ALBANY – In their televised debate last night, Senator Schumer shrugged off criticism from his long shot opponents, expressing pride in his record and promising more of the same if re-elected to a second term.

Mr. Schumer, a Democrat from Brooklyn, took credit for securing $20 billion in federal aid for New York after 9/11, recruiting low-cost airlines to upstate cities, and pushing through laws that made college tuition partially tax deductible and sped the availability of low-cost generic drugs, among others.

His Republican opponent, Assemblyman Howard Mills of Orange County, accused him of exaggerating his record and challenged him to explain his votes on several issues. The Conservative candidate, Dr. Marilyn O’Grady, an ophthalmologist from Garden City, faulted the other candidates for opposing a ban on same-sex marriage and supporting legalized abortion.

Mr. Schumer, a popular incumbent with a forbidding lead in opinion polls, avoided responding directly to either of his opponents.

“I believe I’ve accomplished a whole lot for New York and for American in my first six years in the Senate,” he said. “I’m going to keep doing as much as I can in my second term as well.”

The debate at Ithaca, N.Y., sponsored by Cornell University and the League of Women Voters, was the second and last confrontation among the three in what has been a low-key campaign.

The event included a fresh attack from Mr. Mills, who faulted Mr. Schumer for opposing legislation that would have protected the makers of flu shots and other vaccines from liability lawsuits. “We would not be having this flu vaccine shortage if Senator Schumer had not opposed this legislation,” Mr. Mills said.

When his turn came, Mr. Schumer did not take the opportunity to explain his vote.

The closest thing to an exchange between the two came after Mr. Mills gave a summary of the legislation Mr. Schumer had sponsored. Of 163 bills introduced, only 12 passed, Mr. Mills said. He said most involved changing the names of post offices and courthouses, and two authorized studies of a park and a heritage trail.

“Senator Schumer is very good at taking credit for things, even when other people worked on them,” Mr. Mills said.

Mr. Schumer addressed that point in his closing statement. “In the Senate you pass most things by amendment or by lobbying agencies, and I’ve been very effective at it,” he said.

Mr. Schumer also defended his efforts to block several of President Bush’s nominees to the federal court. He denied using any litmus test, noting he had supported 195 of 214 nominees.

“A large number of these nominees were pro-life,” he said. “A large number of them were conservative. But in my judgment they would do what the founding fathers wanted, which is interpret the law, not make it.”

Mr. Mills criticized Mr. Schumer for using a filibuster to block votes on nominees, promising he would support a straight up-or-down vote on every such appointment, even from a Democratic president, if elected.

Dr. O’Grady argued that it was Mr. Schumer who was thwarting the founding fathers, by defending Roe v. Wade and misusing the filibuster.

All three candidates expressed support for the war in Iraq and stronger security at America’s international borders. But the questions posed by a pair of Cornell students highlighted sometimes sharp differences on other issues.

Mr. Schumer, for example, said he would favor making President Bush’s tax cuts permanent for the middle class but not for those with higher incomes. Mr. Mills said he supported making all of President Bush’s tax cuts permanent, called for more cuts for the middle class, and proposed to pay for them by cutting government waste. Dr. O’Grady called Mr. Mills’s proposal “timid.”

“What we have to do is cut taxes more drastically,” she said. “It’s been proven many, many times. When you cut taxes you increase revenues.”

Asked about their positions on reforming Social Security, Mr. Mills said President Bush’s reform proposal, which would allow participants voluntarily to divert some of their contributions to private investment accounts, is “a viable option.”

Mr. Schumer argued that the program is “basically … in great shape” for the next several decades, and opposed Mr. Bush’s proposal to allow participants to divert some of their contributions to private investment accounts.

“What they want to do is privatize it,” Mr. Schumer said. “Benefits would have to be cut almost immediately … or you would have to totally revise the system so the young people here would never get it. I’m not going to fall for one of these plans that would basically destroy Social Security.”

Dr. O’Grady said she was astounded by Mr. Schumer’s optimism, comparing the present Social Security system to “a pyramid scheme.” “It’s sound, all right, if you want a negative return on your money – which is what the young people here in this audience are going to be getting.”