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 rebellion. 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 changed 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 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 both 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 idahoans 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 haranguing 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 offering us 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, deadlock 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 2014 is bringing you more than 100 debates for the control of congress. stay in touch with our coverage and engage. like uss on twitter and at facebook.com/c-span. >> c-span's campaign 2014 coverage continues with the live kansas senate debate between republican pat roberts and his independent challenger greg orman. you can see it at 8:00 p.m. senator carl levin was a

institute of pce wednesday to talk about u.s.-afghanistan relations. we will have live coverage of his remarks starting that 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span two. >> c-span's 2015 student can competition is underway. this competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a documentary on the topic the three branches and year. videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view, and must be submitted by january 20, 2015. grab a camera and get started today. just a few of the comments we have received from our viewers. >> i am a nurse. i just watched your segment on c-span regarding our

relationship with liberia, in regards to the ebola virus. i'm ok with that. however, i really do believe that the only way to keep americans safe is to prevent anybody coming over from liberia , and wenited states don't have a vaccine yet for this ebola virus. if an american does become ill and dies because of that, it is just not fair to the american people. it is not doing us a service for keeping us safe. i am a retired nurse practitioner. listening to

especially the medical experts speak on tv to the american at one i am shocked completely inaccurate comment. contagiousnessut is that a patient, some viruses can be the most contagious on the day before they actually show symptoms. i've checked with enough local colleagues to find out, no, you are right, that hasn't changed. it sounds like people are confronting that misinformation. >> what has happened with ebola so far proves that the united states is not prepared to deal with this in an efficient way, that homeland security is not

efficient. we have known that. that the transportation security administration did not do its job, and the hospital to which this man went did not do its job. it seems to me that people from dangerous areas should either be allowed -- not allowed to come to the united states or should be quarantined or put into a special camp, ft. worth at least undergo medical examination upon coming off the plane. >> continue to let us know about the programs you're watching. call us at -- or you can send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook or follow us on twitter. live coverage of the kansas senate debate between incumbent republican pat roberts and his independent challenger

greg orman. we spoke with a reporter from "the topeka capital journal" about the race. here is a look. lot of them. host: i want to go to kansas now. joining us on the phone is tim carpenter. talking about the kansas senate race. the two candidates are going to be squaring off in a debate and c-span will have that coverage of it on wednesday at 8:00 p.m. between pat roberts and greg .rman a guest: good morning. i think we will see more of the same from two previous debates. will go on the attack against the independent candidate, mr. orman. host: is this debate more important for one of these candidates? caller: that's an interesting

question. it is broadcast statewide. the previous debates -- one was in johnson county for business executives. the first one was at the state fair. so far, the state fair debate gets the purple ribbon. the wednesday tv debate will be important because more people will have their eyes on these gentlemen. undecidedshandful of out there and they will decide this election. both have a lot at stake because polling shows it's anybody's race. host: greg orman came out with an ad. republicans for greg orman. [video clip] i grew up in a republican household we have seen such gridlock in washington.

they won't work together. i'm ready for a fresh face. someone who will represent the best interests of kansas. greg orman will find innovative ways to solve problems. being an independent gives him the opportunity to find ways to work with both sides to end the gridlock. i will be voting for greg orman. host: a new greg orman at. he has not said whether he will caucus with democrats or republicans. is he appealing to republicans in kansas? caller: of course he is. he can't win without winning a large number of moderate republican votes. ad isdividual in the sandy kreger, the state insurance commissioner. she is endorsing the independent. senator roberts campaign is centered on the train mr. orman as a democrat.

orman as a mr. democrat. this is opportunity for orman to get a republican out in front of him and show people that republicans can come to the orman camp as well. host: here's a piece in the washington times this morning. senatety backs roberts bid in order to defeat greg orman. folks had tea party campaigning with the incumbent republican. you had gop establishment of also campaigning for him. the key to this is winning the support of martin wolf, who has the tea party backed candidate that greg orman was able to beat heading into this one. what are you hearing about his endorsement? caller: he was a tea party

against senator roberts. he was a very challenging primary for this senator. senator roberts narrowly won. he was a troubled candidate. he had been posted to the internet -- he was a damaged candidate, but really dug into roberts on a couple of points. winrder for roberts to coming he had to alienate a bunch of tea party people. --the general election sometimes candidates drive to the middle towards victory. roberts is pushing back to the outside to try to reclaim those tea party votes. -- theyparty expressed endorsed roberts. occur, i would

be surprised. it is certainly possible. host: i want to show our viewers 's recent ad against the greg orman, trying to president obama. [video clip] debt.llions in new obamacare. nearly 10 million americans unemployed. --ack obama says >> these policies are -- >> his candidate> greg orman. a vote for greg orman is a vote for the obama agenda. is that strategy working for pat roberts? two people in kansas believe that? caner: a couple of points

be made. the president is not very popular in a very conservative republican state like kansas. senator roberts has done everything in his power to try to attach greg orman to the president. in debates and public appearances, roberts will speak more frequently of harry reid and barack obama then he will greg orman. convince voters that greg orman is a clone of the president of the united states, senator roberts has a much better chance of victory. he doesn't really talk about policy issues or ideas. it's more of a labeling attack. it appears like that is working. the polls are narrowing. host: what is the latest? caller: the latest polling they came out yesterday said that orman was up 3%. that is within the margin of error. it's a tossup.

host: we will be watching wednesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. c-span will have live coverage of the kansas senate debate between pat roberts and greg orman. >> the debate airs on wednesday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and appears here on c-span. >> c-span's 2015 student competition is under way. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a five to seven minute documentary on the topic, the three branches and you. videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view and must be submitted by january 20, 2015. .org. studentcam

grab a camera and get started today. >> now the debate between oregon incumbent governor john kitzhaber and his republican chnler dennis richardson. the plip political reporter lists the race as likely democratic. this comes to us courtesy of portland.in it's an hour. >> oregonians have a choice this november. should democrat john kitzhaber get four more years leading the state? or is it time for a change with republican dennis richardson? both candidates have long political records. and are trying to position themselves as leaders who can grow oregon's economy. kitzhaber was an emergency room doctor before entering politics. and campaigns on his leadership with health care policy. >> i think we've done a really good job together over the last three years. but the fact is oregon won't be a good place for any of us to live unless it's a good place for all of us to live. >> if kitzhaber is elected he

would be the only person in oregon history to serve four years -- four terms as governor. >> and his worked to build his image in the portland metro area. >> i am concerned about our state. and about its future. and concerned about the ability to work and the ability to have a job that -- and to restore the legacy that we were given by our pioneer forebearers. >> tonight, you'll have a chance to hear from both richardson and kitzhaber. as they are pressed on their positions by a panel of journalists from kgw and "the oregonian." from the kgw studios in portland, this is "decision 2014." a debate for oregon's governor. >> hello, everyone. welcome to decision 2014, the oregon governors' race. i'm tracy barry.

