♪ >> you're watching c-span2, politics and public affairs weekdays. featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. >> at the white house today, president obama called on congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. the house of representatives dismissed until monday. this is 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president and vice president of the united states.

[applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you so much. everybody have a seat. have a seat. thank you very much. well, -- please have a seat, everybody. good morning. >> morning. >> welcome to the white house. today i'm here with leaders from business, from labor, from faith communities, who are united around one goal. finishing the job of fixing a broken immigration system. this is not just an idea whose time has come. this is an idea whose time has been around for years now. leaders like all of you, have worked together with republicans and democrats, in this town in good faith, for years, to try to get this done.

and this is the moment when we should be able to finally get the job done. it's no secret the american people haven't seen much out of washington that they like these days. the shutdown, and the threat of the first default in more than 200 years, inflicted real pain on our businesses and families across the country and it was a completely unnecessary self-inflicted wounds that happened to real people and it can never happen again. even with the shutdown over, and the threat of default eliminated. democrats and republicans still have some really big disagreements. some just fundamentally different views about how we should move forward on certain issues. on the other hand, as i said the day after the shutdown ended, that's no reason that we shouldn't be able to work together on the things we do

agree on. we should be able to work together on a responsible budget that invests in things to grow our economy and grow jobs. we should be able to pass a farm bill that helps rural communities grow and protect vulnerable americans. and we should pass immigration reform. [applause] >> we should pass immigration reform -- [applause] -- good for our economy, good for our national security, good for our people, and we should do it this year. and everybody knows our current immigration system is broken. across the political spectrum, people understand that. we have known it for years. it's not smart to invite some of the brightest minds from around

the world to study here, and then not let them start businesses here. we send them back to their home country to start businesses and create jobs and invent new products someplace else. not fair to businesses, and middle class families who play by the rules when we way lou companies that are trying to undercut the rules, work in the shadow economy, to hire folks at lower wages or no benefits, no overtime, so that somehow they get a competitive edge for breaking the rules. that doesn't make sense. doesn't make sense to have 11 million people who are in this country, illegally, without any incentive or any way for them to come out of the shadows, get right with the law, meet their responsibilities, and

permit their families then to move ahead. it's not smart. it's not fair. it doesn't make sense. we he kicked this particular can down the road for too long. the senate has passed the immigration bill by a wide majority that addressed all of these issues. it's a bill that could continue to strengthen our borders, would level the playing field by holding unscrupulous employers accountable if they knowingly hire undocumented workers. it would modernize our legal immigration system, so that even as we train american workers for the jobs of the future, we're also attracting highly skilled entrepreneurs to create jobs here in the united states. it would make sure that everybody plays by the same rule, by providing a pathway to

earned citizenship for those who are here illegally. one that includes passing a background check, learning english, paying taxes, paying a penalty, getting in line behind everyone who is trying to come here the right way. so it had all the component parts. didn't have everything i wanted. didn't have everything that anybody wanted. but it addressed the core challenges of how we create an immigration system that is fair, that is just, that is true to our traditions as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. and that's passed the senate by a bipartisan majority. [applause] >> so, here's what we always know. the bill would grow the economy and shrink our deficit. independent economy.

-- economists have shown the bill became lay, our economy would grow by $1.4 trillion more than it would if we don't pass the law. it would reduce our deficits by near lay trim -- nearly a trillion dollars. so this is not just the right thing to do it's the smart thing to do, securing our borders, modernizing the immigration system, and a path to citizenship, growing our economy, strengthening our middle class, reducing deficits. that's what common-sense immigration reform will do. now, obviously just because something is smart and fair and good for the economy and fiscally responsible and supported by business and labor and evangelical community and many democrats and many republicans that does not mean it will actually get done. this is washington, after all.

so, everything tends to be viewed through a political prism, and everybody has been looking at the politics of this, and i know there's some folks in this town who want to think, if obama is for it, then i'm against it. but i'd remind everybody that my republican predecessor was also for it when he proposed reforms like this almost a decade ago. and i joined with 23 senate republicans back then to support that reform. i'd remind you that this reform, won more than a dozen votes from the republican senate in june. i'm not running for office again. i just believe this is the right thing to do. [applause] >> i just believe it's the right thing to do. [applause]

i also believe that good policy is good politics in this instance, and if folks are really that consumed with the politics of fixing our broken immigration system, they should take a closer look at the polls, because the american people support this. not something they reject. they support it. everybody wins here if we work together to get this done. in fact, if there's a good reason not pass this common-sense reform, i haven't heard it. so anyone still standing in the way of this bipartisan reform, should at least have to explain why. a clear majority of the american people think it's the right thing to do. now, how do we move forward? democratic leaders have introduced a bill in the house that is similar to the bipartisan senate bill. so, now it's up to republicans in the house to decide whether reform becomes a reality or not.

i do know -- this is good news -- many of them agree we need to fix our broken immigration system across these areas we just discussed. and what i've said to them, and i'll repeat today, if house republicans have new and different, additional ideas for how we should move forward, then we want to hear them. i'll be listening. i know that democrats and republicans in the senate, those who voted for immigration reform already, are eager to hear those additional ideas. but what we can't do is just sweep the problem under the rug one more time. leave it for somebody else to solve sometime in the future. rather than create problems, let's prove to the american people that washington can actually solve some problems. this reform comes as close to anything we've got to a law that

will benefit everybody now, and far into the future. so let's see if we can get this done. some let's see if we can get it done this year. now -- [applause] we've got the time to do it. republicans in the house, including the speaker, have said we should act. so, let's not wait. it doesn't get easier. to just put it off. let's do it now. let's not delay. let's get this done, and do it in a bipartisan fashion. to those of you who are here today, i want to just say one last thing and that is thank you. i want to thank you for your persistence, for your activism, i want to thank you for your passion and your heart, when it

comes to this issue. and i want to tell you, you got to keep it up. keep putting the pressure on all of us, to get this done. there are going to be moments, and always moments like this in big efforts at reform, where you meet resistance, and the press will declare something dead not going to happen, but that can be overcome. and i have to say, joe, as i look out at this room, these don't look like people who are easily deterred. they don't look like folks who are going to give up. you look fired up to make the next push. and whether you're a republican or a democrat or an independent, i want you to keep working and i'm going to be right next to you to make sure we get immigration reform done. it is time. let good -- go get it done. thank you very much, everybody.

[applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> thanks, everybody. [applause] >> we'll talk with ron paul about the problems with the rollout of the government's healthcare web site and what it means for the new health care law. then conversation on religion and politics with russell moor

of the southern baptist convention and later, look at a new report how u.s. adults rank globally in literacy, and problem solving. we'll be joined by jack buckley, and russ of george washington university. washington journal each morning on c-span. >> i saw first hand the tragedies that children face when they're not cared for by loving parents. it was in the sheriff's office where i first witnessed the horrors of child sex trafficking, and it convinced me that we needed to do more to protect our youth at risk of abuse. >> like me and many other youth, we become accustomed to being isolated, like the victims of

domestic violence, by adapting to multiple moves from home to home. this allows to us easily adapt so when traffickers move us multiple times, hotel to hotel to, city to city, and state to state, and these exploiters go without fear of punishment to do the lack of action when these children go missing. no one looks for us. >> when the hear the term child sex trafficking, most americans think it only happens in other countrieses, or that foreign children are brought here to be sold in large cities. in fact, we have learned that most of the victims of child sex trafficking are american kids who are trafficked in small towns and large urban areas. if people are not aware of this, they're not looking for it. >> this weekend on c-span, house ways and means looks at changing foster came systems to prevent sex trafficking. saturday morning at

10:00 eastern. the texas book festival with panels commemorating the 50th 50th anniversary of jfk's assassination, and then how did candidate lincoln resolve the political and moral dilemmas crated by -- created by the issue of slavery. >> democratic congressman adam smith said today the u.s. drone program needs more oversight and openness by the obama administration. the "washington post" reported on secret memos showing an agreement between thecry cia -- the cia and the pakistani diplomas. congressman smith calls for the closure of the guantanamo bay prison. this is from the center of international studies in washington, dc. >> thank you very much.

