[cheers and applause] [indistinct conversations] [indistinct conversations] [indistinct conversations] [indistinct conversations] >> see the final presidential debate monday live on c-span. watch and engage. next, the new mexico senate debate between martin heinrich and heather wilson. followed by a debate between carry herbert and challenger peter cooke. before president obama and mitt romney meat for the final debate on foreign policy and national security, we will take a look back at three debates from our archives. beginning saturday at 7:00 eastern, from 2004, president george w. bush and senator john carry at the university of miami. followed at 8:30 by ronald reagan and walter mondale in kansas city in the 1984. later george w. -- leader george bush and michael dukakis. u.s. senate candidates martin heinrich and heather wilson square off in their third debate and one of the closest of the country. this race was rated as leaning democratic. we picked this up right after the opening statements. this is at -- this is about an hour. >> we will go ahead and get started with the questions, but first i will introduce our panelists. our first one to the right is the friend is managing editor. next to him is a deputy director of new mexico. to the left is kfox night anchor. we have a lot of experience on that side of the table. walt will lead with the first question. >> heather wilson wrote that the affordable health care act is unconstitutional because of the individual mandate. it should be repealed or replace. meanwhile, martin heinrich voted for the bill. if it were eliminated, what would the replacement be? if kept, what changes if any should be made? >> i think is so important to understand why it should be repealed and replaced. the health care act was a mistake. is already costing jobs in the state of new mexico. people are put on part-time rather than full time because they cannot afford the mandates in the system. it is not jobs. it takes $700 billion out of medicare. there is only one candidate for a the senate who has voted to cut medicare and that is martin heinrich. close to $3,000 increase in health-insurance premiums just enter the last two years. it will cause a lot of rural hospitals to close. what will replace it with? there were some elements that received a broad bipartisan support. i do not mind if my kids are on my health insurance until they are 26. i want them out of my refrigerator, but i do not mind if they are on my health insurance. i think small businesses should be able to ban together and get the same rates as big business and they can go across state lines. the cost of health care is the real problem. >> i am very proud of the work we did to reform health care in this country. a father of me came -- a father came up to me and said what it meant for his family. he said, my doctor has epilepsy. when she pops out and her coverage and is no longer eligible because she is too old to be on my plan anymore, there is not a single insurance plan that will taker. that is what health insurance reform means to me he said. we did some very good things in the bill. we major insurance companies can no longer discriminate against people for pre-existing conditions. we made sure they cannot cancel your coverage after you have been paying for years and years and are reeled into the operating room and they decide you do not have that coverage anymore. we make sure kids to stay on their parent's plan up until 26. we did not cut one benefit from the medicare program. we took the subsidies that were going to insurance companies and put them back into the medicare program. we made it better and we gave people preventive services they did not have any more. >> you highlight things that received broad support and those are the things that should be kept. instead of building on those things, you took a major issue for all americans and you with one faction shoving it down the throats of people with things in id to they do not like and would make it harder for them to provide health insurance. nobody has a problem with pre- existing conditions, but the $700 billion he took out of medicare, one-third of it is for payments to hospitals. that is why between 15 and 20% of hospitals in this state are going to go out of business because of the health care act. >> congresswomen wilson had over one decade to fix some of those things she said everyone agreed on and did not get it done. that plan was not perfect. i voted to repeal the 1099 rule. but it also included things like small business tax cuts. tax credits to actually get more coverage to individuals. i am proud we were able to take on such a big thing and actually get it done. >> in july, heather wilson wrote a letter to the council saying they oppose a monument introduced and instead endorsed a bill by a steep per se releasing land for new development. why do you believe the larger or smaller monument is the best for protecting these lands? >> in part because that is what people have told me, people who have come up to me and even some who traveled all the way to washington, d.c. because this is so important to them. in particular, a sportsman who said we love the mountains, but those west of the river are really critical for us. in addition, there was a recent poll done that flat out asked people, do you want a monument? the overwhelming answer was yes. do you want one with the mountain ranges on both sides of the river or just the ordinance, and more people wanted both sides. it is one of the most beautiful places on earth. it is deserves the recognition a monument would bring and it deserves the tourism the monument would bring as a result. >> i think this is a big difference between the congressman and i in the way you go about managing public lands. i believe also that they are absolutely gorgeous. the question is, do we put 25% of the county into a national monument without resolving all of the issues with respect to security, law enforcement, access, and water rights that are still up and enter the air. i have had a little bit of success in the congress when i was there resolving local issues when it comes to land it. the way to do it is to work with lotus -- local leaders to resolve those issues. the congressman's approach was to write to the president of the united states to ask him with a stroke of his pen to create a national monument without resolving any of the local issues that are still there. i do not think washington should be doing that and overriding local control and resolution here. those extremes in olfaction approaches do not work in the long term to resolve