so it could be used to recharge and we need to be proactive to approach the water issues we know we will have living on the edge of a desert. . .

>> m oderator: would not be used to defend the barn on same-sex marriage even though it was the biggest constitutional challenge the state faces right now. as governor, you would be part of the council that oversees the fund. how should the fund be used, and with -- would you as governor use it to defend idaho's same-sex marriage ban? >> i think regardless of what an individual's beliefs are about whether we should have same-sex marriage in idaho, the fight is not one idaho can currently win. i think that must be used to -- money used to fight the lawsuit is money thrown down the drain. even nevada saw the wisdom in not pursuing that litigation any further. i think the writing's on the wall, and there are certainly

just some things idaho cannot afford to do in these hard economic times. >> moderator: all right. balukoff: idaho's ban was found to violate the united states constitution. and, again, however people feel personally about same-sex marriage, we also believe in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. and this issue is going to be decided in the courts. there's been, i think, 18 judges around the united states that have found pretty similar to what judge dale found near idaho. other states are fighting that and appealing it to the supreme court. we are a small state with limited funds, and that money would be better used to support higher priorities like education or use it to build our economy, and i think we should wait and let the supreme court weigh in on that issue.

>> moderator: you have one minute. sounds like you guys agree. bujak: i have nothing else to add. scwhrm all right. this one's for you. in idaho these days another big power of the governor is as leader of the state's republican party. as a democrat or a libertarian, you wouldn't wield that influence. which, frankly, is substantial. where else would you seek influence? so where else would you seek influence? balukoff: well, keep in mind that when we are elected, we represent all the people of idaho. and i think the paradigm that we use here of a sports paradigm of, you know, if you're in the majority, you're on offense; if you're in the minority, you're on defense. and then the offense tries to score, the defense tries to keep the ops from scoring. -- offense from scoring. that's the wrong model. the more appropriate metaphor is of an orchestra. once the election is over and we

have our seat, we should be working together to create beautiful music. that's the way i've worked in business, and that's the way i've worked on the school board and in other nonprofit organizations, is bringing people together. party should be a secondary concern. we should work together as representatives of the people of idaho and solving problems as opposed to furthering or blocking a partisan agenda. bujak: this question illustrates the problem with the two-party system. no matter how much people might have good intentions, when you have the republicans versus the democrats, they cannot work together and, in fact, will oppose one another because the agendas are set on a national level. that's the advantage of having somebody like me, a libertarian, in office. i don't have any dog in that fight. my only goal is to represent the people of the state of idaho and

bring conservative values back to the statehouse. and so i'll be able to work with whoever is in the legislature, whether it be a democrat or a republican. because one thing is universal here in idaho, we believe in conservative values. and with that one guiding principle, we can move idaho in a positive direction and take us out of this quagmire that we've been stuck in thanks to government auditors' liberal agenda. >> moderator: want to take a minute? balukoff: sure. in my 17 years on the school board, i've been down to the legislature every year to testify on bills that affect education. so i have worked with both democrats and republicans on school bills. i have relationships with a number of those relationships already, and i continue to maintain those relationships during this campaign. i can work with republicans, democrats and libertarians.

i'm pragmatic. we are looking at what do we need to do for the state of idaho, what do we need to make people's lives better and solve problems. and if we make that as our priority, we will be successful, and we will bring people together. >> moderator: all right. this one goes to you. we're going to talk about wolves. so, again, the governor's budget for this year is a proposed $2 million to control and manage idaho's wolves. in the final budget, $400,000 was allocated for the creation of the wolf control board. as governor, how great a priority would you put on wolf control in your budget, and what approach should idaho be taking towards management of its wolf population? bujak: the wolf problem needs to be aggressively addressed in idaho, but i don't think you need to threw all of this money at it in order to address it. we have one of the greatest resources here in idaho that we can utilize in a cost effective

way to deal with the wolf problem, and that's idaho hunters. i don't see any reason why we can't have controlled hunts and send the hunters in idaho -- who are some of the best hunters in the united states, probably in the world -- out to control the wolf population. give me some good idaho hunters, a controlled hunt and idaho fish and game, and i wouldn't need $400,000 of taxpayer money to control the wolf problem here in idaho. balukoff: i agree that we don't need to spend $2 million to eradicate wolves. if we're not careful, they'll be back on the federal protected list again just like happened in wyoming just recently. fish and game manages and controls other predators; bears, mountain lions, coyotes. they are perfectly capable of managing wolves. they've got the wildlife biologists, managers that can adequately manage the wolves in consultation with farmers and ranchers. i know there are ways to allow

farmers and ranchers to protect their livestock without exterminating the wolves. so my approach would be to engage the fish and game and the cattlemen and those kinds of associations to get together and develop a good wolf management plan for our state. >> moderator: all right. do you want to say anything more? you have a minute. bujak: no, i think we can move on. >> moderator: [laughter] okay. we're getting to some pretty big topics quickly. i'm going to read you a bit of a letter that governor otter the said in july when hundreds of children were crossing the border illegally. he sent this letter to the federal government saying he wanted to, quote: immediately eliminate the chance of the federal government using idaho as a destination or a staging area for the influx of unaccompanied and illegal immigrants entering the united states through our southern

border. he wrote: it should be understood that the state of idaho will not be actively involved in addressing the humanitarian crisis the federal government has created. as governor -- here's the question -- bujak: okay. >> moderator: as governor, you wouldn't have direct influence over policy, but you could set the tone. immigration reform is a huge issue in idaho. what would your message be to the state, federal government and to our congressional delegation? balukoff: first of all, governor otter set the wrong tone. immigration is very important to our state. it's very important to the agricultural industry here, especially the dairy industry in the magic valley. we need to set the right tone that we need sensible immigration reform that allows guest workers to come here and fill the jobs that need to be done in the agricultural

industry and in some other industries. that is done by congress. but the governor can urge our delegation in congress to work on it, to stop ignoring the problem, stop kicking the can down the road and do some meaningful immigration reform that would allow guest workers to come here. and the bill the senate proposed actually had some pretty good provisions in it to allow people who are here that were undocumented aliens to come forward and submit themselves to a criminal background check. and if they pass that with -- they have a clean background, that they can then have a five-year work permit. they would also agree to pay any back taxes that they owed for the time that they were here and working. those kinds of sensible solutions to immigration reform would be great help to the farmers and ranchers of idaho

and to the magic valley. and think we need to -- i think we need to encourage intelligence solutions and not -- intelligent solutions and not grandstand with letters like what governor otter sent. >> moderator: all right. want to take a minute?pugh pugh pugh it was inappropriate to use these children as political fodder, and i wouldn't have taken the same approach. that being said, i think there has to be a strong stance taken on the immigration issue. i don't know why even though the message is sent repeatedly back to washington, d.c. they are unable and unwilling to secure our borders or to pass any kind of immigration policy that makes any sense. there needs to be a guest worker program. there's no doubt that people who come here from mexico add to the viability of idaho's economy. no doubt about it. but they have to come here legally, and they shouldn't be rewarded for coming here illegally. i would also, as governor,

encourage local governments to cooperate with federal law enforcement. i don't think we need to become an arm of the federal government, but i do think that when people come within the purview of the criminal justice system, their fingerprints ought to be checked -- and they are in some counties now -- and if people are here illegally and committing crimes, they need to be removed. >> moderator: you can have another minute, if you want. balukoff: no. >> moderator: all right. this goes to you, john, this question you knew was coming. there's a movement for idaho to takeover management of federal public lands. is an idea you support, and what would it look like? if you don't support it, what would idaho do to maximize funding for schools? bujak: i do support idaho taking back control of its lands. there's two approaches, and as a lawyer, i recognize this, two approaches you can use. there's a judicial approach going through the courts, and

then there's a political approach where you approach congress about getting control of our lands back. because of the history of lands in idaho over the years, it's going to be a difficult journey, but it's not an impossible one. and i think that idaho's governor needs to stand firm and lead the way only claiming those -- reclaiming those lands. i personally would prefer -- and i think it would more successful and efficient -- to go the political and professional route, and as governor, i would work with our delegation in d.c. to help make that happen. >> moderator: all right. you have a minute. balukoff: idaho cannot financially afford to own those federal lands. right now we own them in partnership with the rest of the citizens in the united states, and they help pay for the management and the fire protection. if we had owned the lands by ourselves, the beaver creek fire last year would have bankrupted the state. we cannot financially afford them. we also can't legally take them.

