make decisions about what we are born to do. one of the concerns we have is too many voters will not take that seriously that there is the path of receptors of things they hear on television and there may be true to that, but ultimately it that is the direction where went to pick ourselves, we are really giving up on democracy. there is good evidence that spending adds to voter knowledge, increases boater awareness and interest in the elections. it is not contrary to democracy to say we are born to let people speak as much as they can speak. i think the other problematic issues, do you want the government stepping in and deciding he was raised to much money, too little, and that is a very dangerous thing to do.

>> our preview of tonight's presidential debate is at 7:00 eastern. the debate at 9:00 followed by your phone calls and creeks. -- and tweets. two or three cars in the parking lot to the parking lot being full. take away the whole second shift and we of a future in our plan now. >> we look at the president's

plan, and i do not think there can be any question there is a runaway course for the economy. >> the president does give what people need, and that is jobs. >> stick with the sky. he will move us forward. >> i am barack obama, and i approve this message. >> we cannot keep spending money we do not knohave. we're going in the wrong direction. look at where we are. do not raise taxes on small businesses because they are small jobs creators. mitt romney is uniquely qualified to fix these problems. >> i am wrong, and i approve this message. mitt romney, and i approve this message. debate preview starts

at 7:00 eastern. followed by the town hall debate at 9:00. discussions from undecided voters. after the debate, we take calls, e-mails, and tweets from viewers around the country. that will be live on c-span, c- span radio and c-span.org. jeff flake debates with richard cremona. this debate was posted in tucson and courtesy of kuat tv. it is about an hour. >> good evening, and welcome to arizona public media special. tonight we bring you a forum featuring two candidates running for united states senate in arizona. joining us in the studio, just richard carmona.

our format is more of an informal discussion. no opening statements or time answers. joining us is andrea kelly. thank you so much for coming in. >> we will start with health care. we know and generally democrats are in favor of tweaking it. this is been an issue that in some cases has paralyzed congress. will there be any progress on this issue. >> when you talk about the peeling it, we're not talking about repealing health care but the president's health-care law, and we should do that. we have to reform health care, but we need to do it in ways that we can deliver health care more efficiently. .

we need to do many things. we need to enforce insurance companies to compete across state lines. give individuals the same pre- tax benefits to allow for more portability and make it easier accessdividuals to excee options. >> will there be progress on this in the next session? >> i believe so, certainly. there have been a number of reforms we have wanted to do for year -- for years. >> will there be progress on any health care changes in the next session. >> i certainly hope there will be because the public is expecting it to happen. the fact is they have politicize health care. i have been in health care most of my life. i have been there is a combat medic, registered nurse, a

physician and a professor of teaching medicine and the surgeon general of the united states. what i learned is how dysfunctional our political system has become. the problem is both parties have got it wrong. this is about driving down the cost of health care and making sure people have access and quality care. both parties have to get these processes realigned because they have failed miserably. >> support the president's health-care plan. if you think that is politicizing it because people did not supported, that is just not true. a lot of us would like to see better delivery, lower cost. the problem with the president's health-care plan is he has promised lower premiums. the doctor will not say whether

he will vote to repeal it or not. it needs to be repealed. >> we are continuing to politicize this issue. this is about asking how we provide the best care for the most people at the lowest cost. they have been in charge before and we still have problems. the fact is both parties at different times of got wrong and they are arguing the wrong issues. the congressman has created a narrative to put me in a position where i am not. from the very beginning i have been very clear. there are specific elements in the plan that everyone likes. i am concerned about the sustainability overtime and having a good business plan that makes sense over time. icings there are good parts of the plan that 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 act passed, he went to town halls defending it. when you for started running for this office, the question was do you support the president's health-care law. now some clarity comes. >> when you look at what the congressman is saying, this is politics as usual. many of those first events that i spoke at, i spoke about the aspiration of health care that as a surgeon general i feel that the president should have health care for everybody. i spoke to the support of the

aspiration for health care for all. i was critical about some of the aspects of the affordable care act. the congressman is doing everything he can to beat me in a position that is really not my position. >> it seems like there is one thing you both agree on, that the laws as it was passed is problematic. let's assume one of you is elected, which should happen coming up here, what the you do it specifically to fix it with did your realm of believing it is problematic. first of all, you have to look at where the cost of health care is coming from. 2.8re spending 2.8 years --

