they don't need washington, d.c. tying strings to it. >> the idaho public school system needs hevment no question about it. we spend less per pupil than any other state in the country, less than even mississippi. idaho schools do need help. i agree with the senator, though, that when we get help from the federal government we need to minimize the regulations and the strings attached to the money that comes from the federal government. some of the -- the programs are well-intentioned but oftentimes with the federal government there is excessive regulations. one with of the things that i bring to the table is having worked inside the federal government and having worked at the s.e.c., i've got an understanding of these run-away bureaucracies and agencies and how we need to keep them in check and not let them overregulate various aspects of our lives, including education. >> let's go to our panelists

now. doctor, you'll direct your question beginning with mr. mitchell. >> my question is, what kind of democrat are you? and included in your answer, please tell us someone in the senate that you would identify closely philosophically or ideologically. >> i'm an idaho democrat. as an idaho democrat, i do not necessarily ascribe to any type of california or massachusetts liberal agenda. i will represent the values of people in idaho. i think people in idaho do tend to be conservative. but we're also, most important, independent-minded, and we don't want people in massachusetts or california, those types of liberals, telling us how we should live our lives. in terms of the people that i admire in the u.s. senate, two of my heroes growing up here in idaho were william bora as well as frank church.

i think that they both served our state well, represented the interests and values of the people in idaho. >> your follow-up. >> ideologically, where do you stand on the political spectrum? >> senator risch has provided a prompt here saying you're a liberal democrat. what are you? >> that's silly. i'm not a liberal democrat. i think oftentimes these labels are a substitute for an actual discussion of the issues. by calling me a liberal democrat, gosh, i haven't been called that since i was probably 19 years old. it was interesting to hear that today. but i wouldn't characterize myself as a liberal democrat. i would characterize myself as an idaho democrat and somebody who is independent and who will represent the values that we hold important here in idaho. >> senator, you have an opportunity to respond. >> well, thank you very much. oh, yes he is. and if you don't believe me, go to the web sites and compare

what he says with what harry reid says, what barbara boxer says and what dianne feinstein says. i work with these people every day. i know them. i listen to them. i know what their core and fiber is. compare what they write and what he has written. there's absolutely no question. everybody says at home i'm not a moderate, i'm not a liberal. the fact of the matter is the issues, the way he is talking about the issues is exactly what i hear every day from the far left liberal organization that's running our country today in the united states senate. >> could i have just a quick followup? >> sure. >> senator risch in the national journal survey idaho identifies you as the most conservative united states senator. now, as i think many people remember in idaho you were viewed as a pragmatic conservetive. now you appear to have evolved into an idea log. what's happened?

>> tim, i would disagree with that appearance. i do vote very conservatively. there's about ten, a dozen of us who vote conservatively. this will come from a great shock. we're from conservative states. i represent arguably the most conservative state in the united states. and those of us who come from conservative states, whether it's utah, wyoming, oklahoma, texas, south carolina, we vote conservatively. and whenever they do these polls, i'll line up at the conservative end of the spectrum. if i'm reelected, i'm going to continue voting conservatively to represent the conservative values. and remember, 60% of idahoance as you know in the boise state poll, 60% identify themselves as either very conservative or somewhat conservative. so i feel i'm doing exactly what idahoens want as far as representing them in a conservative manner.

>> 15 seconds. >> thank you. these conservative ratings i think are just goofy. i don't understand -- and i don't understand whether it's national review or who is putting this label of conservative, because conservative should not include somebody who participated in shutting down the government wasting $24 billion of taxpayer money. that's not conservative. that's just goofy. >> we'll get to that in a moment but more on the issues with justin. >> both campaigns sent along questions for the other candidate. we'll send with a question from nels mitchell for senator risch. it goes like this. why did you vote against the federal legislation cosponsored by senator crapeo ended at reducing domestic violence? >> that's a really good question. first of all, everybody in this room agrees that domestic violence is a despicable act. i heard all the speeches and i

sit on the senate floor and hear lots of speeches. i've done something about domestic violence. i started my public service as a prosecutor. i participated in the north side rapist case. i personally put michael high tower in prison. i put lots and lots of people in prison for domestic violence. it's a terrible thing. i think every one of cuss agree with that this is not a federal issue. this is a state issue. and the constitution, article 1, section 8, is very clear that the central government is supposed to be a very, very limited authority. i hate domestic violence, everyone hates domestic violence. i've done something about it. but the federal government has no business taking over this issue from the states. it belongs to the states. and this is why we've got this bloated large federal government that we have today. >> mr. mitchell. >> if i was in the snoot i would have been a cosponsor of