in the act that admitted idaho to the union, we agreed not to ask for the federal lands. i would prefer an approach that includes local communities with a voice in how the lands are managed as we work with the federal managers, the forest service, the dlm that currently manages those federal lands. there's a good model with the clearwater basin collaborative of getting diverse interests together to come to agreement. i don't think any of us want our lands locked up so we're cut out of them. >> moderator: all right. you have another minute if you want it. bujak: i don't support becoming the federal government's arm managing land here in idaho. if we take back the land in a responsible way, maybe a county at a time, and we use the land we take back and realize the profit potential from the natural resources that are there, one, we can manage the

property in a way that you don't end up with outrageous forest fires and, two, we can generate a boon to the economy that will allow us to be able as a state to afford to manage those lands. that's the key, take it back a piece at a time, take it back responsibly. and if we don't, we're going to see places where they log for a living turn into the silver valley where they can't mine anymore and replace those logging jobs with minimum wage service jobs. that's not the way idaho wants to go. we need access to the resources in those lands. >> moderator: all right. i'll just go to you. you might not think this is a political football, but i've seen panic in people's eyes when i've asked this question. there's been a lot of talk over the years about reforming idaho's tax code. what exemptions would you support adding or eliminating, and what taxes would like to see cut or increased? balukoff: i'm very much in behavior of a -- favor of a comprehensive evaluation of our

entire tax code. that's been a different approach than what governor otter has taken. he has allowed special interests to dictate exemptions that benefit certain industries, certain companies. and over the years that has gotten our tax code out of balance and made it more inefficient. when we first moved here, people used to talk about the stability of the three-legged stool. over the years they were out of balance. we need to take a good look at that to make sure that our tax code is fair across all sectors of the economy, it makes use of technology to keep the administrative burden to a minimum and that it collects the right amount of tax -- cannot too much and not -- not too much

and not too little. that can be accomplished, and as we look at and evaluate not just the exemptions, but the whole way we fund the different responsibilities of our government and decide whether it's appropriate to fund, say, education with sales tax or is it more appropriate to do some of that funding with property tax in a more stable and predictable way than we currently do it today. with that, you know, grocery credit is another good example where we're carrying over a policy or a procedure that is from the 1960s. with bar codes we could exempt groceries and not have to file a grocery tax credit. >> moderator: all right. do you want to respond? bujak: yes. there are too many taxes in idaho to begin with. and what i would support is getting rid of all tax exemptions, because tax exemptionings are just another way that the government manipulates the free market. i think taxes need to be low,

fair across the board and predictable, and the way you get there is to impose a flat tax. that way everybody knows what they have to pay, and everybody pays their fair share. to have these tax exemptions in place the way they're currently in place allows the burden to be shifted, in most cases from big business who are given incentives to come here to the state -- by the way, providing minimum wage jobs a lot of the time -- and pushing that tax burden onto the small business owners here in the state. i'd get rid of all tax exemptions. flat tax is the way to go, in fact, i'd like to see the sales tax disappear. >> moderator: want to add to that? balukoff: sure. i'll just point out one example about how taxes shift from businesses to people, and that's with the property tax and exempting certain business personal property. it helps the businesses, but it's shifted that tax to homeowners, and you can look in the boise school district, for example, where in every year the

total tax we have levied and collected has decreased with the exception of the year that we passed a supplemental levy with 71% of the vote. every other year the total tax has decreased, yet the total tax has gone up. and that's because governor otter and the legislature exempted business property and shifted the burden to homeowners. >> moderator: all right. this is kind of along the same vein. so some people would argue that large companies are attracted to invest and grow in idaho because of our low wages. should idaho increase its minimum wage? bujak: yeah. i saw some statistics recently that idaho's minimum wage is so far below the minimum, the livable wage as a family without any kids, it was half of what you need to have a livable wage in idaho. even so, i don't think the answer to the problem is mandating an increase in the minimum wage. i think, rather, we have to

strengthen the economy and strengthen businesses who have loyalty towards employees, and the small businesses in idaho, they're the life blood of idaho's economy. again, we need to stop giving all of the exemptions and benefits to the big businesses that come here. they don't see employees as anything other than a commodity. they're not generally loyal to their employees. small businesses, on the other hand, are connected with communities. they have a vested interest in doing the right thing by the people who live in those communities. they tend to pay higher wages because they want to pay a livable wage, they want people to stay in the businesses in the communities. so again, we need to change the structure in idaho, and particularly -- in particular, rather, the tax structure so that small businesses get the same as big businesses, and as the free market has been allowed to develop, you'll see as the economy increases, wages will go up. balukoff: as i have traveled around the state, i've asked

small business owners how raising the minimum wage would effect their business. i first asked that question up at the bonner bookstore, and i asked if the minimum wage were raised to $10 an hour, how would that effect your business? she said, it wouldn't. i already pay my people $10 an hour. i asked the same question to a restaurant owner in boise. he gave me the same answer. if we raised minimum wage to $10 an hour, it would notfect my -- not effect my business. the real answer -- i believe we should raise the minimum wage, but the real answer is educating people so they are qualified for more than a minimum wage job. and if we do that and we concentrate on helping those businesses, those small businesses already in the state paying more than a minimum wage, that will help the entire economy and will help the workers that are in those businesses. bujak: just from my experience

traveling around the state, there may be enough of a root and have been established long enough to pay those higher wages, but there are other small businesses struggling to get by. and when i ask them the same question, the answer i got from them was you raise the might be mum wage -- minimum wage and make me pay more at this stage of the game, and we're going to go out of business. we don't want to drive small business out here in idaho. >> moderator: all right. this goes to you. how do you plan to work with the legislature to address the continued backlog of transportation projects to insure safe and efficient roadways in idaho, and how should those projects be funded? balukoff: this is another example where governor otter has not shown leadership. he tried to proprose some funding -- propose some funding to at least make a dent in the roads and bridges, and the legislature resisted, and he didn't go in there and do what he needed to to get people on board.

i would bring people together to talk about the deferred maintenance on our roads and bridges. that is costing our state a lot of money, because when a bridge gets past its useful life, they don't block the bridge and -- it's not going to collapse and cause problems. they put weight limits on it. and that causes the trucks to take products to market or bring products to market to your community to take a longer route. it increases doing the cost of business, and that's passed on to all the consumers that buy those products. we need to spend the money to keep our bridges in good repair, to keep our roads in good repair, and that will help and be a good, a good thing for business. when i ask people about roads and bridges, most people, you know, the county commissioners are very concerned about that. and they wonder where they're going to get the money to fund

roads and bridges. we haven't raised the gas tax in, since 1996, i believe. almost 20 years. if that is an index to inflation, the gas tax would be about 37 cents a gallon today. we also need to look at things like vehicle fees. they're very low in idaho, and maybe those need to increase. but we do need to find a way to increase the funding for maintenance on our roads and bridges. >> moderator: all right. bujak: i think maintenance of the roads and bridges are important. i don't think the answer is, as governor otter suggested, raising the gas tax, raising fees. that isn't the way to do it. there's a lot of fat in the budget, and i'll give you an example. first understanding, you know, the budget basically has three huge components; education -- which is about 65% -- medical care which is 20%, and then

corrections which is about 10%. and we spend entirely too much time locking up nonviolent offenders. last time i looked at the data, it was about $42,000 we spend to warehouse somebody in prison over the course of a year. that's money that could be used other places in the budget including to fund road projects. so i would take a look at the budget, reshuffle where money is being spent and where it's going, ask the legislature, rather, to look at passing some sentencing guidelines to give judges some direction about which people need to be incarcerated and which people don't, start saving money where we can and putting that money to better use. >> moderator: okay. all right. this -- [inaudible] this isn't specifically about the magic valley, but affects the whole state. idaho has a developing natural gas play in payne condition

onand -- [inaudible] counties. new regulations are being drafted, and we should see those or more of those in the next legislative session. as governor, you would have the power to veto or sign any legislation that comes forward. what environmental or bonding regulations would you like to see come across your desk if you were elected governor? >> well, i would rely on the scientists and the people that are in that industry to give me the advice on what's the safest and best way to make use of the natural resources that occur in our state. and it's not only the magic valley, but it's all over. in my part of the state, the western part of canyon county and up in jim county, i believe, fayette county there's the potential for natural gas and people have talked about drilling those wells. and if the resources are there and available for our use, if we can do that in a safe and

environmentally-friendly way, then we ought to take advantage of those resources. but we need to rely on good, sound science in what we're doing so we're careful not to damage the environment and not to contaminate groundwater, for example. so i would rely on our scientists and the experts in the field to advise me on how to approach those issues. >> moderator: when you say in the field, do you mean from the industry i itself? balukoff: from the industry, yes. as well as the people from, you know, environmental groups that may have an opposing viewpoint. but we need to hear people from all sides who have opinions and are knowledgeable about the issues involved in that. >> moderator: all right. bujak: i'd be real cautious about trusting data from people in the industry. first of all, it's important that idaho start realizing its potential as an energy exporter. when you look at states that are doing well -- pulling out of this last recession -- states like texas, states like north

dakota, they're doing well because they are energy exporters. and idaho needs to join those ranks. and that's why it's so important that we get control of all of the lands within our state. now, when it comes to being responsible about extracting those resources, we have to be careful because idaho has a lot of natural beauty, and we need to protect environment as well. for example, i would support bonding so that there is any damage done to the environment, there would be adequate funding to clean that up. i would also support studies into the techniques people are using in order to harvest the resources here. for example, i have a big question mark in my mind about whether fracking makes any sense. i've seen some data that suggests that's the wrong way to extract natural gas. but we need to get informed, make sure the environment's protected but still protect our ability to be an energy exporter. >> moderator: any response? balukoff: no. >> moderator: all right. this goes to you.

