>> yes. >> yes. >> mr gardner do you support casino style gambling as proposed by amendment 68. do you support the construction of the keystone pipeline you can >> if the science is completed yes. >> if the science is completed yes. >> is to gartner, we'll go back to you, and you have -- well about 30 seconds to respond. >> again, i think these are very important issues that many cannot be described as yes or no, and that's why when it comes to things like our environment,

that we talk about how the climate is changing, but i disagree to the extent that man is causing it but i also find it curious that senator udall supports tabr when he has supported tax increase after-tax increase at the state level. >> what is radical is congressman gardner's continuing denial that climate change is occurring. we have preeminent scientists in the states. we are seeing the of x and our economy. we are situated to lead the country and the world. we are going to innovate, have new jobs enhance our environment and have great geopolitical flexibility because we are too dependent right now on oil supplies across the world

. this is again a contrast between congressman gardner and me that you see here today. >> we have questions for each of you. this month's jobs report exceeded expectations, bringing the national unemployment rate down to five point 9%. that's the latest in a string of months that overall showed good growth. another study shows that the median household income in colorado dropped from 2007-2013. what needs to happen at the federal level to regain momentum for the middle class and lower income families? >> i mentioned some of the policy initiatives we ought to pursue. we ought to raise the minimum wage. the last president that signed a minimum wage increase george w. bush. we ought to pass the paycheck fairness act. how about making college more affordable? i've joined forces with a number of senators including elizabeth warren so that students and families could

refinance students loans which are sometimes a big burden on those families and students. we ought to provide incentives for companies to keep jobs here not ship them overseas. why do i bring this up? because congressman gardner has a different point of view on all those issues. we need to expand our job training opportunities. and ensure that those of us who are going into the market for new employment have those kind of job training skills that the skills that come from that kind of job training as well as our younger americans who need to have skills sets that are unique to the 21st century. i do believe that if we don't respond we run the risk of the middle class not being a strong part of our society that's always been. >> the same question. >> it is beyond time that we get government out of the way and let america work. we must unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of this country. we live in a nation where big businesses started in small garages. mark's policies voting with the president 99% of the time have

set this country back. as a result of his failed policies we now have coloradans who are earning 4,000 less in median household income over the past several years. the labor participation rate is the lowest it's been in 36 years. that's what's happening under the failed leadership of mark udall. look, we can expand the earned income tax credit legislation that i've supported. that lifted millions of people out of poverty. we ought to make sure that we are putting in place and moving forward on the keystone pipeline. that would provide more than minimum wage opportunities. giving people 20 and $30 an hour work that senator udall has voted against four times. we need more colorado in washington and less washington in colorado. unfortunately our economy is stuck in reverse and it's the middle class who are feeling the burden of these failed policies. >> again, congressman, i'm never downbeat on colorado and your announcement speech you said the future was fading in colorado. we've been through a lot of

challenges. we've shown our metal. you don't talk down to colorado. because this is the most wonderful state in the nation with the most wonderful people living here. i'll tell you one other thing that you're proposing that wouldn't help our economy and that's to gut social security and privatize medicare. those are votes you've cast on a number of -- >> i will protect -- >> radical republican budgets in the house. >> the u.s. national debt is approaching $18 trillion. can we get a handle on our debt and reduce the annual deficit without raising taxes? and what significant spending cuts would you support to balance the budget? mr. gardner. >> we can start addressing the issue of our national debt by repealing obamacare which adds billions hundreds of billions of dollars in debt to our economy. we must put in place a balanced budget agreement. senator udall has supported but has exempted large portions of spending from it. we also have to pass legislation

that i introduced on a bipartisan measure that would eliminate duplicative programs allowing people to save billions of dollars through the duplication of waste and inefficiencies in government. i will make sure that we live wp our means within the united states congress. we are spending money that future generations simply cannot handle. it will break our economy. national security advisers to the president have said that our national debt is one of the gravest threats our country faces. let's look at what the senator's record has meant. when he was elected to congress, our national debt was $5 trillion. after voting consistently with the white house in washington, d.c. against coloradans, that debt is now over $17 trillion. we simply can't afford it and future generations deserve better. >> mr. udall, the same question for you. >> the same question. you heard congressman gardner say again he would repeal the affordable care act. that would take us backwards.

let's put the insurance companies in charge again. that would be a great day. he has voted to turn medicare into a voucher program. that would put insurance companies in charge of our seniors' health care. that would be another bad day for our seniors. i have long been a leader on budgetary matters in the senate and previous to that in the house. coloradoens are fiscal hawks. they want to see the return on their taxpayer dollars but they're willing to invest. but i've supported simpson-bowles and i've asked congressman gardner to join us. reforming the tax code, let's lower corporate tax rates, strip out some of the subsidies and incentive that is are well-intended but don't drive economic growth. i did author a balanced budget amendment and the exemptions that congressman gardner talks about are for social security and medicare. we ought to make sure we keep those programs in place. >> do you want your 30 seconds?

>> we should keep the medicare in place just yesterday he admitted that he voted to cut $800 billion from medicare advantage. that's what senator udall admitted to yesterday at the debate. i believe that we should protect and preserve our social safety net including medicare and social security. the senator's plan is blueprintsy for those programs because he has no plan. i believe we can grow our economy, that we can pass a balanced budget amendment, that we can repeal and replace obamacare with solution that is can work and we can end this debt that poses a significant threat to this country. >> so we've got another entitlement question. gentlemen, which of the entitlement programs would you look at first to reform or make cuts? do you support raising the retirement age to receive social security benefits, military base closures? please elaborate. >> let me just clarify yesterday we had a robustday bait at the chamber. the point i was making about medicare is congressman gardner voted to cust $800 billion out of medicare advantage that was then directed to tax cuts for

millionaires. what i had done was redirect the moneys in medicare out of medicare advantage because insurance companies reeping a nice little profit. they weren't providing any more services. to extend the solvency and life of medicare. there's a real difference here in the ways in which we approached supporting medicare. i support the simpson-bowles plan which i just mentioned earlier. it lays out a roadmap to ways in which we can invest in our future. infrastructure we ought to have the best, make sure our chirp have access to affordable education and have the kind of research and development we're doing out of the energy laboratory. that's a blueprint simpson-bowles plan to get at some of the broader questions and the goal you laid out. >> the same question. >> i think you just heard

senator admit that if you're on medicare advantage you're having your benefits cut. he voted in the affordable care act to cut medicare advantage by $700 billion. i believe we must protect and preserve our social safety net benefits for all generations. that's why i've supported efforts to make sure we not only uphold and preserve that promise but to strengthen medicare. what happens in a few short years is bankruptcy if we don't do anything. what happens to social security if the u.s. government continues to borrow against it is insolvency. the federal government must stop borrowing against social security. we must protect medicare by preserving it for future generations. what senator udall has done is thousands of coloradans around this state will have their benefits cut. >> congressman, that takes real gumption to stand up here and accuse me when you actually voted to send money into tax cuts. and this is to meet costs.

we have extended the life of medicare for some six years. you cannot go around and say your votes do not matter. >> colorado has been home to the movie theater shootings, which called for stricter gun laws. >> we watched columbine, and we watched what happened in aurora, and what has happened in the country. it is unacceptable the kind of violence that has occurred, and i think we should do everything

we can to prevent those kinds of tragedies from occurring. and that is why i have worked to make sure we have found mental health solutions, to find something he for it slips through the crack, to address the needs of those whose voices are being unheard because of the terrible tragedies that could occur if we do not reach out to those voices first. i am a staunch defender and believer in the second amendment. in colorado, we had for the first time two recalls of state legislators. the senator supports gun control is even more restrictive than the measures that led to the recalls of two state senators. >> congressman, i strongly support the amendment. my mother taught me how to handle a gun.

she was a member of the nra. i wish i could apologize to her every day for how i behaved me as a teenager, but we ought to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and felons and minors. it is a commonsense approach. i do agree with you, and i am excited that we are agreeing on something, we ought to do more in the world of mental health, and we should also do more research into run violence, because these mass shootings are beyond tragic. i will never forget the six and seven-year-olds at sandy hook that were mode down 1.5 years ago, 2 years ago. we can't forget what happened and there are some common things we can do. the colorado universal background check law, there are over 70 individuals who shouldn't have firearms. it is progress, and we are protecting people at the same time. >> mr. gardner? >> it was the comment when he

said he supported the gun-control measure even more restrictive than the ones that passed in colorado that he voted for because he felt it was worth giving it a shot. he's described the second amendment rights not as a constitutional right as a tradition. our constitution has a right in it. you have a c grade. you are not a supporter of the second amendment. >> gentlemen, mr. udall has been repeatedly hammered. with voting with president obama. mr. garner has been called an extremist. address the attacks against you. he continues to throw out the number 99%.

on the ballot will be our names. this race is between combhan gardner and me and our respective records. congressman gardner continues to throw out the number 99%. i want to remind him that he is running against me in this election and he is trying to distract the voters of this state from his extreme record and we've explored that here today. he is out of touch with the mainstream of thought here in colorado and we've seen it around this campaign. the personhood amendment is a great example where he has supported it over and over again. and let me remind all of you of what it would do. it would ban all forms of abortion, and women of colorado have reproductive rights, and we ought to trust them to make decisions, not politicians. >> the president said his policies are, indeed, on the

ballot. it is a person who has only disagreed with the president 1% of the time, or for somebody who believes it is not extreme to propose a takeover of our health care system. it is not extreme to support better economic opportunity, that it is not extreme to support energy across this country to create jobs and opportunity. i believe we can do better in this country. i believe we can do better if we put colorado first instead of washington first. after 16 years in washington senator udall has decided just run away from his own record because he can't defend obamacare. he can't defend his economic policies. what i support for people across this country is opportunity, to make sure that we get government out of the way, to make sure we are reducing the tax burden on families, making college affordable with what i have introduced.