the extension of the violence against women act with senator crapeo. domestic violence that we've seen with the recent n.f.l. scandal still remains a serious problem. the violence against women act has a number of good features that have helped reduce domestic violence. in fact, it actually has funds some of our prosecutor positions here in idaho. so i think it is a serious problem. i would have worked with senator crapo to cosponsor the extension of the act. and in terms of this tenth amendment argument that's just silly once again because my opponent is cosponsoring legislation that would federalize idaho's gun carry permit law. you know, you can't have it both ways. you can't hide behind the tenth amendment and vote against extension of the violence against women act and then try

to federalize the carry permit law. >> a response. >> thank you very much. i started my legislative career one of the reasons was because of violence against women. i was putting them in the front door and the parole board was letting them out as fast as i was putting them in. when i went to the legislature back in the 19720s that was the biggest push i had, i got rid of the entire parole board eeter fire them or they quit. now we have common-sense keeping these people locked up that should be locked up. >> dove tailing on your gridlock comment from a moment ago. excluding schools, which we opened the debate with today, what is the biggest issue facing idaho? and dove tailing on the grid lock reference, can congress do something about it? >> yes. congress can do spg about it. but first of all, in congress we have to get past the sliling partisanship that we currently

have in the senate and in the house. we must move beyond that. we must have people back in congress who are willing to work across the aisle to try and address the problems that we face here in idaho as well as in the country. in terms of the major problem we face in idaho, it's jobs and the economy. it simply is jobs and the economy. income per lowest person in the entire country. once again in the race to the bottom we've passed mississippi and arkansas. we need somebody back in washington, somebody in the senate, who is going to work to promote jobs and the economy of idaho. simple solution. i mean, one example was this summer when the senate and my opponent voted to block the bring the jobs home act. idaho has lost 18,000 jobs to china since year 2000. all we need to do is eliminate that tax break that we've been giving to companies for shipping jobs overseas.

>> senator. >> well, the specific question regarding the biggest challenge facing idaho -- idaho families -- and for that matter america -- is something that really every american should be focused on. and that is the national debt and the deficit spending. the federal government spends about $11 billion a day -- $11 billion a day. the first four years i was there they were borrowing $4.5 billion to pay their bills that night. the past couple of years because of the tax creases obama's been able to get through they're only borrowing $2.5 billion a day. tomorrow it will be $20 trillion when barack obama leaves aufments i'm dying to compromise on this shufment i want to taubling to people who compromise on this issue. it is compromise that got into this $3.8 trillion a year spending, it is compromise to get us out of this. but when we talk about cutting

back on washington, d.c. they look at you like you've got three heads. this nonsense has got to stop. >> real quick. such a popular topic i wanted to chime in about the debt real quick. first with the senator considering what the federal budget is for social security, medicare, defense, once you pay for that there's no room if any to cut what would you cut and is this a problem the federal debt where the ceiling continues to rise that you can cut away? >> you can cut. the first thing, let's talk about what we won't cut and that is i promised you when i ran for the united states senate i would not cust benefits that you've earned. social security, medicare, and veterans benefits. i will not cut that. indeed, i don't believe congress is going to cut that. but there is plenty of room in the rest of the federal budget to start cutting and we need to start cutting. that will get us to where we

need to be. but we can't just turn our head and look the other way. i'm unhappy to report that we don't get the discussion we need on this in washington, d.c. three or four years ago everybody was talking about it. nobody did anything about it. we've just moved on and the debt continues to pile up. >> do you have an opportunity to respond? >> i agree that the federal debt is a problem but we've also got to look at where the problems started. the problems started in the bush administration with the two unfunded wars. i think we can't simply blame it on the president and the current administration. they're still trying to pay off the two unfunded wars started by president bush. in terms of dealing with the debt, yes, it is something that we need to address. but by going back to washington and just voting no against everything, that's not going to help solve the problem. we need to come together and have a bipartisan solution in order to get the debt down. >> any ideas on the way to increase the money coming in to

the federal government? >> certainly. i mean, it's very easy. we need to close the loopholes. we need to reform our current tax laws. close the loop holes that are benefiting the special interests. and we can make great strides in terms of reducing the debt. >> senator. >> thanks. did you hear that enthusiastic? oh, certaintly. that's what we get from democrats back there all the time. let me translate for that. tax increases. that's what they want. i promised you that i wouldn't do that. i'm not going to raise your taxes. america's got a spending problem. that's what america's got and that's what we need to focus on. >> i begin with senator risch. you begin with senator risch. correct. >> back to 2006, senator risch, the tax shift legislation that you pushed through the legislature that shifted the funding of education from the property tax to the sales tax,

