afghanistan because they tried to beat us. they're showing up in iraq for the same reason. if we lose our will we lose. if we are resolute, we will defeat the enemy. >> i believe in being strong, resolute, and determined. i will hunt down and killed the terrorists wherever they are. we also have to be smart. smart means not diverting your attention from the real war and terror against osama bin laden and taking it off to iraq or the 9/11 commission confirms there is no connection to 9/11 itself and the reason for war was weapons of mass destruction. this president has made a colossal error of judgment. judgment is what we look for in the president of the united states of america.

>> you can see more from this foreign-policy debate for the 2004 campaign later tonight along with other debates from our archives. watch the 84 debate between ronald reagan and walter mondale. from 1988, george bush and massachusetts gov. michael dukakis. that is all starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the candidates are heidi heitkamp and rick berg. this is a little less than one half hour. >> welcome to the continuing coverage of election 2012. this is the debate where north seat.a is a u.s. senate sen

i am here with berg and heidi heitkamp. thank you so much for being here. both candidates will have a bottom in the closing statement. there will be topics as i mean where there will be discussion and debate. >> thank you. i would like to thank everyone watching. this election may be the most important election in our lifetime. if we did i get our country back on track on the road to growth and prosperity, my children will not inherit the same country we do. i will fight against barack obama's failed policies and fight for the idea that people from north dakota should make decisions about their family and their opportunities. i served in the best legislature in the country.

we crafted policy that has made north dakota the economic envy of the nation. washington likes to make complicated. it is simple. we live within our means and make the tough decisions today in our time and watch. that is the north dakota way. that is what i will fight for in washington. >> 11 months ago i got into this race because like many of you i believe that washington was a place that was badly broken. the politicians seemed to care more about their party than they did about their people. they cared more about their own selves than they did about moving this country forward. two years ago congressmen berg sat here and promised he would end the parses it and move this country forward. that did not happen. on important pieces of legislation like the farm bill, he said i am willing to cut $180

billion out of the farm program. he was willing to change the whole medicare system that would eventually cost retirees about 6400 extra dollars a year. he was willing to give tax breaks to millionaires and to companies that ship jobs overseas. i think that is the wrong direction. >> one minute. we need to talk to our topic. some of the television ads, i want to have this opportunity to set the record straight if you what to do on any of the ads that have been running. heidi heitkamp, you start. >> when i was in the office of attorney general, we had a case valled buckley versus goli ejjh.

is the beginning of a civil campaign. it is the beginning of all this outside money. i asked for seven debates on various topics. i only got three. suddenly a very short. what the american people and what people in the state hoped would happen is that they would have an opportunity to see us talk about the issues in a format that allows for expansion. did we are stuck with people's attitudes about them. let's get money out of politics still having discussions like this with the american people and people in our state . >> the ability to debate is a good thing. ns elieve north dakota an

believe in talking on the issues. it is an issue of government solutions and individual solutions. i am looking for to this debate and as you move forward, i think themselfs will set himsel straight. it will be settled by the people that come out on the election. i'm very optimistic we will have a great november. >> let's move onto the farm bill. there is no farm bill right now. there's a lot of back-and-forth on why there is a non right now. why is there not a farm bill personally? what are the prospects after you are elected to pass 1? >> agriculture is very important to me. my dad is a veterinarian. working on farms.

and that only signed a discharge petition, but we pushed leadership to bring the house bill to the floor. we need a farm bill based on insurance. i have worked hard to get in a conference committee. it is unfortunate that agricultural is the one issue that has been bipartisan. up until the last two weeks, there was an editorial that attack you for attacking me in the farm bill and said i am one of the hardest working people to move it forward. there is a lot of people in congress that do not know where food comes from. they think that shows up in the grocery store. that is the challenge we have. john boehner said he would bring the bill up before the end of the year. take his word for that. >> there is no better example of the failure of this congress

than the farm bill. congressman berg is a member of the house. the fed was able to tax a farm bill in the senate. it went over to the house of representatives. when we talked about a gridlock, it was the republican party. it was the fight between john boehner and eric cantor to move it forward. i liken this effort to wiki up in the middle of the fourth quarter shooting the ball as an as you you are already down. when we talk about the discharge position, how many votes of republicans are on the discharge submission? their eight. they're over 40 democrat votes. you cannot claim any modest

effort. the number one job of someone in the senate in congress to pass a farm bill. now we have an uncertainty because of the gridlock in the house of representatives. >> you can respond. >> that is simply not accurate. the last farm bill expired as well. your accusations and me, i hope they do not apply to our former senators and congressmen who were strong advocates for farm. my cousin bart our family homestead. he died suddenly last spring. his high school son is taking over the farm. he would not be able to farm if he does not have crop insurance in place. this is personal to me. i will continue to do what i can to get this passed. it is important for north dakota. >> i come from a farming

community. i drew up on a farm. i dread taking potatoes of picking cucumbers. i know how critical the safety net is. you cannot escape the fact that you do not even know when you come back you'll be able to solve the gridlock in the house. you promised that you could get things done for north dakota. if you have special relationships -- you have special relationships with the majority speaker. i do not think he can lay the blame on anyone's doorstep except the majority party. think a goodtainly example of the problem is yet have a budget arrears from the senate. we have a stone wall problem. the house republican leadership is a problem.

this is a problem that i challenged and worked with others in a bipartisan way to pull the boat together. there's no question what needs to be done. we have always pass a farm bill. our challenge and agricultural is one of the problems out in washington. they do not follow regular order. the senate has the same problem. the deficit is one of the biggest problems facing our country. >> the senate farmville cut $23 billion. it is in excess of what they would have been required to do under sequestration. it was real reform. they said that on me that i can get the job done. we have seen what happened.

