tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 21, 2012 6:00am-7:00am EDT
aarp conference in new orleans. now, a massachusetts senate debate between scott brown and democrat and elizabeth warren. she is a harvard law professor. this hourlong debate is courtesy of wbz-tv in boston. >> good evening, and welcome to the massachusetts senate debate. we are welcoming our listeners onwbz radio -- on wbz radio 1040.
welcome to the candidates. they are scott brown, the incumbent elected to the senate in 2010. and the challenger, elizabeth warren, a professor at harvard law school. before we began, a brief bit of information about our format. we will have an open. of rebuttal and debate period -- period of rebuttal and debate. the hard and fast rules, no talking over each other and no interrupting. by prior arrangement, mr. brown, you will take the first question. before we get into the policy
issues that will dominate this debate, let's give something out of the way. at times during this race, each of your campaign has appeared to question the character of your opponent. opponentoet's -- your 's character an issue in this debate? >> first, i would like to thank professor warren for coming out. i would like to think the viewers. i have been a center for two and a half years. being a center has been the greatest honor i have ever had. what you are referring to is the fact that professor warren claimed she was a native american, a person of color. as you can see, she is not. she checked the box. she had an opportunity to make a decision. she checked the box claiming she was a native american.
clearly, she is not. i do not know whether she got a head as a result of that check- in of the box. the only way we will be able to find that out is to have her release her personal records and to have heart -- harvard released their personnel records to see if she got advantages others were not entitled to. that is an issue of character, honor, and truthfulness. she has failed that test. >> ms warren, is your opponent's character an issue in the race? >> thank you. it is good to be here. senator brown, good to see you. i will start by saying i think senator brown is a nice guy. what this race is about is about the issues.
it is not when someone says a few good things some of the time, but what someone says all of the time. senator brown wants to raise an issue about my character. i will lay it out there. when i was going up, these are the stories i knew about my heritage. my mother and my father and my aunts and my uncles -- i believed them. i did know this about my parents. the mother and dad loved each other very much. it wanted to get married. my father's family said no. my mother was part delaware and part cherokee. that was a good part of the separation in our family. i never used it for getting into college. i never used it for getting into law school. people who hired me for my jobs all made clear they did not know about it until long after i was hired. it is out there with the story
is. what i want this race to be about is the issues, not about my family, but about families across the commonwealth of massachusetts. >> thank you. rebuttal? >> i know you are a good teacher and a hard worker. this is about character. this is about something that can be answered easily. all she has to do is release her personal records and she has refused to do so. that speaks volumes. this is about issues as well. this race is clearly about issues. i will not be voted with the democrats' 100% of the time or the republicans -- democrats 100% of the time. i will go for the good idea of
regardless of who is irresponsible for it. >> let's be clear about this. this is my family. this is who i am. this will not change. it is also clear how i got hired. the men solicited -- chosen to be the solicitor general of the united states has said he voted for senator brown. he said he did not know about it. nobody in harvard knew about it until long after i was hired. they interviewed more than two dozen people involved in hiring through the years. the people who hired me have spoken. i did not get an advantage because of my background. this is about family. i cannot and will not change to i am. i am fuld i am. -- i am who i am.
>> the only way to set this record straight is for you to release your personal records. that will say whether or not you checked the box to get an advantage. you refuse to release your records. i think that speaks volumes. >> i think this has been made clear. it blew hired me are the ones to say they knew about my background. the question has to ask and answer. the senator does not like the answer. >> you both have had your peace on that. this next question, you will start, ms. warren. the unemployment rate is on the rise here. this question was submitted from cbs.com. how and where will the most new jobs be created in
massachusetts? what will you do in the senator -- the senate to spur job creation? >> we have to have a long-term plan for jobs which have to do with leveling the playing field so people -- businesses have a chance to compete and create jobs. we also have work that need to be done. my view is we should put people to work. that is what i was so surprised when senator brown voted against three jobs bills in a row, jobs bills that would have put 20,000 people -- that would have supported 22,000 jobs in the commonwealth of massachusetts. it would have to present -- prevented the layoffs of teachers and firefighters. it would have supported 11,000 jobs in construction in
massachusetts. we put into jobs bills and get work done that needs to be done. that is how we get this economy started. we get people back to work. those families have paychecks. small businesses have more customers coming in. i want to go to washington to fight for jobs. >> thank you. mr. brown? >> i have been down there working four jobs. the three jobs bills you referred to would have raised your taxes $450 billion. it was a bipartisan rejection. they were rejected by democrats and republicans because they recognize taking more money out of hard-working businesses and individuals and giving it to the federal government is not a good idea. i will not be a part of it. each of the bill i have been working on is clear.