what role do you think the governor should play in economic development? how would you help recruit new industry and business to idaho and to assist existing businesses in expansion, and while you're at it, what kind of businesses would you target for idaho? bujak: okay. first of all, i don't think it's the job of government to improve business. i think it's the job of government to set a low regulatory scheme, low tax scheme and then get out of the way and let the free market take care of itself. the only thing government needs to do is process whatever it needs to do in order to be an administrator. if there are permits that need to be issued, government needs to do that effectively and efficiently. but the government shouldn't be in the business of trying to e recruit companies to come here, shouldn't be in the bids of trying to promote one industry over another. that's the job of the free market, that's the job of private industry, not the role of the government.

balukoff: you know, golf otter's approach -- governor otter's approach has the wrong focus. they've been looking across our borders to bring big businesses to idaho and, hopefully, big jobs. we're competing with all the other states, and our competition is to offer low taxes or tax incentives. we have over 40,000 small businesses in our state. and we need to find ways to help them thrive and grow. just think if 10% of those businesses were to add one employee, that's 4,000 new jobs all over the state. i was in jerome a few week ago speaking with the mayor. he said the cheese factory wants to expand, but they can't because jerome water treatment facility is at capacity. the state could help find the grants to help that city expand the water treatment facility and let the cheese factory expand.

that's the kind of thing that government can help businesses do. bujak: again, government's role isn't to help one business compete against another. government should only be involved in keeping regulation low, keeping taxes low and fair across the board, keeping taxes predictable and then getting out of the way and letting the free market do its job. >> moderator: all right. so one of the main powers of the idaho governor is his ability to make appointments. those appointments can really drive the agenda of your administration. how would you go about selecting the people for the various commissions, and what are you looking for in an appointee? balukoff: okay. i think a good model is what they use for appointing judges where they have some lawyers get together and review the applications for those positions, and then they make the recommendation to the governor. and i think in the case of judges, they recommend three people. i think it's important to

consult with the people in that particular industry or business so that we get the right kind of expertise we need. the people that i appoint will be people of integrity, of competence that know their industry and know their business, and they are fair, and they're not there to promote a partisan agenda, but to promote and make sure that the state of idaho is being all that we can be. >> moderator: what about you? bujak: i think it's important that the people who are appointed to serve in government aren't your best friends, they aren't people who are going to be yemen. if you -- yes men. if you choose those types of people, you end up with governor otter's system where he has friends that get involved in scandals, and then he has to look the other way and ignore the problem. that's what happened in the our tax commission, in the department of administration over this internet contract that's now costing idaho millions of dollars because the federal government no longer pays because the contract was

awarded illegally by governor otter's best friend. i would take a look at people who are interested in the job, i would have them apply just like they would apply for any other job. i would choose them based on merit and their experience and their integrity and their loyalty to my vision which is giving idaho back to the people. >> moderator: all right. i'm going to call in the last question. call in this the last question. the it's about money, but it's about a philosophy as well. what should idaho's relationship be with the federal government? bujak: i think if i picked one word to describe idaho's relationship with the federal government, it would be partnership. partnership between two equal entities. idaho needs to recognize and assert its sovereignty. it is not the servant of the federal government. so i would look to act in partnership with the federal

government, and when you act in partnership, good things can happen. we can work with congress to get back control of our lands. we can work with our delegation to put together an immigration policy that makes sense for idaho. we can work with the federal government on funding issues so that we don't become dependent on federal dollars, but can take advantage of federal dollars in a way that makes sense for idaho people and idaho economy. the idaho state and the federal government ought to act in partnership. balukoff: i very much believe that the best decisions are made closest to home. but some decisions federal government has taken on itself, and we need to recognize that and work within that framework. and i think the partnership that mr. bujak described is a good way to look at it, we work together as partners, but recognize where idaho has its proper role and where the

federal government has its proper role. i'm not in favor of taking over the ownership of federal lands, but i am in favor of having a voice in how that gets managed. i think we should also, i would say work with our congressional delegation to help them, encourage them to do what they can to pass the kinds of laws such as immigration reform that are under the purview of the federal government that would bring great benefit to the state of idaho. >> moderator: all right. let me ask -- i know i said it was the last question, but does this partnership with the federal government, does it involve medicaid expansion? balukoff: want me to take the first shot? >> moderator: sure, go for it. ballwall okay. i think -- balukoff:. i think we should expand medicaid coverage. we have somewhere in excess of 70,000 idaho ans who are not currently insured, and they show

up at emergency rooms when they have medical problems. you and i pay for their costs because they can't. we pay for it through our property taxes. each county has an indigent care fund. and then if the hospital bill exceeds $11,000, the state kicks in with its catastrophic fund. between the counties and the state, we are spending somewhere between $80-$90 million a year to care for uninsured people. the federal government would pick up that cost and free up $80-$90 million that we could use for higher priorities here in the state. i see taking those medicaid payments as not much different than taking agricultural subsidies, funding the inl or funding the air force base. >> moderator: i know i cheated you out of your one minute rebuttal, so you can have two minutes to respond to that and the other. bujak: thank you very much. medicaid expansion is wrong for idaho.

one thing people don't reck is if you expand medicare, you're putting an additional burden on a primary care model that already can't handle the medicaid patients that are out there currently. they also forget that although the federal government is going to fund under medicaid expansion 90 cents of every dollar, idaho still has to come up with 10 cents out of every dollar that's spent, and they have to pay for the cost of administering the program. it's a cost idaho simply can't afford. the answer isn't throw away the model that's broken, the answer is create a new model. and there's one that's working. in the state of washington, a direct primary care model where you pay a private network privately $20-$80 a month depending on your age, and it's cheaper, and it works better, and you get to see your doctor 24/7 if you want to. the doctors are happier, there are a number of patients that are limited to 600 on a panel, and it works beautifully. patients are happy, doctors are happy. it's more cost effective, and it

doesn't involve adding additional financial burden to idaho by expanding medicare. senator thune is working on that proposal, it should be in the next legislative session. as governor, i look forward to that bill being presented, because i would sign into it law. >> moderator: all right. because of the coin toss, we have two minute closing remarks, and you start and you conclude. bujak: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here tonight. when november gets here, you have an important choice to make. you're going to choose idaho's next governor. you could choose governor otter. if you do, you lock yourself into four more years of cronyism and corruption, you lock yourself into medicaid expansion because even though he says it's not a guarantee, it's coming down the pipe. idaho will dig deeper into a pit from which it will not be able to emerge. you can vote for mr. balukoff, but if you elect a democrat, he will be stonewalled by a republican legislature who will not let him implement.

the other choice is to vote for me. i'm the only conservative candidate on the ballot x. before you say, but you're a third party candidate and you can't wind, let me re-- can't win, let me remind you lincoln was a third party candidate when he ran for president, and he won. jesse ventura was a third party candidate when he ran for governor of minnesota, and he won. great moments in history happen when people have had enough and they finally stand up and take a stand, and this november if you stand up the power to change history rests in your hands. you don't need to take up your guns. it isn't going to cost you a dime. you just need to go down to thee polls, mark bujak for governor, and i'll take it from there. thank you very much. [laughter] >> moderator: well, again, thank you all for being here and, again, thank you to the times news and canyon ridge high

school and mr. bujak. i appreciate the opportunity of introducing myself and telling you where i stand on some of the issues that have been brought up. as you've listened to us, you can see that sometimes mr. bujak and i agree on some issues, and then there's some differences where we disagree. but the one thing we do agree on is it's time for change in leadership at the top. we need to change the governor, and we need to change him now. if you, you know, if you're satisfied with going downhill and spiraling to the bottom, then vote for governor otter. because that's what you're going to get. as i said before, the best predicter of future behavior is past behavior. i think we need to change. it's time. it's important that we make the change right now. i can work with republican legislature. if you elect me as the governor, that would be the first time in