>> mr. udall. >> he is running away from the record. minimum wage, his votes to gut social security and turn medicare into a voucher program. his vote to deny a program that would track sexual predators. the congressman's record is extreme, and if you really look at it further this time, it would move us backwards, and we want to move colorado forward. >> now we come to the point of the debate where we ask questions. and we start with mr. udall. your first question? >> congressman, you have, as i just said, sent mixed messages to the people of colorado when it comes to women's reproductive rights.

a law like the life at conception law would ban abortion and it would ban most common forms of contraception. i'm just curious what would happen if that would become the law the land. because you clearly believe that this is something we ought to implement given your long record and initiative. >> that bill is a statement i support life. i believe we had to expand access for women's health including the opportunity to allow contraception to be sold over-the-counter without a prescription, the opportunity to make sure we change obamacare to allow it to be reimbursed by insurance. that's what i believe. >> congressman, let me follow up. were you to be in the senate the life at conception act, would you sponsor it? this is an important question. this is a question the coloradans deserve an answer on and you have given a whole

series of mixed answers with a series of interviews over the last number of weeks it and, frankly, it is very unclear where you stand. you and i have enormous differences almost every policy matter and i respect that, but you owe coloradans a clear set of positions on these important issues that matter to coloradans, millions of coloradans who think this is very important and it speaks more loudly and more broadly about your respect for women whether you keep your word, and what you really believe. >> well, thank you, and, again the bill in the house is a statement i support life. i have not seen the bill in the senate, believe it or not. not everybody in the house reads bills in the senate that have just been introduced and have not been in committee, so i look forward to working with everyone across this country to address the concerns that you've rightfully stated. we need to work together on. >> mr. gardner, it shifts to your turn.

your first question. >> senator udall, the islamic state is a growing threat to the region and to our country. recently it has become the news, in the news, that you have not only missed every public hearing of the but your attendance at the senate armed services committee has only been 64% as the islamic state can use -- continues to present an imminent threat to our nation. where were you? and what was more important than our national security? >> congressman, as i said earlier i chair the strategic forces subcommittee which is crucial to colorado's military community. i sit on the armed services committee. i am briefed on an ongoing basis, also as a member of the intelligence committee on what's happening not only in the middle east but around the world. as i said earlier i've made all of the votes on the armed

services committee, and i take that as an important responsibility. but what you're doing here is again trying to distract people from your record and you're forgetting that we're in this together. that isil isn't going to target us based on a political party or the region of country which we live. they will target us because we are americans. and i would ask you to stop politicizing this very, very series threat. politics ought to end at water's edge. i would remind everybody here, too, that a year ago when i was calling for airstrikes in syria, congressman gardner said what's happening in city isn't a threat for national security. i don't think you were paying attention back then so let's stop parsing words and let's start protecting america. >> your second question. >> senator udall, you have recently launched a television ad were you talk about your support for equal pay. i support equal pay, and yet in your office,

you pay women 86 cents for every 1 dollar that you pay a man. why don't you live by example in your office? >> congressman, you know that this is a strategy that you see writ large around the country, republican operatives everywhere have made his case to i'm reminded of what mark twain famously said about statistics many years ago. let me make it clear. i pay the women on my team the same for equal work. what you're doing is distracting coloradans from your record which is not pro-women. you voted against the paycheck fairness act as i mentioned earlier. you voted against raising the minimum wage. you do not think we ought to have broader access to pell grants. we have had as you know a robust conversation about respecting women's reproductive rights. it's clear that what you want to do it again is distract the voters in colorado from your record which is extreme, which is not in the mainstream. you have changed position in the number of ways, and, frankly, at best you promote the status quo which in today's world a last you to innovate and

be creative, will take us backward. my focus is on moving us forward. >> by example. >> as i said we'd pay the women on my team the same for equal work. >> 86 cents for every 1 dollar you pay a man. >> ok, thank you, gentlemen. we are coming to the closing arguments portion of our debate, and, again, thank you all for coming to the debate, and mr. gardner chose to go first. >> i talk a lot about my hometown. if you go to yuma, colorado, u.s.a. a little chunk of concrete that says jas and some 1910. that was my great, great grandfather's hardware store the became a business that is still in business and that will be 100 years old tomorrow. every evening when my wife and i get the chance to take the kids for a walk by that little chunk of concrete we wonder if our children will have the same

opportunities that their great great, great grandfather did. to move the family, to create a better way of life, to build opportunity. deeply don't change the way things work in washington, if we don't change this country and start putting colorado first, creating opportunity for the next generation, the answer will be no, they won't have the same opportunity. but i will never shy away from the greatness of our country and i believe that we have the ability to change washington, d.c., that color can be the vanguard of the movement to make sure we're turning this country around, create jobs and opportunities and fulfilling our moral obligation. that is to make sure that we pass on a stronger nation to our children and grandchildren at a better starting point than the one we inherited. >> mr. udall. >> the greatest honor of my life has been to represent the state of colorado in the united states senate. we have accomplished a lot in the last years, and we have been challenged with the floods and the fires, and we have stood up to be collaborators

and i am proud of that. our country is coming back, but there is more work to be done. you can pass the minimum wage and respect women's role in the workplace and unsure that college is affordable. elections are competitions about visions and policies, and there is a clear set of choices in this election. the congressman talks about representing a new generation and the republicans, but look at the new generation. the new generation believes in marriage equality, marriage reform, believes in reproductive rights, believe in climate change. the new generation does not stand with the congressman. he does not believe in those things. i should say all generations should stand with me. i ask for your vote on november 4, because working together, we can keep this wonderful state of colorado moving forward. thank you.

>> this is a live nature of today's white house briefing from the white house briefing room. spokesman josh earnest expected momentarily. where expecting questions on the u.s. response to ebola now that a second nurse in dallas has contracted the virus. also, this news that president obama has canceled a scheduled campaign trip to new jersey and connecticut today. they will hold a cabinet meeting on ebola, and a quick reminder that tomorrow, a house energy subcommittee is scheduled to hold a hearing on ebola. that is set for noon eastern here on c-span. we will have it for you live. again, today's white house briefing with spokesman josh earnest set to start in just a moment. live coverage here on c-span. while we wait for that, a

discussion on nurse and hospital readiness to deal with ebola from today's "washington journal." host: first want to start with your reaction to the news out this morning that a second health care worker in dallas who provided care for thomas eric duncan has tested positive for ebola. guest: well, it is extremely worrisome and fulfills some of our fears from when we first started talking about the total lack of -- lack of preparedness for america's nurses. we did the survey because we know what it is like to work in the nation's hospitals. this is not the first time this has occurred. right now, it's ebola, which is life-threatening but we have done this before. when there was a threat of sars. we talked about it with h1n1.

in general, we have a fragmented, piecemeal system in this country because we do not have a national health care system like other countries do, so what you are left with is each individual hospital or system deciding for themselves what kind of preparedness is required and what kind of equipment the nurses will wear and whether or not that equipment will be there. you may have the cdc guidelines stating, "we urge you to use such and such," but it is clearly up to each of the hospital says to what they choose. we need an optimal, uniform standard of arsenal protective equipment for nurses and health care workers, and it needs to be standardized as to how you put it on, how you take it off. is there a buddy system -- which it looks like there should be where you watch me don mine and i watch you don yours.

