you have to be able to rely on it for the various applications and rely on it all the way through the process. and so, having data property of evidence having been captured correctly the way that they intended it and that's about the version that the data version, not some corrupted version being what gets counted and then audited to demonstrate the counting part of it was correct there is a process that is key in things like the case that you mentioned of someone getting a hold of your card into someone used my account to rent a limo in arizona at some point and i said you know, i haven't been in arizona for 20 years so that wasn't me. they said no problem we will make that right for you. with voting, you cast your vote may be remotely you don't get to

call for official at the county did say i voted for so and so. is that who you got? they should be able to say yes i voted for the candidate, you got it right. >> it's time that we voted. we have the representative on the line so we are going to cut to the representative and then we will come back to the audience question and answer. >> it's great to be with you today and thank you for the invitation to join you remotely and especially want to thank

david wilson of at the atlantic council for their efforts to make this possible. i would rather be there in person but it's somehow fitting as this discussion is about the promise of digital happening over skype. so in the communications in a credible way. before i give my remarks i have a great interest in increasing voter participation at a long history in the legislature i

took a big interest in the election form and making voting easier. we had people waiting in line for hours and hours to vote and we had have the oldest voting machines in the country and sometimes they were so long you had to get on your hands and knees to read the questions and such and that was archaic. i am disabled myself and i was never able to vote on my end independently. and it wasn't until i became secretary of state and overhauled the entire state system that i brought accessible

voting to rhode island for people with disabilities but also brought a new line of the voting equipment in the chair to the special commission working at the alternative voting technologies in the implement of the findings when i was the secretary of state. but i'm excited about the future and about technology. we have to proceed with caution as we work to ensure the integrity of the elections process. this really is the marriage of going back and we had had the imperative of the huge challenges of the outdated

electoral system and the transparent government, so i've seen firsthand those areas where you can trust trust the faith in government and it may be passionate about the accessibility of the voting process that is fundamental to our democracy. and the population of the diversity now that the promise of increasing the accessibility is what originally interested the field but my time in congress has given me a compliment three perspective on the topic. i was concerned that the

congress was paying far too little attention to the saver intrusions. it was against the physical attack and could be vulnerable in this new domain. it is an existing democracy and there are vulnerabilities expanding the use of this technology. our electoral system has the two fundamental principles. each person should be entitled to cast one and only one vote and that his or her ballot should be kept secret. unfortunately because these principles can cost them to also

be there that the voter should be confident of his or her vote is counted. so the traditional voting system does an excellent job of ensuring anonymity and there are very few instances that actually regarded the vote of the four. it's a big shakier with hundreds of ballots that prevent them from being heard and to reduce the risk i'm disturbing oversight as many individuals who think the chance of a single bad actor could alter the election's outcome. they have the same goal but achieve them in very different ways. for instance in the traditional

system double voting is prevented by requiring the citizens vote only in his or her precinct and while retaining anonymity since the scale can be a magnitude larger and the single cover of an entire state. the challenges of scale manifest themselves in many ways including the code running system and ability of a single bad actor to compromise with the services. so the academicians and it turns out that the solid systems allow one to do all sorts of counterintuitive things. the channel communication between the policymakers is the

end of two and the verifiability and is essential to the trust voting system is as to confirm the ballot has been counted correctly on the integrity of those doing the count. policymakers understand this no matter how corrupt the elections are it will be noticed. but they definitely do not understand how it is implemented in different systems. they use that property and the security and one relies on the integrity of the election officials not necessarily going to be evidence to the policies. so without a concerted effort to educate the politicians there is

a risk that they will come to view a different system as coke versus pepsi when the security of the competitors may be different. it's coke versus antifreeze so you could say. it's difficult to overemphasize at this point so let me put it another way. politicians got used to have shades of gray, not 50 shades of gray, and the policymakers need to compromise but the ability to see into judy can be dangerous and it can be logged into the theories when talking about the

policymaking and of the property that we would like to see such is the end-to-end verifiability for these critical points. so of course policymakers are certainly not the only involved in standing up in the voting system. even the cryptographic sound system relies on people to code it and play it and people to maintain. >> it might have been the system of denial and service attacks in the deployment that could allow an adversary to steal the voting credentials and cast the state ballot during routine meetings and database could be revealed

resulting in a loss of the voting privacy. these liabilities are real and the group analyst is showed problems across all three so it's important to recognize that the system has numerous points available. but isn't that part. being a checker or ballot court in the and the system requires few specialized skills. being a system administrator charged with overseeing the service requires significant training experience and requires even more so in the various cybersecurity now we are in

short supply which is something i talk about for years but we don't have enough people going into these fields that we are looking to change that in a number of ways to encourage young people to to go into the science technology engineering and mathematics but it's in the it field of cybersecurity. part of the shortage as a result of the cost of education that is a relatively new domain but still ramping up the training capacity but it's also tied to the inherent differences between cyberspace and as we might say defending against the adversary has always been difficult.

an attacker defined by the plaintiff to be successful while defending and protecting against all possible breaches into this paradigm is exponentially more challenging. it's as easy to attacks across the planet as it is to attack them across the room. number two it's almost as easy to attack anybody then one entity in the vulnerability making the attacks based so as a result, attacking the lucrative but draws the important as more defenders are needed. it is a problem that i highlighted and part of it is due to strict conversations that

we can also blame the lack of coordination with the government and corresponding duplication of efforts for example after the recent vulnerability was revealed by the department of homeland security got the service services patched almost immediately, however because they had to ask other agencies to scan their networks to the floor it took years before it was completely scanned in which the attackers were propagating. these are challenges that have to be addressed if the solution is going to be deployed in the united states. in congress by act would clarify the lines of authority and the executive branch to allow the dhs to address the challenges on the civilian networks and the top-level budgetary review of the cyber budgets and i strongly

advocated for increased funding for cybersecurity research to help the infrastructure to meet the demand come and in the practices that about the programs with nontraditional educational backgrounds the chance to protect their country. while congress continues to deliberate on a voice my vote to support that i believe will help raise the standards against critical infrastructure domain that companies like target shows exactly why we need to raise the bar. let me say before i close the government policy talks about

the voting system and the focus is about the service side. we can maintain the integrity is the question should be asked can we maintain the integrity of the ballot itself is compromised, relying on the voters to represent his or her intention is simply naïve with the malware as it is comes is comes up attacking the integrity of the election is not limited to the edge of the network without the risk mitigation strategy it accounts for the possibility of outside influence targeted on the voting system that is incomplete. so to say that it is a challenging prospect is an understatement but just as there

are concerns in the system that run them and the devices in our system there are many potential benefits as well so i reject the notion that he voting is a solution in search of a problem just as i reject the notion that it's ready to be deployed today. changing something as essential to our identity as the way we choose our leaders ought to be a deliberative process and an inclusive one and i hope i have pressed upon you the importance of engaging with policymakers about the voting systems that demystify the join me in advocating for the better use and training of cybersecurity professionals but they need to defend our country from harm and

better advice at the same time. so with that, i think you for the work that you are all doing and for the opportunity to weigh in on this issue and as i said i would prefer to be there in person but this is an appropriate way to vindicate with you. i look forward to working with you in adjusting the challenges and i'm a big fan of technology myself and i use it every day and these are exciting times but not without the risks and challenges. thank you very much and enjoy the conference. [applause]