there's been a lot of commentary recently about the negative effects that shift has had on public education affecting the flow of the revenue source to public unequalized ell as tax levees. what is your response to where that legislation is today and its impacts on idaho? >> that's a really good question. i know there's been some discussion on that. in 2006, when i became governor, i had lived through three or four decades of fighting against property tax. i called a special session of the legislature. you used the word push. i think -- and you know better than when you try to push something in the legislature. it is finesse when something goes through the legislature. two thirds voted for that. we took the millage off of the property tax for maintenance and operation. what that did is reduced

property taxes 20%. we also put a penny on the sales tax. we also put millions in a rainy day fund, which incidently helped us through the very difficult times we had. i said we are weren't going to do that unless the people were going to sign off. 72% of idahoens every precinct in this state voted for that. here's another clear dimps. if i'm reelected i promise you i will use the influence of this office to see that your property taxes are not increased. this gentleman, along with the fellow running on the democratic side for governor, has promised you he will work to increase your property taxes 20%. really, if you want higher property taxes, if you want a 20% increase, go back to 2006, this is your guy. >> mr. mitchell. >> first of all, it's a lawyer trick what the senator is doing. he blames me for things that other people are doing. he tries to link me with other

people because he does not want to address the issues. in terms of the tax shift that decimated our public education system in idaho, i think the senator owes the students in this state and the parents in this state an apology. as i've traveled around the state this year, it has devastated public education. a lot of our school districts can only afford to stay open four days a week. a lot of the programs have been cut because of that. it created a hole that our public schools have never fully recovered from. we do need to improve our education system. that is clear. but as a u.s. senator i'm not going to be focusing on raising property taxes. that's just silly. but it is something that i agree. we do need to focus on education in this state because right now we're spending once again the lowest amount per pupil in the country and it's a legacy of the senator's short

term as governor. >> response. >> i listen to the gentleman talk about blaming me for funding education. i've had nothing to do with funding education since 2006. every january, february, march, the legislature meets. they decide what they're going to tax and what they're going to spend. what we've said to the legislature in 2006 is, you can use income tax, you can use sales tax, you can use income from public lands, you can usely quor funds, lottery funds but you can't use property tax. they do that every year. it's a difficult job. i did it for a long time. you have to balance. that's got nothing to do with the whining they've been doing about lowering property taxes. we actually lowered property taxes. >> if i can just have one moment. in terms of lowering property taxes once again that's a false issue. the property taxes for the average person in idaho were not lowered. they were only low because we have the home owners exemption.

they were only lowered for people with large land holdings. it did not have a positive impact on most of the people in idaho. and it is the single reason why our public schools are in the sad condition that they are in today. >> that's simply not true. >> all right. justin. >> this is a question from the risch campaign for mr. nels mitchell. they write jim rich wrote the rule to protect 9.3 million acres and became a model in the rule making process. do you agree with this or how would you change it? >> i have no argument with that clabraltive process. my disappointment with the senator is that he has blocked the collaborative process that representative simpson started in connection with attempting to protect boulder white clouds. once again, the proposal was the result of a collaborative

process. it's my understanding that when the senator was running he said that he would support representative simpson's proposal. but since he has been back in washington, he has been the reason that the protection of the bolder white clouds has not gone forward. >> senator. >> well thank you very much. and thank you for the question since i gave it. we did a really good job, and it is a model all over the country being followed. it was a collaborative method. with his criticism, i know you haven't been here very long and i know you're relatively new here so let me explain what happened. when i was governor you are absolutely right, i embraced the plan that mike simpson put together. when i was running for the u.s. senate i embraced that plan. i got back there. the collaborative process that mike had used -- and it is a difficult process. but they had people on both sides come to the table and agree. it was a great plan that mike

had put together. guess what. it went back to washington, d.c. and the radical environmentalists -- the democrats in congress -- took what mike had put together and dismantled it and it was no longerive's plan. i said we need to have a public hearing. people said we wanted this. but not the way they have changed this in washington, d.c. it was no longer an idaho plan. i know you don't know anything about this because you weren't here at the time. but those are the facts. i still support what mike simpson did here in the collaborative process. it's a good plan. >> just real briefly. once again, we're playing lawyer tricks. you're blaming other people that aren't in the room without names for things. you've been back there for six years. six years is plenty of time to sit down with representative simpson and work out the issues and not just simply blame some

unnamed liberals back in tweash. i mean, we need to move beyond just blaming the liberal bogiemen and actually try to solve these problems so we can protect places in idaho like the bolder white clouds. >> you need to give that speech to the democrats in washington, d.c. >> let's move to foreign policy and the ripple effect sometimes can be felt many times felt right here in idaho. what foreign policy issue other than isis and the conflicts in iraq and syria should americans, idahoens and congress be paying close attention to right now? senator we'll begin with you. >> well, i think obviously you've just mentioned some of them. i spent most of tuesday and thursday afternoons in intelligence meetings dealing with this stuff. other days i'm in foreign relations committee with this stuff. there are challenges all over the world. the world is a dangerous place.

