an even bigger problem in other areas, especially in africa. we fought for years to convince the world for feminization -- world health organization and other public health bodies to say ok we have to treat this in developing countries. what happens here was the sense gee, these countries do not have any of these capacities. so, gosh, can we do this? instead of saying, this is happening. what is the adequate response to this epidemic? safe burials. identify people right away. provide treatment, so that you are not putting them into quarantine to die. i think it took time to get over the sense that you could not do it in these countries. there is no sense we cannot do it. there is only -- how on earth are we going to do it?

what are the things we can do right now? we are now on a war footing. it took us there. my sense of hopelessness was that we couldn't do anything in these countries. that's why we want to put these financial mechanisms in place. when the finance ministers begin to understand the downside global risks to my economy are huge, then they will have conversations. now, that's my job. part of my job instead of conversations with ministers of finance. and i think we can put together mechanisms that could protect us from outbreak in the future. >> this has been fascinating. thank you for doing this. thank you.

> thank you. >> so one of the things the nigerian finance minister said that was important to was not just gs addressing fear -- i don't mean to hold you up, but is there not something that can be done in the -- in terms of a mobile phone drop or teaching about the practice of dead burials? >> the u.s. and the u.k. are putting into place extenders for the cell phone networks. there wasn't a huge amount of penetration of smartphones in these three countries so my understanding is i don't know

where they are right now but a bunch of atlanta pists have also been working to extend cell phone coverage. so they are trying. >> today on c-span, u.s. senate debates from the race in oregon and in new hampshire where senators face off. later, "washington journal" live with your phone calls. >> with the 2014 midterm election just over a week away, c-span's debate coverage continues. the illinois senate debate with

senator dick durbin and jim over-and-backer weiss. then charlie baker and martha coakley in massachusetts. then the georgia u.s. senate debate. then the minnesota senate debate. then at 11:00 p.m. eastern the hawaii governor's debate. tuesday even at 7:00 p.m. eastern, live coverage of the south carolina senate debate between the three candidates. followed at 8:00 p.m. by the new jersey senate debate with senator corey booker and jeff bell. then live coverage of the louisiana senate debate between the three candidates. at 9:00, the main senate debate with senator susan collins and shana bellows.

then texas u.s. senate debate. c-span campaign 2014. >> the u.s. senate candidates from oregon recently met for their only planned debate. this is an hour-long debate courtesy of koib tv. >> good evening from the nbc studios in downtown medford. i am craig smullin and i will be your moderator this evening. two candidates running for the senate. tonight, they will debate the issues in the studio. one-hour live u.s. senate debate begins now. >> live from the studios of kobi tv in oregon, a u.s. senate debate featuring jeff

merkley and republican challenger dr. monica wehby. brought to you by aarp. discover your real possibilities. the oregon association of realtors, protecting your piece of oregon. and working always to better the communities where we live. and now, your host and moderator for tonight's debate, news director craig smullin. >> oregon voters will decide who will represent them in washington dc and this is the only schedule debate. the path to capitol hill goes through our studios tonight. i like to thank you both for joining us. before we begin, let's meet our candidates. she is a mother of four in portland. and the director of pediatric newer surgery.

the granddaughter of a lebanese immigrant, she was the first woman to graduate from a medical school program as a neurosurgeon. a leader in her field, she has been involved in health care policy for 30 years and is the former president of the oregon medical association and the portland medical society. jeff merkley was born in myrtle creek and is the first u.s. senator in 50 years to hill from southern oregon. jeff was the first of his family to attend college and worked as a nuclear weapons analyst for the pentagon and later headed portland habitat for humanity. he was elected to the house of representatives in 1998 and later served as speaker of the house. he successfully ran for the u.s. senate in 2008 and today lives with his wife mary and his two kids. and we have three panelists joining us asking questions. we have nbc anchor natalie heard. the editor of the mail tribune. and president of kobi elevision.

the audience has been asked to save their applause for the conclusion of the debate in the rules and formats have been agreed to by both candidates. each candidate will receive 75 seconds to respond to the original question followed by a rebuttal from the opposing candidate. the candidate receiving the original question will get an additional 30 seconds to respond. at the conclusion of the debate, each candidate will be provided at closing statement. 75 seconds long. as determined earlier, dr. wehby will have a opening statement and receive the first question. we will alternate from that point on. ou have the floor. >> several years ago i had a little boy with a brain tumor and i took his tumor out and he came back and gave me a thank you note. it said, if we are not here to make life better for one another, what is the point?

the problem is, after six years of policies, things are not getting better. we had 60,000 more oregonians go on food stamps and find a job. -- than find a job. unemployment is 9% in medford and that is not even including all the people who have just given up looking for work. and what has the senator done about all of this? nothing. he hasn't even worked to try to get the pembroke communities back to work. i want to make life better for oregon families. the senator stwands washington bureaucrats 98% of the time. i will stand with oregon families 100% of the time. >> thank you very much. i am delighted to be here in southern oregon tonight, particularly since i come from a small meltdown in southern oregon.

i live now in a working-class neighborhood and i fight for the working class in the u.s. senate. i have taken on the big banks, big oil companies, the insurance companies, and tobacco companies. they are not happy about that. that is why the koch brothers have come here to spend millions of dollars to elect my opponent. they want a senator that signs onto an agenda for the wealthy and well-connected. not a champion for driving families and a growing middle class. the first two words are we, the people. -- the first three words are we, the people. i believe by and for the people not by and for powerful special interests. there is a significant difference between where i stand and where my opponent stands. i look forward to debating those differences tonight. >> our first question. >> last sunday, the oregonian newspaper said it can't support either one of you. of you, dr., they question your judgment and self-control andr,

a highly partisan record. without faulting oregonians, lease respond to this. >> i have to say that i'm not a career politician and i think at this time that's a good thing. this was the first time to run a campaign for me and things have not gone totally perfectly with the campaign and i think a lot of their criticism focused on minutia with running a campaign. i think they are accurate with senator merkley and that he really doesn't represent the middle class. he claims to be the champion of the middle class but all of this that has happened over the last six years our labor force participation, is the lowest it's been since we've been recording it. one in five oregonians are on food stamps now. middle-class income is down 3000 her family.

it doesn't sound like this is really working out well for the middle class. and he is so extreme that he's even too extreme for oregon. we need somebody that will represent all of oregon, not just one segment. he was rated the most extreme senator in the entire senate by the national journal. that is not who we are. we are much more independent-minded than that. >> as speaker, i sought to undertake and creative problem-solving environment. i created something where if two democrats into republicans had a bill together, they are guaranteed a hearing and a chance to pass that bill through the floor of the oregon house. the result of that session was an agenda in which many said was the most problem-solving and best session of the oregon legislature in decades.

i have taken that same problem-solving approach to the u.s. senate. i reach across the aisle all the time taking on secret law and rand paul to end the war in afghanistan. to have a commonsense way to cut red tape for our truckers, farm truck's going to market, and to take on the employment nondiscrimination act. it is this problem-solving teamwork approach that has enabled me to pass several dozen pieces of key legislation. those are pieces of legislation that have done things like the teaser rate mortgages that have been haunting the housing market and restore homeownership as a powerful factor for middle-class amilies. >> dr., your chance to respond. >> for all this talk about bipartisanship, senator merkley has a way of trying to silence his opponents. he was one of seven democrat senators who wrote the letter

to the irs asking them to investigate groups based on their political beliefs. i don't think oregonians would be proud to know their junior senator used a federal agency o silence his opponents. >> most of the central and southern oregon has been dependent on natural resources as a job ace. and yet those jobs have been steadily vanishing the past two decades. can you tell us what you have done or will do to help oregon's earl economy echo -- rural economy? >> i lobbied for the irs to stop using political groups which is something i think oregonians believe with. as the son of a timber worker, i am fighting for the timber economy. i have worked hard to create a strategy and partnership with colleagues in which we would have a tenure stewardship plan to provide for the mill. we were able to hire or they

were able to hire 20 additional full-time workers. it's a big deal in a small town. he small towns to be able to increase clean water supply and wastewater treatments so their economy can grow. it's why took on the rural energy savings plan because it creates construction opportunities for our industry to make them energy-efficient. it is why i have taken on and succeed in $15 million for our small ports to make sure the infrastructure for small towns is not overlooked. this battle is something i have done from one end to the other including taking on saving the post office and i will continue to fight for role oregon -- rural oregon as u.s. senator. >> doctor? >> there are several pieces of legislation regarding onc lands. senator wyden has worked to try