20 years this state has elected a democratic governor. and that will send is an important message to the legislature. i have worked with many of those ladies and gentlemen over the years as a school board trustee and in other capacities. i'm confident i can work with them. i've been talking with several of them during this campaign. and it will not be stagnation. but we will make education the top priority. we will improve the economy, and we will make sure that we get rid of the cronyism and the waste that is currently in our state government. if i'm the governor, i will work hard, tell the truth and put people first. that's why i'm asking for your vote for me on november 4th. thank you very much. >> moderator: thank you. [applause]

>> moderator: i want to thank both of these men for coming to magic valley, for taking my questions for an hour. i want to thank the leader of the times-news who sent in questions who are engaged with this process and thank everybody who came and listened to this debate. vote on november 4th. ♪ ♪ [applause] ♪ ♪ >> virginia senator mark warner is running for a second term, being challenged by ed gillespie who's a former chair of the republican national committee. the two debate tonight at seven p.m. eastern, and you can watch it live here on c-span2. right now a look at some of the campaign ads from the virginia senate race. >> i'm mark warner, and i approved this message. >> enron, the largest corporate

fraud in american history. ed gillespie was their lobbyist. enron paid gillespie and his firm $700,000 to block regulation of the energy markets so they could raise utility rates and then got even worse. >> thousands lost their jobs and life savings. >> the former leaders of enron head to prison. >> a million dollar lobbyist who put enron ahead of you. ♪ >> that either directly through a carbon tax or indirectly through cap and trade, we are going to put a price on carbon. >> mark warner wants to tax coal. >> the obama/warner anti-coal agenda will devastate the local economy and kill thousands of good-paying virginia jobs. i'll fight any coal tax. my plan will lower the cost of energy and create good-paying jobs. i'm ed gillespie. i approved this message. >> ed gillespie, the enron lobbyist and partisan political

operative, is attacking mark warner with false ads experts call misleading, completely made up. the truth, mark warner is working to fix health care and find a bipartisan solution to cut the national debt. it's why republicans, including a former governor, u.s. senator and 14 legislators, have endorsed him. >> look, false attacks don't solve problems. working together will. i'm mark warner, and i approved this message. >> i'm ed gillespie, i approved this message. i worked my way through college in my parents' grocery store and as a senate parking lot attendant. there's opportunity and dignity in work. but today too many virginians are squeezed by mark warner and president obama's policies that a raise taxes, increase prices and kill jobs. mark warner votes with the president 97% of the time. that's not bipartisan. it's time for a new direction where compassion's measured by creating good jobs. >> the virginia senate debate

between democratic mark warner and republican ed gillespie we'll have lye tonight on c-span2 -- live tonight at 7:00 eastern. and then at 9:00, live from arizona's second congressional district, a debate between ron basher and republican challenger martha mcsally. the tucson-based second district was formerly represented by gabrielle giffords. >> c-span2, providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend, booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> next, a conversation with two former senators, joe lieberman and scott brown, talking about

issues in the news including ebola, isis, problems at the secret service and the upcoming midterm elections. this was hosted by the lesher center for the arts in walnut creek, california. it's about an hour and ten minutes. [applause] >> good evening. i do enjoy coming to these newsmaker series every year. it's such a pleasure and such a thrill for me, and i love being able to meet such special guests. and i'm particularly excited about this evening's two speakers. instead of just hearing 12 second sound bites, we're going to listen to two esteemed politicians and really have an in-depth, robust conversation about some of the most important topics that are going on in the world today. so let me start by first introducing former and potentially future senator scott brown. as steve mentioned, senator brown has made a significant

effort to keep his pledge to appear here tonight since he is in the middle of a campaign. in fact, less than five weeks away until election day. senator brown, as you may know, won the 2010 election, special election to serve out the remainder of the late ted kennedy's term. and in doing so, brown became the first republican senator in massachusetts since 1972. brown then lost his seat to challenger elizabeth warren in 2012, and he went back to practicing law, worked as a political commentator on television and later moved to new hampshire where, six months ago, he announced he was running for u.s. senate. "the boston globe" recently wrote that his campaign has picked up speed, and his bid is seen as increasingly plausible as a path back to the u.s. capitol. in fact, senator brown just told me he is four points ahead right now, and, of course, this race has some real national

implications. brown describes himself as a reagan republican, socially moderate and fiscally conservative. brown also served 35 years in the army national guard, recently retiring with a rank of colonel. so he knows a lot about the military. but it's another title that garnered a fair amount of attention when he first to -- first got on the national scene. in 1982 when he was a law student, he won cosmopolitan magazine's contest as america's sexiest man. [laughter] well, that led to some part-time modeling jobs that helped pay for law school, and here he is today. so more than just a pretty face. [laughter] tonight's oh speaker -- [applause] >> thank you very much. >> senator, thank you. now, tonight's other speaker is also a former senator. joe lieberman is a graduate of yale college and yale law school. he was elected as reform democrat in 1970 to the connecticut senate and served

three terms as the majority leader. he was state attorney general for seven years before winning election as u.s. senator in 1988. and, actually, i covered one of his campaign stops as a cub reporter when i was growing up in connecticut, so it's kind of fun to see him again. he was reelected to the senate three times, the last time as a third party candidate, and he gained a reputation as athoughtr who works across party lines to find common ground for the good of the american people. now today lieberman is one of the leaders of a new project that's aim is to hit islamic terrorist groups where itort gr, their pocketbook. it's called the counterextremism project, and i certainly look forward to hearing more about that tonight. but lieberman is perhaps best known as democratic nominee for vice president in 2000 running with al gore. he became the first jewish candidate of a major american presidential ticket and, of course n that historic election gore and lieberman won the popular vote by more than

500,000 votes but lost in the deciding electoral college. now, there were many strong speeches made during that campaign, but i have kind of a strange mind. i remember odd little facts. and one of my favorite lines that senator lieberman said when accepting the nomination for vice president, we all know what's behind a really successful man, a really surprised mother-in-law. [laughter] so, ladies and gentlemen, may i introduce senator lieberman, who had a very surprised mother-in-law. [applause] >> one of my favorites. >> i love that line. so, senators, welcome. both of you. certainly appreciate you being here, coming all the way from the east coast and a busy time for you both. so i'm going to -- we have a couple different topics we're going to be discussing, and i'm going to ask each of the senators questions, and we can kind of go back and forth and make it kind of a free-for-all. i know you certainly respect

each other. i think the most important question to start with has to do with national security. certainly a lot of challenges going on right now in the world; airstrikes in syria and iraq against islamic state terrorists, isis, also known as isil, fringe al-qaeda groups, the tension between ukraine and russia and then, of course, the intruder in the white house just last week. so, senator lieberman, let me start with you. what is, do you feel, the biggest threat that we face today, and how should our country respond? >> good. first, let me just say thank you, tori, good to see you again. >> senator. >> we trained tori in connecticut. i hope she's -- [laughter] i hope she's doing okay. and thanks to the lesher foundation for what they contribute to the quality of life here in the county. congratulations to the walnut creek historical society. i'll just give you a quick one-liner about history which is my favorite, particularly as i -- this is from winston

churchill. somebody asked churchill at one point how did he think history would treat him, and churchill said i am confident history will treat me very well because i intend to write it. [laughter] and that has appealed to me more and more as my career has gone on. [laughter] all right, so to me, to get to your question, to me the most serious challenge we face in the world if that's what you mean is the threat of violent islamist extremism. whether it comes in the form of the state of iran, islamic republic of iran, or it comes -- which is shia -- or whether it comes in the form of the various sunni terrorist groups like al-qaeda and now particularly isis, these groups threaten order not just in the middle east, but in many other parts of the world, and they threaten our

homeland security. as we know, they attacked us brutally on 9/11 to begin this period of history. in my opinion, they clearly do not represent anything beyond a minority of the muslim world. the fact is that when these groups like isis or al-qaeda take over, most of the muslims, they run because they don't want to live under that kind of repressive regime. so we have to try to work to defeat them and also to give people within the muslim world the courage to stand up and fight them. the group i'm part of forming now, i'm very excited about it, it's calls cep, the counter extremism project. the it's really focused on, one, trying to cut off funding to these terrorist groups and, two, trying to develop, essentially, a counternarrative for young people growing up in the mislimb world to -- muslim world to go for freedom and opportunity in

