to disrupt the middle east and other parts of the world, export terrorism around the region of the world. it is something that israel and serious. obviously we have boko haram in africa, we have isis, al qaeda elements till. -- elements still. the number one goal is to dismantle site -- society as we know it. i call it a very rational fear. what we can do is to create a consistency because right now, there has been hesitation and half steps as evidenced by secretary panetta. he wanted to leave troops in iraq during the pullout. he made very clear that he wanted to do that. the president did not listen to him and as result we are having more and more trouble in that region. >> do you agree that is the greatest threat? looks i certainly agree that isis is a threat. bigger threat is not having the commitment and gumption here in the country to address the threat of isis and to address

other threats facing this country. i don't share my opponents view that isis or other terrorists are going to cause the collapse of this country. america is strong, we have a strong smelter in the world and we are going to take on this thread, we have a strategy to do that, building an international coalition. the airstrikes have taken hundred's of fighters and we are working with over 60 nations to address this threat. but we don't need is our leaders raising concerns about our ability to take this on. we can take on anything that american sets his mind to do and that is what i'm counting on. >> do think it was rise of president obama to rollout the use of ground troops? >> we have heard from the other generals that we don't need round troops at this time. if the president wants to send

in ground troops, he needs to come to congress and ask for authorization for use of military force. when american interests are threatened, we reserve the right to take any action and i think that that is true in this case. right now, we need to let the iraqis, the kurds, we need to let the people whose country these our do the fighting. >> you're not ruling out ground troops? >> i don't think we should take tens of thousands of american troops and put them back into iraq as an occupying force. that is what my opponent says that we should do. that we should have an occupying orce like we did in korea. i don't think we want tens of thousands of american troops as an occupying force for 60 years as we have had in korea. >> i was speaking to speaker boehner and he did say that american troops would have to go in on the ground if other countries didn't step up. do you agree?

>> i want to rely on the enerals on the ground. the president and senator shaheen have taken the greatest fighting force off the table. isis isn't taking anything off the table. we are a liberty force, we are not an occupying force. i and every other person is served in the military resents the fact that you're calling us occupiers. >> well, in fact, what you have suggested and what others have suggested is that we should go back into iraq and you suggested and my opponent suggested it in an interview that we should look at this like we did in south korea. i don't think that that is what we should be doing. we don't want to send tens of thousands of american troops back into the middle east. but we want to do is to support the kurds, the iraqis on the ground as they do the fighting. >> we had an opportunity to sign letter.

we signed a letter to the ministration, please don't leave iraq as is. senator shaheen did not sign that letter. we are not talking about occupying forces, we are talking about leaving a transition force as we have done in korea, germany, japan. having the opportunity to have the government lean on us. to do otherwise is dangerous. to support the kurds, we should have done that a long time ago. finally, they are making gains. the fact you have called us occupiers is an insult to the men and women who have served. we are a country for good, we re liberators. it is an insult to those at a given blood, life, and lamb. >> to talk about a related topic. the first question from our panel. >> senator shaheen, the mother

of james foley, told abc news that the national security officials repeatedly threatened her family with prosecution if they paid ransom. was his hard-line necessary or did the government mistreat the amily? >> i don't think that hard-line was necessary. i've had a chance to talk to the foley family about what happened, the barbarous murder of jim foley, both with ties to new hampshire. this is one of the things that brought home to us. the threat from isis. i had the opportunity to question both secretary of state kerry and secretary of defense hagel the hard-line that we ook. we need to look at how we are helping families who are faced with the situation that the foley family was facing. we should do everything we can to help those families.

i don't think they should pay ransom for americans because that is what is at risk. i think it is very important that we treat the families with respect that we do everything we can. to help negotiate the release of any americans held prisoner. >> senator brown. >> can you imagine if that happened to your child. when it happened, everyone one of us was deeply saddened. senator sheehan and i went to memorial service for the foley family. what the state department did was unconscionable. the fact they would use the strong arm of the federal government, one again chipping away at our rights and freedoms, and trying to do something important for the family to heal, also to have the glimmer of hope to get their child home. i would have done anything and everything to get anyone of my children home for friends of anyone that i knew. that's a problem with the federal government, they are chipping away at our rights and freedoms. they're telling us what to do, how to do it, and we should sit down and be quiet.

it is time to stand up and take back our rights and reedoms. >> you said that before we even talk p a comprehensive immigration plan, you want to secure the border first. fine, let's begin with that. let's begin with that, there are 7000 miles of border that include the southern and orthern portion. give a realistic plan as to how you would secure all of those miles and how much that would cost. >> will, the cost is very minimal in terms of the safety and security of our country. it is the number one priority. we have to make sure we secure the border. obviously, use fences, walls, aerial surveillance, infrared, troops, border security personnel, natural resources, it is not secure. i voted twice to secure the border. senator shaheen opposesit is the number one issue. that effort. they're deeply concerned about people coming through that are not here.

people that have criminal intent and terrorist intent or carrying some type of disease or another. we have to make sure it happens. the president is also seeking as part of immigration to legalize upwards of 11 plus million people and giving them enhanced benefits. i disagree with that. i will go to the funding source and make sure thathe's preparing it right now. doesn't happen. senator shaheen agree was that,. i do not. >> i said the cost is irrelevant. the safety and security of our country is the most important thing. when you have the federal government consistently wasting our tax dollars, trust me, there's a lot of money in the federal government right now they are not a good steward of your money. senator coburn put out a very thorough book. how about taking that and use it o secure the border? >> president obama says he has big plans for immigration after

election day. he's not going to tell us until then. something senator bloun has called a cynical ploy to protect obama's fellow democrats like you. when he makes this announcement, what would you like to see the president say? do you think it's really fair to new hampshire voters he's delaying an announcement? >> i don't think the president should take any action on immigration. we have a bill on the floor that the senate passed with a strong bipartisan vote that accomplishes comprehensive immigration reform. but it doesn't secure the border, it does that by building 700 miles of border fencing. it doubles the number of border guards who are there. it increases surveillance, interdiction, all the things senator brown said he wanted to do are part of that legislation, including an e verify system so people who are hiring can determine whether they are hiring legal or illegal immigrants who are here in this country. it also provides for surveillance and interdiction

efforts. the fact is that bill has the support of senator mccain, senator rubio. it has a strong bipartisan vote. it's the kind of bill we should pass if we are going to address this issue. >> folks, if you have seen a tv set at any time in the last year, you probably know already which candidate on stage tonight is being characterized as a blindly loyal foot soldier who can't say no to president obama and which candidate is being painted as a back politician who isn't from new hampshire. the adds have been there. for our voters who have seen them but haven't her from their candidates for response. here's a chance to defend themselves. senator shaheen, what is the last big policy disagreement you can point to that you have had with president obama? >> i disagree with the administration's proposal for another round of base closings. i share the readiness subcommittee. any proposal to close our bases has to go through our committee.

i have said without any hesitation that we are not going to do another round of base closings. i'm not going put at risk shipyards and other bases important to our national security. i want to go whack to the -- back to the border question because one of the things that my opponent has said in the last couple of days is that we've got to close the border because we've got people coming across with polio and other diseases. the fact is, we haven't had polio in this hemisphere since the early 1990's. this is another effort to scare people about what's happening at our border. even the former republican chairman said that scott brown is trying to scare people about the border. >> senator brown, fear mongering, the accusation? >> the interrow virus which are polio-like symptoms is real. it's in our country right now. that's what i was referring to.

since the senator brought up the border and the immigration bill, i think it's important to discuss, once this bill, if the bill that the senator is referring to would have been passed and the president signs it, it immediately gives him the ability to give preference to people that are recently here, jobs. i want to fight for jobs in new hampshire. if you read the recrept article about the jobs that are right now going to illegal immigrants and new people to our states, 70% are going to those people. i want to make sure we protect jobs right here, right now. with regard to once again scaring people, i have held six town halls. go around our state all the time talking about these very important issues. this is what people are talking to me about. they want their border secured. they want to make sure that their kids and families are safe. >> senator, want to keep moving forward on some of the politics and perception of this race. i asked senator shaheen what is the last big disagreement she had with the president. you have been selling you have bipartisanship. when is the last time you agreed

with this president on a major policy issue? >> i commended him for going after bin laden. i thought it showed great courage. i told him personally. the problem is since that time, however, there's been hesitations and half steps. not only with iraq but dealing with obviously boca had a ram in africa -- haram in africa. there is a lack of could he herein policy on issue after issue. senator a shaheen has been endorsing foes for the last six years. >> senator, please, move forward with this as well. you have been asked a number times why you are running in new hampshire. you say it's because you live here, but until the past year the reality is you did live in massachusetts. a lot of people are wondering why did you move to new hampshire instead of staying in massachusetts? >> i snow senator shaheen has made my restcy and wife and personal family choices an essential part of her campaign. i'm glad i have an opportunity to discuss it. i was born at the shipyard, the place you want to save, i

appreciate that effort. my mom was a waitress at hampton beach. they met, they fell in love, had me. the first three years of my life i lived in portsmouth. my family's roots go back nine generations to the founding families of new hampshire. on the start of the american revolution. most importantly my wife and i have been property and taxpayers for over 25 years. that being said, i want to focus on where we are going because senator shaheen's from missouri. she came here later in life. we both care about new hampshire. but the question is, what are we going to do for new hampshire? right now i believe by endorsing the president's failed policies over 99% of the time, we are not going in the right direction. >> senator shaheen, one of your biggest supporters is hillary clinton. she'll be here on sunday three days from now. she moved to new york and became a senator there. was that a problem? >> it's not a problem that either hillary clinton or moved to new york or scott brown moved