we had a chance in july. we had a chance in august. we saw no activity. i do not see the gridlock is like to get solved by an election. i think it is only going to add to the gridlock. we will be debating for a policy because of the failure of the house about sequestration. that is not good for crop insurance. it is not good for looking forward to provide a safety net. >> let's move on to the next issue. this comes from our debate co- sponsor appeared what proposals regarding medicare and social security in washington are most concerned to you. are there any you favor or support? >> the think that is of most concern to me is the premium support providing a voucher for medicare into the future.

everyone under the age of 55 is now going to get handed a voucher. he will say that they can stay in traditional medicare. they only have those among the elderly. we have real problems in making sure that is solvent. i would tell you creating premiums. the second biggest problem is how are we going to keep the medicare system. he talks about 12 years of a solvency. this the people who give the 12 years to you it is only four if you did the affordable health care act. we need time to get the medical system back working parent getting fraud and waste and abuse out which of the $70 billion or $80 billion.

taking a look at what we can do to promote wellness. i've had a long history of working to promote wellness, especially in the tobacco area. i did not get much help from congressman berg when he was in the legislature. >> we need to get a response. >> i would like to start out that your incorrect on your numbers. it will not go where bankrupt in four years of out obamacare. it will bankrupt in 12 years. there is a shuffling of numbers and a double counting of numbers. it was think it was four more years. there are two solutions. 12 years ago is bankrupt. that is bad for seniors. that is bad for people who are depending on medicare. that was a promise to peepople.

obamacare, which takes $716 billion of the medicare set up an unelected board. this is the fundamental core. the other alternative is there is the that is the plan. there'll be two options. two options at to cost -- at no cost. clearly, these are two different solutions. >> do not trust me and to not trust any partisan source. go out and look at the kaiser family foundation website. it states clearly that if you repeal the health care law, the solvency date is four years.

i am not buying your facts on that. the old lake -- you talk about the $719 billion. it is the biggest fib in this whole campaign. honestly, there is only one person at this table whoever voted for that cut. that is congressman berg. let's cut the nonsense. health care and medicare is way too important to play politics with the numbers. we need to fix the system. there are long-term ways we can do that, like negotiating prescription drug prices. cutting the fraud and abuse and start facing the facts of what is happening with medicare. we do not need to privatize the system. >> a final word on this. >> it is not 1700 night -- it is

not $719 billion. it is $716 billion. it cuts costs this, these are real cuts. -- hospice, these are real cuts. i talked to a lady who moved to north carolina and she said she had to go to 23 different providers before 6 find someone who would take medicare. that is the problem -- before she could find someone who would take medicare. people are going to quit taking medicare patients. the other thing i want to make clear is in the house budget, that it did take 716. it put that money back into medicare. it did not take it to pay for obamacare. we have a crisis honor hands. there's too much rhetoric. you need to know your numbers and know your facts.

be sure that we deliver on the promise. >> what parts of the law do you favor? what parts do not favor? what will be the direction you would take regarding the affordable care act? >> i would vote to repeal obamacare. this is the one clear distinction in this race. my opponent will not vote to repeal. this is a $1.70 trillion takeover of our health care industry. we talked a little bit about medicare, $716 billion coming at of our seniors. on elected officials going to be this board, they will make decisions on what is covered and what is not covered. what that fundamentally does is put government between a doctor and patient. this is a big government solution that is wrong.

my wife is a family practice doctor. she said this will be a problem. my son and i were having breakfast several months ago and this gal was busing tables. she came by our table and she said, i wish you luck this fall. i do not know what will happen if obamacare stays. we started with one restaurant and now we have several. i do not know what we're going to do. all of garden, red lobster said we will go to part-time employees because we do not understand the impact. this bill creates a cloud of uncertainty and it is hurting our whole economy. >> let me tell you about somebody i met in a restaurant. she was on crutches and i looked down and asked her how she heard her flat. -- her foot.

she had been crippled. her face was smiling and she said, i had polio as a young girl. she said to me, thank you. thank you for fighting for me. pre-existing conditions, absolutely critical that we keep it. eliminate the lifetime cap. continue to close the doughnut hole so that seniors have their prescription drugs when they need them. it is critical that we keep kids on their health insurance. the most significant thing, at exactly addresses the issue that the congressman raised earlier. paying our providers what date are due. it was a hard-fought provision in the affordable care act and equalizes medicare payments back to our producers. back to our provider said that we are not all pang the cost of medicare. let's take a look at that.

the congressmen voted against the amendment and continues to vote against it. i would submit that if he was really concerned about whether we had providers were willing to provide medicare, we need to retain the amendment. >> i want to set the record straight. we did have the votes in 2003. there was a resolution that came and that was not fair. what we did was we passed another resolution that passed unanimously, republicans and democrats, we support the front your amendment. i want you to look at this. we have to get these facts straight. obamacare, which the president's supports, we passed a bill is trying to change

obamacare. harry reid, he will not take up one of these changes that will make obamacare a workable. let's talk about it. the lifetime cap, pre-existing conditions, that should be done at the state level. obamacare is 2700 pages long. this is a clear difference. my opponent says, for these 10 pages, 2700 page bill, at the biggest tax on middle america and it does not -- >> can i get a final response? >> the only type -- the only reason he says repeal and replace is that it is a political slogan. people do not like obamacare so i will talk about repealing it.