the modern world and not go for violence and extremism. and i'm really glad that it started with a couple of americans, but we've now got a former ambassador from pakistan to the u.n., former head of german intelligence, the former defense minister from australia. it's really -- and i think we're going to surprise people with the support that we're going to get from within the arab world which is now understanding that they are the first target of these extremists, whether iran or isis. >> yeah. and i know president obama has made that clear, that there needs to be a lot more support from that part of the world. yeah. i think one of the most significant things to happen in this fight against our most serious threat to our security is the fact that saudi arabia, qatar, bahrain, who am i missing? uae and jordan can all flew as part of those first air attacks on isis in syria. some of them, frankly, were -- their participation was in a way

symbolic, but the fact is that they were there. i think it's a turning point that, hopefully, we in the private sector -- the group i'm in -- and the government can keep going. because that's the way we're going to defeat this enemy and protect them and ourselves. >> okay. senator brown? >> well, first of all, it's an honor to be here. it's good to see everybody. we were able to meet some folks in the extra room, they were having a lot of fun. it's good to see joe again. joe was a mentor and friend. we served on armed services together and spent a lot of time together. it's good to see you, joe. i think we need to step back though and see why we're here. why is isis isis? as you know, joe, it's al-qaeda of iraq. when we left iraq, i'm not sure if you remember, but we signed a letter asking the president -- >> sure. >> -- not to leave iraq as is. leave a transition force, a quick reaction force to allow the iraqi government to be able to lean on us in case they needed to. and the president did not listen, he did not do a status of forces agreement and left. and who came in?

criminal elements and terrorist groups. and that group men morphed into isis which is now about the size of new england. and they're bank robbers. they actually have gone into the mosul bank, they've gotten hundreds of millions of dollars, they go into cities and towns and rob banks. they steal equipment that we've left there, and now they're using that equipment to, their mission as you know, is to march down pennsylvania avenue and plant a flag in the white house. well, with all what's our goal? that's to make sure that doesn't happen. and what we have noticed, what i have noticed as a former senator and someone who was in the military is that there is a lack of trust with us and our allies and a lack of fear and respect from our foes. because of the president's incoherent and confusing policy on these issues, because he said with syria, drawing a line. you cross that line, hey, you're in big trouble. what did he do? he did nothing. so by also saying, hey, we're not going to use ground troops, i'm not advocating ground troops, but why would you throw

that telegraphed pass and let them know what you're doing? do you think isis is taking anything off the table? of course not. we have the greatest military in the world and it is a deterrent if we say, hey, they're there if we need them. so there's a lack of coherent policy, and it's sent a very, very bad message. the only way -- and let me just step back and say one thing, i want the president to succeed. as an american, i want him to succeed. i don't want him and i don't want him to fail because if he fails, then we are in trouble. so how do you do it? the only thing we can do right now is to go for those targeted airstrikes, go after the command and control structures, work with our european and arab league partners to try to find ways to really push them back, allow -- arm the kurds, allow them to push on one side, allow the iraqi army to reestablish. they have to fight for their existence. very complicated, folks, but i believe we didn't need to be here.

>> so you had mentioned boots on the ground, that's manager a lot of people are unsure about -- that's something a lot of people ink we're going to need that? >> no, i never said that. we should never telegraph what we're doing, where we're going. that decision will be made, according to general dempsey, he said there may be a time when i may make that recommendation. well, the president already took it off the table. our allies are confused, our foes are emboldened. i would rely on the generals on the ground to make that determination. of course we don't want to send more men and women into harm's way, but the iraqi veterans who have left blood, limbs and friends on the battlefield are so disgusted and upset as to what's happening there. it's a real problem. >> yeah -- >> it's a very bad message. >> if i may, i agree totally with what scott just said. so if we feel so threatened, as we should be, by isis and the

terrorists and particularly after this unbelievable beheading of two americans and people from other countries and our goal is to defeat them, degrade and defeat them as the president said, then you can't start that by saying we're going to eliminate any possibility of ever using ground troops. none of us want to go back into anything like the iraq war again. but it may come. there may come a time to protect our own security when we're going to have to put a limited number of special operation forces on the ground. to defeat isis. and i don't think you ever want to tell your enemy what you're not going to do. you want your enemy to be frightened about what you're going to do, particularly if, as we are, you're the strongest country in the world. >> can i add something to that? >> sure. >> joe and i have a lot in common, and one issue in particular. so we know for a fact, folks, there are over 300 american citizens who have left america and are fighting alongside of

isis. by all reports, some of them have come back, upwards of a hundred. they are not here, folks, to buy a house with a white picket fence. they're here to hurt and kill us and change our way of life. joe and i had the foresight back a couple years ago to file a bill that would strip their citizenship, not allow them to hide behind the united states, the rights guaranteed by our constitution, not use that passport freely to come back and forth on a whim. we should keep them there with their new friends and let -- [applause] >> right. ..

people that we are talking about and when you talk about the beheadings of this personal. we had one of our own in new hampshire. we had another that went to school. it is personal. all of the rhetoric from the world is that we are going to get done with all due respect. it speaks in new hampshire and people tidal rhetoric. we want action in this lack of coherence responsible action, and that is the problem. >> part of this is political and we will get to that later but we are of a similar mind which is if you agree with somebody

you've got to be really irresponsible or dumb not to work with that person just because they happen to be from the other party. and this was one of those i was proud to work with. [applause] if it were not for this guy committed wasn't for joe the insider-trading bill never would have passed. it was my idea after 60 minutes and we were in it together. harry reid was in the way politicizing it and we put that through in record time and to do something to establish between the american people and congress >> i began to claim that it was my idea. [applause]

what's tieback immigration you were talking about the need to close the borders and i assume it's not for the local terrorists but there were also concerns about children coming across the border from central america and you also as i understand have been pretty involved in tightening up the immigration law. >> it's been going on with other presidents. i'm not going to say that it's his fault. it's everybody's fault but the bottom line is we need to close the border before we do any of these other wonderful ideas because right now, expanding the definition of refugees allowing mostly young children and others to come to the border and get your kids here and everybody come on on and it sends a very bad message and we need to secure them and treat them compassionate and return them home to their home country because we already have mechanisms in place to the embassy to deal with these important issues.

to address the concerns that being said until we get to the core problem which is once and for all truly sending the message cutting off the border we are going to continue to revisit this over and over and over again and as a relation to what's happening with isis and potential other elements coming through that border the have heard that there are potentials already here in the administration. something that keeps me up at night and i want to have an opportunity to go fix it. >> we are a nation of immigrants except for the americans where our ancestors came from somewhere else it is the strength of our country. it continues to be the strength of the country in many ways but

there is an immigration law and people who come here illegally violate so the whole system needs to be reformed but as a part of it, we have to better secure the border and then we've got to inform the law for instance make it a little easier for people to come in legally to have the capability to be here. one of the things that's got to be part of the immigration reform bill is that anybody from a foreign country that gets a graduate degree, science engineering, let them stay here because they are going to create wealth in our country. basically scott is the kind of guy that if the two of us were congress we could work out a lot of these problems. but if you have most members of congress and the private room and talk about how do you solve

this, most of them would agree that it has to start with a promise to do everything to secure the border. ion illegal got to deal with immigrants and figure out a way that they can come out of the shadows, pay any taxes keio be afterburning bullish and make clear they don't have a criminal record and pay a fine and you put them on a path to get a green card and open up the system for people of with talent and capability to other parts of the world. this can happen if people are willing to compromise. john boehner the speaker of the house said he wants to do immigration reform. the president is frustrated and said he is going to do something by executive action. he said if you do that mr. president all deals are off, so i hope the president if it turns out that they control both houses of congress after the

election i hope the president invites the speaker, the majority leader and sits down and says okay let's act like grown-ups and finally negotiate a compromise and reform our immigration law. [applause] >> i would take it a little bit further. i think that the colleges that want to stay here should have the ability to get a diploma and stay here and work and continue on with their education and if we have seasonal workers where there is a need that needs to be filled with absolutely no problem. some of the quarters in some of the countries are very, very low. we need to modernize them and there's the managers about 4.6 million following trying to get through. is that computers? let's go, let's fix it and that is the major roadblock right now so that the president is doing in creating an additional class of people putting them at of the 4.6 million people following the

law it is a disincentive for the people to people to find the law and whatever we do, for me personally whatever we do i. can't reword that illegality by providing them with ebt cards or preferential housing during that so-called coming out of the shadows. to. so whatever we do we can't continue to provide those benefits because they are not entitled to them. and is there an opportunity potentially down the road? i'm listening but it's not going to be done until we take care of the basics. [applause] i want to give you a piece of good news. earlier this week i had dinner in new york with a foreign minister of an asian country and he started out saying he had been here for a week for the un general assembly and father meetings and she said i know you are having some problems here in america and i know number one the government is functional -- [laughter] i said really i haven't noticed.