"the oregonian" and kgw are pleased to welcome the two major party candidates. democrat john kitzhaber and republican dennis richardson. we do plan to cover a wide range of topics tonight. but first, we have to address the major controversy surrounding the governor and his fiancee, sylvia hayes, and some of the revelations of the past week. we also want to focus on the role hayes plays in the governor's office and if that represents a conflict of interest with her job. a first question comes from laura gunder son, a reporter at "the oregonian." laura? >> governor kitzhaber, when did you first learn about sylvia hayes, 1997 plans to grow pot in rural washington? and given the apparent gaps in how she was vetted, what you do have to say about the people you have chosen as advisors? what would you say about the people you have chosen as advisors? >> i have received a lot o >> i havef received new information over the week. and some of it very hard to assimilate. 17 years ago, before i knew

sylvia and she knew me, she was involved in some illegal activities. i don't condone it. i wish it hadn't happened but it did. she's acknowledged it which took some courage and she's assumed responsibility for it and is willing to face the consequences. the fallout of that set of activities and how we deal with that fallout is really a personal matter between sylvia and myself. fallout is a personl matter between cylvia and myself. >> have you decided if you will keep cylvia hayes on as an advisor in your office, and what do you say about her role to benefit her private business? >> i do not believe there was a conflict of interest and i believe we have met the letter and spirit of oregon ethics laws. i am concerned about the perception which is why i asked my office to turn over to the ethics commission all the relevant contracts, of which there are only three, and the accompanying conflict of interest forms and ask the ethics commission to review our

processes and procedures and make sure we are within the bounds of our ethics laws. >> representative richardson, which you like to weigh in? >> i think it is interesting. we should not be focusing on what happened 17 years ago because that is between cylvia hayes and law enforcement. it is a character issue and it plays into what is happening presently. we have a governor who had an hiscal -- a letter from chief of staff and chief legal advisor, and it did not seem to fit with what cylvia hayes wanted so it was rewritten. my question is, governor, did you know that the ethics advice you are given is that she was violating her ethical responsibilities by using staff was itng her title and your direction that actually told your staff to change the ethical opinion so it would allow her to continue to do those things? >> would you like to respond? >> as i said, when we, when she

came into office, we have the obvious issue of the first lady and we set up procedures and processes. it was multilayered. we worked very hard and diligently to make sure her activities fell within the spirit and the intent and the letter of oregon ethics laws. i believe that they did and do. of thell ask on behalf voters, looking forward, i think there are people who would like to know what role you see her playing if you are reelected. she had mentioned she would maybe like a bigger role as one of your advisors. think ballots will be arriving tomorrow. what will they expect? taking personal time to address these issues herself and does not have a role in the administration. will not have a role until all

of the relevant questions are answered, particularly the conclusions of the ethics commission concerning the relationship between her activities and any potential conflict of interest. let me say again that i don't believe there was a conflict. >> we don't really know until that report comes out. >> as i said, time will tell. there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before we define a role. >> it does not address the reality that last year, the governor's chief of staff and legal representative said that cylvia's actions were illegal, unethical. and then they changed that opinion so that she would sign a new document that said that she could utilize the resources that she had in her position and still conduct your business. i don't think that change would have taken place unless the governor instructed them to change that. complicitknow, is he

in asking his legal authorities in chief of staff to change their opinion on oregon ethics to comply with the desires that he has named of the first lady? >> the answer is no, of course not. we reviewed each of the contracts several times, through several lenses, and modified them so that in the end, the final contact, of which i will remind you that there are only three, complied with ethics laws. amount ofan abundant caution to make sure we met the intent of ethics laws and that is why we turned it over to the ethics commission to review those procedures. >> those contracts were signed before they change the opinion. >> we will move on to other topics. i am sure it will come up again. i want to let you know that joe donnellan will join us with questions sent in by you, the

readers and viewers of kgw and "the oregon." and we tweet it to us will pick up some of those sections in the social of the debate. now, let's get to the rest of our topics. i want to your my do of our panelists. you of ouro remind panelists. christopher carey, who i don't do a debate without, an associate professor at portland state university. tile, you have a question for representative richardson. in the polls and critics say you are out of step with the majorities of voters in oregon's biggest cities. what you say to voters who do not support you now to reconsider? >> they need to consider that governor kitzhaber is not

running for governor. he is running for a fourth term and he does not deserve it. unemployment is higher than national average and has been for 18 years. our education system is a dismal failure. we are next to last in graduation rates. our trust in government has never been worse. we have wasted $300 million on cover oregon, $190 million on the crc bridge, and $70 billion just on a recent department of human services modernization program. up. is $561 million burned we have nothing to show for it, except a lot of people on medicaid, which we would have done either way. the governor has to deserve a fourth term. by his actions, the dismal returns we have had for the last 20 years, it has been bringing us down. we need a governor who will turn the arrow up so we can restore jobs, the economy, education system, and trust. >> governor, i will give you a

chance. whatsentative richardson, about being out of step with the majority of voters in the metro area? does that ring true for you? >> well, not exactly. certainly my views on some of the social issues happen different than media buzzers. as governor, i take an oath to enforce an honor the will of the people. i will do that. that is my commitment. we have discussions about issues. we debate, we passed laws. the courts make their determination. once that is done, we will enforce the law. i'm glad that those things are behind us because we can focus on the economy and education and trust. >> first of all, i think values is a part of this race and we differ fundamentally on key value. a woman's right to control her givingctive health, workers strong voices in the workplace. we have added 100,000 jobs.

freeze the first tuition in 14 years and 95% of oregonians now have health care coverage. tens of thousands for the first time. i am happy to run on that. >> your message in seeking a fourth term pretty much boils down to we are not done yet. if you are elected, can you tick off three areas where the middle class in oregon could see some improvement in these next four years? >> the recovery has been spotty. we need to lean in to make sure that the recovery picks up people in rural oregon. we need to fully implement health care reform efforts to move to the private sector, which could be a game changer in terms of costs to businesses. we need to continue to implement goals,onal reform especially around early and third-grade reading and reconnecting high school

students with current technical education and computer science. >> this is ignoring the reality the loware facing economic growth and so forth because of the governor's programs the last 20 years. our current unemployment rate has gone up. it is 7.1%. we have lost in the last month several hundred jobs. nationally, 248,000 new jobs have been created and the unemployment rate is down to 5.9%. we are still going down in the wrong direction. >> you have issues on several issues, including standing against gamers. now that it is legal, what will you say to gay couples of called to defend same-sex marriage? >> congratulations on your marriage. these issues have been discussed but that is behind us.

i say congratulations. i'm happy the issue of marriage has been resolved once and for all. we can move on. this is about free agency for individuals. the decisions have been made. i had my arguments, other people had their arguments. i trust the people on both sides. people have heartfelt issues about the -- feelings about these issues. they have been resolved. what i have to say to couples now married is congratulations. >> i commend representative to allow view oregonians to -- it took a while, but congratulation. >> graduation rates remain stubbornly low. what you tell oregonians looking for improvement now? >> there is no one lever you can switch to change graduation rates.