we check each other and make sure that all of the seams are taped, there is no skin exposed, and we watched each other take it off so that we can be assured that we are doing it correctly no skin was exposed, and if there is, there is a protocol with leach etc., for how to treat those affected skin areas. >> as we get news this morning out of dallas, has your group been in contact with any of the nurses at texas health presbyterian hospital to try to find out where this happened? guest: actually, they came to us. we had put the survey out there that you mentioned and we found, sadly, what we expected to find. we had many respondents from 46 states, and over 70% said their hospitals were not prepared. at least 36% said that they did not have the equipment they needed and had no idea whether it would be there when they needed it. these dallas nurses became more

upset when their coworker came down with ebola and was actually being blamed for a breach in protocol. they came to us. you do not talk to the media or the press. you come to us. they said we can tell you exactly what was going on in those days before thomas duncan came and cents. >> and what did you find out? >> pretty horrifying things. remember, the cdc said there was a breach in protocol. from the nurses' point of view,

there was no protocol. they were looking at equipment to protect themselves, and those protocols keep changing. to the point where when the hospital said you will adhere to certain protocols, the nurses and other workers had to say, well, which one? today's? yesterday's? this afternoon? just horrible things that we heard about linen being piled practically up to the ceiling. the patient, himself, not being isolated for several hours and this was a patient in the throes of a raging ebola infection, which means lots of bodily secretions, vomiting, diarrhea etc. host: when you talk about more uniform standards who would be in charge of implementing them? would it be be cdc?

what it be some other individual? how would these hospitals implement these standards? guest: as i mentioned, it is up to them. the cdc can recommend, and that is the health care system we have in this country. it is for-profit, and somehow rather than coming out and saying it, if you expect us to do such and thus, it will bankrupt us. we cannot do that. nurses do not think that way. nurses will look at what is best for the patient, what is safest for themselves and their coworkers, and money is secondary. first, you take care of the issue. for us it has been a case in point a case study of our national values. what do we value in this country? do you value the lives of the patients or is the bottom line your first concern? and for the nurses, because of

the system that we have here, unfortunately, the bottom line does seem to come first. host: we are talking to the copresident of the nurses national, and we will split our line up which really in this segment of the "washington journal," and if you're in the central version and the mountain and pacific times and, there are these numbers. we also have a special line is morning for nurses, if you have a pacific question for her. nurses can call. as we mentioned, national nurses united has had a survey in the field, talking about ebola preparedness, over 2200 nurses and have responded to that survey so far, 85% saying that their hospital has not provided adequate ebola trading.

-- training. if you want more come you can check out the national nurses united website nationalnur sesunited.org. and tom friedman spoke yesterday about what they are doing to better prepare hospitals. here is what he had to say. >> one thing we want to make sure is whatever is done with where care is provided every hospital in the country needs to be ready to diagnose ebola. that means that every doctor every nurse, every staff person in the emergency department who cares for someone with either or other signs of infection needs to ask, where have you been in the past month? where have you been in the past 21 days? have you been to liberia, sierra leone, or ginny? -- guinea.

that is important. the fact is that usually infections in health care settings spread from someone who is not yet diagnosed. we have to assure those that have symptoms. >> thank you for joining us today. the president, as you know, is convening a meeting in the cabinet room with members of his team who are responsible for responding to this ebola diagnosis in texas so i have to leave here at about 3:25. it would be embarrassing to walk in late. and, so, i do not want to be late so we can get started. >> any details on the meeting what you expect to get out of it? and does this in any way affect

the travel that is on the schedule for tomorrow? >> the president is convening members of his team who have been responsible for responding to the ebola situation in this country. the president wants to do it because he wants to make sure that all of the immediate resources of the federal government are being deployed to deal with this specific situation. we will have a full manifest of those participating in the meeting. and then you'll hear directly from the president himself about what decisions were made in the course of that meeting. at this point, i do not have any changes in tomorrow's scheduled to announce. we are obviously operating in a pretty dynamic environment right now, so we will do our best to keep you updated. if there is something that requires a change in the president's schedule then we will definitely let you know. obviously, we have a second diagnosis of ebola.

again, this is a health care worker who was working to treat the patient at texas presbyterian hospital, the first individual who had been diagnosed with ebola in this country. so that indicates that the seriousness of the situation -- the president believe it is important to convene the senior members of his team who are responsible for coordinating this response, and the president was not able to do that meeting and travel at the same time, and what we have always indicated is that the president of the united states is president wherever he goes, and that is true 24/7. however, it is also true if the president determines is necessary for him to return to the white house to fulfill his responsibilities as the commander-in-chief, he it is also true if the president will alter his schedule accordingly. this is consistent with that guiding principle.

>> does the president have confidence in the leadership of dr. friedman at this time? -- dr. frieden. >> this administration has been guided by the science, by our medical experts that have experienced with dealing with ebola. for decades, the global health community, led by the united states has been dealing with ebola outbreaks. and they continue to be guided by the advice of medical experts and scientists who have knowledge in this field and can use this knowledge to protect the american people. as it relates to a so-called ebola czar, i will reiterate

what we have said in the past on this, which is we have very dedicated clear lines of responsibility in terms of which agencies are responsible for which aspects of this response. you have got cdc and usaid personnel operating in west africa to work with those local governments to try to meet their urgent humanitarian public health needs in those countries. you have a department of defense which is responding to the orders the president of the united states set up to enhance the logistical capacity so that the international community can benefit from improved logistics as they seek to move equipment and personnel into the region to try to confront this outbreak. can benefit from improved logistics as they seek to move equipment and personnel into the region to try to confront this outbreak. you have got department of homeland security staffers who are responsible for securing our transportation infrastructure and monitoring individuals who are entering this country at ports of entry across the map

and then in addition to this, you have hhs and cdc officials who are responsible for coordinating with state and local public health authorities to ensure that the american public is safe, and there are clear lines of authority for each of those sets of responsibilities. now, at the same time, you have necessary, then we will not hesitate to consider it, but at this case, the lines of authority are clear and the person responsible for coordinating those efforts at the white house continues to do that work well. >> so you are not inclined to appoint a czar?

>> there for coordinating with state and local public health authorities are responsibilities in place. there was an individual at the white house and a homeland security advisory is responsible for integrating that response, but, again, if we determined that additional resources or additional staffing or additional expertise is needed to augment this response, we will not hesitate to take advantage of it. >> is the president wanting to know how this health-care worker was able to get on a commercial plane? >> there are a number of things that we are eager to know, and response, we will not hesitate to take this is a subject of an investigation by cdc officials. to determine exactly how this virus was transmitted from the so-called indexed patient in dallas to at least two of the health care workers who were treating him. that is the focal point of an investigation that the cdc is expediting at the direct order of the president of the united states. the other thing that the cdc is reviewing are the protocols that were in place to protect the

health of the health care is a subject of an investigation by cdc officials. workers who were treating this patient. it is not clear exactly what protocols were in place and how those protocols were implemented, and the cdc wants to try to get to the bottom of that so that they can offer advice to medical professionals and hospital administrators and others across the country, but the protocols are needed to assure that their health care workers remain safe. what the cdc is also doing, and they are expending significant resources to do this, is to contact tracing of the two health care workers that have contacted -- contracted the virus, and that involves, as it sounds, tracing the contacts these individuals had after they got sick, and so you saw the news release from the cdc and from one of the domestic airlines today on indicating that they were contacting

passengers who were on the same flight as this individual to make sure that they are educated about the risk to which they were exposed. now, what our medical experts tell us is that that risk is quite low, but it is important for people to have access to that information so that they can get the facts about what sort of risks they are facing. again, that risk is low. and what steps should be taken if necessary in the unlikely event that they do start to the school -- to display some symptoms. >> they say it is highly unlikely. is that statement still true today? >> it is true. it is guided by the science. that is what the experts say. our experts say that is the way ebola is transmitted is very clear. it is not something that is likely to happen in the united states. let's walk through what that is. ebola is not like the flu. ebola is not transmitted through

the air. ebola is not transmitted through the food we eat in this country and it is not transmitted through the water that we drink in this country. the only reason a person would ebola is by coming into close contact with bodily fluids of someone who is already displaying examples of ebola. that is why, unfortunately the 21 that we have were in close contact with someone who had the virus. how that transmission occurs is something that remains under investigation, but the risks to which they were exposed was elevated by the fact that they were in close contact with that person, trying to meet that person's medical needs. >> using the word epidemic, and yesterday they used the word outbreak. saying that the chances are exceedingly low. we have had multiple transmissions.