the challenges continue to rise. but the important thing is that we as americans continue to lead. we are americans. we are the best country on the face of this planet. we are the strongest country on the face of this planet. and the world looked to us. we have been deteriorating on the national stage since president obama did his apology tour, which started in cairo, egypt, not long after he took office. we need to talk about american exceptionalism. we need to project american exceptionalism. and if we do that, the rest of the world will follow. we can't be the world's policemen in all these little fights that go on. as you know, a year ago i led the charge to stop us from going into syria which would have been a horrible mess if we had done that probably one of the most important things i did while i was in the senate. >> mr. mitchell. >> i agree that the united states is the best and greatest country in the world.

but we need to use our power wisely. unfortunately, we did not starting with the bush administration and the approach that we took to the middle east. we do face challenges around the world and the united states does need to be a leader. but in terms of being a leader, we need to be able to look around the corner not just react to today's problem. we need to be focusing on what's around the corner. what's the long-term impact of our involvement such as in iraq. you don't just invade a country like iraq. you need to have an end game. unfortunately, with the bush administration we did not. we do face these challenges. but one of the things that i ind disappointing is the slilness and partisanship in the senate. we need to have a bipartisan approach to foreign policy and as we face these challenges we need to make sure that we're

working collaboratively with the neighboring countries such as in the middle east. >> 30-second followup. > again, i'm really focused on trying to keep us out of these things. i voted against the most recent proposal to arm and train the so-called rebels in syria. i think that was a really bad idea. i met with those people. i don't have any confidence. syria is made up of 200 very complex tribes combined religious ethnic views. their fights have been going on for a thousand years. there's no way that we're going to settle that. we've got to protect ourselves. >> doctor weather bi. >> question for mr. mitchell. you stated early on in your campaign that if elected you would serve only one term. saying that six years is a long time. why would you volunteer to be a

lame duck the moment you're sworn into office? >> six years is a long time. i think one of the primary problems we have in politics today are career politicians. they get back in washington and all they're worried about is running for reelection, raising money for their next election campaign, not actually leading. six years -- once again, you can accomplish a lot in six years. i think we need more people back in washington who have had other careers, who understand the issues that are actually faced in their states. and will spend full time focusing on those issues as opposed to being worrying about their next election. >> follow-up? >> well, briefly. let me just say that everything in the united states senate is based on seniority. i'm very fortunate to have gotten there when i did.

when i got there, mike crapeo had been there ten years and he was 77th in seniority. i'm either in the low 60s or actually into the 50s now. but seniority makes a tremendous amount of difference. i was actually surprised. as you know i've been in public service most of my adult life and very little surprises me in washington, d.c. one is their attitude about money. the other is how complex the united states senate is and how important seniority is. >> talk about the affordable care act. should it be fixed, repealed? now we have our own state exchange. >> the affordable care act, there are a number of good features. the fact that children can stay on their parents' policies until they're 26, the fact that it covers preexisting conditions, the lifting of the lifetime caps. unfortunately, the implementation has been a

disaster. what we need back in washington is we need leaders who are going to focus on how do we fix this, how do we make it better? here in idaho we have over 75,000 people who now have health insurance because of the affordable care act. so it's not simply you can't just repeal it because that would mean we're putting 75,000 people out on the street without coverage. so what we need to focus on are its good features and how we can make it better. >> senator. >> well, thank you. i've lived with this disaster since i went to the united states. it's no -- it is no secret that i voted against it. indeed, every single republican voted against it. every single democrat voted for it. and it has been a disaster. i've got a minute here. you can't talk about this complex subject. the bill they gave us was 3,000 pages and they handed it to us 45 minutes before harry reid called a vote on that bill. i'm going to refer you to the

internet and if you look up the patient choice affordable responsibility and empowerment act, that is a legislative proposal by the senate republicans which talks about how we would fix this. of course it starts with the repeal. but then it replaces it with a lot of things that i think would be very good for the american people. this thing has been an unmitigated disaster. it cannot goen the way that it is. the administration, what they were trying to do is get more people insured. 84% of americans were insured -- 87% were insured at the time they brought this on board. they were supposed to get 7% more. they didn't even get that. we have paid a horrible price and had the government essentially nationalize this industry in order to get that additional people insured. they should have just pass it had bill and given them insurance. >> let's maybe get into specifics. i know we're limited time somewhat. but senator can you talk about

maybe some of the high points of that and then mr. mitchell if you can respond to that. >> it will not surprise you that we republicans view it like this. this is the sixth largest industry in merbling. it is arguably the -- america. it is arguably the most personal matter of our life. it is arguably one of the most complex things that we deal with in our life. what happens? the politicians came in and took this on and said we're going to dump this and redo this. what could possibly go wrong here? everything has gone wrong here. our proposal brings back the market system into this with some sideboards that needed to be added before obamacare was enacted. >> your response? >> well, a couple of things. first of all, the idea of a 3,000 page bill that devers regulations to government agencies i agree, i think that's stupid. this is one of the reasons that where congress has abdicated its role for enacting legislation.