we passed a bill that would have affected our contractors doing work with the federal government. the new crowd funding piece of legislation, the new way of creating jobs. i was at the cambridge innovation center and saw that there is a plan to create $1 million online and they have investors to create more and more opportunities for our job creators. as a result of that, the third vote i took was the jobs bill that got money out of the door. we did it without raising taxes. professor warren's proposal according to the national federation of independent businesses takes more money out of your pocketbook and wallace and would cut jobs nationwide. >> let's talk about those three
jobs bills. i met last week with a carpenter. he has talked about house by the work has been. sometimes there is work in a lot of times there is not. there are three jobs bills that would have supported jobs in the commonwealth of massachusetts. it would have been paid for by a flat tax on people making more than $1 million a year. these were fully paid for jobs bills. that is what i do not understand. when i talk to people in the commonwealth who are struggling, i do not understand how senator brown can reject one jobs bill, another one to protect teacher'' of firefighters, and a third one for construction workers. -- teachers and firefighters and a third one for construction workers. senator warren is lining up with
republicans. >> maybe you should tell richard that we have this regulatory and tax uncertainty because of your policy to raise $300 trillion on the backs of our citizens. that is what people will have to pay for. the national federation of independent business said her policy would cut 700,000 jobs a with-7000 jobs, 1700 here in masses -- 7000 jobs, 1700 in massachusetts. if you want somebody to spend your tax dollars, give them to professor warren. she will spin them. >> i want to comment on this tax policy senator brown has come up with. it is not real. the senator has decided to let
taxes go up on hard-working families. the bill would extend tax cuts for 90% of the families in massachusetts and 98% of small businesses. why did he vote no? because there weren't enough tax breaks for the top two% in the top 3%. this is a question -- 2% or the top 3%. who are you working for? >> you are misrepresenting my record. the only person in this race who is hurting the middle class and words -- was to raise taxes is professor warren. she said she would not have supported president obama's compromise bill, which took care of unemployment benefits. she said she would not have
supported that because of the tax high we did not income earners more. this is about 700,000 jobs. i did not make those numbers up. these are all things you have said. another $1 trillion in social security. we could go on. >> a response? >> these are made up numbers. we know how senator brown vote. he voted on bills that would have permitted taxes to go up on 98% of the families in the commonwealth. here is an important point. just last friday, senator brown went on the radio. when asked if it came down to it and the question was extend tax breaks so taxes do not go up for
98% of families or let them go up because there are enough breaks for the top 2%, senator brown said let me make this crystal clear, i will vote to let taxes go up for everyone. i want to say i make it crystal clear. i will not vote to increase taxes on working families. not ever. >> this is an important issue. i appreciate the opportunity. the bottom line is, what she is referring to is that we of already had a tremendous amount of tax revenue is in washington. when she is talking about raising taxes and the fact that i will not raise them, i will not raise taxes on of the job creators on corporations and small businesses and are considered the so-called wealthy. i will fight for every taxpayer. her criticism of me is that i will not raise taxes and that is
an accurate criticism. >> i want to be clear on what senator brown has said. he has said he would extend the time 2% and top 3% so they will not have to have tax breaks and he will hold the other 98% of families hostage. that would cost american families $2.10 trillion. we cannot do that to hard- working, middle-class, working class families. >> i do want to move on, if i may. >> the u.s. chamber of congress says prof. warren's tax policy is a threat to free enterprise. her tax policy would cut 700,000 jobs, 17,000 in massachusetts. i am going to protect the hard- working men and women, the job creators, the people getting up
in the middle of the ninth creating jobs and protecting those interested. -- those interests. >> the chamber of congress has not talked about my particular proposals. i am talking by how scott brown has already been talking about what he said in his own voice and what he said he wanted to make crystal clear. he would let taxes go up for 90% of families in order to protect tax breaks for the 98 -- for the top 2%. >> this coming years data may not be a happy one if nothing is done to stop -- new year's day may not be a happy one if nothing is done to steer us away from the so-called fiscal cliff. you've got to have argued quite a bit over tax policy, including just now.