>> well, i think there is a medical professional who can probably give you a specific definition of what actually constitutes an outbreak. my layman's public would agree with is that we are talking about a situation where two a health care workers who were treating an individual with ebola contracted the virus. we are, the cdc, our medical experts aren't conducting an investigation to determine how that transmission occurred, -- are are conducting an investigation. but that is different from an outbreak, where you have individuals who are basically in public transmitting the virus. that is something that we think on a large scale is exceedingly unlikely. >> and not meeting your definition of an outbreak. what normally would be expected

in a defined community. there is also a case where this has been absent from a population which can also constitute an outbreak. it is not large scale it is an outbreak. in this calls into question some of the assurances. >> what we are talking about here is a situation where there were health-care workers who came into direct contact with an ebola patient, who did, tragically, contracted the disease. we are focused on making sure those individuals get the treatment that is necessary, and our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families as they fight this terrible virus but that is wholly different than, for example, the situation we see in west africa, where tragically, you're seeing people who live in the same household passing the virus from one to another. what we are seeing is the result of unsafe burial practices that

individuals are contracting the virus from corpses. again, that is a tragic occurrence. it is an indication of the medical infrastructure that exists in those countries and that is something that poses a much broader risk to the population of west africa. that is why the president has devoted significant resources from the federal government to fight that outbreak, but that is obviously a far cry from the situation that exists in dallas right now. john? >> josh, you said they have confidence in the director of the cdc. let me ask you a broader question. does that mean at the federal government's response yesterday, given what we have learned about another case in dallas, that that individual was on a plane while supposed to be monitored what about the federal government response to this situation? has it been successful?

as it been up to the president's own standards? >> well, i will say a couple of things about that. the first thing, after frieden, the director of the cdc, himself , has said that it is unacceptable that even one health-care worker was exposed to this virus, while they were providing medical treatment to this patient, so that is an indication that there were shortcomings, and that is something that is being thoroughly investigated the centers for disease control and other medical experts. that investigation obviously will expand to cover the second health-care worker that has now been diagnosed with ebola so that is a clear indication. and there is a second thing that dr. frieden also said, and i believe it was earlier this week he noted that knowing what he knows now about the situation in the hospital, he indicated that

he regretted not sending a team of experts to that hospital sooner to assist the hospital as they responded to this specific diagnosis, so what you are seeing from the federal government, however, is the kind of tenacious response that reflects evolving circumstances so dr. frieden indicated that he would send a whole team of experts earlier this week after observing that he believed they should have been there sooner. what you are seeing after this diagnosis, you are seeing stepped-up monitoring by health officials in texas of other health care workers that were responsible for treating the indexed ebola patient so this is a response that indicates a commitment to protect the health and safety of the american public. there are other ways in which

this has happened, as well. we have adapted to circumstances by beefing up airport screenings, for example. at the end of last week, you will recall that we announced new screening measures that will go in place at five airports across the country. these are airports that cover essentially 95% of the arrivals of travels that started out in west africa. those improved or strengthened screening measures are indicative of our commitment to constantly evaluate our policies and, where possible, put into place measures. >> why do so many americans feel, first of all, that there is a real risk of an epidemic in this country, and that the federal government is not doing enough to stop it? the latest poll in washington post think that -- two thirds think that the government is not

doing enough. >> let me say this about that. it sounds to me that a significant portion of the american population agrees with dr. frieden that only one transmission of the ebola virus to one health-care worker in this country is something that is unacceptable and something that will not be tolerated and something that has prompted a review of protocols and the investigation as to how the transmission actually occurred. what people can continue to be confident in is the priority attention that this issue is receiving across the federal across the federal government and here in the white house. i think this is evidenced by the fact that the president is convening some of the top ranking officials in his administration to look at that response, but, again, what i would urge people to do, what is motivating, in answer to that question, it is something related to fear. this is a deadly, terrible disease, and it is wreaking havoc in west africa.

it is having a debilitating effect on the population there and it is genuinely tragic. at the same time, because of the way the his administration to look virus is transmitted, because of the infrastructure that exists in this country, the risk of a similar outbreak in this country is exceedingly low. that is what the experts tell us and that is the advice that we continue to follow. however, the administration continues to pursue the kind of tenacious response that would both protect the american public here at home and that would also do what is necessary to completely eliminate the risk to the american public from the ebola, and that is to stop this. >> what about a travel ban from the effective -- infected countries? >> not at this point. there are previous answers given to this question. it is important to see why. shutting down travel to that area of the world would prevent

the expeditious flow of personnel and equipment into the region, and the only way for us to stop this outbreak and to eliminate the risk is to stop the outbreak at the source, so we are sending significant resources to make sure that supplies and personnel can get to the effected region and start meeting the needs of the affected region so we can stop the outbreak there, and that is why the travel and is not there. >> does the president plan to handle further travels? will he continue his campaign schedule going forward despite the situation? >> well, john, we evaluate it on a daily basis. if necessary, i have no doubt that the president will postpone his political travel to devote time to priorities here. but whether a change in tomorrow's schedule is required we just do not know that yet, and when we do, we will let you know. major? >> josh, a couple of months ago

when the malaysian airlines was shot down overif necessary, i have no doubt that the president ukraine, the resident carried on his campaign schedule, and a senior member of staff said there could be unintended consequences, creating a false sense of crisis. would you do that today? >> these kinds of decisions are the president's responsibility and you will recall, i do not know if you traveled on that trip with us to delaware but i think on that trip, the president called five different leaders, including poroshenko and the prime minister of the netherlands, and that was the nation involved in that tragedy so the president was able to continue his schedule, and it did include some political events, while also attending to his responsibilities as commander-in-chief. and the schedule will need to be

changed so the president can hiscontinue his responsibilities as leader of the country. if we need to make a change to his schedule and we can do what is necessary here at the white house, then we will change his schedule. i do not know yet whether that will be required. >> as indicated at the top of your marks, some decisions may very well be announced by the president. >> i believe that this meeting is important because we are talking about the senior members of his team with a pretty urgent situation here in this country. quite frankly, major, i do not know the answer to that. and if so, we will discuss it with you at the conclusion of the meeting. >> have there been more things convened in the last three or four days that have not appeared on the public schedule?

>> the president has been frequently updated and breathed on this issue. i do not know if there have been any other formal -- has been updated and briefed on this issue, but i do not know if there have been any other formal meetings scheduled. >> the public watching this story play out, if they can have a genuine sense of either skepticism or possibly alarm because they hear they are taking the proper steps, there are precautions, and then someone does not show symptoms gets on a commercial aircraft, even though the exposure is minimal, and now everyone on that plane has been in contact and that at least we gave a low level since of alarm. and then we hear this is not going to happen, we get this under control. -- we have this under control. nuven understand how the american public feels as the story plays out.

>> they continue to be confident in response. the reason is simply that we have a modern medical infrastructure in place that, again, has not been flawless. we pointed out the case that even one transmission to a health-care worker is unacceptable. people can take solace in the fact that we know frankly how evil is transmitted. it is not transmitted through the air. it is not transmitted through food or water, but only through close contact with bodily fluids of somebody who has ebola. this is a tragedy. >> it is a big mistake. there is sort of a gap in the system, something that should have been to me indicated very tightly. it was in the texas presbyterian immunity you do not get on a commercial aircraft. you can understand how that can create some degree of uncertainty with the public trying to follow.

>> major, i can certainly understand the concern by the american public about this terrible disease. it is a deadly disease. it is a disease whose outbreak we know how to contain in this country, and that is what we are very focused on, so trying to meet the needs of the health care workers who have contracted the virus to investigating how exactly that virus transmission occurred to dealing with the necessary contact tracing, to assure that other individuals who may have come into contact with somebody who had the ebola virus are aware of what they face and are monitoring their own health. active monitoring has now been expanded to include all of the health care workers that came into contact with the indexed ebola patient in this hospital in dallas, so there are a number of steps that we have taken, and i think people can be encouraged that the federal government is

demonstrating the kind of tenacious, adaptive response that is required to do with what is understandably a pretty concerning situation. >> does the president wanted his response team to be more tenacious in situations like this so they stop happening? >> i can tell you that the president himself feels a very strong sense of urgency about assuring that the medical experts are mobilizing the kind of response that will assure the safety and health of the broader american public. that is what the president expects. that is with the american people expect. >> the leaders of japan u.k., france, germany, italy. ebola was part of the conversation in each. >> the conversation with the prime minister with japan was separate from the conversation with the other leaders. >> he spoke to those leaders either together or however you want to put it.