to new hampshire. the voters will have a chance to determine whether his candidacy makes sense or not. the question is not where he's from. the question is what he's for. i have worked to make sure that our middle class families, our small businesses have a fair shot at success here. supporting our small businesses with the small business jobs act. i was in manchester yesterday where because of what was in that act they now have over 400 employees. my opponent voted against that. i supported something called the travel promotion act to help our tourism industry. attract visitors from outside of this contry. it's good for new hampshire. we have over 70,000 jobs in the tourism industry. my opponent voted against that. instead, he voted to support subsidies to the big oil companies. he supported the $19 billion give away to the big banks. he supported companies that want to outsource our jobs. the issue is who is going to

fight for new hampshire and put new hampshire first. >> senator brown, 30 seconds. >> i'm glad she's talking about these bills because they were voted against. she has a zero rate interesting the national federation of independent businesses. and an f rating from the chamber of commerce. when you're talking about jobs and job protection, it doesn't add up when you're voting 100% of the time against small business. the biggest challenge right now for our ski operators and other recreational areas is obamacare, which, senator, you were the deciding vote on. as a result our ski lifts had to close early last year and they are deeply concerned about the business mandate coming in after the election which will lead to higher and higher and higher rates. >> health care is an issue we'll get to later. george stephanopoulos. >> another issue that's been dominating the headlines that's the scare over ebola. we saw those coming back from african countries should self-quarantine for 21 days and the state has the authority to

enforce it just next door in maine we are seeing a standoff. putting the governor and the nurse who says she doesn't want to abide by the quarantine. he says he will exercise, quote, the full extent of his authority to impose the quarantine. do you think that's a good move? >> people are understandably concerned about the threat of ebola. this is a new disease. we have seen missteps by the c.d.c. from the dallas hospital. i think asking people who have been to west africa, who have been in contact with ebola patients to do a voluntary sense. guarantee makes in fact-- quarantine makes sense. in fact, the government does have the authority to enforce this quarantine to ensure the safety of their residents. that's important to do. hopefully they can work this out so that they don't have to arrest anybody or put anybody in jail because this seems like they should be able to get to a reasonable solution. but again, just like the issues

around the border with immigration, the issues around isis, the issues with ebola, my opponent has been using the concern that people have and really fear mongering that concern for his own political purposes. a leader should be serious, should alert people to what's going on with issues, but not try and grandstand on them. >> let me move on to senator brown. pin you down, you're saying you believe the governor should have the authority to enforce it. >> i said i believe they do have the authority. >> so it's not really a voluntary quarantine, right? >> hopefully people will be willing to voluntarily willing to do it. if they don't, then the governors have the authority to enforce it. i was a governor. i worked after september 11 with the threat of anthrax, the threat of bioterrorism. i think we have to understand that governors need to protect the health and safety of their residents. so this is another case where they have the authority to do

that. >> senator brown, how do you respond to the points that have been made having a quarantine for something who is asymtomaticling doesn't follow science. >> let me tell you my opinion on this important issue. thank goodness we have troops and people who actually want to go to those areas. they are heroes. the military, chuck hagel, has said our soldiers when they come back are going to be mandatorily guaranteed. yet the president says -- quarantined. yet the president says it needs to be voluntary. there's confusion not only the c.d.c., the head was in front of of congress saying we need good ideas. they said that a nurse who was infected could actually fly when she called the c.d.c. the problem is that we don't have a clear and concisepolicy. the experts are confused. we need to have a mandatory travel ban. it's a no-brainer. commen sense. not fear mongering. we need to make sure we have mandatory quarantine because we saw in new york, 300 miles away,

somebody was out going to a restaurant bowling and on the subway when he was infected. i think -- i would argue that the governor has the ability to enforce that law. and i believe that the woman in maine is -- we need to put public safety ahead of personal inconvenience. that's basic common sense. >> well, as i said i think the governor does have that authority. but if my opponent were so concerned about the c.d.c. and about this issue, then it's disappointing to see when he was in the senate he voted for a republican budget that slashed funding for both the c.d.c. and the national institutes of health. these are serious issues. we need people to come together with serious solutions to address them. >> what's the answer? >> this isn't a money issue. this is a commonsense issue. you don't need more money to tell people what they need to do. we want the president to succeed. we also want clear and concise information as to what we are going to do, what's expected of us, and how we can help.

it's not about money, senator. it's about having clarity. initially you were opposed to a travel ban. then apparently you were in favor of a travel ban. and now you want to rely on the experts for the travel ban. you are waffling on this issue. we need to get this disease in its infancy. the president said it would not be here. we have one person die, three others infected. if we act now together, together, we can stop this in its infancy. that's what i'm proposing. >> we don't address a eseize like ebola -- a disease like ebola with common sense. we address it with experts. i think in the case of in-home quarantines they are workable. the governors have that authority. the fact is if we are going to address diseases like this, we do need the research. we do need to support the c.d.c. and n.i.h. and what they are doing. there is those who argue if we had supported that funding we would be much further along in addressing a disease like ebola

by now. it's disappointing that my opponent talks about this issue, but he doesn't want to do the hard work to address it. >> josh, back to you. >> thanks very much. next issue is going to be one that's very important to the pocketbooks and a lot of people here in new hampshire especially in the wintertime. that is on energy. that's coming from dan of the union leader. >> thank you. >> senator brown, natural gas prices are up. supply crisis in new hampshire that also means electricity prices are soaring. as we head into winter, what can be done at the federal level right now to bring relief to new hampshire? >> we can have a true approach, wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, making sure citizens are at the table in these decisions. i am a pro-supply. i want to make sure we have more supply. senator shaheen has been anti-supply. she's already voted to pave the way for new national energy tax. she'll tell you i'm not in favor of that tax, how do you actually vote to create a fund to spend the money then not in favor of

it? that's the washington doublespeak that we see. she's also voted to tax our energy producers in the middle of a recession, middle of a tourist season. she voted to increase taxes on our energy producers. natural gas. we don't have the deliverage or storage capacity. she's against nuclear. she's against gas and oil innovation. she's also against coal. how do you expect our citizens to actually afford to pay the bills in addition to that? electricity prices are going to go up 50% to 100%. carrie already has four jobs to help with her and her daughter and help them survive. i visited her. she got a notice. they are going up $100 next month. she get a fifth vob? it's policies being pushed by the president and senator shaheen making it more difficult for our citizens to pay their bills. >> senator shaheen, i bet you would like to respond. >> i would. the fact is energy is very important to our businesses. that's why i worked so hard as

governor to lower energy prices in new hampshire and why i'm supporting energy efficiency legislation in washington. that would address the cheapest, fastest way to deal with our energy needs, which is energy efishency. my opponent is just wrong. i don't support a national energy tax. independent fact checkers have indicated that that's a false accusation. and i do support nuclear power. i voted for legislation when i was on the energy committee in the senate to support nuclear power because if you believe in climate change and believe you have to address that, although my opponent doesn't, then you have to have nuclear power as part ever that energy mix. the fact is, the concerns about the young woman that my opponent talks about has to do with the kinds of policies that we are supporting and what my opponent supported when he was in washington. he supported the corporate special interest. we need to support our middle class families. we need to raise the minimum wage. women need to get equal pay for equal work. my opponent opposes both of those. >> senator, please.

>> thank you. she's raised two issues i'd like to take a shot at. senator ayotte, i, and many democrats and i voted against a bill that were tax energy producers in the middle of the tourist season, senator shaheen voted to increase them. when you're talking about equal payment i believe it. i live it. in my office when i was a senator, i paid women $1.21 for every $1 that men made. senator shaheen paid 95 cents for every dollar that men made. let's take it a step further, right now in our campaigns, in this quarter, senator shaheen pays 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. i pay $1.14. you want to talk about fair pay, it's easy to talk rhetoric, i live it. i pay women more, senator, than you do in my office because i have a house full of women as well. i want them to make more. especially the girls. i want them to help support gale and me. >> senator, please. >> scott brown is citing a right ring study that has already been

proven to be wrong. the fact is regardless of what he cites, he has two opportunities when he was in washington to vote for equal pay for equal work for women. both times he voted no. i think women deserve equal pay. it's something i have been working on for decades. >> we'll move forward and go to james for the next question. >> thanks, josh. senator shaheen, we both heard from you guys in the campaign that you're both pro-choice. earlier this month you brought this issue of abortion into the campaign when you started running ads. why did you do that? >> i trust women to make their own decisions about their reproductive health care all of the time not just part of the time. and that's the difference between me and my opponent because he supported the one amendment allowing employers to determine if their employees should get access to birth control for any moral reason. he supported the supreme court decision in hobby lobby which would also deny women access to birth control.