it's great to be here. i really appreciate the working relationship i have with ci -- cdi. nobody has been more helpful in that effort than john. the level of expertise here at csisy is helpful. very generous with their time, working with me and my staff as we try to work through the national security issues. and this morning i want to talk about how we continue to proceed with our fight against al qaeda and their ideology. and certainly during my time in congress, nothing has changed our policy, both domestically and globally, more than 9/11. it was a major sea shift and we have been reacting to that event in many ways if since. created the homeland for security, and trying to figure out how to fight this war effectively, because it's unlike

any other battle we have ever fought, and i want to set the frame for where we're at and we should go at this point now more than a dozen years after the event. how are we doing, what are the challenges, how do we move forward. and i think the central conundrum we're still trying to accomplish two things. one, there's still a war. al qaeda declared war on us in 1986 and have not changed their mind. the only thing that stops them from attacking us, it's not thunder desire, it's our ability to stop them from doing it and that hanged haven't. the groups have moved and changed in a variety of different ways. we grew in some ways stronger than others, but if you were in the national security environment here in the u.s., if you work at dod, work at the cia, when you get up in the morning, the primary thing you're thinking about is whether or not there's going to be a

terrorist attack and what you can do that day to prevent it. there's a dominating aspect of our national security policy, as well it should be. for all of the challenges we have, working through relationships with russia, china, the asia pivot, the number one thought on our minds protecting the country and the threat to their, al qaeda and offshoots. so we have to fight that war and one of the best ways to fight the war is basically to get them before they get us, and that involves military action of one kind or another. now, the second thing we have been trying to accomplish, both president bush and president obama tried to figure this out -- oh win the broader ideological struggle, to stop people in the muslim world from wanting to join organizations like al qaeda to figure out what roll we -- role we can play in bringing bigger stability and a more moderate, effective, form

of government in many of this countries. the great challenge is, number one, often conflicts with number two. we see that most notably in the drone campaign. undeniably, effective. the al qaeda leadership to plot and plan attacks against the u.s. and western targets has been significantly degraded. by a lot of things, but one of the biggest we have effectively targeted and disrupted their leadership. when your top terrorist are spending their time worrying how to stay alive, it means they can't plot and man as effectively and that's work. the other thing that is true is the military campaign has made it more difficult to win the broader ideological struggle to convince the muslim world and others to get away from al qaeda, because the one narrative that al qaeda has that works is that they are the one

group of people standing up against western aggression, standing up against the west's attempts to influence and otherwise attack the muslim world. and to the extent that they are in the middle of a war in which we're shooting at them, that feeds into the narrative. that not an argument for not doing it. it's an argument for trying too figure out how to balance, and any war, if you choose to attack, you will further anger your enemy and also try to prevent them from attacking you. president obama, when he got into office, had a very broad and specific vision for how to do that. this was the -- now become sort of cliche, we're going to reset the whole variety of different relationships, and the goal basically was, the notion was, that the world was not fond of the bush administration. they viewed us as too militaristic, too self-interested, trying to force our will upon the rest of the world. you hat renditions, abu ghraib,

the war in iraq. we're going to figure our houston to work cooperatively with the rest of the world, deliver a different messaging so we can build broader support. at it fire say that this point, five years into it, that really hasn't worked. that at this opinion -- i haven't seen any polling at that time a but if you or two poll people amongst our allies in europe, in the muslim world and elsewhere, that the level of support for the united states is probably about back to where it was during the bush administration. now, that's not the be-all and end-all of this. we're not a trying to protect our national security and thinking the number one goal there is for everyone to like us. but it is an important element. and i think one of the more troubling things, not just the lack of support that we see from some of our allies but domestically here in the u.s., the central underpinnings of our campaign to try to contain al qaeda and win the broader

ideaolal war, are not as supported in this country as we would like. people have long wanted us out of afghanistan. there's considerable concern about the drone attacks. the national security agency revelations have undermind -- undermined some confidence. i'll point out the rope i why we have not had as as as much succs as we hoped. one reason is the drone strikes. it's got an fair amount of attention. the numbers of casualties, the justification for those attacks, the world is focused on this. i do believe that the drones are getting an unfair portion of the blame here. a drone is a weapon of war the world wouldn't feel better if we were launching cruise missiles or a drone. there's too much emphasis on

that a drone is more dangerous than sending in a seal team or launching cruise missiles itch don't believe that. if anything drones are more surgical. they're not the perfect instrument they're sometimes transcribed to be and -- sometimes described to be. and that's a mistake. it's war, and in war, civilians suffer. that is been the truth from the beginning of time, and we should not pretend that somehow we have uniquely come up with some way to prevent that. we're trying too minimize it as much as possible, but if glory a shooting war, there's going to be innocents who suffer and we want to minimize that. drones are one of the biggest reasons. another big reason is the fact that guantanamo is still open. for all of the efforts we have made to change our interrogation to sort of replace an emphasis on normal civilian constitutional trials, the fact that guantanamo is still open, that's all the rest of the world needs to know. all the other efforts are swept

under the rugby the fact that we still have 160 people looked up in the prison in guantanamo and that has presented an enormous challenge. the other challenge is the arab spring. i think thomas reed said best no president in the history of our country has faced as chaotic and rickty in the middle east as president obama. every day there are impossible decisions who to support, whether you're talking about egypt or bahrain or libya or syria, it is a chaotic situation right now. and we have seen developing difficulties, maintaining relationships with saudi arain and and israel, because everybody wants us to do something different. we have broad, understandable goals. the trouble, those goals occasionally conflict. we want democratic government that truly represents the people. we want stability. we want to stop the rise of extremism. and that's all great. but what do you do when you have a situation like egypt?

mubarak brought stability but he didn't exactly bring democracy and freedom. so no matter which way you choose, you are contradicting one of your stated goals. this is one of the major problem with saudi arabia right now. understandably, when a democratically elected government was removed, however you want to described, that was contrary to our goal of democracy, but so happens the democratic government that was removed wasn't terribly democratic. so how do you strike that balance? so that presents an enormous challenge, and briefly mention the federal government in the u.s. has been unable to function, unable to pass budgets. i could go off on considerable length on this topic. i won't except to say two things. number one, the anihilism of the tea party. the basic notion that all they want to do is hurt the federal government, some they're incredibly indiscriminate hough they do it.

is a real problem. one of the things the federal government does is it provides for our national security. so if you are hurting our federal government, you are hurting our ability to do national security. i cannot imagine what it's like to work at the pentagon right now. i was talking with people yesterday, said how are you doing some it's great, the federal government is open. that's how low a bar we have set. we're actually open. so, things are good. with a cr, with sequestration, every four or five months a threat of a government shutdown, there is no way you can function effectively. whatever you may think of how large the federal government should be, is completely and totally unacceptable to set up a situation where it can't function on a day in and day out basis. and make no mistake about it, that hurts us and our ability to work with the rest of the world. they do not see us as credible a force as we should have been. so those are some of the challenges that have made it

more difficult for, i think to as effectively advance our policy. just a couple quick things and then take your questions. the things we need to change. there is a need for greater transparency and oversight of our drone strikes, and we also need to make clear why we're targeting people. there's a bunch of different groups out there, and that's the thing about al qaeda. some groups are formally affiliated. some groups that just adopt the ideaol. who is who in this mix? we need to make clear our number one goal is to stop those groups that are plotting and planning attacks against our home lean and against western interests. there's a lot of other groups we don't like. one in nigeria is a major problem. they're not right now plotting and planning attacks against us. that puts them in a different category. it is clearly self-defense if we're going after groups that are plotting attacks against us. the think -- the thing is that it changes.

it was pakistan, and then the underwear bomber and the attempt to bomb the cargo planes, attacks coming out of yemen, and we lad to respond to that. i make no apologies for the fact we targeted anwar awlaki. he was targeting us. that is the classic definition of self-defense. unfortunately too often we don't make it clear why we're doing this. i understand the need for second decrees si. but we -- secrecy. we don't have to reveal all, but it's my permanent opinion that whenever we do a targeted strike, whether it's a drone, whether it's sending in a special operations team, whatever it is, we need to at least briefly explain why. now, realize some of these strucks on the title 50 side so they're secret, but that's our decision. ...

to hopefully number one stuff and insurgency before it gets started that number two make sure it is then local forces that are enforcing the law. we have done this effectively in the philippines. we have had a presence there for quite a while.