>> there is an intense interest in the modality of how the president communicates with other leaders, and i am cognizant of those details. >> i respect that and appreciate it. the president has said repeatedly now that he is not satisfied with the global response as far as stemming ebola at the source. and the question is whether he made any specific asks of the world leaders or if they have fully stepped up to their responsibilities. >> i will say two things. the first is about a month ago more than a month ago the president made an announcement at the cdc in atlanta that he was going to make a significant commitment in western africa to put in place logistical infrastructure that was needed to ramp up our response to the ebola outbreak in that region of the world. that continues to be a priority for his administration.

he is receiving regular updates from the department of defense about ongoing efforts to put in place that logistical capability. the department of defense has tremendous expertise in this area, and the reaction to that commitment has been an increase in resources and personnel that are being supplied by nongovernmental organizations and by governments around the world. we were heartened by that response, and that is an indication of just how important it is for the united states to show leadership in a crisis situation like this. now, that said, that all being said the president does believe that we need to see the international community, that we have not seen a sufficient commitment of resources and personnel from other countries to deal with this urgent situation in west africa. the stakes are high, and the index in the working population there is tragic, and we need to see a more significant commitment of resources from countries around the world to

deal with this effort. >> restating my question, did he make any specific asks to the world leaders today, or is he satisfied that the countries involved have met that challenge? >> well, a more detailed readout of the secure video conference that the president conducted today with the european leaders -- as a general matter, i can tell you that the president did urge those world leaders to commit, to make a more significant commitment in dealing with the ebola outbreak in west africa. justin? >> i know that you said it was necessary to respond to the outbreak, but i am wondering why that is, especially with how it went down, but everything from tourism to egypt to the ferguson shooting, the president maintaining his schedule.

>> in these situations, we consider it on a case-by-case basis, as you would expect. in this situation, the president thought it was important to convene a meeting of the senior members of his administration who are responsible to responding to this particular incident, so the president is convening that meeting this afternoon, and because it is this afternoon, the president had to postpone the political travel that he had already planned. we do anticipate that the president will be able to reschedule his trip in advance of election day. >> presumably, with the videoconference, he can do that while he is traveling. with the midterm elections which have come to dominate headlines, i am wondering if there is any sort of political consideration. could you evaluate how you guys see this politically? politics not coming into your

decisions on how to respond to the crisis, but with a briefing, we are in a political time, and how you see this. >> generally, justin i try to consider my words carefully when i speak up here, and the thought that i have not given any political thought -- >> i have not. >> it has been a very busy day making sure we are mobilizing an appropriate response, and i am sure there are many people who consider the political ramifications of the response and the decision to alter the schedule, but the fact is that has not crossed the minds of those senior analysts. >> making sure people who are at risk having been exposed, will not be getting on commercial airliners. and working with state and local officials.

>> again in terms of the powers that are necessary, i would refer you back to the cdc. they are the ones who are presently responsible for monitoring the health and therefore the movement of these individuals, so i would refer you to them for what they feel is necessary for them to do that successfully. >> a little vague. it sounds like well, we are going to trust the folks in dallas that we will trust them. >> again scott, i would refer you to the cdc, who is principally responsible for this. i want to remind everybody who is watching at the risk has been presented to those individuals who are on the airplane with the second health care worker earlier this week do not face a significant risk year. in fact, the risk is according to our medical professionals rather low, but what we may do,

as is guided by the tenacious response that you have seen its content beef individuals and encourage them to contact the cdc to make sure they are properly educated about the risks they do face, and in the unlikely event that some health concerns to arise that they have the available information about what they should do in response to that. ok? mike. >> following up on major a little bit, there are crises that happen that are instantaneous, with that day or that moment the crisis happens a terrorist attack. this is not one of those, right? the presence of ebola in the united states, starting with the first patient, and now proceeding through the other two was something that was -- it could have been anticipated easily in the weeks or months

before, as the ebola situation in west africa was playing out and so when you talk about the tenacious response, i guess i am wondering if the president is angry, if you guys are frustrated if there is a level of upset at the fact that each time another kind of moment in this crisis has played out since the ebola derived here in the united, as the ebola situation in west africa was playing out and so when you talk about the tenacious states, cdc has responded to it but has not anticipated it, so, you know, the issue of flights of medical personnel should that not have been talked about in meetings six weeks ago and determined that the policy is going to be that medical workers that might be infected by a patient are not going to be allowed to travel? should that not have been decided long before it ever arrived here? should not issues of transportation of materials, all of the things that we have gone through -- you have described being satisfied with the tenacious response after the

things happen, it is that good enough for the president, that these things were not anticipated and figured out ahead of time? that these scientists have repeatedly told him that you and the other people in this building -- we have got it under control, and then something states,happens, and now we have got it under control. now we are going to do something to respond to the things that we now see as the case. all of this feels that they should have done this before. >> let me say it is an understandable one. let me answer in a couple of ways. >> let methe first is there are a number of things that the president is concerned about. we are talking about a deadly disease, and we are talking about now two american health care workers who have contracted this disease in this country. now, they have done that when they are treating a patient with

ebola that had originally contracted the disease in west africa, so the circumstances are important, and yet the concern the president has exists nonetheless. the president is also concerned that we are monitoring the health of the other health-care workers that came into close contact with this individual patient, the index patient, as he is often described. what the cdc is also doing and what the president is concerned about is making sure we do all of the necessary contact tracing, particularly as it relates to those individuals who were passengers on the plane to dallas, and that was, again, the risk to those passengers is low but the president and everybody in the administration believes that contact tracing will take place, and they are making sure that health care professionals across the country are getting clear guidance from the centers of disease control about what

protocols they should put into place. they are aware of the need to be cognizant of the fact that there could be other ebola patients that present themselves for treatment at health care facilities across the country. you need to make sure they are getting guidance about how to handle that individual and prevent themselves, how to diagnose ebola, and that what should be put in place from there, so that clear communication is something the president is very focused on, so i think it is appropriate to say the president is very concerned about the situation, and that is why the president is generally convening the meeting this afternoon and to make sure that the response is commensurate with the level of concern that he feels. at the same time, i think it is also important to point out that there are a number of health care workers who are americans who were conducting relief missions in west african --

africa who -- africa who, tragically contracted the virus, who have been safely flown back to united states, were treated in medical facilities in the united states, recovered from the illness based on the sound medical treatment that they received in this country, and to date, we do not yet know of any situations where a health care worker who was treating those individuals contracted the virus so the director of the cdc has already indicated his concern that more states, recovered from theexperts were not deployed sooner to dallas to help them deal with this ebola diagnosis in their hospital, but the fact is there are multiple other patients that have been treated and recovered from the disease at other facilities in th where the health care workers at least as far as we know now were not put at risk of catching ebola themselves, so there have been situations where the response and treatment of

patients has been consistent with the expectations of the president and the american people and the fact that that treatment was rendered in a way that did not ultimately pose a risk to those health care workers contractin indicationthat what our medical experts tell us about having the necessary knowledge to treat ebola is correct, and we need to make sure that the necessary protocols are in place, and, again, our medical experts tell us this also. there will likely be more cases of ebola, but what the president is focused on is when those cases present themselves that those patients get what they need to recover, that those patients can be treated in a way that does not put health care workers at a significantly elevated health care risk, and that we can ensure the safety of the broader public, and that is hard work. dr. frieden said that fighting

ebola is hard, but if you consider the wide range of the government's response, there is plenty of reason for people to feel confident about what we are doing, but there is a reason that the president and people across the country are concerned about this deadly disease, and we're going to make sure that we are launching the kind of response that is up to the expectations not just of the president but of the people he serves. >> one thing sparking that concern is criticism of the cdc or of the government itself. does that undermine the need to keep public confidence high? is that why the concern is not expressed criticism of the response so far? >> i think what is evident from this president's leadership style is that he is focused on solving problems. pointing fingers of blame will

not be constructive here, and that is why the president is focused on results, and that is why the president is convening the meeting today with those responsible for the situation. >> overseeing the federal response on ebola. >> i hate to be nitpicky here, but what she is doing is she is looking at the activities of the agencies who are themselves responsible for responding to specific areas of expertise, so she is not overseeing -- she is not overseeing the construction of ebola construction units in west africa. the department of defense is responsible for that. she is not responsible for coordinating the activities of the international community as they interact with local governments in west africa. usaid is involved in that effort. they have an area of expertise. >> you feel you have a point to

make, but you understand my question. >> i think the point that i make is directly relevant. >> you seem to be reluctant to say who is directly in charge of the federal response to ebola. >> who is responsible to each activities when it comes to this government's tenacious response to ebola, and that is the department of defense, who is responsible for putting in place which is to go -- logistical items in west africa. the cdc with their expertise in west africa to help local governments mobilize resources they need to stop this outbreak. the department of homeland security laying their role in assuring the safety of the american public, whether it is people traveling across the globe or individuals attempting to enter into this country. you have the responsibility of hhs and cdc, who are responsible for working with hospitals and doctors all across the country a point to make, but you understand my question. to treat ebola patients if they

