congressman jeff flake. we have talked about a lot of accusations. we have talked about ads and partisanship. two ads pop up last week and i hear people talking about them in the grocery store. the first one was run by your

campaign, congressman flake. the former acting assistant secretary of health and human services, accusing dr. carmona of having anger issues towards women. the second one is a swap commander female, dr. carmona, your swot female, saying that ad was not correct. in case someone has missed these ads, we are going to run both of these ads back-to-back so our listeners can see and hear them. we will come back and let you talk about those. >> there was an angry pounding on the door in the middle of the night. i am a single mom. i fear for my kids and for myself. it was richard carmona and i was his boss. carmona is not who he seems. he has issues with anger, ethics, and women. i have testified to this under oath to congress. richard carmona should never,

ever be in the u.s. senate. >> i am richard carmona and i approve this message. >> richard carmona was part of my swat team and he was a joy to work with. rich treats everyone with respect. it does not matter whether you are male or female. he was protecting people and saving lives. when i see a career politician like jeff flake attacking richard carmona, who has spent his life helping others, it is despicable. congressman flake should be ashamed. >> dr. carmona, we will start with you. talk about these ads. pretty petty accusations made against you. >> they are. i want to make sure that people understand they are entirely false. there is no merit to those whatsoever. this woman, a disgruntled employee who had numerous problems over the years which have all been well-documented, so i will not repeat them here,

she has trouble with anger and a lot of issues, but most importantly, the public needs to know that this best exemplifies the type of politics that congressman flake is involved in. getting in the gutter, throwing mud with baseless accusations that have previously been vetted by government committees. some of these other allegations were looked at and i received a unanimous senate confirmation with the full support of senders mccain and kyl. this is gary disingenuous. -- this is very disingenuous. they have been cleared previously. congressman flake felt that my numbers were going up so he had to do something to discredit me. i would urge the public to take a look at my record in the press and elsewhere to find out who this lady really is. not somebody you can trust because she has been discredited

repeatedly. >> i have been in congress for 12 years and i have a record that you can look at. dr. carmona has not served in an elected position. when you are looking at somebody to look at how they would perform in the senate, you have to have the right temperament to do so. this is certainly relevant. the statement that this was somehow cleared up by the government affairs committee, it was not. if somebody lies to congress, testifying before congress, like roger clemens on the steroid issue, congress will go after them. they did not do that with her. she gave the testimony and you saw it there. this notion that you can somehow discredit her and it goes away, you cannot. there have been other allegations before. this is not an isolated incident. there have been issues before.

just saying that the senate ok'ed me anyway is not a defense of that. you have got to take the totality of it. who is telling the truth that night was between you and her. to say that this is just bitter politics, before this ad ran, there was an ad run by richard carmona about me about veterans with missing limbs and saying that jeff flake would not take care of them. that was certainly the implication of the ad. >> that was not what the ad said. the ad pointed out that you failed to vote on specific issues that would support our veterans. that is what it said. >> it is cherry-picking votes. that is personal to me. my father is a vet. my brother is in the military. the notion that i would stand by, whether it is the veterans

with missing limbs, the notion of that ad is just not the case. >> christine was not under oath. this was a committee where she decided to make the spurs allegations. they investigated them and quoted that there was no merit to these allegations. there is a whole host of files that support the fact that these were spurious allegations and it as it relates to the veterans at, all i did is show when those young iraq he and afghanistan u.s. veterans needed a congressman to be able to vote for them for the benefits for the job training and for combat bonuses for the kids in combat, he voted no.

it was not just me. a lot of people spoke up and said his vote was not in support. that is what my ad said. nothing was implied. it said he did not vote to support these kids. i am a disabled veteran. i know what it is like. he has an idea. we can stipulate our parents have been in the war. i have been there with those kids. i know what it is like. we owe them everything. looking at the care of those kids received, looking at i see you's filled with kids with amputations, brain injuries, loss of genitalia, they will come home and live 50 or 60 more years. it includes a gi bill that allows them to get an education. it is a bonus that puts himself -- or putting themselves in harm's's way.

it is what i am fighting for. i will fight for it as a senator to make sure kids can always what they need. >> let me say senator mccain, who i talked to today, he wanted me to tell you directly those ads you are running on the veteran issues are not true and they are deplorable. we can all stipulates senator john mccain is a veteran. some of the votes you cited are votes i took on the house version of the senate bill and john mccain voted the same way i did. it sounds like you do not know exactly how the senate works or the house. again, i have to get back to the issue, the notion that it was dismissed as frivolous or as not without merit, you are socking about something different -- talking about something different.