i do not think anyone argues that tax policy alone will forestall the cuts. what other specific ideas do you have for avoiding this economic hit? 90 seconds. >> we have the expiring tax cuts that have been in place 12 years. we also have sequestration. we have the debt ceiling coming up. a complete lack of regulatory and tax certainty. people are hurting and scared. there are many things we can do. we should be doing it now. we should be working on these things. the last market -- month and half on break, we should have been working on this, stepping back from sequestration, looking to reform our tax code, looking at waste, fraud, and abuse, reducing corporate tax rates to make us more competitive. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized
world. we cannot continue to tax and spend our way out of this. the difference between me and professor warren is that we want -- she wants to raise taxes. everything is reflecting on her comments on $3.40 trillion in new taxes. the nfib said 700,000 jobs would be lost. the thing that most important, the only way we will get this done is to work together in a bipartisan manner. i am the only one in this room right now who is going to be doing that. i am the most -- the second most bipartisan senate term. >> this is a really important time for us. we have to avoid the cliff. this is quick to take a balanced approach. this is where we see the difference between senator brown
and myself. we need to make cuts in agriculture subsidies. we need to end the war in afghanistan that is $2 billion per week. we also need to ask others to pay their fair share. for example, we should not be subsidizing big oil. senator brown voted to protect billions of dollars in subsidies for big oil companies. they made one of this -- $137 billion in profits last year. billionaire should pay at least as much in taxes as their secretaries did. senator brown has said he will permit the taxes to rise for 98% of the families in the commonwealth of massachusetts and 97% of the small businesses unless there are tax breaks for the very top. this is about taking a balanced approach.
it is a serious problem and we thought the would-we have got to get serious about it. -- and we need to get serious about it. >> thank you. rebuttal. >> we have an opportunity in massachusetts for people who want to pay their fair share and pay more than their fair share. they can check a box. professor warren is always taking the first approach as raising taxes. she had an opportunity to check another box. that was to pay more in massachusetts income tax and she chose not to do that. it is usually the ones who are yelling the loudest about paying more that actually do not do their fair share. that being said, in regard to oil companies, i am not a friend of oil companies. i am not sure if you have been to the pomp lately, but $4 a
gallon. -- the gas pump lately, but $4 a gallon. i have vote to close the oil subsidies. let's have that conversation. the key is to do it together in a bipartisan manner. >> rebuttal. >> this is how senator brown has already voted. the oil companies made $137 billion in profits last year. senator brown vote that taxpayers would continue to subsidize them to the tune of billions of dollars per year. i think that is wrong and i would not do that. billionaires are paying that tax rates lower than their secretaries. i think that is wrong. senator process that is ok. he will protect each one of those loopholes. he will let taxes go up for each one of our families. this is serious. this is how the senator hatch vote.
it is not in the interests of small businesses -- this is how the senator has voted. >> when she fails to point out is that the oil votes and the irish into producers -- those were rejected in a bipartisan manner. democrats and republicans rejected those proposals because they realize that in a recession and with the high cost of energy, people are paying more than double at the gas pump. when you are paying that oil bill, it is going to be skyrocketing. to change policy in the middle of a recession, in the middle of our tourist season, is not a good time. to say that we are going to -- the first answer every time -- she is obsessed with raising taxes. >> i am concerned about how the senator hatch voted.