that was a wonderful description of the balances that we are talking about here, and congressman by the way we address the cyber talent in central rhode island and we cover a lot of things we haven't talked about about the waiting lines and the amount of convenience and others that may have difficulty getting to the polls. i did disagree on the cyber professionals i think we have plenty of cyber professionals they are just not working for the correct side. before we start taking the questions from any additional thoughts? >> i thought it was great but he raised the issue how the policymakers are involved and needed to be involved in at the same time it is really difficult

and you think about the myriad things someone brings to a congressperson in congress person in any given day expecting them to have a deep and broad understanding of something like the cryptography such as the which is the word that makes my eyes glaze over. i think that finding that balance lawmakers to make compromises. they weigh up the risks and the potential benefits. but it's hard to understand what the risks are and that makes it a little more challenging. and then sometimes the policy will get made that may not be taking everything into consideration just because it is so complicated. we did weigh in on the nist framework and we urge that the voting and elections would be considered a part of critical infrastructure and we think that is something that really matters

another thing that he mentioned about the administrators is how do you compensate them enough to work at the office in the county where is only part time of the work that we do. >> my job with policymakers in explaining technology and also one of the things you mentioned that we didn't talk about much at all in the paper is the promise for accessible independent accessible interaction. if he is very specialized equipment that allows them to interact in digital online forums and they often get used to the one thing we know how to use and how to navigate a screen for people that are more advanced.

it's something where it essentially it is an online n something that thatyou can would see mark the paper ballot and then printed out and you can cast and use all of your own accessible equipment that has a lot of promise and we want to see as many people. >> at length he made when he talked about doing it because we really do have to look at this as a problem itself and not piecemeal it together. >> talking about the security of the infrastructure and the voting but i think that it should be also not only on the

internal voting but for the systems with a lot of information related to the elections managed by computers and an internet voting about using the internet on the electoral process should be also considered in other processes modeling on the internet. the hacker is managing if you want to get into the electoral roll with each right for this service is important also that we bring in the voting to move into other parts of the process. >> i have one and then two and then three.

and the microphone will be coming. >> we've heard of this which is great and being the first country that had national elections online and there've been several questions about the credibility of the votes and so on but the point is that i really want to emphasize and the word i heard here is trust and we were so used to everything almost every interaction through internet and so the government has really tried to make the system as reliable as possible

so they can provide different services and also the online vote is quite natural for us. in assessing it now the online voting the outskirts is open so i have no idea what to do about it. my basic question is about the trust here. if we had the trust to the government if you put that into the context of the u.s., then any part of the bigger system is inherently not trusted.

healthcare.com is the biggest example. is there any possibility that the technical solutions could have more? the internet has the non- trusted aspects to it and here in the u.s. there is also distrust upon the government so you need to have a combination of both parts trusted in both areas. you have some foundational pieces that are solving all of the problems like your national id card with a chip and pin the approach. that is an identity that we don't have here in the u.s.. we need to get some of these building blocks in place trying

to move security down below the operating system so that we can actually try to solve the problem a bit more of a trusted platform but that is going to take years for the platforms to get propagated throughout the home and consumer markets. >> it is one of those things some of the solar country think that they are at a disadvantage, but it can be an absolute advantage and should be much more agile and much more responsive to the new technologies that come out and being a change agent rather than having the change happen to you. >> not trust trustworthy.

>> and rhetorical trust that it's hard to compare the code to antifreeze and the extent they can offer a positive proof that this is a correct thing that drew the entire cycle to the ballot that's an extremely important partner that is part of that is where you hear them talking about how crucial the verification aspect is. >> they invite him to play with it and try to figure out what breaks and that is a different relationship between the different factors. >> excellent panel and divergence of views. the issue that strikes me in

ways that we have an insecure infrastructure both in terms of hardware and software we can no longer rely upon. we have a convergence of activities trying to look at the international trade in the digital arena. and it is virtually the same kind of concerns expressed here. it's beating up a national transportation and safety administration over the vehicle to vehicle proposals because the security is not built in. it seems to me that this council can play a useful role calling now for a heavy investment but specifically in the united states to get at this problem to help us and i will give a little plug to intel and mcafee. companies like them they could

investment across-the-board speedup the introduction of the safe harbor where systems. without that commitment of the systems are trustworthy and we are not going to be able to put a layer on top that of that will ever get away from the embed threats that leads to the encryption. it just is an impossible task. ..

>> for example, the example the gentleman raised in terms of the national highway transportation, whatever the is, industry, there are proposals for vehicle-to-vehicle communication, communication with vehicles and balance of the road. for example, if you're veering too far off the road maybe there's a radio broadcast saying hey, man, you're going to run off the road. early proposals have things like your vin number being broadcast as a clear to do that interaction window needs i can put a little piece of hardware on the road and get everyone's vin number. people care about their information. if it is done in the open this is one thing government can do, then people like me, we are seeing a lot of nonprofits increasingly have geeks on staff

to help them navigate this stuff. people like me can say i don't think you need a vin number and there to mediate this kind of thing. you don't need an interaction. you need a warning signal that happens if the car can then do what has to do to get out of the. something they've mentioned can we are saying another thing government can do is be open to the revolution, hopefully as a revolution, starting to happen in the hacker community -- develop this effort, i am the calvary. and another thing build it secure. these are efforts with the hacker community are saying look, we are often impish, we break stuff but we had to step up and there's no -- that's why i am the cavalry has the name. there is no cavalry coming to save us. we have the responsibility to help save the world so to speak. it's ambitious, sort of naïvely ambitious but i think you'll see

a lot of wonderful things when people realize wow, and som it'e most better to do this stuff for good and build things. >> i think the government is doing some things with respect to the national institutes of standards and technology works on standards for all kinds of voting technology, and they've done a number of research reports which do help unpack what the issues are that are involved and then describe that in ways that i think anyone who has lots of time can read through and understand. they've even written reports that are geared towards someone who works in an elections office. but as of yet we haven't developed standards for an internet voting system per se in the country, and we are a little ways from that. there are some nongovernmental

efforts to look at what kinds of specifications might be needed, and that's a little ways off. yet i think what joe said something that really i think is important and that is getting all the stakeholders the opportunity to provide input and that's what i really appreciated something like this. >> one of the things on untrustworthiness, the conversations i've had with you over the past week was to have the machine involved in voting, or technology involved in voting, and extensive certification process that has to go through. and it hurts us even further on security because when you want to update for security reasons it means you might have to re- certify. it's one of those things, what we can do to help security along might be ways to speed that

process up so we can get the more secure technologies out more quickly. >> having a system you can tell that work right in the election can help you eliminate some of those heavy certification times at the front end. but it required the ability to robustly audit of them. >> jordi? >> yes. i think when we are talking about trials, it's not focusing on people by default. i think the issue we have to allow the critics to verify things are happening in a proper way. and we are talking here about specific hardware. i think that security should be a combination of things. using hardware will make the security issues more difficult to happen.

so in case that this protection fails, it's possible that this thing happens. it should be a combination both. maybe there are people that trust the computer has been certified by authority, but there are critics that say okay, want to check at any time of the mortgage process this is proper so we need to combine both things. desert certification will ensure -- the certification will ensure that security practices has been taken into account when this computer has been developed. but verifiability is giving the athlete during the voting process that nothing nothing is happening so i think it's accommodation of things. >> we will do wrong and then come over to the side and into this gentleman over here.