there are things we can do over the long-term, which require systemic and intentional investment strategy. the work we are doing in early learning can get every child in the state reading in the third grade within five years, which means we are not sending kids behind the curve into the school system in the first place. reconnecting kids with computer science gives them a reason to stay in high school and we will have a package of incentives and budgetary recommendations to actually add that to our makes going forward. i think that the challenge and issue is there is no quick fix. you have to have a very intentional strategy and that is 40-40-20 really is. it ensures that our kids graduate from high school and they get at least two years of post secondary education or a baccalaureate degree and we are back on track. >> 20 years ago we heard the same story. by golly, we will be top in the

world by 2010. guess what? it did not happen. it is more talk. the reality is our achievement level has gone down. graduation is going down. the future of a child is determined by the zip code their parents live in. that is wrong. it is not about more talk. it is about what we can do to change the course of education to restore it. we have school districts in our state that have almost 100% graduation rates and we have school districts that are almost 50%. what we need to do is learn from the best, implement them. every student needs a mentor. we need to have shops and opportunities for kids that are not going to be going to college and that can be done with a change in our approach and not just more promises. richardson,ative you have said that you oppose common core, the language, arts, and math standard set for students around the country. what specifically do you

oppose? >>, and core was offered by the federal government. if you accepted it, the federal government said we have $4 million of stimulus money that we will give to early adopters. the mission statement sounds great. students -- we want all students to do well. the devil is in the details. we are having the teachers teach you a test. i know teachers they have quit who have said i will not be a class monitor that is teaching to a test. i am here to teach. it takes away from students, from parents, and from teachers and school districts any control over education. it comes from washington dc bureaucrats and not from those who know the students the best. i think we need to restore greater control by those that know and love the student's best, and that is the parents, teachers, and local school

board. , and core standards recognize it oregon kids are not going to be competing with other kids -- recognizee standards oregon kids are not just going to be competing with other kids zpwhrgts common compor standards say oregon kids will not be competeth with other kids in oregon. competing around the world. we measure it. we have gotten rid of all the tests. we got a waiver last year to give us another year to connect state testing to student assessment so we can implement our homegrown assessment process that has been collaboratively built by the oregon education association. we have heard a lot about cover oregon and critics have been quite critical of you. you promised more accountability in the future and this past week we learned that cover oregon asked a top consultant not to formally submit a report in order to keep things secret. why should voters believe cover oregon will be held accountable

when we hear a still a lot -- when we still hear about secrecy? >> this is between the state of oregon and the department of justice. it was about the release of information would jeopardize the court case against organ. it was determined it was not and the information has been redacted and the report has been made public. the keeper of the report basically cleaned up cover oregon. he believes this could continue as a freestanding entity. i don't. i believe once we deliver a functional website in november, which we will, the remaining functions of cover oregon need to go into a state agency, the probably the department of insurance and finance where we can have direct oversight. we never took our eye off the ball. now have only 5% of oregonians without health insurance coverage. that is a huge victory for working-class people in oregon in general. i am very proud of it.

>> he is really proud of it. i can't believe this. cover oregon is an abysmal failure. $300 million burned out. we can imagine what they would be like if it was piled and you put a match on a. he talks about signing up 350,000 oregonians. the majority were signed up for medicaid. we were signing people up for medicaid before cover oregon. you have 95,000 that were signed up for individual policies. those policies and individuals will be completely reenrolled by the federal government. there is nothing to show for it, except it has been covered up before, it has been hidden, and the history of the report has been hidden as well because he does not want to admit it is an abysmal failure and it has been that way from the beginning because he chose the wrong people to go over the project and it was mismanaged from the beginning. i read one of your proposals

that was especially interesting, to create a lieutenant governor position to foster international trade and open trade offices overseas. can you name three countries forming where you would like to see offices opening and what we would promote their? >> certainly. we have offices in some right now. number one would be china and japan and malaysia. these are countries that care about oregon. oregon is a gateway to the asian countries. what we want to do is ensure that we have someone who has status to go over and work with the people to help prepare us to sell our products and services to a larger degree. that is how you create jobs. you create jobs by expanding demand for products and services. >> what do they want to buy? >> what they want to buy from us is everything we've got, from hazelnuts to wheat to technical, technologyigh

equipment and chips and so forth. we have many things that we offer. we have drones and aircraft that can be sold. what we need to do is have someone over there because to expand our economy, you have to have people that want to buy oregon. that should be the ambassador for oregon products and services. if you have a lieutenant governor over there is setting up office oversee, laying the groundwork so the governor can go and close the deal. >> oregon is a trait-dependent state. over the last three years i have missions to shanghai, berlin, amsterdam. the job of the governor is to represent the state. need a lieutenant governor. it is the job of the governor and i have been doing it. >> i don't think there have been any trade missions in the last two years and he spent more time in boot tan than he has in either china or japan, more than

our two major trade partners. talk is cheap. >> i have nothing to add. >> you have said building a new i-5 bridge between oregon and washington remains a critical issue. what specific steps you take to get the bridge built? >> first of all, it would be delightful to see the election change the makeup of the washington state legislature. tea party senators essentially tanked the project. if that does not work, the next question is looking at public-private partnership along the coast of west coast infrastructure exchange, which find private capital to fund public infrastructure. we cannot rely on the federal government to rely those resources. they cannot even keep the surface transportation fund solvent. we have dealt with washington

and california and if we cannot do it to action, joint action by oregon and washington, we would have to look at that. it is a critical issue. everything from oregon goes through it. it is our portal to the global economy. is on the failure feet of the governor. we could have a bridge being built presently if it wasn't his determination that we would have light rail over this bridge that was going to a community that did not want it. once again, he is blaming others for his failure to understand how things should really work. inwe work with legislators both states and governors with both states and were open and could have awe bridge presently. oregon said here are the parameters. they were not met. the project was stopped. his responses i will go it alone. he does not go it alone. yesterday has to execute the laws and decisions made by the representatives of the people in

the legislature. the idea of doing what you want has hurt us and it is heard us again. >> you don't understand the financing mechanism. a hundred $50 million of financing was built around light rail. if that went away, the financing for the bridge went away. you can understand -- you have to understand how the bridge would be financed it you criticize me for what happened. >> governments build bridges. infrastructure is a basic thing that governments do. campaign, youthe talked about a proposal to build a freeway through the middle of the state onto ontario. how do you justify that kind of expense, especially for commuters in the portland metro area that are stuck in traffic each and everyday? we haveof the reason such congestion up is because there has been a failure to and the commuting utilization of vehicles is an important aspect. the governor has stated to a group of mayors that we have to deal with climate change.

we have to force commuters into public transportation. that does not solve anything for the rest of the state. we need to open up our state and by having a freeway system, and it will take 10-20 years to do this, but you have to start somewhere. by doing this you can have a vibrant economy on the coast, open up the depressed area county,usco to -- koos and go across eastern oregon to ontario and you can take a tremendous amount of traffic that can just the portland area and give them a direct route to eastern oregon in a way they do not have presently. it will help congestion and it will help expand the economic aspects of our state in the central part of our state. you are't know how going to pay for it. what's we want our transportation future to look like in 2025 and how will we pay

for it? we have a vision process being led by larry campbell. to finance it, we will have to look beyond the gas tax. it is not a sustainable way to finance the infrastructure. as people start to use mass transit, to do with congestion and to reduce the capacity needs on the road, we have to look at vehicle mile travels. if a righty innovative ways to finance highways. what do we want our infrastructure to look like? what are the demands? how will we pay for it? >> this question for both candidates. i will give you equal time to respond. governor, perhaps you would like to answer it first. a generation ago, oregon was known as a national leader. policies like the bottle bill in the ocean opened beaches. what is your vision to returning oregon to the national forefront?