he wants -- senator has voted. this is really about how to solve a financial problem. giving breaks to those at the top, those already making billions of dollars in profits, that is not how we solve our financial problem. that is not how we get the economy started again. this is about whose side you stand on. he has made it clear. he stands for subsidies for oil companies, breaks for millionaires, the top getting special deals, not for working families and small businesses. that is why i am in this race. >> there is only one person in this race not willing to raise taxes. i do not want to take more tax money and put it in a piggy bank to give to professor warren and spend. there is a spending problem in
washington, d.c. we raise -- waste hundreds of billions of dollars in your tax money. you want to talk about energy policy, that should be a discussion we should have. when, so long -- solar, hydro -- we need and all of the above approach. we are in an energy crisis right now. people are paying so much at the gas pump and they will be paying so much of this winter to change the policy. we need to work on it together. >> i just think we have to be clear about what is involved in our economic proposals. since the brown -- senator brown and i both submitted our economic proposals to the boston globe. they discovered that my approach, which is balanced, is 67% more effective than its
senator brown's approach for cutting the deficit. we cannot get therapy way the senator -- we cannot get theire the way the senator has proposed. we cannot do that here in massachusetts or here in america. >> 10 seconds each. go ahead. >> i have never voted for a tax increase. i am trying to protect your tax money and your wallet. >> i am 67% more effective for cutting the deficit. we have to get serious and that means a balanced approach. >> we will take a break. when we continue, we will talk
when you ever voted for a supreme court nominee who opposed the abortion rights of roe v. wade? >> i would not. and i do not regarded as a litmus test. roby lake -- roe v. wade is that law and women should be able to count on this. when elena kagan came up, she was a pro-choice woman who had been solicitor general of the united states. when she was nominated to the united states supreme court -- she is from here in massachusetts -- i was surprised when senator brown voted against her. this may be a race for control of the senate. the supreme court may hang in the balance. >> thanks for that question. i am sorry you did not vote for your boss. i know you and justice kagan are
close. there is a litmus test for me. a judge has to have good judicial character and a good temperament and have some courtroom and judicial experience. that is why i did not votes for justice kagan. that being said, when it comes to your question about protecting women's writes, i have been fighting for women's - - rights since i was a teenager. my mother was abused by one of my stepfather's. i have been fighting for women for a long time. if people make clear that they will change roe v. wade, i will voted against that person. i vote for allowing women in combat. if women are raped in key military, i make sure they give
the care that they deserve. we agree on those issues and i am glad for it. >> once again, it is important to talk about the senator's records. senator brown has taken some good votes. he has vote for equal pay for equal work. he jumped out there and co- sponsored a bill to potentially block insurance coverage for birth control. senator brown voted against a pro-choice woman. senator brown has been endorsed by anti-choice groups. i do not understand it. the way i see this is, the women in massachusetts deserve a senator they can count on not some of the time, but all of the time. >> you should stop scaring women, professor. i have been fighting for women since i was 6 years old.
i will fight for the rights of catholics to practice their faith. i will not put women against their church and their faith. i want people to have contraception care. i have a house full of women, my wife and two daughters. i will continue to make sure they have that care and coverage. i will not put women against their church and their faith. i have the same position as senator kennedy in providing a cut this exemption for hospitals and health-care facilities that a conscious -- a conscience exemption for hospitals and health-care facilities. >> i did not hear senator brown comment on why the voted against equal pay for equal work. it was not a religious freedom question.
but this was really about is the bill itself. it said in the insurance company or any employer can raise any moral objection to covering any preventive services, including birth control. this was an open invitation to say to employers of any shrived and to say to insurance companies, you cannot out birth control coverage for women. that is what the but amendments said. senator brown not only -- that is what the blunt amendment said. he all take for it. >> that is an incorrect characterization -- he voted for it. >> that is an incorrect characterization of the blunt amendment. we protect women and allow them to get the care that they deserve.