their employers can make that decision. and when he ran for the senate in massachusetts in both 2010 and 2012 he was endorsed by anti-choice groups who said he voted with them 80% of the time. when he ran for office he opposed the freedom of choice act which would codify roe v. wade. i believe women in new hampshire need a senator they can count on in washington. that's what i have supported. and that's what i will continue to support. >> senator brown, are there differences on this issue? >> senator shaheen has made this a central part of her campaign distorting my record on this very important issue for women. we are both pro-choice. we he both believe roe v. wade is the law of the land. we both believe women should have access to contraception. we do have some differences. i believe in a conscious exemption. people of faith should be able to practice their faith without their federal government telling them what to doment i believe we

should have more adoptions. it's such a central part of who we are as people. and also i believe that parents should play a role in that very important decision because there are great people on both sides of that very important issue. as i travel around our state while women are deeply concerned about that, they are also concerned about how are they going to pay their high electric bills? how are they going to pay for the high cost of obamacare as a senator of senator shaheen's vote. how are they going to keep their small businesses up when senator shaheen has voted 100% of the time against their interests. that's what they are also talking about. they are not single issued candidates. >> 30 seconds? >> again, i trust women to make their own decisions all of the time not just part of the time. scott brown will tell you he's pro-choice, but what you need to to is look at his record. when you look at his record you see that he voted for the blunt amendment he wants employers to determine if their employees can get access to birth control. that he supported the -- opposed the freedom of choice act which

would codify roe v. wade. we need somebody in washington who's going to support women all of the time. >> we are going to pick up the pace with a lightning rod. answers will be limited to 30 seconds or shorter. senator shaheen, wasn't longing a you said the washington redskins should change their nickname. what about local schools? red raiders, mow hawks, should they change their names? >> this is stirring a good debate among our high schools about whether they should continue to have those names for their teams. i think that's important. but the important thing about my opposition to the redskins and i think we see this with nfl, they have -- the national football league has an opportunity here to really make a statement about what's important. to say that we are not going to accept those racial slurs. just like they did in terms of ray rice and dealing with domestic violence. and sadly they have not been willing to take on that opportunity. >> thank you. senator brown, what do you think about the redskins and local

schools? >> doesn't the federal government have more to do than worry about names for professional sports teams where billionaires are in charge? i want to focus on obamacare anti-business mandate coming in after the election. i want to focus on our national and world security. i want to focus on the border. i want to focus on the issues affecting the people of new hampshire. >> this is a lightning round. you answered. i appreciate it. let me ask you another one quick answer. do you believe senator brown, we are too politically correct as a society? >> i believe that there are good people in our country and in our state who can have a sense of humor once in a while. i think it's important we have lost that ability to kind of laugh at ourselves and with each other. that's my feeling. >> senator shaheen, are we too politically correct? >> i think it's important for us to acknowledge people's differences. and that's part of trying not to use racial slurs. trying to accept people for who they are. that's what i think we should be supporting. >> one quick one. i know you can't do anything

about this at the federal level, you both live in new hampshire i think it's important you weigh in on it. senator shaheen, do you think new hampshire should expand gambling and have casinos? >> when i was governor i supported gambling at our four tracks. we at that time had racetracks, it would have provided revenue to a state in a way i thought would have been helpful in supporting education and other priorities that the state has. >> yes. senator brown? >> it's a local issue that is deeply concerning to the affected sities and towns. i supported it in the past. i would -- if there is a federal element, i'm happy to be involved. it should be settled at the local level. >> time for the candidate to candidate questions. the debate before they could did a question. we drew an order and senator brown you ask the first question. >> thank you. senator shaheen, for the last six years you have voted with president obama 99% of the team -- time. is the president right 99% of the time? >> as i said, nobody's right 99%

of the time. i'm glad you asked me that question because the fact is you quote a survey, there are lots of surveys out there, if you want to know what's in that survey, check my website. i work for new hampshire. i get up every day putting new hampshire first. if you want to see the bills in that survey, one is the defense bill. well, i worked hard, i'm on the armed servicings committee, i worked for the defense bill because it has provisions in it to help our shipyard, to help our national guard. i didn't support that bill because the president supported it. i supported it because it was good for new hampshire. another bill that's in that list is the equal pay act. well, i believe women should get equal pay for equal work. that's why i voted for it. the twice it came up when scott brown was in the senate. he opposed it. he's talked about the nfib and chamber the commerce. look at the survey that the nfib came up with. one of the things that's on there is raising the minimum wage.

he opposes it. i support it. that's why i'm not on their list. another thing that's on it is regulations the clean air act and clean water act. i think we need to support the clean air act and clean water act. my opponent opposes it. >> senator shaheen, your opportunity now to ask a question of your opponent. >> the five biggest oil companies last year made over $90 billion. yet you voted twice in the senate to support over $20 billion in subsidies to the oil companies. now, why should a waitress or a cashier at market basket have to pay through their taxes to subsidize the five biggest oil companies? how would you respond to a cashier market basket who asked you that question. >> i'm very glad that market basket is back in business. that's where we do our shopping. that being said, senator ayotte and other democrats voted against that bill, that you keep referring to and running against me for the last year.

when we are talking about our energy producers, you voted to tax those same energy producers. in addition to that, you have not all of the above approach when it comes to energy. i want to make sure that whatever happens it's not going to be passed through through individual motorists. especially if you remember that bill was done in the middle of the tourist season, in the middle of recession when gas was about $.50 a gallon. if we want to have a conversation about energy, i already voted to eliminate the ethanol subsidy and other things like that, but to single out our energy producers in the middle of the recession, in the middle of the tourist season and not allow us to become energy independent, to step back from our dependence on foreign oil, i think is a mistake. >> back to george stephanopoulos. >> we began by health care and we will. you brought up the affordable care act a couple times. right now your opposition to it well-known. you say you want to replace it. what do you say to the 40,000 new hampshire residents who signed up for coverage, the

10,000 additional who have gotten coverage under the medicaid expansion? can you guarantee, can you guarantee that those 50,000 new hampshire citizens won't have any interruption in their coverage if you get your way? >> let's talk about the interruption of the 22,000 people whose insurance was canceled. we had a situation where senator shaheen and the president said, if you like your plan, you like your hospital, you can keep it. you may even get a check for $2,500. we find out that's not true. in addition, after the election there's a potential 70,000 other people about to lose their insurance as a result of the business mandate that's coming in after the election. we should have the ability to develop a plan that works for our state. it's been done in other states. we can address the catastrophic care, pre-existing condition, covering those people like you referred to george, making sure they don't fall through the system. to think that obamacare is the only answer, it's not. rates have gone up. deductibles have gone sky-high, employees are paying more.

employers are paying more. we need to do it better. and i think that -- i remember when the president actually apologized for misrepresenting the entire obamacare, especially not only the rollout but the fact couldn't keep your doctors and hospitals. senator shaheen has never addressed it or apologized to the citizens of new hampshire. >> can you guarantee those citizens -- >> i believe we can handle that situation. the governor, legislature, the senate majority leader's here, we can work together and develop a plan that works for new hampshire. to think that obamacare's the only answer, folks s. a false premise. we can develop a plan that reflects our rights and freedoms, that addresses the issues that people care about. what are the things that are important to you? you referenced two of them. i agree. make sure we roll up our sleeves and get it done. >> senator shaheen, i see you shaking your hand. let me ask you a question on the same subject b subject. the latest poll still shows a majority of new hampshire citizens opposed the affordable care act. when you have been asked about

what kind of fixes you might make, you said you have an advisory commission for the website. no substantive fixs? >> no. i have also said i think we should repeal the medical device tax. the issue here is, i believe everybody in new hampshire should have access to quality affordable health care. we passed legislation that now gives almost 100,000 residents in new hampshire access to health care. the legislature passed a bipartisan bill to expand health care to 50,000 people who now have medicaid. i talked to a realtor in londonderry, a man named steve white, who says he couldn't debt insurance because he had a pre-existing condition. finally his daughter talked him into signing up in the exchange in may. not three months later he had to have a quadruple bypass, he said he would have faced financial ruin without health care. what my opponent wants to do is to kick off those tens of thousands of people from their health care. he doesn't have a plan to replace it. rates are actually stabilized for the first time.

anthem sent out a notice said rates are stable for next year. we've got four new carriers coming into the exchange. we need to fix what's not working about the law. but repealing it, kicking tens of thousands of people off their health care with no plan to replace it and years of indecision about what to do, that's not an answer. >> senator brown? >> she's like nancy pelosi. we have to pass it before we know what's in it. had she read the bill and known the medical device tax was in it, she voted for it. now she wants to fix it. my question is what are you going to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars that that hole is going to create as a result of repealing the medical device tax? there's no answer. the fix, she wants to have a commission, another commission in washington to study a website that already costs $2.4 billion. i think mine costs $5,000 and it's working well. she had a chance to fix it. i was there. she voted against every single

effort to keep your doctor, your hospital, to opt out, every single time she voted against it. to come now and be disingenuous is just wrong. we can develop a plan that works for new hampshire that respects our rights and freedoms. that allows us to have competition. remember, when senator was governor, she changed the laws in new hampshire that actually went from 26 insurance companies down to one. because right after the election we'll have more. i don't believe it. >> senator shaheen. >> my opponent's just wrong in terms of the cost of this law. e have already saved over $100 billion because of passing the affordable care act. what we have heard from c.b.o. is if we repeal it it's going to cost the debt over $1 trillion. the fact is it's working for those thousands of people who have pre-existing conditions, who now can get health insurance for people who no longer have to worry about annual or lifetime limits.

for 26-year-olds who can stay on their parents' insurance. for people on medicare who are getting help with prescription drugs. and with preventive care. it's working. we need to fix what's not working about it. the medical device tax, as i said, is one thing i think we should repeal. what i suggested is that we need an independent overseer over the website to make sure that it's working properly because that's been a real issue. but the answer is not to throw tens of thousands of people off their health care and have no plan to replace it. that's not an answer. to kick us back into a place where we are facing years before we got any answer to how we are going to make sure that people get access to health care? >> back to our panel. a question about jobs and the economy. >> usually we talk about jobs and the economy. a big picture conversation. i want to drill down to main street here in new hampshire. you both live on the sea coast. let's go to the western part of the state and talk about

sullivan county. senator brown, what do you see going right in the economy in sullivan county and what's going wrong? and please be specific. >> you're right. geography plays a role along the southern border we have more jobs. more opportunity. infrastructure and other opportunities up north are difficult. one of the biggest opportunities is tourism. one of the biggest opportunities is ski areas and trails for snowmobiles. i support those efforts. i know senator shaheen references a tourist bill. the biggest wet blanket right now on the economy in that area is obamacare. it's also those notices that people are getting, 50% to 100% increases on their electric rates. rates are not going down. in addition to that, you have a situation where getting from point a to point b, inspiring businesses to stay there is problematic. what are they looking at? highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. >> we are talking about sullivan county. i think you were talking about the north country. what do you see going well in sullivan county or not?

