answers. at what point during fetal development do you believe a woman should not have an abortion? >> i have always stated, contrary to what senator ernst said, that i oppose all late-term abortions that are necessary to save the life of the mother. >> can you be specific? >> it is a term that has a specific legal meaning because of existing law. when the rights of the mother and the rights of the child have significance in terms of eciding. she wants to repeal the affordable care act which would increase the cost for contraception for most iowa women by $600 a year. >> congressman, do you support life? >> i do support life. >> according to politifact, experts looked at the personhood after mendment and concluded it is too ambiguous to predict the legal

ramifications since abortion is currently federally protected through row v. wade. does it matter that mrs. ernst supports life because this is an already decided issue? >> no. why else would the american college of obstetrics and gynecology which takes care of pregnant mothers and babies say the things that are in the personhood amendment would do all the things that i have just said? it would outlaw all forms of abortion including in the case of rape or incestt and to save the life of a mother. it would interfere with invitro fertilization procedures. senator ernst, herself, has said that under her personhood amendment doctors should be rosecuted for -- should not be prosecuted in performing legal, medical procedures today. >> rebuttal? >> mischaracterizing my position especially when it comes to birth control. i will always protect a woman's right to access for affordable, safe, and reliable birth

control. now, i agree with the supreme court ruling, but that doesn't an a woman can't get reliable, safe birth control. she can still go to her doctor and receive birth control. it is not outlawing birth control. so, again, this is a ploy to scare women. we shouldn't be doing that. i will protect their right to access to birth control so let's make that clear. when it comes to deciding whether there is life, you've just said that it's determined by law, so, again, there has to be consensus on these issues and where there is not consensus there will not be a law. >> thank you. >> well, senator ernst, your words have consequences. you can't say that you protect a woman's right to contraception and then vote against it on the senate floor. you can't say you want to repeal the affordable care act

which provides free contraceptive services to women and increase their cost by $600. you can't say you support that right and then say it's okay for employers to interfere with it. your words have consequences. they'll raise the cost to contraception and for some women that cost would prohibit them getting the contraception services they need. >> i think we need to jump in. we can go back and forth and back and forth. appreciate all sides here. we'll head to another health care issue. the affordable care act or as both sides commonly refer to to it obama care will soon be enrolling participants in the second year now. you've made it pretty clear your position is to get rid of obama care, to repeal it. according to health care.in iowa under obama care adults under the age of 26 were added to parents' insurance plans. 1.2 million iowans cannot be discriminated against now for having preexisting conditions and medicare patients have

saved more than $121 million on prescription drugs. so sitting here tonight, mrs. ernst, let us know. iowans that have these benefits that have come to rely on them and knowing how hard it is to get any kind of legislation passed in washington, can you explain to people why they need to give these benefits up now? >> certainly. every iowan and every american deserves to have affordable, quality health care. obama care is not the answer. i will tell you why. obama care is a job killer. we have seen that here in iowa. it is a massive tax increase. $1.2 trillion over the next ten years for the american people. and it takes our health care decisions out of our hands, out of our doctors' hands, and places them in the hands of nameless, faceless bureaucrats in washington, d.c. so i don't support obama care. however, the congressman has voted for obama care and continues to defend it today. now, he promised us that obama

care would lower health care costs. it has not. we heard just last week that health care policies, their cost is going up an average of 19%. so he was wrong. he said we could keep our policies and that we could keep our doctors. he was wrong on that issue, also. >> why is it a job killer? >> it is a job killer because what we are seeing and i've heard from iowans all across the state there are businesses now right around that 50-employee mandate of being a big business and so what they're trying to do, they've evaluated the cost to their businesses and they can't afford to pay for these types of plans under the affordable care act. what they're doing is lowering the number of full-time employees that they have. they're not expanding their businesses. we have seen a loss of jobs here in sioux city, blue cross/blue shield laid off over 100 employees, and they attribute it directly to obama care.

>> what would you do to make sure that doesn't happen? >> first i would repeal and replace obama care with patient-centered health care that does address preexisting conditions. you mentioned having children on their parents' policies. we already have that here in the state of iowa before obama care was enacted. i believe we should allow insurance providers to sell over state lines, tax credits for those that privately purchase insurance, allowing our small businesses to pull together their policies just as we already allow large businesses to do. but, again, we must make sure they address preexisting conditions and it must be affordable and work for iowa families. >> mr. braley, a quick rebuttal before we give you a chance -- >> sound bites have consequences. when you say that every iowan deserves affordable, quality health care, there were 47 million americans who didn't have access to quality, affordable health care before

the affordable care act became law. and it's not perfect but we need to fix it and improve it instead of doing what you would do, which is vote 50 times to repeal it that doesn't do anything to make it better. i voted to allow people to stay on policies for two years. i made it simpler for small businesses facing the heavy burden of paperwork. but we can't go back to where we were. tim, i had a 2-year-old nephew diagnosed with liver cancer. he's one of those children with a preexisting condition who was affected by being unable to get coverage because of his preexisting condition. that no longer is the case. that's why the statistics you cited are important to iowans, because it's making their lives better. >> you mentioned it was -- give me a couple quick, specific points that are flaws that you'll change. >> i gave you some examples of things we already have changed but one of the biggest flaws that i've been working very hard on with iowa doctors and

iowa hospitals is a flaw in the reimbursement formula that penalizes great doctors and hospitals in iowa who do great work and get quality patient outcomes but don't get paid as much as doctors and hospitals in other parts of the country. that's why during the debate on the affordable care act i was their champion, to make sure that they were getting fair pay and that we move to a system that rewards quality patient outcomes. that's where health care reimbursement is heading and you pointed out that 100,000 iowans now have coverage because i worked with governor bran steadt to expand access to medicaid and you talked about the enormous, positive impact that is having on iowans who had no health insurance. thank you. >> thank you. >> may i address -- >> yes. >> also under obama care there are still 31 million americans that will not have health care. now, the congressman has stated costs will not go up but we are seeing heavy, increased costs because of the policy

cancellations. you've stated just a few years back that you would not change a thing about obama care. and yet today you're saying oh, yeah. we do need to make some changes to the bill. you said you read every page of this bill. you tabbed it. you highlighted it. so either you didn't understand what was in the bill or you were misleading iowans. i don't know which one is worse. >> thank you. we're going to move ahead once again. >> please. i can't allow that to go unanswered because it is not true. the reality is when you pass a huge change in how health care is delivered to millions of americans, there are bound to be some things that you have to deal with along the way. that's what we've done. repealing the entire bill and taking health care away from millions of americans and adding costs, premiums will go up 225% in iowa if you eliminate what's in place right now. that's not a good thing.

>> thank you. >> we'll move on. >> thank you both. >> we talked a lot tonight so far about heavy and important issues and we know both of you can talk about where you stand on the political land scape. >> only a fraction of the folks that will ever be out there that you'll be representing on a daily basis get the chance to actually come up to you and ask you a question face to face and get to know you personally. we want to ask you tonight one quality that you possess that makes you unique. mr. braley, we'll start with you. what is it that sets you apart? >> i'm a bridge builder not a bridge burner. i spend a lot of my time getting to know the people that i serve with in congress. republicans and democrats. i have them over for dinner so i get to know where they came from. i get to learn about their families. the work they did before they came to congress. and that's why i've had so much success working with republicans to pass legislation that's been beneficial to iowans. when the iowa national guard came home from iraq and was denied benefits for g.i. bill benefits and hardship pay by

the pentagon, i worked with republicans from minnesota to get their orders changed so they got paid the benefits they deserved. when i had a constituent named andrew connelly who was denied a v.a. adaptability grant, i helped him get that so he could stay in his home. then i had him come to washington and testify in front of the veterans affairs committee and introduced a bill that other veterans would have those same benefits because the program is going to expire. that's what iowans expect from their senator, somebody like senator grassley and senator harkin who can bring people together not drive them apart. >> let's turn to you. what unique thing is there about you that sets you apart? >> i would say i am a public servant. again, i have served in my community. i've served my state. i've served my nation in many different capacities, worked with many volunteer organizations at the community level, and i still serve as a sunday school animation teacher in the church that i grew up in. so i remain committed to my

hometown and my home communities. but i've also served my state and my nation in the army reserves and the iowa army national guard. i don't do these things for personal gain. i do them because i believe in serving the public whether it's a time of flood in eastern or western iowa, whether it's during winter storms, making sure that iowans are safe is important. but i've also served overseas during a time of war in combat in kuwait and iraq. i believe that is important. but sound bites do have consequences. i believe that i have a pure heart and am willing to serve iowans where congressman braley behind closed doors has poked fun at our senior senator chuck grassley. i don't call that building bridges. i would say that's burning bridges, congressman. >> thank you. we'll move on. we have a couple questions here. we want to get to know you -- >> the senator knows i didn't poke fun at senator grassley and she knows i talked to him

that same day and apologized to him and i apologized to iowa farmers because that's what people expect iowans to do. so if you're questioning my pure heart, senator, i can tell you i've been an elder in my church. i've taught sunday school to adults and children, i've never seen a corporation sitting next to me in the church pew. and, yet, you believe that their interests outweigh those of women and iowa when it comes to contraception. >> oh, again, very misleading. i have said i will support a woman's right to contraception. but what you say behind those closed doors really does matter to iowans and maybe you did apologize to chuck grassley, but my father is a farmer, also, without a law degree, and i think he's done very well. and, again, i contribute to my community, my state, and my nation. i am ready to serve the people of iowa. >> if you want to talk about what goes on behind closed doors tell us about the meeting you had with -- >> we're going to jump in now.