we protect the churches and hospitals and people of faith who want to practice their faith. i am going to run out of time, so i will come back to be fair pay for women. i have a house full of women. of course i want them to get their pay. when the u.s. chamber of commerce agreed -- i will not give an early christmas to go in to businesses and make sure they all regulate our businesses and kill jobs. i agree with the globe. >> this was equal pay for equal work and senator brown voted against it. let's be clear about the language of the blunt amendment. it does not talk about a religious exemption. it talks about any moral objection. it talks about insurance companies. i do not think that is what
senator can be fought for. it is inappropriate for senator brown to characterize senator kennedy's work in that way. senator kennedy fought for women to have a full range of health- care services. >> we are both pro-choice. we both support roe v. wade. she is wrong. i will make sure the catholics are not pitted against their faith. on the women's rise in terms of their pay, we have laws on the books,lillie ledbetter is already in effect. anyone who feels they are discriminated against can bring positive action. the boston chamber of commerce -- chamber of commerce -- i agree with them. i will not give lawyers an early christmas present. >> senator brown can say all of
he wants, but he has voted against equal pay for equal work. he was a co-sponsor of the blunt amendment. when many someone they can depend on, not some of the time, but all of the time. >> senator brown, you will go first. under what circumstances would you all today to authorize american military intervention in the affairs of another country. thus involvement in afghanistan fit your criteria or not? -- does involvement in afghanistan fit your criteria or not? >> thank you for the question. i have the opportunity to be on the armed services committee. these are things i think about on a regular basis. when we send our men and women off to war, that is the toughest decision any president can make. i supported president obama in his surge in afghanistan and i
supported the withdrawal. it gives the enemy to pick us off one by one. anytime we are sending people off to war, we have to make sure a few things are in play. that our national security is at stake. what happened in libya and other countries and in iran, there is a lot of trouble throughout the world. we need to make sure whatever we do that we are involved in the process, that the president comes to congress, lays out what the ground work is and we have a full understanding as to why we are doing it. we are in trouble. there are a lot of things happening overseas that are unsettling right now. i know i am running out of time. i will probably come back if that is all right. >> criteria for military intervention and afghanistan. >> this is a question personal
for me. all three of my brothers served in the military. my oldest brother was a real military. i know what families do when somebody is deployed overseas. the military is strong and resourceful. they get anything done we ask them to do. we asked them what our interests are threatened anywhere around the globe, when we see direct threats, when we have a plan to invade and a plan for how we will take it forward, and they plan for how we will exit. we have to have the whole plant. i would like to mention the approach used by secretary clinton. she hasn't been as the idea of using smart power. we use -- she has advanced an idea called using smart power. i want president obama to stay
on as commander and chief. -- commander in chief and i will support secretary clinton. >> i want to thank your brothers for their service. it is really amazing. i would like to have an opportunity to speak to your brother about those missions. when you talk about those issues, we cannot have a nuanced approach. the professor has said, in dealing with iran, we should have a nuanced approach. president obama understood that. he has drawn a harder line. that is a good thing. our biggest challenge for israel is iran and making sure they do not get a nuclear weapon. i am proud that we will be working on another resolution to draw that line in the sand to let iran know where we stand. i worked on a bill to destabilize iraq's central bank. we need to do more and we need
to do it with our -- to destabilize iran's central bank. we need to do more and we need to do it with our allies. >> president obama has done an outstanding job of using the tools in the tool box and try to bring effective sanctions against iran. he is taking nothing off of the table. that is the way to go with negotiations. that is the best way to work with our ally israel and to make sure we are protecting israel. i am a working to have president obama to become the commander in chief, not mitt romney. >> i agree with you again. i think secretary clinton is doing a great job. i have told her that and i think she is a bright star in that administration. i appreciate of her hard work. she is a tireless worker. that being said, israel is our
greatest ally in that region. i have encourage the president to meet with the prime minister to make sure they can communicate. i visited israel. the amount of stress that country is under the -- there is nobody in the united states senate -- we are making that a top priority to make sure iran is not getting nuclear weapons. we cannot have a nuanced approach. >> on the question of israel, we have an unbroken friendship with israel. we have a special relationship with israel. of utmosturvival is importance to us. we need an ally in that region that is democratic and committed to the rule of law. we realize the risks to israel's safety. the bipartisan approach has worked through democratic and republican administrations.
