substantive. this goes back to not just his reading, but he made a visit to israel in 1998 and on that visit there was another power politician named ariel sharon. he offered to take bush around on this now famous helicopter ride. he saw the narrowest part of israel, where it is only 9 miles from the mediterranean sea to the most inner part of the west bank, a part that could be cut off by tanks in a matter of he showed that point to bush. he understood the security concerns. he also understood something else. during that trip, he took a very different approach.

he said, i will need it, i will not meet with you, i will meet with you, and will not meet with you. they did not have a meeting. bush left the country. then later he held a conference and denounced bush for not meeting with them. i bet he regretted the way he acted when bush was there earlier. he had personal and intellectual reasons for supporting isreal. he only got 19% of the vote in 2000. -- of the jewish vote in 2000. he got a big bond to 24% in 2004

against john kerry. -- big bump to 24% in 2004 against john kerry. bush really benefited from his outreach. i will come to a conclusion, but i want to talk briefly about obama and romney. obama has a reputation as a reader. there is one time he was asked about reading a book, but he said, i only have time to floss my teeth and watch tv sports. homeland," "theorado la sopranos."

he mentioned snooki a couple of times. it was suggested that obama's approach -- it does not necessarily suggest that obama read the book, but he said obama might have taken the idea that was in the air to account. there has been this trend of people giving obama jewish books. benjamin netanyahu started it by giving him a but. peter gave him a book. i wonder what would happen if we had a jewish president. but that is what we do. we give jewish books to our

president even if they are not jewish. mitt romney is looking to get a better presidents of the jewish vote then became did. he is aggressively -- than mccain did. i was on a phone call with governor romney. he was talking to 3000 jewish leaders on thursday night. he has read a number of books related to isreal. it is a really important book in terms of making isreal about the strong economy and changing the perception of isreal to business leaders. what i have derived from the steady of both the bushes and the president's read is that it is better off to have a president who reads than one who does not.

if he does read, it is better if he reads the right stuff. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we will called mr. sheinkopf to the podium. them we will take questions for the speakers. after that presentation, i am not sure how i can keep you busy for 20 minutes. i have made some observations about jews generally. i can talk about what i feel about it. i am a harry truman democrat. in defend the world as best as you can in setting the world tone. you make sure that this extraordinary nation does its job within reason.

it takes up the job upon itself out of the second war ii to make sure that in is and people were not killed for their religious belief for freedom. bill clinton did not fill in that regard. he had 1 fail. he did not do anything about rwanda. he had a long history with jews while he was the governor in arkansas. i was working in the 1980's when he was governor. he brought me to see the then governor. we got along well. it is a relationship that went on for a long time for me. he was committed to jews and was interested in them. the first day i remember going

to the white house and going upstairs to the residence library. the white house is a peculiar place. there is this one door that goes upstairs to the residence. the place is like a museum. it is gigantic, but it really is not. the upstairs is kinda like living in a -- did chance like this in english? it is like a warehouse that is controlled on all sides and you have the inventory as and it is constantly being watched to make sure that nothing has been changed. it can be sold and moved at any time. it is precious and contained. even if you are doing business, every few minutes and a sure will come in and say, x is happening in a few minutes. y is happening in a few minutes.

the president will be here in 15 seconds. anything the president does have an extraordinary impact are around us. during the election campaign, we went up on the air against the republicans in may. we broadcast the ads in june in 1995, seven months before the election. it was a big story. i was next to double in those years. -- devil in those years. in january of 1995, he was down 35 points. the democrats have lost about the house and senate. same thing, history tends to repeat itself. anyway --

>> [inaudible] >> 1994? correct. both chambers were lost. we had a good shot until the romney campaign. without being said, and 1994, both houses were lost. the president was down 35 points. i heard you. i got the correction. i got the criticism. we're done. we are moving on. i know it is hard. the president goes to dallas. makes a speech. he says, i know that many of you think that i raised your taxes too much. the point is that anything the president does or says has an instant impact on the world around him. it is a serious thing. often forget the policies have

direct impacts. he was first of all very much a southerner. very much of the son of an alcoholic. probably the illegitimate son of an alcoholic mother. broody. of all the people i work with, the three starters are listed in the introduction and all the more extraordinary readers and extraordinarily smart and well versed. clinton was very much committed to making the world better because of his own early background, which is not a lot of money. if you went to the residence library, the number of books on jews would crowd out the shelves. it was an extraordinary thing. look at the team from 1995 and 1996.

you had -- that was the primary group of people. in the levels of and by his mentor and matters of -- jews were very much involved. the moral behavior in public life and the use of military as a moral tool. that is an argument i will have with anyone. jews were very much involved in that. you have a guy who is doing all of these things and he is a southerner. the republican response is that they want to kill him. no one who is a southern politician should be a democrat. never tried to kill him large gift for that. he was opposite -- they were

trying to kill him largely for that. he was the opposite of newt gingrinch. he was a guy who talked about human rights. he supported the state of isreal. he kept the economy running. he was not evangelicals. he was the south -- from the south. look at the jewish vote. this is kind of the same problem we have with blacks and hispanics. it keeps saying, if only we can talk to those people and spend enough money, somehow this will turn around. it does not turn around. this thing has been going on for eight years. a person has been ready excessively about this that we are the only person in the world -- it is an extraordinary thing. we look for other values in our presidents are we keep looking. we substitute what the magazine

described as the 10 non-jewish values and an important article and make them part of our religion, but that on the face of the political people we see and vote for it because we want to deal out some kind of comfort. there was an important book written called "the final embrace. grwe lose our bearings of the rest of society. that is what happens to us constantly as a group of people. we do not have much towards about it because of our numbers. we do not match electoral college. the intensity of activity -- we orally.matter elect for

jews are incessant complainers. the amount of money and time being put into jews and getting them to vote is a waste of time. trust me. you are not important. new york, california, they are now voting republican. if a not he was on a ballot, -- republicans in california do not have any power. it is the craziest thing i ever saw. they live in illinois. they are now voting republican. all i you? not lately. but the shift in demographics across the country. -- ohio. not likely.

but the shift in in the demographics across our country, the numbers are smaller in relationship to the rest of the body at large. voting for republican in massive numbers does not make sense. it is not likely to happen. it is the last democrat that the jews felt good about it, was bill clinton. we're not killing good about barack obama. we have -- we are not feeling gd about barack obama. we felt that bill clinton was able to -- he was religious in a country that prides itself on religious freedom. the was a story this week in an article i read about the decline of religiosity.

is probably the last president when the country had a pretty apparent culture. since then in the 1990's, it has declined. the and the local groups and the decline of religious activities that gay people this culture that defines this country. that problem is serious. there is an industry -- the original article is one that robert putnam wrote. about the decline of culture in results of tv viewing. it tells you where this is going, so people are not participating at levels that they normally would. what does this mean for us? as jews and as people who

believe in democracy? during the clinton years and during the bush 1 and 2 years, and public discussion was less personal and more significant. it was more jewish. there is no place in the tomorrow that people say -- gomorrah that people say -- it does not work that way. this is a new era that is balkanized where expectation is that nothing will get done. jews in their important because god has been them that way, but they are not important at all. what they are important for is check writing.

they have christmas parties of the white house. i was there, as were a bunch of other people. who are all of these people? there were a couple of people who work for the president of the level that i worked out. there were other people. they were well dressed and well mannered. i asked, what do you do? i make ads for the president. i do this. i am a writer. we are all writers. what do you write? we write checks. [laughter] they looked like me. polish, jewish, and german. something romanian and jewish. i felt it. then i learned that the deep% of every dollar comes from --- a

percentage of every dollar comes from jews. we don't vote. it is quite odd to me. what are we doing? we are now the funders. a couple weeks ago, i got some flags pursing publicly in the newspapers that a myriad city was the atm for american politics -- flax for publicly saying in the newspapers that new york city was the atm for american politics. i am not so sure about that. sometimes i wake up and say it is good to be part of this, but other times i say no. the meeting in the afternoon and the banks in the morning. the conference call where we get all 14 million people on one call. the costs are huge. try to communicate in that way. that being said, we are writing

checks, but we're not participating at the same levels. this has taken on a greater significance. and the last brochure's going into the bombing years and going forward. what we are doing effectively -- in the obama years and going forward. we are not participating. check writing is an important part of public participation rather than going to vote. it is kind of nuts. we are presiding over people like me that have created a political system. i talked about this this week in the wall street journal. where a participating in a system that has become entirely run by cash with new ideas and the ultimate issue will be, what does it mean for jews and the jewish state. this is neither good for as long

term or short-term. we should have more hate that isreal the state that will survive -- should have more faith that isreal the state will survive. we came from places -- in response, we became great voters. irish another dominant political cultures in which we lived in. we had no other place to live. we needed to be close to synagogues and all the institutions that we need. what we did instead was we became more organized and thought that we could organize and have access to power. the people for running for president understand that. organizing and access does not

mean power. the definition of power now are the people who write the checks. the clinton years, it was getting into the voting booth and shaking the president's hand. in the bush years, it was being able to put the extraordinary and still viable scheme data -- southern protestants of northern catholics. they were the people who put people in office. are not important in that way. bush understood that in the first term. contrary to what everyone have a written, it worked out that way. bush understood it. clinton understood it. jimmy carter got away with it. richard nixon invented it. nixon and the great southern strategy was putting seven

protestants in one way and northern catholics in another place. it gave rise to the evangelicals and drift. is that still functioning? yes, but not in the same way. it is dangerous to us as a smaller group of people if this political system and its parties do not function the way they should. the plea with public life. we survived -- they played with of a glut. we survived. we survived because as long as that notion matters and no one has figured out that it has become a con job, this and bollix of -- symbolics of the voting that is the basis relief of the american system -- if all we're doing is writing checks, we do not have much to believe

in. a breakdown of the parties is a breakdown of ideology. that is not good. when political parties but down, certain things happened. -- break down, certain things happened. i would note that the man driving of the middle, it is not that far off in the future. why? both parties -- i work in venezuela in the 1990's. two parties functioned as. -- on trend. -- functioned. both parties had definitive ideologies when they began. both parties became erect.