they are battling insurgents of a variety of different stripes down there. it's by and large a factor of the recent uptick in the last couple of months but no u.s. person has never fired a shot. but we have been integral in the success and the same is the true in the horn of africa to some degree. we have in ethiopia and burundi and kenya. it's not something being dictated by the united states of america and i think that too would help if we continue to build out local partner capacity which as i said we have done and we need to do more of it. let us try to get to the point where we actually find their government on a regular basis. i would like to get into that again at greater length but i want. we will leave it at that. i also think the last thing i will say is we also need to better manage expectations as to what the u.s. can do. i think a large part of our problem with allies like israel and saudi arabia is they expect

whatever problem it is we have to show up. there has always been a far greater gap between expectations and capabilities but that gap is growing because the rest of the world is becoming more powerful. the u.s. is not as dominant as it used to be and i think this expectation that no matter what's going on in the world the u.s. can show up and fix fix ita huge problem. remember during one of the riots in cairo i interviewed a young man and this was as a result of the movie that played that you know god the most upset in a variety of different places due to the attacks on the embassy. the young man basically said look this wouldn't be on the internet if president obama didn't want to bear which is an interesting way of looking at the world that we need to make it clear that we are not controlling government. that was one of the problems i had with syria. basically we had an international norm and u.s. stepped up and said it's an

international norm but somehow it is the sole responsibility of united states of america to enforce it back again reinforces the message that if something bad is happening in the world it's because the u.s. simply decided to allow it that we could decide otherwise. that is not true here it when i was visiting a refugee camp in northern jordan i was just shocked at the number who said why don't you stop this? assad must go and assad must be stopped. why isn't the u.s. doing it? i was like because we really are capable of doing it. we cannot fix every problem in the world. i think the obama administration understands that. they had pushed to continue for more cooperative approach. let us work with their allies to figure out how we solve these problems instead of assuming the u.s. has to show up and fix fix. that expectation is something we cannot meet and that that is why for instance in afghanistan everything that happens is our fault. either we didn't do enough for

we did too much. we pulled out after the soviets fell and noshing bolus cell and that led to problems and now we are back in and we have got to set more realistic expectations. as i said work with local partners work with international allies to try to fix the problem. this is going to be a long tough battle. we are not going to be universally loved while we are trying to protect their country from al qaeda and their various affiliates. we have to prosecute the war but we make changes i mentioned we can prosecute more effectively in a way that will go greater support and give us a better chance of winning the long-term ideological war which after all is the most important piece. >> thank you very much. that was really a tour de force across many of the relevant issues today in international security policy so i know we will be challenged to stay inside of our time. let me try to pull a few of the elements he raced together in the following way.

early in your talk he spoke on the use of unmanned systems and obviously in the news it's the aerial systems and the legal strikes in particular but i think it's safe to say there is general consensus that these systems will become ubiquitous in terms of her hats not their lethal use but in other uses and certainly while it's aerial now land and sea will proliferate as well. what is your sense of how the united states given the struggles we have had on the targeting site in terms of transparency and exception that the system is somehow unique and different than say a cruise missile or an f-16. what are some of the ways the u.s. can lead the rest of the world and setting norms in this area? >> well i think that's difficult because again i'll go back to the central argument that the norms we are looking at are really plan is a lethal strike

appropriate? i don't know that the drones -- i know we are supposed to call them unmanned systems. i don't know it's the fundamental question. the u.s. should he be careful because other countries are going to develop these things. true but how you use them is going to fit into many of the same conundrums and difficulties up what is the appropriate way to fight them and you can see that in syria. assad has killed tens of thousands of civilians. he has killed apparently a few thousand with chemical weapons. you know and i agree the chemical weapons are a problem but you still have if a few are killing someone in war against them and that you use is really only one piece of what -- and not even the most important piece that i do think we can make it clear that what we are

doing here is fighting a war and some people have forgotten that. they sort of assume that the drones we are going to use them when it's all part of fighting this larger war. you have to make the self-defense case. you have to make the case within international law which i think is right there for us to make and frankly when you read the amnesty international with these other reports their main complaint is they -- that they don't know. they go from saying they don't know which they do know which is an interesting transition. they're not telling us why they are doing this. therefore we know you are doing it illegally. a bit of legal logic there but the point is transparency and understanunderstan ding. that's the number one biggest lesson. i think that's true of any military action. as far as the spying issues and all that, i mean the world has changed in terms of information as we all know and i can't begin to articulate how we manage all that. on the using it as a weapon of

war we should stick to traditional international norms. >> so that goes right into the authorization for the use of military force in the president i think you said he's interested in working with congress to modify it. what are your thoughts on how the au mf is still applicable today given eshoo said the move of the flight from pakistan to other theaters and how congress can help the president craft a way forward? >> i think it's very much still applicable and it has gone through a fairly tortured history because originally it was tied directly to those who perpetrated 9/11 and it's sort of morphed from interesting court decisions that interpreted more broadly and we codified in congress in 2011 that basically allowed to be those grouped that threaten us taliban and al qaeda forces al qaeda forces and again it's within the self defense context. i would say it's highly unlikely we are going to modify the aumf.

if you change a punctuation mark in that thing you are looking at 10 years worth of lawsuits from both sides frankly. if we allow congress must admit this. people look at congressional intent as we all move in one body. that is the risk. if you chase the -- change the math and that is why the white house was nervous as hell when we did in 2011 it wasn't so much they wanted it to be more authority or less authority just if you change it then you give rise to a variety of different legal action so i think it's probably going to stay where it's at. the larger question is as al qaeda in different groups move around and i emphasize the clarity. there are a lot of different groups out there who affiliate in some way with the uniquely violent and nihilistic ideology of al qaeda there is only a few that are actually plotting and planning attacks against us.

those are the ones we need to focus on. afghanistan prior to 9/11 it moved to yemen and somalia is the tougher question. we now have concerns about what's going to happen with aqim and mali and libya and we have not yet reached that point. the existing aumf keeps the flexibility to follow those targets and modification would cause more trouble than it would solve. >> i want to ask more question and opened up. fair warning to the audience of your questions ready. as the ranking member authorize the committee for defense given your appropriate comments about the effects of the shut down and continued uncertainty on the defense and national security community what is it that you and your committee are thinking of being able to do in this year and this environment to help in the overall strategic front and

creating some kind of pathway forward for the defense community in particular? >> well it's very difficult. we are working on a variety of issues on authorities 1206 in 1203 in different pieces to get greater flexibility as they confront and deal with the challenges that they face. it basically is building partner capacity. they refer to it as preparation of the environment. what are you preparing it for exactly that they answer to that question is we are trying to compare it so we don't have insurgencies and that is training security forces in making sure that governance is happening and socom does medical care with mid-caps to try to build local population support. a lot of this is what we have done in the philippines and emphasizing that.

the big war approach in this ideological struggle and to think drone strikes have negative consequences. send in 100 thousand plus western troops into a country. it's not a winner so i think trying to focus on that and building the capacity config using the asymmetric tools that we have to give the flexibility for the fight. look, that's all great but as long as we are merging from crisis to crisis and you have sequestration in the cr gives you no better than anybody it's just tough. it's tough to function when you don't know how much money you are going to have our where you can spend it. >> very true. okay we are going to have some mike's going around. raise your hand if you would like to ask a question i would ask you give us your name and affiliation if you have one. we have one right over here. >> thank you for your restraint

in describing the political situation today. i would like to go back to the ideological struggle. 10 years ago the defense science board released a report to don rumsfeld about the war on terror in which is said quote the united states did not win the war on terror unless we win the war on ideas and we are losing the war on ideas and that is true today. during world war ii we had great propaganda and during the cold war we did extremely well. reagan's, to gorbachev take down that wall. why are we so inept and almost derelict in not having some of the broad black, gray and white propaganda campaign to discredit and do all the things we need to do. as you know the only thing we are doing is trying to turn a couple of youth off the internet from becoming al qaeda. why is it impossible for us to come out with an ideological campaign that is absolutely essential and could actually have big dividends for relatively small amount of money?

>> first of all a great point again. i quote tom friedman twice in the same morning that the same piece rotunda square the fact that we are not winning the ideological struggle. syria is a great example of that because you have assad not popular by any stretch of the imagination. you have got a lot of moderate democrats who want to overturn and create a better style of government. not western. that's an important point. that is one of the challenges we have. we should not approach this by saying we want the world to be like us. most of the world doesn't want to be like us and can blame them for that so we have got to stop. it's not the same as the cold war. in the cold war basically the way i have always summed it up the way we won the cold war is here is your grocery store and here is our grocery store, we win but when it comes -- it's much more central to the

way they want to go's so trying to convince somebody like us ain't going to work. we tried that for a while but in syria you have the moderate elements and you have al qaeda and there are foreign fighters coming from all over the muslim world and they are all coming on the side of al qaeda. if there is one single solitary soul to fight for the free syrian movement to fight for freedom and democracy than i am unaware of it. that gives you an idea of how we are not doing as well as we should. the second race i think it's very difficult as we have very little credibility and that's a problem. that makes it hard and as a member of congress i can tell you how difficult it is when we don't have much credibility in great and painful detail as a matter of fact. for a variety of different reasons i thought it was interesting in egypt that both sides were claiming the other side had u.s. support. even you know the people who are opposed to the muslim brother

heard were claiming that the u.s. was behind them. i forget the argument that basically if it appears the u.s. is involved in something and it's by definition not credible so how do you handle that? i do not think we have been as creative as we need to be both in terms of the most effective thing is the idea of al qaeda. the al qaeda movement has killed more muslims than any movement in the history of the world. we can very clearly show and to some degree in iraq where we were successful with the iraq awakening and the sons of iraq movement was driven by the fact that these nihilistic violent people are killing. they are terrible. so i think we need to use them more effectively but the real challenge is in a transparent world how do you do propaganda? we haven't figured that out. propaganda in many cases is dependent upon plausible