to get sustainable use of our forest and senator merkley has refused to sign on or help out with that legislation, because i do think walden's plan is uperior to wyden's plan, senator merkley has not participated in helping get our orrester's back to work. senator walden's plan, the timber industry needs to know there is a certain amount they can cut, in cut -- income they can have and protection from these lawsuits once the timber is starting to be cut. i think what important is that every time there is a problem, senator merkley's answer is another big government yurok receipt. -- bureaucracy. another big piece of

legislation. oregonians want jobs and want to get back in the forest. they want to be independent, not dependent on a government program. >> i am certainly working very closely with senator wyden in order to bring the community together and get out of the courts and into the woods to create more jobs. we need to give incentives to have all the private timber not oing overseas and to be mailed here in oregon. my opponent put out a jobs plan in april, and never mentions role oregon. i come from rural oregon and i fight for it. >> oregon's labor commissioner says the state's minimum wages not keeping pace with the cost of living and says he would work to increase it. do you agree? >> i think the minimum wage is an important safeguard for our workers, but i do think all economies are local.

here in oregon we have chosen o have the second-highest in a -- have the second-highest minimum wage in the country. and i think that says something about our state here. i believe that we do have to keep in mind that the most important thing is jobs. there is concern raising the minimum wage may decrease the number of jobs. senator merkley's policies have made it very difficult, where an entire percentage point higher than the national average. senator merkley is really a zero wage senator because there is no jobs here. the timber industry jobs he is refusing to help senator wyden push ahead, those are not minimum wage jobs, those are ood paying jobs. and he is refusing to help get those jobs going.

>> i strongly support the federal minimum wage. it is a bill for $10.10 based on what it takes for a family of three to stay out of poverty. if you work full-time in america, you should not live in poverty here in america. and this minimum wage bill creates an index like we have in oregon. you might say it is modeled on the oregon plan. it creates a level playing field across the country and lift millions of workers out of poverty. and the largest percentage of those are women. at many of them are women raising children. we are not just talking about helping adults, but creating a better foundation for parents to raise their children. a better launch into lie. this is why i strongly support this minimum wage bill and my opponent said in the primary that she thought there shouldn't even be a federal minimum wage. that is beyond tea party off

the cliff to the right. no federal minimum wage? that would cast people in many states across the country into the other bottom earning almost nothing. i support a strong federal minimum wage. >> you know that's not true. i never said there shouldn't be a federal minimum wage. i did say all economies are local and it should be left up to the states where they would like to put it. he is fighting for a minimum-wage economy instead of getting our economy growing and getting better paying jobs. the aca that he supported has moved the full-time work week from 40 hours to 30 hours meaning that people have to find more than one job to feed their family. >> in the wake of a variety of school shootings, many have called for gun control changes. what changes, if any, would you

support in the nation's gun laws? >> i am a strong supporter of the second amendment because it is a constitutional right and i do think the problems that we have, every time we see one of these massive shootings, it's a mental health issue. i care very much about that. i think we have the find ways to determine who is at risk for hese heinous acts and try to find a way to stop those. i don't support further legislation on law-abiding citizens, but i do think the key is to curtail violence based on mental illness. of course we do want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals as well. > i am a strong proponent of the second amendment as an individual right.

i'm also a strong proponent of common sense which means that we have the sort of background checks that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and out of the hands of the mentally ill. that is exactly what we have in oregon. oregonians adopted this by initiative. in the u.s. senate, i have supported this kind of commonsense extension of the oregon plan. my opponent has been endorsed by the nra. as she just said now, she opposed any new federal legislation that would provide the same background checks we have in oregon across this country. furthermore, they supported her because they believe that she would vote against sonia sotomayor and elena kagan as justices who support the same kind of commonsense controls on guns that we have here in oregon. i do believe we have the right answer. the oregon answer. it is background checks to keep hands out of criminals and the mentally ill. >> i think we have adequate

laws on the books, we just need to be enforcing the ones that we have. >> i gave to questions in a row so we will send the next two to you to get back on track. >> you have been described as a progressive champion and a close ally of massachusetts senator elizabeth warren. and dr., you have been linked to the koch brothers and conservative wing of the party. are you guys comfortable with these labels? >> i am comfortable with the label of progressive if it means are fighting for working families to get a fair share of the wealth. absolutely. if it means you're fighting to enable students to refinance their loans to take advantage of the current low interest rates. if it means new student loans will be at the same low interest rates that the federal reserve pays when they borrow or the big banks do when they borrow from the federal reserve -- we should view our investment in education as a

public investment, one to be promoted. not a situation where students are afraid to go to college for ear of a mountain of debt. so whether it is fighting for good investment in infrastructure, good investments in education, fair loans, and therefore a fair shot for everyone in our society, call me a progressive. >> i am a very independent inded person and i can't say the same about my opponent here. as senator mo -- senator merkley votes 98% of the time with his party. that is not who we are. we are very independent minded people. we don't agree with anybody 98% of the time. to be voting with one party means we are not representing all of the state.

oregon is a red state with two blue islands of portland and eugene. we have to look at all sides of an issue and i think it is something very important to do. if you're always voting along with your party, you're not always doing what best for oregon. i will look at each issue as it comes up. i will listen to the patient, listen to our state, look at the data, and make a diagnosis and do the treatment. i will do was write for the state, not just what right for my party. i do a job today that i love that makes a difference everyday. i would never be a rubber stamp her. i might as well not be there. >> are you not comfortable with that label? >> i am a very independent minded person and i will do it right for oregon. >> i will take that as a no. >> she says she's

independent-minded but we have seen over the course of this campaign she is turning to our right wing kitchen cabinet. she lifted her health-care care plan from karl rove virtually word for word. she proceeded to take a tax plan from mitt romney that makes a cheap year and easier to ship jobs overseas. she took the rest of her economic land from the koch brothers. they are one of the biggest polluters in the country and want to have it set up where the clean air act has got it so you can't control pollution. from coal-fired power plants. these are certainly extreme advisors, extreme sets of policies, and it is not oregon values. this campaign is really between oregon values on one hand and koch brother values on the other hand. will take the otheror values. >> we began with the senator. that's ok. you can address it later on in closing statements if you like.

>> in three weeks, oregonians could legalize recreational marijuana under measure 91. do you support 91? why or why not? >> i lean toward supporting 91. i'm concerned about the access of marijuana by our young folks in terms of potentially different products. we need to do everything we can to make sure that these products are available only to adults. i am also concerned about the huge amount we have spent in the criminal justice ystem. criminalizing marijuana. i think on balance, those funds could be much better used. >> as a pediatric neurosurgeon, i have some concerns about the effect of marijuana on the developing brain. it is linked to difficulties with the brain, some say even

iq points dropping is much as eight points. it's related to an increase in motor vehicle accidents and makes it very difficult for our law enforcement agents to know who is intoxicated and what level they are intoxicated. it's not like with alcohol where you can do a breathalyzer test. this is a big concern. would prefer as a scientist that i am that we wait and see what happens in colorado and washington and let them be our test cases and be our pilot study and see how things work out there before we push this ahead. >> as a u.s. senator, i'm going to take whatever oregon decides and defend before the federal government. that's what i've done with medical marijuana. you have plenty to do with drug gangs and so on and so forth. you deal with that. but don't try to infringe on what my state has decided to do with medical marijuana. i will take the same approach

defending what our state chooses to do in terms of the urrent initiative. >> we want our viewers to know as much as possible about both of you. how would your friends and family describe your idiosyncrasies? >> it's funny because my daddy just called right before i came ut here. daddy always said i was mule-headed. i was very stubborn and very determined and i think that is true. my friends will tell you that i am very kindhearted and a very caring and loving person and that i always do tend to put other people above myself. my children will tell you that they can't believe all the nights i would get up in the middle of the night, go in and