both parties and relied on excess of cash. -- both parties became corrupt. both parties relied on excess of cash. no to these things very carefully. they are not good for the jews. they're not good for democracy. they are the opposite of what either president bush or president clinton had in mind. they are dangerous to democracy for the long term. i close with this thought. you do not have to like what george bush did. i thought that the villain in bush was wrong. you cannot fight a war on the cheap. you cannot put american art risk on the cheap because you want to save $2. eisenhower did not do it. he was organized. that being said, these two presidents, because of their

ages that they took office, they had a point of view in a particular sense of where the nation was going at the end of the 20th century. what we see as an end to the with that democracy functions and the way we see it. the legacy of either has yet to be seen. during the clinton years, but we remember is a country that was not at war. most people work regularly. the dinner at $3-mortgage rates were down. americans were -- mortgage rates were down. americans were at peace. the future -- the state of isreal is at risk because of an

increase in an international a semitism. how do combat these things? i think you vote and you rail against the nature of money and politics and to call for campaign finance reform that shuts this done as quickly as possible. we will do -- we will lose a democracy that many of us find important. thank you. [applause] >> i think he did feel 20 minutes. -- fill 20 minutes. we have some time for questions. there is a microphone in the audience. >> both of you talked about

president clinton. i would like to ask you -- you talked about the support of jews for various presidents. what has been the support of jews by these presidents? nothing was mentioned about clinton. the active involvement of sending hislinton defeatin political advisers there. >> i was with him. that is absolutely not true. >> he did that send anyone. >> that is false. that is not true. i was in the room.

shawn came into the room. he said, we have to bring him right away. he understands and he speaks the language. he knows the culture. paris is in trouble. he said, that is your problem. that is your contact. end of discussion. that is the story. what you are saying is not true. another was out of the white house. has nothing to do with anything. that had nothing to do with anything. whatever. >> was that a policy that was good for the jewish state? >> i think hindsight is a wonderful thing.

i cannot have a rational discussion about it. i do not believe that there are palestinian people. you are asking the wrong person about this. hindsight is a wonderful thing. >> for who? >> let's give other people a chance. >> me again. >> bill clinton and george darby bush are not on the ballot. what should we do -- george bush are not on the ballot. what should be doing? >> do you really want to answer that? >> one guy is terrible and the other is a moron on the campaign trail. what would like to do? i have a rope and i have a gun. which would you prefer it? >> i beg to differ.

>> if i ran this campaign, i would be fired and never allowed to work again. i am voting for harry truman. [laughter] >> we have time for one more question. get the microphone to the gentleman in the middle. over there. >> hank, i see the photo of prime minister benjamin netanyahu and president clinton. why did clinton like to benjamin netanyahu in regards to politics? -- lie to benjamin netanyahu in regards to politics? >> i do not know the answer to the question. you need to go to his house.

he lives in maryland. live on the lawn until you stop the nonsense he has been doing for the last 20 or so years. >> one more? >> i think that is about it for questions. appreciate it, and gentlemen. [applause] >> live campaign 2012 coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern with the indiana u.s. senate debate. the party candidates also debate tonight, including a libertarian, gary johnson, a constitution candidate, and another with the justice party. that is at 9:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. but two weeks until the election, we will have another rally with mitt romney and paul ryan later today.

it will be live at 9 of 5:00 p.m. eastern in colorado. -- 9:05 p.m. eastern in colorado. >> here's what some viewers had to say. >> i was excited watching the debate. what i saw in the obama was presidential. what i heard was leadership. i appreciated that he was straight forward about his own positions. what i heard from governor romney was a parent. that did not interest me. -- was a parrot. that did not interest me. >> i bet governor romney won the debate hands down. >> i am so proud of president obama. when a romney is ask the question, he looks like he cannot take pressure. >> mr. romney looked a bit where

she washy. early in the debate, he made -- wishy washy. the earlier in the debate, he commented on having a backbone. later he said he wants to deal with pakistan. >> i want to say something about the moderator's in the debate. they seem one-sided. i believe in governor romney. i hope that people open their eyes and take notes of what is going on in our country. >> mitt romney can answer the questions. he did not walk around them. people say that he tiptoes around them, but he does not. he was very consistent. obama has not been consistent. >> i thought that debate kind allowed on the questions that were asked. -- lagged on the questions that were asked. they started talking of the

domestic economy. they tried to tie it in an to what the question was. i do not think either candidate really -- the kept going back to the economy. >> i felt that governor romney had done an excellent job. he was very presidential. the main point was that at the end of the comments, our family has not been not been protected as a nation. our borders are open. the issues that were discussed and i on foreign policy, i felt that romney was going to get my vote for sure on those points. >> ipod governor romney was comfortable talking about the economy -- i though governor romney was comfortable talking about the economy. i thought obama was comfortable talking more about foreign

policy. >> i found him to be the jakarta of our generation. -- jimmy carter of our generation. >> i think the obama won this debate. i thought romney sounded a bit like obama. >> president obama romney, both of them failed to say anything -- and romney, both of them fail to see anything about the businesses. >> i think i know all three presidential debates, this was by far the strong showing. he was extremely presidential. he was very assertive. he called out romney on some of his comments was such progress and being polite. it was admirable to what our president to defend his policies.

>> as with all the candidates, watch and engage with c-span. >> of those were some of the comments by viewers on last night's presidential debate. who do you think won the debate? that is one of our facebook's questions. let us know what you think facebook.com/cspan. here is a short clip and president obama pose a relationship with israel. >> we are four years closer to a nuclear iran. we should not have wasted these four years to this extent. that is number one. mr. president, the reason why i called it an apology to or is because you went to the middle east and you went to egypt and saudi arabia and turkey and iraq. by the way, isreal he skipped,

our closest friend in the region. they noticed that use get isreal -- they noticed that you skipped isreal. you said that america has dictated to other nations. mr. president, we have not dictated to other nations. we have freed other nations from dictators. >> if we are going to talk about trips that we have taken, when i was a candidate for office, the first trip i took was to visit our troops. when i went to isreal as a candidate, i did not attend fundraisers. i went to the holocaust museum there to remind myself the nature of evil and why our bond with isreal is unbreakable. then i went to the towns that

had experienced missiles raining down on them. i saw families there who showed me where missiles had come down near their children's bedrooms. i was reminded of what that would mean if that were my kids. but as i as president, we funded a program to stop those missiles. that is how i have used my troubles. and i travel to isreal and all over the region -- the central question of this point will be, who is going to be credible to all parties involved? and it looked might track record. it can be the iran sanctions or supporting democracy or supporting women's rights are religious minorities. they can see the president of the united states has stood on the right side. that kind of credibility is

precisely why been we have been able to show leadership on a wide range of issues facing the world right now. >> that was part of last night's debate. it did go to our facebook page, you tell us what you thought were the high and low points of of the debate. go to facebook.com/cspan. int is the governor's race utah. it is about an hour. >> i welcome you to this debate between the candidates for governor of utah. governor. >> thank you. thank you to all of the pbs affiliates, are part of this debate. good to be here with my good friend, peter cook.

when i came to office, i took over at a difficult time in our state's history. there was economic downturn in our state since the great depression. i talked about my priorities and what i would focus on. one would be on the job creation. second would be education. three would be energy development. i am pleased to report that three years later we have success in the areaevery area. the economy is back on the right path and growing again. our unemployment rate went down to 5.8%. we're putting more money into public education than ever before. we had an energy plan and which we are developing our natural resources. the state government is more efficient than ever before. it is open and transparent. it is getting good bang for the taxpayers box. i thank you for your support. and look for your vote on

november 6. >> now the 62nd opportunity for peter,. -- 60 second opening for peter cooke. >> right now, the part-time legislature is running the full- time government. never in our history as the governor had so many outed by his own party. taxpayers lost $13 million. the department of health is being audited 800,000 for stolen potential loss of $100 million. the department of work for services is also being audited. we just found out about radioactive waste was illegally

buried in utah and our governor did not even know. the choice is clear. we can choose salesmanship or leadership. thank you. >> thank you. ground rules are simple. questions will come directly from the studio audience. we have many students from the salt lake university of utah. each candidate will have up to 90 seconds for the initial response to the question. rebuttal time will be available. with that said, i talked about several of the organizations involved. one of the organizations as the utah foundation. they have identified issues that are on the minds of viewers. good to have you with us. offer up that first question. >> thank you. rapidlyung and gravity

growing state, we have needs for many services. this week, utah foundation shows we have become 31st in the nation. what is your approach and making your top's tax system provide adequate funding for these pressing needs? >> i do not think it is a bad thing that our tax burden has gone down. we have needs out there. we have been competitive because we have reduced their tax rates. we have states that have zero income tax rate. in order to be competitive in the marketplace, it is necessary to be competitive in our tax rate. how you pay for bills is by growing the economy. we focus on creating economic opportunity in the private sector. getting government in its proper role.

let the private sector expand the economy. it provides opportunity for people to have jobs and pay for their own bills. it unpaid for the services that the people think important -- think are important. guess what? it is working. it puts money into higher education. that came from expanding and growing the economy. that is the important part. there are only three ways to pay for the services -- cut something else out or raise taxes or you grow the economy. i have chosen to do the latter. it is working for utah. we have been recognized as the most business family area in america. >> of general crooooke. >> he has made an important

point. since 1995, our state has neglected education. we have taken our taxes down and put money into infrastructure. that has caused our education, which is the number one reason why businesses come to our states. if we do not take care of education, we cannot move forward. the most important thing to do with in the first 120 days, i will show how our state moves from 50 to 30. that means we had to put everything on the board. look at every part of the taxes. from the earmarks and exemptions and from expenditures. without education, without us looking at that, we lose. i think the most important thing is to realize that we have

kicked this can for too long. we have pushed it to that side. i will tell you a son was brought business to our state, -- as someone who has brought business to our state, we need to do something about education in our state. that will cause economic growth in our future. >> as sounds like he wants to raise taxes. there is a reason why i have been endorsed for my re- election. i have been recognized as being at the forefront of the education. we have eight very -- we are working together. we are putting money in education. i cannot answer for 1997, but for the last three years i have been in charge, i have increased education spending. that is why the we have the

business and education committee endorsing my campaign. >> general crooke. >> i did not say anything about raising taxes. you got an f in helping our state. you cannot even take our stake from 50 to 49. 49.tate tfrom 50 to you have been in op-eds for several years and not just two. -- office for several years and not just two. >> i have had great success in bringing people together. i have created a commission that has brought people from both parties and from the schools

themselves and in private business and together we have had 16 different initiatives that passed unanimously. if you are passed by the legislature. -- 50 were passed by the legislature. education is number one in my budget. i have the support of teachers and leaders from businesses. we have great results. we have many taking advanced in placement courses. our test scores are eighth in the nation. >> another 45 seconds for you general. >> you have to go to the facts, governor. you have to put your money where your mouth is. you have to make it a priority.