land disputes. >> actually, i was writing to the president at the behest of the whole coalition of local leaders, from the mayor of las cruces to many of the local clubs. one of the broadest bipartisan groups of supporters i have ever seen. i think we should listen to them. there is an overwhelming support to a new national monument. i am very happy to join with the local support and help make that happen. >> by denying the controversy exists is not make it go away. these 30 cattle growers that have grazing permits on the west side of the county, the commission voted against having a national monument rednecks to the border of their county. there are a lot of issues with law-enforcement, particularly the issue of creating a tunnel for narcotics trafficking within 5 miles of the mexican border. there are the mexicans that have signed petitions that said, please do not do this. you are ignoring them and will not find a solution this way. >> in 2007, a bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise on immigration reform. the compromise collapsed. most agree that we need immigration reform. what do you support, and how would you get the senate to approve immigration reform and a bipartisan group could not? >> in the united states has to have effective control of our borders. the number of people crossing the border illegally has gone down because of the resources we have put a denture there since 2005, and that is a good thing. the people still crossing tented be heavily armed narco traffickers and human traffickers. it is very dangerous. i support legal immigration. i think we need changes to our immigration laws. there are a large number of people who come to this country that say they get a visa through a lottery. i do not think getting a golden ticket like willie want as chocolate factory should be the way to come to america. i think we want the best and brightest and hardest working people to come to this country and build it. i believe going forward what we need is to build a coalition of people who believe if america's immigration policies should benefit the united states of america. >> my father came here in the 1930's as an immigrant from germany. i take this issue of immigration reform seriously. i think we need leadership on this issue. heather wilson was a in congress for over a decade. to this day i still cannot figure out where she stands on the dream act, one of the simplest measures for immigration reform. when i got to congress, one of the first thing i did was co- sponsored comprehensive immigration reform, a path that would fix the broken system that does not embrace amnesty but responsibility. i am proud of the leadership on that. i have also fought to secure the border. 1000 new border patrol agents. hundreds of new customs agents. we also need leadership on the broken immigration system. we need comprehensive immigration reform. we should pass the dream act. i would love to know where my opponent's stance on the dream act. >> it is fascinating to me they have been in the congress for 40 years and the first two years you were there you have an overwhelming majority of the house and senate and presidency ends all said you needed to do immigration reform, but you did not do it. with respect to young people, i actually came to understanding this situation when one of my colleagues nominated a kid to go to the naval academy. she did not find out that her parents brought her here at a very young age and she was not here legally. i think we need to find a permanent solution for those kids. i look forward to working with marco rubio to getting that done. >> thank you. >> once again from day one, i made this a priority. the reason we do not have comprehensive immigration reform is because we do not have the bipartisan approach we had a few years ago. we have a tea party approach to immigration reform. republicans who used to be supportive of a comprehensive approach are afraid to stand up and co-sponsor a bill anymore. you saw what happened to richard lugar in part of his support for that. i look forward to a time we can agree on that again. >> let's move on. the oil and gas industry plays a major role in mexico's economy and contributes to the revenue of the state. when you look at the regulation of the industry, would you support deregulation? do you think the regulation we have is about right? you think we need to have less regulation? >> i it support appropriate regulation. you should never have a regulation that does not have a purpose. oil and gas can be produced responsibly, and is done so throughout new mexico on any given day. we have a lot of independent producers who do that work. we also need to make sure that when people do pollute the air or water that they are held responsible for it. i think we need regulations that do not overly burden the industry, but they make sure we are protecting our water. nothing is more precious to the state of new mexico and to any western state than in the water that we have. i used to be the natural resources trust the. this industry can produce oil and gas without polluting. we need regulations to make sure at the end of the day the bad actors are held responsible. >> most of the exploration here in and mexico is domestic government, not by federal government. i think the big difference between the congressman and myself on energy policy has to do with which direction we need to go with respect to energy. i believe in a balanced long- term energy plan that includes increasing american sources of supply as well as conservation and enter new sources. the congressman voted for cap and trade which is the biggest tax on energy putting -- being put through in the history of the country. if fully implemented, it will mean the loss of 11,000 jobs a in new mexico and an increase on costs of $1,000 per household. he also said one month ago coal is a few of the past. coal is responsible for 70% of the electricity in this country -- rather the state. if kohl is the feel of the past, low-cost energy bills are also a thing of the past. i have to stand up and fight for those jobs. >> congresswoman wilson recently called all of those jobs a green and green. are more than a dream to people working in the industries. today there are four to five times as many people working as there are in coal. if you look at the study done on transmission, they said we could have 25,000 new jobs if we built the transmission. we are going to have those jobs. >> you need to look at the data from the workforce solutions department here in the state of new mexico. but at the fastest growing jobs in this