they did not make any determination like that at all. they did not say it was areas. look at the record. >> i did look at the record. you do not find that. >> you want to talk to tom davis, a republican ranking minority member on the committee at the time, they will tell you that. >> we will move on. this is a form with the two candidates running for u.s. senate in arizona. democrat richard carmona and republican jeff flake. just two weeks ago, one of the border agents working on border patrol was shot and killed. that was a friendly fire incident. at the time, people came out and the blame was assigned. some of the plane went to illegal immigrants. now we know it is a friendly fire. is this issue turning into a scapegoat issue or will we see some answers to these problems?

>> i hope we see some answers. the beauty now is we have a portion of the border we look to and say, that portion is secure. we have operational control it is about 88 miles of border. it is local law informants -- law enforcement who supports me in this race. this is not a part of the issue. we have to secure this border. if we can do in tucson what we did, we can move on to the other reforms needed. we have to have a secure border. the incident that happened was very unfortunate just two weeks ago. it speaks for the need that we have to finish this job and have a secure border. >> it means doing in the tucson sector what we have done. we have introduced a 10-point

plan to take what we did. that involves more border agents, better technology, but it also involves the secure and swift punishment for those who come across illegally. that was put in place through the efforts of people like senator mccain. that has worked in that sector. if we have taken those elements and do that in the tucson sector, we can move ahead with the other items that need reform. >> first and foremost, my comments will be based on over 25 years of experience as a deputy sheriff working in a border county and dealing with these issues on a regular basis with border patrol, national guard troops. understanding the complexity of this issue. the congressman visits the

border every once in awhile and thinks he understands how complex this issue is. this issue of operational control is one that is being debated now. both sides are not sure what the appropriate metric is to measure success of on the border. the border security issue is a dynamic one. it changes every day based on the threats. whether the threats are people who want to work, drug dealers, or the potential for a terrorist to come across. it is surveillance, intelligence, but on the ground, sensors. all that later and -- like a ring -- layering -- you will see every single they security changes. it changes. as long as there is demand on

our side of the border for people to come across, whether it is undocumented, drugs, potential terrorists, we will have to be very vigilant in doing everything we can to stay one step ahead of our adversaries. we have seen what happens along the border when the build a big fence. they build a big tunnel. we have ultralights glittering our border because they fly below the radar. the fact is, we understand security is the most importance. people need to understand this is identical -- this is a dynamic process. we have to work very hard to secure the border base on the threats at that particular time. >> i sat here for about seven years now. politicians say the same thing. why is it not being done in washington? >> some elements are. in yuma, we have a good

situation. we need to move that tucson sector. it is to be changed, the metric. if we can get a new magic, we can get it. the obama administration is trying to get rid of the old metric before putting another one in place. that is frustrating. we cannot hold the administration response so when they provide the resources -- responsible when they provide the resources. if the illegal alien crosses the border and we have a reasonable expectation to catch them, that is the short way of saying that is what a secure border looks like. we do not have anything approximating that here. i take exception to your notion that i do not know anything about e border. i have lived in arizona my entire life. i have seen this issue from northern arizona, one who grew up on a farm in reims.

-- farm and ranch. the idea that i do not know anything about it is wrong. there is a lot that needs to be done. we have to make the tucson sector look like the other sector. >> in the comments, you can see how he can attest to his attempts to politicize it. he a bullet -- he blames another side. this is trying to protect america. if we politicize this, it hurts the public and becomes a divisive political instrument. this is about trying to figure out what is the best measurement. to dismiss it and say it is the other administration and therefore he is the only one who has the answers, his party is very disingenuous. congressman flake lived in

arizona his whole life. he spent very little time on the border. he may have been at a branch -- ranch, but there is no substitute. i stand firmly on what i said. most of them -- most of his information comes from discussions with people. when you put your life in jeopardy to protect this nation, you start to see how difficult it is. even with the best technology, it is extraordinarily difficult. that was the point i was making. >> he spent so much time on a border as you say you have, you are remarkably thin on solutions here. i have not heard anything but by partisanship and everybody comes together. i can tell you, i fight my own party when i need to. on spending issues, i was removed from my own party. the idea that i am spouting

partisan rhetoric, that does not sit with my rhetoric does it with my record. you have to make choices. that is what i hear very little up foof. you have to take a position and stick with that position. i do not see much of that. >> we need to make tucson operationally like the other. why has it not been done? what is the plan to make tucson like that? >> we have got past the 10-point plan introduced by myself and senator mccain. that involves specific measures in terms of increase in areas where they are needed. or tripwires.