>> network security analyst with carnegie mellon university. first of all, representative langevin's impressive knowledge on this subject may, just may make me change my mind about congress. >> or rhode island last night. >> i am a new englander originally. so he yes, joe stole my thunder olivet sang the difference between trust and trustworthiness, and that's exactly right. but we don't want even the government to be what's trustworthy. we want the systems to be what's trustworthy. just yesterday at a conference in d.c., general keith alexander, reason had a both the nsa insider, said the current architecture of the internet is indefensible. so what we need for

trustworthiness is, number one, not mathematical proofs that balance can be verified into to end. what we need is transparent systems that all voters can understand. the main way we know to do that is with durable paper records which have the additional benefit of allowing the voter's intent to be re-examined and provide a meaningful recount and audit. >> good question. >> so that is really my question. you know, isn't trustworthiness in the system is what really matters and the other aspect of that is, the supervise voting which is an instrumental problem. >> i'd like to go to jordi because i think you're right on the transparency and what voters can understand. let's say you're deploying technology. you're getting it out there. you're interacting with voters all the time on this. how is the trustworthiness of

the voters in the system? do they come out of it and feel, boy, that was great, i understand how this works? >> just what's happening is, it's more or less what i said before. the majority of voters process system. and we have critical, -- i think we need a people who do not trust systems otherwise than systems need to be eligible. people say doesn't matter. so it's important the system needs to be out. one way for doing this is by paper ballots. we are talking about supervise voting. these can work but when we're talking about remote voting, which will be the solution, for instance, if we're talking about online voting. since maybe voter can bring the paper at home. but what is going to happen with this paper? it is enough or not?

and this i think is important part of using these approaches. what is happening inside the voting process, when we're using only a computer and casting the vote. >> in terms of some of the phrases we talked about, justified constantly. we are people are involved in security in one way or another. we see people that people of tons of conference events in the internet do we just say oh, my god, there's no justification but i can't believe these people have confidence. if they only knew what we knew. >> i will throw another bug in your air which is the reason durable paper records are so important, you can see in this theory put forth by ron, a good friend of ours, and john, another good friend of ours, they have this theory called

software independents which is the notion that an undetectable change in the software does not result in an undetectable change in the out. and the way you do that unfortunately now is, fortunately for my perspective, unfortunately for the debate, is he do have some sort of durable physical medium the voter has opportunity to verify that you can then recount later. the point being that i think we realize we won this fight in the late 2000 that if don't have hae something to audit committee don't have something to recount that is independent from the software, you may be in a world of hurt. and the people like philip stark who worked on what he would kill me to say this if i said this but i'm going to sit because you guys will understand it better, the notion of statistical recount, recall risk limiting audits to the point being if you compare a subset of the ballots, physical ballots with the data structure, the electronic ballot and you don't find enough air physically speaking that would

show you that the outcome would change if he recounted all the things, then you don't have to do a recount. you can stop and you know there's no error that would've been possible with some level of confidence to meaningfully modified outcome were someone else would've on. california actually changed a lot recently, you can do the traditional way of certifying this machine on the front end and doing everything or you can skip all of that as long as after the fact post you can do one of these audits that shows that no one else would have won, the outcome that was reported is the great outcome. you to do all this other stuff. the trick is what happens if you find enough air, then you into doing a full recount which can be a pretty hairy proposition. >> jeremy epstein. the point of internet voting is of course to make it easier for voters to cast their votes in a way that gets cast and counted

accurately. the next generation is the end to end the number did mention. two recent studies have come out that caused some concern. one showed admittedly these are in a laboratory setting. one showed that voters in fact could not figure out how to do the verification with three of the most commonly used into and systems, that it was just too public it for them to understand how. another study which is about to be released shows that even if they can figure out how, they are not motivated. they don't understand why. my question is how do we get to systems that have the desired capabilitcapabilit ies but also offer what the voter needs? and another piece of this is the notion of being able to cast multiple ballots as allowed in estonia? that's a great thing but voters

by large don't understand why they should want to do this. the technology a lousy but if the voters don't understand why to use a computer doesn't actually provide a mechanism. how do we get to the cyber human part of the voting issue? thank you. >> so i hate to talk so much, i will be brief, sorry. part of it is storytelling. you can say that challenging voting is convincing the loser they lost. that's what i don't understand instantly, your brain folds the first time you do. if we can describe some of these cryptographic premises in those terms like i can to you the key exchange using a box with two locks on and i can teach you the high level notion of what that is, we need to be able to do things like that that don't coverage is little components but can talk about their role, the role of technology, the primitive, theory.

>> they really care. they want to go in, make their decision, push the button and they are done. their vote is counted. that's the extent. so that sort of the challenge we have to get over is, you know, make sure we have means that allow for the system to help them do that in a very, very simple way. >> i can talk from the extremes of the norwegian project. in this project we introduced, well, selections made, how they vote, was their intent. one of the problems we have in this project is how to balance. and then one thing that's very important is most of the people don't care about this. so usually this is more introduced to people who do not trust the system, verify the

system is working properly. how come we introduce this in a way that is not a word for the system, the system distinguish between somebody that is going to verify and somebody is a regular voter, can't make any kind of trick. and then only say okay, i know i can -- i'm not going to make any. so the problem is how come we provide this as an option but is not jeopardizing the voting process, not making the voting process difficult to understand. people need to know why i need to make this verification. but at the same time to make a verification efficient. and we put this as an option in some cases. but in a way that's not, for

instance, the voter doesn't need to verify the code. will usually, a study that was made in norway, it was -- about 20% of the voters checked their return codes. but it's not, it has not been based on a real study. it was based on a problem they had when printing some voting cards. so there were some voting cards that were wrong, so they called people and said okay, these voting cards are wrong. the verification is not correct. based on the number wrong and the people that called, make an extrapolation about that means 70% of people that received the wrong voting cards detect the air. >> that's a good thing to do more expense we have in that the more data we're going to have for these studies.