[laughter] he said but i think that you stopped appreciating the good things that are happening in this country. incidentally one of of them he said is that we have suddenly become an enormous -- we are generating our own energy now and it's going to skyrocket to the point where our economy will continue to grow and grow. but the second thing he said was there is no country in the world and he said it's not from china. it's from another country in asia including china where people of talent from my country and everywhere else in the world want to go to america because they still believe, and it is the land of opportunity. for, it's a, we have a lot to feel good about. [applause] >> that is a nice place to make. >> i want to switch over to now talking about the borders into trying to secure the borders but the one that you cannot secure

about his disease and i'm sure you all know that the first case of ebola was in dallas from west africa they were not contagious when they traveled with diagnosed days later and was in critical condition and has been upgraded. so that brings us to healthcare. obviously we have the crisis and then today marks one year until the california version of the affordable care act. so i wanted to ask you both first about ebola and you were talking to the governor of texas. >> enough to call he got the call at the dinner table and they said you know all the facts and they seem to have been contained at this point but obviously it is a concern. who would have thought that it would be that rampant that it just goes to show the healthcare and the ability health care and the ability to quickly respond in that part of the world. with regard to healthcare people understand.

i believe we can do it better in the states. i don't believe the federal government can do it as well as we can in the states. i look at obamacare. it's top-heavy and it's a bureaucratic nightmare. i voted at times to repeal it and he said what would you do? you don't want people to have health care works of course i do. i voted on the plan that worked for the state and that may not work for california or new hampshire we have smart people in the state. we can develop a plan that addresses all of the concerns and i believe we can do it more effectively and be quicker and less top-heavy and we can really step back from the bureaucratic nightmare and don't forget we have a business mandate coming in after the election and that is the number one blanket i don't care where you live employers and the lawyers are keeping their hours under 30 so that mom like my mom for those of you that know mom and dad were married and divorced and by

the time i was 18 when my mom was lucky had a job for 40, 50, 60 hours and she could spend a little time with us. we were a pretty dysfunctional family, but -- a little bit. [laughter] but now employers are keeping those hours down and she has to work two or three jobs to make the time. family time is gone and the benefits are not as good. she's paying more because gas prices have doubled so i believe we can do a better. i believe we have the ability to do it better and i look forward to getting back and repealing it. >> quickly on ebola, it reminds us that we live in a world where all the disease can occur but they can move quickly because the case in texas is a classic that this is a man that went quickly from liberia to the u.s.

as people travel all the time around the world. food moves all around the world. and we have to be careful. i think the good news for us here is we've got a great healthcare system and so far as we've seen from the cases that have affected americans that have come back, they've survived because they can be treated in the advanced culture system like our own. but my wife is in a panic about it. she sent me two e-mails when i got off the plane today be careful about shaking hands with people. [laughter] i'm sure a lot of people out there feel that. so, i'm just saying there is reason to be concerned and careful, but incidentally at the texas hospital for all i know really handled the situation badly and as a result, unfortunately, there is no

hospital in america from now on that is going to have somebody come into the emergency room and report the symptoms that gentleman felt and say i'm just here from liberia and they say take two aspirin and call us in the morning. let's see without making a speech there is a danger and inviting the former senators because we lost the rates to filibuster. [laughter] this is one that we agree on. i ended up voting for the affordable care act. it wasn't easy but i felt we needed some national standards and i felt two things. there were too many people in the country that doesn't have health insurance and the rest of us were paying for this because they were the hospitals getting treated if we were paying for our own insurance or through medicaid particularly in the second is that the cost of healthcare was going up

dramatically. it was a tough decisions because it was an imperfect bill and i will say president clinton came in and spoke to some of us that were wavering towards the end. and then in the classic logic he said you will know the current system is inadequate and you all know that this bill is in perfect. but get it as good as you can get it because you're going to come back every session for the next 25 years to fix it because you just can't get it right the first time. unfortunately, today, because of the partisanship, when there is a problem, people don't find a possible two sets down across the party lines and fix it. the one thing i feel good about is when i signed on to this i demanded that they pull something out which was called the public option which in my opinion was an opener for the government controlled health

insurance health care system in america which i think would have reduced the quality of healthcare and literally bankrupt the government. so we've got work to do and i would give its probably a c+. i would have given a d- at the beginning but i think now it's covered about 10 million more people. but scott is right. some of the most controversial -- >> say that again? >> i better be careful. it is in the business mandate a few of the most controversial but the most important parts of the affordable care act had been delayed by the executive order and when they come on we will see what happens. >> i love you like a grandfather. [laughter] in the new taxes three quarters

of a trillion dollars cut for medicare to help pay for another program. the business mandate has not come in yet. it is the stating businesses right now the plans have gone down. the deductions have gone up some of the the coverages are not adequate enough and you said right now we have the greatest health care system in the world. because of the a lot of the reimbursement of doctors are being shortchanged and we have a nursing home facility that isn't getting the adequate reimbursement and our moms and dads and loved ones are being hurt. a letter came back from the va/and the reimbursement and the veterans of the facilities and i have to be honest with you and everyone else listening i think people should have access to healthcare or the ability to purchase insurance to get health care and i believe that we can cover people on medicaid and others who need it. a state that i worked in prior

to this from 98 and because of the federal plan, the plan is a mess. they tried to address the things other people want, the catastrophic care, covering of kids, you can do it in the states. we can do it ourselves. let the postal guys but there are billions of dollars. look at the va. if you think the federal government can do it better than us, then we are just going to respectfully disagree. >> we patterned the national health care bill. >> we didn't raise the taxes and we didn't cut three quarters of a trillion dollars maybe there was an association but i'm there. we voted on it. >> he was right on obamacare and right on the economy.

>> i was reading the report and analysis and you said it's the best in the world that there is a lockout reports that show you can get much better coverage for much less. in some places you pay $800 for tylenol or something like that. there has to be a better way. >> it's common sense stuff that we need to fix. >> one topic and this is something that when i went to cover the inauguration january, 2013 i got to speak to nancy pelosi the minority speaker, and my big question for her and i want to bring it up to her is what can we do about the dysfunction in congress and you both have mentioned that there is just a partisanship that seems to be so chronic and it just seems that nothing can get done. as someone that wants to get back into the senate next month, what do you think needs to happen in order for the congress to be able to move forward?

>> that's easy. i am an american first. i'm a proud patriot in american. one of the reasons i want to go back as i was listening to harry reid and chuck schumer mislead about fast and furious, and ozzie ozzie, the scandal, what's happening with our allies and a lot of it is happening in afghanistan and iraq and i was complaining so much that my wife said with all due respect head out and get back and get involved. i was 50/50 and many people on both sides are both 99, 98% of the time from the party. he was the most thoughtful, compassionate problems over

there. when he lost somebody very, very special. there are good democrats and republicans in the middle. the moderates are fiscal conservatives and national security size, social. but they forget about being an american first, and our country is in trouble. it really is. we are in economic malaise and we have an energy policy that is being problematic. the independent problem solvers are independent problem solvers are back and was support those types of people. not only in washington but in the city councils and assemblies and statehouses as well.

when the years went on i was so struck and disappointed both people work so hard to come to congress and the good people want to serve the country and they get there and get a divided into these strange almost childish worrying themes. the first president warned in his farewell address against the danger of the factions which are political factions or political parties. and they worry that future americans would put the interest of the vocal faction against the interest of the country. and really, we are living in washington's nightmare today. it used to be quite diverse. let me see if i can do that

everywhere. i think it is the national journal grades members of congress into three areas. social policy, economic policy, foreign and national security policy and they rate us on a liberal conservative. you haven't middle about 20 or 30 people which is a mixture of democrats and republicans. in the last recent years you can't find a democrat who is more liberal than any republican. do i have that right clicks see how independent i am? here's the bottom line. are you republican, democrat or american. you have to put america first. the second thing is you've got

to be willing to compromise. you can't get anything done without compromising and i don't mean a compromise of principle. i mean when you go into the negotiation on the piece of legislation, you can't say i cannot vote for this unless i get 100% of what i want. 50%, yes, maybe you get 60 or 70% even better and that's not happening. the death remains an enormous problem. it is an enormous problem and the question is is the congress going to get together and solve those problems before they become catastrophes? and ultimately, there is a great bernard shaw wine the wonderful thing about a democracy is that in a democracy, the people get the leadership that they deserve

[laughter] say to your candidates for elected office i want you to go down there and do what you think is right even if i disagree with you on that one because the country needs to solve our problems. >> is that something that you think is still possible because it seems like there are extremists. >> i am a glass half-full kind of guy. we can restore america to the greatness. it's a great country but i think that we have work to do in certain areas. they leave at 12:00 on thursday and come back on monday night. if i was the leader i would've told them we would tell them we are not going home and by the way we have got to get to know each other and the families and kind of reconnect.