materialize at their medical facilities. >> so there is not one person in charge. >> the are individuals who are directly responsible for their line of responsibility, and you have an individual here at the white house who is responsible for coordinating the actions of those government agencies to make sure they are properly integrated. i think that is a completely reasonable management structure and if it is determined that additional resources are needed to manage this response, then we will not hesitate to add them. >> the reason i ask is that she is also the counterterrorism and homeland security advisor, dealing with isis and various other terrorist groups. it sounds structure like she has a lot on her plate right now. >> she does have a lot on her plate. she is a highly capable individual, fulfilling responsibilities in terms of coordinating the government agency responses to this ebola situation while at the same time ensuring that she is playing the role that she plays in protecting our homeland. >> dr. frieden mentioned yesterday he had wished he had done it sooner with special

teams to go in and supervise treatment. today, he said this second patient is going to be transferred to the ebola experts. that suggests that that precautionary step of having teams in place for supervisory care may not be enough. do you think that what the cdc is recommending right now is a crystal-clear set of protocols when it comes to dealing with ebola issues? >> well, there are experts from the cdc who are on the ground in dallas who are dealing with a variety of things. one, they are offering a variety of expertise about the treatment of the ebola patients that occur under the care of texas presbyterian hospital. you also have experts from the cdc who are nurses who are doing some peer to peer training when it comes to the use of personal protective equipment, and you have experts in infection control and experts in dealing with the ebola virus itself who

are advising hospital administrators and doctors there about treating these individual patients. you have cdc patients who are responsible for doing the contact tracing that is necessary, not just of the index patient himself and his family, who we spent some time with before he was admitted to the hospital, but also doing the contact tracing related to the to care workers that contracted the virus. >> these patients could be treated in hospitals, and now the second patient is going to emory. is there any inconsistency there? >> jim, i think what you're seeing is an adaptation in terms of the government's response. i just talked earlier about how at emory they had successfully treated other health care workers who tracing related to the to care workers that contracted the virus. >> these patients had contracted the virus in west africa. those individuals were treated

and recovered and were released, and that treatment was rendered without the health care workers themselves contracting the ebola virus. that is an indication that they have expertise that can be used and dedicated to this specific case, but, again the treatment of these individuals is going to be guided by our medical experts and scientists, and if you have additional x -- questions about that, i encourage you to reach out to the cdc. >> did the president register his frustration? >> that is something that the medical experts themselves have acknowledged. >> there are shortcomings. the president told dr. frieden he is dissatisfied with that? >> i think it is fair to say that the president shares the view that the transmission of the ebola virus to even one health care contracted the worker is something that is not acceptable. the president does share that view. >> on morning television today it was not dr. frieden, it was sylvia from hhs and then on the

conference call that they had about one hour ago, dr. frieden at the last minute -- they said from hhs, they would be on the call with her, and she was going to start it off. does that not suggest that there is another person involved at the top? >> a couple of times, i have described the important role that age it just is playing in terms of protecting the american public and communicating with public health officials across the country at the state and local levels and also communicating with doctors and nurses and health care workers and providers so there has been an important role for aged just to play in this response from the beginning. they have played that role, and the secretary of health and human services has been actively involved. >> it was inappropriate for the health care worker to fly from cleveland to dallas-fort worth. why is it still appropriate to allow people to fly into america from the hot zone? >> quite simply because there is

a multilayered screening protocol that is in place to ensure that individuals that may have symptoms consistent with ebola are not even able to board planes in west africa. as we have discussed, dozens of people have been denied boarding over the past few months because they were exhibiting symptoms consistent with ebola. there is also screening in place on international flights, to assure that our flight crews know what to look out for in terms of symptoms of ebola, and there is also screening in this country, where we have cdc officers who are responsible for observing people who are reentering the country and subjecting those who have traveled in west africa to additional screening to make sure that those individuals are not symptomatic. obviously, the multilayered screening approach is not in place for domestic flights. that is the difference. >> i wonder if you can address the nurses union and nurses around the country who are expressing alarm not just of

health care workers being exposed, but they say that mr. duncan was at the emergency room in dallas for hours, with not just health care workers but citizens sitting there, and that once he was admitted in, waste was piling up. the nurses were around this waste. how concerned care workers but citizens sitting there, and that once he was admitted in, waste was piling up. the nurses were around this waste. how concerned is the white house about that, and how many more people can be exposed to it? it was just not handled properly. he was sitting in an open area for hours. >> what is important for people to understand is how the ebola virus is transmitted. the ebola virus is not transmitted through the air, so people who breathe the same air as this individual -- july >> he has contact in the same area and he has ebola. >> they have to have contact with his bodily fluids to get ebola. there are very clear guidelines. that being the case, it is the responsibility of the cdc to

communicate with those across the country about the proper protocol for evaluating those who may have symptoms consistent with ebola and for isolating those individuals who need to be isolated based on their travel history. is important for people there is also a protocol that the cdc has in place rendering those who have tested positive for ebola. the cdc is reviewing those protocols. they are constantly assessing and reassessing those protocols and i mentioned earlier that one of the things we are concerned about is making sure that the cdc is offering clear guidance to health care professionals across the country about what those protocols should be and how those protocols are implemented. and this is something the president is worried about. that there is something like that that occurred, that we saw a health-care worker contract the ebola virus after treating someone who had the ebola virus. so there are some protocols that

are being reviewed by cdc, and when those changes are determined to be necessary tdc will make those announcements and communicate them clearly. >> a story about american troops being exposed to chemical weapons in iraq. most of that exposure appears to have happened touring the bush administration, but they kept the secret from troops and veterans, continuing into the obama administration, so when president obama was briefed on this first, and why this administration has continued to keep this secret? >> that we set a couple of things about that. we have reported that u.s. military personnel and iraqi exposure related to the saddam hussein weapons of mass destruction programs, needless to say, we have the deepest concerns of for these individuals. they will conduct a review of this specific situation. i refer you to the department of defense to get a better

understanding of exactly how we ought responding to this particular situation. i know that secretary hagel who, himself is a military veteran and who was wounded in contact while serving his country, he takes this very seriously, and i am confident that they will conduct the kind of detailed review that is necessary. and this is the last one, and then i had better go. >> does this underscored the need -- there are a number of people, and i think there is a confusion. who should people be listening to right now? president obama is not out here right now answering questions. >> well, you have heard a number of medical experts talking about the necessary protocols about the low risk that faces the american public right now. you have heard the president on a number of occasions talk about the need for a robust response in west africa to deal with this outbreak at the source.

so there are a number of administration officials who have been talking about this publicly. this is based on the guidance of our medical professionals. they are all talking about how our response reflects our commitment to the safety and security of the american public and how those principles are guided by the science. that is always true. ok. i have got to run to this other meeting. >> josh was wrapping up the briefing as president obama is holding a cabinet meeting in just a few minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] because of the cabinet meeting the president has canceled a meeting to speak at democrats in new jersey and then headlining a campaign rally, but those lands were canceled or so the president could meet, as we

said, with his cabinet on ebola. and the head of the center for disease control, dr. tom friedman, and the director of infectious diseases, they will testify before congress. they are focusing on the u.s. response to ebola, and that hearing, subcommittee hearing oversight subcommittee hearing is coming up tomorrow at noon life here on c-span. with election day less than three weeks away, this campaign season c-span is bringing you more than 100 debates for control of congress. check c-span.org for a schedule of debates and to see past debates in the video library and follow us on twitter and like us on book.com/c-span. one of those debates comes from the 17th district of illinois. the democrat defeated the incumbent republican in that 17th district, which includes parts of your young illinois, -- parts of peoria illinois.

the two debated last week. here is a look. >> with congress, we are starting with you. if congress were to face more fiscal cliffs in the coming months, who you support a debt limit? >> my very first bill that i introduced attacked government waste and abuse, and not in a small way. it identified $200 billion in wasteful government spending. i think that is the place we need to start before we do anything. my opponent voted not once but twice to end the medicare guarantee. looking at balancing the budget on the backs of seniors in my opinion, where it would cost seniors each $6,000 in out-of-pocket expenses. that is not the way we need to attack the budget problems that we have. on top of that sequestration is a very, very dangerous place to go. here is why.

that impacted this economy right here in this area by $100 million. we had workers who had to take paychecks home that were less than they were used to taking home, and their take-home pay was worse. they had to take time off, forced time off, and that was for the number one employer in this area. >> you know, i find this very interesting, because the congresswoman went to washington d.c., and said she was going to end the gridlock and dysfunction at the very first opportunity she got voting no on all six budgets and when you go to congress, you have got to be up to compromise. our congress never had a government shutdown, and the thing is, the big difference between the two of us, when i made promises to the people of the district, i kept every single one of them. the incumbent congresswoman had promised to forgo her pay touring the government shutdown. we did some research and found that she did not do that.

is, the big difference between the two of us, when i made promises to the people of the district, i kept every single one of them. i think the key thing we have to do at all costs is to try to avoid sequestration. there is so much waste out there that we can go and capture, we do not need to go in and start cutting our military so far back to where we cannot defend the freedom of the united states of america. >> learn more about the debates. follow us on twitter. like us on facebook. if no candidate wins a majority of votes on november 4 in that race, the top two finishers advance to a runoff a month later. the debate between the three candidates is one hour.