>> exactly. this system has not been studied, at least here in the u.s. says 2011, the first code was public. and also it has been shown in different, well, different countries. and -- well, it's important to design a verification process that is easy for the voters. what's more important is the critics understand what is happening to give the voter doesn't understand, sometimes if the vote is counted come it's fine for now. the important part is the system cannot distinguish between who is a regular voter and he was online. >> i think voters by and large don't always care what kind of voting system they will be faced with wind chimes to go vote. i think what's more compelling

to them is who they want to vote for and whether they think this election is important or important enough to make the effort. and once they get there i think it's the responsibility of all the stakeholders who care about elections and democracy generally to make sure that what is there is not only babel in function but is going to work all the way through the process. you said something that caught my attention, and you hear about all these breaches do everyday there's more news stories about this, that, and the other issue. and you wonder sometimes where the idea of sending some is valuable as a votes over the internet, how did they get to be a good idea? when you know some of those things. but i think as a nation we have this natural inclination to a sort of can-do spirit. we tend to admire when people sort of make light of challenges and obstacles or minimize them a little bit. because i think if they are less

daunting we can do this. we can overcome it. we can apply ourselves. and i think that's one of the reasons why there's actually internet voting in the country today. and the unfortunate part of it is that if there are shades of bad, it's sort of the worst of the worst, you know? unencrypted e-mail attachments to elections offices and the like. and i told someone about this one time who does security consulting for large firms when i'm sitting next to him on a plane, and his eyes got large and he just want to cover his ears and not him as telling. no, they can't possibly be true. it is true. so i think there's a lot of bridging it needs to happen for people to understand what the key challenges are, with the properties are that we need, and work in those kinds of research problems as to how to get there. >> i like how you phrased that, they can do.

i think it's a can-do frontier spirit of rhode island. >> that must be it last night. >> okay. -- [laughter] >> joe had said 30-40 years. which is kind of a long time. that means that digital natives that are using this now are going to be 40, in the '50s. that means i will be in my young '60s. [laughter] and that's a long way. i'm curious if the other panelists agree with that timeframe and maybe if there's one thing we can do, that one thing, what would you like. i think i will start on my left. >> think that may be a little on because of the whole process of how fast technology is advancing. but there does need to be an effort, focused effort around

trying to do with the problems today. we have to do a better job. some of the building blocks i mentioned earlier, identity is a big one. there's a reasonable amount of things that you can do to provide a more secure and private to know who you're talking with. but you still have those underlying issues of the user pc or mobile device, or just have a captured environment to execute those types of activities. i don't think it's going to take quite that long, but if we want to really sort of push this week really need to look at, you know, looking at the concerted effort to design a national environment that's standards-based that is going to be able to scale. if we're solving a local issue, fine. i think we can do that without a lot of work and within 30 or 40

years but if we're solving a national issue, we have real problems that need to be addressed, real design considerations that have to be taken. and discern whether not we will look at doing this on top of a trusted or un-trusted environment. these are decisions that need to be made. until we can get twin national focus, we are not going to solve the problem. >> joe, do you think it's 30 to 40 or? >> let me give you the basics of why said 30 to 40 years but if you talk to folks who evaluate these kinds of proposals, if you talk to people -- protocol stacks for the next-generation internet which is a bunch of words, think of it as what might replace what we have now, they are optimistic in projects for kitty stuff deployed in the way you can have as coherent and internet as we have now in 40 years. this is something that no one under probably knows anything

about and this is way to do secure routing on the internet. right now you have folks come we don't know who, doing adversarial routing attacks where suddenly a route on the internet from one side of denver to the other side of denver is rerouted to kazakhstan for a couple of hours. what the heck? anyway, so there are things like that but i don't think you can fully solve into a sort of a fully deployed well thought out, nine ended in in the. i say that, that's what i'm saying these things come and other things, but those things are more problematic. i think the internet is the monitor. >> why we might be an optimistic nation i'm going to shout out for missouri now come we are also a show me people, rightly so. i think we need to ask yourself what's the floor and these which when i went to saint? voters might not think much about the voting system but i think we ourselves as a democracy can as a nation systems that do produce needed

evidence that you can use in the event of any failures. things go wrong, murphy's law. to re-create intent of the voter i know that that was, in fact, the correct outcome. i think it was probably on the money but who knows, but i think he's on the money with the timeframe. that's my take. >> i think we need to wait 30 or 40 years. we will find in 30 or 40 years another reason to the important parties, we are designing solutions in a way that is acceptable. what is happening also net is also there are people that is thinking about how to use also technology -- the thing we need to think about,.

[inaudible] different parties like my company. and to see if they are acceptable to use for everybody in election, only for certain groups. i think that we need to move. we cannot wait. if we wait then we will find other risks in the future. we are not going to move now. so i think that, i think that we have technology now for introducing internet voting. and if we want to limit the risk of this introduction we can think about only using certain, just some people. in case of online voting i think postal voting is not a solution. >> i think some of the things you might do to shorten that is having these elections like norway, like estonia where we can get our hands around this

and figure out how people are actually going to use it. we can lay the sidewalk but we won't know how people really want to use this technology. my concern on the longer-term is that defense is getting better and we can imagine how long it's going to take us to solve these problems because we are on this slow. and fortune the attackers have been on this slow. maybe even exponential. so the farther route, my concern out -- outcome of the attackers might be getting much, much better than this than the defenders are. because that's been the path. this is what mcafee has been trying to get at with this project that we been doing with them is a pivot to the positive. and if we want to unlock these games, got to start getting security right. and was that's the important message. not just talking about the downsides and the risks of also talking about the benefits we can unlock if we get this right.

so i wanted to thank again and mcafee and my panelists. i wanted to thank kara jordan help with this together, and paul and rob you're doing our tweets. by volunteers, interns, so please say hello to them, thank them, give them jobs. our next event 22 october, national cybersecurity awareness month will be here. to talk about updates, so we love tom corcoran from the house committee on intelligence. will have dimitri here to talk about risks. on the fifth of november we will have, i'm sorry, fourth of november we will have an event here on nato and talking about nato's new cyber strategy. that's going to be with the assistant secretary-general from emerging sector to challenges. so the top nato official doing cyber, and some others.

probably won't be here at on the fourth of november. and keep your eyes open for the next paper in a pivot to the positive that working with microsoft. i'm sorry, with mcafee. and with mcafee, ma with mcafee, and that's can be looking embedded medical devices and other parts of health care. again one of these places that if we don't get security right we are not going to build unlock all of the amazing potential that we can find and we're doing that with mcafee. okay. so thank you very much to all of a painless but thank you for all of you for being here in making us so smart on this issue. thank you for being here, great, thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> our campaign 2014 coverage continues with a week full of debate. tonight at seven, live coverage of the pennsylvania governors debate. thursday at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, live coverage of illinois u.s. house debate for the 17th district. and later at nine live coverage of illinois governors debate. and friday night live at eight eastern the wisconsin governors debate between scott

walker and mary burr. saturday night on c-span at eight eastern live coverage of the iowa senate debate. sunday live at 8 p.m. eastern the michigan governor's debate. c-span campaign 2014, more than 100 debates for the control of congress. >> c. spans 2015 studentcam competition is underway. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a 527 minute documentary on the topic the three branches and you. videos need to include c-span programming, show different points of you and must be submitted by january 20, 2015. go to studentcam.org for more information here crowded camera and get started today. >> the candidates for u.s. senate seat in virginia faced

each other in a debate last night. democratic incumbent senator mark warner and his challenger former republican national committee chair ed gillespie met with the second debate. this one was moderated by chuck todd, courtesy of nbc4-tv in washington, d.c. ♪ >> good evening. i'm chuck todd and welcome to the virginia senatorial debate between democratic senator mark warner and republican ed gillespigillespi e hosted by the fairfax county chair of commerce and, of course, news for. this is airing on all nbc stations across the commonwealth, nationally on c-span and streaming live on nbcwashington.com. thank you all for watching. let's begin by quickly covering the rules of the debate. the debate last one our we'll begin with a two minute opening statement from each candidate and then i panelists and i will post questions record to the candidates but i should of these questions are determined by nbc