>> any place past concord, actually. the challenges of our state. so i'm referring to the challenges, including the high corporate tax rate, obamacare coming in after the election. we also have the challenges of high electric costs. if you go to any business in any county in our state those are the real counties -- >> sullivan county is west of concord not north. what do you see going well and not going well there? >> with respect i answered the questions. the challenges are the same in every county in our state. >> senator shaheen, you ever been that county's governor and senator for 12 years. what problems remain there? why are they unresolved? what are you going to do about it? >> when i was governor we helped lower electric rates in sullivan county, that was one of the big issues they were still facing. now fortunately they are able to be more competitive. we have worked with them on what are called new market tax credits so they could attract new industries into claire month . one of the things i worked on was the department of labor

grant to get health with our community technical colleges. they are working with advanced manufacturers in the sullivan county area to help them match the jobs they are creating with people who need job skills. again, this is one of the differences between my opponent and me. because i believe we've got to support our small businesses, that's where 2/3 of jobs are being created. when he was in washington he supported the big guys. the corporate special interests. subsidies for the oil companies. he said we couldn't afford the small business jobs act, but he supported over $20 billion in subsidies for the oil companies. >> dan from the union leader for the next question. >> thank you. senator shaheen, the school shooting in newtown renewed calls for gun control. short of revisitting the second amendment, what sort of proposal would you support that would possibly have stopped that tragedy? >> i'm really glad to hear this question. it was a terrible tragedy. we need to address the challenges that towns are facing

because of gun violence. i'm a supporter of the second amendment. it's been important to the state's hunting and sports tradition, but i think we've got to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, out of people who are mentally ill. my opponent when he was in massachusetts said he supported an assault weapons ban. then he touted his support from anti-gun advocate, mayor bloomberg, then when he came up to new hampshire he switched his position and says now he doesn't support an assault weapons ban. i'm really interested in hearing what he has to say about this because i think there are responsible measures we can agree to if we work together. that's what i supported in the senate. >> senator brown, you said you wouldn't propose any new legislation if you returned to washington. but could you support any new gun legislation whatsoever like, for example, expanding criminal background checks for gun shows and internet sales? a proposal the republicans,

including john mccain, have supported in the past? >> i'm glad the senator's talked about my second amendment position. as a gun owner i take it very seriously. i signed on the dotted line at 19 years old to make sure we could carry and bare arms. she's also agreed to sign on to a letter outsourcing our second amendment rights. when it comes to proposing new legislation, that's correct. i'm not going to propose legislation. i said to all the gun owners in our state whatever proposal comes up i would be sure to hold a town meeting. make sure we get their input and guidance and move forward from there. >> but, would you support a background check for new gun sales? >> any proposal that comes up, first of all i want to read the bill. understand the bill. i read everything. i understand it. i see how they affect our state, country, debt and deficit. i vote. unlike senator shaheen who voted for obamacare without reading it, i make sure we do that.

my door is always opened on these issues. i make sure we hold a town hall to make sure we have an input from the citizens. do i agree with her on the mental health issues and the felons. not having the ability to get the hands on weapons. when in fact they are clear and mental disability is addressed, they have the ability to get off any list to have their access to their -- >> senator shaheen, 30 seconds to move on. >> well, owe talks about legislation. that's a bogus issue. that won't affect gun rights. people in new hampshire know me. when i was dwoff goff i didn't try to take their guns away. he also talks about how he reads every legislation. piece of legislation. apparently he didn't read the bill that would have closed the loopholes that reward companies for outsourcing because when we debated the last time, he said he had never voted for that bill. in fact, he voted for it, senate bill 3816. he voted for it on september 28, 2010. >> i want to get to a topic we touched on earlier under the umbrella of energy.

senator brown, you said that climate change is the result of both natural and man-made forces. accept that idea for a moment. can't do much about the natural rise. what should we do to stem the tide of the man-made damages being done? >> we need to have an all of the above approach to energy, wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, making sure everybody's at the table with any of those decisions. it's so critically important. the key is how do we strike that balance? how do we actually have the ability to enjoy our environment, enjoy the natural beauty of our state, but also have the ability to create jobs and become energy independent? we have a very real difference on that issue. she's against nuclear. she's against coal. she's against gas and oil innovation. i have supported the production tax credit. believe in innovation. believe in allowing our wind and solar folks to have an opportunity to see if it actually works. efficiency is very important. that's why we recycle. we shut off our lights.

i encourage everybody else to do it. to think we are not going to have the ability to become an energy independent, that's where we differ greatly. >> senator shaheen, please respond to that and also include whether you think a carbon tax is part of the solution, please. >> i haven't supported a carbon tax and i don't support it. but i do think the impact of climate change is very real. we see it now in our habitat. where moose is down 40% in new hampshire. our ski season being shorter. i think we've got to address it in ways that will help us in new england. i support energy efficiency. i have legislation with rob portman, republican from ohio, to address energy efishency. it would help create 200,000 jobs, save consumers over $16 billion, and be the equivalent of taking $22 million cars off the road. when we tried to pass it my opponent lobbied to kill it. not only that, he continues to support those subsidies to the oil companies. i think we should take some of that money and we should invest

it in new energy technologies and energy efficiency. in companies like synergy, i was in portsmouth, they are making gas turbines helping to clean our oil industry. we should be supporting that not continuing to support the subsidies to the oil companies. >> 30 seconds? >> energy efishen is important. when you're dealing with an energy efficiency bill, you have to include the keystone pipeline. i'm in favor of it. good union, nonunion jobs. senator shaheen's opposed to it. she's indicating she's not proposing a carbon tax issue. voted to pave the way for a national energy tax by creating a fund that would spend the money from the tax. once again only in washington is that not true as to how they are trying to spend your money before they even get it. >> senator shaheen, did you want a moment there to respond? we can move on. >> no. i have said i never supported a national energy tax. independent facts checkers say that accusation is false.

what i do support is energy efficiency. i support taking some of those subsidies that my opponent keeps wanting to give to the oil companies and investing in energy efficiency. new energy technologies because that's what gives us choices here in new jersey. >> we have a minute to go. light it up a little bit before the closing question which will come from george. charlie brown's great pumpkin is going to be on after this, i think. senator shaheen, which character in peanuts do you most closely identify with? >> lucy, of course. >> fair enough. senator brown? >> charlie brown. >> where's the football? we are going to move forward now. final portion of our debate. in lieu of that closing statement we'll have a closing question as we mentioned. it's not something that's issue based. we did draw for this order earlier today. senator brown's going to go first with that closing question from george stephanopoulos. >> first i have to say i'm a linus guy.

>> blanket and everything? >> pigpen on my end. >> senator brown, not using too strong a word to say most americans are disgusted with washington. you see record low approval ratings for congress. democrats and republicans alike. 2/3 of the country of americans believe we are going in the wrong direction. you have served in the senate before. you want to go back again. i wonder if you can reflect on what personal responsibility you take for creating that toxic environment? what will you do if you get re-elected, elected to the senate that you didn't do the last time? >> i did it last time and do it again to be that independent senator. i was 50-50 voting with both sides. we were able to get the hire veterans bill, a crowd funding, and a whole host of other legislation passed by working together. that's a very real difference. for this last six years with no pushback from our senior senator, washington has been chipping away to our rights and freedoms. telling us what to do, how to do it, and just sit down and be

quiet if you don't like it. i'm not going to stand for it and neither should you. we have an opportunity right now to be that check and balance to the president and push back against the overbearing government and what they are doing to our citizens. shipping away, as i said, with our rights and freedoms. the only way we can change direction is to change senators. senator shaheen is a nice person. i respect her greatly, but since going to washington, she's lost her independence. she's voting with the president 99% of the time. and george, you asked what i'll do. i'll be that independent senator for the people of new hampshire. i will bring back that independent spirit, fighting for our new hampshire advantage. fighting for our rights and teams -- and freedoms. that's what's missing. i want to be there to make sure i can bridge that gap. >> senator shaheen? >> yes, i think we need to change the rules of the senate. i don't think we should allow one person to hold things up in the senate. and that's what my opponent did when he was in washington. he voted for 44 filibusters. that's more than we had in this

country in the whole 50 years 2009 1917 and 1968. he also -- i sponsored twice as many bipartisan bills as he has in the senate. and i believe we've got to work across the aisle. most importantly, i believe we need a senator from new hampshire who's going to work for new hampshire. who's going to put new hampshire first. who understands that we need to give our small businesses and middle class families a fair shot at success. that's what i have done in the last six years and that's what i will continue to do. supporting things like the small business jobs act. which are helping our small businesses. i talked about dying. the funding in that bill has now helped over 00 businesses create or retain 3,000 jobs. we have seen a million people come to the united states and spend $4 million because of the travel promotion act that helps us attract visitors from outside of the state. we need somebody who's going to work for new hampshire every single day, putting the state first. that's what i will do. my opponent supported corporate stint when he was in washington.