>> all right. >> we have a couple lighter things to talk about before we get heavy again. amanda, go ahead. >> thanks, jeff. these are meant to be a little more light hearted because we want the voters to get a chance to know you guys a little bit better. nothing difficult here. quick answers. ms. ernst, who do you cheer for on saturdays? iowa or iowa state? >> i am an iowa state cyclone as long as they are not playing each other. >> okay. >> congressman braley, same question. on saturdays who do you cheer for, iowa or iowa state? >> as you know, i graduated from both fine universities and when they play each other i cheer for iowa state. >> mr. braley, i have a question for you here. say something that you admire about your opponent. tell us something you admire about ms. ernst. >> well, i admire the fact that senator ernst has served our nation and our state and the iowa national guard. i think it's a terrific attribute. my father was a world war ii combat veteran and i have great respect for senator ernst for

serving her country. >> thank you. the same to you. >> i think congressman braley is a great father. >> thank you. thank you both for that. let's move ahead. now to something, we've said something nice i guess here so maybe we turn the page and go the other direction a little bit. we have to bring up something else that voters feel very strongly about. iowans view this race as one of the nastiest, one of the ugliest they've seen in history. senator, for public integrity $17.8 million has been spent on tv advertising and that is only through october 1st and will easily near $20 million or more before the election is done. obviously you have to be living under a rock or just don't own a tv to know these commercials haven't been airing. we asked our viewers to send us questions for you tonight through social media. many of them are angered as you might guess, even disgusted about all of the negative advertising. one of them is scott from cedar rapids. he said, what ad on your behalf has embarrassed you most? so, congressman braley, senator ernst, on your behalf, which

one would it be? we'll start with mr. braley. >> well, it wasn't run on my behalf but it was an ad run earlier in the race that showed a bunch of people looking into this box and i thought it was a horrible ad. i thought that it was not an effective way to talk about the very real differences between us in this race. tim, i'm the only candidate in this race who has voted to try these t the influence of outside groups most of whom are funded by secret donors that the public doesn't know who is paying for the ad. when senator ernst and i put an ad up on television we have to tell who our donors are. we have to tell how we spend the money. but because of a supreme court decision that i think is one of the biggest threats to democracy there is, there is an unlimited ability of outside groups to say whatever they want, to distort our record, and i think that's wrong. that's why i called during the last debate for senator ernst to join me in encouraging all these outside groups to take

down their ads and make sure that we know who the donors are who are behind these ads. >> ms. ernst, rebuttal? >> yes. thank you, scott, for that question. this has been a very, very negative campaign, and it started the very day after the primary in june, the day after i won the republican nomination there was an ad that was paid for by congressman braley's committee that compared me to a baby chick. i didn't appreciate that ad. i would have to say ads run on my behalf i really don't know because i don't watch television any longer. i don't pay attention to those ads because i have been so heavily outspent from the outside with all of these negative ads. my husband and daughter don't watch television anymore. it is very disheartening when you have a failed record in washington d.c. you have to tear down your opponent. and that's what the democrats

are trying to do in this race. >> you don't watch tv these days? >> i don't watch tv. >> okay. i do want to ask one more thing to both of you as well. you've mentioned some of that outside influence. at the end of those commercials it says not endorsed by the candidate or the candidate's committee. is it time that it says endorsed by? should that be there? >> tim, it's time to get secret money donors out of politics. period. that's what needs to happen. so that it's a focus on the differences in issues between the candidates, which as you can tell tonight are very clear. just like you, senator ernst, my family and i don't watch tv anymore. >> what are you going to do about it? how do you step up and make that happen? >> it's not what i will do. it's what i've already done. i'm the only one here tonight running for senate who has voted to limit the influence of these outside groups. i voted for the disclose act which would require transparency in the disclosure

of donors paying for these ads. >> while we're there let me turn to you. what would you do then, ms. ernst? >> i do believe in political free speech, and this is the way that individuals are exercising their political free speech. that's a first amendment right. so whether we like it or whether we don't, and i don't, again, i'm being heavily outspent by outside interests in this race. i don't like it. but i do believe in standing up for our citizens' rights. and that is a right that they have. >> senator ernst, you know that you're not being heavily outspent by outside interests. and the big difference between us on this issue is that i'm willing to say to those outside interests, you have to come clean and take your ads down. that's the big difference between us in this case. these outside groups are lying about my record. they're doing it to distract from the real issues. i'm here standing up for everyone in this room who is sick and tired of these ads

saying, i will work because the political free speech of secret donors is not more important than the political free speech of iowans. that's why if you elect me, i will work for reasonable campaign finance reform that gives everyone's political voice the same clout. it shouldn't be secret donors like the koch brothers who are spending more money to buy your vote than people who want to know where you stand on the ish use. >> again -- >> very quickly. >> i am being mischaracterized in so many of the ads coming from the other side and, yes, i have been outside or coming from outside money outspent by about $2 million. that's a lot of money in iowa air time t is really hard to combat that. you have earned pinocchios and -- plue politifact check there have been several different issues. one is the birth control issue. the other is social security where i have been mis

characteristicd on those issues. >> let's talk about social security right there. >> the social security trust fund under current conditions will run out in 19 years in the year 2033. neither of you has officially supported raising the retirement age. we know social security isn't going to be solvent if it continues the way that it's going right now. ms. ernst you said you want to look at options for fixing the system with no specifics. mr. braley, you've said you have a four-point plan that lacks some details. we think it's time for someone to step up and lead on this issue. we're going to start with you. again, we know you have your four-point plan. you use phrases like let's grow the economy. that seems pretty vague. please name one fundamental change that you would support to keep the social security program solvent. >> i mentioned this during the debate in davenport on saturday night. i think that millionaires and billionaires should be paying the same portion of their earned income into social

security as hard working iowans in the middle class. and they're not right now. so my plan would require them to do that and it would dramatically increase the amount of money in the social security trust fund and it would actually increase benefits for seniors. i also believe we need to increase the minimum wage, give 300,000 iowans a pay raise, and it would put billions each year in addition into the social security and medicare trust fund. what we also need to do as i said is we need to grow our economy. and the ways we can do that is by investing in our crumbling infrastructure for every billion dollars we invest it creates 25,000 new jobs. those workers will pay into social security's trust fund. those are concrete, tangible things we can do to make social security solvent going forward. >> thank you. ms. ernst, you said you're open to any options. at some point you have to stand up and say i'm at least for one

thing. what is your one, fundamental change that you would support to keep the social security program solvent? >> thank you. i will always stand up and fight for social security and medicare for our iowa seniors. just like my mom and dad. we have over 600,000 iowans that rely on social security. we have made those sacred promss to those individuals so we must stand by those promss. however, we have to recognize that there is a problem. and this system will run out of money within 20 years before i can even retire. but any solutions that we come to, they must not affect the benefits of those that are retired and those that are nearing retirement. we must keep those promss. so one solution that i would state we could do or one option would be bringing in new state and local workers that are not currently engaged in the social

security system bringing them in. however, the congressman has stated raising the minimum wage, that would eliminate up to 20,000 jobs here in the state of iowa, 500,000 jobs nationwide. i don't see that that is a solution. >> thank you. >> about a month ago president obama hoped a high powered air attack would help degrade and destroy isis, another important issue tonight we want to get to. despite that though the islamic terror group continues to capture more territory. they continue to move forward, and voters we've talked with have renewed concerns. i'd like you to look at the monitor again. >> my name is adam melby. i live in iowa. i served in the united states army from 1996 to 2000. my question is, you both say you support the u.s. troops and you agree we need to defeat isis. my question is, how do you suppose we do that? do you both support putting troops in the middle east again? >> mr. braley, we'll start with you.

what do you say to mr. velde tonight? >> the first thing i say to adam is thank you for serving in the army. i notice you are from senator harkin's hometown of caming, iowa. when i was in washington, d.c. today i got an updated, classified briefing on what is going on with isis. some of the questions i asked were, what's the current troop strength of the iraqi defense forces? because they have been significantly degraded as a result of what's happening. what is the status of the new government in iraq? because it is absolutely critical to any success against isis. and i voted with my republican colleagues overwhelmingly to give the president limited authority to arm moderate syrian rebels to coordinate with our air strikes that are going on. i also got an update today on what our allies in the region and around the globe are willing to commit to try to address this terrorist threat. isis is a threat that must be destroyed. that's why we need to make sure

that we're working to make sure that they are eliminated because they need to be brought to justice or to the grave. period. >> ms. ernst, would you like rebuttal? >> yes. isis does need to be destroyed. they are extreme terrorists. we have seen this threat for actually a number of years now as it has grown in strength. before we commit to any military action, and we are engaging in that now, i have several criteria i would need to evaluate. the first is do we have actionable intelligence which outlines the threat? can we be successful in combating that threat? second is it do we have a clearly defined mission? will we put the resources forward necessary to support that mission? and last is once we've achieved that mission, do we have a withdrawal plan? will we be caring for our men and women and their families upon their return? now, the congressman, i'm not sure where he stands on this

issue because in june after mosul fell to isis, he voted for no combat funding in iraq, yet today he is stating that he would support action. i'm not sure where he stands. >> before we give him a chance i want to follow up. what exactly would be actionable intelligence for you? what would that be in terms we could grasp? >> you bet. it would be intelligence that shows that there is a threat to our national interests or to our safety as americans. national interests could include infrastructure, our allies in the region. any of those threats that have been laid out and show that we would be impacted as americans. >> mr. braley? >> senator ernst knows the vote she is referring to had nothing to do with action against isis. in fact, that's why 23 republican members of the house joined me in making sure that before the president committed boots on the ground in iraq he

had to come to congress and get authority to do that. because the truth is we can't continue to be the world's police force. secretary gates in his last address at west point said for any future defense secretary to advise an american president to a large scale land war in the middle east they ought to have their head combnd. that's why i agree with senator ernst on the three criteria she says must be met to commit u.s. forces but the things she left out, you also have to make the case to the american people on why that investment of treasure and blood is necessary and that hasn't been done yet. >> thank you. >> i believe that has been done. i think there is overwhelming support coming from the american people on dealing with the threat of isis. now, going back, this is again another issue that our president, the administration, and congressman braley have been reactive rather than proactive. we know the president didn't leave troops on ground

following the closing of the iraqi campaign even against his senior military advisers. his own secretary of defense, leon panetta, advised we keep troops on ground. i know that the congressman twice voted to defund our men and women as they were serving in combat in iraq and afghanistan. >> senator ernst knows that last statement is not true. because she knows that i voted to end a decade-long commitment of u.s. ground troops in iraq. she knows it was the prime minister al malaki who refused to enter into a status of forces agreement to keep troops on the ground. are you saying tonight that you are prepared to commit u.s. forces on the ground in iraq to deal with this threat and in syria? is that what you're suggesting president obama should have done? >> i am stating that i would have to use the criteria i have laid out before committing america's sons and daughters.