we have to face this issue. i do not care how many commissions you have. you have gone from 50 to 50. we are letting our children down and our business is down. they're trying to give you a message that we need to make a change. >> there are many additional issues to consider. you talk about the land of utah. >> utah is known for its a geographical features. as governor, how do you plan to maintain the balance of developing energy is, but still maintaining you top's planned -- utah's land? >> that is a very important question. utah is defined by its quality of life. i have not supported the land grab. if you ever looked at that as a

business transaction and put all of our environment in jeopardy, the retail association with the people of recreational business are behind and supporting me because -- dick for example $300 million per year we get from the federal government. $50 million, in. add on to that making the transaction and selling it, you have to put that in escrow. at the same time, it of water and infrastructure. it does not tell the issues for education. that would take 15 or 20 years. we kick the can when more time down the road. the most important thing is what we did as democrats. under the cooke -- he will do

the same thing. if we lose our environment, we lose a big part of who we are in this state. >> your opportunity. >> part of my administration's efforts is to bring a balance to the education -- equation. the chairman of a committee is one of the leading environmentalists in our state's history. he is trying to find the right balance and to protect areas that need protecting and also maintain outdoor recreation. we also recognize the needs to access our natural resources. we put together an energy plan for 10 years to see what can we do to access those god-given natural resources and do it in a balanced way or we can be good

stewards of the earth and use technologies and have minimal disturbance of the environment out there and access the energy that we are capable of doing. it gives us competitive advantage economically. in utah, we have energy costs which is 31% below the national average. we are creating new jobs and accessing our energy capability. reding competitive things on the manufacturing and business front. we are approaching it in a very balanced way. >> rebuttal time. your first 30 seconds. >> i want to bring balance back to the state government. i must say to you, governor, that the whole approach has not been balanced. those persons are upset about

this. there is no clear understanding. how in the world can you take on this thing without understanding all of the possibilities to make it work? the people in this state want clean air and to protect the environment and they want a strong education. that is what i will do. >> your opportunity. >> i agree with you are saying. we are not only talking about it. we are doing it. we have three arrows on the quiver when it talks about this. we have negotiated some good opportunities in a bipartisan way is with the public lands. we also have the ability to legislate. we will litigate. we have roads up there and that we cannot agree on whether they are roads are not. to negotiate a settlement, you

need to go to court. all three are part of our process to make sure we have a proper balance and that you talk has been put on our public lands. >> we will touch on a topic that touches the big three -- food, clothing, and shelter. your question is on housing. >> utah spends less state dollars on affordable housing than any other state in the country. what would you do as governor to increase resources for affordable housing, especially for low income housing? >> here is your first 92nd opportunity. -- 90 second opportunity. >> we need to have free market competition and garment. we'll make sure that there is competition and that zoning does not get in the way. we need investors to develop

housing. sometimes it gets in the way of how many you can have per acre. and make things more expensive and less affordable. we will provide opportunities for the marketplace to answer the demands of the market. as the one who has been involved in realistic for most of my adult life, i have a greater appreciation for the importance of people being able to live the american dream, which includes having a roof over your head and having your own peace of mother earth and real-estate. we house and great opportunities to work with the federal government for the federal housing programs. their low interest loans available for people in the private sector. -- they have low interest loans available for people in the private sector. our housing markets is back to where we are when we went into the great recession. prices are starting to stabilize and growing again.

realistic is a key issue when it comes to the economy. -- real estate is a key issue when it comes to the economy. we have turned the corner when it comes to economic growth again. >> general, your 90 second opportunity. >> i want to provide affordable housing for the state. i remember it was done by private, public partnerships. singleility to help u mothers and others beginning their occupation in life to move forward. that partnership help to bring affordable housing to many who have moved on and help our state to be able to be the beautiful state that it is. i would encourage this. i am an advocate for affordable

housing. it is an important piece that helps those who are starting out in life and those who have had disadvantages come to them. as your governor, i will make an emphasis and continue that partnership, which i think is critical. >> is there a need for a rebuttal? i think both of you made straightforward statements. let me come down. for those listening on the radio -- in the front row, a question on the subject of health care. >> as a united way board of directors member and as a supporter of many nonprofit organizations in utah, i mean concerned with growing health care costs. insurance premiums continue to grow at a faster rate than family income. if elected governor, what would you do to contain health care costs in the utah?

>> 90 second opportunity. >> i believe in the expansion of medicaid. we have until november 16 to make the response. it is a great investment for the state of utah. is% of our expenditures go to medicaid. as a small-business person, i know that feeling. i have been there. i have had to meet those demands of that high expenditure of health insurance. i am opposed -- it would put the state behind both in medicare and medicaid. i believe the state should be able to manage its own opportunities. that can be done if we have our own money. that is something we need to negotiate with the federal government. it is important to address this

issue. the state can handle education and the issue of health care. >> governor? >> health care is certainly an important issue. it's one of the most complicated and emotional issues of our time. the affordable care act has divided this nation that we've not seen since the vietnam war. it's been so emotional because we've not gotten any kind of bipartisan effort. it's been partisan since the beginning. states have not been invited to table to give input how it should be implemented. we don't have answers to questions today about the implementation of the affording care act. we started way before president obama took off. we've been cited as an example

of good quality health care. we have the lowest cost health care, at about the fifth or sixth rated in quality. so we're doing something right here in utah. we've had our second annual health care sum mutt designed to address these issues. what it's affordable care act all it talks about who's going to pay for it. we're looking it under the umbrella of budget. can we afford it? i hate to correct my good friend peter cooke but there's no deadline, november 16th, i don't know where that's coming from. there's a cost it to. and the question is, can we afford it? clearly we want to make sure that those who are most vulnerable amongst us are in fact, taken care of. the good news is we have a healthier economy. the healthier we are is a reflection of the wealthier we are. it has a reflection on the health of or populace.

>> we now have opportunity for rebuttal time. let me refocus the question as you consider your rebuttal time. how would a person listening at home or viewing this debate come to the conclusion that voting for you or you would make a difference in their health care situation? is it possible? does a governor make that type of difference and if so, how would you make that difference? >> yes. first of all, the united way has been on this issue for a long period of time and gave some of the greatest recommendations to the state legislature and none of them were accepted. to me, this issue is another issue that we can't keep kicking down the road. i hate to sate, but the governor, there is a deadline. on november the 16th, you have to submit how you're going to react to the affordable care act. and we have to meet that. and i feel that one of the most important things is i will listen to the community on this issue of medicaid. governor walker has supported me.

the american medical association is moving forward on the medicaid. they know that's the right way to go. we keep hearing the same thing. i haven't got enough information. i don't know where we're going with this issue yet. other states are moving out. you can see by the way the people are supporting the concept of medicaid is that we need to get behind this or the state will fall behind. >> governor, i'll give you another 45 seconds. >> november 16th, has to do whether we're going to keep our own exchange of where we started. we called the exchange. and that's the only issue. whether we do that or having the federal people come in and down their own exchange. it is about partnership. i've talked about unprecedented partnerships in the beginning of my administration. we're doing it better and more than any administration previous to my time. there's a private sector responsibility. certainly as we have moneys that come to us from the federal program we need to administer those as best we can. it gives us opportunities. it gives us more opportunity to find innovative ways to spend tax dollars more effectively and

efficiently. it will be a partnership with the government having a role to play and the private sector. and we will protect the most vulnerable amongst us. >> we have reached the midpoint of our debate. we will be right back. >> and returning once again to our studio audience. first opportunity to respond to this question will go to governor herbert. and your question? >> as you know, governor, utah is one of 12 states that has instate college tuition for undocumented students. how and what will you do to protect that law here in utah? and do you support a federal dream act? >> i support the law we have in utah. and i think it's worked well for

us. the immigration is a significantly difficult issue. again, it's very emotional and it's complicated. we will come up with a broad approach to immigration, reform in utah based on the rule of law but with a compassionate component to it to keep families together and offering a worker permit. discussion is needful. we recognize the absence of the federal government. we have some significant problems with immigration in the state and in this country. we hope to get the federal government off the sidelines and into the game. utah has received national attention and most of it positive. we've had nobody that has boycotted our businesses. we've had no one boycotting our state. and we have nobody boycotting our church. on balance, i think we've done a really good job in utah of addressing a very complicated issue that's been neglected by the federal government.

our institution has worked very well for us. i see no reason to change it. >> general cook, your 90-second chance to respond? >> do i believe in the dream act? yes. i want to say an important piece is not only have education but minority business opportunities. when i was the director of economic develop for the state of utah we had a minority program to help those just beginning in this country, to have a way to start their own business. i would reinstate that. this governor has taken those things out of his operation. the second thing is i assigned the compact which is important. i think that is a way of showing how we will handle the future of immigration. the governor has refused to sign that. so the important piece is our economy,.

our whole state is changing. we need to adopt that. what a great culture we have. what a great state we have and how diverse we are. let's use that diversity. let's bring it around. let's be able to build a state that shows compassion, a state that shows that we can work together and to be able to make a big difference, instead of again, splitting and dividing and that is horrible for any state. i think under our administration that's what you'll see and the re-inversions of a real exciting part of the community not only those from college but the technical schools elsewhere. >> i think it's a distortion to say i don't support the utah compact. i put out prior to the compact my own six guiding principles, trying to shepherd things through the legislature. i had proffered by own solutions. we have not backed out of our

minority outreach. we meet with the community all the time. having people to outreach into the minority community more than we've ever done in history. our efforts, in fact, are bringing us together, having economic opportunity and growth is taking place that benefits everybody. we're having great success. >> general cooke, your rebuttal opportunity? >> my rebuttal is real simple. that is sign the contract. that's showing unity right off the bat. business and the chamber of commerce, all the leaders and church organization have signed that. by signing that you bring unity. and that's an important piece on this issue.

there are so many important issues that we have to discuss in this state. make education a priority. this issue has divided our state. i think we've seen the leaders of our community and religious groups say, let's be one. governor, there's no distortion. sign it or not. >> your question turns -- actually you're representing voices for utah children, another one of the research organizations that have been invited to participate today. and your question is on childhood poverty. >> one out of six children are living in poverty, an increase of 45% since 2000. children in poverty struggle academically, are more likely to become pregnant, enter the justice system. as governor, what do you propose to do to help these kids and ensure that they become productive in our economy as adults?