deniability and the hidden hand. there are no hidden hands and that makes it much more difficult. one of the problems we have is the whole nsa thing and people have this perception. a lot of those articles were just flat wrong about what we were doing. we are not doing what they said and good luck convincing the people of that. i think the credibility is a challenge. the most effective way to do this is partner capacity. the the way we have to approach it is to get moderate credible elements and there are some groups out there doing this within the muslim world. they have to be the messengers. if we are the messengers it's not going to go over well so that is where we should focus our efforts building up partner capacity and delivering that message. >> okay, over here. >> as we continue to expand our efforts in building partner capacity it seems likely might

encounter that limit democratic values versus achieving stability and at times we have and likely will continue to fund the units that are either engaging in questionable behavior or perceived as behaving in question all behavior and they might be losing that ideological battle so how do you strike that balance and where's the congressional oversight of programs like 1206 come into play in finding the right balance? >> i think that's one of the single biggest problems we have because to begin with there is no government that isn't going to have something that people can criticize. no matter who you are backing there will be an argument that they are not as open and not as free or fair as they should be. i think things like the leahy amendment limiting our ability if you have situations where militaries are committing atrocities we have to pull out and if there is a democratic

government overthrown we have to pull out. we did that in montagne at and mali and wrestling with that a little bit in egypt. i don't have an easy answer for that question. i will say this. i think disengagement is the wrong approach. i think saying if you do anything that we are out of here and we are not going to have anything to do with you is more harmful than helpful. we need to continue to emphasize the fact that we are much more aggressively trying to push these countries and these allies to have greater respect for human rights to be more democratic and we certainly have done that in a number of different places. it's never going to be a perfect system. again the power of negative negative campaigning if that is what people are concerned about i love it amnesty international came out with a huge study of our efforts. where's the amnesty international study of all the people that al qaeda have killed them how indiscriminately they have gone after civilians? it's not even comparable and to

say that well you know but they are not trying to do that. you know let's have a little balance here and let's point out that the people we are fighting have killed far more innocent people than we have. they do it intentionally as part of their plan. so i think we have to also emphasize the alternative. there is no perfect system. if we are held up to that standard and if we say look in the u.s. you have to only support perfect governments and we have no rules for the other side, as a propaganda war you can never win. >> right over here in the purple shirt. and. >> kevin meyer. you expressed your belief that the killing of anwar al-awlaki al-awlaki -- how about the drone attack on his teenage son who was also an american citizen? >> yeah. i'm not a semior with the specifics of that and which attack that was but that's a

fine example of why we need to be more transparent in explaining the reasons for our attacks. basically if an attack happens i think there has to be at least a one paragraph justification and even in the case of al-awlaki the administration is not public we released their legal justification for it. they have alluded to it in some of the speeches that were given and you will go case-by-case by case. i don't have any doubt that there are drone strikes that were mistakenly made, that there actually wasn't -- for whatever reason they misread the target, they misread what they were doing that is why transparency is important. so i don't have an answer. i don't know the specifics of that attack. >> are you doing an investigation with amnesty? >> we do have oversight over this and we do regularly get briefed. i apologize off the top of my

head i don't know the details of the different tax there but i have a one time or another been briefed on it. that's a bit of a misconception. there is oversight in that sense. anyone in congress certainly on the armed service and intelligence committee has access to all the information for why these attacks were done. part of my problem in presenting this is that classified informatiinformati on and even if i did know the answer to your question i couldn't get it publicly. that is where he think the administration can be more transparent. they can keep a lot of the classified and i understand the reasons for that but they can also choose to release enough so people know here's why we did it and there is a clear justification. as i said in the amnesty report the biggest part of it is no transparency. we don't know. this attack or that attack was a justified or wasn't it? personally i believe them but the broader public hasn't seen the information and understandably is skeptical. transparency would be enormously

helpful. the oversight congress is able to exercise is helpful but we can't be transparent about it either. that's just us doing our oversight in executive branch. we can't then go out and talk about it. >> i was at the u.n. report that came out a few days before the amnesty report and timeline hits this point very hard on amnesty and it's quite a nice report. >> hi. i am from upi. i was just wondering in terms of you said some of the -- might be mistaken and i was wondering what you advocate for repercussions in those cases and also there is a critique that oversight and transparency would interfere with national security decisions so if you could comment on that as well. >> he first of all no, this is war and that's something a lot of people don't understand. in war mistakes are made all the

time time and as i said up front civilians suffer in wartime. they always do and i think part of the problem with some of the arguments on the unmanned vehicle campaign is that we have tried to argue that this is different because they were discriminating and all those things are true. it is somewhat better than a traditional military invasion. it's so much better than an f-16 or cruise missile. it is still poor and it is still war in an area where civilians are going to be vulnerable. so we went through through this in iraq and afghanistan and all the situations where there are certain times when mistakes are made. we had the horrific case with the joint days lewis-mcchord soldier who killed 17 afghan civilians. that's a crime. he has been prosecuted and

convicted but i don't see evidence of that level of criminal intent but it's war. in a war mistakes will happen in the second part of your question was? [inaudible] >> there is that allen's but again i think the administration and all administration seem to have this attitude that we can share nothing. if we share information it'll instantaneously make us vulnerable. it's particularly ironic because it comes out anyway. part of the justification for not talking to congress as we don't trust congress not to leak it and a lot of times congress learns about it by what they read in a paper that was leaked from the administration. i understand sources and methods and understand that very well. i served on the intel committee and we need to protect that but how does make it more vulnerable to, the one paragraph and say here's what we know about this guy. this is why we took the shot.

it was in self-defense because this person is affiliated with this group. they were plotting these attacks and its western targets. i'm also aware the fact that if you do that it's like how do you know? than you can say it's classified but at least make the justification here they think the administration and president obama's speech and mr. brannen gave a speech in jade johnson gave a speech last year which kind of laid this out. i think it administrations sometimes believes that they assemble the different facts and they give a speech and then it's done. i explained it to you leave us alone we are going to go back to work. it's a more constant process of justifying and explaining your actions. the moment at which those of us working closely in the campaign are absolutely sick to death of our message is the moment of which it is just beginning to penetrate with the people you

are trying to reach. so you can't sum it up and say okay i told you and you are supposed to believe it. that is why i think greater transparency would be helpful and you can do it in a way that doesn't jeopardize national security. >> how about right here in the middle. >> i'm pat with defense daily. congressman you keep on saying that we are at war and we are but your remarks remind me of what general ge upset about the u.s. involvement in vietnam where we may kill more of their soldiers but eventually we will tire of the war. the fact of the matter is budgets are down and sequestration is the love the land. how much longer can the united states afford to be fighting all these wars all over the world against an enemy that will continue to respond as long as we are prosecuting these efforts it just seems that we have a limited amount of money but our

prosecution needs evermore amounts? >> in this case i disagree with you very strongly. the answer to that question is how much longer can we prosecute the war? as long as it takes is the answer. this is not vietnam. this is not some domino theory of distraction. this is a group of people who as we sit here today are trying to figure out how to kill as many of us as possible and we need to figure out how to stop them. the good news and that is it's not quite as six expensive as you describe. hopefully what we have learned in the past decade as i said earlier is full scale 100,000 troop invasions are not expensive and not a successful way to prosecute this war but if we build partner capacity, if we maintain our intel it is far far cheaper to do this than people realize. we have dealt an excellent infrastructure. we are tracking them and by and large we have been very successful as we know at disruptindisruptin g those al

qaeda cells that are targeting us. the larger problem is the ideology, tacitus's station -- metastasis they should. it creates a huge opening for extremist ideologies but that's a different problem. that's a problem frankly that the rest of the world in those countries are responsible for. specific problems of stopping terrorist groups plotting attacks against us -- we can't give up on that. we can't say no we are just going to stop trying to stop them and see what happens. i think we can do it in a cost-effective manner and i think we have to. that would be vastly more easy to do if we would get rid of this ridiculous isolationist know nothing nihilism that the federal government is awful and we must cut it. people say the tea party is running this country. the tea party is not running this country. grover norquist is running this government.

grover norquist wants to shrink it down to two is small enough size that if he can drown it in a stop to. that's the ideology that the republican house is governed on and we can argue all day long and help the government should be in there plenty of things wrong with the democratic party. but when you come to the point where you consistently kick the crown out of the federal government by not passing appropriations bills and threatening to shut down the government and threatening not to raise the debt ceiling because that will stabilize the economy that undermines their ability. i hope at some point we will get over this. that makes it more difficult but again it's too important a problem to walk away from. >> anybody over here? >> congressman, bear mcconnell retire. what about domestic use of drones? what are your thoughts? >> it's a difficult issue and i

will sidestep a slightly by saying that is not the topic this morning. i am more focused on the aumf but it's a huge problem. we have that issue and it's not just drugs. cameras are proliferating as a major controversy in seattle that they wanted to put cameras up in the port of seattle and there was backlash against it. there've been counties and cities that want various things and people are concerned about it. i could get up to a lengthy answer about the policy implications of all of that. i will just sum up by saying it's a big challenge. if you think about the people who we have captured and the bombing in boston and the fact that there were so many cameras around enable us to fairly quickly get to them. if security versus liberty and people have been debating that for a long time and that debate is getting increasingly complicated due to technology.