and i will remind you that i have served in iraq. my boots were on that ground that is now held by isis. so when we make these decisions i take them very seriously. so before i would commit our sons and daughters, i would sort through those criteria. but we have to recognize that this is a threat that has been out there for years and we have an administration that has refused to acknowledge that this is a group that is killing innocent civilians, christians, and even americans. they need to deal with this threat. >> thank you. we'll turn now to immigration issues. right now the federal government and all government contractors must use the e-verify system when they hire someone. this is an internet based system that identifies if a person is legally eligible to be hired. it's more than 90% accurate. but private businesses are not mandated to use it. by requiring all businesses to use e!-verify you potentially

could stop any undocumented workers from being hired. would you support a bill requiring all businesses to use e-verify? congressman braley, we'll start with you. >> the first thing you have to know is what is it going to cost those businesses to comply? what type of assistance are you going to provide to businesses that may have difficulty affording that cost? we know e-verify can be very helpful and we know that we shouldn't be encouraging employers to hire people who are ineligible to be hired under the laws of this country because we need to promote respect for the rule of law. but the most important immigration challenge we face right now is comprehensive immigration reform. and that's why i support the bill that the senate passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 68 senators voted for it. that would strengthen our borders, add 20,000 new border patrol agents to the border to protect us and make us safer, and provide a legal pathway to citizenship for those who are in this country illegally by

forcing them to admit they broke the law, pay a steep fine, go to the back of the line, and make sure that they're held accountable for breaking the law. >> congressman braley wouldn't e-verify fix a lot of those problems that you just mentioned? >> it won't fix the problems of what we do about all of the people who are here in this country, and it won't solve the problems of all of the employers who are struggling every day to deal with a work force that is changing. we see that happening here in iowa. so we do need to promote respect for the rule of law. that's why expanding e-verify because of its effectiveness is a good idea. >> senator ernst, would you support a bill requiring all businesses to use e-verify? >> i do believe that is a step in the right direction but we do need to look at the cost to employers in making sure that they are able to afford this system and perhaps providing the supports necessary to get that in place for private

employers. but there is a greater issue with immigration and i spent time overseas when i was at iowa state university on an ag exchange. when i was staying on that collective farm in the soviet union the leaders of the collective, all they wanted to do was not talk about agriculture issues but talk about what it was to be an american, what it was like to be free and experience the types of opportunities that we have in america. so i understand why families want to come to the united states and experience that american dream. but we are a nation of immigrants and we are also a nation of laws. so we do need to enforce the existing laws but i believe we also need to secure the border. that needs to be done first. i see it as more than just an immigration issue but also one of national security. >> we've had lengthy questions here. i'll give you a real brief question now. ms. ernst, is there any scenario that you would support raising taxes on iowa voters?

>> no. i believe that we can find ways to make our government more efficient without raising taxes on our hard working iowans. i would like to see our iowans keeping more of their tax dollars in their own pockets so that they can save for their children's college education, so they can pay their bills, so they can buy a home. all of those wonderful things that we would like to see iowans do. here in the state of iowa, i implemented one of the largest tax cuts with the leadership of governor terry branstadt. as a matter of fact it was the largest tax cut and we are saving iowans $4.4 billion over the next ten years. this is just one part of our greater economic plan which also includes reducing job killing rules and regulations and balancing the budget, which we have done here in iowa for the past four years. >> would you consider raising

the cap on social security tax? as a tax? >> it is an option that can be discussed out there but i think we have better options that we can look at. >> well, senator ernst may think there are better options but you gave her the opportunity to explain them tonight and she didn't. and the thing that i will tell you is that right now one of our biggest problems is we provide tax incentives to corporations that ship u.s. jobs overseas, so i would eliminate those tax incentives and that would cause the taxes for some of those corporations to go up, tim. i think most iowa voters can accept that reality because they want a tax system that is fair for people in the working class. now, senator ernst has expressed support for a tax change to the way we currently tax people. she has expressed support for 23% national sales tax. that would dramatically increase the tax burden on working class families.

it would be added to the existing 6% sales tax you pay, meaning that you would be paying almost 40% on every dollar you spend in sales taxes. and she has talked about that as an option she's willing to consider. i won't. >> you mentioned several points there. ms. ernest, go ahead. >> i do believe we need to lower taxes on our hard working iowans immediately. immediately. which is something we have done with this tax cut that we have implemented here in iowa. but then work over the long term to reform our tax system. i say scrap the irs. let's start all over again. we need a tax that is fair, flatter, and simpler. again, we do need to find an option. and i am willing to sit down. we need to have bipartisan support on this. but let's make life better for . rd working americans

we can't tax them to death. my opponent congressman braley that seems to be the answer for everything is higher taxes and more spending. we can't keep doing that to our hard working iowans. >> senator ernst answered everything is scrap it. scrap the irs. get rid of it. get rid of the department of education. get rid of the epa. get rid of the clean water act. every solution she has is throwing darts at the board, trying to get rid of programs that have had significant impacts and made a difference in the lives of iowans. so she wants to get the federal government out of the student loan business. what would that mean? it would mean 230,000 iowans who depend on those student loans by privatizing them, their interest rates would skyrocket and their lives would be much worse off. i don't think the solution to all of these problems is to scrap things. i think the solution is to find problems, fix them, and make sure that iowans have clean water, clean air, and that they have the ability to get the

education that they deserve. >> yes or no would you raise tax? >> excuse me? >> yes or no, would you raise the tax? >> i already said that i think that employers who shift jobs overseas shouldn't get the tax benefits they are getting right now and their taxes would go up. >> thank you. >> can i address that? frpblt go ahead. >> when it comes to taxing and funding i would say the congressman has made his positions very clear. over the eight years that he has served in congress, he has voted eight times to raise our national debt ceiling. the national debt has doubled in the time that he has been in congress. this is immoral. we are passing on a debt to our children and grandchildren. my dawit -- daughters' share of the national debt is $50,000. we can't keep spending the way we are. i don't believe in a bloatd, federal bureaucracy. we need to return a lot of that power to the states because

iowans know what is best. iowans are working for iowans our way is working. washington, d.c. is not. >> thank you both. >> it's been a quick hour i guess we could say here for some parts. we've had a pretty good discussion. we appreciate you joining us around the table tonight. thank you for the answers to our questions. >> thank you. as we wind down this hour-long discussion we want the candidates to share their closing thoughts with the viewers who are shaping their voting decisions as we speak. mr. braley, you have the first word. ms. ernst, you have the last. start with your closing thoughts please. >> thanks, amanda. congress isn't working right now. and part of the reason is because of partisan gridlock. one of the reasons for that gridlock is people who aren't willing to work together to get things done. i'm a bridge builder not a bridge burner. i have a proven record of working with republicans to improve the lives of iowans. iowans have been blessed to have two senators over the last 30 years, chuck grassley and

tom harkin, who even though they don't agree on everything have been able to put those differences aside to advance an agenda that's helpful to iowa. as your next senator, i'm going to follow in tom harkin's foot steps. i've worked with chuck grassley on things like protecting and preserving the renewable fuel standard. i've worked with chuck grassley to try to protect the wind energy tax credit which has transformed the lapped scape -- landscape of iowa and created thousands of good paying jobs. as your next senator i'm going to get up every morning thinking about what i can do to make your lives better and i'm going to focus on economic policies that are going to strengthen the middle class because that's what iowans have always depended upon whether t's in agriculture, education, energy, our economy has been based on hard working iowans who get up every day and do what's necessary to get the job done. as your senator, that's exactly

what i'm going to do. i'm going to work hard to make sure that your lives are better. i'm here tonight to ask for your help. i'm here tonight to ask for your vote. thank you. >> thank you. ms. ernst, your final thoughts? >> thank you so much to our hosts this evening. it has been a pleasure to be here with you. thank you, congressman, very much for joining me on this stage. tonight i think you have seen very clear differences in this race. i am not a washington politician. i grew up on my family farm in southwest iowa. i am a mother. i am a soldier. i am an independent leader who cares very deeply about the nation that we are leaving our children and grandchildren. i don't support congressman braley's policies, president barack obama's policies of higher taxes, more spending. obama care, amnesty, the list goes on and on.

congressman braley has a failed record in washington. because of that he is thinking the most negative campaign that iowans have ever seen but i believe in the iowa way. i know iowans know what is best for iowa more than politicians and washington and if you trust me with your vote on november 4th i will fight hard for middle class stories so they have better paying jobs. i will work for the thousands of iowans facing higher health care costs because of obama care. will protect social security and medicare for our seniors because they have sacrificed so much that our families can each for the american dream. i will fight washington, to change washington, to make sure more americans can achieve that american dream as your next senator. >> thank you both for being here tonight. >> our political coverage does not stop after tonight's

debate. we are going to be online. go to we are iowa.com and sioux land matters.com for political coverage as we draw to less than 20 days to election day. >> we thank those in the audience tonight. we also thank you at home that have watched this evening. you can continue to contribute by going to those websites and as we head toward election day. from eppley auditorium on the campus of morningside college in sioux city, iowa, thanks for joining us. good night. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> be part of c-span's 2014 coverage. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook to get debate schedules, video clips of key moments, debate previews from our politics team, c-span is bringing you over 100 senate house and governor debates and you can instantly share your reactions to what the candidates are saying. the battle for control of congress. stay in touch and engaged by following us on twitter at c-span and liking us on

facebook at facebook.com/c-span. >> tonight that includes live coverage of wisconsin governor debate between incumbent scott walker who faced a recall attempt in 2012. he is running for re-election against democratic challenger mary burke. we'll have their debate live tonight at 8:00 eastern time. here is a look at some of the ads wisconsin voters have been seeing during the campaign. verage mary burke lied about her jobs plan. turns out it was plagiarized and now she is at it again attacking scott walker's position on jobs, attacks the milwaukee journal sentinel says are false. she is twisting the numbers and it is not the first time. the truth? in the last year wisconsin ranked third in midwest job growth. the facts are wisconsin gained 100,000 jobs under scott walker and we can't trust mary burke. >> he made a pledge.