news and the panelists and that not been reviewed by the candidates or the fairfax chamber. each candidate will have one minute and 30 seconds to respond and the candidate answering first will also get an additional one minute to rebut. as moderator i do reserve the right to follow-up as needed. finally, we will conclude the debate with one minute closing statement. there is a device that will notify candidates of the remaining time and when time has expired. in the interest of try to cover as much ground as possible we ask the candidates to do to these time limits. let's welcome our panelists. erin gilchrist, anchor news for today. he spent 13 years reporting in richmond covering for virginia governors and the congressional delegation. julie kerry is the northern virginia for a cheap and has been covered virginia politics are nbc for for over 20 years. care in is a national political correspondent for the "washington post." prior to joining the post she wrote for "time" magazine for over a decade. let's bring in the candidates. republican challenger ed

gillespie. [applause] and the democratic incumbent senator mark warner. [applause] >> moderator: mr. gillespie, you won the toss to you get to begin with your two minute opening statement. gillespie: it's great to be with the chamber. i look for to talking about my agenda or economic growth which will be a new and better direction for us and the obama warner policies. i want future generations to have the same opportunities that i have had. my grandfather was an immigrant janitor. my parents never went to college and i got to be counselor to the president of the united states of america. but i fear that we are losing that kind of economic opportunity and upward mobility as a result of the obama warner policies and that's why i put forward an economic growth plan. because the policies coming out of washington today are squeezing hard-working virginians between lost jobs,

lower take-home pay, reduce working hours and higher prices for health care, energy and food. they're making us less safe as a nation, less able to meet growing threats to national security and to public health and safety. that's what i would seek a seat on the senate armed services committee to restore our military and to stand up for our veterans. i would also want to put forward these policies of mine that will create jobs, raised a co-pay, live people out of poverty, hold down health care costs and reduce energy prices. my policies will ease the squeeze on hard-working virginians and make it easier for them, for the unemployed find work. we need that in virginia today. under the obama-warner policies for every net jobs created in virginia, two people have gone on to food stamps. there were 65,000 more women living in poverty today, and 250,000 of us will have our health care plans canceled as a result of the affordable care

act, obamacare, which the senator still supports. under these obama-warner policies, the federal government is doing too many things that should be better left to the state and local governments and the private sector, and feeling it too many things that it should be doing right. my policies will make things better. thank you. >> moderator: senator warner, your two minutes. warner: thank you, chuck. i would also like to thank the fairfax chamber and all virginians were watching tonight. it's been the greatest order of my life to serve virginia. worst as governor and as u.s. senator. what brought me to public service was the notion that in america but i do get a fair shot. we can't guarantee success. you ought to get a fair shot. if we're going to maintain a sense of opportunity in our country we've got to people in politics who are willing to work together. that's what i did as your governor with a two to one republican legislature we turned a deficit into a surplus in virginia was named best managed state and the best states for

business. i brought that same bipartisan approach to the senate. that's why i'm so proud to have the support of the gentlemen who held this office before become republican senator john warner and why i got more former republican legislators supporting me this campaign then when i first ran. in the senate i have worked on trying to take on the challenge of our debt and deficit to make sure veterans get the care they deserve. bringing jobs back to virginia and making sure young people are not crushed by student debt. and you know what? on every major piece of legislation i work on, i start with a republican partner. my opponent has a different approach. he spent his entire career as a d.c. lobbyist and a partisan political operative. he views every issue to what's in the best interest of the republicans or democrats. as a medevac even when on tv and called himself a partisan warrior. his words, not mine. i've got to tell you, the last thing washington needs is

another partisan lawyer in either political party. in these challenging times in the world needs a strong american, economically, militarily and morally. to make that happen america has to have leaders to work together. thank you. >> moderator: thank you, gentlemen for both adhering to the time limits right at the beginning. let's start with the news of the last 24 hours that's impacted a lot of virginians. mr. gillespie, the first question and, of course, the supreme court's nondecision to review the case on gay marriage. it is now legal in the commonwealth of virginia. you personally opposed gay marriage. are you comfortable, can you accept this decision by the supreme court not to act? gillespie: a couple of points to other people i to other people arirespect them for who they ar. i believe we are all created in the image and likeness of god. as you noted, my faith, marriage is between one man and one woman and i believe it. as a senator i believe it's a

proper prerogative of the states to make these determinations and i do not support a federal marriage a minute or federal policy in this regard. the court has as you said ruled on this. it is a law in virginia today, and as i do not believe that a federal law is a proper approach, then, of course, accept the ruling, the decision by the supreme court not to take up this decision of the circuit court. warner: on this issue my opponent -- my opponent and i differ. i support marriage equality. i think it is appropriate that we live in a commonwealth that doesn't discriminate. it's something i've advocated as governor when i had the most adverse administration in modern virginia history. i think back at those times even back as early as the early 2000 when companies across virginia, including capital one where we're here tonight, said we need

to change these discriminatory practices against glbt members of our committee picks i think the supreme court did the right thing. i think allowed to openly take this issue up but again on this issue my opponent and i have very different opinions. >> moderator: you want to respond? gillespie: as a matter of policy in the united states senate, while we disagree in terms of whether or not marriage should be between one man and one woman in terms of the role of the united states senator, it's not something that i believe is inappropriate that a response but should be left to the states. in terms of by the way, people should not be discriminate against in terms of job discrimination based on sexual preference or sexual orientation. that was my policy as an employer in my three businesses that i ran. >> moderator: 10 years ago you support a federal constitutional amendment on marriage. do you still support that? gillespie: when i was chairman of the republican national committee it was the platform called for a federal marriage enemy and as chairman of the rnc

i stood for the platform but as united states senator con talking about my policies and the policies i would pursue as a united states center, and while i believe marriage is between one man and one woman i don't believe is the proper role of the united states senate to enact a federal marriage amendment. >> moderator: julie has the next question for senator warn warner. >> why did congress shirked its constitutional duties and leave town to campaign without voting to authorize use of force against i suspect your own colleague tim kaine has said quote you don't ask people to sacrifice their lives until the nation has debated and committed to the nation. is he wrong about that? warner: know. i agree. i think congress should be called back into session and debated this issue thoroughly. because i believe that senator kaine, i add strongly support his leadership on this issue but

i'm not sure i fully agree with the authorization force ideas put forward but that is part of the process that should be fully debated, amended and dealt with. i do believe that sitting on the intelligence committee that isil is a real threat to our country. this is an area where much, while my opponent will make charges supporting obama on every policy, this is what i differ with the president. i believe we need a more forceful response against syria and iraq. i think it is important that we also call for stronger actions against mr. putin and russia. without american leadership as we've seen, there is very little that goes on in the world in the world editor dangers. i will say the president i think has done two things on this issue that are important. one is he is pushed out the maliki government because it is important that if we're going to come in and be supported in iraq we've got to have a government