>> i will give you a couple of examples. the coordinated care model, in which a million oregonians are now in, which is providing outstanding health outcomes and growing at a rate that is slower it than the growth of state revenues, is one incredibly innovative model that i think will be expanded nationally. i think the work we have done on the force collaborative in northeast oregon, figuring out a win-win between the timber industry and conservation community with the tenure stewardship contract that is keeping a mill open in the john day and adding jobs and a second one. the west coast infrastructure exchange which i referred to, which is a creative way to figure out how we can do with the huge infrastructure gap along the west coast in absence of the federal government would be another example. i think we will see a model in byly learning hubs fundamentally changing the way we approach early learning and childhood development. >> part of the reason we don't

have that innovation now is the policies that have been implemented by the governor for the last 20 years. he was in charge of the senate and his first term in governor, he was not fighting for allowing us to use natural wrister source -- natural resources in a proper way. we have 40,000 jobs lost in the forest industry. he is not fighting to have us have greater influence over there. we have presently, the liquid natural gas project. this is a $7.5 billion project. that kind of money, you can have innovation. you can have growth. you can have development and entrepreneurs. without being willing to help to get a better economy when you have opportunities such as liquid natural gas, but we do is we destine our state to flounder along with low income, bad

education, and lessens the likelihood we will have innovation, entrepreneurship, and growth as we have in the past. >> you have embraced the green energy sector. solar and wind companies have not created as many jobs as expected. do you see tax breaks for greener energy companies as a good investment for the state of oregon? >> it is not a long the lines of the former betsy, which was overgenerous and created issues. there is a role for tax incentives for renewable energy. if we internalize the cost in that wind, i think solar, and other renewable energies would be competitive on the market. we externalize the cost of burning fossil fuel by simply dumping the carbon dioxide into the public air, if you will. the epa ruled that is going to address carbon emissions and the energy transportation sector

will force us in that direction. productive conversations with pg&e and pat ryden from pacific court to figure out how we can collaboratively move in that direction by reducing carbon, increasing renewable energy without creating a burden on either ratepayers were industry. >> i think part of it depends on who the senior advisor is going to be. in the past you had a senior advisory who tripled her income between 2012 and 2013 by working for companies that wanted energy contracts while she had influence with the governor's office. and so it's suspicion as to what -- where we've been in the recent past on energy -- on these energy projects and decisions being made. having said that, wind is important, solar is important. the challenges, wind isn't always blowing and the sun isn't

always shining. we need to make sure that we have an energy package that provides the energy resources so we can attract businesses and expand businesses that we have because that creates jobs and restores a more prosperous deme. >> i'm a little bit confused. is that a yes or no to the tax breaks for green companies? would you -- >> it would fend on what they are and it would depend on who's recommending them. if you have an advisor that's on the take, you don't know if you're getting real advice or if it's self-interest device. >> nothing? >> i won't respond to that. or dignify it, actually. >> you support transporting coal through oregon for export to asian but acknowledge that humans play a role in climate change. how do you answer the question that asians burning in cole that

passes through here is having an impact on us here. >> whether they get it from some other location where they're not as concerned about the environment as we are or that we use environmental safeguards to provide it to be transported in a safe and environmentally sound way while we create hundreds of jobs, investment of money into our economy and a self-assessed tax that will provide money to schools. i think it makes sense 230r us to be leaders in this and also accept the reality that people need to have heat. they need to be able to cook their food. in asian countries they're using coal to do that. we can set an example. for us to dictate what's going to happen there is to merely say we're going to have personal philosophy and which an extreme group of con certificate vegasases -- conservationists.

>> governor. >> i oppose it for three reasons. as a governor it makes no sense to subsidize the burning of folve fuel in asian. i oppose it as a physician, because the jet stream flows from aving this way and we are going to get the particulate, the mercury and all of that stuff back in our backyard. i oppose it as a father. i want my son to be able to take 30. sh breath when he is it is the dirtiest form of fuel and i do not export it. >> we're going to wrap up this portion with one last question. although representative richardson i think you've hit on this a little bit already but the question is for both of you. could you tell us why you think your opponent is the wrong choice for oregon? >> starting with me? >> sure, go ahead.

i believe that john is a nice person. we've worked together. that's mott the point. oregon needs leadership and we have 20 years of a downward snirle our economic environment. we have unploiment. we have a floundering of our economy. we have other states around us growing while we just bounce along on the bottom. we can't afford four more years of john kits hoffer. he said it's going to be better in the future but in the meantime we're losing a generation of our kids. we can't afford four more years of promises made and promises broken on being an education governor and we can't afford the distrust, the failure to be open and transparent in our government. we need to have a government that is open, hons, transparent. esn't hide the ball, doesn't

hide reports and doesn't continue to bring close to the governor those people who are not competent or they're not credible. >> we want to make sure that the governor gets same time to answer this. you could tell us why you think your opponent is the wrong choice for oregon. >> i am very fond of richard and we have worked well together in the past. i simply believe that, a, our shared values are fundamentally different. i do believe that it is important for women to have control over their own reproductive health choices. i think it's important for oregonians to be able to marry the person they love. i think it's important to form a union and collectively bargain. this is actually a job that requires some experience. it's -- experience and perspective matter. it's not like i'm doing heart surgery and someone says, you haven't done this before. go ahead and take orr. just don't grab the sharp end of the scalpel. i've had the opportunity to

serve in the legislature. i think that actually matters and is a factor in the decision that voters will be making in three weeks. >> all right. thank you, gentlemen. for this next section we're going to welcome joe who has some questions for our viewers and readers. >> lots of them coming in on witter and facebook. we'll share some of those. the candidates will each get 45 seconds to answer these questions. the first one, we heard from several people. they told us they were not inspired by either one of your campaigns. no offense. >> no offense taken. >> so what do you say to voters who are not satisfied with either candidate? and we begin, i believe, with the governor. >> i would say vote at the open primary. that would address some challenges we have with the two party system. this is a voice between two fundamentally different philosophies and visions of oregon's future and hopefully within the next 30 days -- we

have one more debate -- there will be an opportunity for people to sort of sift out the differences between representative richardson and myself and make it an informed choice. i encourage them all to vote. >> we haven't spent the money that's been spent in the past. our budgets are about a fourth of the money spent in 2 last election, so you're not seeing as much on the air. when you have those commercials and things like that, they're unhappy. >> we're never unhappy. >> some people aren't happy. . some not so happy. this is the last three weeks. it's important for people to become informed, to go to our websites, to see what we stand for. to look at what the past has been it's not about a republican versus a democrat. it's about the past versus the future. i say three terms is enough, because we haven't gotten where you're going to go so why four more years of four more years?

it's time nor a vision that will improve scombrobs, the education system and restore trust. >> this question came on on twitter. >> there's two parts to the g.m.o.'s. one them is we're coming up on labeling. i think people should have a full knowledge and understanding of what is in their food. so i support that. whether g.m.o.'s are a lifesaving measure or they're a poison for the people, i know that we're both concerned about the answer to that and i actually like the fact that this governor has set up a task force to study that. because the state has the ability to bring in the experts what the real science is. the decision needs to be made on

rational science and not on a motion. >> governor. >> i'll probably vote for the measure but i think that is the wrong issue. i think the international markets are going to determine that for us. they want non-g.m.o. products in ace ya and in the european union. we have a huge and important part of our industry that depends on g.m.o. products and a part that is non-g.m.o. the task force i put together is to find out what that looks like. they are completing a report to me and we'll meet again before the session to see if we can develop a package or set of policies that will allow that to appen. > i would say 10-year energy

action plan which we developed in 2012 was a huge part of that. the emphasis on trying to make the change to policies like the west coast action plan between california, british columbia and the state of washington is another. our major initiative on the environmental front in the next four years will be working lands, essentially how do we maintain our agriculture and timber land base in production for agriculture and timber while getting a contribution lift at the same time. >> i believe that we need to first look at what conclude done immediately. e all have responsibility. we need to understand that there is a need for a statewide policy