also, operation stone guard, to make sure we reimburse those who are on the border, local law enforcement right now are not reimbursed for the effort they make. that strains local communities and counties. then operations in line. you have -- operation streamlined. . we are not getting the right information in terms of what is made, how many are coming through for the second time, how long were they kept in custody, do we ship them back? we have been having a very difficult time getting that information. i would feel the same way if it were a republican administration right now. happens to be a democratic administration. we are not getting the i

information we need. >> you will notice with the congressman's responses, they are only republican solutions. the solutions are two republican senators and a republican congressman with 10 points they put forward. to show you how i think there is a lack of understanding, i mentioned ultralights a little while ago. you want -- you'll notice he alluded to the fact we need to get more ultralights. we do not use all flights. that is the drug league -- drug dealers come across. the problem is not on our side. smugglers come in and dump them in the desert. that was the point i was making. this is a very complex issue. the plan to say you know works some of it here, that is very different.

we must look for best practices, but for the congressman to apply this to imply that taking those tactics and moving them to tucson of -- to imply that taking the tactics and moving them to tucson. we need to determine what the best practices are. that is not a partisan issue. that is finding the best metric. >> specifics. there is not a single silver bullet. what is there, one thing in the first day of office that you want to see done that you think could make a major difference? >> yes. we need comprehensive immigration reform. congressman flake has failed to stand behind. when it first came down with bush and kennedy, he was right behind it.

when he decided to be a senator, it was changed. now he has this modified and we are not sure where he is. this is a typical politician. i have been clear from the beginning. i supported senator kennedy and president bush when they came out so we would settle this and stop making this partisanship. this is an economic issue. when i meet with farmers, they tell me, you have to solve this. we have a workforce issue. we want people to come across and work. it is bigger than immigration. a comprehensive immigration plan with citizenship, the dream act, the dreamers are earning their right to become citizens with appropriate visas, whatever you want to call them, green cards, blue card, it doesn't make a difference. it will help the small

businesses along the border who are desperate for the work force we do not have today. that would help alleviate some of the problems on the border. >> let me correct myself earlier. i mentioned ultralights when i was talking about on manned aircraft on our side. that was offered to deal with ultralights. a good piece of legislation i was happy to help pass just before she came back for the first time. that was a democrat introducing a good bill that received great support.port if we have solutions offered by democrats, that is great. with regard to the comprehensive immigration reform, i would have done it for 10 years. i would partner with senator kennedy, mccain, and many others. we beat our head against wall on that trying to get that through. we came to realize in the end

that until we have a more secure border, nobody will have the federal government move ahead on other form -- reforms. it is not a matter of changing your position. it is a matter of getting done what you need to in order to get legislation passed. as soon as we get a more secure border, then we need to move on to the other reforms that are so desperately indeed -- needed. we are not going to deport everyone who is here. i never said we should or could. we have got to deal with this in a rational basis. the notion that because you push for comprehensive reform and then realize you have to have a more secure border before political you can move ahead, that is about pragmatism. that is something you accuse me and others of never doing. sometimes, in washington, you have to take half a loaf and work however you can to get that

legislation through. you cannot take an ideological position and run with it. >> you are known for your ideological positions in some many different areas. when it became convenient for you to shift from comprehensive immigration reform, coincidently, right after your primary, you are changing. you have switched four or five times in the past three years. by your own admission, you have been dealing with this for 10 years, why do we not have a solution? you have felt the public. there is no solution. >> that is like saying you are a doctor but there are still sick people in tucson. you have failed. that would be an absurd to say. the notion that i can at a whim passed any legislation i would like to, that is what they have in cuba or elsewhere, but not in the united states congress. that is why you have to have the temperament to work with the other side, to work on legislation and amendments. and to do these things i have