>> i really feel that issue. i think we've neglected that issue completely. and as we grow the economy, if we forget those that we leif behind, that will eventually as you just stated, they end up being a more expensive problem down the road. we have to focus on that issue. we can't say that that is not a part of who we are. and i would put as i go through this concern that i have on education and i -- it's going to be a big one because when you've neglected education for 17 years -- neglected education for 17 years an you have to make up a $17.2 billion budget -- it doesn't happen with 200,000 here and 200,000 there, that will be part of our discussion because we've got to start with our young. we have to be one. and as we say in the military, we leave nobody behind. >> governor herbert, your 90- second opportunity? >> i think our hearts break when we see people in poverty.

we have a country that's rich in abundance and certainly our state is on the road to recovery. if there's even one person in poverty, it's one too many. i was down at the food bank here just a week and a half ago working there to help. and you know, as you see those boxes of groceries being put together, it makes you wonder why that's happening. it will take a combination of efforts to make sure that we take care of those who are needy among us. the scripture tells the poor will always be among us. we will find the best solution for those who are needy. the government has a role as a safety net provider. we want to make sure that we're doing that in the best way that we can. we recognize that the first phone call probably shouldn't be to the federal government. it ought to be to ourselves as

neighbors because it's a much more efficient way to help people. if i reach in my pocket and give you a dollar, you get the dollar. growing the economy is the best thing i can do. making sure they have a job so they can help themselves. the last 12 months those who have accessed food stamps have dropped 3.1%. for those accepting taft has dropped 17.9%. so growing the economy is a big part in helping those who are impoverished and in need. >> rebuttal time, general cooke. >> we need to get that money back in. i'm not saying that the federal government needs to step in. i agree that each one of us should help as we move forward. but again, without education you cannot have an economic development program. and without that we can't move this tide up.

that's important to realize. probably the most important thing here is that we have lost -- this economy has not recovered. in the last three months we have started to see unemployment go. and then we have 80,000 people still without jobs and that needs to be taken care of. >> governor herbert? >> if you wonder about the economy and i believe it is true. it's certainly a part and parcel to help the needy. just go to the salt lake chamber of commerce web page. as they look at the last numbers, our economy has grown 3.6%. our historical average has been 3.1%. we've gone through the worst economic times in our state's history since the great depression. and we've got to this trough and we've peaked over the top. that's going to help our needy people among us and our education has been a significant effort.

i've said from the very beginning we cannot have long- term sustained economic growth without a good education program. and we are doing that. we're having significant success in our education efforts more so in the last three years than in the last 10. >> another question. governor herbert, you'll have the first 90-second response to this. >> do you support same sex marriage? and if not, what do you support and what is your stance? >> i don't support same sex marriage. marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. we have -- that's part of our constitution. and in utah, unless that constitution's changed anything akin to that will be rejected by our constitution. that being said i certainly believe that people ought to be treated with respect and their civil rights ought not to be violated when it comes to housing, medical care, when it comes to business opportunities

an job hiring and i think in utah we're doing a pretty good job of that. i like the approach we have here in the state where we have some quality laws that are coming from local governments in a bottom-up approach. should that's the way it happen. local governments recognize their own community interests. i don't like the top-down approach. i rail against the federal government giving us a one size fits all on education or those kinds of things that we get from the federal government. likewise as a local government official myself and my past, i don't like the state telling the local government what to do either. i think we ought to treat each other with respect and kindness and civility. but i do not support same sex marriage. >> general cooke? >> you're correct, the constitution limits us on that. but let me tell you what i am for. i am for a statewide nondiscrimination law because like anything anywhere else you can't just have small

communities put together, nondiscrimination laws. it's supported by the l.d.s. church and the chamber of commerce. let's be a church that talks about nondiscrimination. that's the next step the governor should do. that's the next step a legislature should do. that's not forcing things down -- i'll tell you, i go to so many cities and the questions they ask me, all the regulations that the state government is pushing down on our local government. this is not that. this is just showing we're a compassionate state. that we have the capabilities of reaching out and showing who we are and caring about equality and nondiscrimination. let's get that done and be -- a proud state to be able to stand on that. >> rebuttal.

>> he's disavowed the democratic party that supporting marriage. i believe the approach is better from the bottom up. i don't know if he's speaking for the l.d.s. church. but i've never heard them say we need to have a statewide law. again, i think he's overstating his position or at least the position the l.d.s. church and the process we have in place which is an evolutionary process as the market bares and as people have the desires to change comes from the people, the communities and will eventually go to the state. >> yeah, i think that's kind of condescending. i will clarify that the l.d.s. church did support the salt lake city concept of having nondiscrimination. i did jump to that conclusion. but i can tell you that to be a compassionate people we need to

make this move and as a state we need to show that. that's important. and to be able to say that i disavow or anything else -- i am a utah -- i put utah first. i'm a utah democrat and i'm proud of that. there are some things that i disagree on the federal level. but when it comes to nondiscrimination, no american -- i fought for that in the military. and i think that's important. we do it in the military. we can do it here. and that's the way we need to go as a state. >> back to our audience. another question from a student. and you have a number of questions written down there. i wonder if we could probably just get to that first one. >> ok. utah's previous governors were both governs were against dumping radioactive wastes.

are the dollars worth jeopardizing utah residents? >> right. you heard my opening remarks that we have found nuclear ways right here in our state. and by the agreement with energy solutions that nuclear waste cannot be put on our state without his signature. so that is horrible. and then to think that we would have put on the energy solution on the board to oversee that, to me, again, shows where there's extreme discrepancies on where we need to go as a state. we cannot be a dumping ground. we will not be a dumping ground in my administration. and that's something that utah has to stand for because we've had enough of a problem with downwind. now we have side winds coming from the other side that's got to stop. and there's where leadership as i started from the begin is different from salesmanship. we have to lead forward.

you cannot have a conflict of interest with businesses and that is a prime example why there's a lot of voter -- people in the voting population don't really want to vote because they see things like this. that gives confidence in my kids or anything else that there is not oversight. and you need a watchdog and you need balanced government and that's how it happens. >> governor herbert, your opportunity to respond? >> well, this isn't a dictatorship. we are a state of laws and a federal government of laws. whether the former governors didn't approve of nuclear wastes being stored in utah, i would let them answer that. what we do know is that they understood the rule of law. there's been a permitting process in place to take low- level class a waste.

it's identified by the federal government. it's labeled and because of that they are permitted to bring it here. it has nothing to do with resigning it. they have a right to bring in for low-level class a waste. we have oversight responsibilities as a state. the issue that took place here not too long ago where we had some that got in that was mislabeled, actually got reassembled and came back as low-level class a waste was a mistake made by the federal government from the department of energy. it was our people working with energy solutions and discovered it in their sampling process and made them go back and look through their computer data to discover 17 different containers that had been scattered out there. we have good oversight. health and welfare has to be the primary concern. but they have a right to store class a waste. they have a certain finite capacity. they will probably turn over the responsibility to the federal government to maintain it from that point forward. >> rebuttal time. >> i fought for a free country. i understand the principle of law.

it's class c. class c was founded. and i'll tell you that is a serious oversight problem by the governor and by his radiation committee and everything else. that's a fact. governor, you keep trying to push away from the facts and education and here and you've got to stop. >> governor, you have the opportunity to respond to that. >> yeah, sure. where to begin? you could distort the facts and draw indirect conclusions. i don't stand throughout with every train of waste that comes in and stick any finger in the pot.

we have people that do that. there's a process with the federal government on how you ascertain what the level of the waste is. energy solutions can take class a waste. there was no question it was mislabeled by the department of energy. that's a federal problem. it's been discovered. a lot of people agreed to the solution. the interesting thing is is that the level of radioactivity has not changed at all out there. there's no public safety issue. and so this scare mongering taking place is just unfortunate. >> we have another question from a student from the university of utah. >> the utah transparency project, a project headed by the university of utah students created a detailed list of best practices that could be made in local government. however, change can occur on a statewide level.

as governor, how would you make state government practices more transparent throughout the state? >> well, we've done a number of things. i had the same concerns when i came in as governor. we created a utahtransparency.com website so you can see where the dollars are being spent, who's getting the money. you can drill down and get very detailed analysis of how we're spending the money, what we're doing. secondly, i called upon to find more efficiency -- utah has always been recognized as one of the most efficient states in america. how can we get better? i got together a committee of people inside and outside of the government and review every department, every cabinet member. they had to see what we could do optimize our services to the taxpayer.

they found out, one, we were pretty efficient. and two, they found out there was 56 recommendations that we could implement that could improve it even better. we've done some wonderful things with state government to make it more efficient and transparent. we've managed the money really well. we're doing more with less. we had 22,069 employees. at the same time our population has increased by 600,000. so we are doing more with less. the taxpayers are getting good bang for their buck. we've never had a more efficient government than the government we had today. >> and general cooke? >> in my opening remarks i showed all of the different audits that are being taken on right now by the government. so i don't call that efficiency. number two is can we be more transparent? yes, we can and we should. and that transparency starts at the top. under our administration it will be transparent there.

will be nothing that you will not know about what's going on in the governor's office. those secret last-minute meetings, i will not have monthly press conferences. i will have weekly press conferences. that's the only way we'll give confidence to the people to believe back in government. there is too many behind the door meetings, too many lack of openness and i'll tell you another thing i want to do, is i want to take our cabinet meetings throughout the state and let people in each part of our state to be open and see the transparency of our government and ask questions that we can meet and address because the less -- unless we get that openness in government -- i don't care -- i don't know how you come up with we're the most efficient because you're not. but transparency has to occur. my kids were asking me the other day, dad, explain to me what transparency means. what i've learned in the military is you don't have to be wondering when somebody is not watching what you're doing. that's how it is.

government should be open. it should be for the people. we should be servants of the people. we shouldn't hide our information. we need to be there for you and you will be there for us and we can give confidence and solve problems. >> rebuttal time? >> it doesn't surprise me general that you find problems. it's the political season. your job south bound to find problems out there. i'm sure if i gave you a plate of doughnuts, rather than seeing the donut, you'll see the hole. that's just part of the season you're seeing here today. being a good leader is getting good results and good outcomes. we're getting those. it's not absence of problems. we have rules and regulations an laws that we have to follow when we have problems. we've discovered them. we've taken corrective action

and we've got good result as recognized by people outside of our state's borders. >> general cooke, your 30-second opportunity. >> i think governor if you'd give me a donut, i'd probably eat it. but i want to say something important about the future of this government is that you know, honesty and transparency comes out and it's felt by the people and then they get excite about being back in government. i don't sense that. and when we can clearly talk about how efficient the government is, let me tell you, when i was a director for the state of utah, forbes magazine vote us to best place to do business. i can show you year after year for the last 20 years that we've had those same kind of great remarks from forbes and etc. >> we have time for one last question. unfortunately, i will have to limit your response time to 45 seconds only. >> dirty air and dirty water

hurt our tourism. will you reduce the urban air pollution by reducing utah's oil dependence on cars? >> absolutely. and we have to invest in mass transit. we cannot ignore the clean air. it's hurting our health. we have regulations from the e.p.a. but they were saying if we don't meet that we'll lose our highway funds. we have to address this again. leadership vs. head-on government. we have to meet that. >> we're working with the mayor from utah city. a few years ago we didn't use recycling. now we recycle. some of it is a cultural change. our state's fleet has been converted to gas cars. we've invested $4 million a study to make sure we're dealing

with the issues out there in the basin. i just went to the valley with a council. worked on air issues. all of us a have role to play, not just government but we as individuals and businesses have to come together to clean up the air. >> we must now close to closing statements. it was determined that governor herbert would have the first opportunity. that's not correct, is it? governor herbert, you will have the first minute opportunity. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to explain our visions for the state of utah as we go forward. i have a track record i'm proud of. wife had great success working together. when i first was inaugurated we talked about unprecedented partnerships giving us unlimited possibilities.

that clearly is of open as we see positive advancements in every area. is it perfect? no. but is it better? positively it's better. we have people working on education, transportation, health an human services, and in every area we're having success. people outside of our state are telling us about our successes, gives us accolades. that shows leadership. i'll finish by saying "the wall street journal" and talking about the successes of utah said that utah is the brightest star on the flag. myt's because under leadership we're coming together in unprecedented ways, giving us unlimited possibilities and tremendous effort in the state. vote for herbert on november 6th.