take care of patients. one thing i have always remembered is my father telling me when i was a little girl that you have to use all your talents and abilities to make the world a better place. that if you didn't, when you were older, you would regret it. it might sound kind of hokey but that's who i am. i have always tried to do the best i could with the gifts i had. it's why y i was a -- was a pediatric neurosurgeon and have just always had that drive. >> my friends would say i'm tenacious and determined and sometimes taking on things that seem a little bit crazy. for example, two years ago i decided to try to do an ironman length triathlon. and as a middle-aged man and a little bit overweight, it seemed a little crazy but by the end of the year i managed

o complete it. similarly, in 2009 when i became a u.s. senator, several people came to me and said someone has to take on the big banks because they are using our taxpayer subsidized deposits to run a big casino putting the entire banking system at risk. what a crazy thing for a freshman senator to take that on. i decided they were right and i would try to take on these very powerful groups placing our economy at risk. and every now and then when you take on something that seems impossible, you actually succeed and i did. we passed the volcker rule and past taking out the teaser rate mortgages that were haunting american homeowners. a little bit over focused at times, but sometimes to good effect. >> any rebuttal? you have 30 seconds. >> i would just say that when i was trying to decide whether or

not to run for senate, i had a conversation with senator tom coburn about this and he's another physician in the senate. and i said, how did you decide to leave your practice and go and run for senate? he said, monica, we need you. you can make a difference. and you are doing it for all the right reasons. and that since my heart was in the right place, and i didn't need the job, itment i could really help out. >> the endangered species act criticized as a job killer. do you believe the current language in the esa is acceptable or that it should be revised? and if revised, what should it be?

>> the endangered species act has done a lot in a verily rapidly changing world to protect critical populations but there's a lot we can do in anticipation so it doesn't obstruct our economy or ranching or farming. i meet with the local leaders every year and one of the things that keeps coming up is the sage grouse. i then work to get a sizable group of funds to help run pilot projects and figure out what actually works and what doesn't in order that we might be able to get ahead of the ame in oregon. provide some of the protections. better to work on the ecosystem on the front and and protect the population in ways that are armonious. harmonious with our ranchers and fishermen other than being caught later on on the brink of extinction. >> i did hear a lot about the sage grouse as well. they kept telling me it was the spotted owl of the ranching industry.

a lot of concern about what sort of devastation can be caused to our ranching industry if the sage grouse was to be listed as an endangered species. i think we need to revamp this law and look at it. my understanding is they don't really have a good way of tracking when a species comes off the endangered list as so many times these get on and are just never taken off. i think we do need to find a way to where we can tell when we are achieving the goal we are trying to achieve. i also think it's important whenever we are going to list a new species, that we do an economic assessment and see what the effect is going to be on the economy and on the eople as well. >> i am struck today that you see bald eagles and blue herons that were virtually completely gone when i was growing up.

due to d.d.t. and now we have been able to take the bald eagles off the endangered species list. wolves are coming off in different parts of the country. it is a situation where if we can work together in partnership, we can find ways to create ecosystems and a portion of our land to make sure these species survive and we can celebrate the great diversity of life on this planet but without doing economic damage that would harm ranchers or farmers or our industry in other ways. >> of fewer wants to talk jobs. why has job growth been so luggish? and what, specifically, would you do about it? >> i've talked to hundreds of small business owners and people that work in these businesses over the last year and all through the primary. and i always ask them, what is

it that is making it so difficult for you to grow your business? the first thing they tell me is uncertainty. they say there is uncertainty about regulations. senator merkley's answer to everything is more regulation, bigger regulation. this is like a noose around the neck of our businesses. it makes it entirely difficult for them to grow so many -- businesses tell me they would never be able to start today a business that they started 20 years ago because there is so much paper and so much regulation. my staff spends more time dealing with paperwork and regulation than they do in patient care. the next thing that's a problem is taxes. we are one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. the highest in the world. that takes money out of the

pockets of our business owners. they can't reinvest in their businesses and hire more people and grow. and finally, the aca, the health care law makes it very difficult for them to provide health insurance. >> a new weighted finance water infrastructure because rural community says it is so important and a way to create a savings program to put our construction industry to work. what folks told me is that first we need to reverse the effects of no child hind which left our shop classes behind because we need a track in which people can learn to work with their hands and be part of the manufacturing enterprise. i fought to create an extension of the small business act and subsidized loans for small businesses to strengthen community banks. i wrote and passed the crowd funding act that will unleash a volume of new capital to rural

ndustries and small businesses across oregon. the third thing they said is we need a level playing field with china. we can't compete if we are competing directly against an economy with very low wage standards and environmental standards. i have partnered with senator wyden to take on the dumping of solar panels and i am working to highlight the problem with currency manipulation which operates as a tariff against products and subsidy to chinese products. in all these ways over keep fighting to create strong jobs and roll oregon. >> we would ask for specifics and what you would look to do. >> rein in excessive regulations and have more congressional oversight of these regulations. lower our business tax rate and

fix these employer mandates with obamacare. one man told me he owns assisted-living facilities and he had to shut down three facilities because the cost of health insurance for his employees was going to put him out of business so he just sold those three businesses in all those people lost their jobs. >> the oregon association of realtors submitted this question. a person's home is typically the largest investment they make in life and also the greatest wealth creator for the middle class. what policies would you propose to strengthen homeownership and make it more attainable for the middle class? >> when i was director of habitat for humanity, i worked directly with low income families aspiring towards homeownership and i continued that work. that is why i was so disturbed by the deregulation of mortgages that led to the

two-year exploding interest-rate mortgages that went from 4% to 9%. and they proceeded to have a couple features. it won was the originator was getting an undisclosed kickback in order to steer people from a prime loan into a subprime loan. the other feature was a penalty that meant once you were in the loan, you're not able to get out of it. ipass at the oregon house, the senate said that it should really be done at the federal level. they were right. i took that on and stop those predatory mortgages so that homeownership would again be a source of enormous wealth building for the middle class rather than a predatory enterprise. we are going to have to keep working together to find the right balance and flexibility. we are working to examine the strategy under which the families of modest means are able to buy homes and there is potential progress to expand he realm of homeownership. >> a lot of the problems with homeownership or some of these

new financial regulations have come into place specifically with dodd frank. i think that our large banks and small blanks -- small banks should have to play by the same rules. when senator merkley ran against gordon smith, he was railing on him about the wall street bailout. but several weeks into his tenure, he voted for 300 and $350 billion bailout for wall street. all these regulations have made it very difficult for our smaller banks and our credit unions to make mortgage loans and small business loans. these small banks don't know if they are going to run afoul of any of these regulations making it more difficult for them. dodd frank has not worked because now things have gotten worse. six banks control two thirds of the financial assets. and the volcker rule that went

from four pages to 963 pages, even volcker doesn't supported anymore. >> i had an opportunity when i was elected to lobby for a tremendous amount of money to be moved out of wall street and ndirectly help homeowners. i got a commitment in writing from the new administration to move 50 to $100 billion out of wall street. that is the type of involved and engaged advocate that you want to have. a champion that says less for wall street and more for homeowners. i push the administration very hard to create a homeownership program that would work well. they didn't take many of my ideas but they kept -- but i kept pushing. >> you have taken heat over allegations that your health care position was plagiarized

from other sources. what you tell us how your positions on health care reform differ from your opponent? >> my campaign already addressed this issue but i have been involved in health policy for over 30 years, involved with the texas medical association, the oregon medical association, the washington committee. i have been a trustee for the american medical association. have been working to try to provide quality and affordable health care for 40 years and pecifically for five years with obamacare. i even ran ads in 2009 talking about problems with obamacare rying to change these before

they came through. i worked back when it was on the board. the idea that all of us that work in health policy know will work. all of us that work together know what works. because they don't meet the essential benefit packages to find a $300 million down the tubes for a website that doesn't work. >> we already knew that my opponent took her tax plan from romney and her environmental plan from the koch brothers, the biggest polluters in the country but i was shocked that her health care plan came from a survey written by karl rove, and extreme right-wing advisor to the failed bush administration. we had a situation where there

was so much concern over access to health care. a woman came to me at a fundraiser for ms and said a year ago, if you got a diagnosis of ms, you were in deep trouble if he didn't have insurance. she said a year ago, if you had insurance, you might have a lifetime limit and you wouldn't be able to get the help you need. i am so relieved we had the peace of mind that the loved ones today get the basic health care they need. 500,000 have signed up for health care. at least 300,000 didn't have health care a year ago. what if they go through that website debacle? because they were locked out of something that was so important to their quality of life. my opponent said she would vote to scrap the affordable care act sending cancellation letters to 500,000 oregonians and that does a lot of harm. >> having insurance doesn't mean that you have access to

health care. and that is the bigger problem we are facing now. trying to be certain that people actually do have access. remember that this was sold as the lie of the year. if you like your doctor, you can keep it. your costs are going to go down. we have the highest increases on the west coast. >> isis destabilizing portions of the middle east and a long, drawnout conflict. the uc putting u.s. soldiers on he ground is a possibility? >> isis is a brutal and barbarous group that would have to work in partnership with our allies to stop.