. because we don't have a stayed wide natural resource policy, in a couple of days this nullifies everything we do in portland. we need a statewide approach and not just a piecemeal approach. >> representative, this question name. how big a priority is leaving traffic congestion in the portland metro area and what do you plan to do about it? >> i think it's a tremendous priority. i am look out my office window and i see the bumper to bumper .raffic morning and night it's social engineering. it's his philosophy to force on the people by making it so that traffic jams also make people want to go to public transportation. it wasn't working. people are doing it -- weren't doing it, were let cyst ent what we need to do is look at the

outcome we want to do which is to be able to move commodities and commuters across the bridge and around our community in as little time as possible. so we need to be looking at speed limits, plans for more traffic -- inner traffic flow and more rhodes roads as necessary. >> governor. >> three things. we need to find a new way to finance our transportation infrastructure, not just driving on the road but mass transit, perksd and bicycle. very important. i talked about that earlier. slicked, we need to focus on mass transit. we need to give people other alternatives to get to and from work. we could look at staggered work hours to relieve some of the capacity on sunset highway. sometimes it's empty and sometimes it's full. finally, smart technology. the boards going up across the country help consumerers figure

out the best route to and from. >> yes or no, governor, do you favor raising the speed limit in oregon? several people asked this. >> i do not favor increasing the speed limit unless we can increase the number of oregon state place to patrol the roads fments >> i think it's important to do that. it's not citizen's problem. tights law's problem. >> this question comes in from the reader kate. she sks, what ideas do you have to keep children safe from gun depths and -- deaths? >> i believe that we should have greater training and utilization of firearms. i think that when the government starts dictating what is going to be done and how they're going to be held, we immediately start violating the individual and the privacy rights and secondly,ing the rights of the citizens. but what we need is to have greater training on safety.

we shouldn't avoid guns. guns are a tool, something that we use in target shooting and in hunting and for personal safety. we need to make sure that the use of fire armings is safe and rational. i've trained all of my kids. i've got one son and eight daughters. we've done target practice. i've got one daughter who's a dead eye. she's such a better shot than i am. the main thing was learning how to use them and use thome safely. >> i believe we need a more stringent background he can in the state of oregon, close the loop tholes make sure that people who shouldn't have guns, don't have access to guns. gun owners -- could commit a crime or injury. finally, i think we need to recognize that this is a larger societal issue and we need to look at the front end, which is

what we're trying to do with our learning, to try to identify kids who are at risk, who have mental health issues or need some family support to actually address the problems of people who might end up misusing a firearm. >> some people on twitter are asking if you are sure that no laws were broken sylvia hayes and why won't you ask a special prosecutor to investigate? >> i do not believe that any laws were violated, period. secondly, i do not believe that we have violated the intent for spirit of the ethics laws, as i've indicated, but because the perception and the nagging questions around this. as i said, we've given all the relevant information to the ethics commission to vet and review. >> and the question is why not ask for a special prosecutor? >> because i don't believe this

is a pros cue torle issue. i believe we need to -- pursue their professional career . >> we have a clear understanding of the people that it's corrupt when a person receives money from companies that have an input to the government and giving it to someone who has influence in government. we have statutes on that. for the govern to say that he doesn't see that that's the problem, he doesn't see corruption that's obvious to the rest of us. it's a blind spot because it's his fiance. either way, it's not helping our state or the example that's being set for us to have a governor that doesn't realize that it is wrong to take money in a government position as a senior advisory. >> governor, give me 15 -- give you 15 seconds to respond. >> there's no evidence that happened. a lot of it is smeck las vegas,

the conclusions of which i disagree with. we will find out when the ethics commission has a full review of the policies that we put into place to anticipate this. again, i welcome the review. >> which doesn't meet until after the election. >> we have this for you, how do you plan to keep your personal convictions separate when they conflict with the majority vote of the people. >> i've been a lawyer for over 31 years. many of my clients did not have viewpoints in line with mine but that didn't stop me from representing them. i have the ability to have my own opinion about things. i will take seriously my oath to abide by the laws of the constitution. i won't come into office and change my mind as our current govern has. i believe that since we have made the decision that on the social issues that those are off the table, i will enforce them

gladly. i'm happy that they're off the table because it allows us to stop setting off on those kinds f tangents when we should be concentrating on jobs and education and i can make that happen. >> i think there's a basic in consistency with that. forgive me. the voters have voted several times on whether to allow a woman the right to control her own health choices and yet you introduced 10 individual in your 11 tpwhills the legislature which would restrict a woman's right to make the choices. i think there's a fundamental inconsistency. i think it's streept move the focus off of that issue. but it is what it is. >> can the bill being mentioned over the years does not prove a point. i do not agree that they limit the reproductive choices made by a woman. they may have been bills that had different aspects of it like

dealing with the fact that there's emotional trauma and that kind of thing. >> honest question, why should we care about this election. >> i think that -- i think that's a sad question. this country depends on an active engaged citizenry. i was around when we worked to give the 18-year-olds the vote. when i was in college you could get trafted at 18 but you couldn't vote until you were 21. voting matters. democracy is not a spectator sport. it requires active engagementment and the energy to research the issues and vote. that question concerns me and i hope whoever asked it will refleaktflect on the time and the plood and the history of this country to protect and expand the franchise to vote. >> representative? 22,000 miles and

many of them died on the path. there was tall timber and 2k50e7 topsoil and wide rivers and a coastline and big fish. they wanted a legacy, they wanted opportunity. what do we have? it's about eligibility and qualifications and the government, you know, are you able to qualify to have the special deals that are offered to some companies and not to others. this election is about changing the course of our future. i have a vision that would enable us to have a greater expansion of our economy with better respect for our environment, a better education system that will help the students of our farmlies have a chance for a 21st century job. >> representative, my wife is an undocumented immigrant and able to change her status. without measure 88, my wife won't dablete be able to drive legally. do you think our communities

will be hurt if moms and dads can't drive? what is your solution? >> this is a difficult issue. i know there are families affected by this. my heart goes out them but to say that question should avoid the rule of law and make special elections on -- for people because we feel like that's a compassionate thing to do is to violate the very basis upon which our country and our state is based. we have immigrants that have been here, that we came here legally and we followed the rule of law and to say that we're going allow special exceptions for people who are here illegally, it stroilts law and it's a slap in the face of the immigrants who have come here and done it according to the law. >> it's not just about safe roads. it's about people who are in our community. they are our friends and neighbors and co-workers and they deserve the right to drive