>> governor cooke? >> i think the most important that could happen with leadership is to have balance, have balance in our government where people can have open expression an we can feel that we're a part of a government that can make a difference. that's the most important factor of our next state. we can do it. we did it in the olympics. we can do it now. that will make this state that much better. the important reasons why i'm running is because that balance is as a military person, i fought for democracy. i fought for the ability to have nondiscrimination. i fought for the beliefs that we believe in our country for our children and our future. all i can say to you, vote -- a vote for cooke will mean an opportunity for us to move forward.

>> gentlemen, thank you for your time today. we remind you that election day is november 6. we encourage you to go to voteutah.org. on behalf of utah's public broadcasters, i'm frank bedoya. \[captioning performed by national captioning institute] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> more live campaign 2012 coverage at 7:00 eastern with the indiana state debate. third party can it also debate include libertarian carey johnson, terrell stoglin, -- joe stein and others.

there's a knockoff eastern on c- span. with the election two weeks away, we will have another allied campaign rally with mitt romney and paul ryan. it is at morrison, colorado at 9:00 05 eastern on c-span two. there is a debate over who would best represent nevada in the house. topics include gay marriage in the new federal health care lost. courtesy of vegas cbs, this is 25 minutes. ♪ >> good evening. for the next 30 minutes, i will be moderating a debate between the democratic and republican candidates running in 4th congressional district. they will make opening and closing statements. they will respond to questions that i will ask of each candidate. now, i would like to introduce the candidates participating in the debate.

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

we discussed the issues that affect them and some solutions we hope to solve. i look forward to talking about those solutions today and i appreciate you watching. >> thank you. senator steven horsford, your opening statement. rex thank you. to all the viewers, thank you to pbs and our families and constituents from the fourth congressional district. there really are several terraces in this election. i am glad to be here to talk about the differences between me and my opponent. let us be clear. this election is not about me and it is really not about my opponent. it is about all of you at home. those of you who are worried about keeping the job you have, i will fight every day until everyone who wants a job has a job. those of you who are worried about the declining home values in our community, i will work hard every day to restore those batteries -- values. those concerned about the threat to medicare and social security, i will not break our promise to our parents and grandparents. i'm asking for your support. mym here today to talk about position and i need your vote. thank you.

>> thank you. the first question goes to mr. tarkanian. according to the las vegas sun, you supported the arizona crackdown in 2010 which included the profiling of hispanics in the state. how do you explain his position to the 27% of the people in cd 4 2 are hispanic? >> what i stated to the las vegas son was this -- i believe arizona had the duty and obligation to do what they felt was best to protect the safety and welfare of the citizen. arizona passed the laws because there was so much crime being committed by people coming into the country illegally and they were worried about the health of the citizens.

i also stated to other news outlets at the time that -- they asked me if nevada needed that. with respect to the people that come to this country illegally, we are a country of rules and laws and we have to enforce those laws. if we want to solve the immigration problem, we have to find a way to do it so people can come to the country legally. >> my opponent said he loved the arizona anti-immigration law. and if he had it's -- his way, he would have allowed it to come to nevada. this was opposed by the resort association, the timbre of commerce and others. i join with those groups because they were concerned that that anti immigration law would have cost hundreds of conventions of thousands of job losses in our community. i believe we need comprehensive immigration reform. we need tough border security

and a comprehensive immigration policy. we are a nation of immigrants. i support the dream act. i will work hard to make sure young people who are brought here at no fault of their own are able to go on to college or serve in our military. >> thank you. the dissent and spirit >> this is another example of what you will see for the rest of the night. my opponent will misrepresent my campaign. what i said very clearly was arizona has the right to provide safety for their citizens and nevada has a right to determine whether they need that or not. even people who of come here legally would agree with that position.

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

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

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

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

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

>> my opponent wants to privatize social security. i will work to protect and preserve it. let's talk about what social security really is. people are entitled to it when they need it. my opponent wanted -- he said he would allow wall street to determine whether or not people have social security in place. if we allow that to happen, we have seen what it has done to the housing market, i imagine what that would have done to some people dependent on social security. he also was determined care into a voucher program. he says that the lion but it was a good place to start. that it could place to start, it is where medicare will end. i would protect and preserve it. he was to turn it into a voucher. >> if there was a new job created for misrepresentation, the unemployment rate would have doubled under his leadership. i never said those things.

i believe us as individuals know what is best for our investment of money. we do not need government telling us that. >> thank you. mr. horsford, the next question. during the state legislator, you worked to close tax loopholes and eliminate tax deductions for the mining industry. the elimination of the tax protection in the state constitution. what will be your position on monday as a congressman given the fact that mining is huge in three counties that are now part of your congressional district? >> thank you. before i answer that, let me clearly state my opponent's position.

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

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

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

have with the taxes on the current industry. we need to diversify our economy. we have to look out at the box and do something. we have spent $12 billion to do the studies and infrastructure of yucca mountain. we should do something to help diversify the community there. i suggest we turned it into a processing facility for nuclear fuel. yet the people of nevada and not want that, we can turn into a data storage facility. it would create some more jobs and tax revenues for the people of nevada. we could turn it into a training facility for the military. but let's do something to create jobs. >> my opponent is talked-about using nuclear waste as an economic diversification strategy. something that our governors, regardless of party and our entire delegation as opposed to. this is dangerous, it is bad for business, it is bad for our communities.

but we can do to diversify the economy is support the economic diversification plan i worked with the governor on last session which identifies 7 key industries we could go nevada's economy. in renewable energy, for example. to do these things, we have to make the right choices. like making sure there is a world-class education for every child and that we're making our colleges and universities available for those who want to be trained and educated. my opponent does not have a clear plan. i have worked with the governor and others to create one for the state of nevada.

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

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

right now. let's talk about what is wrong with obamacare. there are four major things. we have a job crisis here in our country. and nevada. obamacare imposes a $2,000 a person employed tax on every employer. all that will do is make employers fire people or cut them down to a part-time waitress. we need jobs. people cannot afford to pay for their homes and put food on the table. this individual mandate opposes another tax -- imposes another tax. it guts medicare. takes $760 out of medicare. >> these are not average low- income people. these are my constituents. this in which it requires a working together to get things done. my opponent has no ideas and the positions except extreme ones.

he wants to align himself with the tea party. >> thank you. we have to go to the last question. mr. tarkanian, he will answer it first. it's been a year since the repeal of don't ask don't tell. give me your opinion of that and the defense of marriage act. >> i did not to low income. as a medium income people because that is what he claims to protect. but his policies have failed. if he cared so much about those people, he would not have double the car registration tax.

with respect to they don't ask policy, i believe is to be left up to the military. with respect to the defense america act, i believe that should be a state issue and states should determine how they want -- the laws they want for that state. i am a big believer in state rights. >> i support marriage equality for all people. i also agree with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. but my opponent is talked about it again. these people. middle income. low income. how about free represent every person in nevada. every person in congressional district for. i have the spirit of getting

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

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

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

debate live from indiana. later on tonight we'll have a debate between third-party presidential candidates, including libertarian johnson, constitution party candidate goud and anderson with the justice party. that's live at 9:00 eastern here on c-span. and the republican presidential ticket, mitt romney and paul ryan, will ha the battlegrounds states, starting with florida. brian crowell le, lenny curry, and democratic consultant steven vancore. you can see "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. now live to indiana with a senate debate between state treasurer richard mourdock, joe donnelly and andrew horning. the political report rates the race as a tossup. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> welcome to the campus of indiana university southeast in new albany, indiana. we're here for the second of two debates featuring candidates for the u.s. senate from indiana and the debates are sponsored by the indiana debate commission. i'm dennis ryerson, a retired editor of the "indianapolis star" and i'll be moderating tonight's debate. candidates will answer questions by indiana voters. tonight's debate is being carried live on radio and television stations throughout indiana and also being broadcast live nationwide on c-span. the indiana debate commission is a nonprofit, non-groft organization dedicated to expand opportunities for voters to hear candidates' views on issues of importance. to learn more go to our website indianadebatecommission.com. the debate commission's motto is putting voters first, so

awful the questions tonight came from voters throughout the state. one the voters is in attendance tonight. he'll be asking the question of his own. i'll be asking questions on behalf of others. each candidate will have one minute to answer most questions and we'll try for 30-second rebuttals, so long as we have time. midway through the program we'll take a page from history with a sequence borrowed from the famous lincoln-douglas debates. after the candidates take part in that segment we'll return to voter questions and then we'll end with a final general question in which each candidate has 90 seconds for a closing statement. we want to maximize time for candidates to present their views association in that regard we've asked the audience to avoid disruptive outbursts. the candidates are closest to me on the stage, richard mourdock, republican, andrew horning, libertarian, and joe donnelly, democrat. gentlemen, thanks for being with us tonight. we begin with a one-minute opening statements, beginning

with mr. mourdock. >> good evening. just 13 days until a very important election and the fact that it's important here in indiana cannot be outweighed by the fact that it's important nationally, because it may well determine the majority in the united states senate. with 14 days to go one thing is clear. in the six years of record hyped him, my opponents, mr. donnelly, has a clear track record of saying one thing and then heading a different direction by the time he's serving in office. he's a fiscal conservative, and yet he supported stimulus. he supports big spending. the fact is, we're going forward now and you need to know about who the other candidates are and quite simply, i'm a geologist, unlikely as it may seem. five years ago i was asked to join governor daniels' team and i did my part during those tough days of the financial downturn to make sure indiana lived within its means. we've kept this state going. we've been a part of indiana's comeback. we look forward to taking