that is inclusive of all factions. the maliki government was supported by both bush and obama policy. he is building up the kind of coalition that includes arab and muslim nations as well as europeans and others because this needs to be a fight that's not just american. he needs to be the civilized world against these terrorists train for mr. gillespie, you can respond. gillespie: i agree, there should be congressional authorization for the air strikes in syria and iraq. i believe that would be in the best interest of our country but i think it would send a strong signal. as sender if i were senator i would support that there i think would be a healthy debate on the floor of the senate. i think it's required by the constitution, and i believe it would send a much stronger signal to our potential allies and our enemies that the united states is committed to the effort to a concert i have is i think there may be some fears that the united states is not committed long-term to this effort and that causes consternation i believe him on some of our potential allies. i also think we need to be

stronger as a military an unfortunate senator warner has voted to cut nearly a trillion dollars out of our military budget. we are now going to have a navy that is smaller than world war one levels and an army smaller than world war ii levels. we need to have according to the pentagon 306 ships to meet our national study needs. we are at about 282, on the way to two under 60 because of defense cuts. that includes 486 billion in terms of the budget control act and another 500 are in sequestration. as a member of the senate armed services committee, i would work to replace those sequestration cuts three kill them and to make sure we're more secure as a country and that we make our military the proper priority it should be tried for senator warner, you can respond. we've had the sequestration for quite some time. warner: i called it stupidity on steroids and i find it curious that my opponent who said he would not have voted my

understanding, for the budget control act that was supported by a majority of the delegation, democrat and republican in virginia, that john mccain from the speaker, said the alternative was defaulting on our nation's debt, that was for windows and economic turmoil. but no one has been a strong advocate against sequestration. i laid out again unlike my opponent with specificity and took arrows from both the left and the right on this in terms of a comprehensive plan for entitlement reform and tax reform that would have avoided sequestration. i voted for both republican plan and the democratic plan that would've replaced the sequestration. frankly, i was proud to receive the navy's highest civilian honor, the public citizen service award, because of my efforts to try to rollback sequestration. >> moderator: very quickly, if you can answer this in 20 seconds, was the president right to rule out combat troops in

this war against cases come in syria? warner: i think he was not. i think he's not have rolled out -- listen to i think we're to leave all military options open to i am not supportive of this moment of anything in a major way in iraq but a don't think you draw a red line you might have to back off of. gillespie: i don't think you should take options off the table and signal which are prepared to do are not prepared to do. again asked the senator said, no one is recommending combat troops are there right now and saying that you're not taking it come you're not taking off the table, it's not the same thing as saying we should answer them. but you should not take them off the table as an option. >> moderator: aaron has the next question. >> mr. gillespie, you say senator warner has voted 97% of the time for president obama's agenda. senator warner, you point out mr. gillespie's recounting of the republican national committee working with the george w. bush white house and helping in the mitt romney presidential campaign. i will start with mr. gillespie. community specific example of

you standing up to your party, and snore warner, the same question to you, specific example of standing up to the parties. gillespie: there are differences i have. when you're not in the white house, my party doesn't have one thing to stand up to right now but i will share with you some things were think i'm probably at odds with some members of my party and that is i believe that in the early 90s when congress passed mandatory minimum sentences in the u.s. congress, that we swung too far. and that i believe we need to revisit those. in particular for nonviolent offenders, and allow more discretion for judges and for the more discretion for the states to make determinations in terms of what are the proper sentencing guidelines. i think we went overboard in terms of federal sentencing, mandatory minimum sentences. i'm someone who believes in

retention and in reconciliation. i also believe we need to look at the process of -- prospect of ending the box in terms of checking and to serve your time and your pager price in terms of time in prison. for certain crimes and for certain jobs. i don't think you should be required to check the box as a felon which increases recidivism but i think of people have paid their debt to society, society needs to welcome the back into society and make it easier to come back into society if they can for certain crimes and for certain positions. warner: i appreciate asking that question because my whole campaign, my opponent so campaign has been pretty much based on this bogus charge. the 97% charge. independent political analysts have called both misleading and not reflective of my record. the "national journal" says a review of all the votes, not just a subsection, ranks me right in the center.

the questioner, what have i stood up against my party? let me go to realistic i support drilling off the coast of virginia as long as we get a share of the royalties. i support the. i support the keystone pipeline. i protested against in harrisburg because of that supporter i stood up repeatedly against the president on his foreign policy choices both around with isil but also in terms of being stronger against putin and russia, start calling early in march for these kind of stronger oppositions to his activities in ukraine. and it's that reason that virginians know my record. is that reason why again in this campaign i'm so proud to have the support of more republican, former republican legislator and when i ran the first time. what it is though is the kind of political sound bite attacks charged it comes from somebody who spent their career as a

partisan operator. >> moderator: mr. gillespie, joint response to the 97%? gillespie: first of all the independent fact checker, i don't always agree with but politifact rated the rating that senator warner votes with present about 90 some% of the time true. secondly, senator warner's press releases are very bipartisan by his floor votes are very party line. let's take for example, the keystone xl pipeline which we just heard again he said he supports and yet on two different occasions on the senate floor when there was an opportune to move forward with the keystone xl pipeline, senator warner voted to block that for moving forward. when there was an opportunity to lift the moratorium going off are deep sea coast, a bipartisan amendment, bipartisan support for it as there was bipartisan support for the keys of xl pipeline, senator warner voted against it. in both instances by the way former democratic senator from virginia jim webb voted for those amendments, voted with the bipartisan sidewalk senator warner cited with his leadership

at the fact is one of the reasons he takes anderson both sides is because he says one thing but then goes another way. >> moderator: let me follow up on this with both of you, because the fact of the matter is, senator warner, you have these votes that are partyline. why haven't you thought the party leadership? questioned you, mr. gillespie, we haven't seen many republicans fight mitch mcconnell either. this is sort of, the senate, are you guys all hostages of the leadership? warner: shot, what can one doesn't it is the analysis of those votes were mostly procedural votes. mostly confirmations. what you didn't say as well when i voted against offshore drilling was because there was no proceeds come back to region. i conclude, i've had this legislation for six years if are going to go off the coast of virginia, virginia get the royalty stream that we stand against. absolutely consistent. on keys and i believe got to wait until we have the science. the epa said let's build it,

let's make sure we export this kind of oil as well as natural gas which would actually three of europe's dependence on russian oil and gas. these are all things we think we can make changes and prickly strengthen america. >> moderator: mr. gillespie, how to stop the leadership string hold on making the senate work? gillespie: i will have a simple test for every vote i cast as senator. and that is this. will this bill is the squeeze on hard-working virginians and make it easier for the unemployed find work? if it does i won't vote for. i don't care what the white house has of either party. i don't care what any senate leader says but i will promote policies. there are votes that make up this 90 some% statistic. let's look at some of them. snore voted for the failed stimulus, trillion dollars in wasted money. he voted for the excessive revelations from the dodd-frank bill that are making our for small business to get loans. he voted for seven join dollars

in new debt and nearly $120 in tax increases. he has not imposed -- a post a single nominee in this present during his entire time in the same and last but not least devoted for the a formal care act obama after said he would never vote for a bill -- >> moderator: let me posit there and karen has the next question. >> to segue into this question, senator warner come as mr. gillespie noted in his opening statement and as my own newspaper, the "washington post" has reported, as many as a quarter of nine virginia and are going to have to give up their current health insurance policies as a result of the affordable care act. now i realize your campaign has disputed the exact figure but at a minimum, thousands and thousands of virginians are going to have to give up their current health insurance policy in many cases, ma policies they like. what do you say to those virginians? warner: karen, thank you. what is your constantly from

virginians is they want us to fix health care. remind you of the fact of 49 years ago when congress passed medicare they didn't get it fully by the first to the next day they to come back and fix it or virginians want to keep part of the ac to go to keep the fact that people with existing editions can get insurance but they want to make sure women are not charged more than them. they like we can keep or get on a policies until we are 26 years old. my opponents of charge and as figure two and 50,000 actually ahead of the insurance association of a decent that number was completely made up. and his attack has been called by the same politifact, simply false. i do think people in the individual market ought to be able to keep their health care for three years the way they do in north carolina. this has now been moved to a state issue, and there is a bipartisan bill before the general assembly that would allow virginians to have the same right as north carolinians. i hope ed would lobby for them.