>> believe it or not that is going to conclude tonight's debate. thanks very much to the candidates for coming in. thank to our panel and audience here in the studio. reminder, for information you can find it at wmur.com and loob for the politics page. on monday catch up on all the races during our commitment 2014 countdown to the election show. this sunday, by the way, i'll vice president a complete debate recap on close up, also on sunday you can match this week with george stephanopoulos, which i'm sure might touch on a little bit of politics. >> no question. we'll have special election coverage on the network tuesday night. great to be here. >> thanks. that does it for now. see you tonight at 10:00 on metv and right back here at 11:00. thank you. have a great night. [applause] fun fun -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> our campaign 2014 coverage will continue tonight beginning at 8:00 with the alaska senate debate where incumbent democrat mark begich faces republican dan sullivan. he's a former alaska attorney and most recently headed the state's department of natural resources. with the election four days away, here's some of the ads that alaska residents are seeing. >> i'm megan sullivan, you have seen a lot of attacks on my family so i wanted you to know the facts. alaska has been my family's home for generations. my dad is teaching my sisters and me to handle a rifle, fish, and be strong, independent, honest women. we learned a lot about sacrifice through his service in afghanistan and we are all proud of his work to protect alaskan women from domestic violence.

dad will be a great senator for alaska. >> i'm dan sullivan and i approved this message. >> when we were young our father loved to bring us here. to this spot. when things seemed impossible, i try to do what he would have done. like when i took on obama to open up drilling in the arctic, also took him on to protect our gun rights and exempt alaska schools from no child left behind. and fighting like hell to fix the health care law so it works for alaska. i'm mark begism. i approved this message because will i go anywhere and work with anyone who do what's right for alaskans. >> i served with dan sullivan in the united states marine corps. >> dan sullivan was one of those leaders that led by example. dan sullivan trained but the marines to be ready for combat and cold weather conditions. >> alaska needs a fighter. >> this country let alone this state was built by by people like sullivan.

>> he cares about his fellow alaskans and countrymen. if dan says something he's going to do, i believe him. > i'm dan sullivan and i approved this message. >> what was mark begism's real record as mayor? over 9,000 new jobs. he eliminate add $33 million deficit and invested in police, firefighters, and schools. then as senator he took on obama fix alaska's v.a. exempt our schools from no child left behind. and is taking responsibility for fixing the health care law so it works for alaska. >> i'm mark begism, aproved this message because i will go anywhere and work with anyone to do what's right for alaskans. >> m.s.n. news has this story related to the money being poured into the alaska senate race. as of early thursday morning, $22.5 million in outside money from groups or individuals not affiliated with the official campaign has been spent on senator begism's behalf. while $16.7 million has been spent to help get republican dan

sullivan elected, according to the nonpartisan center for responsive politics. the totals rise from hour to hour. in pure dollars of outside spending that makes alaska senate race the fourth most expensive in the country after north carolina, colorado, and iowa. but the $39 million has been used to sway a mere 500,000 or so voters. making the battle between begism and sullivan the pricest per capita this election season. our debate coverage continues this evening including the debate in virginia's seventh congressional district with democrat jack trammell facing republican david brat. known for unexpectedly beating eric cantor. here's a look at the ads from that campaign. >> throughout campaign 2014, c-span has brought you more than 130 candidate debates from across the country. in races that will determine control of the next congress. this tuesday night watch

c-span's live election night coverage to see who wins, who loses, and which party will control the house and senate. our coverage begins at :00 p.m. eastern with a results and analysis. you'll also see candidate victory and concession speeches in some of the most closely watched senate races across the country. throughout the night and into the morning we want to hear from you with your calls, facebook comments and tweets. campaign 2014 election night overage on c-span. >> now the second televised debate for the south dakota u.s. senate seet between democratic rick byland, former republican governor mike rounds, and now independent larry pressler, and gordon howie also an independent. the seat is opened due to the retirement of democrat tim johnson. both the political reports have changed the rating on this race from likely republican to leans republican. before the debate, though, some ads running in south dakota.

>> hey there, i'm the middle class. i know. you don't hear from me very often. no one listens to me anyway. until now. you've probably seen dick byland somewhere south. he's been out there looking. for me, for medicare, and social security, and affordable college we had a voice. i've fought for what matters for people in south dakota. this november you can make south dakota's voice in washington stronger by electing mike rounds. with mike, our state will have two senators to get our country headed back in the right direction. join me in supporting my grounds for united state senate. >> i approve this message. >> i am larry pressler and i

approve this message. the democrats are attacking me for social security votes some 30 years ago. the republicans are attacking me for background checks on guns when they know i supported the plan. on the keystone pipeline, it is dedicated to north dakota oil, not canadian tar sands oil. it is time to do something different on election day. you are going to vote for the candidate you really support, not the one other people are saying you are supposed to win. you are going to make up your own mind and vote on principle, not on blind loyalty to politicians who are not loyal to you. my name is gordon howie and i approve this message. report, thepecial

south dakota u.s. senate debate. now your moderators. evening, and welcome to this special report. you will hear from the four candidates vying for south dakota's open senate seat. is a conversation with the candidates. only the opening and closing statements will be time to come rickmy grounds, gordon, mike rounds, and pressler will be entering question. >> we determine the order of the statements in the seating arrangements. we will begin with the first opening statement with mike

rounds. >> president obama has said his policies are on the ballot this november. a vote for any one of my opponents is a vote for president obama's failed policies. governor, iota's use common sense to balance our budget every year. we hard to get good tax policy and we literally got to improve our state's economy. washington is dysfunctional. they need a good shot of south dakota common sense. tonight you will hear two different visions of what we should do with america. my opponents think the government is the answer. i disagree. i think we need less become red and more local control. our country faces major issues us.ng

thank you. have rick weiland now. votes of alle versus the wealth of the few will direct the course of this republic, that is the first sentence in the constitutional amendment that i will be introducing as your next united states senator. that is what this election and this fight is all about. politicians.s our it runs our government, and it controls the political process, and until we get the money out of our politics, we are not going to be able to help everyday folks in this country.

i think people need a chance to deserve a chance to live out their life in some dignity, deserve a child -- chance for affordable health care. i believe in the power of the american vote, and i am asking for your vote next tuesday. >> opening statements are a minute long. mr. gordon howie, your opening statement begins right now. is important we all acknowledge this has been a very unusual race. one of the things that makes it rounds is that governor is trying to present something that is not accurate. he is suggesting that we have to vote based on an inability to trust harry reid or barack obama, and the question we're hearing is as we go across the state is, is can we trust mike rounds with the senate seat?

even your opening statement, governor, was misleading. you set all your opponents apart bigger government. you know and i know that is not true. that has characterize the rounds campaign. they are perpetuating things that are not true. i hope tonight as you are listening you see that actually there is a conservative in this race, and i am running because south dakota voters deserve someone who will support -- [no audio] support. heard from three of the candidates. now former senator larry pressler, an independent candidate. your opening statement starts right up. running as an independent. i'm running as an independent to end the poisonous relationship between republicans and democrats in the united states senate so we can finally get something done. also, running as an independent i found myself right now under party,i the republican

the democratic party, and all sorts of groups aligned with them. your mailboxes are being flooded with false information about the , and the two parties are so afraid that i might win because it would disrupt the power structure in the senate. that i votedng you against social security. i did not. their television ads almost twice every 15 minutes. i just saw two of them saying i voted against social security. i did not. record ofve a 22 year voting against the government. i'm the only candidate up here with a fiscally conservative record in the united states senate and congress. i can take my seniority back to the united states senate and help south dakota. >> thank you. let's begin with our first question. with so much national attention on this race, is this race about represented south dakota or more about taking or keeping control of the senate, and if so, how is

that going to help south dakota? first question goes to mr. weiland. >> i think it is about representing south dakota. i challenged my grounds the other night at another debate to vote against mitch mcconnell. i said i will vote against harry reid at is a democratic leader. i distance myself from the democratic party because i do not think they are interested in someone who is interested in fighting the big money that controls our government. standing upll about for the people here in south dakota, which i have done all throughout this 18-month campaign. >> thank you for your response. now to mr. gordon howie. is this race about representing south dakota or taking back control of the senate? >> i think really it is about both, but i want to disagree with governor rounds when he makes the assertion that the only way to defeat barack obama's agenda is a vote for mike rounds.

that is the obama agenda. here's how that happens. compromise our conservative, traditional values, we lose every time. i believe in this race south dakota needs a voice. this is very much about who is going to support south dakota. and in the process, we can be an example to the entire country, and even to the united states senate. i believe the partisan rancor we see in the united states senate is despicable, and the people we are talking around the state to are telling us they are weary of the republican party and a democrat party. they are wary because they have not been telling them the truth. that is why i believe this race is about truth. this race is about trust. in the next united states senator from south dakota must ns someone south dakotaa can trust and restore trust and integrity to the senate. >> thank you. mr. pressler, to you, is this race about representing south

dakota or taking the trouble of the u.s. senate? >> it is about south dakota as far as i am concerned. i have a plan to start a ptsd center is south dakota. i'm a combat veteran of vietnam, the oatmeal veteran in this race. i very much want to help our veterans and also say that the in hot springs. i have a plan for our grain shippers to be able to move their grain and also have a three-point pipeline plan to build two american pipelines in north dakota to move oil to midwestern refineries so we can lower the cost of diesel fuel and distillates by a dollar a gallon. i also have a specific pressure education plan for south dakota to help our student with their student loans and grants. much amaking this very south dakota issues campaign. i started this campaign two years ago and i said i was good issuing a press release on issues twice every week, and i have done that. i am very much working hard for

the middle class people of south dakota, the small businesses who are struggling so much. i'm very proud to say that my issues-oriented campaign has made a difference already. i think we are seeing a better campaign because of my independent run. i am under attack from both republicans and democrats, and do not believe what you are seeing on tv. it is totally false, i am for social security, and what you're getting in your mailbox from the republican party, almost 180 degrees, and it is strange because i was picked one of the best republican senator's just a few years ago, and the under attack by the room up in an democratic party is merely because they're so afraid that an independent book come that will also be an independent from kansas coming, there will be four independents, and that will swing the balance in a close divided senate and we will reform the rules of the senate. >> thank you. to rounds, now your turn