been able to do in the house and have a record of i would like to take to the senate. you mentioned i fight a lot of ideological battles. if you want to talk about the battle on your lap -- on earmarks the ideological, we will call it that. i work with republicans, with democrats, there are some democrats who voted for every s.e of my ear marke i am glad we did. i am grateful for that. that has been my temperament. >> we are close on time. it is hard to believe it is almost over. we could probably go about 6 hours. we want to get to at least one more topic. this is a senate form with our two candidates for u.s. senate, jeff flake and richard carmona. >> last week, during the vice-

presidential debate, we heard them dealing with the possibility iran is dealing with nuclear weapon capability. what is the best way to deal with this possibility? >> i want to start out by finishing an answer from before. this pursuit that congressman flake spoke about, the so-called earmarks, it is really less than 1% of our budget. it's still circumvented. really has not eliminated any of those things. they are still going on. it is presented in a way that it is a lot more than it really is. as it relates to the security issues in iran, it is a combination of being ready to respond when necessary and ensuring they do not get the ability to enrich its uranium. they have to enrich the uranium

and then they have to weapon is iize it. our government is embargoing as much as it can with its allies. russia and china failed to cooperate. they are still bringing in supplies. there is a risk. this is a risk to the whole world. if you have extremists with nuclear capability. diplomacy is the way to go. i do not think our nation is ready for a third war. we are still recovering from the last two. we have to be ready to respond, especially with israel. they are depending on us. >> time to respond. >> watching the intelligence, monitoring by various forms, intelligence, and being able to determine at what point do they get near enough the threshold that we would have to do something preemptively. that is what we have to do. we do not want to start a war or

go in there prematurely. what you might do is inside a third world war and embrace a lot of other world nations and create a hornet's nest we do not want to deal with. i think you want to be strong on your diplomacy and it is hurting them. we still need to be ready to respond when and if that threshold is met. you probably saw those discussions of where the bread lines as -- the red line is. a lot of it depends on the robustness of your intelligence. >> let me address, if you want to minimize the efforts that it talked to get an earmarked band, go ahead and do so. i can tell you to those of us who want our tax money spent wisely, it is a lot more than 1% of the budget. leverages higher spending everywhere else. it is a tough thing to do to go to the floor hundreds of times

and lenge earmarks spending and the ridicule by your own party and the other party, and then puned by your own party. we did it. sometimes, you have to take a stan you have to do something tough. i look at your record. i think the people in tucson ought to know that in 2010, you did not bother vote. in the primary or the general election. sometimes you have to take a stand. it starts with actually voting. in washington, when you are faced with something like earmarks and it is hurting so much of the budget, i am glad i took the stand i did. call it an ideological stand or whenever you want to, we are better off for it. i have little to add to iran other than we have to continue to pursue the capital markets sanctions we are doing on central bank, because that is where we have the opportunity to make an impact because russia and china find it more difficult to help iran circumvent those

sanctions. all options ought to be on the table. >> you want to add sanctions? otherwise you agree? >> this could be news in itself. [laughter] >> we disagree on a lot. i understand these zealous pursuit of these things that congressman has spoken about. the fact is the business community, especially up in the central phoenix area who are desperate for infrastructure, do not see it is helping them. they want a senator who will work for them to bring infrastructure improvements, to attract innovators, make sure we have sustainable water, make sure we have sustainable growth, and we can make small business grow. right now, after talking to those business people, they disagree with the approach congressman flake has taken for the last 12 years. what is happening is they are hurting. they cannot grow their businesses because he has taken an ideological approach to this issue. the senator should be able to

print -- transparently bring home our tax dollars so everybody wants to live in arizona. i want to do my business here. i want innovators to come here. it is not happening now because of the ideological approach. >> the truth is arizona will finally get more transportation funding for infrastructure because earmarks are gone. for years, members of donor state delegations, we give more money to washington and we get back, how does that happen? t -- too many donors would be bought off with a couple of earmarks. it happened for a couple of decades. arizona lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars that we should have received. because of earmarks, we did not. because earmarks are gone, arizona in the next authorization bill will likely be up to 95 cents on the dollar.

that is hundreds of millions dollars more for arizona, not less. it just will not the one politician directing that and picking winners and losers. that is not a system we want to go back to. >> we have only about a minute left. let me ask you a simple question. it is something you have thought about. in the middle of november, only one of you can win. one of you will be sitting at home. will the two of you be active out there whichever one of you does not go to washington? only about 35 seconds. >> no matter the outcome, i believe i will prepare -- prevail, i will be active in the community. >> same thing. we will expect to win, but either of us would be active. >> congressman flake, thank you for coming in. richard carmona, thank you for coming in. we have reached the end of our time. thank you for joining us.