we need to work with allies in europe and allies on the ground. we can provide support for the economist zone that will provide an effective counter. the reason they had trouble was isis acquired american weapons. we can help the iraqi forces and provide essential airstrikes and air cover. what we must not do, and your question, we should not turn this west versus islam. it will fuel the very fires that we are working to put out. and furthermore, the administration needs to come to congress as required in the constitution to get authorization for this new battle. that is required under the war powers resolution after 60 days. it's very important for president on a that require -- honor that requirement. >> we do not have a

strategy. it is administration is always being caught offguard by one thing or another whether it is isis, ebola, whatever. and we are always reacting. a lot of these problems happen because we have retreated as a orld leader. we leave it leadership back room -- vacuum that will be illed. will be filled by someone much less benevolent than we. they called isis the jv. this is the president that makes all his decisions with military strategist and military leaders on the round. isis is continuing to gain strength. our president is telegraphing to the enemy what we will and won't do. senator merkley has said nothing.

has not held the president accountable for this. he is just rubberstamping these policies all along. we need safety and ecurity. >> isis is not democratic or republican. it is so important that we not politicize this issue. we need to work together to take on this terrorist threat and others around the world. there will be extreme elements today and tomorrow but we must be thoughtful and work in close quarter nation with allies and use the right tools at the right moment and not repeat the mistakes that we have made going to war on false premises. >> one of you is in congress. the other is running for congress. what do you most dislike and like about the united states

ongress. > i think the problem we are seeing now with congress is the xtreme polarization. opponent here is the poster boy for polarization. he votes 98% of the time with his party and does just what he's told. i would be a very logical senator, a very rational senator. not one who is just a strict ideologue. also he was rated the most extreme senator by the national journal. you know when you are on one extreme or the other, you're ever in the room and the

problems are solved because people think that you're so far out there that you can't be part of the discussion. we need somebody with common sense who will put oregon and the united states above their political party and above their own career. that is the problem with career politicians. getting reelected and doing what they're told and climbing in the hierarchy. that is why i support term limits. >> the first branch, it ymbolizes that we, the people, the first three words of the constitution -- in its best section it can be a thorough place to debate and partner and find strategies that take on important issues. what i dislike most is that it wasn't the u.s. senate that i knew way back in the 1970's.

it wasn't even the 1980's. what i found is a deeply polarized and paralyzed institution. during the time lyndon b. johnson was first leader of the senate, there was one filibuster. from harry reid, it is 281. it is abuse of the rules, blocking the body to be able to debate amendments and get the final votes and address the problems we face in america. to restore the ability of advice and consent. >> it is funny that senator erkley rings up the reform because that is the one piece of legislation that has caused him to be quite unpopular with he senate as we speak now. it allows a simple majority to

underwrite the will of the majority. the senate is supposed to be a deliberative body with input from both sides. not where one simply overruns the other. i think you will regret that when they are in the minority next year but he won't be there because i will be there. > your opponent brought up term limits. what do you think about that idea? >> when the voters adopted term limits i thought it was an interesting idea because it might create new blood and new turnover. it shifted power from individuals to the lobby. the courts threw them out as a violation of our constitution. and i can tell you that the proper authorities should rest

with the elected, not rest with the lobbyists and powerful special interests. my opponent has taken a position that the lobbyists one. they are the institutional memory. we do have an appropriate form of term limits called an election. i encourage everyone to vote and way and no matter what their perspective because we need to have citizens participating in the democracy. >> the problem is they get bold and the special interest groups. as senator merkley knows this. he is funded by several extreme groups. the founding fathers did not have to put term limits into the constitution because nobody

wanted to go. they had to make you go do your time as a congressman or a senator. because everybody had their own jobs and things going on, the good thing about having term limits is that we bring people in from different backgrounds. instead of having career politicians that are year after year legislating, we bring people in with different backgrounds. there are only three doctors now and that's why it's important that i get there. we need people with business backgrounds like senator ron johnson. we need people with science backgrounds and education backgrounds so that they have something to contribute. >> senator, 32nd? -- 30 seconds? >> we see the power that comes from learning a craft whether it is my opponents in surgery or the work that senator

whitehouse done on taxes. he has worked to become a master of these rules and he is now the chairman of the finance committee. without a lot of experience and a lot of study, you would not be able to take on the powerful special interest. >> the pipeline on their land as part of the project. >> if they can be done in an environmentally friendly conscious way, it is good to ave the jobs, and all of the abrupt approach. energy independence is very -- and all of the above approach. energy independence is very

important. it is difficult to be dependent on countries that hate us. they are the ones hit the hardest by increases in energy prices. i think that is the most important thing that we become energy independent. >> we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs through a rebuild america act that i support. it is different. there will be one outlet on the west coast for natural gas and that is supposed to happen in oregon. i am very concerned about the pipeline strategy. they will pay an amount that means being incredibly

generous. i am concerned about the safety of the pipeline. natural gas can help replace coal in china and make the situation better. >> i think we have done an xcellent job of doing that with some of our -- i think it is important we don't that xcessive regulations of this ne that would at a cost of 1200 to $1700 per family per

ear. that is very difficult for some of our working families to afford and -- an additional $100 a year. when our economy is in better shape, we can look at these options. >> it is time for our closing statements. each candidate has 75 seconds. >> you have seen two different paths for oregon and for america. he truth is our middle class income has dropped by $3000 a

year. more oregonians went on food stamps and found a job. our middle class families are suffering the most and our wall street has never had it so good. you know, when parents hand me their little precious baby to take to the operating room, i am accountable for that little life. it is time that we held senator merkley accountable for his decisions.

okay. here is your have i yes. >> the candidate?

senate race on thursday, an hour-long debate monitored by cnn's wolfe blitzer comes to us according to channel news nh 1. >> tonight, the high-stakes debate in a race that could decide control of the u.s. senate. >> they deserve better than scott brown's fear mongering and grandstanding. >> versus the former senator from massachusetts who wants her job from the carpet bagger state next door? >> jean shaheen is fighting attempts to label her as a rubber stamp for the president. >> the people of new hampshire. >> some of the biggest names in politics are taking sides in the sta state that holds the lead-off presidential primary.

>> senator shaheen. >> election day is almost here the senator's race is up for grabs. it's new hampshire's choice. >> live from concord, new hampshire, this is debate night. we want to welcome our viewers in new hampshire and around the country. i am wolfe blitzer from cnn, "situation room" tough questions and a challenge from the former senator from massachusetts, scott brown. >> with nh1, a partner in this debachlt we will share questions from new hampshire residents. we will stand by for that. all viewers can join in realtime. go to bing.com/cnn to tell us when you agree or disagree with the candidate's response. get right to the debate. most candidates will have one

minute to respond to questions. 30 seconds for a rebuttal. we will allow conversation between the candidates. we will press them to actually answer the questions that are asked. senator shaheen, senator brown, welcome. thank you for joining us. let me start with you. the news of the day, a possible, possible ebola scare right now in new york city. a doctor just back from west sfrifk rushed to the hospital in manhattan since returning to the united states, he did not self quarantine. we know he went to a bowling alley in brooklyn last night. here is the question: should the federal government mandate quarantines for high-risk individuals like this doctor. >> that you feel, wolfe. before i answer that question, i want to thank our sponsors and senator shaheen for participating. with regard to ebola, it's real. >> doctor should have been quarantine. he should have known better. that being said, we have a situation right now where the

policy with the cdd and the president hiring someone who had no experience in this field is an area where we disagree. we need to have a clear and conside policy. we want the president to succeed, but it's confusing. we need to be reassured right now, and because there is a rational fear, as i speak to the citizens of new hampshire, there is a rachelle fear that this and other types of diseases will come into our country. >> go ahead, senator shaheen. is there anything that the president is not doing that you would like him to do to better protect americans from ebola? >> well, i understand why people are concerned and afraid because this is a new disease and we haven't seen it before. we need to do everything possible to make sure that our people are safe. you know, it sort of reminds me of the post-september 11th period when i was governor and we were dealing with the threat of anthrax and bio terrorism and i brought together the medical experts and emergency response.