both the aca as well as the dodd frank act. we need people in the congress who are actually going to vote on laws that they have read and understanding and that will work for the people. in terms of the a.c.a. and the republican proposal, well, i've looked at the republican proposal. some of the criticisms are it doesn't cover preexisting conditions. and dumping things back into the free market would be a disaster for the people here in idaho as well as the american people. >> let's jump to immigration reform. obviously a hot topic here in idaho in our rural areas it is crucial for many of our farmers, ranchers. let's begin with you mr. mitchell. if you were elected and you had an opportunity to affect immigration reform, what would you do? >> immigration reform -- everybody agrees we need immigration reform. but we also need leaders back in washington who are willing to tackle the problems.

i agree with the president of the lds church who has called for common-sense immigration reform. and what he has said is we need a just and caring law balanced with the principles that we love our neighbors, that families stay together, and enforce just and compassionate laws. now, part of that is under the senate proposal that mr. risch oted against, we do need a program, a guest worker program which is supported by idaho's agal industry. in addition we need a path to citizenship for these young people who came to this country and have lived their entire lives in this country. we do need a sensible patted to citizenship. i think those are the two primary components that were in the original senate proposal that was passed over my opponent's objection. >> this is something that just breaks your heart. we could do immigration so easy

in this country. if you broke this into its component parts and started by what is the problem -- not a problem. the fact that there are 11 million people here illegally is a problem but it is not the problem. the problem is that people are entering this country illegally. there are 200 plus countries on the face of this earth. you can't walk into any country on the face of this earth without going through the requirements that they have for whether you can get in or whether you can't get in. we really need first of all to secure the borders. now, that sounds trite but every other country does it. the united states, the most sophisticated country on the face of this earth, should be able to secure the borders. at the same time, we do need a guest worker program for idaho, for every other state. our high tech industries need it badly,ing a industries, dairy industry. look at what president obama did. this is a chart of unaccompanied children entering the united states illegally.

in 2012 when he legalized essentially tense of thousands of people here with the stroke of a pen -- this is opening the borders even more. the numbers have sky rocketed since 2012 with people pouring in here. this has got to stop before we talk about other parts of the problem. >> for fair play senator went over his time by 30. >> ok. just a few comments. immigration reform is not -- the problem is the shrill partisanship. it is not just raising the walls on the border. it is working together and coming together because we have shared and common values. and that's why we need sensible immigration reform and we need people back in washington who aren't going to just demagogue the issue but are actually going to try to solve the problem. >> all right. you'll point this first to senator risch. >> real quick. sorry, a couple quick followups for the senator and then if mr. mitchell can respond as well.

on immigration you talked about securing the border more. any specific ideas? would it be a wall? would it be more personnel for border patrol? and then also, what would your position be on amnesty considering president reagan i guess did it. >> two-part question. first part. it's all of the above. when you're dealing with security on a border as israel does as every other country does you use all of the above to secure your border. but you stop people from coming in here illegally. and if they do come across the border immediately you take them back to the border and put them back across where they came from. you've got to stop this. we've got to stop this. we're on track for 100,000 unaccompanied children to come in this year. we have got to stop this. and it's an all of the above approach. and we can do it. on amnesty i am not going to vote for amnesty. i am opposed to amnesty. >> mr. mitchell. >> the unaccompanied minor

problem at the border i agree with pope francis is a humanitarian problem. i'm not going to -- it's unfortunate when i hear people like the senator trying to demonize the children that are coming across the border. we need sensible immigration reform to address these issues to address the humanitarian crisis with these unaccompanied minors. and at the same time, in terms of what it comes down to is we need people in washington who are willing to address the issues. >> and as far as amnesty goes, what's your position? >> amnesty is a misloading label because when you're talking about the 18-year-old down who has lived here all of his or her life except for six months we're not really talking about amnesty. we're talking about a path to citizenship. so it's a misleading label. >> i begin with senator risch. >> correct.