if you would like to watch this form again in its entirety, go to our website and click on your vote 2012 section. you will find information and forums on southern arizona's three congressional races. there is also information on forms and legislative and local races. tomorrow night, we will bring you live coverage of the second presidential debate. for the entire arizona public media team, thank you for joining us. >> members of congress will talk to the national journal tomorrow morning. it is known at the cliff -- the fiscal cliff. our live coverage begins at 8:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span 2. you and see the discussion live

beginning at 4:30 p.m. eastern, also on c-span 2. >> take a look at c-span's debate held. there is video of the vice presidential debate, as well as the presidential debate, or see individual clips of each question. tuesday, you can see live, behind-the-scenes coverage, including the spin room. watch and engaged with live tweets and add your own. c-span.org/debates. >> tuesday, justice elliott will be on to discuss the project to achieve greater transparency. we are joined by tucker carlson. and we will hear from david becker.

"washington journal" airs live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> democrat steven horsford and debate.rkanian this was hosted by pbs. >> good evening. for the next 30 minutes, i will be moderating a debate between the democratic and republican candidates running in 4th congressional district. they will make opening and closing statements. they will respond to questions that i will ask of each candidate. now, i would like to introduce

the candidates participating in the debate. they are democratic state senate majority peter steven horsford and republican danny tarkanian. let us begin. mr. tarkanian, a coin toss determine your up first. >> thank you and thank you to pbs for hosting this debate and giving people an opportunity to hear from their candid about important issues. these are part of forms for the public to see the differences and the contrast between each of the candidates. this is so important that i offered to debate my opponent and each of the different counties in which this district represents. this is a large we did the largest and most diverse districts in the state with a lot of different interests -- this is the largest and most of first district in the state with a lot of different ages. unfortunately, my opponent declined to do so. over the past nine months, i

travel throughout the district and talk to the people from these communities. we discussed the issues that affect them and some solutions we hope to solve. i look forward to talking about those solutions today and i appreciate you watching. >> thank you. senator steven horsford, your opening statement. rex thank you. to all the viewers, thank you to pbs and our families a constituent from the fourth congressional district. there really are several terraces in this election. i am glad to be here to talk about the differences between me and my opponent. let us be clear. this election is not about me and it is really not about my opponent. it is about all of you at home. both of you -- those of you who are worried about keeping the job you have, i will fight every day until everyone who wants a job has a job. those of you who are worried about the declining home values in our community, i will work hard every day to restore those batteries -- values.

those concerned about the threat to medicare and social security, i will not break our promise to our parents and grandparents. i'm asking for your support. i am here today to talk about my position and i need your vote. thank you. >> thank you. the first question goes to mr. tarkanian. according to the las vegas sun, you supported the arizona whichiowown in 2010 included the profiling of hispanics in the state. how do you explain his position to the 27% of the people in cd 4 2 are hispanic? >> what i stated to the las vegas son was this -- i believe arizona had the duty and obligation to do what they felt was best to protect the safety and welfare of the citizen. arizona passed the laws because there was so much crime being

committed by people coming into the country illegally and they were worried about the health of the citizens. i also stated to other news outlets at the time that we did it asked me if nevada needed that -- that -- they asked me if nevada needed that. with respect to the people that come to this country illegally, we are a country of rules and laws and we have to enforce those laws. the what does all this immigration problem, -- if we want to solve the immigration problem, we have to find a way to do it so people can come to the country legally. >> my opponent said he loved the arizona anti-immigration law. his way,e had it's -- he would have allowed it to come

to nevada. this was opposed by the resort association, the timbre of commerce and others. i join with those groups because they were concerned that that anti immigration law would have cost hundreds of conventions of thousands of job losses in our community. i believe we need comprehensive immigration reform. we need tough border security and a comprehensive immigration policy. we are a nation of immigrants. i support the dream act. i will work hard to make sure young people who are brought here at no fault of their own are able to go on to college or serve in our military. >> thank you. the dissent and spirit >> this is another example of what you will see for the rest of the night. my opponent will represent -- misrepresent my campaign. what i said very clearly was arizona has the right to provide safety for their