on health care. seven 5 cents of every dollar is spent on chronic diseases. most of them are preventable. is about losing weight, not smoking. all of those things add up to increased cost in society. this plan addresses the true rising cost of health care. if the public does not become engaged in the public does not work with us to pursue optimal health and wellness, the cost will continue to rise. gdp will be just under six trillion dollars. when we look with in the plan itself and we look at some of the issues that are there as far as funding, first of all, i am concerned the plan calls for reducing more payments to doctors and hospitals. at a time when you put 32

million into the system and doctors are already struggling, that might not be the way to go. when you look at the organizations that are being established within the plan, if they work, if you save money and improve quality, and then you may reap benefits that will drive the cost of the system down. a lot of variables i am concerned with, but that does not mean abandoning it. hold on to what is good, and go back and figure out how to do this. will take good republicans and good democrats reasonably going over this to be able to come up with a good plan. >> it will take both sides. that is what congress is about. what you have to have is first repealed. we cannot fix this thing. the notion that we're somehow

going to go in and tweaked this or that and will be ok when you're rising health-care costs since it was passed, 2014 coming and the burden that will be on arizona that is barely getting the legs back underneath us with the budget, and then obama care comes and knocks our feet out from underneath us again. in this case, we need to start over again. it is easy when you have not been in congress to say everyone can work together. but in this case we need to repeal obama care is it does not

make health care any more affordable. it does not do anything to address the cost of health care. >> the cost of health care is going up because of the chronic diseases. the fact is even if you use ingressman paul ryan is pla's n his budget it will not fix it. the congressman is willing to put our seniors' health care at risk by privatizing and of cheering. they are earned of benefits. when i look at what they're trying to do, 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 things the congressman has memorized. they're not solving the problem. the public has to be engaged. there are good elements of the

affordable care act. we want the closure of medicare part c. the doughnut hole. the future kids are covered until 26. that protests the public. it is a partnership. the public has to engage in do everything it can to keep it healthy. that is where the cost is coming from. he is addressing this as a political issue. it is a health issue. >> what congressman ryan has proposed is not about your system at all. it is a premium support system. this takes $716 billion out of current medicare. how in the world are you supposed to pay doctors what they need to keep them in the system or make sure benefits accrue to current seniors if you

take $716 billion out of it? the notion whenever i bring up a difference, i am politicizing bang just does not wash. >> you are chronic politician. i have been doing this my entire life, making tough decisions. it is very different. the issue of the $716 billion is the same 716 but congressman ryan has in his budget as well. these are suppose it accrued savings over time that if they are crude could be reinvested. aarp looked at this and said this helps to extend the medicare another several years. we have non-partisan people looking at this. they're not taking money from the people. they're able to generate savings to be able to reinvest in medicare so it can prolong

it. i do not expect the congressman to understand. he has cleverly written sound bites that come from his party playbook. >> a chronic politician is one who changes his position based in this situation he is in. when he started this campaign he said i support the president's health-care law. now he says he does not support it. >> let's go ahead. the one thing we will agree on is we are not going to agree on this. rather than spend the whole hour just talking about this, there are some other topics we want to get into. >> this sets us up for something i've wanted to ask you about. partisanship is one of the problems.

how do you get past this. how you make solutions on any issue in congress? >> my whole life i have been an independent. i was surgeon general for a very conservative administration. i was recruited during the time of being surgeon general because the republicans thought i was such a good person. i did not go to washington to use it as a stepping stone to another job. my job for four years to be the doctor of the nation. during that time, unlike congressman flake's voting record who was very in line with his party, i work both sides of the aisle very successfully. i worked very closely with the democrats to good health issues done. i could not do that with one

party. i had to work with both parties and things like obesity, cardiovascular disease, weapons of mass destruction. terrier was -- terrorism. all of those things are american issues. as the surgeon general i had to work both sides of the aisle, and i was successful in that. my focus was about doing what was right for the american public on each and every issue and not allowing either party to politicize. >> how do we get past the partisanship? >> first, you have the temperament to work with both sides. >> that has been my history. i started out in washington doing and an internship. i have seen the other side. i have worked with democrats along the way. during my time in congress to pass more amendments on the

floor of the house by any -- than any other republican by a long shot. you cannot do that unless you work with both sides of the idle well. even though i of taken some tough positions against your marks, i have never made a personal. you have to do that in washington. you have to work across the aisle. barry goldwater set politics is nothing more than public business. we no compromise is needed. the difficulty right now has been the house republicans have put our stake in the ground by passing the budget and a lot of the ads against me are saying believes this or that, but we cannot get harry reid to put their stake in the ground.