it is like taking your car in to get it fixed and i offer you a replacement car, he said, i do not need that, i guess i would just walk. it needs to be fixed. it needs to be fixed and there is absolutely no reason to not amend the law as it currently exists. the only reason we hear this argument is because too many politicians are playing politics with our health care. that needs to end. >> i want to get a quick responses. oil industry, how would you managed north dakota's oil industry? >> i have a great plan. i put together a plan which begins to address the infrastructure, which takes some of the money the federal government is turning as a result and reinvested in infrastructure. we need to get into a structure

out there, affordable housing, water system. we need to have a plan that provides better roads out there. we need to better balance, i think, our agricultural industry with our oil industry and i think we can all live together as long as we do the investment. the congressmen walked away from the great opportunities to make those investments. as a result, we are behind the eightball once again. >> this is one of the critical differences in this campaign. energy is the hope for our country. we need national energy independence. we brought republicans and democrats together. here is the problem. the problem is, the senate majority leader, harry reid, you have agreed to support him, coal and oil are making the ceo. this is what we're up against.

we are up against regulation and taxation against our energy industry that a shot down our corte industry. >> i need to move to closing statements. i know it goes by fast. >> the bottom line is i am writing to put partisanship aside, running to represent north dakota's interests. i have a history in the oil and gas industry. the bottom line, the questions i get, how to make a difference? we believe you want to change things, you want to stop this partisanship. i tell a story about a guy i met when i was trying to get those on board to stop domestic violence. he said, listen, men will always beat their wives. i will not live in a world where we do not try. we have to try to stop the

partisanship. that is what i am running for the united states senate. >> thank you. i talked to people all across north dakota about the challenges facing our country. it was a school superintendent, he said every day i see children and i worry about their future. he said, you've got to get this fixed. my 12-year-old son, for our children, grandchildren. i am running to stop washington from destroying our economy. i'm running to stop obamacare from making medical decisions for us. i'm running because of we can get this fixed and we can restore the promise of the american dream to our children and future generations. if we take the north dakota way to washington. i am asking for your votes and i'm asking for your support to change america. we can do this.

thank you. god bless. >> thank you to both of you. november 6 is election day. thank you for watching. so long. >> the debate between the candidate for senate and mexico. martin heinrich and heather wilson. this debate is hosted by the sun time and kfox tv. our coverage begins after the opening statements. it is about an hour.

they represent more than 60 years of journalism experience. we have a lot of experience on that side of the table. walt is going to start with the first question. >> heather wilson wrote the affordable care act is unconstitutional because of the individual mandate. if not thrown out by the supreme court, it to be repealed or replace. martin heinrich voted for the bill. what should the replacement be? if it is to be kept, what changes should be made? >> i think it is that -- important to understand why it should be repealed and replaced. it was a mistake. it is already costing jobs in the state of new mexico.

it is not just jobs. it takes $700 billion out of medicare. there is only one candidate for the united states senate tonight to has voted to cut medicare. i also believe that and increases the cost of health care. we are seeing that already come close to $3,000 increase in health insurance premiums. it is going to cost a lot of our -- cause are rural hospitals to close. i worked on the health care improvement act. i do not mind if my kids are on my insurance. i want them out of my refrigerator, but i do not mind if they are on my insurance. i think people should be able to buy insurance across deadlines. those things will help to control the cost of healthcare. the cost of health care is the

real problem. >> i am very proud of the work we did to reform health care in this country. a father came up to me in the middle of that debate and encapsulate it what it meant for his family. he said, my daughter has epilepsy. when she pops out in her coverage and is no longer eligible because she's too old, there is not a single insurance plan that will take care. that is what health insurance reform means to me, he said. we did some very good things in that bill. we made sure insurance companies can no longer discriminate against people for pre-existing conditions. we made sure that we cannot cancel your coverage after you have been paying for years and years. we made sure that kids could stay on their parents plans up

to 26. we did not cut one benefits from the medicare program. what we did is we took the subsidies that were going to insurance companies, we put them back into the medicare program. we may do better, we close the doughnut hole. >> you highlight the things that received broad bipartisan support. those are the things that should be kept. instead of building on the stings, he took a major issue for all americans and with one faction, shoving it down the throats of people come up with things they do not like. it will make it harder for them to provide health insurance. nobody has a problem with pre- existing conditions. $700 billion to kick out of medicare, about a third of it is for payment of hospitals. -- you took out of medicare,

about a third of it is for payments for hospitals. >> congresswoman wilson had over the decade in congress to fix those things. that plan was not perfect, there are things i will vote to change. i voted to repeal the 10-99. it also included things like small business tax cuts, tax credits, i am proud we were able to take on such a big thing ended down. >> we will move to the next question. >> in july, heather wilson wrote a letter to the city council urging date imposed -- opposed a monument and endorse the bill by steve pierce that would preserve less land. martin heinrich protocol and in april supporting a much larger monument. -- read an article in april

supporting a much larger monument. >> that is what people have told me. people who have -- this is the important to them. in particular, the sportsmen have said, we love the mountains, but those mountain ranges to the west of the river are critical. in addition, there was a recent poll that was done that asked people, do you want a monument? the overwhelming answer was yes. marble prefer the one that had both sides of the river. but it more people prefer the one that had both sides of the river. it is spectacular comet it deserves the recognition that a monument would bring. it deserves the tourism that would come here as a result. >> this is a very big difference between us.