so to make recommendations for how we put plans in place. >> that's what we need to do now. my partner and i hope aren't infectious disease experts. we need to rely on the experts. we need to make sure we take every measure that's going to take people safe. i think screenings re airports are important, the effort to self quarantine is important and follow up with folks and make sure that's working. i do think we've got to take every measure possible to ensure people are safe and we should do that working together, not be fear mongering about this issue. >> senator, do you agree with senator brown that the federal government should mandate quarantines for high-risk individuals just back from west africa? >> we have screenings in place. we need to check to see how they are going to work. one of the challenges is that

people are not getting a lot of accurate information. we need to make sure that people understand what this disease is, that they know what to look for, and that there are plans in place, protocols. i met with the emergency response officials here in new hampshire, with public health officials to talk to them about the plans that are in place here in new hampshire. i think we are responding positively. we need to make sure at the federal level that not only are we doing those screenings but that we are also providing the support that local communities and states need because they are the first responders in this effort. >> senator brown, now let me respond. i will ask a specific question. you can respond. you recently saids had mitt romney been elected to the united states we woupresidency, would not be worrying about ebola right now. are you saying it's president obama's fault we are worrying about ebola? >> no, of course not. the safety? said we don't have accurate information. >> that's the issue.

the fact that the president has been getting gets and pieces and different types of information from the cdc. we need to do a travel ban. it makes sense to do a travel ban that anyone would gret screened. when i was referring to governor romney, we were talking about a host of things. he was right on russia. he was right on obamacare and right on the economy. had he been president, i feel he would have had a clear and concise plan. he would have reassured the american people that, in fact, this is the problem. this is how we are going to deal with it and this is what you can do to help. we don't need to be experts, folks, to deal with this issue. it's common sense. to have the president go and appoint a czar, strictly for political purposes makes no sense. >> that's part of the problem with this administration. it's confusing. incoherent policies like this supported by senator thshaheen

problematic. senator shaheen, go ahead. >> neither my opponent or i are infectious disease experts. we have heard a travel ban would make this worse. i am in the camp of let's do what's going to work based upon what we are hearing from medical experts and emergency response experts. so that's what i support. >> you don't support a travel ban. is that okis that what you said? >> the travel ban, if the experts tell us that's what we need to do and workable, i think that's what we should is support but i am not willing to tell the experts this is what we have to do. >> i call for a travel ban am. bi-partisan members of the congressional and delegations have you called for a travel ban. it's typical senator waits to get the okay from the president to do many different types of things. i am encouraged she said she

supports a travel ban and joins with one of our local congresswo women on that issue. it's real. we need to be very safe. you don't need to be an expert once again to use common sense policies. the president and his team are issuing very confusing policiony important issue. >> do you want to respond to that? >> the cdc and that dallas hospital did make mistakes. the important thing is that we learn from our mistakes, that we put measures in place to address that. >> that's what we are seeing now. we need protocols across this country. what we don't need is people fearmongering about this issue. we don't need people who don't have medical expert tease trying to get people to respond. >> who is fear mongering? >> that's what my opponent has been doing, talking about people coming across the border who have ebola who are going to infect people in this country. we had some good news on ebola

this week. we heard that the americans who had been ill, been being treated for this are now -- one nurse is out of the hospital. the other one is doing much better. the cameraman is out of the hospital. so we have been successful in treating the americans who have been infected and we need to make sure we continue to follow those same kinds of procedures to address the challenge. >> senator, she says you're fearmongering? >> i am glad you brought this out. i call it rational fear as well as the citizens of new hampshire and this country have a rational fear this is real. don't take my word for it. general kelly in charge of the border in mexico has indicated that the clearest pathway to bring anything, whether it's criminal terrorists through that southern border. it's not me. it's also general kelly and many other people who care and understand this issue. >> that's why we need to close the border. it's so critical. i close the snoirt. senator shaheen voted not to

close the border. >> that's a huge difference. >> let's be precise. are you saying ebola is crossing the border. >> i have never said ebola is crossing the border but general kelly said the clearest path to get any type of disease. people coming through you that southern border like it's a wide open situation like it is and even worse. he recommends we close it in the event that happens. >> i will move on with questions but as far as the travel ban is concerned, you are weighing that? you want more expertise? >> no. >> that's not what i have said. i said if the experts tell us this is a workable plan, that's what i would support. if you support securing the border with mexico, then you should support comprehensive immigration reform. >> that's what i have supported. my opponent doesn't support that even though there are very strong measures in that legislation that's been passed by the senate with bi-partisan port with senator ayott and senator mccain, that would

strengthen our border 700 miles, double the number of border agents, more number for surveillance and interdiction and the house should take up that bill. >> this one point, when you said, i guarantee you, we would not be worry being ebola right now had mitt romney been president of the united states, you stand by that? >> with all respect, what i said was we were talking about many different issues, talking about obamacare. we were talking about him being right on russia. and i have said and i will say it again, had he been in charge, we would have a clear and concise policy as to what we are going to do, where we are going, and how we can help. with regard to immigration -- >> let me interrupt, senator. you also said we would not be worrying about ebola right now if romney been president? >> that's taken out of context. >> it's not taken out of context. this is a fox news interview last friday. >> once again, it was taken out of context. if you take the whole answer, when we talked about obviously him being right obamacare, him

being right on russia a that we would not be in this situation with regard to the economy. >> let me read to you exactly what you said. you said, mitt was great. can you imagine if mitt was the president right now? he was right on russia. he was right on obama care. he was right on the economy and i gar uarantee you, we would noe worry being ebola right now and worrying about our foreign policy. >> thank you for repeating it for the fourth time. what we were talking about specifically is that he would have a clear and concise policy that issue. and since senator shaheen talked about immigration, i think it's important to talk about immigration. i send troops to the border. i voted to close the border. she has voted in the complete opposite. she is referring to a bill that would have given the president the ability to legalize about 11 million people and give them the ability to work and take away jobs from people in this country. i am going to be working for the people of new hampshire so they can get jobs. it's a real problem. the way to stop it t preparing

right now, it appears, to legalize additional people who are not entitled to those benefits. we need to deal with the funding issues. >> we will get to immigration in a moment. do you want to respond to that? >> the bill i am talking about is one that passed the senate with stloning bi-partisan support with republicans and democrats. it's not a bill that the president supported. we need to take this up because if we are going to deal with our broken immigration system, we need to address not just border security. we need to address our visa system, those people who are here illegally and despite the suggestion from my opponent, that's not amnesty. i don't think kelly ayott and john mccain would have voted for amnes amnesty. neither did. >> senator shaheen, the president plans to send 4,000 military persontol west africa,

one in our own national guard to help prevent the spread of the disease. are you concerned about sending u.s. troops to the ebola hot belt? >> i am concerned about our national guard troops when they are deployed anywhere but the challenge that we have is that we need to help contain ebola. the united states has offered to lead that effort by sending equipment, by sending troops. most of those troops with very few he cexceptions are not goin be on the front lines working with ebola parents. they are going to be help to go train medical personell in the three affected countries in west africa. they are going to be helping to build it health centers and labs so that they can make sure that they can test people for ebola. and what we know is that if we are really going to contain this disease, we need to make sure that we fight it where it exists. >> that's happened in the past when ebola has occurred in africa.