citizens and nevada has a right to determine whether they need that or not. even people who of come here legally would agree with that position. >> thank you. mr. horsford, you were an earlier supporter of barack obama. four years after the president was elected, unemployment is still high. nevada has been a foreclosure capital of the nation. what responsibility does president obama have for the economic mess in this state? but this is a very important question. there are so many families struggling still today. with the national downturn in the economy. when my opponent talked about this issue, he says he would not have even done anything if he were elected to reform the wall street situation. specifically, i think more has to be done. so that everyone who wants a job

has a job. instead of talking about it, let's see the record and who has done it. i run an organization that helps train thousands of people for careers in the hospitality industry. a partnership between 26 of the largest employers and the community. we were to make sure people who want the training and education receive that and those who want to upgrade their skills. i will continue to work to the 100th thousand citizens still present unemployment get the opportunity to have a secure job. >> what responsibility does president obama have for the economy of this state right now? >> we all share in the responsibility to do everything we can to create jobs for those who need them. as i said, we have 150,000 nevadans who are unemployed.

nearly half of them are from the construction sector. there are solutions we can deploy but the reality is my opponent joined with the republicans' second -- in congress to a network to offer any solutions. it focused more on a woman's right in health care then have to make sure we are treating jobs for the people here in nevada. >> as i told you before, here he goes again this representing my position. -- mis representing my position. he said one thing that was accurate. we need to look at the record. as majority leader and that the state senate, he voted to increase taxes every single time a bill came up. including this past century -- session. he increased the fee for payables for businesses. doubled the payroll tax -- the car registration fee.

the end result was the aplomb rate under my --- was the un the employment rate has doubled. >> mr. horsford, your rebuttal. >> i am proud of my record. working together across party lines to get things done that need to get done. i worked with senator dole party to close off to legislation that created thousands of jobs in the construction sector. we eliminated the payroll tax on businesses with payable under $250,000. my opponent is not accurate. i have a strong record. he does not. >> next question goes to mr. tarkanian. in a 2012 interview, he said social security "should be

privatized in the individual private accounts." if he supports allowing individuals to divert a portion of their social security payroll taxes into a personal retirement account, how do you protect current social security recipients? >> we need to provide for the benefit the people close to getting to the retirement age. there has to be a buffer zone between when we would allow people to either opt out and use a private investor as their money or go into the system currently available. we do that by decreasing and eliminating some wasteful government spending. i believe strongly that we made a promise to our people that when they paid into the social security fund, they are entitled to it. i also believe in the individual liberties that have made our country the greatest country in society. we should be able to pick and choose how we want to spend our hard earned money and have the opportunity to reap those rewards when they are done.

my opponent thinks government has a better role determining how we invest our money. i believe us as individuals do. >> my opponent wants to privatize social security. i will work to protect and preserve it. let's talk about what social security really is. people are entitled to it when they need it. my opponent wanted -- he said he would allow rules treat -- wall street to determine whether or not people have social security in place. if we allow that to happen, we have seen what it has done to the housing market, i imagine what that would have done to some people dependent on social security. he also was determined care into a voucher program. he says that the lion but it was a good place to start. that it could place to start, it

is where medicare will end. i would protect and preserve it. he was to turn it into a voucher. >> if there was a new job created for misrepresentation, the unemployment rate would have doubled under his leadership. i never said those things. i believe us as individuals know what is best for our investment of money. we do not need government telling us that. >> thank you. mr. horsford, the next question. during the state legislator, you worked to close tax loopholes and eliminate tax deductions for the mining industry. the elimination of the tax protection in the state constitution. what will be your position on monday as a congressman given the fact that mining is huge in three counties that are now part

of your congressional district? >> thank you. before i answer that, let me clearly state my opponent's position. last week in our debate, he said the ryan but it was a good place to start. it supports turning medicare into a voucher program. that is what my opponent stands for. that is what he says he will work to represent. i will work to protect it. on the issue of mining, this is a clear example of how i have worked to make sure that our tax policy is fair and equitable and transparent. we made sure there were deductions being taken on the minerals for out of state expenses. those deductions were no longer allowable so that we could fund school here in our communities. i continue to enjoy the support of the mining industry because i understand tempore and they are as a key industry in our state and the jobs that provide.