the way you go about managing public land and resolving issues and disputes. i believe they're beautiful -- are gorgeous. do we put 25% of the county into a national monument without resolving all the issues and access and water rights that are still up in the air? i did that quite a bit of success resolving local issues with respect to land. the way to do it is to work with local leaders to resolve those issues. the congressman's approach was to write the am president of the united states and ask them to create a national monument without resolving any of local issues that are still there. i do not think washington should be doing not an overriding local

control and resolution. those kinds of extreme single faction approaches did not work in the long term. >> i was writing to the president at the behest of the whole coalition of local leaders. from the mayor to the chamber to many of local sportsmen's clubs. one of the broadest bipartisan groups of supporters i've ever seen. i think we should listen to them. there is an overwhelming support for a new national monument. i am very happy to join with the local support and help make that happen. >> by denying the controversy exist does not make it go away. these 30 cattle growers on the western side of this county, the county commission voted against having a national

monument up next to the border of their county. a lot of issues -- creating a funnel for narcotics trafficking within 5 miles of the new mexico border. there are hundreds of mexicans who have signed petitions this said, please do not do this. you are ignoring them. >> let's move on to the next question. >> in 2007, a bipartisan group of u.s. senator reached a tentative compromise on immigration reform. most agree we need immigration reform. how would you get the senate to approve immigration reform? >> it is separate from border security. the united states has to have effective control of our borders. the number of people crossing the border illegally has gone

down. that is a good thing. the people who are still crossing tend to be heavily armed. but respect to immigration, i support legal immigration. we need changes to our immigration laws. right now, a large number of people come to this country because they get a lottery. i do not think gold digging getting the golden ticket should be the way that you come to america. i think we want the best and brightest and hardest working people to be able to come to this country. i believe going forward, what we need to do is build that coalition of people who believe that america's immigration policy should benefit the united states of america. >> my father came here in the 1930's as an immigrant from germany. i take this issue of immigration

policy reform seriously. i think we need leadership on this issue. heather wilson was in congress for over a decade. to this day, i cannot figure out where she stands on the dream act. one of the simplest measures for immigration reform. when i got to congress, one of the first things i did was to co-sponsor a comprehensive immigration reform. a path to fix our broken system that does not embrace amnesty, that embraces responsibility. i am proud of the leadership on that. i fought to secure the borders, sent 1000 border patrol agents to the border. hundreds of new customs agents. we also need leadership on the broken immigration system. when a comprehensive immigration reform and we should pass the dream act. i would love to know where my opponent's stance. >> fascinating to me, you have

been in the congress for four years. for the first two years, you had an overwhelming majority of the house and the senate and the presidency. he said you wanted to immigration reform, but he did not do it. with respect to young people, i came into this understanding the situation mycology's nominated a kid to go to the naval academy. -- my colleague nominated a kid to go to the naval academy. we need to find a solution. i look forward to working with marco rubio to do that. the current administration's policy has derailed that effort. >> once again, from day one, i made this a priority. i joined with my colleagues and i supported it. the reason we do not have comprehensive immigration reform

is because we do not have the bipartisan approach we had a few years ago. we have a tea party approach. you saw what happened to -- that is sad and i look forward to a time where we can agree of the. unhook -- when we can agree on that. >> the oil and gas industry contributes to the revenue of this day. when you look at the regulation of that industry, which is support new regulation? is the regulation we have is about right? or do we need to have less regulation? >> i support appropriate regulation. you should never have a regulation that does not have a purpose. oil and gas can be produced responsibly and done so, -- and

it is done so across mexico any given day. we have a great independent producers. we need to make sure that when people do pollute our air or water, they're held responsible. we need regulations that do not overly burden the industry, but make sure we are protecting our water. nothing is more precious to the state of new mexico and to any western state down the water we have. i used to be the natural resources trusty. he can make sure this industry can produce orlon gas without polluting, but we need regulations to make sure the bad actors are held responsible. >> most of the regulation of oil and gas exploration here in new mexico is done by state government, not by federal government. there are certain requirements on federal lands.

the big difference on energy policy has to do with which direction we need to go. i believe in a balanced long- term energy plan for this country that includes increasing american sources of supply. he voted for cap-and-trade, the biggest tax on energy, it now being put through regulatory constraints in the history of this country. if it is fully implemented, the loss of 11,000 jobs in new mexico. at increase of costs on our ledger bills of a thousand dollars per household. he also said that coal is a field of the cac -- fuel of the past. if it is the fuel of the past, low-cost energy bills are also a thing of the past.

>> speaking of jobs, congresswoman will send called those jobs in the nobles a green drain. -- green dream. if you look at the steady on transmission, they said we could have 25,000 jobs if we built the transmission. i will get the power line built and we will have those jobs. >> you need to look at the data from the work force solutions department here in the state of new mexico. look at the fastest growing jobs in the state. grenoble's is not even on the list. oil, -- renewable is not even on a less. all of those jobs that utah did -- you touted, all out of

business. those jobs do not currently exist. the jobs in oil and gas do and there are growing and i'm going to fight for those jobs here and now. >> ok, thank you. we will move on to a foreign policy question. >> iran appears to be developing a nuclear bomb. the presence of the united states will not let that happen. with the consequences of long- term wars in iraq and afghanistan, if the administration proposed military action against iran, what would be your criteria? >> i agree with the president that we cannot allow iran to have a nuclear weapon or the ability to deliver it. we need to use all of our element of national power to prevent that from happening. our policy needs to be cleared. i think it has been a little bit monday over the past year.