safely to and from work, to take their kids to the doctor, to go to church. if we believe in the pursuit of happiness, that must include being able to take care of your family. this is part of the larger commitment to equity and sexunte opportunity in this state these people are taxpayers. they work in the state of oregon. they contribute to some of our most porch fundamental industries. i'm not willing to turn my back on them. we need a state who welcomes all residents. >> if they're here illegally, they're not taxpayers unless they're using someone else's social security number. let's be reasonable. >> the time is ticking down. we chose the order of who would close and governor, you will give the first of our closing statements. you have one minute. >> the choice is about two things. it's about values and the ability to deliver. my opponent and i differ greatly. we differ on the right of women

to control their own reproductive health choices. we differ on the right of oregonians to marry the person they love. we differ on the importance of our environment as the foundation of our identity and economy. this is a fundamentally better place than four years ago because we came together and found solutions to difficult issues. we erased the budget deficit, started a kindergarten. we have the first television freeze in 13 years. organize abs have health insurance coverage, many of them for the very first time we've pulled the state back together. we delivered for oregon. this race is about values and this race is about the ability to deliver. the choice is very clear. i'm proud to be your governor and i ask for your vote on november 4. thank you. >> you get the final word of the night. >> friends, oregon should be a

center of excellence where you should be known for this jobs, high incomes, for natural resources and pioneer spirit. sadly, this governor has made oregon a national joke, scandals, cover-ups, investigations, wasted funds, and watch for the next three weeks he's going to vilify me to destract you from paying attention to his breaches in ethics. we deserve better. together we need to reboot oregon's economy and create jobs and respect our environment. we need to better education by informing parents, teachers and opportunities. we need to restore filibuster our government, protect individual rights and no one should be above the law. we can clean up this government. but not until we vote out this governor and his croneys. we can give organize -- give oregon a better governor.

oregon deserves a governor that we can be proud of. i end by asking you to vote for dennis richardson for your next governor. thank you. >> thank you both. we covered a lot in a short time period. but i think it's really great for the voters and we really appreciate you being here. thanks to our panel, to our timekeeper as well. certainly to all of you at home w4506 joined us. if you'd like to watch the debate again, we're going to put the full video up on our website, kgw.com. you can check it up. there. ballots go out this week, so please take the time to vote. you can see this and other debates on our website,

c-span.org. a look at the ads in the oregon governor's race. >> oregon is a place of tremendous potential much we've tough challenges and emerged stronger for it. kitzhaber has fought to get our state back on track, tens of thousands of new jobs, access to health care for hundreds of thousands, all ande closing the budget gap balancing the books. >> but we're not done yet. we can create an economy that works for all of us, improve our schools to give every oregonian a chance to get ahead and fulfill the promise of oregon everyone. >> the same inindependent spirit oregon's pioneers drives dennis richardson today. his father was a union carpenter, his mother served others, a decorated pilot, he soldiers off the battlefields of vietnam and returned home to oregon to start family, succeed in business, and become a bipartisan leader

in the oregon state house. better futureto a begins with leaders who have a new vision. governor.hardson for >> my brother-in-law was shot killed, it was the worst moment of my life. having to tell alex his dad was dead. i'm a gun owner. the majority of gun owners want in place. chebs we need to keep the guns out of the hands of folks that them in the first place. this election i'm supporting governor.aber for in support of common sense gun laws.

>> c-span's campaign 2014 is bringing you more than 100 debates for the control of congress. stay in touch with our coverage and engaged. c-span,s on twitter, at and like us at facebook.com/c-span. >> coming up on c-span, the louisiana senate debate between democratic incumbent mary two republicanr challengers, congressman bill coloneland retired army rob maness. then the vermont governors the incumbent and six challengers. later the kansas senate debate three-term senator pat roberts and his independent challenger greg orman.

today, outgoing representative michelle bachman is the featured speaker at the heritage foundation where she'll discuss the effect of the tea process.the political you can see that event starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. we'll hear from defense secretary chuck hagel, who the association of the u.s. army. live coverage of his remarks at 12:30p.m. eastern also on c-span. >> c-span's 2015 student cam competition is under way. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes to thing $100,000. seven-minute to documentary on the topic, the three branches and you. include c-span programming, show varying points of view, and must be submitted january 20, 2015. go to student cam.org for more

information. camera and get started today. earlier tonight, the first debate for louisiana's u.s. senate seat. democratic incumbent mary landrieu and her two republican challengers, cassidy andbill retired aerial colonel rob .aness they list this race as a tossup. this hour-long debate is courtesy of the council for a better louisiana, and louisiana public broadcasting. >> this program was provided in part by aarp the foundation for excellence in louisiana public broadcast and by viewers like you. ♪ >> good evening. welcome to the campus of

centenary college in shreveport louisiana. for the first statewide televised u.s. senate debate with the top three candidates. this debate is present by louisiana public broadcasting in the council for a better louisiana. we thank a public television and radio partners statewide as well as w. jdl and batteries kpbs in shreveport c-span in the "pbs newshour" for sharing this evening's program with our viewers and listeners. >> i am very earned present the council for a better louisiana or cable and thank you for being with us tonight. over the next hour we will delve into many issues of importance to our state and country with their three invited candidates. >> participating tonight our commerce and bill cassidy retired colonel rob maness and senator mary landrieu. thanks to all of you for being with us this evening. >> a panel of journalists include shauna sanford coanchor and producer of lbb louisiana

the state we are in, allen english editor of the times newspaper here in shreveport stephanie grace a columnist for the advocate and jeremy offer editor and publisher of politics.com. we drew names to determine the seating in order of questioning and the format this evening is designed to learn more about where the candidates stand on key issues facing our state. our format tonight is a simple one. our panel of journalists will pose questions to the candidates in each candidate will have one minute to respond. the palace reserve the option to ask follow-up questions to ensure clarity of the answers and if time permits there'll be a lightning round of quick questions to all of the candidates. >> moderator: vigorito on many thanks to all of you. we had hundreds of questions for the candidates. via e-mail and twitter. you will certainly hear some of them tonight. we begin however with an icebreaker question. public opinion polls in louisiana track a national unfavorable view of congress as an institution.

the very notion of public service has been questioned in an increasingly bitter election battle. would each of you tell us when and why you first decided to run for office. we begin with congressman cassidy. cassidy: in 2005 katrina hit louisiana and there was a sense of their leadership had failed. there's a whole city that was unable to evacuate out of the category 4 storm at first and then as it turned out the leadership after the storm failed and then later on it later on it turns out perhaps levees failed because of lack of leadership. i think many of us in louisiana at that point chose to step forward. i spent my life in service for the last 25 years working in a public hospital for the uninsured teaching young doctors and medical students and residents how to be better doctors but along the way teaching others in treating the uninsured patient. after katrina i lead a volunteer group of 300 people to stand up a search hospital within three

days to welcome those folks who were fleeing the floodwaters in new orleans. i think that formative experience at that time in my life led me to run for public office. i consider it a continuation of the service i have done us a doctor and working in a hospital for the uninsured. >> moderator: thank you. colonel. maness: in late 2012 after i've been on the military for a year after retiring from 32 years and i saw my country may be on a policy pathway that would lead us to an america that my grandson wouldn't recognize. i wore the uniform of this country for 32 years. i fought terrorists over the skies of iraq and afghanistan. i did that because i love america. i love freedom freedom and every fear our constitution. america is the last great hope on earth. this election to me is not about power. it's about restoring our country