>> my opponent's record is very clear on what he thinks about that. he has voted to increase taxes on every vote that has come before him as a state legislator. that was not enough. he wanted to raise taxes another $1.2 billion this past session and tried to bully his way through. another governor would be to the proposal. with respect to the medicare, because my friend would like to deter his policy, the only person who wants to gut medicare is my opponent and he does it by supporting obamacare. it appoints 51 unelected bureaucrats to become involved to determine what kind of health care sr. should have. i promised i would not take away any benefits of employees. i know how important it is. >> mr. horsford, the last word

on this. what my opponent is not being very clear on this on his position on medicare. when he talks about the revenue increases to save our schools, those were agreements reached in a bipartisan way that actually was signed by governor brian sun deval. i understand what it is like to govern because i have been elected. my opponent has run four times and each time, voters have rejected his ideas and extreme positions. >> thank you. the next crop goes to mr. tarkanian -- question goes to mr. tarkanian. it is on the subject of yucca mountain. you have on the record saying he wanted double our dependence on nuclear energy to 40%. does that mean he supports some of your constituents in their desire to open up the mountain

to help up our dependence on nuclear energy to 40%. >> be cannot continue to fund the important social services we have with the taxes on the current industry. we need to diversify our economy. we have to look out at the box and do something. we have spent $12 billion to do the studies and infrastructure of yucca mountain. we should do something to help diversify the community there. i suggest we turned it into a processing facility for nuclear fuel. yet the people of nevada and not want that, we can turn into a data storage facility. it would create some more jobs and tax revenues for the people of nevada. we could turn it into a training

facility for the military. but let's do something to create jobs. >> my opponent is talked-about using nuclear waste as an economic diversification strategy. something that our governors, regardless of party and our entire delegation as opposed to. this is dangerous, it is bad for business, it is bad for our communities. but we can do to diversify the economy is support the economic diversification plan i worked with the governor on last session which identifies 7 key industries we could go nevada's economy. in renewable energy, for example. to do these things, we have to make the right choices. like making sure there is a world-class education for every child and that we're making our colleges and universities available for those who want to be trained and educated. my opponent does not have a

clear plan. i have worked with the governor and others to create one for the state of nevada. >> as my opponent is trying to talk the talk, he cannot walk the walk. he has been a state legislator for eight years. we have this problem for the entire term of his tenure and his failed to come up with solutions. he said his plan -- still have not help the unemployment rate, still over 12%. what happened the previous six years? why didn't he is something it had such great ideas? i have had the courage to talk about alternative revenues. my opponent does not. >> mr. horsford, d support the affordable care act, including the individual mandate and an expansion of medicaid by the state, specific in nevada? >> i support the affordable care act. but let us talk about the three reasons why this is good for nevada.

if you have a pre-existing condition, if you have diabetes, cancer, hypertension, an insurance company can never denied access to health care again. if you are a woman, they cannot discriminate against you in your health care and you access to screenings, including mammograms. and if you are a young person, you can stay on the parents' insurance until you're 26. i had an accident in college while working my way through school. my car was told and i ended up with thousands of dollars in medical bills that took me many years to pay off. but it was because of that accident that i ended up having those challenges. i do not think that any nevada kid try to work their way through college should and medically bankrupt because the next that -- of an accident or illness. my opponent was to repeal -- repeal the affordable care act and has no idea what he would

replace it with. >> what i said is we would like to repeal obamacare and come up with solutions to solve the health care problems out there right now. let's talk about what is wrong with obamacare. there are four major things. we have a job crisis here in our country. and nevada. obamacare imposes a $2,000 a person employed tax on every employer. all that will do is make employers fire people or cut them down to a part-time waitress. we need jobs. people cannot afford to pay for their homes and put food on the table. this individual mandate opposes another tax -- imposes another tax. it guts medicare. six -- takes $760 out of

medicare prospective are not average low-income people. these are my constituents. -- out of medicare. >> these are not average low- income people. these are my constituents. this in which it requires a working together to get things done. my opponent has no ideas and the positions except extreme ones. he wants to align himself with the two power -- tea party. >> thank you. we have to go to the last question. mr. tarkanian, he will answer it first. as did eight years since the repeal of -- it's been a year since the repeal of don't ask don't tell. give me your opinion of that and the defense of marriage act. >> i did not to low income. as a medium income people

because that is what he claims to protect. but as policies that failed. -- his policies have failed. if he cared so much about those people, he would not have double the car registration tax. with respect to they don't ask policy, i believe is to be left up to the military. with respect to the defense america act, i believe that should be a state issue and states should determine how they want -- the laws they want for that state. i am a big believer in state rights. >> i support marriage equality for all people. i also agree with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. but my opponent is talked about it again. these people. middle income. low income. how about free represent every person in nevada. every person in congressional district for. i have the spirit of getting things done.