>> 250,000 new jobs by the end of our first term in office. >> and asked us to hold him to it. >> is this a campaign promise, something you want to be held to? >> absolutely. >> today wisconsin is dead last in midwest job growth. tenth out of ten. >> wisconsin lags behind most of the country when it comes to job growth. >> those 250,000 jobs? not even close. broken promss? dead last in jobs. scott walker's not working for you. >> it's been called a lie of the year. >> if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. >> and mary burke supports it. >> it doesn't mean that the government is going to tell you which doctors to go to or which plan to have. >> while millions have lost their doctors and their plans, mary burke says she still supports obama care un equivocally and wants to expand it. wisconsin can't afford madison liberal mary burke, period. end of story.

>> you know who had a really good idea about taxes? ronald reagan. surprised you, didn't i? reagan expanded the earned income tax credit, cutting taxes for working families. you know who had aor really bad idea? governor walker. he did just the opposite cutting taxes for the wealthy and raising them on 140,000 wisconsin families. raising income taxes on working families isn't just bad economics. it's wrong. >> mary burke, governor. >> a recent marquette university poll shows the wisconsin race is a dead heat. we'll take you live tonight to milwaukee for the debate between incumbent republican scott walker and wisconsin entrepreneur democrat mary burke at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. tonight's debate from wisconsin is more than a hundred debates from across the country that you can keep on top of at c-span.org. we've got a debate schedule there. and watch past debates in c-span's video library.

follow c-span on twitter and like c-span on facebook. one of the debates we covered recently is a close race for one of the colorado u.s. senate seats. incumbent democrat mark udall is facing current republican congressman cory gardner. this year colorado is holding its first all male elections. that means officials have to get their ballots in the mail by friday and voters have to mail their ballots back by the wednesday before the election. the candidates debated earlier this week in denver for about an hour. >> live from the 9 news studios in denver, election 2014 race for the senate. moderated by kyle clark and brandon ridman. >> good evening. it has become almost cliche' to say the u.s. senate could hinge on this race, but it makes it no less true. our audience here tonight has agreed to refrain from applause

and cheering during the debate to maximize the amount of time that we have for our discussion. they will, however, break their silence now to join us in welcoming the candidates senator mark udall and ongressman cory gardner. >> the rules of the debate agreed upon by the candidates one minute answers, redirects, and rebutals at our discretion. there will be an opportunity for them to question one another and there will be closing statements. you can participate from home tonight by helping choose one of the topics that we discussed with a bit more depth. we will be of course talking about issues of the day including the spread of ebola, the economy, and obama care the affordable care act but your votes determine which topic we'll circle back to before the night is done. vote on 9 news.com right now or text ebola, economy, or obamacare to the number 25543.

that text information will appear on the screen throughout this hour. our debate begins after my colleague 9 news political reporter brandon rideman catches us up on the race for senate. >> this race seems larger than life because it is bigger than colorado and could decide control of the u.s. senate. that has special interests shoveling money toward the rocky mountains. >> udall votes for obama 99% of the time. >> guys like cory gardner thinks it is their business to tell women what to do. >> this race is between two men. the incumbent mark udall knows something about close races in our politically purple seat. when he first won a senate seat in 2008 it was also considered one of the closest races in the country. udall helped the newly elected president obama advance an agenda including the affordable care act. the law proved deeply unpopular with many voters. >> but over time you'll see the affordable care act work for

more and more coloradoans. frpblt that is not what we heard udall focus on. at the core of the udall campaign a war on women strategy painting his opponent as an extreme idealogue. on the flip side congressman cory gardner who gave up a state seat in the house for this run hoping to rise to the senate. his conservative views on social issues have provided ammunition to democrats including his current status as a cosponsor of a personhood bill in congress. >> well, there is no -- >> gardner is out on a limb with that denial at odds with fact checkers and the bill's supporters. he is engage in the fight though campaigning on a plan to offer birth control pills over the counter. gardner also seems to have connected with an argument that women's issues are over hyped in this campaign. to be sure, the two candidates are at odds on all kinds of other policies -- energy, immigration, and health care. will we keep mark udall or replace him with cory gardner? the ballots are in the mail and

each candidate will make their case to colorado colorado voters here in the 9 news studios tonight. >> let's get right to it. i have the first question. we'll begin with the news of the day. some pretty discouraging headlines about the ebola virus here in this nation. a second health care worker in texas infected who flew on a passenger jet. the president canceling political business to call an emergency cabinet meeting about the spread of the virus. as it stands, at this moment, how do you evaluate the federal response? we'll start with you, senator. >> brandon, i took time today to call dr. freden the heafed the cdc to get an update directly. he shared with me the virus is the enemy. we need to spare no cost. we need to protect our public health workers. we need to acknowledge the great courage of not only people here facing this unseen virus but the troops we're sending to western affer --

africa, to the aid workers there already. in the end what we have to do is understand that the world has more to do -- we have more to do -- we ought to in the end listen to the doctors and health care professionals. if they believe we ought to close our borders, we ought to restrict flights to and from west africa, let's listen to them. but senators and congressmen shouldn't be making those decisions. we should be supporting the resources that are necessary to meet the ebola challenge. >> there was a lot of forward looking statements there. how do you feel like we've done so far? >> i think to this point we have the best medical system in the world. we'll be up to this challenge. we need to be focused on it and we need to remember that if we don't support operations like the centers for disease control, we're not going to be able to meet this challenge in the way we want. this is the difference between congressman gardner and me. he voted to cut cdc spending of almost $770 million including about $300 million of direct response functions. we're not going to beat ebola by cutting back the cdc and our

public health systems. that is the difference between the two of us. >> congressman gardner? >> thank you. i think we ought to have an immediate travel ban from the affected areas going into effect now. not tomorrow but now. we must have an immediate travel ban into effect from the affected areas. if the president is not willing to put into place a travel ban, then we should have 100% screening of people coming from those affected areas. right now we've seen reports where 96% will be screened. that's not good enough. we must make sure that people coming from affected areas are screened to protect the health of the american people. this is a very dangerous situation if we don't put into place all the necessary steps to make sure we are safeguarding the american people. and the responsibility to the world as well. to working with world health organizations around the globe, to make sure we are coordinating responses to make sure we are working with local community health departments. i spoke to a nurse the other day at children's hospital to make sure that they were undertaking the kinds of steps

necessary. >> really quickly one more try. anything about how we've done so far? how would you rate our response? frpblts absolutely. look. if you look at the words of the cdc they said mistakes were made. we lack a strategy to deal with the ebola virus. i think that's been very clear in the news. that's unacceptable. tomorrow i will be attending a hearing of the energy and commerce committee, subcommittee i serve on, oversight and investigations subcommittee, which will make sure we address those needs with the director of the c.d.c. secretary burwell said we could have done better in the response. i would just talk to senator udall's charges. senator udall voted for the same bill that he is accusing me of voting for so senator udall, i know throughout this campaign you have talked about things that we have done together and then tried to criticize me for so don't forget you voted for the same measure. >> okay. >> so we've established you both voted in the past to cut c.d.c. funding but we're talk ing about the current ebola crisis. senator, the obama administration has a bit of a

history of having full confidence in its people right up until the moment in which it doesn't anymore. you said that you spoke with c.d.c. head tom freden today. do you have full confidence in him and do you believe he is the man to lead us all the way through this fight? >> i do have full confidence in dr. freden. i do have full confidence in the centers for disease control. they are a lauded public health agency. the world looks to the c.d.c. for its expertise. when we stand together, we're going to meet this challenge. the virus is the enemy. with all due respect to congressman gardner he's talking about two different votes. we both voted for the sequester cuts. we had to keep the government open. but congressman gardner in one of the many extreme votes he's cast, cast a vote to cut $700 million out of the c.d.c. imagine if those cuts had been in place today. we would be even more on our heels than we might be right now. >> congressman gardner, you'll have the opportunity to respond

but i have another question as well about something you said. you talked about the travel ban from the west african countries fighting ebola. the head of the c.d.c. says that could actually make the epidemic worse. health workers might be afraid to go there fer -- there if they are afraid they can't come back. are there health experts telling you your travel ban is a good idea and the c.d.c. is wrong? >> what we know from this situation of course is this. people traveling from the affected areas into the united states as has already happened is i believe an unacceptable danger. that's why i believe we ought to have in place a travel ban. that's what the american people are hoping for. that's what they are asking for. an overwhelming majority of the american people believe we should put this in place. look. >> this is more of a public opinion thing -- >> no, absolutely not. look at what happened. the gentleman who came into the united states i believe press reports have said he actually did not tell the truth when he was filling out the forms about where he had been. that's the same thing that could happen. we need to make sure we have a travel ban in place to prevent people from coming here in the first place. again, i would just remind senator udall the very things