when the administration does put the emphasis on trying to hold israel back, it sends a clear message to iran that they should move as quickly as they can towards a nuclear weapon. that is contrary to our interest. what kinds of things can we do to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon? first, the sanctions. there are opportunities -- those sanctions are having a heavy impact on the iranian economy. we should continue to propagate the fractures in iranian society so that pressure is put on their leadership to forgo the path of nuclear weapons. if it comes down to it, and the united states has to take action, the only thing that in is worse than taking military action is and iran with a nuclear weapon. >> i think that any time american troops are committed anywhere in the world, there

should be a direct security threat to the united states. the president has been very clear about what american policy is. we must use every tool in the toolbox to make sure they do not before we prematurely start talking about military action. we need to continue the diplomacy that is bringing other countries to the table with sanctions as well. we need to continue the covert action that has been very successful in slowing the program. we need to continue the economic sanctions that i did not just support, i helped pushed to the congress. those sanctions are drawing a wedge between the leadership in that country and the people. they devalued the country, they made it hard to sell their petroleum on the global market. given the mistakes that were made in the last decade regarding the policy that our

country took in iraq to make sure we get this right. >> you ask a broader question about when is it legitimate to use military force. what is the criteria? i believed that u.s. military force should only be used as a last resort. u.s. military force should only be used to protect america's vital national interest with very clear objectives and the force necessary to win and come home again. >> i am very pleased to hear congresswoman wilson said that. i do not believe that was the criteria that was used 10 years ago last week when she voted to go into a war in iraq, a war that was not paid for, a war that cost us thousands of american lives, and a war that was based on politicized intelligence and not a direct threat to the united states of america.

>> congress is about -- has failed to pass a new farm bill. should the federal government and most agricultural subsidies, how did you suppose -- patty proposed reforming agriculture subsidies? >> we made a mistake about over 30 years ago in terms of the direction we went with our farm subsidies regarding producing agricultural cop -- crops. we invested in commodities we kept down the price of food, which is a very laudable goals. all of the money we save done cheaper food went to the health care system. because of those commodity policies. i think what we need to do is move more towards local

agriculture, investing in food crops that are healthy for our children, we need to make sure every school in the united states is not selling just corn and soybean commodities as part of their school lunch program, but giving healthy fruits and vegetables grown in places like right here in new mexico. we can remodel our farm policy to make this country much healthier and to save money within the health-care system. >> here in new mexico, a lot of the pieces of the farm bill did not have a huge impact on the crops they grow. even some of them are contrary to the interest of the farmers and ranchers. particularly, when it becomes -- when it comes to dairy. with respect to agriculture policy, when i listen to farmers and ranchers, the death tax.

i think result in the breaking up of family farms and ranches. i voted to repeal. the second thing that is very important for farmers is low energy costs. union energy policy that keeps american energy cost love -- you need an energy policy that keeps american energy cost low. the congressman's approach would increase the price of energy and food. there is regulatory impacts on our agricultural industry that needs to be straightened out. there was one bill that was very important to farmers and ranchers to straighten out some of the regulation. the congressman voted against it. it was the top priority for farmers and ranchers. >> once again, we do not have a farm bill because the tea party has kept washington, d.c., from

being able to do its work. this is the first time in modern history the farm bill has expired. it is one emblematic example of how dysfunctional the tea party has made our country. congresswoman wilson embraced the tea party when she signed their cut, cap, and balance pledge. going to you to and type it in. cuts to social security and medicare and a bigger budget deficit in the future. >> it is fascinating to me that someone could think that cutting wasteful spending, forcing congress to live within its means, and balancing the budget is extreme. i think those kinds of things, forcing congress to live within its means forces the congress to set some priorities and not waste money on things like solyndra, so we can prioritize

things such as social security, medicare, and education. there have been many times when the farm bill has been -- has lapsed and we've got four years without even having a budget. >> ok. congressman wilson will get to ask a question. you have 30 seconds to ask the question. you have amended 15 to answer. -- one minute and 15 seconds to answer. >> last night at the present debate, president obama touted coal and said we now have a clean coal technology and it should be part of our future energy mix. i agree with them. he is still disagree with the president and myself that -- and

think that coal is the thing of the past? what would you say to the minorers about why their jobs to be a thing of the past? >> i grew up in a family of miners. my father was a minor and my grandfather was a minor. it is honest work. i respect greatly those union miners up in northwestern mexico who do good work. they put food on their family's table. when it comes to policy, i will be looking for the policies that create the most jobs in the future. so when my kids grow up in new mexico, they have a bright future. today, with an industry that she calls the green dream, there five times as many people working directly in nobles' as directly in coal in new mexico. i will not apologize for investing in the future of our energy supply. we should be moving in the direction of domestic and more

clean. it is not a dream. 20 years ago, when i was in college, i friends and i build a solar car that we raced across the united states. this is not rocket science, folks. this industry has been around a long time. it just requires political leadership. political leadership that my opponent is not willing to exercise. >> the political leadership came from the president of the united states. we both agree coal must be part of america's energy future. it is low cost, it is much cleaner than it was 30 years ago, and i am and all the above energy kind of gal. currently, solar energy is four or five times that much. if kohl is the fuel of the past, reasonably priced electric bills are a thing of the past. i'm going to fight for those

jobs and i will fight for low- cost energy. >> ok. that concludes the first half of our debate. we will take a 60-98 non- commercial break and we'll be right back with you. [applause] >> we will go ahead and get the second part of the debate started. as i mentioned, the situation will be reversed in terms of the questioning. the first part of the second half of this is we will ask the candidates a couple of individual questions. if the question is asked specifically of one of the candidate, that candidate will have one minute and 15 seconds to answer. there will be no rebuttal.