that has been a very frustrating for many of us that are used to working across the aisle and used to reaching an agreement. dr. carmona said he was a surgeon general recorded by republican but it is worth a note he was not as to stay on for a second term. that is part of the temperament issue we're talking about. when we look at his record, it appears in a 12-year time, we paid him about $2 million. he participated in somewhere between 1213 hundred meetings and subcommittee meetings of which he was absent from two- thirds of them. as he traveled the country and the world on all of these things. some of them paid by special interest groups to go to

resorts when he should of been at committee meetings he did not go to. as relates to my tenure as surgeon general, served honorably and with distinction because it is about what was right for the american public. surgeon general is typically do not say more than one term. and old days they used to. it is a very tough job. i did it create a little bit of discomfort for those republicans i work for. at times, some of the democrats. my job was not to be the surgeon general of the republican or democrat party. on each and every issue i did that. that is why sometimes you create controversy because each side wants the authority. you cannot let that brand go to the politicians like congressman

and the people he works with in order to push ideological issues, which have no basis in science. i refuse to do that. can i am proud of the fact that i served my country well. >> before we move on, i just want him to respond on your attendance record. >> whenever you travel overseas or when you travel on behalf of other committees, you never do it when congress is in session. the notion night missed votes because they've been overseas on behalf of one of my committees is simply not true. >> as a committee meetings and subcommittee meetings. >> when the congress is in session and you have committee meetings, 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 committee can you attend. but he is talking about is typical of any member of congress. you know about how congress operates. >> if this is the way congress operates, i would not want to be part of it. what about your trip to palm beach paid for by the club for growth? how is that benefiting the american public? we looked at your record. two-thirds of the time you were not in committee or subcommittee meetings. >> you do not trouble overseas or domestically when congress is going on, when session is in. but when you are in session, if you are assigned to more than

one committee, almost every day of committee hearings going on, multiple committee hearings, and if you do not like about washington, he should not go, because that is how it is. one of us will be assigned to several committees. that is why you have a staff member to tell you when you need to run into boat. when you need to go and testify. >> you tell me the two-thirds are relevant? -- are irrelevant? the gun no, not at all. -- >> no, not at all. you have to multitask. you have to move around. when you became a congressman you said i will serve no more

than three times. how could we trust you with that? i realize you need to stay longer than three terms. i stayed, and i am glad i did because we were finally able to get rid of earmarks in my fourth and fifth term. had i gone, we withdraw have the pernicious practice of your working. i was called in the last debate you actually favor going back to. i am glad to have taken part in that. it took longer than three terms. i am glad i stayed. >> he light, and now he has an

excuse. i understand that because that is the way operations work in washington. that is the problem we have with washington and the politics. no one is in charge and no one is taking responsibility. >> let me jump in here. let me remind everyone this is an arizona public media. cheering for to get its rendering were meetings they should be at. sent 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 ofwe have talked about ads andtwo 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 spurious 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 was the government reform committee that did look at it and dismiss them as being spurious. as it relates to the veterans act, 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 or putting themselves in harm'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 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 blame 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 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 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 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 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 metric, 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 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 the border. i have lived in arizona my entire life. i have seen this issue from northern arizona, one who grew up on a 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 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 ranch, but there is no substitute. i stand firmly on what i said. 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 record.

you have to make choices. that is what i hear very little of. 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 streamline. 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 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'll notice he alluded to the fact we need to get more ultralights. we do not use ultralights. that is the 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 that works some of it here, that is very different. we must look for best

practices, but for the congressman 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. 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 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 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 failed 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 earmarks ideological, we will call it that. i work with republicans, with democrats, there are some democrats who voted for every one of my ear marks. 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 weaponize 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 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 challenge earmarks spending and the ridicule by your own party and the other party, and then punched by your own party. we did it. sometimes, you have to take a stand. 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 to 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 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? 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 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. a few light programs today on c- span. first, "washington journal." then, the tea party and shall issues. then at 7:00 eastern, a presidential debate preview. presidential debate preview.