that went into effect into the law is the very thing that he voted for. but perhaps the c.d.c. should quit spending money on things like jazzercise urban gardening and massage therapy and direct that money to where it's appropriate in protecting the health care, health of the american people. >> congressman gardner should get real. $770 million in cuts to the c.d.c. that i didn't vote for, he voted for. jazzercise? that's a small, small part of what was in the c.d.c. budget. >> wow keep jazzercise instead of ebola? >> if we had the cuts congressman gardner proposed we wouldn't have the capacity to respond today. look. we ought to listen to our public health professionals. if they think we ought to have a travel ban? great. you're a sflor. i'm a congressman. we're not doctors or health specialists. we ought to isolate the virus, ebola, i don't know we ought to isolate countries. >> senator, the view from here of congress is that we can't seem to get big things done with split houses right now,

republicans running the house, democrats in control of the senate. if you are re-elected and democrats keep control of the senate, what would you do to make congress more effective? how would that be better than republicans holding both chambers and negotiating directly with the white house on policy? >> what i will do when re-elected is continue to work across the aisle which i've done with great success through my time in congress. i can share some examples with you. the $770 million we directed into the state to recover from the floods of a year ago, the state-of-the-art firefighting capacities we now have, including tankers, including the best trained firefighters you can imagine as well as getting on the front end of fires and preventing them in the first place, continuing to work with the senators from the upper midwest to ensure our wind industry is strong. that's what i've done. that's what we do in colorado. we are rugged collaborators in this state. neither party has all the right ideas but i can tell you if you look at congressman gardner's record he has the tenth most extreme record in the house of representatives. our own tom tankrato could only

get to 50th. you get that extreme record by voting to cut medicare and social security and against tracking sexual predators, you get that extreme record by voting against women's reproductive freedoms. e need a centrist -- >> we need -- you said continue to work across the aisle. >> we passed immigration reform and sent it over to the house and the house has been sitting on it for 18 months. i've been waiting for congressman gardner to show some leadership and help us move the comprehensive bill to the finish line. every business lead inner the state has been calling for comprehensive immigration reform. every economic sector needs immigration reform, certainly labor markets. the senate has been actually getting things done. it is the house of representatives that's been missing action. >> congressman gardner, a question on the other side of the coin. the tactics used by yourself and fellow republicans in the house were largely seen by voters as the cause of the government shutdown last year. the playbook which didn't end up working out called for

why should your party be rewarded? >> i never believed that the government shutdown was a good idea. if you look at the crystal i took from members of my own party because i refused to sign on to plans that would result in the government shutdown, i voted for every measure that would reopen the government, measures that made sure we funded the government. we passed a measure identity of the house that would have asked the senate simply go to go a conference committee, simply to try to work together to avoid any lapse in funding. yet senator yufede and harry reid refused to bring that measure to the senate. what can we expect over the next six years that will be different from senator yufede. he's voted with president obama. he's voted to increase taxes and regulations. while he votes 99% of the time

with president obama, i will vet 100% of the time with the people of colorado. leadership matters. over the next six years this state needs leadership, not more of the same from senator yufede >> we begin with you on this next question. you continue to deny that the ct which you sponsor is a an a portion bill. your co-sponsors say so, your opponent says so and your fact checkers say so. it would seem that a charitable interception would be that you have a difficult time admitting when you're wrong and a less charitable interception is that you're not telling us the truth. which is it? >> i think again i do not support the e-mailed. you're referring to the fact that i support life. >> no one else thinks that. that's what we're getting at.

>> i have answered this question multiple times. >> i'm aware of that. the post has called senator udall's response obnoxious. the people of colorado deserve more. >> we're going the talk about that, but what i'm asking you about here is what appears to be the willing suspension of the facts. people who agree with you on the issue of life think you're wrong about how you're describing the bill. everybody seems to have an yoffed what this is with the exception of you. i'm wondering what voters should glean from there-h that. >> i support life. i voted for exceptions. the fact is that the bill you're talking about is a statement that i support life. now, i've answered this question multiple times but i'll repeat the words of senator yuflede when he changed his position on marriage, that a good faith change of position should be

considered a virtue, not a vice. those are the words from senator udall. >> and you remain on the bill and by being a person who is confering rights of normal human beings on the unborn. that's what the bill says. >> again, i believe -- i support life that's a statement that i support life. the people of colorado deserve more than a single issue that senator udall has campaigned about. the denver post has said his campaign tries to invoke fear instead of inspiring hope for the state. >> the deserve post editorial award is calling yours and obnoxious one-issue campaign that's a insult to women. is this just about gathering enough female votes to help push you over the edge in the ex lex? >> if i might, let me take a oment to talk to congressman

garner. if it became law it would ban all aportions and most forms of extra sense it is. let's be clear. coloradans deserve the truth you. as you were pointing out, you have yet to give a straight anxious to the question they asked. on your question. reproductive freedoms are important to millions of colorado women and families. that's up to them if they don't think so. >> i think they think it's overplayed. >> the freedom to control your body, that's the first frontier of freedom. he built his career on limiting freedom. you got to be extreme on more than women's restrouktive freedoms. you vote against green energy. you're the 10th most

conservative member to have house. i'm proud to stand -- let me try to dsh i'm proud to stand with the women of colorado. if the general post doesn't, that's their business. person that's on the blot for the third time, the women and men of this state have spoken over and over again. we don't believe in -- we think women ought to make their own decisions. row v wade is on the balance. the next senator from colorado will vote, i predict on at least one, perhaps two supreme court justices. >> we've analyzed the content of the ads in this race and more than half the ads on your side of the race are about this issue. yet it does not rank as issue number one. is it really at that level that it needs to be at the top of your campaign? >> as you pointed out, 50% of the ads -- by the way, ads are part of a campaign. we have rallies, debates, we immediate with -- meet with editorial boards, we barn storm the state.

half of the ads, half of the commentary's been about economics, raising the minimum wage and pay czech fairness, keeping college affordable. those are the important issues to the people of colorado. he's built his entire career on limiting access for women. he's the social issue warrior. these are issues of respect and economics. when a woman is in the workplace, when she starts her career, when she starts a family, that should be her decisionaged not government. >> your position is extreme. you support sex selection, apportion, you select personal birth abortion. that's an extreme record. >> congressman, what i support is respecting the women of this state to make their own decisions. what i support is the over 70% of coloradans to defeat the e-mailed. it's back this year. we will defeat it again.

as you know, it's the women in quol who are going to make the decisions about their reproductive health. >> let's cover some -- >> senator, president obama said recently that his policies are on the ballot this fall. republicans jumped all over that saying that the president's record is up for volt. in that speech at north american, the president was you can talking about his proposed policies for the next two years. specifically which of the president's proposed policies are you prepared to vote against in the next two years? >> i don't have a liths of the policies that you're alluding to. certainly, i'm more than ready to vote for raising the minimum wage, paycheck fairness, which will pay a woman what a man is paid for a job. we ought to ensure that tax credits go to companies that keep jobs here. those are four differences between congressman gardner and myself. i am prepared to continue the work i've done to rereign in the

national security agency which has inindividualed our privacy. >> excuse me but the president isn't running on n.s.a. policy. you ticked off a few things on the president's agenda. my question is, are there items on the president's agenda you don't support? >> i support moving this country forward and fuchsing on the economy, kyle. i did not read the president's speech. i'm focused on this race here. i listen to the people of colorado. and when the president's right, because we want our president to succeed, then i stand with our. . when he came here to console the victims of aurora, when he came here to spend the time in the fire-ravaged areas of colorado springs, we welcomed him. when he didn't stand up for the simpson bowls e-mailed, i've stood up to president obama. i'm going to do so with a colorado compass and with a point of view with coloradans in my mind's eye. >> thank you.

you've expressed skepticism that humans are contributing to climate change. you hold a position at odds with the scientific community. simply, how did you arrive at that view? >> i'd like to address what senator udall just said. do you believe the president is right 99% of the time? he said you'd vote with him when he was right. >> we've got time for questions to bovet you and they're coming up soon. i'm going to redirect right back too this question. your position is climate change is at odds with scientists. >> i am at odds -- >> and believe that humans are contributing. >> i think there is disagreement as to that. i refuse to destroy this economy as senator udall is willing to do. we ought to reduce pollution. i've supported measures to increase energy -- we have to support reducing pollution. i support making sure that we

are hooking at alternative energy. i've supported the credit of the tax. i've supported geeo thermal. i created a energy efficient caucus where we have worked. what i refuse to do is burden the people of colorado with a carbon tax that senator udall supports. what i refuse to do is to pass on to farmers and ranchers, a cap and trade bill which would add $1700 a year to people's utility billings. i refuse to say that 250,000 jobs should be lost because of the views of senator udall. i will not allow our economy to absorb a $50 million economic hit because of his plan to follow the president 99 percent of the time >> a brief rebuttal, senator. >> congressman gardner continues to not answer the questions.

colorado is ready. we have some of the lowest prices in the world. we're going to lead the world. how can you expect a senator to lead colorado if he doesn't believe in climate change? >> thank you. wament to get into short questions and god willing, short answers. first for you, congressman. can you name a democrat you've voted for? >> a democrat i voted for? >> yes. >> no. >> senator udall, can you name a republican you've voted for? >> not in the last 10 years. >> senate when was the last time you fired a gun, can you tell us what kind? >> last year, tried to hit some skeet. >> i went did you have hunting this fall. >> there's a conversation right now about a board member suggestion that students should not be openly encouraged to engage in civil disobedience. have you ever knowingly broken a law to make a point? >> i certainly was involved in

the vietnam era in those protests. i never was arrested for breaking the law but i admire those parents and students and teachers in jefferson county for standing up. it shows you that elections matter. that extreme positions in colorado aren't-y where our state is. again, it's an example of what happens when you've got extreme members and elected body, you get policies that don't move colorado forward. >> congressman guardier, civil disobedience? >> other than disobeying my parents by having a pepsi after 9:00 at night, the answer is no. but i will tell you a story about in high school i led to an effort. we had over 1,000 students from eastern colorado join me talking about issues important to education. we need to keep congress out of the class room. >> i could depol up regarding

soda or pop but i won't do that. >> what happened recreational marijuana? >> i opposed it when it was offered. our founders allow -- intended for our states to be laboratories of democracy and we are in the lant. >> sir? >> we should make sure the federal government butts out. >> more specifically to that point is my next question. should congress allow colorado an exemption from the controlled substances act as applies to marijuana? >> we should do it for a number of reasons. the cannabis industry needs access to banking. we will get the job done and let this experiment continue. >> congressman, exception from the controlled substances act as applies to marijuana? >> i don't know whether you can do that specifically for com. congress has to look at the regulatory system to make sure that colorado was allowed to

follow what it passed in a way that address banking issues. >> congressman, which member of the supreme court today is a model jurist, in your opinion? >> any supreme court justice who will follow the law, who will not legislate from the bench, who will tsh >> not looking for a philosophy. looking for a justice. >> if you look at some of the opinions written by justice kennedy, jaste leado, by the chief justice roberts, again, i don't know that i could look at them and say this is the one that i believer has done the best job but i believe that the -- i admire the services of the supreme court justices. >> is there anybody you think is so out of the mainstream that given the opportunity you couldn't vote for. >> these are people, some of them are justices that i disagree with. they have gone through-h through an arduous journey to achieve their position.