we will ask two questions of each of them before we go back into the other part of our format. we will go and get started. >> there is overwhelming agreement among non-partisan and bipartisan commission's that we need both spending cuts and tax increases to address our nation's financial problems. are there any specific budget cuts or entitlement reforms you would support? why or why not? ? absolutely. i could not agree more with the premise of your question. if we're going to be serious about this deficit, we have to work on it from both sides. we will see agency budgets cut. we will see subsidies cut. we can no longer afford subsidies for corn based ethanol. if you look at the big

international multinational oil corporations, they get enormous subsidies. they made over $100 billion last year. we're giving them billions of dollars in subsidies to do what they already do very well. we need to get rid of the tax benefits that encourage companies, allow them to expand and deduct when they moved operations and jobs overseas. if we're going to have some incentives, they should be for companies creating jobs here at home. we should take a balanced approach. those cuts, plus revenue increases. i do not think it is a right that someone like mitt romney who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars should pay a 13 or 14% effective tax rate when our small businesses and firefighters and teachers pay more than that. >> we think this is a very

important question. we'll be asking the same question of you, representative wilson. >> rather than asking you about spending cuts, are there any tax increases or other revenue raisers you would support? >> what is fascinating is that the congressman was asked what spending cuts he would support. what he talked about was tax increases. his balanced approach is to raise spending and raise taxes. i think we have a serious spending problem in washington. we do not have a taxing problem in washington. the difference between us is i believe we can get rid of a lot of the special provisions in the tax code. we should extend all the current tax code for the next year and spend the next year simplifying the tax code, taking out almost

all the special provisions in that tax code. our tax code is longer than the king james version of the bible. i do not think it has that much to say. you simplify it, you can lower the rate, brought in the base, and get rid of almost all the special provisions. what that would do is encourage economic growth. the way to balance the budget is policies that encourage economic growth. that includes tax simplification across the board. >> let's move on. >> you voted in favor of the debt reduction bill that calls for $1.20 trillion in spending cuts, with half of that coming from the defense budget. military leaders say it would be crippling. can you explain your vote on that bill? >> absolutely. i voted to avoid default, just like john mccain.

he made that exact same vote. we voted to make sure we did not go into a double-dip recession and lead the world into a global recession. i did not support sequestration. sequestration is based on the tea party premise that you do not raise revenues whatsoever. i believe we need to take a balanced approach. we are going to need to increase revenues, and we will need to cut agency budgets and stomach some cuts that many democrats are not going to be happy about. that is the only way we get to where we need to be on this. it is incumbent upon myself and everyone else in congress to get back to work after this election and come up with a solution that has both of those pieces. rather than embraces the tea party sequestration approach. >> do you believe it is possible to make medicare sustainable

well into the future without converting it into a voucher system? would you ever supports a voucher system? >> the most important thing is that for those who are currently on it, it is there for them without any changes unless they want those kinds of changes. the congressman did not ask any seniors whether they wanted $700 billion taken out of medicare to fund new programs under the health care act. i believe in the safety net programs. i think we want an opportunity society with a safety net. medicare has always been part of that safety net. the way to make medicare solvent is to do some things like we did with medicare part d and involve competition and choice for seniors because competition helps to control the cost. medicare is 30% under the original projected cost. people have choices and competition has helped to bring

down the cost of health care. >> let's go back to foreign- policy. >> this question will be for both candidates. the arab spring has been hailed as a shift towards democracy. we are seeing increasingly violent incidents, including the murder of the american ambassador in libya. how do you walk the tightrope of encouraging the spread of democratic values when doing so can lead to violence against americans or the installation of heads of states to do not support what many had considered to be traditional american values? >> let me say -- express my condolences are regarded ambassador stevens and the other americans who lost their lives. they gave their lives for this country. and for a vision of a better world. i do think that president obama

was correct in working with our allies to see gaddafi removed in libya. that does not mean you hold that a mission accomplished banner. this is a complicated region and the future is uncertain. we know the past was not serving in u.n. security interest and not good for the people of libya. the future is going to take a lot of work. i think you stick your principles, you support democracy, the support transparency, and you keep working to make it a safer world. we all know that this is a very volatile region. there are no easy answers. >> the events over the last few months across north africa and middle east have highlighted that we still are living in a dangerous world. our american foreign-policy must

be reflective of our deeply held beliefs. a belief in freedom. at the same time, when people rebelled against despots, there is the opportunity and the possibility that factions can take advantage of that rebellion and turn societies away from freedom. you saw that in 1979 in iran when the movement resulted in the rise of the ayatollah. it is a time of tremendous peril. one of the most important things in a time of peril and tremendous change is for the united states to remain strong. a weakened american military means a more dangerous world. the congressman said he is opposed to sequestering. if you're opposed to it, why did you vote for it? within 90 days, we're going to be faced with 20,000 jobs lost

here in mexico because of the bill that you voted for. our army will go down to -- >> congresswoman wilson, that is simply not the case. the only way sequestration happens is if congress refuses to act. i do not know anyone, at least that i work with on the armed services committee, who believes that sequestration is a good thing. i have a long history of fighting hard for the installations in my district. i will continue that same approach statewide. these are things critical to in mexico jobs. i will continue to fight for them. >> we have had 700 people laid off at los alamos because you feel to stand up and fight for the plutonium facility. we also lost the f16s.

they used to have an f-16 mission. within four months of the taking office, vt. daughter national guard fighters. -- vermont got our national guard fighters. kirkland air force base is more vulnerable. >> tell that to the people who are still working there today. there are a thousand people who have jobs because we saved that mission. >> we are going to move on. we're going to stay within the state with a final question. >> new mexico had both its largest and most expensive wildfire's the sheer -- wild fires this year. some have alleged that mismanagement by the forest service was to blame for the

size and severity. do you agree? >> i think our federal government has failed to maintain our public lands. you can see that all across this state. the federal government has been cutting back on grazing permits. i supported the healthy forest act which would try to accelerate the ability of people to maintain the public land. our forests are full of fuel and they are tender boxes. we saw the same thing in the lincoln forest. these fires, when they happen, are absolutely catastrophic. we need to get back to multiple uses of federal land. that includes crazing, selective logging -- grazing, selective

logging. >> we have the fire seasons we have today because the fire suppression and because of a little thing called climate change that my opponent refuses to recognize. there are lower humidity levels in those forests in june and july than there were 20 years ago. i have worked in forestry, probably tens of thousands of trees i have watched as our national forests have moved towards more and more thinning. the wild land urban interface as well as they have. they will not be able to overcome the very real changes that we are seeing around us. it is why we have a moral