we have been able to support efforts to contain the disease. we need to do that now because as long as ebola exists in africa, there is the threat that it could go anywhere else in the world. >> senator brown, let's turn to the other big story of the day. yesterday, as you know and all of our viewers know, there was a terrorist attack incapped right across the border from new hampshire not very far away from where we are right now. here is the question: what additional security measures, if any, should be taken along new hampshire northern border with canada? >> well, first of all, my heart goes out to those who have lost their life, obviously very serious situation with our -- one of our greatest allies in the world, canada. >> being said, the prime minister said that it's terrorism and i agree with him based upon all of the information and the things that we have heard. so the question is: what are we going to do? obviously we need to take any and all precautions, make sure we losevil -- we useville gentln

and diligence. we need a strong immigration policy, to step back for a minute, you asked a previous question about our troops. i recently retired from the military after 35 years serving at the pentagon. i take our troops and their missions seriously. the we haquestion i have had is what's the mission? where are the troops going? the senator said, herself, we are not ebola experts. neither are our troops. we are putting them potentially in harm's way with no clear mission and no stave guards that i am aware of that the president has told us to make sure that our troops are safe. i would like to know more about that information. >> let me just ask, repeat the specific question. what additional security measures, if any, need to be taken at new hampshire's northern border with canada? >> thank you. once again, i said we need to make sure we work with our community and partners. we need to make sure we have enhanced border security working

obviously with the immigration officials. if there is a need for troops, there's up to the gofrnl through obviously working with our federal officials. >> that's obviously very important. it's common sense issues by making sure we deal with homeland security and making sure that they have a clear line of communication. as you know, there has been problems in the past of communicating with federal and state and local officials. i think a lot of that has been addressed. we have to make sure we work with our canadian allies and with the federal law enforcement officials and state and local officials to make sure there is a clear and concise plan and clear and concise communication. >> senator shaheen, you served on capitol hill in washington. you are a member of the senator foreign relations committee. you saw what happened in ottawa yesterday. what should the u.s. be doing to make sure something like that never happens on capitol hill? washington? >> well, again, i share the concern about our canadian neighbors and i offer them our

condolences. this shows why it's very important to support not just our homeland security efforts but, also, our law enforcement, our first responders. >> that's what i have done my entire career. i supported the resources in washington to make sure that they have what they need as they protect us on capitol hill. i chair the subcommittee of appropriations that has oversight over capitol police. this is where there is a difference between me and my opponent because what scott brown did when he was in the massachusetts legislature was to vote to cut resources for law enforcement and first responders. i think we have to make sure they have the resources they need. i would never cut resources for our first responders to provide tax breaks for millionaires and that's what my opponent did when he was in washington. i am proud to have been endorsed by the new hampshire police association and the fire fighters here. >> all right. senator brown? >> thank you.

as a former member of the homeland secure member, one of the ranking members in the armed services, a 35 year member of the army national guard serving last three at the pentagon, my first priority is the safety and security of this country. >> that's why i have been and others have spoken with securing our borders first and foremost. we need to make sure we streamline and consolid ate every froom make sure we can x maximize the federal dollars. the federal government is not a good steward of our money. the obama administration has provided some good resources, but there are still some areas we need to work harder. i look forward to having that opportunity again. >> senator brown, let me follow up on the whole threat of isis and if u.s.t you as military sxhander were to recommend that some u.s. ground combat forces have to go in to iraq and syria, would you support that?

>> i think isis is a real issue. it's a ration rachelle fear, not only with our citizens but everybody throughout our country and world. you have to look back. what is isis? it's the al-qaeda of iraq. it's getting bigger and badder, the size of new england. right now, general dempsey said previously there may be a time we need to send ground troops. president obama and be jeane shaheen have taken that off of the table. my question is: what if airstrikes don't work? then what? it was not an answer. i am not sure there will be an answer tonight. but to take the greatest fighting force off of the table right away is not how you -- you deal with the battle. i would rely on those generals on the ground, and i would rely on general dempsey to make sure that we know the full picture and there should be a mechanism. the president should use congress congress to come up with those answers so we can be fully informed and talk to our constituents. >> according to former secretary

panetta, there have been half steps and missteps and our allies don't trust us. our foes don't respect us. senator shaheen has endorsed those failed policies 100%. >> go ahead and answer the question. >> well general dempsey just last week said we don't need to send troops in. i don't support sending tens of thousands of troops back in to the middle east as a occupying force. the threat of isis is real. we should not be fearmongering. my opponent ran weeks ads that said radical islamic terrorists threaten to cause the collapse of america. >> that's just not true. we have the strongest military in the world, and we are not going to let isis or any other terrorist group cause the collapse of this country. >> the would it ab mistake for the president to take ground troops off of the table?

>> well, again, i think we are being an international coalition. now my opponent says our allies don't trust us. in fact, we have a coalition that has over 60 partners. we are engaged in airstrikes with not just our european partners but arab countries. we have already taken out hundreds of isis fighters. the we are also going after the financing of isis. we are going after their recruitment efforts and, again, i don't think we should be putting tens of thousands of american troops back in as an occupying force. and we should also not be talking about isis in a way that spreads fear and panic among our population. that's just political grandstanding. what we need is serious people to talk about this issue in a serious way that is going to address the challenge. >> let her answer the question: was it a mistake for the president of the united states to take the option of inserting

u.s. combat ground troops off of the table? >> it's not a mistake to take it off of the table right now. and general dempsey said within the last two weeks that he doesn't recommend putting ground troops in to the middle east right now. and i don't think the american people want to see tens of thousands of american troops back in the middle east. but if we are going to authorize the use of military force in the middle east, we need to have the president come to congress and make that request and we need to have that debate. we owe it to the people of this country and we owe it to our fighting force, our military men and women. >> all right. >> with respect to the senator, she still hasn't answered your question. she didn't answer it last -- in the last debate as well. add that's part of the problem. she is so tied in with president obama and his failed policies on this issue, the question was: would you agree with the president to send ground troops or not?

the bottom line is it's taken off of the table. you have taken the greatest fighting force off of the table. we have an opportunity -- there is no one talking, by the way, about occupying forces. we are talking about a transitional force as we have done in other countries. >> we are not occupiers. we were there to assist the government, the iraqi government, to make sure that what happened wouldn't happen. it's that type of lack of leadership. it government -- >> where allies don't trust us. >> we are assisting the kurds. >> senator, with respect, the kurds are hanging on for dear life. they are in trouble. the iraqi government is in trouble. isis is the size of new england right now and you and the president have taken ground troops off of the table, which is the worst thing you can do when you have the greatest fighting force in the world, you take them off of the table. and that's part of the problem. you are so -- you are so supportive of this president, you can't i have been say if general dempsey and otherses say we need ground troops, you won't even say right now we have to do

it. your goal to put a flag in the white house. our goal is to make sure it doesn't happen. right now because of the -- if you don't believe me, secretary panetta said he advocated for it and the president rejected each and every opportunity to make sure we can have a transition force. it was a mistake. but not for that effort, we would not be in this position. >> well, i called on the president to come to congress to ask for an authorization for use of military force so we can have this debate. i have said if he is not willing to do that, i am working with the chairman of the foreign relations committee to do that. but what's not responsible is for politicians to repeat isis talking points like they are planning to plant a flag on the front steps of the white house. what's important here is that we address the threat. ber doing that by building an international coalition by supporting the fighters in iraq and the kurdish fighters who have a lot at stake because it's their country.

we should be supporting them. we should be going after the financing. but i am not ready to say we need to send troops in today. >> senator shaheen, senator brown, i would like for both of you to stand by. we have a lot more coming up, many more questions including president obama's role in this senate race here in new hampshire. do both candidates have some explaining to do about vote with president obama? we will be right back. >> welcome back do debate night. in concord, new hampshire, with the senator candidates with one of the most important races this mid-term election year. let's get back to the questions. senator brown, seems to be a few different wings of the republican party, the john mccain republicans when it comes to foreign policy very often anxious, willing to go ahead and intervene internationally. on the other hand, the randall paul republicans who are much more reluctant to intervene

internationally. you have campaigned with both of these senators. whose foreign policy are you more closely aligned with? john mccain or rand paul? >> i think they play a role in our party. >> that's the beauty of being an intelligent republican like i am, i was the most bi-partisan senator unlike senator shaheen whose vote with the president and his policies 99% of the time. as an intelligent republican, i can work within my party and still find common ground. there is not a one-size fits all approa aapproach. i will continue to listen, learn and make my own decision. >> that's what it means to be an independent. >> are you with rand paul when he says he would like to eliminate all foreign aid and eventually even u.s. aid to israel? >> no. of course not. israel is our greatest ally. look what happened this summer involving rockets and missiles. i have been there. the stress they are under is