of course, when rulings are yirbled, we will follow the law. >> you'd put justice begins berg back on the court? >> that's not a vote we'd ever have. >> looking for somebody on the supreme court . name please. >> you hear the lawyer in him when he answers those questions. sonia sewed myor is a hair win of mine. i had the privilege of voting for her and kagan. i take that responsibility seriously. the court has been well served and the people have been well served by their service on the supreme court. >> somebody on the vote that you could not vote to confirm. >> i believe that antone inscalia is out of the mainstream. hs a sitting member of the supreme court. i respect him for that service, but i believe particularly when you look at the citizens united decision which overturned a hundred years of settled law and has resulted in this avalanche of campaign money -- i think

it's -- >> we need the short answer. let's go with the short answer. >> what's the biggest nonissue in your mind that congress keeps debating needlessly? >> ben gatti -- benghazi. >> there you go. >> the families of this country deserve answers on benghazi. i think it's outrageous that people died. that is below -- >> don't go down that rabbit hole. the economy is an issue that congress is debating needless lirks a nonissue. >> look i i think there are a number of republicans who continue to bash renewable energy. i've voted for renewable energy. let me go back to what he said about benghazi. >> you'll have time -- >> he doesn't believe it's worth looking into. >> both of you will have time to address topics you wish to. continue shoff our -- some of

our short questions. if you were invited by a family member who was gay to attend a same-sex wedding, would you attend? >> yes, i would and i would be the fish yant as well. >> would you? >> i support traditional marriage but people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, i will respect the decision of the court. >> not comfortable efficienting? >> i would attend. >> ok. should there be term limits on serving on congressman and if so, why? >> i believe there should be terms and that's why i'm running this month. >> how many years? >> six years. >> i support term limits. i think that's a good decision by the united states senators who have done that. si think they have to be equal between the house and the senate. you could set that at two or three terms, depending on how the senate and house agree to each other. colorado passed a term limit

that was deemed unconstitutional but we have to make sure they don't disadvantage the states. >> i respect the institution and term limits in the constitution. i would note that over the last six years since i was elected, i've served one term, the greatest honor of my life, we've had a 50% turn over in the senate. if i am elected, i'll chair important subcommittees. we don't need thrirments that are already in the constitution. >> my next question here is for both of you. the senate has come under scrutiny for its rules. almost anybody with filibuster, anonymous lit if they want to. right now before you're going to know whether you're going to be in the north party, is there any kind of filibuster you would support? >> i believe the founders got it right when they wrote our constitution, when they created a system that was described by one of our founding fathers that said that the house is like the cup and the senate is like the

saucer, that the senate should catch the tempest boiling over from the house. that's what one of our founders has said. what senator udall has done and that's why i think the senator has it right when it comes to open and free debate in the united states. what senator udall has done is broken the rules to change the rules to quiet the voice of the north to allow his team to stack the decks against what the founders intended to be free and open debate. i am in the united states senate. if elected, if the people of colorado give me the grate privilege and honor, i will not break the rules to take advantage of a political process. >> can i take from that no? >> no. >> thank you very much. >> the senate's prerogative to change the rules. we change the rules because particularly the tea party element in the united states would which i wori the join, we weren't putting any of the president's nominees on the

bench. can you imagine if you were a c.e.o. of an important business, usa, nk, for example and you couldn't fill your human resources position or your chief financial officer's position. we changed the rules so that we could put those people in place. the midnight congressman gardner is trying to make, i think is undercut by the fact that when we haven't moved legislation through the senate, because people are abusing the filibuster, what we ought to go to is a talking filibuster. you want to filibuster like senator rand paul did, then great. but there's a lot of what we call silent filibusters where the north party levers down. that's not the way the senate will retain arched begin to regain its greatness. >> next question for you, senator. you and president obama were unable to keep your affordable care act act pledge that if you like your doctor, you can keep

your doctor. that was a central promise of a controversial piece of legislation. looking forward, how can you assure coloradans that when the next sweeping piece of legislation comes along that you'll have a better idea of how it actually works? looking ahead, not back. >> when i realized the insurance companies were breaking faith with what the agreement was, which would that they would let you carry your insurance forward. i worked with the division of insurance here. as you know, coloradans can keep their plans in they like them. that's going to be my focus. the affordable care act fix add broken system. congressman gardner has voted 50 times to go back to a system whereby women were discriminated against. if you had a preexisting condition, you couldn't be insured. >> why did you vote -- >> i was -- i didn't lack the handle. that was the intent of the legislation. the minute it was clear to me

that that wasn't happening, i was right there ensuring that ever coloradan who wanted to keep their plan could keep it. you see the results. we have coloradans with coverage they didn't have then. if you think about the -- why we needed the affordable care act, it's not only because women were discriminated against but be because many coloradans, they couldn't leave the job they had because they couldn't get coverage in the personal market. >> thank you. >> there are pieces of this law that people do support, like preexisting conditions, for instance. you've hinted you want to keep that but how will you do that without the original mandate? >> i support making sure that people with preexisting conditions have coverage. i've introduced legislation on that matter. i have a bill. it's only a 50 or 60-page bill. t's not a 2,000-page bill that

governor udall supported. not only did thousands of coloradans lose the doctor they were promised they could keep, coloradans lost their health care plans that he said -- he promised they could keep. it's not true, senator, that people are able to keep it. people are losing their health insurance over the summer after the law -- after the change that you said took effect, people have lost their health care plan. thousands of people over the summer have lost their health care plan that senator udall said would never happen. senator udall had a chance to vote in 2010 to prevent this from happening, to prevent people from losing their health care plans, and if he'd read the bill he would have voted yes, but instead he didn't lead. he went against his word and he voted against a bill, an amendment that would have allowed him to keep his -- >> but to cover preexisting conditions and there's not a

giant pool of people to defray the cost, how can you do that? >> this is where we have the opportunity to make sure that these premiums are low enough that people get preexisting -- coverage for preexisting conditions mplets i think that's important. what we have to recognize is that what senator udall promised, the three primary promises of obama care are simply not true. he had a chance to correct it and he refuseded to provide the leadership necessary to correct it. >> that was a thorough answer. why don't you give a brief rebuttal tau? keep it brief. >> congressmanman gardner will take us back to a system that wasn't broken, discriminate against women. he voted 50 times including shutting down the government last fall for his own ideology and he's offered no replacement plan. he just talks about what he might support but he does not

answer any true replacement. >> you've shown a great willingness to engage one another. you can each ask a question of the other. congressman your question first please. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here. senate udall you have voted with the president 9% of the time. you said you -- 9% of the time. -- 99% of the time. which policy that you voted for do you regret? >> congressman, the number you don't want to talk about is number 10 in the house of representatives. you earned that distinction by being too extreme. law. onsor the national you voted to privateize medicare. >> i'd love to talk about that. >> go ahead. >> you'd -- >> you've admitted it. gardner's billion referencing is a redirection in

medicare through the affordable care act to close the doughnut hole for seniors watching, you know what the doughnut hole is. you cast a single vote, you cast $800 billione that dollars to create a tax cut for billionaires and millionaires. >> i was extending the lifer of it. >> is that what you regret making, cutting medicare? >> i think you ought to the regret your vote. >> my vote redirected medicare moneys into medicare, extended the life of medicare. >> senator rkt your question exorte congressman. >> we talked about personhood. u still sponsor the life and conception act. that is a bill that ends abortion and common forms of birth control. as they pointed out, the proponents, the republicans who sponsor it in the house agree with that characterization. you deny that the bill exists at

all. in fact, brandon rittiman said right here that your bill is personhood. you also did an interview with one of the other leading political journalists at another rival tv channel where you said the bill didn't even exist. please explain to brandon and everybody here why they're wrong. >> senator udall, the bill that you're referencing is simply a statement that i support life. but what we have seen throughout this campaign and it continues tonight is that senator udall wishes to focus on nothing other than social issues. he's a social issues warrior. that has defined his time in office. i support increasing access to contraception. i believe that contraception should be made available over the counter without a prescription. we need to fix the law that you passed which prohibited some of that funding from those prescription from being reimbursed. we ought to increase access. in colorado just a few days ago, you actually refused to say

whether you supported increasing access. it's outrageous to think that somebody would want to ban birth control. that's not true and you glow it. the post has described your campaign as obnoxious, insult og the people of colorado. m proud to roo receive the endorsement of the post. >> that's time on this section, which is my favorite section because then you guys get to see what it's like to ask questions and not guess straight answers, so i hope that was fun for everybody. congressman, this is more of a clarification than anything. senator udall has criticized the n.s.a. due take issue with any of his specific criticisms of the n.s.a. or are you guys roughly together on this? >> again, i have said that i had appreciated the senator's work on this i believe we've worked