and i believe that louisiana's deserve to vote for a conservative this november. as mark levin said last night, i am the conservative in this race. that is how he endorsed me and that is why i'm running. thank you. >> moderator: senator. landrieu: thank you for having us all tonight. let me just say it wasn't until after college that i thought about running for public office and of course i come from a family that is has served for many years and honorably and well in the state. i'm the youngest of nine children. we had five boys and for girls. my mom stayed home and races for 30 years. i looked at mom and dad and i said i think maybe i'll go to public office. i ran for the legislature and didn't have much of a shot to win and i won and continued to take one step in front of the other. i'm very interested that one of my opponents congressman cassidy

said after katrina in six years after the election he voted against disaster aid in his own district. i'm very proud to have represented the state honestly and transparently and i transparently and to think effectively and passionately to bring aid to victims to fight for an energy policy for our country that will make us energy independent and a whole host of things that are important for leaders to support. >> moderator: thank you all very much and now we are going to turn things over to our panel of journalists and the first question will come from shauna sanford which we pose to colonel maness. >> our first question is about medicare. we received lots of questions about this topic. like the rest of the nation's louisiana's population of baby boomers is close to retirement age. medicare will be under enormous financial strain due to the rising cost of keeping older adults healthy. how would each of you put medicare on stronger financial grounds and protect today's

seniors and future retirees from rising health costs and we will begin with you. cassidy. cassidy: the obama bill that senator landrieu voted for in the ryan murray bill that senator cassidy voted for. despite how much she worked or didn't work for the people of louisiana are borne out when the mayor of washington d.c. says you are the senator for washington d.c.. we need to get medicare on track to be solvent and we have time to do that. the board of trustees shows that it's going to be solvent for about 20 years so we have the time. we all need to come to the table together and develop solutions that will work for the people of the 21st century. thank you very much. >> and can i follow up with that? do you have a solution to support?

maness: we need to come to the table together and we have plenty time to do that as a nation. >> moderator: senator landrieu. landrieu: i support the medicare program. it's a very important program for safety for seniors. my opponent has no plan as you just heard in congressman cassidy voted to end medicare as we know it, not cut it but ended and move to a voucher program. he voted for that consistently. it's one of the reasons he has shown up for the first time today because for 18 months he has been running away from his record which i hope will get out tonight. i voted for $700 million in efficiencies in the medicare program, the same boat that john mccain campaigned in yesterda yesterday. i put that money back into the medicare program to strengthen it and extended the life of the trust fund by about 12 years. now you are right there is still

strain on medicare but i support the program as it is and i also believe that other people particularly people that are under 65 deserve health care and we will talk more about that later tonight. >> moderator: congressman cassidy. cassidy: i viamente doctor working in a hospital for the publicly uninsured. my mother lives with us and she is 92 years old. i know the importance of medicare. that said obama when senator landrieu voted for obama $6,700,000,000,000 out of medicare. he didn't put it back into medicare and there's going to be some questions we will be posting posting on our web site go cassidy.com. it took $700 billion out and spend it elsewhere and i will return to the trust fund. on the other hand 20 years ago we see in his own senator came up with a bipartisan plan to save medicare. paul ryan and ron white dusted

it off and brought it back up. it isn't a voucher system. it's like medicare part d. 85% of seniors like medicare part d. if you want to take traditional medicare you can but if you wish to choose a plan of your choice. it's been estimated they will save money for beneficiaries and from the medicare trust fund. it's a good bipartisan genre plan. >> moderator: we are going to move on to allen english. you have another question we begin with senator landrieu. >> we are glad to see you here in northeast louisiana so thank you for being here. ryan is one of many viewers who submitted questions to guide and a number of questions centered on foreign security. your three tacked together as one question. they can know but we are looking for you explain what your position is. first, do you agree with president obama's military strategy concise as? secondly, as the president

overstepped his authority and third, will you authorize the use of ground troops if that time comes? landrieu: issa should be enjoyed and we need to do everything we can to eliminate it. it's a serious threat not only against the united states but the region which is an important region of our interests. secondly i do support the airstrikes against sizes and believe that all presidents should have the authority to act when they believe america is in danger. thirdly i would support the use of force. i think i would stop short at this point for boots on the ground. i think we have made such an enormous sacrifice in a part of the world. america must continue to lead. we have to be strong. we have got to work with our coalition partners but i do support the use of force. isis is a threat and that must be eliminated. >> moderator: dr. cassidy.

so by the president has not submitted a strategy. he pulled troops from iraq even though it was suggested by his generals that he keep them there. he missed the warning ear and a half ago of the gathering of strength and began to invade iraq. when they captured a weapons depot instead of illegally bombing the depot he waited allowing them to distribute weapons across the region. he has no strategy. what he is presented to us or the beginnings of a plan. i support the plan because it's the only plan out there. i'm not sure it's going to be adequate. we flew 93 sorties recently in on the opening day to a few -- flew 2000 sorties monday. that said if he has a plan involving our troops i would have to look at it. i don't trust the president i think is a poor commander in chief. before a commit our men and

women overseas i would like to see what the strategy is. >> moderator: do you think he overstepped his authority? maness: he was authorized by congress for the initial steps he had done. as he goes forward i would expect him to come back to congress to get additional authorization. maness: i flew in operation desert storm. you are absolutely right we need to have an air campaign is connected to a strategy. this president has not presented us with a strategy. he is not defined the objectives of this operation. he is not defined success and he is not defined an exit strategy that puts american sons and daughters in great danger while they're in harm's way. he has overstepped his authority. he should be engaged with congress and as a matter of fact congress has given them a blank check to fight in a declared war and the two members of congress sitting next to me should be back in washington calling for a debate in congress instead of

allowing a recess to occur to kick the can down the road. a declaration of war needs to be satisfied or not and we need to figure out how to pay for this war because we can't continue put these things on a credit card. what i authorize ground troops if the president could satisfy all those questions and address the exit strategy and address the need for it for coalition and maybe their nations a particularly the kurds will but maybe the free syrian army whoever they are might step up but eventually ground forces will be used. mods are returned to stephanie grace and she will pose a question to congressman cassidy. >> congressman cassidy and fellow panelists we heard from a lot of viewers about health care including mr. david looked and felt. his question is specific to congressman cassidy and colonel maness.