internet question. is the race about south dakota or taking back control of the senate? >> in this particular case, it is about both, because if we want to help south dakota, we have to take that control of the united states senate. what are the first things we would have to do is take harry reid out as the majority leader. we have almost 400 tells on his desk that he is not letting come through. cannot passing budgets, just on time. if you take a look at the ag bill, it was not done on time. it hurt our farmers and ranchers. let's take a look first of all at obamacare. we have to repeal and replace obamacare. it is hurting people in south dakota. this is not some people of south dakota wished upon themselves. we have 17 different companies that were selling insurance in south the company -- in south dakota two groups. -- to groups. this is been a boondoggle. with individuals that have lost their doctor because of obamacare. remember the part that he said,

we are going to allow you to keep your doctor, you can keep your insurance -- we know none of that is true. now we are not only talking about repealing a replacing it, which affects people of south dakota, but also the keystone pipeline. this president's policies have been terrible for south dakota. imagine what would be like if we had that i find built already. we would have hundreds of thousands of barrels coming through south dakota already. this is critical, we got a brand-new corn crop on the ground right now. we were out there last week looking at the amount that is there. our farmers and rangers do not get paid unless they get there -- our farmers and ranchers do not get paid unless they get their grain to market. his policies are on the agenda. this is on the ballot. this president has said if we like his policies we should vote for his supporters. this president's policies are on the ballot, and a vote for any one of my competitors up here is

a vote for the continuation of those policies. this is about not just issues in south dakota, but the national one as well. they are combined. >> we want to give rick weiland a chance for rebuttal. >> this election is really about the people of south dakota. i am not obama and i am not reid, and i have been out there for the last 18 months talking to people of south dakota. mike rounds like to tell about keystone, the jobs it is going to create. the same policy he has been giving about other jobs that will be created. if we passed the ryan budget, which mike rounds supports, it trillion tax cuts for millionaires and big corporations. the average millionaire took it a $200,000 tax-cut. that means you will pay for it. they will pay for it by cutting head start, cutting the pell grant program, going after

medicare, and medicaid. i think that is wrong. obama, not about read, not about,. it is about what is best for south dakota, and the values, and that is what we i have been fighting for. >> mr. howie we, do you want to respond what you have heard so far? >> yes, i appreciate the opportunity. there is one thing that is certain that this is very much about the policies and the style of people like barack obama and harry reid. unfortunately, republicans have learned it is also about the kind of politics played by those like john boehner and mitch mcconnell. i will not support mitch mcconnell for speaker any more than i will support harry reid. my opponent governor rounds has suggested he is going to vote against harry reid, but he is silent when it comes to the power workers in washington, d.c., and mitch mcconnell. with regard to obamacare, to suggest on this program that a

vote for anyone other than the obamacares a vote for does not take into account the reality that in the state sends i introduced a health care freedom act. i had been an opponent of obamacare, government-run health care from the beginning, then governor rounds, who now says he is opposed to obamacare, sent his chief of staff to kill that effort to stop obamacare in south dakota. you heard him mention that farmers do not get paid until their grain goes to market. one thing has been certain in this recent administration of governor rounds. he got paid. one of his companies that is owned by his campaign manager and the governor got about -- in south dakota funds while his campaign manager was sitting on the governor's board. that is not the kind of honesty, integrity, and trust we need in

the united states senate. >> we need to move on to -- what do you think about the discussion so far? >> i would like to correct governor rounds in one thing. i do not always agree with president obama on very many things. i was against the resolution to impeach him, but he is our president for two more years. i just issued a sharply critical statement of president obama for sending united states troops into africa unilaterally. maybe to fight ebola. i want to see english, german, french troops there, also sharing the burden. i he does he the american taxpayer pay all the burden of this overseas military spending. i'm against our getting involved in these civil wars, and i'm foreclosing a lot of our bases overseas, and secure the border and moved to immigration reform. but for governor rounds to save that a vote for me would be a vote for obama's policies, i

have issued press releases that the people of the state note that every week i have been critical of some part of the obama policies. and in particular, in foreign policy. i should not let that pass. owner rounds, i would like you -- governor rounds, i would like you to withdraw that statement. want to see this president limited over what he does in the next two years in terms of damaging policy for south dakota and our country, let's take a look at is what is on the agenda. if you want to make a change, then a vote for anyone else up here besides myself is a vote to allow this president to remain unfettered in the use of his control. he is going to recommend judges that would not be acceptable to the people of south dakota, and harry reid will do it on a 51-person vote in the senate. he talked about the epa, 18,000 people that are out of control. if you want to control big

government, you start with the epa. specifically, let's look at what they are doing to our farmers and ranchers. they have the biggest landgrab in south dakota history. they want to control the water quality in our farm ponds and in our backyards that farmers use on a regular basis. this is crazy. at the same time, throughout this program, we are discussing whether or not the government is gordon not? these are failed -- is good or not? these are failed obama policies. i am opposing obamacare, and if we are going to stop it, we have to do it intelligently, we have to repeal it and replace on a step-by-step basis. wes is not the way we should be doing business. >> you are talking about big government -- we, we will have plenty of time to talk about this, but we need to move the

discussion along. another big issue has been south an immigrantof program. we will get to that topic coming up next. back to our news special report, u.s. senate debate. south dakota voters have heard a e state's this'e immigration program. >> our question to the candidates is, will you work with grassley to improve the program, or should the program be eliminated? >> based on what we have seen in south dakota, i am hard-pressed to say i would support the program. we have seen all of the things that folks are really weary of, everything from missing millions s and we dostigation

not know if governor brown's is a target of the investigation. million like the $1.6 that his company took from the committee would be worth looking at. i believe it transcends honesty and integrity. takes winnersself and losers, and in south dakota, south dakota taxpayers are the losers and the winners -- the winner seems to be friends and cronies with -- of former governor rounds. i think it is time that we do something different in washington, d.c.. that is something different, not send more of the same career politicians, but send someone who has got the record of standing up to powerbrokers and even party officials when they are wrong, and frequently they are. >> thank you. mr. pressler, same question. >> i would favor a new immigration bill and would vote to repeal this. that has not been the issue in

south dakota. the issue is corruption at the state level. that is what we have not have had examined and looked at. it may be we will have a ear.ened senator makes you in the first year one is vetted by the national press, and governor rounds might find himself with a substantially senator. that is why it is important we should have a complete statement of fact from the governor on this matter. there is great deal of corruption in this program. i recently brought the head of the fbi, the leading corruption fighter, in the united states, to south dakota who endorsed me. he said we need to elect honest able with honest reputations to the united states senate. he felt so strongly about the issues in the south dakota senate race that he came out here as a volunteer and endorsed

me based on the issue of honesty. he said in this race we have got to be very careful because there are so many unanswered questions. so i would point out that governor rounds in his first year in the senate will be vetted, and it could be harmful to south dakota. to repeal thisrk program or improve this program? >> i appreciate senator pressler's support and confidence. senator grassley is a friend of mine. he has been in the state, campaign for me. i have appreciated that. i have met with him several times. then your grassley is one who looks at all federal programs. this is one which has been around since 1990. every federal program out there should be reviewed. there's nothing different between this one and the rest. they should all be reviewed. that is something we have always done in south dakota, it doesn't

matter what kind of program it is. we have taken up time and looked at and done our best to review them. this one can be reviewed as well, and i would support that. as i have shared with other people, there are lots of federal programs out there that need to be reviewed. just take a look at the failed federal policies that are there right now, like obamacare. that has got to be reviewed, it has got to be repealed, it has got be replaced. look at the failure to allow us to build a pipeline, like the keystone xl. look at what is going on in western south dakota and eastern south dakota because of a federal program that says we cannot tell that pipeline. we could build it, we would have farmers and ranchers that could get their grain to market. they are not able to do that. that is an economic loom to south dakota that is not going to heaven. record crops in south dakota, we can't get it to market, why, because of another program they are not taking your. have hadident should that policy overturn a long time ago, and it will not happen when

harry reid is in charge of the senate. this president's policies are on the agenda. they are on the ballot. a vote for anyone up here is a vote for the continuation of president obama's failed policies in south dakota. this is critical -- >> we will give mr. weiland. a chance. this is a bad program for the country and turned out to be a bad program for south dakota. i would vote to repeal it. one of the first things i would do. this is big money on steroids. this is selling a path to citizenship for $500,000 for investors.eign anytime you have an intersection of big money and politics, it breeds corruption. we have seen a lot of that here in south dakota. there are more questions about eb 5 than there are answers, and the thing that i am disturbed about most about mike rounds is he has not been

willing to stand up and take any responsibility. he has not been willing to go under oath and answer the questions. he has not been willing to basically tell the truth. and when i hear him talking about the jobs that eb 5 created, which has been debunked by the south dakota press corps, it is like the jobs he talks about that keystone is going to create. halfis nothing more than truths, trying to convince people to vote for someone -- i agree with gordon how we, because i have heard him talk about medicare and how it is going to be robbed by obamacare, which has been debunked by the national, south dakota press, by this station. i have heard him wanted to talk about closing down an air force base. i have heard him talk about how

he did not know that there was a the going on between private group that was set up. it is time for some truth and honesty. i have been talking to people in south dakota. that is what they want from their next united states senator. i think mike needs to come clean tonight. >> rebuttal on this issue, mr. howie, what do you have to say? >> i believe we have seen an exercise in professional deceit in this whole race, and friendly, i'm not going to vote for rick weiland. surprise toa anyone, but it aggravates me and whensouth dakotans we hear a candidate say something that he knows is not true. governor rounds, you know that rick weiland is not going to fore ellsworth air dwight allegis tell the truth? while you're at it, why do you