unbearable. i think we have an opportunity and affirmative obligation to view each and every dollar we give other countries. i believe there is an affirmative obligation to keep our citizens safe. the fact what we had happen in benghazi understand the obama administration right now was unconscionable. i felt that there is an affirmative i have been obligation with those dollars we give to that government to make sure those types of things don't happen. >> senator shaheen, you voted with president obama 99% of the time according to the non-partzan congressional quarterly. here is the question to you: how is a vote for you not a vote for president obama and his policies? >> you know, my opponent talks a lot about that survey that he's always quoting. in fact, he has built his whole campaign on that. the fact is, i work and i vote for new hampshire. that's what i have always done. if you look at that survey -- and we've got it posted our our website so you can take a look at it. i am proud of my record. take a look at the votes that

are in that survey. one of those votes is the defense bill. while i am on the armed services committee, i worked hard on that. it has provisions in it that help our national guard, support the naval ship yard, the 157th air refueling wing. i voted for that not because the president supported it but because it's good for new hampshire. another one of those votes in that survey is the fair pay ability. i sponsored the fair pay act. it would provide equal pay for equal work for women. my opponent voted against that. not once but twice. now, i work for new hampshire. i put new hampshire first. >> that's what i have done my whole life. >> that's what i want to continue to do as your senator. >> do you want to respond? >> thank you very much. the president is not up for reelection but his policies are. he said that. senator shaheen is his number 1 foot soldier. if you want to make sure harry reid is not the patient majority

leader we can make make sure that doesn't happen. she referenced two items. with respect, you have a zero rating with the national federation of opponent businesses. >> that's not working for new hampshire businesses. got to the fair pay act you have referenced many times, senator ayotte and i sgroentsdz that bill with respect once again, i paid women in my office a dollar 21 while you paid 95 vents. i not only believe t i live it. >> go ahead and respond. >> well, my opponent's quoting a right-wing survey that doesn't under what the equal pay act does. the fact is, he talks about the national federation of independent businesses. well, what my opponent has done in washington, he comes here to new hampshire and he says he supports small businesses. look at his record in washington because what he supported in washington were the corporate special interests, big oil, giving $19,000,000,000 to the big banks and outsourcing

american jobs. we don't need to import a candidate who is going to outsource our jobs. >> with respect, i have been fighting for small businesses forever: i have an a rating with the national independent business and an a rating with the national chamber of commerce. we have ratings. in addition to her saying that, you know, she doesn't vote with the president 9% of the time, i believe it was yesterday that t the congressional quarterly said when the president let's us know what he is feeling, which is rare but he does do it, 118 times he did it this last session, senator shaheen was with him 116 of those times. so even though she was being criticized for voting with the president 99% of the time, she continued to support him over and over and over again. and it's like we have two senators here president obama is not only president. he is actually something like. >> a chance to respond. i want to move on. >> okay. again, there is a big difference between my opponent and me because you i support new hampshire small businesses.

i have done that as governor now in the senate. i voted for the small business jobs act to help our small businesses. my opponent voted against it. i voted to provide tax cuts for over 30,000 new hampshire businesses. my opponent voted against it. i voted for the travel promotion act to help our tourim industry so we could attract visitors from outside the united states. my opponent voted against it. he comes to new hampshire and he says he is for small business, but look at his record in washington. >> with respect, facts are stubborn things. i have an a rating with the chamber. >> it's a koch funded organization. >> with respect senator, i was with a business yesterday. it's been in the family for generations. they have been a member of the nfib for 50 years is they are just trying to make a living. but work by president obama and you on energy being the deciding vote on obamacare, a businessman coming in after the election,

you have a zero rating. i am not quite sure how folks get a zero rating and say they are fighting for small business. it just doesn't add up. >> let's move on because we have a question for senator brown. you have criticized senator shaheen for vote with president obama 9% of the time. we went back to the congregalt quarterly analysis and last year in the united states senate as a republican senator from massachusetts, the con impressional quarterly said you voted with president obama 78% of the time. how do you explain that? >> well, when the president does something right, i will support him. when he doesn't do something right, i will make sure i let them know that. >> that's huge. i voted with my party and the other side about 50% of my entire career. >> being said, as an opponent senator, i can do that. when we work together with the president on an insider trading bill, my bill went forward. we got it done. i worked with democrats and we were at the signing ceremony,

hiring veterans bill to get a little bit of a tax credit. i will work with the democrats to make sure our heroes were properly one person, body parts in a pull much pile. senate shaheen voted for that. we were able to get it done. there are times because if you want gridlock, send senator shaheen down there. if you want an independent problem solver who has a history of working with both sides and has been named, wolfe, as the most bi-partisan senator of the united states senate, i am your guy. >> do you want to respond? >> yes. my opponent again talks a lot about that survey. but what he won't tell you is why the koch brothers are spending $2.6 million in new hampshire to support his campaign. i don't think it's because they think he's going to go down to washington and support small businesses. i think it's because they know he's going to go to washington. he is going to continue to support subsidies, to the big

oil companies, the five biggest oil companies last year made over $90,000,000,000 and he wants to give them over $20,000,000,000 in subsidies. i don't think that's good for new hampshire. >> once again, she is distorting a bill that not only senator ayotte voted against but democrats sgroentsd. if you want to talk about money, we are both raising money the same way. she has her groups. i have -- we have our groups. they are doing whatever they want. i am scott brown and i approve that message. those are my messages. i have no control over any other messag messages. >> being said, we have an opportunity because the people of new hampshire are smarter. they are very sophisticated being the first in the country presidential, they understand senator, when she went to warrant, when she changed and she is not focusing is on small business, she has a zero rating. with respect, i have been down there fighting for small businesses. >> that's why i have an a rating with the national federation and, also, the united states chamber of commerce. >> quick response? >> well, again, the national

federation of independent businesses has members here and i appreciate what they do but the fact is like the support in so many other ways in this campaign, they are funded by the koch brothers. we need somebody in washington who is going to really support our small businesses. >> that's what i have done my whole career. >> that's what i will continue to do. >> senator shaheen, former president bill clinton here at the campaign with you. hillary clinton is coming next weekend to campaign with you. elizabeth warren will also be joining you on the campaign trail. here is a question: why don't you want president obama to come to new hampshire and campaign with you? >> i never said i didn't want president obama to come a and campaign. the fact is, he is busy in washington. he is dealing with the ebola threat. he is dealing with the threat from isis. i think he is exactly where he needs to be. but again, the fact is that there are big differences in this race between my opponent and me, and it's not just about the president. he would like to be running against the president in new

hampshire because he doesn't want to talk about the issues that are important to new hampshire. who is going to go to washington and support our middle class families here? who is going to support affordable student loans so our young people aren't facing years of debt because of the student loans being taken out? who is going to fight to make sure that we don't outsource our jobs because right now, new hampshire has lost more jobs to china than any other state in the country. >> that's what i have done my whole career. >> that's what i will continue to do. and what my opponent did when he represented massachusetts in washington was to support the corporate special interests. he was a rubber stamp for the wall street bafrnlingdz and to the bill big oil companies. >> the president in recent days has gone out, left washington and campaigned in illinois and maryland. do you want him to come here and campaign these final days? >> we have a lot going on. i don't think it makes sense for the president to come to new hampshire right now.