together on these kind of issues that are important to colians. i supported the e-mailed on the house floor. i don't want to put words in his mouth that he supported but i think it's something that senator udall would support. i was co-sponsor of the freedom act because i thought it would be a good job to reign in the n.s.a. they took out the protections for the american people when it came to privacy. they changed it. so that was unacceptable. i believe we've done a good job working together on the issues and we'll continue to. >> senator, you voted against the keystone pipeline saying that we should wait for the state department review on that. the washington post called the delay in the review absurd, laughable and embarrassing. i know you said you were frustratesed by the delay but can you describe the efforts you've tried to push your

colleagues? >> i look that the through a colorado lens. we developed our energy in a safe and responsible way. that's all i was asking for and still ask for when it comes to the keystone pipeline. i can tell the viewers that if this pipeline were being built through eastern colorado, you'd want to know and the farmers in eastern colorado would want to know that it was going to be built safely, would not pollute the ock fehr. in the meantime, let's focus on what we're doing well here. >> there are many police observers say this was kicked past legislation to protect people like you. >> if you look at the history of the pipeline, the original objection arose in nebraska. we ought to respect the people of nebraska in their quest to get the best decision about the route of the pipeline. let's focus, though, on what we're doing here rather than turn this into a political issue which is what congressman gardner and many in the congs

have done. >> thank you. what is the one most attainable thing that congress could do right now to have some jobs created. how would you help get it done senator? >> my strong opinion is a comprehensive immigration reform, which we've said to the house would create labor markets. you'd have ever business fleered colorado saying this is important for our future. it has the right balance of border security, responsibility, a path to citizenship. it would enhance our national security. it would mean that we wouldn't have the kind of difficult situation we had earlier this year with the children on the border. and what has outlines the difference between in us this race is that we is -- he has opposed i am regulation reform. he doesn't tell you a single step to move it across the goal

line. he's voted to deport dreamers. he's made it clear that he thinks they're here under illegal auspices. that's not how we're going to move our forward -- economy forward. >> one attainable thing congress can do? >> we ought to build the keystone pipeline. the coloradans were in charge, we would build. i find it interesting that senator udall is willing to defend the people of colorado because of his concern about the pipeline. he's voted against it four times. he suggested that we move nuclear waste to eastern colorado. so he's not willing to build the keystone pipeline, but he is willing to move nuclear waste to eastern plains. as someone who lives in eastern colorado, i don't think we appreciate your willingness to move nuclear waste into our

backyard. >> that's laughable. he was working for senator -- i worked with senator howard to clean up rocky flats. >> that was in 1999. >> we had low-level nuclear waste. we have a prime example of collaboration. >> thank you. >> rocky flats is now wild life refuge. >> your voting record is one of the most conservative in the house. do you have new views as in changed positions or do you just have a new way of talking about the standard conservative agenda? >> it's about looking for what's right for the people i represent in the 4th congressional district. what i will continue to do is vote 100% of the time for the people of colorado. you know, when it came to the violence against women act, i stood against my party and voted against the house measure, because i believed it was watered down and voted for the senate measure. one of only 33 members of the

house to buck my party and do so. i continue to support renewable energy believing it's important to pursue that and traditional energy. what -- being -- what being a new republican is about is making sure we're for ideas, that we put possibilities before the american people to address the challenges we faced. the people of this country are tired -- we don't have a government that can solve problems anymore. we need a government that can do things, big idea. >> we're out of time here. thank you. we discussed your campaign's focus on female voters. your deficit among men, why do you suppose it is that you had a tough time supporting -- gaining the support of men? >> i focused on the entire electorate. i made the case and i will continue to do so the next three weeks. the only poll that really matters is the one on election day. when coloradans understand my

record of accomplishment on behalf of the state, 770 million for flood recovery, standing tall for our wind industry, making sure that we've got the best firefightering capabilities possible, i believer i'll have a broad coalition that will elect me to senate. >> our viewers tonight have selected the question as -- economy as the issue we return to here as we wrap up our hour. nothing ever scenes to get done on this. it seems like special interests and lobbyist run the show. which group or industry that supports you, not your opponent, are you prepared to deliver some hard news to tonight that they will need to compromise in order to get the tax reform that we seek. a group that is in your corner. senator? >> i have a lot of groups in my corner. i'm trying -- think here, that aerospace, noble energy,

traditional energy, everybody's going to have to give a little bit. >> could you give specifics? >> i'm a strong supporter of the simpson bowls. i disagree with the president. i think he missed an opportunity to embrace that approach. there's tax reform which would lower rates to the 25% goal so that we'd have a competitive corporate tax rate. everybody's going to have to give a little bit. we're fog to have to give on the revenue side, on the deductions an the tax credits in the tax code, but that's the beauty of the simson bowls approach. it's like conference and immigration reform. everybody has to give a little bit and we have a solution. >> commang? >> i don't think we need to increase taxes. i think the question is about whether we should increase taxes and i don't think we should. >> what about the loophole? >> i think until the government decides they can spend their budget appropriately. we are facing an incredible

deficit. we talked about the c.d.c., spending money on things like jazzercize and urban gardening instead of focusing on their mission. we should have comprehensive tax reform, lower the tax rates for everyone in this country. i think it was a representative from maybe tennessee who said this. you know, the tax code is longer than the bible but unlike the bible, there's no good news in it. >> i think you two may have been biding the time to ask questions of each other again. let's go back to that. >> i'd like to turn to the situation in the middle east. i served on the intelligence and armed services committees. i get briefings on an ongoing basis. that led me to oifer a year ago call for action in syria to prevent the terrorists there from getting a foot hold. at the same time, i was calling for that action, you made a statement suggesting that -- not only suggesting but flat out

saying that what was happening in syria wasn't in our national interest. were you paying attention? were you taking the time to understand the serious threat that exists in the mideast or do you just not care? >> senator, i'm glad you brought this issue up, because i believe that the islamic state is an eminent threat to our nation. we must stop that. when you try to accuse me of things that the president hasn't had a strategy for, i wonder why you didn't ask the president where his strategy was. we are in this mess, senator udall, because of a situation that the president of the united states, whom you have voted for 99% of the time, has created when he said we don't have a strategy to deal with the terrorists. someone who called them junior varsity. someone who actually resulted -- this organization resulted in beheading and cap can chure and killing of americans. in grand junction at the debate you said that you did not believe that they were an i am nent threat. you later stated is that -- at a

meeting later that you don't believe they're plotting against the united states. look, we need to protect the security and safety of the american people. and that is what i will continue to do in the congress, i have done, and what i will continue to do in the united states senate. >> congressman, a question for the senator. >> might i respond. congressman we have a strategy. you voted for it. i voted for it. you want to parse words. i want to protect americans. >> all right. congressman, your question for the senator. >> senator, again, i would just state as rebuttal to that, if that's all right, that you have said and told the american people that you don't believe they're an imminent threat and i believe that's wrong. the question i have is this. you said you want a carbon tax. i oppose it. what is the amount of dollars that the electricity bills will increase under your tax. >> carbon pollution is real. you don't believe in climate change, so you're note --

>> how much will it increase electricity rates? >> i said the market lieutenant set a price. >> just like when first president bush put in effect the clean air act that benefited our nation. i would tell you that the price we're paying for your denial of climate complaining is high. colorado is ready to meet the challenge of reducing carbon emissions. we've been preparing for it. i wish you'd listen to the scientists and understand that this is colorado's future. this is something that's there for the taking. under my leadership, that's what we'll do. >> thank you. >> you said just that you -- the market would set a price for a carbon tax. there is no -- if you wouldn't mind that -- >> let me finish the question. thank you. >> it's not a question. it's rebuttal. jew just said -- thrst no cost oning the electricity bills today. what would that cost be in dollar terms every month?

>> as i've said in a number of debates, congressman, the market will set a cost, the cost already because of your inaction is too high. >> i think we've heard enough on that. congressman gardner, you get to close. >> thank you. it has been an honor to travel around the state of colorado, to visit with families who have struggled to make ends meet, to talk about ways that we can increase their opportunity. to ways that we can make sure that they have a brighter future, something that we all believe is our moral obligation to accomplish and that is to make sure that the next generation has a better starting point than the generation that we inherited from our parents. thought this campaign it's been an honor to travel with senator yuflede near and far, talking about growing our economy, energy independence, doing everything we can to protect and preserve our environmental quality that we cherish here and increase educational opportunities for people across this state. but leadership matters.