day, because renewals is not even on the list. all of the jobs you touted in the green world like solar is now out of business. those jobs do not currently exist. the jobs of in oil and gas do, and they are growing, i will fight for those jobs here and now. >> thank you. we will move on to a foreign policy question. >> iran appears to be building a nuclear bomb. the president said he will not let that happen. with the consequences of two long range wars in the memories of americans, what would be your criteria for evaluating whether to support a proposal for war against iran? >> i agree with the press that we cannot let iran to have a nuclear weapon. we need to use all of our elements of natural our policy needs to be absolutely clear. when the administration does put the emphasis on trying to hold israel back twelve that sends a clear message to aroon that they should move toward a nuclear weapon, contrary to our interest. what kinds of things can we do to prevent iran from get agnew clear weapon. first is sanctions. i strongly support them. i think there are opportunities with covert action. those sanctions, along -- among other things are having an impact on iran. we should put pressure on iranian leadership to forgo the path of nuclear weapons. if it comes down to it and the united states has to take action, the only thing that's worse than taking military action to set back iran's nuclear program is an iran with a nuclear weapon. >> representative heinrich. >> i think any time american troops are committed, there should be a clear threat to the united states. i think the president has been very clear on this, iran will not develop a nuclear weapon. but we must use every tool in the toolbox to make sure they don't before we prematurely start talking about military action. we need to continue the diplomacy that's bringing other countries to the table with sanctions as well. we need to continue the covert action that's been very successful at slowing that program. we need to continue the economic sanctions that i don't just support, i sponsored and helped push through the congress of the united states. those sanctions are drawing a wedge between the leadership in that country and the people. they've devalued the currency, made it hard to sell refined petroleum on the global market. we owe it, given the mistakes made in the last decade, regarding the policy that our country took in iraq, to make sure we get this right. >> representative wilson? >> you asked a broader question about when is it legitimate to use mill tear force? what are the criteria that you use? i believe that u.s. military force should only be used as a last resource when there are no other options. that u.s. military force should only be used to protect america's vital national interests under american command with very clear objectives and the force necessary to win and come home again. >> i am very pleased to hear congresswoman wilson say that. i don't believe that was the criteria used 10 years ago last week when she voted to go into a war in iraq. a war that was unpaid for, a war that cost us thousands of american lives, and a war that was based on political po lit sized intelligence and not a direct threat to the united states of america. >> let's go back to a domestic issue. john. congress has failed to pass a new farm bill. it provides subsidies many new mexico farmers and ranchers have come to depend on. should the federal government ends agriculture subsidies? provide more? how do you propose reforming agriculture subsidies? >> i think we made a mistake about over 30 years ago now in terms of the direction that we went with our farm subsidies and our basic policy regarding producing agricultural crops. we invested in commodities and commodities alone. we did one thing well. we kept down the price of food which is very laudable goal, but all of the money we saved on cheaper food went to the health care system. because of those commodity policies, i think what we need to do in the farm bill is move more toward local agriculture, investing in food crops that are healthy for our children, we need to make sure that every school in the united states isn't selling just corn and soybean commodities as part of their school lunch program but giving healthy fruits and vegetables and meats grown right here in places like new mexico as part of o-- of our school lunch program. we can remodel our farm policy to make this country much healthier and to save money within the health care system. >> representative wilson? >> here in new mexico, a lot of the pieces of the farm bill don't have a huge impact on the crops that we grow here and even some of them are contrary, i think, to the interests of the farmers and ranchers in new mexico, particularly when it comes to dairy because our dairies are so large and efficient. overall, with respect to agricultural policy, when i listen to farmers and ranchers on what matters to them, first an foremost is the death tax. congressman heinrich voted to reinstate the death tax. i think the death tax results in the breaking up of family farms and ranches and i voted to repeal. i co-sponsored in congress the repeal of the death tax. the second thing that's very important for farmers and ranchers is he energy costs. i believe we need an energy policy that keeps american energy costs low. congressman heinrich's approach, putting cap and trade on oil and natural gas, would increase the price of energy and increase the price of food. the final thing i would say is that there's regulatory impacts on our agriculture industry that needs to be straighten out. there was one bill very important to farmers and ranchers here in new mexico to straighten out some of the regulation on whether state or federal regulation had primacy and congressman heinrich voted against it. it was a top priority for farmers and ranchers in this state. >> representative hine reck? >> once again, we don't have a farm bill because the tea party has kept washington, d.c. from being able to do its work. this is the first time in modern history that the farm bill has expired and it is just one emblematic example of how dysfunctional the tea party has made our country. congresswoman wilson embraced the tea party when she signed their cut, cap and balance pledge. look that up. go to youtube and look up heather wilson, cut, cap and balance. deep social security cuts -- cuts to social security and medicare and budget deficit in the future. >> representative wilson. >> it is fascinating to me that someone could think that cutting wasteful spending, forcing congress to live within its mea