i've gone further than that. i'vi said what else i would chae the ac. i've laid out not with soundbites but specific on a cheaper option. i've laid out specific legislation that i would roll back some of the regulatory overburden. i've said let's go ahead and put in place the ability for insurance companies as long as there are consumer protections to sell products across state lines. we need to fix this problem, not simply relitigate it. gillespie: the fact is that we can have reforms that address concerns about preexisting conditions that make health care more affordable. i'm going to put forward a positive alternative of my own on friday and talk about refundable tax credits and protections on pre-existing conditions, but the two and $50,000 figure came out in a senate hearing in the state senate. you don't have to go far in the commonwealth to find someone who has had insurance canceled and lost their doctor as result of

senator warner's support for the affordable care act, obamacare. one of those people is with me tonight, linda from chesapeake. i met about a month ago. she told me about her rare a generative eye disease going blind in her right eye. she has an iq specialist who is very important to her and found out last year that her plan was canceled because of the affordable care act. she and her husband went online, found another plan that conform to the affordable care act a big got it even though higher deductibles, higher premiums. it had its ey his eye doctor ine plan so they signed up for it. she went in for her next visit and they submitted the bill, and yes, the doctors in the plan but they find out only for emergency services, not for chronic care. lend and her husband are paying out of pocket and taking a huge hit, just like the woman i met in stancu. she and husband both work. she carries the interest. she's been notified that her health insurance premiums are going to go up $600 per month as

a result of obamacare. >> moderator: senator warner, in your response were always fix it builds? i for democrats talk about it. warner: they have been filed. i'm happy -- listen, one of the things we need to do is vote on amendments and have a more open process. i think both sets of leadership need to move on that and our group of us i think that will take that on. but let's go to the question. the 250,000 number wasn't my question. it was the head of the insurance association. yes, it was cited by an elected official but ahead of the injured associate said the number was made up. and yes, there are ways we can fix that. other states have. for at least three years to keep on individual policy, keep the plans you like. we ought to be that in virginia. in the general us in the right now i hope ed would join and lobby for. but what i also hope to hear is ed has been promising his own health care plan since january.

it's now 28 days before the election but we still have no plan, no details. i've laid out ways to fix obamacare. but we prefer my opponent is soundbites try for julie has the next question. >> mr. gillespie, you surprise some people when you said you got contraceptive pills should be offered without a prescription. you put it kind the kind of like sudafed. but unlike sudafed, birth control pills aren't one size fits all. sometimes it can be changes to certain women with health conditions. i would like to know exactly which of the 24 brands of contraceptives do you think should be available without prescription and why do you think that would be safer? gillespie: that's not a determination on me. that's a decommissioned the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists have made. they're the ones who recommended that there is no longer a medically necessary reason for oral contraceptives to be a prescription drug. they should be available without

prescription over-the-counter but my point was i think for adult women, behind the counter would be the appropriate step, but having available without prescriptions would make the bill more affordable, more accessible and more easily obtainable for women. ..

warner: there are stark differences in terms of what my opponent doesn't tell you about is the plan which is a gimmick that is being used in a number of states is that the existing law right now says for women on birth control there is no co-pay. his plan organic would actually charge on average the same groups that validate this about $600 out of pocket for the women that currently have no copayment. his plan as well does nothing in terms of other forms of birth control. and that's because on this issue we've had a different approach. i trust women to make these decisions with their doctor and i don't think we should interfere. my opponent assured of a hobby lobby decision that said private-sector employees off to decide what kind of healthcare women should get. he's been supported by the major groups around the country and he wouldn't answer in the last debate whether he wants to overturn and the groups clearly

want to overturn roe v. wade. and he's not spoken up at all in terms of some of his supporters who have put forward the ultrasound legislation that all of us in the business community say we don't like virginia being the subject of ridicule on late-night shows but yet he hasn't stood up and spoke out against that. so on this issue again i look forward to the women of virginia making their decision. gillespie: what's interesting is that the non- prescription birth control and other nonprescription drugs because that is the rule in obamacare. that's the rule that you voted for. but my point is if you replace obamacare with the market reforms, people could purchase the insurance of their choice and many women would purchase plans that would cover over-the-counter prescription or

nonprescription birth control pills. talk about having faith in the women of virginia i have faith in the women of virginia to make the determinations of what is the best plan and policy for them and their medical needs not to have a set prescription of what plans you cannot buy and we will tell you from the federal government what you can and cannot buy and approving the affordable care act is to add a fourth plane that he will tell the women of virginia what they can and cannot do by and by the way as i mentioned they are seeing their health-insurance premiums health insurance premiums skyrocket and out of pocket expenses go up as a result. >> we are going to put in a brief commercial break. i want to remind you that debate the date is streaming live on washington.com joined for a google hangout. we will be back for congressional dysfunction all coming up after the break.

[applause] >> moderator: we are back in virginia with the two candidates for the major party candidates for the u.s. senate here in the commonwealth. senator warner let me start with you. the poll found majority of americans be leaving the political outcome won't change washington no matter if the democrats controlled the senate or if the public is controlled the senate. as governor we talked about all these bipartisan deals you were able to accomplish bipartisanship is a mere possibility it seems. number one, why is that and why do you want another term if you haven't been able to be bipartisan? warner: i'm not willing to accept the notion that somehow in america we can fix the problems. the whole problem is how you fix things. do i get frustrated with what's going on? as i haven't found anybody that is part of the 8% for giving a

good job, but it requires people who are willing to roll up their sleeves and get things done and be bipartisan and i'm proud of my record. the record speaks for itself. what would you do with the change? it says throughout virginia's districts we need to do the redistricting reform. that would be a giant step forward in returning faith. we also need to get rid of the campaign finances which currently the citizens united case that my opponent supports i think they got it wrong. there was a super pac that supports my opponent and i think we ought to get rid of all of them in all outside money. in fact i would be willing in the last race between you and me and outside influences that would be a step in the right direction. >> i think that we ought to get rid of all of them and nick sure that this is about campaigns

between the two of us. at the end of the day you have to have folks who are willing to check the republican and democratic hats and we built a coalition on the deficit. it's going to have to come back -- >> do you accept the notion? warner: when you're super pac spent $1.4 million attacking you and we are going to call it quits? but that doesn't matter. but they talk about us, i just found it humorous. the bigger thing is what i believe we can get things done and one of the reasons i want to go to washington is because i do as i said in my opening statement i want to see future generations and others see the same blessings of liberty that i've seen in my family. my grandfather was an immigrant from ireland. he was a janitor.