over the past six years we haven't seen the kind of independent leadership that we need for this state. i would ask the people tonight as i ask for your support and your vote, do you know of one major accomplishment that senator yuflede has accomplished orr the last -- udall has accomplished over the last six years? because i cannot. i believe that we must act now. to shake up the senate. when my party does something wrong, i will say it. if something is broke, i will fix it. i will make sure that we're providing a new generation of leadership, because what's happened this past six years to the people of colorado is unacceptable. >> thank you. senator udall. >> it has been the privilege of my life to be united states senator from this special state. we've been through trials and tribulations over the last six years, floods and fires and drought. we've been up to the response to those tragedies and those

challenges. we've worked together. i'm proud to have been a leader in ensuring that we have $770 million in the state to recover from the floods of last year. i'm proud to have been a leader when it comes to making sure we can fight fires and recover from the fires when necessary. i'm proud to have led the effort to ensure that our wind energy industry is strong and ready for the future. i'm proud that our economy is showing signs of life. there's more to do. we need to pass the minimum wage, pass pay equity for women. we need to make sure college is affordable and we've got to make sure that companies that move jobs overseas aren't given tax credits if they do. elections provide a choice. there's a clear choice in this race. congressman gardner talks about being a member of the new generation and a new republican, but the new generation believes in marriage quality. the new generation believes in immigration reform and raising the minimum wage, respecting

women's reproductive rights. congressman gardner doesn't believe in any of those things. the new generation is with us. i humbly ask for your vorkts because working together, we will keep colorado moving forward for the next six years. >> thank you each. i'd like to send a special thanks to a respectful audience tonight. thank you to these gentlemen for agreing to the debate tonight. join us tonight on 9:00 news at 9:00 and 10:00. our political experts will break down and analyze what we heard here tonight. if you missed any of the debates in the series, you can watch them live on 9news.com. go up and say hi, audience. if you have haven't checked out the voter guide on 9news.com, would encourage you to do the same as well. hile you're at it, brandon

rittiman's truth test series breaks down the ads and you can see all of our research right there in one place. thank you for joining us tonight. ood night. >> coming up, a debate between candidates. another debate spawn's cords this season was in kansas where republican senator pat roberts is running against independent candidate greg orman. it's a twoway race after the democratic candidate dropped out. here's a look at their resent debate. >> how should we deal with the ebola ep democrat i can? >> the ebola epidemic along with isis shows you how we should clear the border and not be granting amnesty. i issued a statement just a couple of days ago. why can't we do now what we know

we're going to have to do down the road? and that's to have a quarantine on west africa, stop the plane traffic, the air traffic from west africa to the united states. we also ought to get our best and brightest over to that country just as fast as we can. the world health organization just said that if we do not take action within the next 60 days, we could lose 10,000 people a week. that's a humanitarian disaster. but again, this all goes back to isis, ebola, and the other problems that we see on the border. we must secure the border and secure the national security of our fellow americans. >> ok. thank you, sir. >> ebola is a serious issue. i think we need to have a serious coordinated public health response to it that does include sending the best and the brightest over to west africa to deal with that problem. i also believe that we should suspend air travel with west africa for the time beinging in

the crisis is contained. but this goes back to sort of a crisis in leadership. you know, senator roberts has come back and has made some strong statements about ebola when he's back in kansas, but it just came out the other day that when he was in washington last month, he skipped a hearing on the ebola virus. and so i think it's -- i think it's inappropriate to talk tough here and yet when you had an opportunity to do something about it, senator, you chose to skip the hearing. and i think that's a real problem for knsians. >> rebuttal, senator roberts? >> the hearing was held out of session during september. nothing of substance came of it. we have a crisis in leadership, all right, with regards to this whole situation. i think the administration, more especially the president, again has been two steps behind and asleep at the wheel. we ought to do now -- he just said that this was a much -- he will have a much more aggressive

program. we don't know what it is, of course, yet. it is the president that i think that we have to look to for this kind of leadership and we're look for his plan or strategy. we don't know it yet. we have to do this and we have to do it now. >> sir, your time -- let's -- >> again, the crisis in leadership in washington is on both sides of the aisle. senator, while you didn't attend the hearing on ebola, it's come up that you didn't attend two out of three hearings in the agriculture committee, a committee that you want to lead some day. so i think that crisis of leadership is a crisis of leadership that you share in, too, sir. >> be part of spawn's campaign 2014 coverage. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook to get debate schedules, video clips of key moments, debate previews. c-span is bringing you over 100 house an senate debates. you can share your reactions to

what the candidates is saying. stay in touch and engage by following us on twitter at c-span and lining us on facebook. >> turning now to the ebola virus in the united states, one of the nurses from texas diagnosed with ebola is being treated at the national institutes of health. that's in bethesda, maryland, which is a washington, d.c. suburb. the commission -- dr. anthony fauchi briefed reporters and other officials this morning. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. my name is tony foucher, the direct of allergy and infectious diseases commission. i have the director of the clinical center. dr. lane, and dr. richard davie who is the director of the special clinical studies unit here. i'm fwock to describe what just

happened last night and then i'm going to have the doctor to tell you a minute to fell you about the building. then we'll take questions and i'll direct the questions to each of the appropriate people. nina night at 11:54, pham, the 26-year-old nurse from dallas, texas, who the press has referred to as nurse number one was transferred to by air vack landing at frederick and taken by ambulance in a special, secure environment here to the national institutes of health to be admitted to our special clinical studies unit. she is now here with us. as i mentioned this morning in a release, her condition is fair. she is stable, and she is resting comfortably. in this unite we have a group of highly skilled, well-trained and experienced physicians, technicians and 234urses. i particularly point out -- nurses. i point out the extraordinary

capability of the training, experience and education of the nurses and physicians who are taking care of her right now. i would be happy to answer any questions that you have. fore we do, let me have john gallon describe this place and then i'll field questions. if i can answer them, i will. if not, i will have my colleagues do that. i think something happened to the -- >> good morning. i'm john gallon, director of the clinical center. welcome to this building, which is the largest hospital in the world, totally dead dated to inical re-- dedicated to clinical research. our nurses say there's no other hospital like it. why is that? it's because of our mission -- >> hang on for a second. hink there's not a mike there.

>> we're ok. >> go. you can speak louder. >> ok. our patients like to call this place the house of hope. our nurses say there's no other hospital like it. why? it's because of our mission, our essential mission to combine research, excellent patient care, and training. we feel very humbled and fortunate to be in a position to work on this international disaster, ebola, and to try to develop some new preventive and treatment strategies. thank you very much. >> so i'd be happy to take any questions. >> your position --

>> yes. [inaudible] >> no. i cannot tell you at this time why we had said fair because of patient confidentiality but she is stable now and resting comfortably. >> do you know how long she'll be here? >> we do not know. we will get her here until she is well and clear of virus. >> any idea how long she might be -- [inaudible]. >> we don't know. this is a serious infection. she's getting the optimum care and it would be not appropriate to make a preedition of when she will get out. she'll get out when she is well enough and free of virus. >> what is the optimum care? can you describe it? >> well, she has the care of fence and nurses and technicians with extensive training, experience, and knowledge of infectious diseased and infectious disease control. there are two things that are happening. she's getting bensive care, if

needed, therapy. but it's also being dwone the optimal protection of our health care workers. >> i'm not sure a layperson has ever seen video of someone in this stage -- >> right. >> -- of the virus like we did last night. is her [inaudible] at this point in her virus talked about what we saw last night? >> i'm not sure what you saw because i was waiting for the patient in the lobby. what is it you saw that you want me to describe? >> a way to -- >> right. >> obviously able to -- >> she seemed she [inaudible]. >> ok. >> so i didn't see the video but i can tell you that she had a long trip, a trip that was quite desiring -- tiring. we assisted her. she was in a stretcher with a tent over it. it's the kind of thing that is optimal protection for the people in the ambulance and we had with her an intensive fair physicians dressed in the

appropriate protective equipment. when she came out she went from the plane and she had to walk off the plane because they wouldn't get her. but when we took her from the ambulance to the room, we had her on a stretcher and we wheeled her in and put her right in bed. >> i was asking, the video the texas hospital released last night of her in bed, just in her environment. >> right. >> at this sthage her virus, how is she doing compared to other people? >> it is impossible to say how she's doing compared to others. this is an individual patient that you treat each individual patient as an individual patient and that's what we're interested in, not how she's doing compared to others. we take care of this individual patient. >> is she interacting with the caretakers, is she signature up? what is she doing? >> she is signature up. she was combind dr. davie. we saw her this morning.

would you like to give whatever information you can give without violating any patient confidentiality? >> sure. as dr. fauchi said, she's resting commubbleably. she's interactive with the staff. she's eating and she is able to interact freely and really think she's doing quite well. compared to what we were told about her status at the other hospital. >> doctors, can you talk more about the specifics on how you're caring for her. why this hospital was a good place for this type of disease as compared to other places? >> i'm not going to compare this hospital with other hospitals but i can tell you what we have if this hospital. we have intensivists, infectious diseases experts who on a daily basis, notwithstanding ebola take care of the sickest

patients. we have -- the unit she's in is a special studies unit. myself, dr. davie, dr. lane and dr. gallon are board certified in infectious diseases and internal medicine. she also has intensive care individuals there and nurses who are highly trained, highly prepared and highly experienced. that makes a difference. can you talk about -- [inaudible]. >> well, there are two shifts right now. 12-hour shifts. rick, why don't you give the thrails of the number. i believe there's four and in one, five. would you -- >> currently we have five nurses assigned on a shift. two are in the room with her at any time when nursing needs -- there's a nursing necessity for that. on a given week we estimate an ill patient of this type may

have up to 20 nurses assigned in that week's time. >> doctor, why did it take this among long for you guys to get the first ebola patient? in other words, why didn't thomas duncan come to you right away? >> i cannot answer that. we had been prepared. we had a special studies unit started in 2007 for the purpose of being able to accept person who has anything to do with bioterror or emerging infectious diseases. we stood ready to accept the patient. when we were asked to accept if patient we accepted the patient. i cannot answer why. i believe it's pretty obvious the man was sick in dallas and he went to the emergency room and then to the clinic at texas presbyterian. >> when she was diagnosed with the ebola -- [inaudible]. >> again, you've got to be careful. there are more than one places that can well take care of people with ebola. i wouldn't say this is the best possible place. i can just tell you this is a

very, very good place. >> treating the virus -- >> anything you learned mean its just in perception since this crisis unfolded and when you're dealing with a patient who is herself a nurse, what is her understanding of the illness that she's experiencing and is she currently symptomatic? >> i said she was in fair condition. which implies that she does still have some symptoms. she is in good spirits. she's a highly intelligent, aware person who knows exactly what's going on and she's a really terrific person. >> what did you learn since this crisis began that might be different because of what happened in dallas? >> yeah. i don't want to comment, so let me make it clear, on comparing dallas to here. she's here, we're responsible for her, and that's our job. >> a lot of people are watching this in dams, too. is this recoverable for her?

>> recoverable in the since of recovering? absolutely >> we intend to have this patient walk out of this hospital and we do everything we can to make that happen. >> >> can you speak to the capacity to handle patients like [inaudible] first of all, let me talk about this particular. remarks torict my the national institutes of health special clinical studies unit. here is a research hospital. the primary purpose that we always put is the patient's