>> let's see, how about right in the back here. >> thank you. i am a u.s. army colonel retired and used to teach counterinsurgency working for the interstate company in michigan now. anyway i have to say i think it's the most brilliant lucid objective description that i have heard of how we use drones and why we use drones and the whole thing of trying to deal with the terrorist threat from whatever source. now my question is this on drones. my feeling is from hearing president obama's for examples speech at the end of the year on national security and your presentation this morning that his idea, what he is working towards us phasing out drums. using them now for the reasons you articulated. we are at war and they work to

the targets that are targeting us but you gave such a great description as he has too of the long-range problem in countering their ideology so my question is this. do you believe that his intention which was implicit in his comment the war on terrorism like all wars must and? implicit in that is dealing with the ideological part by phasing out the drones and turning this over the handling of remnants of al qaeda or whoever over to the police forces and cooperation among police forces and intelligence. and senator kerry believes that when he said you know -- >> i got it. i think that is the intent and this is also a challenge and this is one of the battles we fight in congress.

senator graham is on the exact opposite side of this for instance. this is the controversy controversy over i'll only be and they basically think that we should treat it as a war and military custody and they were aggressive about trying to say anyone in the script should be in military custody domestically and basically an entire argument for that is that there is some greater value that you can get out of questioning somebody in military custody for questioning them in a traditional law enforcement setting. i debate that a little bit. i think the fbi has had an initial amount of success and a traditional setting but granting for the moment that maybe there is more information you can get out of the military custody setting, the downside of the joel war approach is what is being missed. the fact that our allies the muslim world the u.s. citizens get tired of a perpetual war

approach. now to the extent and that is why closing guantánamo and the other thing i didn't mention earlier and i meant do we need to move towards getting rid of indefinite intention, getting rid of the notion that we in the u.s. uniquely amongst all countries have the right to grab anyone in the world and hold them without charge indefinitely. we may have a justification for that and understand i understand the benefit of it but the downside in terms of winning that broader ideological war is enormous and cannot simply be dismissed. as much as i would like -- as much as some people would like to live in the world but once we decide something as important as everything else has to fall in line -- that's not the way the world works. we have got to figure out how to work with them in one of the most important things we can do is move back towards a cliché in congress regular order which is we have a constitution and we have a court system which once upon a time was the envy of the

world. to the extent the get back to that that helps us in our broader ideological war. >> you have mentioned closing guantánamo. i did want to make sure you have an opportunity to talk a little bit about that. there are various ways one can do that in combination or in singular. transfer release movement to a u.s. civilian or military us-based facility. do you have a preferred approach to how one gets to closing guantánamo? the absolutely and i don't think it's altogether that complicated once we decide we are going to do it. paul lewis a former staffer helped work on this effort. paul knows this in great detail. somewhere in the neighborhood we are down to 160 votes there. well over half of them a long time ago had been deemed to be

releasable but there are concerns. the cynicism and all of that but we would release those who are releasable back to their home country. is there risk and that? absolutely. anyone you release anyone from incarceration there is a risk. that is not the criminal justice policy and i don't think it's good counterterrorism policy. everybody else that we determined for whatever reason we cannot release and try to convicted them we will house them in the united states. there are many public policy arguments in my career that have frustrated me. it's amazing how many people leap to incorrect conclusions but the notion that we cannot hold the dangers people safely in the united states to me is patently absurd. and yet it drives the debate.

keep in mind this wasn't some goal gates, john mccain confident george w. bush said we should close guantánamo. why haven't we? i were to say the argument grew that oh my goodness if we bring them here is placing us at risk. that argument to cold. in the united states of america right now we have mass murderers. we have some of the most violent nihilistic people you could possibly imagine. we have terrorists. ramzi yousef the blind sheikh and on and on. they are in the u.s.. if we as a society cannot safely pulled dangers people then we have problems that have nothing to do with guantánamo. we can absolutely safely hold them here and we should. it's just that simple.

how do we get around that argument? i don't know. like i said once it takes hold and becomes intractable but the solution is simple. release the ones who can be released and lock up the rest in supermax facilities in the u.s. just like we have done with countless others. >> we have time for one last question. right over here. >> colonel i'm an air force fellow at -- thank you for being here today. he talked about the partnership capacity. what world to unmanned systems play in that? for example that the mtc rb revised to allow u.s. leadership in that field? the missiles technology comptrollers mission? >> yeah there are a couple of pieces to that. unmanned systems by and large the number one biggest thing there is an isr platform.

basically gathering information and that is one of the capacities are partners don't have and the problem of afghanistan, how do we build the capacity for afghanistan. i think they can play a role and one of the things i worry about is we have this paranoia about selling the systems. we have a huge problem right now in italy and elsewhere and i just think that's a huge mistake i have actually done a great deal of work on export control and their export control policy has been a disaster because it's based on the premise that somehow we end the u.s. are the only ones that are capable of tilting military equipment so if we don't let it out it will never happen. that doesn't work eagerly well. what does do is it devastates domestic industry. satellites are the greatest example of this. when it was passed in the late 90s we had roughly two-thirds of the global satellite market.

we are now down to 20% and understand how itar worked and i will circle back specificaspecifica lly to drones in the second. if a component is sold to to go into the satellite you couldn't sell it without going through a complicated -- complicated doesn't begin to describe it. if you sold the bolt that went into a satellite you could not export the alt to anybody without going through this regime which was virtually impenetrable. we need to have a more open way of looking at this. people will develop drone cut knowledge he. it's one of the ways to build so they are able to build these capabilities. we are concerned about these things falling into the wrong hands it might get that but you know iran. they fall into the wrong hands whether we are selling them to our allies are not. the overly paranoid approach

export controls. one of the things we got in the ndaa last year was a pretty dramatic reform of the export control regime which gave the administration flexibility in moving forward in a positive direction. but the regime right now is extremely problematic to finally the thing i would say about this is it's very problematic because it harms domestic u.s. industry. i used to have these arguments on the armed services committee in which a series of people would be yelling at me that we can't choose -- we can't choose corporations and businesses in profits over national security. i tried in vain for a decade to explain that wasn't the choice because our industrial base is enormously important for national security. one of the great advantages that we have had for decades is the best brightest companies in technology and you name it for u.s. companies. that's not to say we can't buy

things from overseas companies but trust me we have a vastly better relationship with the us-based company to meet our industrial days for national security if they are the leaders. and if we hamstring them so that they can't compete they will cease to be the leaders. once they cease to be the leaders we lose the national security advantage that is not insignificant. the rest of the world builds technology. we are not going to wait dominate the way we dominated post-world war ii but i would still like to leave the hamstrung abilities to get markets is extremely problematic so we need to reformat as well. >> let me briefly mention that csis in november will be beginning in unmanned systems working group series. we are going to look at a lot of these issues that have come up today related to drones. i asked the audience to join me in thanking representative smith

for spending time today and giving us his talk. thank you very much. [applause] >> as nasa's future goes so too does that of america. and if nasa is help --

healthy then you don't need a program to convince people that science and engineering is good to do because they will see it writ large on the paper. there will be calls for engineers to help us fill ice fishing on europa where there is an ocean of water that has been liquid for billions of years. we will dig through the soils of mars and look for life. that will get me the best biologist. look at the national portfolio today. it's got biology chemistry physics geology -- planetary biology. all the stem fields. science technology engineering and math represented in the nasa portfolio. the healthy nasa is a flywheel that society caps for innovation.