>> there is been a lot of talk in idaho about the takeover of federal lands. is this a legitimate public policy issue or just political posturing? what is your position on state control or management of federal lands in idaho? >> well, jim, there has been a lot of talk about it. this is nothing new. we were around during the rebelion. the constitution says every state will be admitted on equal footing and it turns out that some states are more equal than others. my colleagues back east can't even concede when i say two out of three acres are owned by the federal government. discussions are all well and good. this congress as made up is not going to cut loose of the federal land. does that mean we can't do anything? absolutely not. let me give an example. my rule that took over essentially or dictated the management of the 9.2 million

acres of roadless created a state committee as you know that actually oversees this. and this is idahoens. so the forest service is bound by what that committee does. more importantly than that there's a good proposal that the county commissioners have where they want to get a project where you can get about 200,000 out of the millions of acres that the federal government has and manage them like we manage state lands specifically to fund the pilt payments and payment in lieu of taxes that we are supposed to get from the federal government and our safe and secure rural schools. if we did that on a collaborative basis like i did the roadless rule, that would be a real step forward for idaho as far as using those federal lands to move idaho forward. >> in terms of the republican proposal to take over all of the federal lands, i agree with the attorney general.

it's a nonstarter. we should not be wasting our time on that. what we need, though, is we need leadership in washington in terms of working with the federal agencies to make sure that these lands are used productively for people here in idaho. we also need somebody back in the senate who is going to reform the payment in lieu of taxes program. as i've traveled around the state and talked with educators, there are a number of problems with the way that program is applied and implemented. and it needs to be changed. but we need leaders back in washington who are going to address those types of issues to make sure that we here in idaho are able to benefit from the federal lands as well as making sure that we're preserving our outdoor and recreational heritage. because that's one of the things that makes idaho special is our public lands and our public places. >> talk a little bit more about social security. we'll start with mr. mitchell.

we talk about the debt and things we will or won't cut. is there a way that you can assure that you would protect social security and maybe even strengthen it for future generations? >> well, with social security, it is something -- it's an earned benefit. it's an earned benefit that we have during our lifetime. i will work to protect those social security benefits. i'm concerned with if the republicans get control of congress, i'm concerned with what they're going to do with social security. you've got to remember, in 2006 the republicans attempted to privatize social security. if that had actually occurred, and then we had the recession in 2007-2008, we would have been in worst shape than during the great depression if we allowed the republicans to privatize social security. one of the things i will do is i will make sure that social security and medicare benefits are protected for our senior

citizens. >> senator. >> if i'm reelected to the united states senate i commit to you, i will not in any way reduce benefits that people have earned for social security. i will not reduce social security benefits for those people who are on it. having said that, justin hit the nail on the head when he said we need to strengthen social security. because as it currently exists with the benefits being paid out it is going to go broke. right now it isn't that big of a bite into the federal budget. but it is going to be in future years. what's going to have to happen is we've got to go back to people who aren't on it yet or people who are way back and those benefits -- not benefits that they've earned but future benefits are going to have to be adjusted so it becomes sustainable. if it spt, that's going to be a real problem. for people who are on social security today and people that are going to come on it in the future. it can be done. and interestingly enough i sat through a couple of proposals

on that. it really doesn't take that much adjustment if you go back to do it. but again, i commit to you, i'm not going to reduce benefits for people who have earned on social security. it is a moral obligation as well as a legal obligation. >> but senator this is not an endless pot of money. and many are fearful that the baby boomers are not going to see a social security check in 20 years when they retire or 15 years when they retire. >> you know, mark, i've heard that before. but i've looked at the numbers that they've rolled out and i will say this. i think you're right that people who are in their 40's, in their 30's will not see social security as it is today. the benefits that they've earned up to the point that social security gets changed, they will continue to have. but as far as this unfunded liability, that's borrowing from china in order to pay pen

fits, that can't go on. but it really can be done if people with good will will sit down and give and take on that. >> we're not borrowing from china to fund social security. all of the numbers that i've looked at social security is sound for at least the next 20 years. it is not something -- running around now saying the sky is going to fall in like chicken little is just not right. and i'm reassured to hear the senate say that he is going to support social security, because three months ago he told his fan base that he would -- they could take it to the bank, he was going to lead the charge to cut entitlements. well, entitlements of course we're talking about social security and medicare. i'm glad he's chaked his position on that. >> i have to let you respond. >> that simply isn't true. i always committed, when i ran last time i committed that i

would not touch social security benefits, veterans benefits or medicare. you earned those benefits. i recognize that. i appreciate that. i will never touch those benefits. there are other forms of entitlement that are definitely going to have to be changed as we ratchet the budget back. >> next question has to do with safety which is on an increased alert level from many u.s. citizens in light of several missteps involving our secret service and a few other federal organizations. senator, first of all you serve on the intelligence committee. how concerned should american citizens be about the safety inside our borders right now? and what is congress doing to bring that alert level down? >> well, mark, first of all i would say this. there's absolutely no reason to panic. is there reason that we should always be vigilant and on guard? absolutely. we have an intelligence community that we oversee, as i said, a couple times a week we