hoosier common-sense principles to washington. >> mr. horning. >> thank you, all. i won't belabor the points i made last time about the status quo being dysfunction a.m. you all know that. so i don't need to say too much about the two-party system. but most people agree with me now more than they agree with the other guys, the guys you're most likely to vote for. what i hear most of the time is andy, your odds are not good. what i want to talk about is first of all the odds are that we are in a very special country, that it's never happened before in human history, where we've had so many liberties that we've thrown away. all nations fall sooner or later. we don't want to go with odds. we wants to fight the odds. in fact, i think right now what you see is an opportunity toe do something that all of us wanted to do for a long time. you can say no to all of the above and vote for something other than the two-party system. that's the option i'm putting on here. i'll talk more specifically about what a constitutionist is. but there's something we need to deal with before we get to

eyed loling, and that is we have a croney network running the country. >> mr. donely. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the chance to be here with my friends. the question is, who will be a strong, independent voice fighting for you? i have always been that way in my service. i voted for $2.4 trillion in spending cuts. voted for a balanced budget amendment. support the keystone pipeline. that is something we need to do in our country. my opponent, mr. mourdock, said the highlight of politics for him is to inflict his opinion on other people. for me it's the chance to see a veteran come home and get a good job. it is the chance to see our autoworkers be able to go to work every day because we stepped up to rescue those companies. senator lugar and senator bayh have had it right, politics. it's not about the left or right, it's about america. they say i vote with the democrats 70% of the time. i vote with the republicans 60%

of the time. but i vote for hoosiers 100% of the time. >> thank you, mr. donnelly. now we're going to turn to questions from voters, and our first voter present with us tonight is andrew rudd. he's a senior at west lafayette high school. he serves on the students council. he is a voting age. he voted for the first time in the may primary. he's the model of youth engaugement in civic affairs, and keeping with the situation last night, the presidential debate was on foreign policy. andrew's question is about foreign policy. andrew, welcome. please ask your question. [inaudible question] >> ok, thank you.

i think we had a mic problem, andrew, but i'll restate the question. andrew said, does currents u.s. foreign policy in the middle east undermine our national security? do you agree or disagree? what steps should be taken in foreign policy in the middle east? mr. mourdock, one minute. >> well, our foreign policy is of critical concern, of course, and in the middle east we must always, first and foremost, stand by our great friend, israel, and also, we must be making the message that no options can be taken off the table as we look toward the nuclear iran. but to the bigger points of our national security, you know it was the former head of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen, that said the greatest threat to our national security is our own national debt. the fact that we have now spent ours noose a $16 trillion debt is inexcusable. the fact that we continue to see the debt limit raised and mr. donnelly has raised it no less than seven times, without ever demanding real fiscal responsibility, this is a clear

and present danger. we continue to loan money to people from whom we borrow money. we have to get our spending under control and then, when we do that, we will again be able to make sure we fully fund the military to make sure that we are always going to have the greatest military defense in the world. >> ok, thank you. mr. horning. >> well, i'm clearly the peace through strength candidate. i do not believe our international games of whack a mole have done any good and have done the oms. if you look up something like the petro dollar and tie the fact that our monetary scheme is now tied to oil more than it is to anything else, you'll see that a good part of our foreign policy not just in the middle east but elsewhere is tied to all of the worst decisions we've made from the central banking, and i'm opposed to that. i'm opposed to just about anything that i've seen coming out of washington, d.c. for the last 70 years or so. make that more like 100 years. we have not had a year's peace since the war to end all wars. we have not had to declared war

since world war ii. it's not working. i would say that what we ought to be doing is peace, commerce, healthy skepticism with all nations and entangling alliances with none. >> thank you. mr. donnelly, one minute. >> well, first and foremost, osama bin laden is dead. in regards to iran, they cannot get a nuclear weapon. it is a non-negotiable point. what you've seen so far with the sanctions is their currency is worth 80% less than it was just a few years ago. their oil shipments have almost completely dried up. so we continue to put pressure on iran and we stand with our friend, israel, because an attack on israel is an attack on the united states. we stand together as a team to make sure that iran cannot get a nuclear weapon. and in regards to afghanistan, the bravest young men and women

that have ever seen the face of the earth are serving our country there. i've been in the living rooms of the men and women who serve. we will stand with them and they will be home by mid 2014. >> gentlemen, we'll now do rebuttals. mr. mourdock. >> again, we cannot have a strong national defense if, first and foremost, we cannot control our own budget. as we see now the obamacare bill is going to cost us $1.7 trillion going forward. that is an expense that we have to realize was a mistake. mr. donnelly was the deciding vote for that bill. when you take that kind of money out of our economy ultimately you're going to weaken our defense and you're also going to weaken our economy because as we have to pay more and more just to pay the interest on our debt it's pulling money out of our economy that would otherwise be creating jobs that would be putting hoosiers back to work. it is time we deal more directly with the idea that we deal with our budget, that we start to reduce that spending. >> thank you very much. mr. horning.

>> well, as i often say -- we agree, by the way, on the notion that we can have sort of unlimited warfare with only a sort of the sky is the limit approach. we always back up our friends as sort of the outcome for united states citizens. i have to say whenever i see democrats and republicans agree it's because they're wrong. and we really ought to be thinking long and hard about whether we want to keep doing this. we've been doing it forever. we're not the policemen of the world. nobody ever gave us that role. we're supposed to be more like the swiss, armed to the teeth, recommends defor what comes to our borders, but otherwise leave everybody else alone. >> thank you, mr. donnelly, 30 seconds. >> mr. mourdock's only unique contribution to the health care discussion has been when he was in jeffersonville and told the newspaper that employers, if they want to, should be able to not have cancer care. that's his only unique contribution. in regards to our foreign policy, our greatest treasure, our men and women who are serving. and we have to make wise

decisions for them, and they should be coming home to rebuild indiana, not just kabul and kandahar. >> our next question is from jennifer everett, an assistant professor at depauw university in greencastle. she asks this -- the drought we experienced this summer was devastating to hoosier farmers and local economies and posed a threat to public health. whether or not this drought can be attributed to climate change, climate scientists agree that we will see more droughts and more extreme heat, some more threats to public health and the economy. i'm not asking whether you agree with this consensus, i'm asking if you believe the u.s. government has a significant responsibility to help communities and individuals prepare for climate-related threats to our well-being, and if so, what specific policies would you recommend? if not, do you think that adapting to climate instability is largely the responsibility of individuals and the private market? mr. horning, you'll go first

for one minutes. >> well, i'm glad she first dissected out what has been political. it's more a political discussion than it is science to talk about climate change. we don't know what a correct temperature is. but i do believe that there is a valid role for the federal government in protecting our resources. so i do believe that there is a very strong role that in fact is not being played out very well at all right now. in fact, croney capitalism being what it is, it's difficult for people to actually seek some kinds of compensation for when a company builds a plant right next to your farm and starts belching smoke into it, reducing your property value. we should have more recourse than we do in courts of law. unfortunately the tax litigation that these guys have been giving us for the last 100 years have made it difficult to hold large corporations accountable, because they are the biggest campaign contributors. we should be following the money on this and not thinking it's inconsequential if you have millions and now billions and trillions of dollars going

into campaigns. do we think that does not come without strings? when it comes to environment, that's serious. >> thank you. mr. donnelly, one minute. >> thank you. the first thing we should have done is pass a farm bill, and i fought on the floor night and day to pass that farm bill, to stand up for indiana's farmers. my friend, mike, with the indiana corn growers alliance. mike and i were shoulder to shoulder trying to get this done and the tea party folks in congress wouldn't put the bill on the floor for a vote. we need to stand with our farmers. they need certainty, they need reliability and i fought to try to get that done. i would rather actually be voting on the farm bill right now than be here at the debate. as much as i love being with my fellow hoosiers, we need to get the farm bill done. in addition to that, in regards to the energy piece, we need all in america energy. clean coal is a big part of this, whether it's coal lick question faction, coal gasification.

when we do these things and have american energy, we can also help clean up our environment. >> thank you. mr. mourdock. >> well, there is an interesting book written a few years ago called "cool it" by an economist. he made the point that for all the money we could put into fighting global climate change that in fact those dollars could be better spent providing basic water, basic sanitation to people around the world, to certainly increase their standard of living. the drought was devastating to indiana farmers, and i am encouraged that we will see a farm bill eventually that has more of a risk-based insurance program so that farmers can be better protected for such droughts. but the bigger issue here again is going to be what can we afford in the long run? if we continue to have a government that spends itself out of control, running up a $16 trillion debt by trying to finance another $1.7 trillion through health care, through obamacare, through stimulus programs, we're not going to be able to provide even essential services, let alone dealing with the emergencies that come our way. >> thank you, mr. mourdock.

given the length of that question, i think we need to move on to another question. let's forego the rebuttals on this one. the debate commission received several questions involving social security, and people want to know, how do you propose to make the system financially sounds for our children and their grandchildren? the voters want to know your positions on the various proposals related to changing the program, such as increasing or removing the social security payroll tax cap, reducing or raising the retirement age, these kinds of things. if you could be specific and address your solutions to the social security issue, that's what varieties want. we'll start with a minute from mr. donely. >> the specific solution to this is that the discussions regarding social security will be part of the deficit reduction talks that will move forward after this election. and in that social security will be discussed, medicare will be discussed, and reducing the debt by up to $5 trillion will also be a big part of it.