tonight the republican and democratic candidates for governor of virginia met for their final debate before the general election. we previewed the debate and discussed the virginia governor's race with richmond times dispatch columnist bureau. mr. shapiro let's begin with what do you expect from tonight's debate? who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose here? >> caller: the latest polls as with all of the most recent polls suggest that mr. mr. mcauliffe the democratic nominee is way ahead. the republican nominee ken cuccinelli clearly playing catch-up in the art of contemporary politics that he is hoping that tonight he can use this debate to change the narrative and one of the things that we have seen a lot of in recent hours from the ken

cuccinelli campaign is a new fresh and more vigorous step on health care reform. this seems to be more an effort to rally the republican base then really a breach to vast numbers of swing voters. independents who typically -- elections in virginia. >> host: what have you seen in the past few hours from the cuccinelli campaign? >> guest: this morning bright and early another statement from seung-hui cho operative trying to link the muff up in the obamacare is out to mr. mr. mcauliffe. mr. mcauliffe said he would like virginia to expand the medicaid program to comply and there's a good deal of debate within state government over that. the republicans who control the house delegates are dead set against that or so they say and

it promises to be a big flashpoint if mr. mcauliffe is elected. so what we are basically seeing here is guilt by association. mcauliffe has had a lead here and do you suspect that continues or does that narrow as we get closer to election day? >> guest: it's likely it will narrow somewhat however the biggest issue in the campaign seems to be mr. cuccinelli himself. he is a tea party conservative and he makes no apologies for that. however when he ran for attorney general in to 2009 racking up over 1 million votes it's quite clear he was not subject to the close scrutiny by the electorate and that scrutiny has elevated in the years he has spent in the attorney general's office with a number of high-profile crusades

if you will. one of the first attorney generals in the country to challenge the aca. a big struggle in court against the university of virginia over the research on climate change and of course continuing efforts to restrict abortion in virginia that shows up consistently in polls in terms of an enormous gender gap. women are breaking to mr. mcauliffe by double digits in this seems to be largely a consequence of the republican nominee outspoken opposition to abortion rights. >> host: are these independents that are breaking for mcauliffe? who are then decide it's? >> at this point there aren't a lot of undecideds. the women who are breaking to

mr. mcauliffe are not all me democrats, there are a good number of republicans and independent female voters. for them a big issue of course is abortion rights. >> host: what about the libertarian candidate in this race? who is he and what role might he played? >> guest: robert sarvis who ran unsuccessfully several years ago as a republican for the state legislature seems to be a bit at the drag for mr. cuccinelli. the polls suggest that he is running in the low double digits. he is clearly presenting some problems for cuccinelli in terms of throwing away libertarian votes or libertarian republican votes. he has not had a chance to participate in any of the debates because he hasn't really maintained a double-digit

standing in his polls but we are expecting to see him tonight in blacksburg where he may be alive tweeting from virginia tech. >> host: what do you expect the government shutdown -- how will that play out in tonight's debate? >> guest: it's been an enormous there. please keep in mind that virginia has a very substantial portion of its budget, its economy about 26% of its economy that is drawn -- derived directly from military and civilian. he touches the lives of many virginians. as a result there are many virginians who were very upset over the shutdown. it's not just those who worked for the federal government or federal contractors largely concentrated in northern virginia but all along the i-95

interstate 64 corridors swinging down to the atlantic seacoast. that defense for rich southeastern region also a big factor down there is clearly driving up the negative for the republicans. mr. cuccinelli has gone to great lengths to distance himself from what occurred in washington however at the same time he is relying on national republican figure such as ted cruz and also rand paul. >> host: jeff shapiro finally the richmond times dispatch did not endorse a candidate in this race. i understand the divide between you as a columnist and editorial board but why not and what impact -- what does that say about this race? >> editorial page in the richmond times dispatch

certainly for the past four years has shown a great preference for republican gubernatorial nominees. it has not endorsed a democrat for governor and 10 elections. it is widely assumed to have been a default republican newspaper certainly in gubernatorial election years. so the conventional wisdom is the silence of the times dispatch on this governor's race is an indication of continuing republicans discontent with mr. cuccinelli. >> host: jeff shapiro columnist with the richmond times dispatch. thank you for your time and thank you for setting up tonight's debate. >> now debate between candidates for governor of virginia. republican ken cuccinelli and democrat terry mcauliffe. they met earlier in blacksburg virginia for their final debate before the november 5 general election. this is courtesy of local tv

station wgbk seven. >> let me introduce the candidates. we have republican attorney general mr. ken cuccinelli and democrats terry mcauliffe. thank you gentlemen for being a tonight. our panel political analyst the debbie thomas rice chair at virginia tech -- virginia tech doctrinaire was an attractive the structure of the institute of policy and public opinion research at rona college and political analyst and my coanchor chris hurst will be asking questions that came from you the viewers from all of us and from right here in our live audience tonight. here are the rules. each candidate will have one minute and 30 seconds to answer each question followed by a 1-minute rebuttal from the first candidate. each candidate will have 60 seconds to answer each question. i asked the candidates to please remain in the allotted time so i

don't have to be a timekeeper and cut you guys off. we have timers to keep track. let's get going. first we begin with opening statements determined bitcoin toss. terry mcauliffe goes first. you have 90 seconds. >> thank you and thank you to virginia tech for hosting us this evening. it's great to be back in blacksburg. while there has been a lot of tech and forth over the last 11 months there is a simple question that virginians must answer over the course of the next 11 days. who will work with both parties to focus on jobs and education? i have been honored to earn the support of a historic number of republicans. many of whom have never supported a democrat for governor. it's the same kind of coalition i will assemble in richmond responsible leaders who will put jobs first and partition -- partisanship behind. we will focus on mainstream issues like job creation and

maintaining fiscal responsibility. as this campaign has gone on my opponent has become increasingly desperate and that includes false attacks on me and false attacks about his own record. during this debate just like his previous campaigns my opponent would claim that he will focus on jobs. but even the conservative richmond times dispatch said once in office he quote pursues his divisive agenda with strikes. he sponsored legislation that would ban some birth control and intimidatintimidat e scientists at our great universities and tried to derail governor mcdonnell's transportation bill. just this week he refused to say whether he supported reopening the government. >> mr. mcauliffe that is your time for an opening statement. mr. cuccinelli, nine -- 90 seconds. >> unlike my record and service

terry mcauliffe never did anything for virginia before deciding to run for governor, nothing. some people run to do something and some people run to be something. i'm the only one in this campaign with a detailed plan to cut taxes by $700 for a family of four and create 58,000 new jobs come to improve education at all levels and protect our energy jobs. my opponent's plan has been to attack me -- you just heard it in scare virginians especially women into voting for him to speak in platitudes without telling you how he will pay for all of the empty promises that he makes. his extremist big government spending promises add up to $1700 a year in new taxes and now the obamacare disaster is unfolding with failing web sites, sky-high premiums including for the poor and congressman you don't have to obey the same law that we do. i was the first to bite obamacare but my opponent didn't

think it went far enough. he wanted the federal government providing your health insurance. look how badly they are doing with the health care exchanges. now he insists obamacare has to be expanded in virginia. why would we expand failure? send a message and say no to terry mcauliffe's expanding obamacare fighting jobs and fighting overreaches what i will do as your governor. >> senator cuccinelli thank you. let's head to her first panelist from virginia tech with a question for terry mcauliffe. >> both of your proposed budgets and campaign promises suggest billions of additional spending. mr. cuccinelli you suggested closing loopholes but there are just not enough of them to cover suggested -- and mr. mcauliffe you are counting on the expansion of medicaid but that is not guaranteed. so the question, where's the money coming from?

will you raise taxes on virginia and could you be specific and tell us what you would cut? >> first and foremost what i've said is no new taxes. what i've talked about is the medicaid expansion which will free up $500 million from the general fund. the medicaid expansion bipartisan the virginia chamber of commerce. what we need to do is first figure out what efficiencies we can have in the government from the medicaid expansion ones we know how much money we have then we can put the priorities that talk about pre-k early childhood development reforming the sol's teacher pay investing in community colleges financial aid and higher ed. i think that's a prudent way to do a budget. figure out what our savings are and how much money we have and then make the decisions based upon one's priorities. my opponent has proposed a $1.4 billion tax cut. he doesn't say how he would pay for it.

the former republican of the provisions committee has said it would bring fiscal disaster to virginia tech and actually went through. as recently ew jackson said he and ken cuccinelli want to laminate the corporate income tax in virginia so $1.4 billion a year not paid for get rid of the corporate income tax. he didn't want the governor's transportation package. he does a lot to $21 billion in medicaid expansion pick his plan is a fiscal disaster for the commonwealth of virginia and we cannot grow and diversify when we cut public education and cut much-needed money that we need to grow our economy. >> that's time. thank you and mr. cuccinelli you have 90 seconds. >> thank you for the question. the "washington post" said a lot of what you heard from terry mcauliffe is not true. my tax-cut plan which would grow 58,000 new jobs reduce the personal income tax to 5% in

business income taxed 24 and like i said grow 50,000 new jobs that i'm the only candidate with a plan and actual plan with details to grow new jobs and by the way we pay for that because unlike washington we have to pay for these things is to reduce the growth of government spending to just under 3.5% and to cut out about one sixth, one in six of her tax credits exemptions and loopholes to pay for the cost of that tax cut which again was designed around job creation. the only other major spending program that i have proposed is in the area of mental health and i have said however pay for that. it is to move dollars that are used for nonhealth care services within the medicaid program over to treat children in particular children but others as well for mental health needs. i have explained how i pay for my proposals. terry mcauliffe has proposed