give over the million and a half dollars that you and your company took from folks of south dakota? are you ready to do that tonight? let's come clean and maybe restore trust in your candidate. what. pressler, on eb 5, would you improve about this program? >> governor rounds, would you stay tonight why you think mr. -- committed suicide, why his autopsy has been suppressed. the people of the state one to know. that's good to the heart of the matter. he was her closest -- your secretary of commerce. we have not heard a statement to you as to why you think he committed suicide it or was murdered. this will all be dug out next your by the press if you're in the senate, and it will be harmful to our state. you tell us to let on a personal basis. >> have you been taking responsibility and what you have

to add? this is the kind of trash talking that has been going on for over eight a year and a half. it has been innuendo and misinformation, and in mr. howie's case, a lie. this is not of the way should we should have handled this. this is trash talking because these folks do not want do not want to talk about the real issues that are important to south dakota such as the failed obama policies. they do not want to talk about it because they do not have a vision for where we go in south dakota in the future. we do not want to talk about the issues surrounding good pipeline. they do not want to talk about their support for obama care. timewant to take as much away from the issues so they do not have defend the failed policies of obama, which the president said are on the ballot

this november. a vote for anyone of the individuals besides myself is a vote for the failed policies of obama. >> quickly on eb 5. >> south dakota wants a leader. someone who is more than willing to take credit for the good things that have happened on their watch, who is not willing to take responsibility when things go bad. we have not seen that from mike rounds. he is willing to throw everybody under the us instead of the willing to stand up and say maybe i made mistakes here and i am sorry for it and let's move on. he talks about the issues. makes --everal to several debates that he chose not to show up to because we were talking about the issues. he is sitting at home paylaining in his television ad funded by big money that we will not talk about issues, all we want to do is trash talk and talk about eb 5. i hope the people of south dakota are listening tonight,

because you are seeing the real mike rounds. he likes to speak, but he does not speak truth to power. they are falsehoods. >> we will switch gears. of 800ng to the poll voters, 60% of south dakotans support building the keystone xl pipeline, and 30% are opposed. you thinkstion is, do the pipeline will benefit south dakota and do support the project? this question goes to mr. prosser. pipeline strongly that should be altered and run through north dakota and through midwestern refineries. aul that oil all the way down to louisiana and ship it back to south dakota and the a gallonosts about $1 in terms of fuel costs. i believe we need to bang american pipelines and this should be made into an american pipeline. president obama can alter it or demand it to be altered, to go

through north dakota, is were to chicago, minnesota, wisconsin, keep the oil in the midwest. if we haul it all the way to louisiana and then have to haul of all the way back to train and truck, it will be about $1 a gallon more on your fuel bill. i have a three-point pressor pipeline plan, and i resent we're notounds saying discuss that, because we had all these debates where i presented my plan. he is not attended these. we need to bank pipelines in north dakota. it is better environmentally to move oil by pipeline than by train or truck. but we are going to have to haul it all the way back from louisiana by train or truck under the governor rounds plan. i would go to see president obama and say that please alter, please demand the xl pipeline be altered so it's not go across our precious water supply. we have very little potable drinking water, and i want to protect the water reservoir.

to all that oil eastward to midwestern refineries where it would stay in the region and your gas bill will be about a dollar less and distillates and diesel fuel, about a dollar 50 last per gallon. mr. rounds, you support the pipeline. go ahead. >> i do support the keystone pipeline. shovel ready. is it was set up six years ago to be successful. private industry knew we would have a million barrels a day coming out of north dakota. this president has failed to respond to that. even though his own state department has said there will be 42 thousand jobs created, direct and indirectly in south dakota, over 3000 jobs, over $20 million in new tax revenue coming in, and this is a company that wants to pay us. schools ins and south dakota, western south dakota. this is good for south dakota.

it is good for america because it allows us to continue with creating an energy independent country. keystone xl pipeline brings not just canadian oil done, but also 100,000 barrels of north dakota crude. as 10 unit trains -- that is 10 unit trains where we will not be taking oil out of north dakota, and it makes it available for bringing crane at of south dakota. some people will say that is a drop in the bucket. right now we will have more and il developed in north dakota. these farmers and ranchers in south dakota will get less on a bushel basis. here's what is happening. all the interchanges going east of you are filled with trains coming out of north dakota that are filling them up, blocking the way so our trains cannot get to where they would normally go to job off corn. we have corn, wheat, soybeans sitting on the ground. in order to move it, it used to

take two weeks to get our grain from south dakota to where they would drop it, and now takes two weeks, which means our producers have to rent israel cars for next week, and that extra cost comes directly out of their paycheck. this is an economic catastrophe waiting to happen. we're seeing it happen because this president's failed economic policies and misunderstanding about how we get this oil to market safely is hurting us directly. this is wrong. >> we need to move on. can journal weiland respond. do you think it will benefit south dakota? >> i do not, and it will not paid very easy. you do your homework. look up the facts. mike is making up because he is getting his information from big oil. we have everything to lose. this is not a jobs bill for the country, people. we're talking 35 permanent jobs and maybe 1800 temporary jobs. that is like macy's hiring

holiday workers for two weeks. this is not energy security for south dakota for the country. this energy is being pumped through a pipeline down to port arthur texas, and going overseas to be used over there. it has nothing to do with energy security. this has -- this is the new argument went from big oil, has nothing to do with freeing up the rail lines. that is another big oil argument that they are trying to make because they are blocked one on jobs and lost one on energy security. the folks of their public out that crude, they want that to go are notast coast, they interested in putting the pipeline in. big oil is so desperate and have mike roudn in her hi pocket that they will say anything to convince this is good. i know 60% think this is a good deal, but unitary the propaganda

from mike rounds for far too long. it would have been easy for rick weiland to roll over. but at the heart of this, it is a pipeline that can break, it would wipe out that aquifer. families lot of farm and ranchers that would be out of business. is it worth it for no jobs and no energy? the whole-grain thing that mike is making up, is it worth running that pipeline through our state and his country? i do not think so. >> mr. howie? >> i agree with most south dakotans that this pipeline is a net gain for south dakota and friendly for america. but the larger question is are we going to have a united states senate that will work together and develop a comprehensive energy program. we have seen that failed by the

isd of leadership that demonstrated with mitch mcconnell and harry reid. they have both failed us miserably. a net positive, but i just cannot stop my time without challenging the governor. he sat here and said it was a flat-out lie that his company took $1.6 million from his committee for his company. i'm asking you, you category tonight tonight at press reports? >> we are talking about the keystone xl pipeline. any more thoughts on keystone xl? >> i'm waiting for response from the governor on his assertion that i was telling something that was not true, when it has been reported in the media. >> mr. pressler, the bottle on the keystone xl pipeline? >> where governor rounds is wrong is you cannot carry north dakota crude in the same pipeline as tar sands oil. that is a lie that is been told

to by the oil companies. keystone, original plan was to move canadian tar sand oil to louisiana. far,hat they are under they say we will put some north dakota crude in there. you cannot. i looked at an engineering report today. that would be impossible to do. our shipper should be told that. we need to bang american pipelines running in north two american pipelines taking them to midwestern refineries and bringing it back to south dakota. this is absurd. the keystone pipeline cannot carry north dakota crude. >> with all due respect to senator pressler, i talked directly to the individuals who are building the keystone xl-i. they are clear they have reserved 10% of the allowable space on that pipeline to bring north dakota crude, which is a light, sweet crude, different than the tar ssands.

they would not say that if it were not true. they can set it up. it is not mixed, but set up in separate segments, run to the same pipeline. one of the thing the opponents to the keystone say is this will contribute to global warming, and the message is it will continue global warming because it will reduce the cost to the american consumer by six cents a gallon. will bey think wile burning more fuel. those same petroleum refineries down along the coast are actually right now processing venezuelan crude. this is a replacement for venezuelan crude. we become more energy independent. we're actually processing our own oil with this pipeline. >> a chance to talk air. >> 10% demand that they will set aside -- have a talk to the folks that are exploring and pulling out the sweet crude? no.

big oil is a conspiracy here right now going on between keystone and mike rounds wanted to build this pipeline. the folks up there want to send it to the east coast, mike. they do not want to send it through a pipeline down to texas and over to china. it is not about jobs, not about energy security. it is certainly not about ars to movegrain c our corn, and what it is about them a friendly, and i will tell you at the end of the day, what is this all about? it is about greed, about making millions and millions and millions of dollars and threatening -- >> thank you. we need to get mr. howie a chance here. >> thank you. yet heard that 60% of south dakotans approve construction of the pipeline. what that tells us is 40% of them do not. i believe that both the 40% and the 60% -- >> 30% -- >> well, the undecided business

had a lot to do with the kind of leadership that we have seen in america. and frankly in south dakota of late. i believe if we are going to be productive and effective at projects like the pipeline, we need to have leaders that we can all theinstead of argument about all the information and misinformation. wouldn't it be refreshing if we just had a leader we could trust? >> mr. howie, thank you for your answer. discuss beforeto our conversation with the candidates wraps up. stay with us. welcome back to the u.s. senate debate. >> concert judge a proposal to put restrictions on high-capacity magazines last year. our question for the candidates, do you support this type of gun?control mr. rounds, you get the first response. >> thank you. i am the endorsed candidate of