it is not something that should be politicized. i am not here supporting president obama. i want to see him stay as commander and chief. i want to continue working with him. >> i want to move on to our next question. we will start with ms. warren. the united states has 100,000 janitors which caught -- with college degrees. evidence that not everyone should be going too costly conventional colleges. do you agree or disagree with that and what ideas for college reform do you have? >> let's start with part of it. when we see people who have college diplomas to have jobs that do not require college diplomas, that is because we have an economy that is not yet strong and we are not producing enough growth. this is because we have not been making the investments in our
future. i want to be clear about this. i meet people to help the commonwealth of massachusetts. it worked hard. take that out there and they get their diplomas. i met someone in worster who said, i cannot find a job. i moved back in with my mom and dad and i am starting to run out of hope. that is not the -- that cannot be the kind of economy we build. we need a better educated work force. we need people educated in science, engineering, mathematics. we need a well-educated work force so we can build a strong future. this is how we build a future in america. the notion we should head in some other direction is wrong. this is about priorities, making the right investment. instead of investing billions of dollars in subsidies, we should
be investing that in educating our kids. >> thank you. mr. brown? >> i have a daughter that just graduated and another that graduated couple of years ago. i understand the high cost authentication, as many of you listening to. the driving factor is the administrative cost in salaries. professor worn and her husband make almost $750,000. she makes over $300,000. in addition to these zero interests loan that she has from harvard and the housing and other perks, no wonder costs are high. i filed a bill that would allow for transparency of colleges and universities to make sure we know what we are paying when we write that check. we have to make sure we have kept student loans low, subsidized student loans.
what was professor warned's first action? let's raise taxes -- loren -- action, let's raise taxes. that is another difference. the first thing, every single time is to raise taxes. that is the number one criticism she has of me, that i do not raise taxes. >> in my first teaching job, i made $18,000. i am proud of the fact that i made it to one of the top spots in teaching. this is about public and access. i went to a public university. i paid $50 a semester at a community college. back then, america was investing
in its kids. it was investing in public education, creating opportunities for everyone. i feel like i have lived the american dream. i am in this race because i want other kids to live the american dream. senator brown talked about raising the interest rates. do you know how it would have been paid for in? by closing a loophole used by million years and billionaires. this was about keeping interest rates low for students by closing a loophole. senator brown, who is out there protecting every loophole, said no. >> once again, she is misrepresenting a vote and she is not telling you the truth. this was a direct tax, $6 billion, on the backs of our corporations, our small business owners. the closing of the loophole was to take more of your money, put it in her piggy bank so she can
take it to washington. in a bipartisan way, we put that through by tweaking federal programs. we passed flood insurance for those folks who live in a flood zone. we also put out a bipartisan bill to create jobs. 1.got 3 for she would have raised taxes on you. >> senator brown is right. he did draw a line in the sand to protect a giant loophole, a big loophole. he says it is most important to protect a loophole used by millionaires and billionaires than it is to help our kids. that is what it came down to. there had to be some other way to pay for it. the to the basic question. whose side do you stand on? where senator brown is always standing is right over there with the millionaires and
billionaires and big oil companies saying, i want to protect special breaks for them and let it falls where vince falls on the rest of working families. >> this is an -- and let it fall where it falls, on the rest of working families. >> i am on the taxpayer side. you had a choice and you chose the site of one of the biggest corporations in the united states. when you were to prohibit people who got asbestos, she helps travelers deny benefits for asbestos poisoning and made over $250,000 in an effort to protect big corporations. there is only one person in this debate protecting corporations. she has a history of it. >> response? >> i have been out there working for families and working for people will have been injured
by big corporations. i have been working for people who have been injured by asbestos. i have been doing that for years and years. i want to go to washington to fight for working families. i want to go to washington to fight for small businesses. i am not a professional politician. that is why i am in this race. >> she had a choice. she did not fight for the victims. he fought for the corporations. the corporation paid you to hundred $25,000. through your efforts, you deny people who had -- the corporation paid you to hundred $50,000. he fought for the biggest insurance company in our country. >> is not true. the boston globe has looked at this and written about it. i have been out there for working families, for working
