High-energy debate

The three candidates for the 9th Congressional District seat debated several issues on the IU campus Thursday night, but the topic that came up repeatedly was energy.\nRep. Mike Sodrel, R-9th, Democratic challenger Baron Hill and Libertarian Eric Schansberg agreed America must reduce its dependence on foreign oil but each had different ideas on how to do it.\nHill proposed more research into new energy sources such as hydrogen and solar power.\n"I believe there is an energy crisis going on in this country," Hill said. "We've got a problem, and we can't solve it by digging for more oil."\nSodrel said he believes that gaining energy independence lies more in researching coal as a fuel, calling America "the Middle East of coal."\nSchansberg, an economics professor at IU Southeast, said the government should be less involved in finding new energy sources.\n"The government should not be in the business of picking winners," he said. "Why subsidize one fuel over the other? Let the market decide these things."\nThis is the third time Hill and Sodrel have faced off in the 9th District. Hill narrowly defeated Sodrel in 2002, but Sodrel won the seat in 2004.\nSeveral viewers watching the debate on WTIU or listening on WFIU called in with questions about the Iraq war.\nSodrel said that the United States can't "cut and run" in Iraq and compared the conflict and the war on terror to World War II.\n"There are no separate wars," he said. "This is one war of liberty versus fascism."\nHill, who voted to authorize the war in Iraq in 2003, said he had been lied to by the Bush administration about the reasons for entering the conflict but said it was important to take care of the troops who are there now.\nSchansberg said Iraq was a complicated situation and that it was too early to move out troops or gauge the success of the new government.\n"I don't think there should be a timetable for withdrawal," he said. "I think that would give away too much of our strategy and be a problem for morale."\nBack on the home front, all three candidates said they opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants but again proposed different ways of dealing with the issue.\n"We tried (amnesty) once before in 1986," Sodrel said. "We didn't secure our borders — now we have between 10 and 12 million people here illegally. We are a nation of immigrants. It's part of our culture, but we can't stand unlimited, illegal immigration."\nEnforcing existing penalties for employers of illegal immigrants is a better way to stem the tide of illegal immigration, Hill argued.\n"We need to make it loud and clear that there are consequences for hiring these people," Hill said. "If we take away their income, they will stop coming here and those here illegally will go home."\nSchansberg advocated a combination of increased border security and enforced penalties for employers.\nFor now, Thursday's debate, sponsored by WTIU, Hoosiers for Higher Education and the Bloomington Herald-Times, is the only debate scheduled for the election season as Hill and Sodrel have yet to finalize the terms of other meetings.\n"I'm holding firm on single-issue debates," Hill said after the debate. "The people of Southern Indiana deserve better. If (Sodrel) won't debate single issues, I'll take that as a duck."\nHill is proposing at least three single-issue debates about energy, values and immigration.\nSodrel and Schansberg are in favor of multi-issue debates such as Thursday's for different reasons.\n"With the size of the district, I think it's a bad idea to have one-issue debates," Sodrel said. "If we have one-issue debates in different counties, people may not hear what they're interested in."\nHill said that was not an issue as technology would ensure single-issue debates could be seen by everyone in the 9th District.\nSchansberg said one-issue debates were unnecessary.\n"I think Baron just wants one-issue debates on his talking points," he said.