>> wolfe, if i may, the reason that she does not want the president here is because he cannot explain why he pushed the healthcare bill that's destroying businesses. he apologized for pushing that. senator shaheen hasto yet to decide why she has misled our soitsdz that issue. we have surrogates coming in, by the way, but the people of new hampshire, they are going to make the decision based upon townhalls. she hasn't. the by the way, the president also said he doesn't need to be here because all of his policies are on the ballot. i agree with him. he said i don't care if they don't want me. i don't care if they hide from me because i know when they get reelected they will there be for me. >> that's what she will do because she has done it for six years, folks. sometimes she votes 100% with the president. that's not independent for new hampshire. >> let me respond on a couple of points. first of all, on the affordable care act, i believe everybody in new hampshire should have access

to quality, affordable healthcare. >> that's what i voted for. and that's what i do not support. do we need to make changes to it? yes. there are fix that we need to make. but we have 90,000 people in new hampshire now who have access to healthcare who didn't before. people like steve white who is a realtor from londonber he didn't have health insurance. he has a pre-existing condition. his daughter got him to enroll in the affordable care & the exchange. two months later, he had a quad resume bypass. without it, he would have been in financial ruin. it's doing great things for so many people in new hampshire and my opponent wants to repeal it. he doesn't have a plan to replace it. >> do you want to repeal it? >> i have voted 5 times to repeal it. she was the deciding vote. >> there were 60 of us. everybody was a deciding vote. >> excuse me. every democrat voted. yes. every democrat was the deciding vote for a terrible bill that's crushing businesses.

right now, after the election, folks, the business peman is comi coming up, deductibles have gone up, at a pizza place, they can't afford obamacare, insurance and to think that i don't want people to have insurance? i have a plan. repeal it? put in place something that worked for new hampshire that respects our rights and freedoms, that is affordable, that has competition. let's not forget when the senator was governor, she forced the insurance companies out to the point where they said they were going to leave. we now have one no. >> after the election, it would be more. >> what my opponent wants to do is kick tens of thousands off of their healthcare plan without anything to replace it. so he wants to go back to a time when insurance companies could deny people healthcare because they had a pre-existing condition? when if you reached your annual limit, you could get your healthcare cut off. when if you were 2626, you couldn't stay on your patient's plan. if you were on medicare, you didn't get those co-pays. the fact is the cost of

healthcare has stabilized. it's at its lowest rate in 50 years in terms of the increase in costs and what we are seeing now is that rates are only going to go up less than 1%. >> i want to get paul into this. you have another question. >> shifting gears here, senator brown, we know you want to secure our border but the department of homeland security estimates there are learn million people in this country living illegally. what do we do with those 11 million people? >> whatever we do with the people who are here illegally, i cannot support an effort to provide them ebt cards, preferential house can they have not earned. a huge difference between senator shaheen and me is about border security, immigration. she supports the dream act. i don't. she supports the president enhanced use of executive authority. right now, he is preparing by all accounts to actually legalize people that are here

illegally who are not entitled to the proteions and/or the rights and privileges that have been earned by our citizens. what about the 4.6 million? what do you say to them, those following law? we need to make sure we have an opportunity. we can take over the senate, go after the funding source to make sure the president can do that. so whatever plan we have, whatever we do, i can't continue to provide benefits and reward that illegality. is there a process? it until we are absolutely sure they can't get those benefits, continue to reward that illegal tee, i can't support it. >> quick response. >> people who are here illegally don't get prefrncial benefits. if you want border security, you should support comprehensive immigration reform. it deals not just with border security. it deals with the people who are here illegally and our broken visa system. my opponent, when he was in the senate, he was on the homeland

security committee and not only did he vote to/the homeland security budget when he voted for a republican budget but he missed all hearings on boarder security when he was on that committee. if he is really serious about immigration reform, he should support a comprehensive bill as i do. >> i will give you a chance to respond? >> with respect, i spent 35 years in the national guard. colonel, send at the pentagon i don't need anyone to tell me people are coming over the border. it's real. there is a rachelle fear from citizens in enough new hampshire that people are coming, criminal elements, terrorist elements, people with diseases coming through our border. i don't need to attend those hearings and did not need to attend those hearings. i did not slash the budgeted for homeland security. let's talk about when isis was percolating: senate shaheen is an important -- excuse me --

foreign relations committee. she missed a very important hearing on isis and then she has been eye length until we had a tragedy on this issue. once again, following in lock-step with the president and his failed policies and incoherent, half steps and missteps as secretary panetta did. >> my opponent is wrong. i attended 16 hearings on isis if in foreign relations committee and armed services committee and i was asking questions about isis before my opponent ever moved to new hampshire. >> more kwechltz. what kind of trade-offs are these candidates willing to make to push through their policies with new hampshire jobs on the line? women be right back. >> welcome back. it's debate night. we are here in concord, new hampshire with the u.s. senate candidates. this is one of the races that could decide control of the united states senate less than two weeks from now.

remember, you can go to bing.com/cnn and realtime to find on which candidate's answers you find the most or at least convincing. senator shaheen, you support raising minimum wage to 10.10 but the non-partisan congressional office estimates a half a million american jobs would be lost nationally if that happened. is the trade-off worth it? >> well, there are a number of other analyses that say that we would actually create more jobs if we raised the minimum wage. the fact is about two-thirds of the minimum wage workers are women. i think we need to make sure they can support their families. we know if we major. government pensions would no longer be intelligent upon our government program. this is one of the issues that

distinguishes me from my opponent because i have been supporting middle class families here my opponent said we don't know where he is because he's been on both sides of the issue. one of the things about that survey he keeps talking about, he got 100% rate okay it and one of the issues on it was that he didn't support raising the minimum wage. so, i think it's now clear that he doesn't support that. i think it's good for our families. we should support that. we should make sure that people can make a living. >> all right. let's ask the senator. right now, minimum wage is $7.25, about $15,000 a year. do you support raising the minimum wage? >> since the senator is confused about my position let me restate t i remember working at a minimum wage, my first job was at dunkin' donuts epcleaning the grease trap. my mom had a minimum wage job. here is the key. everybody is at the table.

what's happen something another effort by the obama administration as and supported by senator shaheen to dictate to businesses what they are going to pay. they are not being asked, can you afford to increase wages for folks? because when you look at the high corporate tax rate, you look at medical costs as a result of obama care and her deciding vote to increase those costs, with the high cost of injury, 100%, profit taxes all of the challenges. all i have ever said, if we are going to have that conversation -- because i have done it before -- to make sure people writing the check and paying people have a seat at the table. they don't. here is the real key. we need to make sure that whatever we do it takes into consideration every aspect of that decision. >> to move on, you support raising the minimum wage >> i have done it before and made my position very clear that in order to have this conversation, it can't be dictated by the president. it needs to make sure that the

people writing the check -- because they want to pay more. they want to retain these good, hard working people. they want to keep them there. but -- >> can i respond to that? >> with the strains and stresses, with all of the -- all of thelations and all of the additional burdens that the president and senator shaheen, that's why she has a zero rating. hold on to your pocket books and waltz folks. >> quickly, 10 seconds? >> my opponent when he is talking about raising the minimum wage needs to bring people around the table to see if they can agree. he didn't have that concern when he was willing to support over 2$20s billion dollars in su subsidies for oil companies and $19,000,000,000 in a give away to wall street banks. >> a quick break we willriesume this conversation. ahead, it's more than a state motto, a way of life. are these candidates living up to it? we will be right back. >> welcome back to debate night

in concord, new jersey. a good question for the new jersey people to absorb? >> thank you, wolfe. this question is for both of you. as you know, our motto is live free or die. the question is how will you live by that model? senator brown, let's start with you. >> thank you very much. i live that and believe it because i think we have too much government control in our lives right now. we have a situation right now where the president and senator th shaheen are actually trying to outsource our second amendment rights to the united nations. >> that's too much government in our lives. we have a situation where the government is man date what we can and can't do with regard to healthcare. >> that's why i want to bring it back to the states and let us be part of it. senator shaheen is in favor of common core. the common core is something where local families and school board should be able to make those decisions, themselves. i am not. so here is the problem. in our state, live free or die means more to us than other people throughout the country to

make sure we have little or hardly any government intervention, that new hampshire advantage is being chipped away over and over and over again. the regulations, the costs, taking of our tax money and not using it properly, we can do better. >> senate shaheen? >> i am proud to have represented the live free or die state. as a state senator, as your governor and now in the united states senate, and there is a fundamental difference between me and my oppose in this race because i have been fighting for our small businesses, for our middle class families, to make sure that businestudents can go college and not face decades of debt. my zbt went to washington representing massachusetts and fought for the corporate special interests. >> all right. we have to leave it there. i want to thank you for joining us. thanks to you as well. mh 1, the political director and anchor u paul steinhauser. sign up for election night on america.

on cnn on november 4th for all of us at cnn and nh1. i am wolfe blitzer. thanks very much for watching. good night. >> c-span's coverage of exam pain 2014 includes more than 100 debates for the control of congress. stay in touch and on top of the debates. follow us on twitter and join the conversation at feedback.com/cspa. ...

like to hear from you this morning. what will your decision