responsibility to stand up and say, in a state or so many people make their living off of science, so many people are ph.d. is and work in our national labs and our universities, we will not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that science does not exist. >> we have failed to maintain our public lands. you can see the difference in the land over 100 years, were they are now heavily loaded with fuel. they are loaded with fuel, dry, and everybody is waiting for the next lightning strike. the endangered species, which prevented people from maintaining a lot of these public lands, only exist on the indian reservations because they have maintained their public lands. i think we need to get back to

multiple use of our public land and reasonable land management so we did not face these catastrophic wildfires in the future. >> once again, i have worked in these forests. i will tell you that our public lands are something that is critical, not only to our culture in mexico, but also to our economy. that is why i introduced -- there are public plans all over the state of new mexico that the public cannot get to. if i have retired to make sure that campers and sportsmen and people of all stripes can access and enjoy their public lands so that we can protect them as well. >> let's move on. >> many of our veterans suffer from physical or mental wounds inflicted by the served our country.

-- inflicted while they serve their country. what would you do to assist them in getting the help they need? >> i will work every bit as hard as we of worked for the last four years. we have staff who are specifically assigned to work with veterans to make sure they get all of their benefits and especially those veterans of combat less than whole -- who have come back less than whole from these challenging conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. we have helped hundreds of veterans get the treatment they deserve. i would also make sure that we continue to find the va. that we do not balance our budget on the backs of these people who have served our country. without ever thinking twice about doing it, they stood up and they paid the price for the decisions that are made and i

never think twice about it. we need to make sure we continue to support the va did make sure they have all the resources that they need. we pass something during my tenure, a two-year budget for the va said they did not get caught up in these in the of your budget battles that golan in washington, d.c., said that no one gets turned away from the front door of the veterans administration. law'm a third-generation enforcement officer. our family knows what it means to be veterans. i am proud of the hundreds and thousands of veterans. they never give you a magic wand, but we worked very hard to all of them. our office was the go to office for any better and had a

problem. one of the thing that bothered me, plastic i was contacted by somebody here in new mexico. he said he went to your office for help and told you he had been denied disability. he gave you all the papers that he needed. six months later, he got a letter back saying, you have been denied disability. he knew that when he went in. you did not help them at all, he just pushed the paper work around. i believe our veterans deserve the kind of individualized help and attention. >> first off, i am not going to politicize our veterans. we work hard each and every day for them. there are many veterans who live been able to get disability because the facts supported their claim. i cannot work magic. if you do not meet the criteria, you do not meet the criteria. we will go to the end of the earth to make sure the veterans

administration treats your claim seriously. if the facts are on your side, we will get you help. >> in this case, you gave him a copy of the letter he gave to you five months earlier. he ultimately was able, with the help of a lawyer, to get a disability claim taken care of. the waiting time has increased substantially over the last four years for veterans to get their claims processed. the va has changed the way in which it processes those claims. we need to take a serious look and fixing that system so that when veterans eligible for benefits, they can get their check, get their books, go to school and get on with their lives. >> next question. >> it has been a year since the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. it does not appear to have disrupted the military's ability to do its job.

is it time to allow gay marriage? >> i believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. i will stand up and defend that and the united states senate. it is important to understand why that is the case. why does marriage place such an important part in our society? why do we need such a strong marriage culture? the reason is the potential for children. children do not mature for almost two decades. unlike other young animals, they cannot fend for themselves. more likely to be in trouble with a lot, they're much more likely to be parents before their adults themselves. we need a strong set of marriage laws, but a strong marriage and

pro-marriage culture and society. this has existed in american moc and in society for thousands of years. i think we would be wrong to change the definition of what marriage really is. >> let >> let me give you a simple answer, yes. i believe that in the eyes of the constitution and in the eyes of the government, everyone has equal rights. i will never tell an institution how to read mr. their sacraments and what is right in the halls of the church. -- how to administer their sacrament and what is right in the halls of the church. but as far as the government, we have legal rights in front of the law. i was proud to be one of the people who overturned, don't ask, don't tell. i would ask you to compare my record with that of my opponent. she was asked about this one,

about the legislation that senator al franken has sponsored to deal with the epidemic of teasing that has resulted in many children losing their lives. and she said, we just have to tolerate it and sort of equated it to the first amendment. that is never going to be my approach to civil liberties or equality. i am proud that we overturned don't ask, don't tell. and yes, marriage and equality is the right thing to do. >> rep wilson? >> the alpha lincolnville that you have sponsored, federal funding from schools, if there is believed in the schools, bullying for any reason is an unacceptable. i think that is best dealt with by teachers and parents and authorities, not by cutting

funds from a school if there is bullying going on in the school. that is the position i take. like you, i am a parent. we do not need washington to solve those problems for us. >> rep? >> actually, when congress when wilson was in congress, she helped past -- pass the no child left behind legislation, and it did just that. it took away power from our hands and -- from our schools and put it into a one size fits all structure that does not teach new mexico kids. i would repeal the legislation. >> i'm going to do something a little different here, and give each of you a chance for one more were bottle on this issue, starting with rep wilson. >> the no child left behind our left all of those regulations

and micromanagement and let school districts move money around from one federal program to another. it i actually believe that one -- no child left behind probably needed to be changed five or six years ago to allow for more flexibility at the local level for what success really meant. right now, the entire state of new mexico is now exempt from no child left behind. i think that is the right thing to do. but if you now have a problem with the way your school is run, you do not have to go to washington. you can do that here locally. and you protect the funds and to allow local leaders to make decisions about how those funds are used. that is the best. >> my son carter and my son micah both go to public school. and the kind of testing that is required today is not helpful to their teacher to be able to tailor construction to them individually. in addition, it is a great

public school. it was -- it did not beat ayp, as it did three things incredibly well and one thing not to standard. that has simply labeled our children and our schools and not helped our teachers either. >> we will move to the program where congressman, you get to ask a question of representative wilson. you have 30 seconds to ask that question. rep wilson, you have one minute and 15 seconds to respond. representative-a, you have 30 seconds to rebut. -- , -- rep heinrich, you have 30 seconds to rebut. >> and as someone who came here undocumented, unbeknownst to them when they were three months of age, those are the dreamers, those are the kids that the dream act were designed for.