people. i am not in this because i am a professional politician. >> you have to ask the asbestos victims if they have gotten their money. these people who were poisoned, she stuck up for travelers. you made that choice. >> it is about whose side you are on. the facts speak for themselves. i have been out there for working people. senator brown does not want to talk about his votes. >> i will move on to what will be our final question. you will start, mr. brown. here is one from family -- from emily. do you believe climate change is real? what should the federal government be doing about it? >> i believe climate change is real. the biggest thing we can do is
to get an energy policy, and we do not have one. and all the above approach. professor warren has a none of the above approach. she is against the keystone pipeline, which would help create union jobs. she is denying union jobs and non-u.n. -- non-union jobs. when was the last time we funded a nuclear facility to make sure we can have that clean energy? the roll is a balancing role, to find that balance. -- a balancing -- the role is a balancing role. rate payers are going to pay a tremendous amount more in their daily costs and that is not right. >> ms. warren, 90 seconds.
>> our energy industry, an energy industry that works here in massachusetts, has to fight uphill against the oil subsidies. that is what tilts the playing field. senator brown has helped tilt it toward the energy companies. the keystone pipeline will not create as many jobs as if we invested that money in clean energy. that is where massachusetts has a real advantage. i want to stop on this point for a minute. this one is really important. senator brown has been going around the country saying they have got to contribute to this campaign because it may be for the control of the senate. this race may be for the control of the senate. if republicans take over the senate, jim inhoffe would become
the person in charge of the environmental protection agency. he is the man who has called global warming a hoax. that is the title of his book. a man like that should not be in charge of the environmental protection agency, overseeing their work. i cannot understand how we can talk about going in that correction. >> are running against jim inhoffe. you are running against me. the tax credit base our energy producers more competitive. i supported that an i am in fuld favor. i support wind, solar, -- i supported that and i am in full favor. we need to step back from our dependence on foreign oil. i believe we can do it together.
i will make sure that if we look at these energy producers and attacking them, we need to sit down in a room in a bipartisan manner and find a way to do it so it is not a tax over the people at the gas pump. >> senator brown is for making clean energy compete against the subsidized and 80 -- and history. every time a dime goes to the oil companies -- senator brown is for making clean energy compete against subsidized industries. this is about the votes of all of the republicans. jim inhoffe would become the person who would have supervision over the environmental protection agency. he says global warming is a hoax. this matters in this race, control of the senate.
>> i am the second most bipartisan united states senator. can you imagine 100 professor of warrens down there raising taxes. she said, you did not build this on your own. it was the roads and bridges we put forth to get your goods to market. that lack of trying to work together. every member of our delegation right here is 90% and above. professor warren is to the left of that. she would vote with her party 100% of the time. she has said, i do not know what i disagree with my party on. >> i think it is clear. this race is about whose side you stand on. senator dodd has made it clear with his votes. -- senator brown has made it
clear with his votes. at the end of each day, this race may be for control of the senate. senator brown cannot have it both ways. he is raising money for republicans around saying, give me money and i win. it means the republicans can take control of the u.s. senate. >> we are out of time. thank you very much. thank you for joining us on wbz. watch wbz news for a complete wrapup. do not forget to go to the polls on november 6. thanks for watching. >> in two weeks, the first of the president of debates. live on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. watch and engaged. up next, your questions and
comments on "washington journal ." >> i wanted to get more involved. it is watching information on tv. i love the information. i love current events. i love hot topics, things that come up. i love watching it case i loved pulling it up on my mobile device. >> she watches c-span on cox communications. c-span, created in 1979. brought to you as a public service. >> coming up this morning, democratic representative jim mcdermott talks about his bill mcdermott talks about his bill offering full