oversee the 16 intelligence -- admitted intelligence agencies and other intelligence efforts that we make and i feel very comfortable with what they're doing. they've done a great job since 9/11 as far as protecting the homeland. but they've got to be right 100% of the time. and admittedly we've had some breaks in catching people plotting against the united states. we've had other incidents that nobody will ever hear about. but i think people need to go about their life. we spend a lot of money on this. we spend a lot of time on this intelligence. it is a bipartisan effort. i can tell you it's the most bipartisan -- one of the most bipartisan things i do back in washington, d.c. and we are focused on keeping the homeland safe. >> mr. mitchell. >> safety. how much of a concern is it and what would you do? >> i take safety very seriously. i lost a close friend on september 11th who was on one

of the planes that hit the world trade center. one of the my brothers served on the presidential task force that set up the department of homeland security after 9/11, in particular, the operations side of the science and technology part of homents. so it is something that i take -- homeland security. so it is something that i take very seriously. and i do believe that our country does a very good job. but i also agree with the senator. we still need to remain vigilant. and it is something that we can't take for granted. >> doctor, you'll address this to mr. mitchell. >> you've made reference in this debate about gridlock in washington. and certainly that's a problem i think for all americans who see our government as being dysfunctional. how do we really get at that, however? it seems to me that perhaps on oth sides there are entrenched interests. who are very satisfied with the

status quo and very happy with the gridlock that we currently have in the congress. what would you do about it? >> the way that we get beyond it is by electing different types of people to go back to washington. in terms of the gridlock that we face today in washington, you know, i blame harry reid but i also blame mitch mcconnell. in terms of the senate which mr. risch referred to earlier, the seniority system in the senate might be part of the problem because we here in idaho did not elect mitch mcconnell nor did we elect harry reid. we need people back there like myself who go back to washington and are used to working with different types of people. during the course of my career i've worked with democrats, i've worked with republicans, i've worked with liberals, i've worked with conservatives. i know how to bring people together. during the course of my career i've handled matters in 25 different states and ten different countries.

i know how to bring people together to get them to work together. it's my skill as a problem solver. that's what i would bring with me back to washington, d.c. >> mr. mitchell are you really getting at the root of the problem? perhaps it is elected officials. but what about the interest groups who are entrenched in washington who have the financing and the ability to block most pieces of legislation who are perfectly happy with the status quo? how are you going to address that? >> well, i agree that the special interests have way too much power in washington, d.c. and they have way too much power in connection with these career politicians. and unfortunately it's because of the money-making contributions to reelection campaigns, they are buying influence. that is a problem we need to continue to shine a light on the influence that the special interests lobbyists have in washington, d.c. that's one of the reasons i

made the commitment to only run for one term because i want to focus on doing the right thing not in getting reelected in six years. >> senator, a lot to respond to there. >> there is. let me get to the heart of it. the gridlock in washington, d.c. is caused by the two very philosophical differences of the parties and the people who are elected to the united states senate. they reflect the very different view of what america is and should be that the american people have today. that is what's cause it had gridlock today. you've got a group of people like idahoens who are conservative who want a central government that doesn't stick its nose into every aspect of life. and then i have friends in the senate -- democrats -- who come from very different states. they come from massachusetts, maryland, but they are sent down there to expand federal programs, to tax more, to get more money to send back to those states for these social programs. this causes real gridlock between us.

but i'm dying to compromise. it's compromise that got us here. we love to beat the democrats up and say you're spending $3.8 trillion a year. they didn't do it by themselves. it was compromise little by little, drip by drip since the second world war that got us to where we are. we can compromise our way out of this but they've got to compromise. when you start talking about spending less, they look at you like you've got three heads. we've got to have compromise. that's what going to get us out of this. >> 30 seconds before we're going to closing statements. but this is a short question and it requires a short answer. a 30-second answer if you would. what is for you senator and what would be for you mr. mitchell your number one priority in this job as you -- as a senator. >> my number one priority would be focusing on idaho. what can i do for idaho?