>> good evening. i'm beth courtney. welcome to the campus of centenary campus in shreveport louisiana, for the first statewide televised u.s. senate debate. this debate is presented by louisiana public broadcasting and a council for a better louisiana. >> i'm barry wynn, president of a council for a better louisiana. we'll delve into important issues. >> participating tonight are congressman bill cassidy

retired colonel rob maness, and senator mary landrieu. thanks to all you or being here with us this evening. >> our panel of journalists include shauna sanford, alan english, editor of the times newspaper here in shreveport. stephanie grace and germany alford. -- jeremy offeralford. we drew names to determine the seating and order of questioning. this is designed to learn more about where the candidates stand. our format is pretty simple. our panel of journalists will pose questions to the candidates. each candidates will have a minute to respond. the panelists reserve -- panelist reserves the right to ask follow-up questions. and then there will be lightning round. >> many thanks to all of you. we had hundreds of questions for candidates via e-mail and

twitter. you will hear some of them tonight. we begin with an ice breaker question. public opinion polls track a national unfavorable view of congress. the very notion of public service has been questioned in increasingly bitter election battles. would each of you tell us when and why you first decided to run for office? we begin with congressman cassidy. >> it was in 2005, katrina hit louisiana. there was a sense that our leadership had failed. there was a whole city that was unable to evacuate out of a category iv storm at first and then as it turned out, leadership after the storm failed and later on it turns out levees had failed. i think many people chose to step forward. for the last 24 years i've worked in a hospital teaching young doctors, students and

residents how to be better doctors but treating the uninsured patient. after katrina i led 300 people to stand up a surge hospital to welcome s fleeing floodwaters in new orleans. i think that experience at that time of my life led me to begin to run for public office. i consider it a continuation of the life of service i've done as a doctor working in a hospital for the uninsured. >> thank you. colonel. >> it was in late 2012 after i'd been out of the military for about a year after retiring from 32 years. i saw that 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 and i revere our constitution. america is the last great hope on earth. in this -- this election to me is not about power. it's about restoring our country. i believe that louisianans deserve to vote for a conservative this november. as mark levin said last nice i am the conservative in this race. that's why he endorsed me and that's why i'm running. thank you. >> senator? >> thank you so much. and lpnb for having us tonight. let me say that it wasn't until after katrina i thought about running for public office of course, i come from a family that served for many years and i think honorably and well in this state. i'm the eldest of nine children. five girls and four boys. my mom stayed home and raised us for 30 years. i looked at the two, mom and dad, and i said i think maybe i'll go into tub b public office. so after college, i ran for the legislature, didn't have much of a shot to win but won and

continued to take one step in front of the other. i'm interesting that one of my opponents, congressman cassidy said after katrina because in six years in washington he voted against disaster aid for isaac when it hit his own district. i'm proud to represent this state honestly, effectively and passionately to bring aid to survivors to fight for new energy policy, for our country and a whole host of things that are important for leaders to support. >> thank you all very much. now we're going to turn things over to our panel of journalists. the first will come from shauna sanford which will be posed first to colonel. >> our first question is about medicare. we received lots of questions about this topic. like the rest of the nation, 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 ground and protect today's seniors and future retirees from rising health care costs? >> thank you. the first thing we need to do is restore the money taken from medicare, first by the obama care bill that senator landrieu voted for and then the measure that congressman cassidy voted for. the facts of how much you did or didn't work for louisiana are borne out that when will we say you're the senate for washington, d.c. we have time to get solvent. the board of trustees shows it's going to be solvent for about 20 years. so we've had the time. we need to come to the table together and develop solutions

that will work for the people of the 21st century. thank you very much. >> can i follow up with that? do you have a solution to put forth? >> we need to come to the table together and find solutions to make that a fair volume vent and we have time to do that as a nation. >> senator landry. >> i support the program as we know it. it's a very important program for safety, for our seniors. my opponent has no plan, as you just heard and congressman cassidy voted to end medicare as we know it, not cut it but end it and go to a 1r0u67er program. he's voted for that consistently. it's one of the reasons why he's just showed up the first time to this debate because for 18 months he's been running away from his record. i voted for $700 million in addition for the medicare program, the same vote that john mccain took, who was campaigning

with him yesterday, put that money back into the medicare program to strengthen it and extended the life of the trust fund by about 12 years. you're right. there's still strain on the medicare budget. but i support the program as it is and i also believe other people, particularly people that work that are under 65 deserve health care and we'll talk more about that later tonight. >> congressman. >> i'm a doctor who's been working in the public hospital for the uninsured. lots of time the only coverage my patients had was medicare. my mother lives with us. i know the importance of medicare. now, that said, obama cast a deciding vote for obama care, it didn't put it back into medicare. we'll be posting on our website. documentation for what i'm saying. it took 700 billion out and spent it else where it did not

return into the trust funneled. on the other hand, 20 years ago john breaux came up with a bipartisan plan to save medicare. others dusted it off, 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 keep it, you can, but if you wish, you can choose another plan of your choice. it will save money for beneficiaries and the trust fund. it's a good bipartisan john breaux plan. >> alan english, you have a question. >> we're glad to see y'all here. thank you for being here. ryan is one of the many viewers who submitted questions tonight

and one centered on foreign security. here are three tacked together as one question. they could be yes-no but we want you to explain it. one, do you believe president obama's military strategy towards isis. second, has the president overstepped his authority and third, will you authorize the use of ground troops, if that comes to it? >> isis should be destroyed. it's a very, very serious threat not only against the united states but the region, which is an important region of our interest. secondly, i do support the air strikes against isis and believe all presidents should have the authority to act when they believe that america is in danger. and thirdly, i would support the use of force. i think i would stop short at this point for boots on the ground. i think that we have made such an enormous sacrifices in that

part of the world. america must continue to lead. we have to be strong. we've got to work with our coalition partners. but i would support the use of force. isis is a threat and it must must be eliminated. >> yes. first, the president has not presented a strategy. and the president so far has failed. he pulled troops from iraq even though he was suggested by his general that he keep them there. as isis, he missed the warnings a year and a half ago of the gathering isis strength. as it began to invade iraqi he called them the j.v. team. then when they captured a weapons depot, instead of immediately bombing the depot, he waited, allowing isis to distribute the weapons across the whole region. he has no strategy. what we have presented to us is the beginning of a plan. i support this plan because it's the only one out there will. i'm not sure if it will be sufficient. they flew 2,000 sorties in one day in iraq. i don't trust this president. i think he's a poor commander in

chief. before i commit our men and women overseas i'd like to see what his strategy actually is. >> do you think he's overstepped his authority? >> so far what he's doing now was authorized by congress for the initial steps he's tone. he goes forward, i would expect him to come back to congress for additional authorization. >> colonel? >> i knew in operation desert storm and that was an air cam that was part of a larger wartime strategy. we need to have an air campaign connected to a strategy. this president has not presented us with a strategy. he's not defined the objectives of his operation. he has not defined success and he has not defined an exit strategy and that puts american sons and daughters in the great danger while they're in harm's way. he should be engaging congress. center congress has given him a blank check to fight an

undeclared war. the people sitting next to me should be back in washington calling for debate instead of allowing a recess to occur. a declaration of war needs to be satisfied or not and we need to figure out how to pay for that war because we can't continue to put these things on a credit card. would i authorize ground troops? if the president could satisfy all those questions and address the exit strategy and address the need for it and show how he's put a coalition and maybe the arab nations will step up, maybe the occurred will step up, but eventually ground forces will be needed. thank you. >> we turn to stephanie grace and she'll pose a question to congressman cassidy. >> we heard from a lot of viewers also about health care

not surprisingly, including mr. david linden felled. this is specific to congressman cassidy and colonel maness. it includes popular provisions such as required coverage for preexisting conditions. do you favor this coverage and if so, how do you propose to pay for it. ? for senator landrieu, you've defended your vote for the affordable care act. what portion would you change? >> as a physician, i oppose the affordable care act. i find when the patient has the power, the system lines up to serve the patient. 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. here i have a rate sheet. it was from $725 per month to $1,200 per month. a 66% increase. now blue cross this past week increased rates by 20%.