would you vote for that student to attend the naval academy? >> there have been a variety of versions of the dream act over the years. i think we need a solution to this. senator marco rubio was working toward a bipartisan legislative permanent solution to this when the department of homeland security came out with a new memo that said we will now use prosecutorial discretion. unfortunately, that is not a permanent solution. as i suspected at the time, i thought that not many young people would come forward to take advantage with a new of that process. in reality, only about 7% of children eligible have come forward for the process. we need a permanent solution for kids who have not come here through their own choice so that they can be absorbed into the country that they know. there are a variety of ways to do that. i look forward to moving forward with that kind of bipartisan solution. >> what you heard there were a

lot of words and no answer. >> there are a variety of versions of it. >> you either vote for the dream act or you do not. i have voted for it and i would again. that is the kind of leadership we need on immigrationin issuesn washington today. >> we are at the end of the program. we pride -- provide one minute for each of the candidates to have closing statements. >> libraries are protecting social security and medicare, tax cuts for the middle class, keeping our promises to veterans and making college more affordable to everyone. heather wilson has all the wrong priorities. she voted for the rock -- the wall street bailout and she voted for the bush tax cuts that exploded our deficit. now she wants even more tax breaks for millionaires. congresswoman wilson supports a cap and balance that would -- require deep cuts to social

security and medicare. let me be clear, i will never balance our budget on the backs of our seniors. medicare and social security are not in diamonds. they are a promise that we have made to our -- are not entitlements. they are a promise that we have made to our seniors and i plan to keep it. i told john phares, raise my family -- i am in support of holding john phares, i raise my family. i will continue the fight on behold -- behalf of the people here. i would appreciate your support. >> i believe in an opportunity for society to have a safety net i am a supporter of the safety net programs that my own family depended upon what i was a child and my father was killed unexpectedly. those kinds of unexpected events in life or what the safety net art -- is for. congressman heinrich has squandered the last four years in congress. we of 30,000 fewer jobs here in new mexico today than we had

four years ago. we have small business is holding back on hiring because they have no idea what their taxes are going to be next year. we have community banks that are not lending to small business because they do not know what these new regulations on banking mean and they feel like they bet the bank every time. i believe we need to keep taxes low, regulations clear. we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy. and we need to avoid the sequester, which would be devastating to our nation's defense and devastating to mexico's economy. i would ask for your vote and support. >> i want to thank both candidates for taking the time to participate in tonight's debate. it was a lightning and informative and entertaining. i also want to thank our partners, kfox for their

participation in tonight's debate. a store that is independent of the indoor track process will publish on page one that profiles the race. -- of the endorsement process will publish on page one that profiles the race. please take a look at it, and don't forget to vote. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the enemy understands a free iraq will be a major defeat in the ideology of hatred. that is why they are fighting so vociferously. they showed up in afghanistan when they were there because they try to defeat us and they did not. if we lose our will, we'd lose. it will remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy. >> doniger carry? >> i believe in being strong and resolute and determined. and i will hunt down and killed

the terrorists wherever they are. but we also have to be smart. and that means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in afghanistan against osama bin laden and taking it off to iraq where the 9/11 commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and saddam hussein. and the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of saddam hussein. this president has made a colossal error of judgment, and judgment is what we look for in the president of the united states of america. >> you can see more of this foreign policy debate from this campaign later tonight. along with other debates from the same subject from our archives. watch the debate between president ronald reagan and former vice president walter mondale, and from 1988, --

george bush and michael dukakis. >> we will focus tomorrow morning on "washington journal" on the presidential campaign. then we will look at how the campaign is playing out in key battleground states. we will hear from joe tamez intro to go, virginia. at 9:00 a.m. eastern, we will be joined by mark simpson, news director of wmfe radio in orlando, florida. and we will hear in ohio from michael powell would powellalwood. -- michael alwood. >> next, a form on sequestration. the tax cuts generally referred to as the fiscal cliff.

this included peter ross come from illinois, and the pennsylvaniaorlando, representae from -- allen schwartz. you will hear from former michigan governor, john engler, president of the business roundtable. >> thank you both for joining me and for joining our whole audience here. we have an important session in congress coming up in four weeks now. it up for consideration are billions of dollars of past provisions as well as the bush era tax rates, not to mention the sequester and the possibility of another debt limit discussion. rather than opening on gramm talk of the obstacles, i would like to talk about possibilities. i will start first with congressman schwartz. >> where do you see the area of greatest potential, common ground, and compromise? >> first, good morning to you and everyone here.

larger than life here. you look great. that is always good to know. i do appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion. especially given that we have an election in three weeks. what happens will have an impact, even though we will be the same players in december as we are in congress now. but i do think it will have an impact on how we move forward and what we leave for after the new year and what we actually get done. i start with the fact that we ought to get something done at the end of the year, whether we can actually do the grand bargain, take care of all the things that we have to do. i feel strongly that we need to make some decisions at the end of the year, and have a of the year, and have a discussion