my opponent does not. he has a $70 million judgment hanging over his head. i asked the voters to emulate trust someone to represent us who cannot handle his own personal affairs -- can we really trysust someone to represent us who cannot handle his own personal affairs? >> my opponent 15 times has failed to pay for bills. at the same time, he gave a five $1 donation to someone convicted of bribery. that is really taking care of your bills. >> become to the end of the debate. for closing statements by the candidate. mr. horsford, you are up first directing give very much for turning in tonight. thank you for the sponsors and pbs and all of you. this election is about who will fight for you and who gets it. i get it. i get that if you are worried about a job, you want to elect

someone who will fight every day to help you get one. i get it that you are worried breyer declining holes values. if you have been able to stay in your home at all. -- worried about your declining home values. if you have been able to stay in your home at all. i am asking for your support tonight because i want to represent you. those in the middle class and a voice in the process that is broken in washington. there is too much gridlock there and it cannot send someone who will represent more of the same rigid, tea party ideology. by opponents that he would work with the tea party. how is that putting you first? >> amazing my opponent has to misrepresent my opinion. what would you expect from a failed record as a state legislator? first of all, i wanted thank the

view is for watching this. it is great to have the opportunity to shoot his bid to claims. we are going to count down one or two paths,. . he wants more government intervention, less for a more foreclosures. that is his record as a state legislator. i come to you with real solutions to serious problems. common sense solutions. not extreme positions. when you go to the polls, please consider supporting me and casting a vote for myself. i can represent you in washington, d.c >> we have come to the conclusion of the program. i'd like to thank steven horsford and republican danny tarkanian for participating. thank you for watching. good night. >> join us tomorrow for a discussion of the tea party.

hosted by the cato institute. panelists from peter marx will talk about where tea party supporters stand on economic and social issues -- from freedom works will talk about where tea party supporters stand on economic and social issues. before the town hall debates tonight, we will hear from you. which presidential debate format do you prefer -- when the candidates stand at podiums, said dick either at the table or walk around for a town hall? go to our facebook page to let us know. comments the a social media. you can leave a comment on our facebook page or tweet us. now a nother -- another debate

from the fatah -- from nevada. congressman heck is seeking a second term. this 25 minute debate was also hosted by pbs. >> good evening and welcome to a head vegas pbs election special. i will be moderating a debate between the democratic and republican candidates running in congressional district no. 3. the candidates will be making opening and closing statements. they will respond to questions that i will ask of each candidate. the campaigns have agreed to exclude candidate to candidate questions.

now like to introduce the candidates participating in the debate. they are republican and -- incumbent, congressman joe heck and democratic assembly speaker john oceguera. let's begin. according to the coin toss, speaker oceguera, you have the opening statement. >> good evening. i collected thank mitcha nd ps -- and pbs for putting this together and all of you at home. all people want is some solutions. i know what it is like to struggle. i was raised by a single mother. when the fire department. to fight for the middle-class -- the fight for the middle class is in my bones. it is why i am running. we have to balance the budget of we have to do it the right way. cut programs that are not working.

and tax breaks for corporations sipping jobs overseas. protect medicare and social security for seniors to pay into it after a lifetime of hard work. we have to get the economy back on track. it's to the matter if it is a democratic or republican idea. -- it should not matter if it is a democratic or republican idea. if it creates jobs, i am for it. >> thank you mithch and pbs and those watching. two years ago, voters decided they suffered long enough. as we struggle with problems today, it is the less important to send someone to washington who understands the issues and will fight for the best interests of the men, women and families of southern nevada. the first vision is the pathway to a larger, more intrusive

government with a broken social safety net the other is a pathway to a more efficient government. where we rein in our spending, lower our debt and allow you to keep more of your hard earned money. that is the path i will talk about this evening. that is the path to more jobs, more opportunity and prosperity. >> to give very much. speaker, you have the first question. during several interviews, you refused to answer questions about whether you support the affordable care at, commonly known as obamacare. i am asking for a simple yes or no answer and then you can elaborate on a response. do you support the affordable care act, including the individual mandate and an expansion of medicaid by the state? yes or no? >> thank you. yes. this is why. my wife was just about to have a