require coverage for pre-existing conditions, do you favor this coverage and if so how do you propose to pay for it without an individual mandate and for senator landrieu you defended the affordable care act. what aspect of the health care law would you change? cassidy: is a position i oppose the affordable care act. the patient has the power however when a bureaucrat has the power it lines up to serve the bureaucrat. as it turns out as a bureaucrat telling people what they must purchase. somebody whose insurance just renewed went from $725 per month to $1200 per month, a 56% increase. now blue cross this past week increase rates by 20% so clearly this is the unaffordable health care act. how do you address pre-existing conditions? republicans have proposed that

everyone in the nation will get a tax credit only to be used for purchasing health insurance. if an insurance company receives part of this tax credit they would be required to give everybody the same age the same rate. it doesn't matter if you have a liver transplant you would still get the same age rate premium. that way we take care of pre-existing and give the patient a power by the way different than the health care law that senator landrieu was the deciding vote on. >> moderator: colonel maness. maness: obama carries an abomination we don't need to only be found at the up by the roots. my plan turns to the free market for solutions. first of all consumer should be allowed to buy insurance that fits what they need. a man who is not going to have a baby shouldn't be forced to buy maternity care insurance. state programs before obama came

into existence were responsible for health care issue return to that. we should be up to cross-state lines to purchase insurance. that increases the market and increases competition drives costs down and keeps costs low. finally we need affordability with insurance policies of policy stay with the individual and you don't have to worry about going from job to job and losing your insurance. i will address the pre-existing condition for most americans. thank you very much. >> moderator: senator landrieu. landrieu: congressman cassidy introduced a version of the affordable care act himself under his name when he was a legislator in louisiana which he doesn't want anyone to know and the mandated businesses under 50 employees could provide direct coverage. he will not fess up to that and all he talks about his president obama. he hasn't answered for his own

record. number two, our country has struggled for 50 years over the question of how to survive affordable coverage and quality coverage to people in america who work 40 and 50 hours. it is unjust, unfair and wildly offensive for a nation have to treat people in emergency rooms when it costs everybody so much more money. affordable care act is not perfect. he needs to be fixed. a copper plant could help make it a little bit more affordable, raise the subsidy for additional subsidies and also allow insurance agents to -- other ways to fi fix it. we have to keep it and not under any circumstance repeal it. >> moderator: jeremy has a question for colonel maness. >> let's turn to campaign-finance for a moment and talk about the money that feels politics.

there are third third party independent groups most notably super pacs allow to raise unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. how did each of you feel about that system? also if you could change one campaign-finance law right now what would it be? >> moderator: colonel maness. maness: politics which i've learned in my short time in business is a racket for sure. there's too much money involved but the federal government shouldn't get further involved by limiting our free speech. i agree with the citizens united decision as things stand right now and unless things were to be able to change i would make any changes to current campaign finance laws. >> moderator: senator landrieu. landrieu: while the koch brothers and bill cassidy have literally orchestrated a 25 million-dollar bogus campaign run on television.

this is the first debate that he has agreed to show up and maybe he's running away from his record and wants to just use the power of unlimited undisclosed bogus television ads to make his way to the united states senate. i would overturn citizens unit united. corporations are not people. they should not be given unlimited rights to speech. the richer you are the louder you get to speak. our democracy is based on one man, one vote, one woman, one vote in the power belongs to the people. not the rich having the power but all power equally. this restores a democracy and you can see it playing out in this race in louisiana. i want to run on my record of 18 years. i'm proud of my record. hard to get your voice over those bogus ads and something needs to change. >> moderator: congressman cassidy. cassidy: they were outstanding

in our campaign five to one before labor day and obviously let's be honest mayor mike bloomberg is all about gun control but $50 million into harry reid's pack. have you noticed the five commercials before labor day and three to one after labor day after labor day? i with senator reid. he didn't know that because he has a pager majority. they do whatever they can to get senator landrieu reelected because mayor bloomberg likes her because she agrees to restrictions to second amendment rights. the nra has third-party money coming from me but at least but at least no who they are, the nra. i like transparency. when harry reid pays for an ad instead of hiding behind some patriotic tea party sounding name and he says this is harry reid and i'm supporting senator landrieu.

>> moderator: moving on to shauna sanford and this will go to senator landrieu. >> pay equity. >> bay equities and import issue that has the attention of our viewers. pay equity. a lot has been written lately about rising economic inequality here in the united states. the richest 1% now owns more wealth than the bottom 90%. this is a three-part question for you. are you concerned about this the 1% versus 90%? would raising the minimum wage help the working poor of which so many in the louisiana belong to that category and if not what policy should congress adopt to address gender and pay equality in general? senator landrieu we begin with you. landrieu: i'm concerned about the inequities in the population of the united states and we all should be because this country is founded on strong middle class. we really have to think carefully about how to grow this middle class. as president chair of the energy

committee and as a leader in many areas i'm looking forward to using my clout to build a stronger middle class. i support pay equity. my opponents do not. i support paying women the same amount of money for equal work. i support raising the minimum wage. my opponents do not. there are so many women that children depend on their salaries as well as their love and support. they depend on them money -- i think it's almost criminal that my opponents will not support the increase in the minimum wage. i support pay equity since women are still making 67 cents on the dollar and for african-american women are -- women it's even lower. these are things we can do now to strengthen the middle class and close that pay equity gap. cassidy: under this present income inequality has increased. if you own stock under this

present you have made a lot of money. under obamacare they are clearly established that those low income workers the bottom fifth if you will have had their hours reduced from 40 to 30 or even laid off as workers have tried to avoid the penalty of obamacare. the school board recently took 400 custodial and food service workers and converted them to -- from full-time to part-time. explicitly because the school board did not have the tax base to pay the penalty of obamacare. if we want to do something about income inequality we should repeal obamacare and restore full employment. right now the best way to increase wages for those that are less wealthy is to use america's natural resources like oil and gas. we need to use her energy resources create the good paying energy job.

maness: first of all here you guys go again. that last question, they're both complaining about the corporate dollars and their campaign war chest and i'm supported by 41,000 individual donors. that's income and protection racket that i was talking about, but pay equity i'm proud to have proud to have served with maam women in the united states air force for 30 plus years who got equal pay to me and i absolutely support equal pay for women and equal pay for equal work. but that's not the issue here. the issue is we have a law on the books that needs to be enforced. the equal pay act used to be in force. i am not for a national minimum wage raise but i've stated before i believe it should be at the state level and elected leaders of the state in the voters this day should be able to experiment with setting a minimum wage. that would help the working poor in the state. >> i would like to follow. congressman cassidy you on record as voting against the

lulu ledbetter fair pay act in the paycheck fairness act. why? if you believe in pay equity. cassidy: in 1963 that pay equity bill in the 1964 civil rights act already has laws on how you pay somebody. the lulu ledbetter act is a trial attorney bailout bill. a small businesswoman who bought her business from another can be sued decades later for things that are allegedly occurring under previous owner. that is wrong is wrong for that owner and i oppose that bill. >> moderator: her next question, allen. >> as we sit on the campus tonight we can ignore the pressing issue of student loan debt. certainly it has the attention of michael byers and others who submitted questions in the budgets of colleges and universities public and private. they are under strain and stress and we have seen major stresses in the last couple of years. students are paying higher

tuition and the costs causing to graduate into debt. how are you going to address this problem? >> i still teach but i'm not involved -- so i'm aware that student loan debt is a major problem. part of it though is the amount of money available increases as universities increase their tuition. that has been well-documented. there's a lot of fraud in some of the programs such as the pell grant, over a billion dollars a year thought to be lost in fraud due to pell grants. now if we can somehow figure out how to keep the universities from breaking the price when money becomes available to borrow and secondly eliminate the fraud we can redirect those dollars to those who need it. part of the problem as well his

students are graduating in job markets which are awful. they can earn money. we need a better economy than the obamacare economy. senator landrieu when she voted for obamacare in a sense put a wet blanket over that economy. >> colonel maness. maness: college graduates rates are sky-high and the only solution to the debt problem for college loans is too full. create the jobs. we need to pull obamacare of up by the roots and restore jobs in our state. all 64 parishes and small business owners that have less than 100 employees tell me the same story. they are struggling to meet the requirements of obamacare and struggling to create more jobs that they need to create or they are struggling to redefine full-time job employees down to part-time job