so clearly this is the unaffordable health care act. republicans propose that everyone in the nation will get a tax credit, only to be used for purchasing health insurance. people would be required to give everybody of the same age the same rate. i don't doesn't matter if you get a liver transplant, you get the same rate. by the way, different from the health care law that senator landrieu was the deciding vote for. >> colonel? >> i've said it before and i'll say it again. the affordable care act, obama care is an abomination. we need to pull it out by the roots. my plan turns to the free market for solutions. first of all, consumers should

be ok and allowed to buy insurance that fits their stage of life and what they need. a man who's not going to have a baby shouldn't be forced to buy maternity care insurance. state programs before obama care came into existence were responsible for health insurance and we should return to that. we should be able to cross state lines and purchase insurance. that increases the market, increases competition and drives costs down and keeps costs low. finally, we need portability with insurance policies, so policies stay with the individual and you don't have to worry about going from job to job and losing your insurance. that will address the preexisting condition for most americans. thank you very much. >> senator landrieu. >> thank you for your question. first of all, 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 he mandated that businesses even under 50 employees could provide direct coverage. he will not fess up to that and all he talks about is president obama. he has some answering to do for his own record. number two, our country has struggled for 60 years over the question of how to provide affordable coverage and quality coverage to people in america who work 40 and 50 hours. it is unjust, unfair, and wildly expensive for our nation to have to treat people in emergency rooms when it costs everybody so much more money because we can't figure this out. the affordable care act is not perfect. it needs to be fixed two ways. a plan could make it more

affordable. raise the subsidy for -- raise the additional subsidies. then also allow insurance agents to sell. there are ways to fix it. not perfect but we have to keep it and not under any circumstance repeal it. >> thanks. >> jeremy, your question for the colonel. >> let's turn our attention to campaign finance for a moment, the money that fuels application. there are third party groups most notably, super pxa that are allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. how do each of you feel about that system? also, if you could change one campaign finance law right now what would it be? >> colonel? >> it's a great question. application, from what i've learned from -- politics is a racket for sure. there's too much money involved. but federal government shouldn't get further involved by limiting our free speech. i agree with the citizens standing for what things are right now. i wouldn't make any changes to current campaign finance law. >> senator? >> well, the coach brothers and

bill cassidy have literally orchestrate a $25 million bogus campaign run on television. that's the -- this is the first debate he's agreed to show up. maybe he just wants to use the power of unlimited, undisclosed bogus television ads to sneaks his way to the senate. 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. the power belongs to the people. not that the rich have the power but all power equally. this distorts our democracy. you can see it playing out in this exact race in louisiana. i don't -- i want to run on my record of 18 years. it's hard to get your voice over those bogus ads.

something needs to change. >> congressman? >> it's ironic. they're spending our campaign -- outspending us about 5-1 before labor day. mayor mike bloomberg is all about gun control put about $50,000 into harry reid's p.a.c. you didn't know it was senator reed. they're doing whatever they can they can to get senator landrieu re-elected because mayor bloomberg likes her. the n.r.a. has third-party money coming to me but you know who they are, they're the n.r.a. not the person who has mayor bloomberg's endorsement. i like transparency. when harry reid pays for an ad

instead of hiding behind some tea party name, put, hey this is hear read. that would be the kind of change i would like. can we put that into law? >> that's an interesting one there. moving on to shanna sanford. this will go to senator landrieu. >> well, pay equity is another important issue that has the attention of our viewers. pay equity. a lot ha has been written. the richest 1% now earn more wealth than the bottom 90%. this is a three-part question. are you concerned about this would raising the anybody mum wage help the working poor which so in many in louisiana belong to that category. it's not -- if not, what policies should congress adopt to address gender and pay inequality in general. senator landrieu, we begin with you. >> i'm very concerned about the

inequity in the population of the united states and we all should be. this country is founded on a strong middle class and we've really got to think carefully about how to grow this middle class. this president has chaired the energy committee and is a leader in many areas. i'm looking forward to using my clout to help 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. the there's so many women that children depend on their salaries as well as their love and support. they depend on the money they bring home for their well being. i think it's almost detail my opponents will not support the increase in the minimum wage. i support pay equity. it's -- women are still making about 67 cents on the dollar.

for african-american women it's even lower. these are things we can do now to hem strengthen the middle class. >> thank you. >> congressman cassidy. >> of course. this president income inequality has increased. if you've owned stock with this president, you've made a lot of money. under obamacare, it's clearly established that low-income workers, the bottom fifth, if you will, have had their hours reduced from 40 to 30 or even laid off as employers have worked to avoid the penalties of obama care. in lincoln parish, 400 lower wage custodial workers were converted from full time to part time because the school did not have the tax twice faye penalty of obama care. if we want to do something about income inequality we should repeal obama care. the best way to increase wages for those who are less wealthy is getting out of the way, use our energy resources, create

good-paying energy jobs. >> first of all, there these guys go again. that last question, they're both complaining about the corporate dollars in their campaign war chests and i'm supporting by 41,000 individual donors. pay equity. i'm proud to serve with him in the united states air force for 30-plus years that got equal pay to me. i absolutely support equal play pay for women and equal pay for equal work. that's not the issue here. we have a law on the books that needs to be enforced. the equal pay act needs to be enforced. i'm not for a national minimum

wage raise. i've stated before that i believe that should be at the state level and elected leaders at the state should be able to experiment with setting a minimum wage under their conditions. that could help the working poor in this state. thank you. >> congressman cassidy, you're on record as voting against the better fair pay act. >> yes. >> why? since you say you believe in pay equity. >> the 1936 pay equity bill and the 1964 civil rights act outlaw discrimination on gender and race on how you pay something. the act is a trial bailout bill. a woman who bought her business from another can be sued decades later for things that allegedly occurred under a previous owner. it is wrong. i oppose that bill. >> thank you. >> our next question, allen, you have it. >> as we sit on centenary college campus tonight, we can't ignore the pressing issue of student loan debt. certainly is the intention of

michael buyers and others who submitted questions, in the budgets of colleges, public and private, they're under strain and stress. consequently, students are paying higher television and the costs are causing them to graduate into debt. how are you going to address this problem? >> dr. cassidy. >> am i first? >> you're first. oh. i still teach. on tuesday mornings when i'm not involved with official duties, i teach. i'm aware that student loan debt is a major problem. part of it is that as the amount of money available increases universities increase their television. the other -- and that's been well documented. the other part, there's a lot of fraud in funded programs such as the pell grant. over a billion dollars a year is thought to be lost in fraud due

to pell grants. we can somehow figure out how to keep the universities from always raising the bryce whenever more money becomes available to borrow and secondly eliminate the fraud, we can redirect those dollars to those that need it. now, but we also have to say part of the problem as well, is these students are graduating into jock markets which are awful. they can't pay back their loan because they can't earn money. we need a better economy than the obama economy. it put a wet blanket over the economy. >> colonel? >> insolvent rates for college graduates are sky high. the only solution to the debt problem for college loans is twofold. create the jobs. we need to pull obama care out by the roots. i talked to business owners in every parish, all 64 parishes in our state.

the mall business owners that have less than 100 employees tell me the same thing. they're struggling to meet the requirements of obama care. they're struggling to redefine full-time job employees down to part-time employees and that's a disaster. our college graduates need jobs that they can graduate from college and go into those jobs that are sustainable long-term jobs. if we unleash our energy sector we would create jobs not just in certain part of the state but all over the state. that's what our college graduates need. i've supported the hero act that will spread accreditation decisions outs to the states and increase the market and competition and drive costs down. >> you're out of town. senator? >> i have two bills. i'll talk about those in a minute. that will be very, very helpful, i believe. to the 600,000 people in

louisiana that have outstanding loans. it is a public good for people to have strong education. what frightens me the most is to think about one or two of these gentlemen being in the senate and standing in line with governor jindal who has cut higher education in the state by $700 million, the largest cut any state in the union. i fought against those cuts and i've done a lot to make sure that at least we counter by supporting hundreds of millions of dollars through our hbc use which i'm very proud of. it would mandate the student loan. you should be able to refinance the student loan saving each student $8,000. double pell grants are now worth less than 30% of the value when they were first passed. neither one of them should support it. they