and as i've said, my number one priority there is jobs and the economy. we need somebody back in washington who can be an advocate for idaho, interests valus that's where i would be. there's a lot of things a senator can do to help improve the economy and jobs situation in idaho, raising the minimum wage. we raised the minimum wage blocked by my opponent, 176,000 people in this state will receive a raise, over 20% of our workforce. we can also bring jobs back home to idaho. >> senator your number one priority. >> number one priority is i'm going to continue to go back there and tell those people we can't have business as usual. we've got to balance the budget, we've got to start spending less. and i'm going to keep hah ranging them on that point. i've done it for six years and i'm going to continue to do it. the continued existence of this

country depends upon us solving that problem. number two, i have six offices in idaho. we focus on constituent problems. i have a really good team to address the problems that people have with the federal government and we've got people streaming in there every day with problems with the federal government with everything from veterans administration, social security and everything you can think of. i've got a great team. >> it's been a lively hour and we have one minute for each afyou to address the camera for your closing statements. again as we started the show. senator risch. >> thank you very much. and again, thank you for watching. remember what i promised you when we started. and that was that this choice is going to be very clear to you. if you want a conservative republican i'm that person. if you want a liberal democrat he's that person. what you're seeing here is a very clear contrast between the two of us. as i said, this gentleman supported both hillary clinton and barack obama as they made

their pushes for the white house. i've spent six years back there fighting every day to stop this fundamental cultural change agenda that barack obama has promised to bring to us and that he worked every day. we've got 837 days left of barack obama. if you send me back to the united states senate i will continue to bring that message that we don't want what he is selling. on the other hand, if you think barack obama is moving this country, harry reid, dianne feinstein, barbara boxer, are moving the way you want, you need to vote for this guy. but california's already got two senators. they don't need a third senator. if you reelect me to the united states senate, vicky and i would be honored, privileged, and humbled to once again serve there. god bless you all and thank you for watching tonight. >> mr. mitchell. >> once again, i'm running against senator risch. i've never met harry reid.

i've never met president obama. i will go back to washington to represent the interests and values that we all share here in idaho. idaho deserves a u.s. senator who understands the importance of a strong economy and good-paying jobs, who will work for bipartisan solutions to our nation's challenges, who will be a champion for seniors, veterans, and idaho's working families. idaho deserves a senator who represents the interests and values of the people of idaho. by voting no and never saufering solutions mr. risch thinks that he has an easy job. but he's completely failed when it comes to standing up for people in idaho. senator risch accepts dysfunction, depridlock and partisanship in congress. that's just wrong. our country needs a working senate and idaho needs a working senator. let's move away from the failed politics of the past. it is time to open the window

and let some fresh air into the u.s. senate. i respectfully ask for your vote on november 4. >> thank you for being here. that's all the time we have for now. this is the first of a series of debates. you can see them posted on line and then join us on election night november 4th for complete results. thanks for watching this edition of decision 2014. >> c-span's campaign 2014 is bringing you more than 100 debates for the control of congress. stay in touch with our coverage and engage. follow us on twitter. and like us at facebook.com/c-span. c-span's 2014 campaign coverage continues today beginning at 3:00 p.m. eastern with a debate in the arkansas u.s. senate race. among incumbent democratic republican pryor,

candidate cotton, independent france, and independent swainy. then virginia mark warner and ed gillespie. then kentucky senator mitch mcconnell and alison grimes. ive today on c-span. >> here are just a few of the comments we've recently received from our viewers. > the gentleman from the nra supporting the so-called second amendment. the gentleman that handled the questions never went back to the fact that this man did not answer the two questions fully. are the answer what

- why the nra does not support background checks at our gun shows and they didn't answer fully how much money the nra is getting from the gun manufacturers and other friends. you guys don't support or don't -- present the opposite viewpoint, i'm going to stop watching c-span. you're supposed to be independent. don't get that. >> thank you so much for having hosted chris cox from the national rifle association earlier today. i was able to get into the show. i was the first caller to mr. cox. as i was trying to impart

child of a holocaust survivor , the second amendment is the ly thing between tyranny and freedom. people who are concerned with naziism, being froms radical islamism, they ought to to bear ed the right fire power. >> i was watching this nra segment of c-span today and it's just amazing. very few democrat calls. also the people are calling are white and hate the president. could you please show us where the president has said that he is against the second

amendment? still, your host is letting all this be spude. this is just one sided. thank you. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the rograms you're watch us. >> next, c-span's coverage of the 2014 campaign continues with a debate in the michigan governors race. after that, q&a with robert timberg, author and vietnam veteran. and live at 7:00 a.m. your calls and comments on washington journal." now, a debate in the michigan governor race. incumbent rick snyder faces democratic challenger shower in detroit, michigan.

governor shower was elected in 2010 was over 58% of the vote. this is courtesy of the detroit free press and detroit public television just under an hour. >> welcome. we are on the campus of wayne state university.

our audience is made up of nondemit voters and guests. they will get to ask questions of the candidates along with our moderators. congressman mark schauer. >> gentlemen, welcome. as christie noted, there are few in this format. no clock, no buzzers but we ask you keep your answers throughso key with move as many issues as