$3.5 billion in spending and counting and even with his math he portends did get $500 million out of the medicaid expansion which he is called a jobs program. folks combats welfare. you can't make magic money out of the federal government like you would like to land that is going to cost every family 1700-dollar tax increase. >> thank you very much. terry mcauliffe dr. bop said where's the money going to come from and he talks government efficiency. does that involve government programs and what programs would you turn down? >> we can eyes bring efficiencies to government. my opponent talks about saving money for tax incentives. that's tens of millions. it's not going to dollars. his plan has been attacked by democrats and republicans. defense callahan the former chairman eggers of the house appropriations committee said it would bring fiscal disaster. mark warner just came out and --

as have so many local officials. the idea that you can do $1.4 billion in tax cuts a year per year without saying how you were going to pay for it -- i would love to stand here and promise you billions of dollars in tax cuts but it's fiscally irresponsible. what is plan would result in is next euro we could see thousands of teachers laid-off at a time we are facing cuts in sequestration. we need to be growing and diversifying our economy. >> mr. mcauliffe that will do it. i don't know if you had answered what we ask that that's it for that question. moving to question number two from dr. harry wilson and this question is directed to mr. cuccinelli. >> both of you have acknowledged that -- how can we be sure that students are learning without testing te? what are your alternatives to the sol's and be as specific as

you can be. >> i don't want to get rid of the sol's. i want to improve the sol's. i believe the reform of almost 20 years ago was a great addition to our educational system. i think it gave us accountability for taxpayers and teachers but i don't think it's working quite as well as we all envision. we are teaching to the tasks too much now. i believe became go to more generalized tests that are obviously still testing children and their progress but allow us to be more flexible so that schools can test a different time so they are not all tied to the same schedule because they don't operate on the same school schedule. that is very important. it will involve teachers parents academics in putting together a commission to review the sl wall test to reform them so they better evaluate our children and

allow us to better evaluate and more fairly evaluate our teachers. that's important change in i've also talked about in education the need to make sure that parents have control over their children's education particularly where they are in failing schools. we have a great school system in virginia and we are very blessed in that rape hard but every school is a success and parents seem to be able to move their children to another public school or if necessary to private school. what matters is getting that child the best education we possibly can. >> thank you. mr. mcauliffe your alternatives? >> earlier in the year shorter more essay type. they don't work for her parents and they don't work for students and they don't work for our teachers. we want accountability for teachers but there's not accountability today. they are judged on whether students pass and sol so they are teaching the task and that is not what you want to do.

when i'm on the campaign trail and talking about reforming the sol's in hariklia teacher will say to me i love teaching because i'm teaching to test. memorization is not thinking cognitively and creatively. we want critical reasoning going on with her students we can build the jobs of the 21st century. i think it's great we memorize the date that man landed on the moon but an essay about the great spacex somewhere doing and how virginia is a great leader in space exploration we can understanunderstand how the child is thinking and that's important. when i talk about sol collaboratively coming together so works for students. education is important. that is how we build a 21st century economy. mike opponent has proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow public-school funds be taken out for private schools. as governor i don't want to see

a penny taken out of public schools. we need to build up our public schools and user best practices to make virginia a model in america and the globe for kates your -- k-12 system. >> mr. cuccinelli your response to that. he opponent has criticized you saying you're going to cut funding to education. your response to that? >> first of all it's important to note want the strongest possible public school system we can have but it's more important that we make every -- make sure every child has the best opportunity to be as educated as possible. he has made that charge before but i've repeatedly told you how we pay for tax cuts. we have a program in place and if i don't pay for it i don't get it. it's not like washington where terry comes from. we have to pay for the things we propose. i will give you my last 30 seconds is the moderators he can tell us how you are paying for any of it. you can have my 30 seconds and

tell us how you will pay for one detail plan. >> let me state again. first of all government is inefficiencies. i'm not committing money until a nosac we how much money were going to have. i'm not going to visit -- fiscally irresponsible money like ken cuccinelli. i commit that to my parties. >> that is time. mr. mcauliffe thank you. let's move on to another topic. this comes from chris hurst and this is a viewer question. this came from someone in the commonwealth. >> thank you. we have been asking for the last few weeks for anybody across the commonwealth to send questions and we have gotten hundreds of responses. on the issue of gun control without a lot of tweets in e-mails from viewers so there are few points they would like to know from you. kevin plattsburgh wants to know

do you support or oppose universal background checks on every gun sale even private sales when neither seller or purchaser has a federal arms license and for license and whether you support a ban on high-capacity magazines and so-called assault rifles? >> let answer this first as a parent as a spouse. i think it's important to understand when we drop our children off to school school or i loved ones off at work we want to make sure that our children and loved ones are safe. i am a strong supporter of the second amendment. i'm a gun owner but i support universal background checks. this is -- my opponent and i differ in that. i'm wearing my pin today in honor and memory of all of the folks at virginia tech that went through that tragedy. the other day a young man came to see me colin goddard.

colin goddard was when in one of the classrooms. he was shot four times. he still has three bullets in his body. i think it's critical and imperative for every community and every elected official to do the best we can. some people should not own guns. >> mr. cuccinelli? >> what happened at virginia tech is a tragedy that still affects everyone in virginia but none of what you have asked about would have affected that tragedy. i have been one of the leading experts on mental health issues in the general assembly as attorney general and i would be as governor in richmond. i care an awful lot about the community here has spent more than 15 years working to help people suffering from mental illness. we need to did do more in that direction to make sure less of those tragedies happen. one way or another to mental health failures.

i also would note that i am a strong advocate of enforcing our gun laws. virginia is literally one of the best dates in the country doing that and i will continue that as governor. i'm in a rated nra candidate running against the only f rated candidate running statewide in that's. mcauliffe. his allies are running an ad in northern virginia that falsely claim we can get safety through some of these restrictions of law-abiding citizens. >> thank you mr. cuccinelli. this is a viewer question with 60 seconds for each candidate. a panel question from dr. bob directed towards mr. cuccinelli. >> in the past few decades certain areas of the commonwealth particularly southwest virginia have been hit very hard economic he losing jobs in industry as you know. what are your job plans to specifically help the hard-hit areas here in the commonwealth

of virginia and particularly the south side and southwest virginia? >> i certainly agree with you that they have had the hardest time economically over number of years. my job program was designed first and foremost to maximize the amount of job creation in the private sector without the government picking winners and losers that we possibly could. that is what what we started a campaign within that is what we still advances one of the most important things on campaign. that matters the most in the parts of virginia that are struggling the most like the south side where we have our longest -- long-term unemployment and southwest and let's face it they are suffering first and worst from the regulatory onslaught out of washington. the warm cold hurts southwest virginia. it's a war on our poor virginia my opponent is all and as he likes to say. he ran for governor last time and he never wanted another coal plant built in last month when the regulation came at the epa that would make sure that

happens eventually get made it he supported it and that's exactly where he is. i have fought that onslaught from washington that kills jobs and kills opportunities in the parts of virginia we need it the most. we needed the most and if you look on the south side of virginia were enormous proportion of electricity is from coal-fired electricity generation. it is critically related to job creation from manufacturing which would like to see coming back in that part of virginia and it won't happen if we don't have long-term reliable low cost electricity that i've been fighting for. >> thank you mr. cuccinelli. mr. mcauliffe. >> these communities need help. we have to focus on these communities and hold these communities up. number one the medicaid expansion would help tremendously. millions of dollars invested in these communities up quality lifesaving care. why do many people get forced

into poverty? a lot of buzz health? a lot of buzz health care cost? a lot of buzz health care costs in number to cut transportation. i supported the transportation plan did my opponent side of the tea party and tried to you railed the governance transportation plan. we have to get trucks off of 81. i support the expressway. transporttransport ation. i talk about what we need to do. broadband cell phone access. i was in highland county recently and i was out of cell phone coverage for an hour in 10 minutes. it's hard to grow community if you can't get cell phone coverage. i talk about the great work at or cheney tech carbon capture is so important. i met with professor mike mccormick said the idea we can create these new jobs with this technology is spectacular. it's there and it's in front of us and we need to invest in the research and keep it going and i commend or cheney tech for the outstanding work at done. you can grow an economy and bring in new professors.