the national rifle association, and that is for a reason. i believe in protecting our second amendment rights. i think the new attacks are going way too far. i will not support those. the idea behind the second amendment was to make sure that our constitutional rights to bear and carry arms would not be -- right now is to take little bits and pieces out. the whole final response on this is you cannot allow the federal government to make chink after chink into our second-amendment rights. the only people that will not have guns are those that are law abiding. the criminals will still have theirs. to be this is a simple issue, the second amendment rights should be defended, and in south dakota it is not just about the defense of individuals, it is also about the quality of life we get. i've saw a gun the other day, got it for my kid, because i

wanted to pass down that heritage to the next generation. if this continues on the way it is, we may not have that right again. some of us have to stand up and say we understand that a gun is a tool and it should be respected, and we have to train young people to do that correctly. we should not be making all these crazy new ideas saying some person suggesting that assault rifle is one thing or you cannot have a shotgun with more than so many shells and it, that is wrong. >> thank you. we will give mr. weiland a chance. do you support putting restrictions on high-capacity magazines? >> i believe in the second amendment. i think sometimes democrats get pigeonholed as being against guns and the second amendment. i believe the second amendment should not be put on the table. people push back sometimes, and i have to disagree with mike here. we had another school shooting last week. we need some kind of legislature process that would allow us to

do universal background checks, that would try to the best we can with our technology to ensure that mentally ill people and criminals do not have readily accessed to firearms. i do not think that is radical, traveled, i asked people who've shown up at my meetings, what they think. that seems to be pretty common sense. mike wants to talk about common sense. i think a majority of south dakotans are with me on that. and ari is not your grandfather or your dad's nra. they become a very narrow focused group that frankly i think is being driven somewhat by big money, special interests, and the arms manufacturers that do not want any kind of common sense legislation, and i think that is unfortunate. we can do better by our kids, by

our students, by our teachers, by our administrators. we can do better by our people. >> thank you. mr. howie, do you support rejections on high-capacity magazines? >> the gun owners of america just issued their voting scorecard and rated me the highest of any candidate running for federal office in south dakota. i do not have the celebrity politicians endorsing me. i do know that i want them. what i found interesting is those celebrities come to south dakota and perpetuate this deception that says somehow governor rounds is the only pro-gun candidate in this race, the only pro-life candidate. my record of support for conservative, traditional values is clear, is crystal clear, and the reason that that misdirection and misinformation is perpetuated is an attempt to keep my record in the back room

and cover frankly for a record on those two issues that the governor is weak on. >> thank you. mr. pressler, your feelings on putting restrictions on assault-style rifles? >> this is where one of the biggest lies is being told about me by governor brown's and others in mailings. i support the bob dole plan which requires some background checks if you buy an assault weapon. that does not mean that you are for stricter gun controls. i'm a hunter, but we need to do something about the killings in our high schools and in our schools. .hat is the present law i cannot see why governor rounds and the nra is against it. i think it is a very appropriate thing that before one buys an assault weapon that there be some background check so we are not selling them to people with severe mental problems or a record. almost every case where there has been a problem has been where someone has been able to

buy gun who should not have been able to. but that is a lie to say that i am for gun control and all those and tv ads and do not believe them. i have only 140 thousand dollars in my campaign fund. there been $15 million worth of negative ads run against me and a lot of them in this area. i am for the bob dole gun plan, the republican plan, that calls for some ground checks on assault weapons. >> we will stick to rebuttals here. we will go to the affordable care act. is it realistic to repeal and replace the law. mr. weiland, your response? >> i came out early and said we can make this better for everybody, give them an option to buy into medicare. medicare serves south dakotans well. --,000 south the countenance are supported by

medicare. to be forced to have to compete with medicare, you might be a little bit problematic for him because they may have to cut that sellers of their ceo's. medicarevery dollar collects goes to pay for health care. that is not the same when it comes to big insurance. i think giving people a choice between medicare and big insurance will bring down the cost of health care for everyone. website it talks about the need affordable health care insurance. i say, mike, join me, and let's make medicare part of it. i have asked him to debate me with about that, and he is refused to do it. big money did not want medicare as an option because they had contributions and

the lobbyists, and they killed it when it was bidding decided in washington. >> mr. howie, goal head, affordable care act. it does not come as a surprise to anybody in south dakota. i like governor rounds' suggestion that we should repeal replaced. i think we should repeal the entire law and replace one that supports it, and, governor, that includes you. >> mr. pressler, on to you about the informal care act. >> the aca illustrates why am running as an independent. the absurdity of political debate in this country. this plan was started by governor romney, whom i supported and gave money to, and he is a friend of mine. then carried out by president obama. if romney had won the election, it would be called -- it would mneycare, and

already is would support it. because it is called a bum a care, all the democrats supported. it is about the same thing. we need some form of the affordable care act. county commissioners said they needed because they can -- >> we have to move on to mike rounds, 30 seconds. >> we have to repeal and replace obamacare. $2.4 trillion. it has not been fully implemented yet. it will take away choice. it takes away choices for individual patients. using medicare for everybody is a terrible idea, as medicare is subsidized by the private insurance industry picking up the difference between the actual cost and what medicare pays. it does not work. if you do it, you will see medicare go away as it exists today. if you do not want medicare to

isst, and follow what rick suggesting because it will cease to exist as we know it today. >> thank you. we will be right back after this break. >> welcome back to our special report. those in statements. mr. rounds, you go first. >> tonight you have heard my vision, my vision for america. i want to start to bring south dakotan common sense to washington. we have to repeal and replace obamacare. the. to get the pipeline in the ground. let's protect our constitutional right. this is critical to south dakotans. we have to take that south dakota common sense and keep it and send it to washington so that some things -- you of her divisions, my vision tonight, what you have also heard from from my opponents. you have not heard a vision from that. you have heard them trash me. that is because they did not have a vision. they will have to defend the failed approaches and policies

of president obama. a vote for any one of my competitors is a vote for president -- for this president's policies. south dakota deserves better. the stakes are too high. i am asking for your vote and your support. thank you. >> now to you, mr. weiland. >> i think this election is about a fight for the middle class. this election is about trust and leadership. i have been spending a lot of time talking to people of south dakota, and i know what they're looking for, they are looking for some honesty, for someone who will fight for them every day in the united states and the, someone who is just going to fight and be on their side. this election is about getting money out of our politics and out of our government and out of who boastcs of people about raising $9 million. there cannot be a starker difference between mike rounds

and i when it comes to this election and our hopes for this country. i believe in the promise of america. i really do. i believe in equal opportunity for everyone. mike rounds supports that paul ryan budget, which squashes it opportunity because it goes after programs that invested the middle class. we can do better. i believe in the power of the road and am asking for your vote next tuesday. >> thanks for the opportunity. this senate seat is a sacred trust, and i believe this election is very much about who can we trust.can we trust to repartition's? -- can we trust career politicians? george washington was the example for politicians in this nation. he was not looking for a career advancement. he was looking for an american [no audio] never be aould

career. it should be a calling. it is a call to service come to god and country. i'm asking for your support for conservative, traditional values, and i will guarantee if you look at my record you will see i will be a strong -- values that south dakota holds dear, conservative, traditional values. >> mr. pressler, the final word before election day. fourere will probably be independents in the senate. i was endorsed by angus king who wants me to join him as an independent. it appears there will be an independent senator elected from kansas. those four will challenge the senate rules and get things moving again. the personalities may be changed, but we must change the senate so we actually vote on things so we get some things done. i can take my senior party back to the senate to fight for south dakota. south dakota has 22 years of

senior party invested in me, and i came out of semi retirement as a professor to run out of idealism. for one limited term, i will only serve six years. incumbent senators had to spend 52% of their time raising money. i have to raise any money. i can work 100% of my time for the people of south defend. i can take my seniority, fight for the state of south dakota as far as rail service is concerned citizens,rs, senior and i am for increasing social security. do not believe the ads. >> we would like to thank all four candidates for periodic tonight's debate. watch for more details coming up at 10:00. >> thank you for joining us. >> the aberdeen news of south dakota ranks mike rounds is well positioned to be elected to the

senate, according to a new poll. eiland making modest improvement. the survey was conducted between october 31 -- 21 and last sunday shows that 43% supporting former governor rounds, 19% for larry backing cordon howie. howie.on it will be a weekend full of debates on c-span, looking ahead to sunday when we bring you a georgia senate debate between michelle nunn and david purdue. 11:00 a.m. eastern. here are a look at some of the ads running in that state. >> i approve this message. today it is the leading

manufacturer of power cable in north america. when i hear david produce a he is proud to have outsourced jobs , i have to wonder, every time we invest in georgia workers, they can compete with anyone in the world. so i do not know how you can be proud of having sent american jobs overseas. purdue helped create and save thousands of jobs right here in america. all michelle nunn seems to do is attack david. we want to know where she is on jobs, education, national security. >> that his support. >> we need a new direction. >> that is david perdue. >> david purdue. >> i approve this message. >> i am michelle nunn and i approve this message. david purdue is defending his career. acknowledginge

he used both of his career moving jobs overseas. >> can you describe your experience with outsourcing? i spentesponded, yeah, most of my career doing that. >> i am proud of it. >> david purdue, he is not for you. >> michelle nunn admits she is too liberal and her foundation gave money to organizations linked to terrorists. attacked david purdue with ads that independent fact checkers called mostly false and a stretch. david purdue spent his career creating thousands of jobs. perdue will grow this economy and bring common sense to washington. >> i approve this message. >> >> now on to the main senate race, last week debate was the first time incumbent susan

collins and opponent shenna bellows shared the stage. senator collins leads by no less than 20 points in polls. ♪ >> i'm jennifer rooks. welcome to "your vote 2014." the united states senate debate. our partner for tonight's forum is the bangor region chamber of commerce, and we are coming to you from the gracie theater on the campus of husson university in bangor. the debate will feature broad discussions and a lightning round. the republican candidate is