what we have to do is do it with republicans and democrats together. the one thing that won't be talked about, i believe, is privatization, because we don't want social security to be put at risk. we saw the stock market go down to 6 500. it's come back up to 13,000. we don't want to take a chance with the earnings of the people who have credibilitied over the years. so we have the opportunity as we move forward to be able to get this done in those discussion that is will be part of the grand bargain. mr. mourdock favors privatization. i do not. >> mr. mourdock, one minute. >> well, first of all, let's put social security and medicare in that same bucket, because the fact is the obamacare bill that congressman donnelly said i read before he voted on it -- and i gave him credit. not many congressmen did that. i'm sure it cured insomnia, if he had any. that bill took $716 billion away from medicare. it takes money away from those

who will be providing those services. we need to deal with both social security and medicare, and we need to start with this fundamental principle -- if you're over the age of 55 on the day the decision is made the reform comes, nothing changes for you. i think all republicans and all democrats agree largely on that points. but i also believe we have to start immediately telling those between the ages, say, of 50 and 55, 45 and so on, younger workers, there must be a difference set of rules in place for you, and i think they should be given the choice to save for themselves or select a government program and be ready to go down that road, and then we can keep our promises. >> thank you. mr. horning. >> speaking of fundamental principles, i'm actually operating on one that says that if you buy something with somebody else's money, then it really isn't yours. now, what we're doing right now is mortgaging our children's future deep, deep into the future, trillions and trillions of dollars. we have unfunneleded liabilities going up to like -- unfunded liabilities going up

to $220 trillion. the $16 trillion is serious enough. if you think about what we've been doing with social security for the last -- well, actually since it started, 1936, when the retirement age was calculated at about the life span of most peel. white women died at 62 back then. it was a monkey trap. this has been political ever since. they've taxed the benefits. increased the ages. i think it's time to have a serious discussion about whether we want to actually amend the constitution to make this a constitutional thing or find some better way, and i think there are plenty, to take care of our elderly. >> thank you very much. let's do 30-second rebuttals on this. part of the frustration of voters, though, is they really want specifics. what do you think should be done? can you be as specific as possible? let's start with mr. donnelly. >> the specifics are going to be put together in the bipartisan talks and in the points you made, which are going to be part of every discussion that takes place. but i want to mention on the $716 billion, richard, you also

take that out in your budget. but the difference is that what mr. mourdock does is he gives it away in tax breaks. we put it into care for seniors and to be able to get prescriptions at 50% off. s i think that's a better use of the funds. >> well, that's totally incorrect. and the fact is that $716 billion will come out of medicare. in fact, the medicare actuary has said it will result in at least a 15% reduction in the delivery of services to seniors. that's not richard mourdock, that's the medicare actuary who works for the united states congress. >> all right. mr. horning? >> you know, when you have two parties bickering like this, sometimes you need to have a marriage counselor come in. a third party to come in that's going to introduce sense into the discussion. and i'm afraid we haven't done that for a very long time. this is a serious subject. everybody knows it. and nobody is talking about taking away anybody's benefit. we are talking about something

that we can't pay for. i've been specific in the past about offering up fair taxes, a means to get rid of the dem traffic problems that we have with the way we fund medicare and social security as ponzi schemes actually right now -- sorry, out of time. >> we're out of time. now we're going to move to the lincoln-douglas segments of our debate tonight. i'll begin by asking each candidate to make a one-minute statement about his beliefs on a particular issue the then the other two candidates will get two minutes each to rebut that or comment on that statement. we'll then return to the first candidate to make a one-minute response and we'll go for three rounds through this process. mr. mourdock, let's begin with your one-minute statement, please. >> we'll pick up where we just ended. let's talk about that obamacare issue. congressman donnelly, when he had the choice, was asked if he would support a national health care plan when he was running for election and he said no. he was asked if he would support a massachusetts-style romney plan. he said no. he said he was against obamacare, but in the end he

decided to vote for it. when the pressure, the partisanship was put on him, this person, who i think is a principled person, unfortunately saw his principles melt away like july ice cream. he just caved. that's not what we need. congressman donnelly knows that we've added $1.7 trillion in new taxes, something called the medical device tax is going to absolutely devastate the hoosier life science industries. we've got 21 new taxes that are coming through health care and it's all because congressman donnelly cast the deciding vote for that bill. congressman donnelly, i'd like to know again, why you'd vote for it and if you'd do it again. >> mr. horning? you'll get the chance to respond first, two minutes. >> actually, there is a site out there called who is richard mourdock.com. as i was reading about the extreme stands of richard mourdock i was thinking, hey, there's hope for this guy. a lot of the stuff that he said was correct. i think he's right on with many of those things, so there is hope for you if you want to

come to the libertarian party. [laughter] but what is frustrating is what he just accused mr. donnelly of, is backpedaling on a lot of those stances. he has repudiated a lot of those statements. some of it was about the unconstitutionality, of it, right on. we need somebody who is going to stick with principles. anybody who looks at anything i've ever done knows i'm not going to budge. i've read the constitution, state and federal, and i'm the only guy up here, who i can put this on paper and i can prove it. i am the one guy who's going to defend and support the united states constitution and the constitution of indiana against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. and i think that's what we need right now. we need somebody who's going to stand for something other than the two-party system. i don't want to belabor that point too much. i think we all know that that system really stippings. why we keep voting for it is something that requires explanation in my view. why we would keep doing this over and over again, when we know that the bickering is not

helping us. the guys who are funding their campaigns are expecting something in return for their investment. we know they're going to get it. we know that all of this money comes for some kind of reason. we should be finding out with every law that's written, somebody is getting a benefit out of it. who's getting the benefits? i can tell you it's not me. i'm the one guy who lives on a farm and i can tell you all the people around me and work on a farm knows the type of stuff we do, the foreign bills, it's not for farmers. let's get real. we should be looking to see where the money is coming for, what they expect in return, and vote against that. >> ok, mr. donnelly, your two minutes. >> well, as i said before, mr. mourdock's unique contribution to health care has been to say in jeffersonville to the new albany paper, where we are now, that employers should have the right to not cover cancer care. i don't think that's the way to good health care coverage.

as we look at this and as we move forward, mr. mourdock also said that he questioned whether medicare was constitutional. he thinks medicare should be turned into a voucher system, where you get a $6,200 coupon, or excuse me, where you have to pay up to $6,200. it puts you in an extraordinarily dangerous financial situation. and as regards to the health care bill, the $716 billion that you talked about, as i said before, instead of being put into senior care, to wellness care, to the chance for our seniors to get prescriptions at 50% off, what you did was you gave it away in tax breaks. and what the health care bill does for people who have cancer or diabetes, they can get coverage for the first time. if you are a young person between the ages of 21 and 26, you can stay on your parents'

programs for health care. if you were a senior, you can get prescriptions at 50% off. these are good things. are there fixes? yes. but i'm the only one up here who will fix it. mr. mourdock says he wants to repeal it, but then he wants to put the good parts back in. we have the good parts already in place. we've all had people in our families who have been touched by cancer. do you want to take away that coverage that they now have? i think the way to go with this is to fix health care, not to blow it up all over again. >> mr. mourdock, you have a minute to wrap it up. >> mr. donnelly, first to your point about the interview with the newspaper. you took that out of context. i said if a company did that, they would undoubtedly have no employees, because no one would choose to work there. to the second point, you're correct. you're the only person standing here who voted to take $716

billion away from medicare. the problem with obamacare isn't just that it's putting a government beaurocrat in front of a hoosier and between their doctor. the fact is, it is showing itself more and more to be what it is, which is the greatest tax increase and the greatest intrusion on individual american liberties in american history. a few weeks ago i stood up in south bend, just south of the notre dame campus, to make the argument that it is obamacare and the extension of obamacare through the health and human services department to tell the catholic church what they can and what they can't and what they must provide by way of health care coverage. i was proud as a kid from ball state to stand there, and there wasn't anyone out there to defend notre dame. >> mr. horning, now it's your turn to lead off the discussion. you have a minute. >> the last time i had this opportunity nobody answered my question. made me kind of sad. i guess the variation i would like to make on it at this time is that you think about what most people know about our political system and what we have hopes for. we've been told things in our

schools about equality under law, about how the rich and powerful guys have to obey the same laws as the rest of us. that's all in the constitution. you can read it. my annotated version of both the indiana and u.s. constitutions are at horningforsenate.com. i'm about peace and commerce, the kind of things that people came to this country before to get what they didn't have anywhere else in the world. people used to pour through our borders to get this. yet we're doing so much to screw that up for the last 100 years. we all know it. my question to you gentlemen is, why should we give you another chance, when we've already given you 100 years of chances to get this right and you screwed it up? >> mr. donnelly, you have two minutes. >> what has created so much of the problems in washington is the attitude of partisanship, of bickering, of constant fighting. mr. mourdock has said that the highlight of politics is to inflict his opinion on other

people. that bipartisanship is democrats doing what republicans want them to don't i can't think of something more off-target or more off base. to move this country forward, to solve these problems, we have to have people of goodwill of both parties and the independents in the senate working together to reduce the debt, to create more opportunities for jobs, to make sure that our men and women come home from afghanistan in mid 2014, as scheduled. that's what this is about. what my way or the highway means, it means saying that medicare is unconstitutional. it means questioning the constitutionality of social security. it means going after our auto companies and putting over 100,000 indiana jobs at risk. and if you had been successful indiana would have gone into a depression. i fought nonstop not only

because those jobs were real families. those are people who did not know if they lost their jobs whether they can make their home payment that month, whether their kids could stay in school. whether they would be forced to move. that is what this is about. when we work together, good things happen. >> mr. mourdock. >> he brought up an excellent point. it is about partisanship. partisanship does cause people to do the wrong thing. it was he to to pakistan early on saying he was against your marks -- he who said early on that he was against your marks.

earmarks. the pressure was on an it one. the firstack to presidential debate. mitt romney got it right. when you looked at president obama and say my way or the highway, and that is what obamacare was. one single nowas not republican vote for that. you cannot say there was at least one good idea that could have been made. let's have some partisan discussions. he went the partisan roots in voted that line. unfortunate. every now and again it is suggested he does not know how

washington works. it is not working. it is because of the partisanship that we will say one thing in the state, say one thing in the district and caved in to harry reid, a cave in to nancy pelosi. he did not even support nancy pelosi for speaker. that is a pattern. it is not what his plan to fix washington. >> people say i am a dreamer. i am not the only one. let me be pragmatic. you have what you have chosen. you do not have to choose this. you can do better. every time i ran for office i have written down specific plans of what we need to do. my good friend wrote down a

budget i signed on to call the road to reality. if you have an injury will come up with an android. do you want specifics? we will give you plenty. this is not the way it was supposed to work. they bicker back and forth. people tell me i am the one who is streaming? this cannot work. >> thank you very much. >> a man of for your statement. >> i have a record where i have worked took my colleagues to make sure that indiana get better highway funding, to keep our air base in fort wayne, to make sure our veteran center was able to expand and grow without spending one additional dollar.

he has said that bipartisanship is democrats doing what republicans want them to do. here is what that means. it means saying that medicare, you question its constant to sodality -- its constitutionality. it means of social security you question the constitutionality. on the budget, it means instead of money going to veterans care, veterans' care is reduced and there is more tax breaks for those offshore. >> mr. mourdock. >> what is going to prepare washington is people from the outside who know how to make a system work. we have a system today that is terribly broken. i believe these are well meaning people.

they get there and they lose their direction. he says one thing when he is back there and then he voted another way when he gets there. they're sending an important in agriculture, moving the inheritance tax. they see the taxes are so heavy the kids who and where the farm -- who were going to get the farm at acela just to read have to sell it just to keep half of it. issue after issue we see the same pattern. we're not going to get washington fixed it the same people keep going and doing the same things. it was the people who are there who want to sell out for partisanship, and he will not take that stand for principle.

i've seen things taken out of context. he said this rise about constitutionality and social security. you heard me make my statement on social security. i love what i am doing. i want to get people to think about these issues. this is about the future of our country. >> your two minutes. abouty're talking dysfunctional our system is. they say a lot of things about the other party. i cannot disagree. what we do not need is more bipartisanship. you need tri-partisanship.