>> tell us your best idea and we will start with you before addressing incoming equality. >> one of the ways that we can rise to everybody starting out we need to appeal a block and get that blankets off to businesses and individuals. because if you look at the challenges right now as i said my mom and dad were married and my mom was on welfare. a lot of challenges and arrested at 12. it wasn't easy and i are member my first job at 13-years-old .-full-stop good donuts. i don't know if you have these out here yet? but my mom struggled to provide for our family. but when you are looking at how you actually get ahead i

remember like it was yesterday when i was 18-years-old and i had this challenges that said we are a party of opportunity and if you work hard and joined forces with a friend and create a business corporation of a corporation can actually hire people and grow and expand and fulfill the american dream. i had that idea and you have to give it high allowing the job creators the ability to create jobs the prices are doubling this winter. we have a situation with the unelected bureaucrats of circumventing the law and putting war and more regulations. we have the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. in this area they can't afford to maintain to give it to the

home owners and they want to do a parcel tax. any time you turn around they are looking for more and more money. if you think the federal government doesn't have enough of the money, you're wrong. there's plenty. let's find a way to do that streamline and consolidate and do that fraud and abuse. let's fix the tax code and find ways to do it like we do in our homes and businesses. then if there's a question and we are still short, come to me that the only way that we will address the income inequality is to allow people to have jobs and right now it is flat. there are certain sectors, you have the silicon valley certain sectors doing well but all in all things are flat. there is a lack of businesses and individuals that are very committed a nervous right now? it is the wrong answer if you look at the tax system is a very

progressive tax system. 50% of the people essentially pay no taxes and it helps people. i know this is a slogan but i think it is the truth. the best way to end income inequality is to get the economy going. in good way to get the economy growing more is to have a long-term debt reduction plan for america jobs don't come from government become from the private sector. a lot of the private sectors are sitting on an ominous amount of cash because they don't know what's coming and if some of them are sitting on it here because they don't know what the future is. i think that if we create stability come if we put ourselves on the road back to some kind of balance on the federal government that the best

thing we can do to end income inequality is and during the last recession a certain number of people lost their jobs who will never get their jobs back, and a lot of them are not sold some of them are in their 40s or 50s we have to figure out targeted ways making the tax incentive of the business to retrain those people for jobs that exist. >> i want to bring up another question someone brought in the satellite room i touched on it briefly the beginning that senator lieberman you have a special insight and it's talking about intruders breaking into the white house and obviously there was one very public event on friday but there have been others as well. you have secret service when you're the vice presidential nominee. do you think the secret service has weakened significantly and what's happened to it lacks

>> i can tell you all of my memories of the relationship with the secret service as everybody says to the their lives on the line and a few times walking through the crowd at first time i suddenly feel i never told the story in public before the hand is going to the back of my belt and he was the chief detail who looked forward to the there's something out there i don't like and he got closer to me about as close as you can get and that's the way they are. and it's been disheartening for me to watch this series of events going back and then the lapses. so something's gone wrong. these are good people that work

hard but something has gone wrong and i hate to use the word, but the cult shirt of the place come and it isn't up to me that i think that maybe the secret service is ready for a new director from outside. and maybe somebody from the military has that kind of an executive experience to shake it up and make it work again. >> i heard someone say that since the change of use to be run by the treasury and now it is run by homeland security and there is so much bureaucracy involved. >> i don't think that's the problem i think that it is within the organization but here is something else, just which that they still have, the secret service still has some historical response abilities that out of the taken. they still investigate the cases of counterfeiting of money they have so much to do to protect the dignitaries etc. dot go to somebody else that can handle it like the fbi and let them focus.

>> i will defer to his expertise. >> another question from the audience the international opinion of the usa improved or declined under president obama lacks to be co- >> because it was the foreign policy and it was declined there was a lack of trust not only between our allies in the united states and the lack of respect for the government that includes members of congress and there's a lack of trust i've said about the dysfunction, they are upset about the lack of transparency when you talk about fast and furious and the agencies purportedly being used as political arms and the justice department and what was happening with some of the

targets lack of prosecution in the areas. so, as i said, we live in the greatest country in the world into so and so hopeful and i know that democracy is as you reference does not meant to be. it's messy. so i'm hopeful that we will get it together and have some folks that will finally say okay let's just take back the country and get things back on track. >> in the polling that i've seen from around the world, we are less and it's unusual because when president bush left he wasn't popular in a lot of parts of the world. president obama came in and there was a tremendous hope around the world. but, that moment is lost and i do think that a lot of it is because we sent an uncertain message. the fact is we see everyday in the newspapers and on tv etc. it is a dangerous world. and if it is a world in which you are the greatest country in the world which we are, unless

our enemies fear us and our allies trust us, the world is going to be a much more dangerous place and that is where it is today. i will go back to the foreign minister. i've heard this over and over. most of the problems that happen in the middle east we asked them the other night what is the opinion of the u.s. and asia today? he said you know there's great respect in the economy and everybody wants to go to america but really, we don't know whether we can rely on them anymore. you know, we've got china which is big and threatens a lot of us. so, we watched what happened as he relived the red lines, and we said to ourselves while if he told me he wasn't from japan if the chinese move on these islands which are japanese, the japanese would even be leave,

what would the united states do? some of the president began to turn this around with a speech at the united nations, he said some things that he should have said five years ago about some places in the world you have to use force to protect your interest and your values. i just hope that he sticks with it because i'm afraid of that interview he said some things that have the strength of that and we need to discuss -- i've been a critic of his. i didn't support him, i supported my friend mccain but we need him to succeed. he's going to be president in for two more years these are going to be critical years, so i hope he continues on the themes that he struck in a speech to the nation. >> the speeches are over. they don't want speeches committee what direction and guidance and action. there is a void that is left. i understand spending a good

time in japan they are nervous and there is a void and we don't have potentially the ability to respond because we have the president wanting to cut our military down to world war ii levels. it is economic challenges we have a 17 trillion-dollar deficit so we are at an economic disadvantage where china owns a fair amount of our debt and the military is building up so we have a world on fire. look at israel and hamas that is the worst relationship since the starting of the state state of israel and that relationship is terrible. we have what's happening in ukraine with crania and russia. putin has another two years to push the envelope and he will do it, you know and i do. we see that happening in serious and iraq and afghanistan potentially designed the status of forces agreement and we see that happening in africa. i know and you know we sent a

bill to the foreign relations committee asking that they be deemed a terrorist organization. we sent a letter to hillary clinton asking them to deem that a group of terrorist organization but they did nothing so it is a constant lack of understanding and company ending with the problems handing what the problems are. sending out terrible messages and it is coming back unfortunately to hurt us dramatically. >> in the foreign-policy also because of the chinese control of the elections and i was wanting to get your reaction. is that something that is ever going to be settled? >> i will just say quickly this is a remarkable moment, and it continues to happen. i mean it happened in the arab spring. it was really moving that these people were rising up for their freedom and economic opportunity. obviously it happened in ukraine

when they said they want to be part of europe, they don't want to be part of being dominated by russia and the mark and here is hong kong. this is all about a promise that china made is a joy when they came back from britain 20 years ago, it was 1997, in 2017 the people of hong kong would get to choose their president so now china says yes he will choose your president, but we will choose the candidates if you choose wrong. [laughter] and they go out into the streets. this is a real test and i'm afraid it's going to end up with the government using force but if they were smart what's the big deal, let them choose their

leader, i could take too long on this, but on the situation in the middle east, but we have seen in the last three or four years is that we were focused on the palestinian conflict the larger more consequential conflicts are now between the modernizers and the violent extremists and in some sense unfortunately going back to the old classic sunni versus shia conflict that the israeli-palestinian conflict that could be solved would help everything. it's just when you have a group like hamas which is openly committed to the terrorist action against israel and the destruction, the israelis are never going to sit down at the table with them. arafat changed what he said although not much about israel and they did sit down at the table with them. at least they had some steps

forward. it's hard to be optimistic about it right now it is part of the larger problem in the muslim world because the palestinian authority leadership is relatively moderate and i always voted to support them financially and politically in congress, but they are now being threatened by people of hamas who are part of the muslim brotherhood and the cousins of isis and it won't be peace in the middle east. >> israel has every right to defend itself and hamas is there to wipe them off the face of the earth. you see the the rockets and the rockets and the missiles lined up at the police facility, childcare facilities are underground bunkers is no way to live and if you know it's smaller than the state of rhode island and they are under siege from all directions so i certainly support their efforts and i think that leads to iran and what's happening with iran. i never would have allowed a

deal to move forward without absolute positive steps for them to stop and the fact that the president has already given them an extension once again if the lack of clarity and the lack of commitment immediately they should have said we are putting the sanctions and that's why i'm looking forward to hopefully getting back and leading that charge. >> i know you can't look at the crystal ball but the election is in less than five weeks and i assume that you are confident that the senate is going to turn -- >> i'm not confident about anything. >> i'm going to wait until november for the rows 10:00 focusing on what i can do to help. but only to the political pundits.