it was my opponent to soothe the university of virginia as he disagreed with a scientist view on climate change. it cost them $600,000 dollars preview can growing economy by suing scientists. >> we have a least an area of some agreement here. i do agree the state has a role to play in energy research at our universities but where we part ways is. mcauliffe tests -- wants to have one court or electricity coming from things like solar and wind and geothermal by 2025. that would cost over 40% higher electricity rates. that is what it's done stunning kansas where they have implemented that program and they estimate they will lose over 10,000 jobs by 2020 and they are less than half our size. that's about 25,000 lost jobs for virginia. that is not a way to bring back the south side of virginia and not a way to ensure the

southwest can continue on. you here again the medicaid expansion is the money tree that funds everything. mcauliffe talks about, the $3.5 million that will cost of a virginia family $1700 more in taxes every year. >> thank you mr. cuccinelli. dr. will sing your question for. mcauliffe. >> many citizens say they want an elected official who compromises to get things done at the same time many people also want elected officials who fight for what they believe is right. as governor how can you know when to compromise and went to fight for a principle and can you give an example from your own experience when you believed it was right to compromise and another example of when you believed it was right to fight or a principle? >> first and foremost the transportation package i thought was critical to virginia's future. day one i call the government and i went to speak to

democratic caucuses twice. i thought that was important in how we grow our economy. i want every woman who is watching tonight or in this audience to know that i trust women to make their own decisions about their own personal health care choices. compromise is not a bad word. my opponent will not compromise. he is a rigid ideological agenda. he is the one who sponsor personhood legislation that would outlaw most forms of contraception and make the pill illegal. my opponent threatened and bullied the board of health resulting in 20 women's health centers being shut down. it's my opponent who has referred to virginians as selfless soul as human beings. who talks like that? there is someone in this audience who might be or has a friend who is. you can't grow our economy with this mean-spirited language. he sponsored legislation to tell

virginians when they can or cannot get out of a marriage. he wanted to define when you can get divorce. there's an important bill on the state senate to increase child support payments to rise with inflation. it was a 39-1 vote. guess who voted against that? ken cuccinelli so compromise is not a bad word. >> mr. cuccinelli. >> i'm the only person that experience working on a bipartisan basis to do anything. mcauliffe didn't do anything meaningful in the transportation bill. a lot of people made phonecalls. 140 voted and went governor signed and in his case amended and then sign. i have compromise from the previous bill when i was involved in 2007 when i was in the state senate. we got 21 votes for a compromise transportation bill in 2007. unfortunately governor tim kaine proceeded to make it unconstitutional and a collapse.

i didn't compromise when it came to getting property rights passed in virginia. it took eight years of hard fighting and you know who the key vote was to get it on the ballot? the last candidate for governor by the democrats and he is to be commended. that was a bipartisan effort and it took many years of fighting with the leadership of both parties. there is a time to fight and there is a time to compromise. and you mentioned abortion clinic regulations. i long ago offered compromise to the other side on that and they were projected. what he describes as my role is flat-out false and i believe. knows it. unfortunately i believe he knows it and the personhood bill he likes to hang a lock on was a bipartisan bill. you know we have never had a bill passed on the subject of life without democrats support? the things you hear him demagogue he is treating you falsely and you have to be careful in not believing him.

>> mr. mcauliffe do you want to address that? if you could address too we are talking about compromise on that city will have experience working in government so how would you work with other lawmakers and work with folks in richmond? >> by bringing folks together. i will meet with every republican member of the state senate and house of delegates. we have big issues here sequestration will be here for another year but you have got to work together. that is why 12 former republican legislators many of him who worked with ken cuccinelli have endorsed my candidacy. the mayor of virginia beach the mayor of our biggest city has never endorsed a democrat for governor and his endorsed mike candidacy. look at the endorsements i've received from the "washington post" and the virginia pilot and the daily press which last year endorsed mitt romney.

terry mcauliffe will bring people together. as the "washington post" said in their endorsement pragmatism over ideology. in order to move forward we have to do it in a bipartisan way. that is why so many republicans business leaders and elected officials endorse me. >> thank you mr. mcauliffe. chris what they question from the viewers. >> mr. cuccinelli robert sarvis the libertarian candidate for governor has been denied the opportunity to take part in this debate. rich from blacksburg was from blacksburg was to once you know how do you feel about the decision to not allow the candidate on the ballot to burgess paid in the debate and jessica from alexandria says with sarvis exclusion from the debate and why? >> obviously i wasn't invited candid here and i'm happy to participate. wdbj7 said its rules and i'm happy to abide by those rules

and i'm happy to be here to participate can expect to beat be participating with him on saturday so it isn't over yet. i'm proud to have congressman ron paul's endorsement. i would point out that in my lifetime in virginia i am the strongest pro-liberty candidate ever elected statewide during my lifetime in virginia and i have fought from the biggest potential opponent to protect liberty that being the federal government and i have fought for the smallest, one person thomas haynesworth who served 27 years in prison for crimes he didn't commit and i went to court personally to defend his liberty to get him exonerated. that's an area i've worked with democrats in the state senate to make it possible. next month i'm going to argue another one of those cases to exonerate another man who was convicted falsely. >> thank you mr. cuccinelli. mr. mcauliffe your thoughts on mr. sarvis' exclusion? >> my campaign from day one

would love to have a debate. i have no issues with it. we were happy to have him so we made that clear. a lot of the issues that robert sarvis campaigns on he and i have talked on different issues. we are about bringing folks together to move the commonwealth forward. my opponent attacks the federal government and he was quiet on one big issue. when the violence against women act came up before the united states congress for reauthorization 47 attorney general signed the letter asking that be reauthorize. the violence against women act. only three attorney generals did not vote for it read one of them was ken cuccinelli. robert sarvis and others say we have got to stop this attack on women and stop this attack on virginians. we cannot put walls up around virginia. we have to bring people

together. >> thank you mr. mcauliffe. now they go to john with a question for terry mcauliffe. >> the two of you combine have raised over $40 million for this election. the libertarian candidate robert sarvis has raised less on $100,000. polls suggest he is trying support from citizens in both parties and across the ideological spectrum. can you explain how you have not been more effective at keeping your constituents loyal to your campaigns and what method are you hearing? >> i hope on election day they will be loyal but we have 11 days to go so let's wait until everybody goes and votes but from the beginning of this campaign december 4 when i got into this race i talked about the issues that are important transportation. in northern or january dorothy and i have raised her five

children we have lived there for 21 years. i can tell you as a parent just trying to go see your kids play a ballgame we have serious issues on transporttransport ation. we are stuck in traffic 67 hours a year. hampton roads are gridlocked. we have to make sure we are protecting our military assets so when i talk about transportation bipartisan how we do that's important and i was proud to support the governor. talk about education reform. i talked about pre-k early childhood development. i think it's important that i talked about the issues of as a lower form paid if you take average virginia pay to average teacher pay we rank fifth the eighth out of 56. this is a great nation. we have got great teachers. we need to bring everybody together. i talk about what we need to do at the committee colleges. their 23 community colleges and i have visited every single one of them. out of we build upon that? that is what i talked about from the beginning of his campaign and we do have a difference on medicaid expansion.

we are the greatest nation in the world and i want to make sure the commonwealth of virginia is the best of the 50 and that is why it talked about it if single day in the way to do it is through a bipartisan way. i think the voters on election day will show their support. >> thank you mr. mcauliffe. mr. cuccinelli. >> a lot of platitudes notes details. virginia is somewhat unique relative to other states and this is one thing terry mcauliffe is one of the best in the country in the history of the country at and that is raising political money. we have each written a book. in his book on page 77 you can look at what he says about political money governors races. he said i like governor's race is the best. they have all sorts of road projects and construction jobs and other stuff to give away. that is how he views politics. when he was asked about the teamsters case that he was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 90s by "the new york times" he said well you help me calm guy

help you. that's politics. that's not my politics. i believe good policy is good politics. i passed a piece of electricity legislation this year and i have donors on both sides of that but virginia got lower electricity bills by about a billion dollars between now and 2025. we have a mess in southwest virginia related to methane gas. i'm the only candidate in this race who has ever proposed a solution. the gas companies did not like it but it was my solution nonetheless. if you elect me your next governor we are going to move ahead with a mandate from you the people of virginia to implement that solution whether those companies like it or not. so you get -- you help me and i help you and that's politics from terry mcauliffe for you get good policy from ken cuccinelli. >> mr. mcauliffe you talk about medicaid expansion. what if it doesn't come through? how will you pay all of the

visit your turn about? >> you don't pay for it until you have the money first thing you have your priorities and i'm not going to have a fictitious budget like ken cuccinelli. nobody thinks it's realistic but ken brought up the books. go to his page where he calls social security and medicare. he said these were government programs created by politicians to make people dependent on government. let me say something. my mother is 91 years old. she has paid into this her entire life. she is not dependent on the government. it wasn't created by bad politicians. that was in his book. he talks about donations. it is ken cuccinelli they got a 100,000-dollar contribution from the council on energy and what was going on in the attorney general's office? they were siding against thousands of southwest landowners that were due money and the attorney general's office was secretly providing data to those two out-of-state companies hurting thousands of virginians and he got a 100,000-dollar contract.

..