i'm not going to turn your world upside down. take that thaback. if you vote for me and i win, what can imagine what will happen in d.c.? , a person with no money get elected? how will that work? i do not think you can fix your party. i know lots of people who did not change by washington, d.c.. people like ron paul would turn against. they would do the same thing to you. as a republican you'll be fighting your own party. i saw the inside of that beast. it is not one that we need to keep breathing life into. there comes a time when the need to feed the monster. this is dysfunctional. it is bad. nobody likes it.

what are you doing? this is not an office betting pool. i am not the one playing a game up here. >> thank you. >> the word i talk about business mr. mourdock. i have one of the most independent voting record in congress. i voted for spending cuts. i joined with my republican friends for the balanced budget amendment. i voted for the keystone pipeline. i worked every day to make sure our veterans all over our state have a chance to get great health-care. those are the kind of things we're supposed to do. the highlight of politics is seeing a young man or women get

into one of our service academies. is seeing a that come back in getting their gi benefits. it is being able to go over to afghanistan and iraq and let them know we care about you. we love you. the one he home safely. >> thank you. we are done with the lincoln and douglas portion. we're now back to questions from voters. this is a retiree about term limits. would you propose a bill to limit terms of both houses of congress? >> i absolutely would. i signed on to that very plain. i believe in term limits. i believe they are good things. there is a myth in washington and by the people who oppose term limits that we need seniority to have good ideas. one of the best ideas that came

along is a balanced budget amendment presented by senator mike lee. that bill would actually put a cap on spending. since early had only been there for six weeks when he offered that idea appeared not only would i support a constitutional amendment to limit terms, and impose such terms of myself. when i was elected county commissioner, i said i believe in term limits. i said i would serve two terms for four years when i was done. i was done. >> plus the recognition that voters are not doing their jobs. isn't that what you're supposed to be doing? we do need to have term limits. it should be pretty severe term limits. maybe three terms in the house. i am fully in favor of that.

a lot of people said that. when the republican revolution came through, it they have a voluntary pledge. i am against voluntary pledges. that means the lawyers will still be there after all the good ones have gone home. we have to be serious. we have not been voting for people who are going to actually propose and stick by term limits. we have to get more hard news about it. what that means is a boot out the guys who are already there. isn't that what this is about? >> mr. donnelly. >> i have served three terms in the house. i have done work to try to save our automobile industry. i try to stand up for our veterans. i worked for the state of indiana. if i had the privilege to serve in the senate, i would think that if i was fortunate enough to win it, two terms would be

plenty. it is a program that could work. even more than chairman is that we put ourselves or some legislative term limits, it is the people that make that decision. by going to vote. by listening. by studying the issues. by calling your legislatures. that is how you can be the most engage. people are the ones who determine who represents them. we're just the hired help. would's continue this 32nd rebuttals. this is a hot button issue. >> it is a hot-button issue and it should be. we see the same people going back time and time again. there is a stillness. i mention having served as a county commissioner. i started to realize after the second term that i was seeing things a little bit differently.

i was being cutting part of the system, not there to fix the system. the key bringing in new people you have a little more of an edge. >> i believe we should bring in new people. [applause] [laughter] once again, at the solution is pretty much me. we have so many times when it comes up with partisanship or the fact that people have been around for 100 years. we as poachers have to understand that we are powerful enough to fix this and accountable for their results anyway. we own this country. we cannot delegate away our responsibility. our founders gave us no excuse. >> the greatest wisdom we get in this job is from you. in the backyards of indiana.

at the supermarket of indiana. we are the hired help. you are the boss. we work for you. he had the wisdom to tell us what to do. there's a lot more wisdom to tell you at home than in washington. on the left in the right all they do is fight. here at home it is use your common sense. >> the issue of contraception continues to divide the country. questions reflected that a fight. one voter wanted to know your position on a woman's right to abortion and contraception and other reproductive health services. in other as if you believed that life begins at conception. what would you do to predict the babies that would be aborted? where you stand on these issues? >> this will be tough. all this appears that we are pro-life. what does that mean -- up here

said that we are pro-life. what does that really mean? this is a state level crying. unless across state boundaries is not supposed to be a state matter. i would have to oppose roe v as law. we have been doing so badly for so long, we've forgotten the right. you cannot just say no to child- support. we have gotten so lopsided with looking at this as only a woman's issue we forget that there are all kinds of ways around this where we can make it easier for people to adopt children. there are a lot of things we can do better. as the federal legislature, there is not that much that i could do. >> i believe in pro-life. i believe that life begins at

conception. the only sections i believe and life a mother.and i believe women have a right to access quality health care. i believe that religious institutions have a right to not vote against their own religious beliefs. we cannot ask them to do something they simply cannot do. how do we make sure that a woman has a right to that quality health care while at the same time protecting the rights of religious institutions to not violate their own beliefs/ that is what we're working on right now. many groups have filed suit. they have every right to file that suit. i am working on a legislative solution to it. there's also the work done on the judicial side. we're trying to get an executive

solution as well. >> thank you. >> this is an issue every candidates faces. i stand for life. i know there are some who disagree and i respect that view. i believe life begins at conception. the only exception i have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. i struggled with myself for a long time but life is a gift from god. even when life begins in that horrible situation of about rape, it is something that god intended to happen. the comment about obamacare and trying to report it, that that is good. it should not be here in the first place. bad we have so many churches have to file a lawsuit to get their basic freedom that i thought was guaranteed. and now there has to be an amendment to bring that about.

>> you have people drawing up sites. des. there is no winning this issue. it is an outcome of something terrible happening sometimes. it is dealing with rape and light situations that nobody wants. we cannot do but justice to this. i would not be able to do justice to this. i'm telling you right now i would fail and what i would try to achieve. >> thank you. >> my catholic faith has guided me on this issue. i know their fate have -- faith have guided my friends. i want to mention one thing. we have a program in my home ttown.

provide a positive alternative for women who are pregnant for a place to live, a place to be cared for. somebody to know that you have people who care about you and love you and want to help you in any way. >> you have 30 seconds. >> obamacare has caused this issue of religious freedom, ordering the catholic church and institutions that find it morally objectionable to provide contraceptive care goes against their basic faith. it is wrong. mr. donnelly, it was obamacare that cause this argument to surface in the first place. >> moving to our next questions. this is a retired teacher and a historical interpreter from indianapolis. are you hoping to serve in the u.s. senate, i would like to

hear your it stances on gun- control and same-sex marriage. we all need to be quick on this, 30 seconds. >> mr. donnelly. >> that is the combination and one question. in regard to gun control, i believe in the second amendment. it is in our constitution. people in our country have a right to bear arms. in regard to same-sex marriage, i believe that marriage is between a man and woman. >> i also believe one man, one woman peered >> i go for all of our rights, not just the second amendment. i am in favor of the right to

keep and bear arms. in answer to, what is this all about? do you have any right at all? if you divide up into a second amendment or against the first amendment. i like certain parts. >> i need the advice from our producers. and we move on to the last question? the final question. you have 90 seconds. after two debates, this the last time you'll be able to speak to a statewide broadcast audience. with the election two weeks away, what do you want voters to remember about you as the candidate and a person? >> i am a person who does stand by his principles and works with others to get things done. elections do have consequences. 60% recently oppose the reelection of president obama but mr. donnelly support him.

we have 2/3 of hoosiers who say we are on the wrong track. we have overwhelming numbers showing hoosiers disagree with obamacare. even after he said he would not support it, he came in -- caved in. that is not good. i have been attacked because i do stand up for my principles. it was about standing up for the role of law and my oath of office to protect for pensioners, retired teachers and retired cops. i stand for my principles. mr. donnelly stood for his we would not have obamacare. senator lugar and i were rivals. tonight we stand united on this point. that is harry reid cannot

continue as the majority leader in the united states senate. mr. donnelly cannot tell us whether he will vote for him or not. we are 14 days in front of an election. if you do not know who you will vote for the senate, perhaps you should not run for senate. we need to get this country back on track. we need to make washington work like indiana. >> i about this to finish my last question the marriage is another example of where we have misplaced our fate. when do we give marriage over to the government were to cesar? there is an alternative to this in god we trust thing. the politics we are not supposed to give everything to delegate to charity. we have given our money

unconstitutionally to a private bank. we have screwed up everything our founders warned us about. a dozen presidents, a center is a post the protecting the indian constitution from federal intrusion. we have been doing a terrible job at that. if you look up my website, both indian and federal are both relevant. you will find out that we have been badly misled in almost every particular. of course obamacare is unconstitutional. most of what democrats and republicans have done has been unconstitutional for the last 100 years. let's go back. we had something special in this country. i want it back. >> i think my friend and the

putting for being with me. i think it is sad that mr. mourdock it's all a politics. this is after a year of chilly air around indiana -- traveling around indiana kneecapping richard luger. the wisdom does not come from washington. it comes from back yards. it comes in factory floors and diners. there is a whole lot more wisdom in indiana and there is in washington, d.c. i get my wisdom from the people of our state. when i play on my knees before got every night. i am a humble servant. i do the best i can. it is not always perfect. $2.40 trillion in spending cuts.

balanced budget amendment. this is what richard lugar has always stood for. he has been someone who has worked hard, done his duties, stood up for the country. that is how i have tried to serve. this is about our children and our grandchildren's future, reducing the debt, having our young men and women come home from afghanistan, building a better country for our children and grandchildren so we can continue this incredible tradition. i ask for your vote. god bless you. coppola's indiana. bob was the united states of america. we did god bless indiana. god bless the united states of america. >> thank you so much for being here. thank you to be boaster's to participated. let's get a special thanks to indiana university.

join us next week for the final five debate sponsored by the commission. this is the final debate involving the gubernatorial candidates. join us there. good night from new albany, indiana. thank you. you can applaud. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] imbe>> in an hour we will have e

coverage of the candidates of the libertarian party and the green party. it is hosted by the free and equal elections foundation. that is live at 9:00 eastern here on c-span. on our companion network, we will have live coverage of a rally for paul ryan and mitt romney. >> i regularly watch "washington journal." i watched the call in shows in the morning and whenever there is a hearing of any significance. i will soon end. i also watched c-span on line. c-span provide a source of information that is rare.

it is rare in today's been oriented society. we cannot regularly get the kind of information we need to make decisions for ourselves. we often have to hear it from the left or right. the great thing about c-span is to get the information directly from the policymakers say you can make up your own mind about who is right and what is good for the country. >> gregory evans and watches c- span on time warner cable. this is brought to you as a public service by television provider. provider.