so at this point we will see. >> anything over here senator? >> obviously i'm out. i was always a wild independent anyway. as a, i can't predict and these races can change quickly but i would say that the bottom line the odds are trending toward the republican takeover in the senate. i don't want to go into this in much detail but right now there are 55 democrats effectively so the republicans have to pick up six seats from the majority they are the republican states and republicans are going to win. montana, south dakota and west virginia and then there's a bunch of states where democratic incumbents are in close battles and i will start way out west

arkansas to north carolina, louisiana. you've got about seven or eight states that seem to be trending republican. people thought the republican incumbent might be in trouble interestingly mature, will the majority leader that i would say right now, no that was the general point of view. surprisingly, and this is why nobody can predict that roberts in kansas saw the poll. if you put it all together it looks like the other thing to

notice i probably spend too much time reading this but what else do i have to do now? politics is an incurable disease the commitment to vote is much higher among republicans and democrats so far. it's much higher this year among the republicans, so it is in the turnout will, then it will favor the republican majority. why didn't you a sign that bill on the border security, why didn't you do the visa bill that we were talking about for

immigration and why didn't you approve the keystone pipeline. the bills that harry has held up and what does that it also mean that means we have the ability to get things done, go back to regular order. they brought up the seven amendments from the republicans and only allow seven and every one of them failed created or are people of good ideas and part of the problem is when you file a bill, when he files a bill he files it is day so we are just going to change the entire structure of the economy and we are going to do it that don't allow any amendments to set up and then he forces us to say we are not going to do it if we don't get to the amendments because we have good ideas if we are going to do an energy bill

and we have the efficiency can keystone pipeline, allowing and modifying and updating our tax codes and so many in so many things we could do but it doesn't do that but what happened happened that cost almost 100 to nothing. when i did the crowd of funding bill and the veterans bill is passed and when it allows us to go to the process and everyone's private process that passes. that's the problem. >> let me give a very hopeful scenario of what might happen if the senate goes republican. somebody told me an old joke i hadn't heard which relates to what i am about to say when it was a death dealer got married for the second time somebody said what that was was the triumph of hope over experience. [laughter] >> so i'm going to now give you

the political version of that. there have been occasions in our history i must admit washington wasn't along partisan lines as it is today when the congress is controlled by one park and of another party that they end up negotiating the agreement. and when gingrich brought to the crowd into the house if anybody said these two people would be able to work together with the negotiated agreements and welfare reform -- that is the hope. remember now in the last two years he's got to be thinking about what marx do i have to make in a partisan way on this country, and what it's going to

mean is that it's going to have to separate from some in the democratic party to negotiate compromise agreement with the republicans and play the republicans in turn will be willing to compromise and meet him somewhere in the middle. >> the next two years will be interesting to see >> that leads to the next question. which two candidates would you like to see run for president in 2016 and why? who >> i think it's too early. there is so much happening right now. >> is hillary clinton of data complete? >> people are so focused right now in 2014. people really don't care. we need to deal with the issues right now and that's where my head is at. [applause]

it's too early to say who i think about i guess you have to say if you would like me to be a political commentator is hillary clinton runs, she's going to get the democratic nomination. she will get the nomination. >> the question is will she run. >> if she doesn't, you will have both parties. the interesting race will be a lot of candidates and in the presidential primary actually the one time when our parties nationally defined themselves, the platforms for the national party frankly it doesn't mean a hell of a lot. but the reality is that when the voters come out to say what kind of party they want to have and the challenge for the republicans would be to nominate

somebody that is seen as a problem solver and not an extremist if you will and in the more practical political sense somebody that can get the support of the moderate voters, to me one of the most stunning numbers of the exit poll was that president obama defeated mitt romney among self-described moderates something like 16 points. so, most people to think of him as a moderate, but i think that would have been among the moderates is that he looked relatively moderate compared to the republican mitt romney who generally is a moderate, but a perception is going to be a fascinating couple of years. if hillary doesn't run some of the same contest will occur in the democratic party's no favor

and a real battle for what the party stands for. >> i think it will be interesting to watch to get through the election and then it is open from there >> i wanted to ask each of you since you have had some pretty illustrative positions in your career i want to know what should you consider the highlight of your professional career so far and i will start with you, senator. >> i just had two daughters get married in the last five as. being a parent is a profession and one of the hardest professions to make sure that you can find that balance between being a has-been and a wise and caring for each other and then trying to raise kids and give them good morals and beliefs and they just kind of

push them out of the door. give them enough room to grow. so i would say that and to think someone like me could ever be a united states senator with the senator with the background i have to represent the greatest country in the world it was an honor. and i look forward to having the honor again. >> cause my wife is going to watch c-span. [laughter] >> i set the bar really high. my wife is watching right now. [laughter] >> as we used to say on the floor i used to associate myself with everything, senator brown. incidentally, you have the really great highlight coming which his grandchildren. i feel privileged i was in elected office for 40 years and

24 in the senate and 16 in connecticut and what an honor. i am proud of a lot of things incidentally in the senate across party lines because you can't get anything done if you don't have some support in the other party. probably what i feel best about is the fact that i did was to fate i was in a position first with fred thompson before he went off and started. i missed him. and there was susan collins to be at the center of adopting so much legislation that was aimed at protecting after 9/11. but the greatest personal thrill of my life, my career was to be nominated for vice president. you know, none of my parents -- neither of my parents went to college, my dad had a store and they would give me the greatest values and motivations apart and

i never never dreamed of being a senator with a low vice president and they had to be extra honor to be the first jewish american to run for national office and to find exactly what i had confidence would have been and i could tell based on my religion which is what america is all about. and god bless america. >> do you still keep in touch with al gore? [applause] >> only by e-mail occasionally. he did invent the internet. [laughter] but i will say this to be fair, the choice of a vice presidential running mate by the

presidential nominee is probably the most unilateral exercise of power in american politics in other words the president gets to choose who he wants so single-handedly you might say that he took the risk of having the first ticket but also we had the confidence to feel that he wouldn't hurt his chances and i will tell you a funny story he told me the night i went down to nashville. i'm telling too many stories but you will get a kick out of this one. i decided to three weeks ago i wanted you to be my running mate but just being responsible i had to ask a small number of people is america ready for a jewish person as vice president a proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency he says i have some christian friends and jewish friends and here's what i found.

there was tremendous anxiety among my jewish friends. [laughter] all the christians but that there was no problem. so he says because i know there are so many more millions trends in america then jews. [applause] >> thank you very much gentlemen that wraps it up for this evening and we appreciate both of you for being here. thank you. [applause] mark warner is running a second term and being challenged by ed gillespie who is a former chair

of the republican national committee. they debate at 7 p.m. eastern and you can watch the debate live on c-span2. right now a look at some of the ads from the virginia senate race. >> i'm mark warner and i approve this message. >> enron, the largest fraud in american history and gillespie with their lobbyist. they borrowed $700,000 to block regulation in the energy market. then it got even worse. >> the former leaders headed to prison. >> a million-dollar lobbyist who put enron and had a few. >> either directly through the carbon tax or cap and trade we are going to put a price on carbon. >> mark warner and obama want to tax cold that would kill thousands of good paying jobs in our community.

>> anti-coalition of always electric bills and devastated and killed thousands of good paying jobs. i will fight any tax. my plan will grow our economy by lowering the cost and create good paying jobs. >> dnr on a lobbyist enron a lobbyist and political operatives is attacking mark warner would add called misleading, completely made up. the truth he is working to fix health care and find healthcare and find a bipartisan solution to cut the national debt. it's why a republicans including the former governor, u.s. senator and legislators have endorsed him. >> working together well. i am mark warner and i approved this message. >> i'm ed gillespie and i approve this message. >> i worked my way through college and my parents grocery store and parking attendant and i worked from the parking lot to the white house. there is opportunity and dignity in the the work that today too

many are squeezed by mark warner and president obama's policies that increase prices and kill jobs. they vote 97% of the time. that is not bipartisan. it's time for a new direction measured by creating good jobs. >> ..