85 years ago today and i grew up to be the council in the united states of america. what a country to the west wing of the white house and the two generations time and we are losing that. and most americans today don't believe that we are a country where the next generation can do better than the generation that came before us. that must be the future and it can be with the right policies and i believe if i can get there i will fight for those things every day across party lines. i have a very simple test and i will share with you what it is and the democrats are for it for easing the bill on the hard-working americans as well as well as hard-working virginians. i will work with them and we can get stuff done and i do agree with you. but mcconnell has said, and i take him at his word he will open up the senate floor to amendment and that will be a healthy thing for the process and i would certainly support

that. when we are in the majority i would make sure -- >> moderator: you get a response if you like. warner: but i didn't hear from my opponent in that response, and i think that the family has a great story. i'm proud of my story as well. the virginians can all tell in their families being able to overcome the odds and that's why i'm still in public service because everybody ought to get their fair shot by also worrying part because we have such a partisan gridlock. i've laid out a specific solutions, independent redistricting reform that's changed the campaign-finance rules so that we don't have all this outside money. let's end up freeing up the senate process. we agreed on that. but what is different is that his whole career has been a political operative. elect me and then i'm going to be bipartisan. for better or worse you've got my record. you've got my record as governor where we get things done and i go back and check my legislation

every major piece of legislation i start with a republican partner. and then when we come back the question around getting the balance sheet that's where i think in most areas it is good to be front and center and we have to go back to the report to get it on. speaking to you, senator warner. if you reread the best person to lead the senate democrats yes or no? warner: we can do better in both parties leaning forward. >> moderator: i take that as a no. mr. gillespie gillespie, is he the best candidate to lead the senate majority for the public? gillespie: he will get elected and the leadership. >> moderator: yes or no? gillespie: i like mitch mcconnell and take him at his word word that he will open the senate floor and that would be good for the process. there have been amendments allowed by the republicans in the democrat over the past two years. >> moderator: caren has the next question. >> moderator: mr. gillespie

you spoke about your own family story as an example of the kind of opportunity that this country has offered emigrants. back in april, the attorney general of virginia declared that undocumented qualified immigrants who grew up in virginia and graduated from high school in the commonwealth could qualify for in-state tuition at universities and colleges in virginia. do you agree with this policy? gillespie: i understand it and in terms of the, you know, the notion of granting amnesty at a federal level for people who are here really believe, i think that needs to be hashed out through a legislative process and i don't think that we should should cut her citizenship to the people that are here by virtue of having broken our laws. at the same time i don't believe that we are going to deport ten

to 12 million people and we should have the means by which we can issue fresh visas to people that are here if they have not violated any other law besides the immigration law if they paid back taxes and demonstrate self-sufficiency which has always been a hallmark of our immigration system. and i also believe that that starts with securing our border and the fact that we have a porous southern bird today is not just just an immigration concern at is a national security concern with the growing threat of isis and it's a public health threat and public safety threat of growing concerns. so we need to have a legislative approach that begins with securing the borders and the things we do by the way to keep people from coming here illegally will allow us to welcome people here legally. people like my father in a rational system and then with the visa reform that address the

h. one b. visa and all others as well but we can fix that and that would allow us to have a fresh visas for the people that are here now. >> i think we would agree the immigration system is broken. it needs to be fixed. the thing is the senate actually put together a bipartisan plan to do that. it took first place to of these to increase border security. the department doubles border security and takes on the issue that issues that i've worked on in a bipartisan way to the senator from kansas and how we deal with the question on the visas and make sure that we have the workers they graduate from george mason virginia tech. they can go to canada for those jobs. it took on the question of guest workers and it took on as well the question of what he did with the undocumented.

there was a whole series of other items. within this bill it was supported by 68 senators, supported by business, labor and faith groups. was it perfect? maybe not what we got but we got nothing back and what i find curious is back when the bill was being debated me sad that this bill was both group policy and good politics. now we sat on the campaign trail but it's against the competence of senate immigration formula and i wonder what's changed is the policy change to the politics changed? >> moderator: mr. gillespie? gillespie: palletta fact as you cited earlier, look at my position on immigration reform and said it's been entirely consistent and it has been. it's moving through and needs to have tougher border security provisions and i believe that we need to secure the border and

when there was an opportunity do that again an amendment on the senate floor to secure the southern border with a fence in 2009 would have it secured by the summer of 2010. 21 democrats voted for that amendment including former democrat senator from virginia jim webb. but the bipartisan amendment, that bipartisan amendment, senator warner voted with harry reid against it. we also had adjusted vote last re was a vote but said that after the election because of what the president said taking unilateral action they wouldn't block from taking the required legislation to make any changes to the immigration status and five democrats voted for that and it failed 53 to 50. >> moderator: what you have a voted for the bill? warner: i wouldn't vote for the gang of eight bill today.

it is dead. and i think that it's clear that we need to secure our borders first. there is no doubt about that new policy is going to take place in the united states senate without securing the border first and when we had the opportunity to do that in 2009, senator warner voted against it. >> moderator: senator i want to ask you to support the president acting unilaterally on immigration if there is no bill by the end of the year? gillespie: it's better solved legislatively but i'm not going to make a position i don't know what he's going to do or is proposing. i think this is better solved legislatively. but let's go back to the question. the border security and immigration have more than doubled our current border security. it has a broad support if you are not willing to get behind something and tonight he said he

is not for contents of immigration. >> moderator: a lot of people know the economy in northern virginia pretty much coming along at this point but in places like danville and lynchburg the unemployment rate is noticeably higher than the statewide average right now. you've been either a governor or a senator for much of the last decade. why haven't you been able to do more to close the divide between the economic and the geographical hat in virginia? gillespie: they've done better on the unemployment. there's nothing more important than having a job in terms of family, in terms of self-worth and everything in my career has been about creating jobs in the private private sector as governor, and again recognized the best state for business that's how you create jobs making a healthy business climate.

there's been good news recently because he had manufacturing jobs than any other community and that is partially because we put an explosive growth in energy that i support all of the above energy policies including cold because we have to make sure we can bring the manufacturing jobs back home. i hate to keep coming back but i've got a bipartisan legislation that would provide incentives to bring jobs back home to america. and the way we are going to do that is having the tax code that supports it but we also need to do more of what i did as governor. cgi even my best day as governor when we got close to selling 100 high-tech jobs to the county in southwest virginia because we put the incentives and the package together. we have to continue to expand broadband and part of the agriculture bill to make sure that we are going to the underserved areas we have to

make sure that we consolidated a lot of the work force training programs and we have some suggestions there but that job creation is the key to moving forward and i would match my record frankly on that one. >> moderator: mr. gillespie, you get 90 seconds. gillespie: he talks about his time very extensively as governor warner but he wouldn't recognize senator warner today and the votes he cast in the senate for a job killing policy of her job killing policy. when you look at the virginia right now the unemployment rate has been been claiming. it's climbed seven tenths of a percentage point over the last four months. since the senator took office for every job we've created here in the commonwealth, two virginians have gone on food stamps. we need to make it easier to get into the good paying jobsbs and one of the worst things about the senator's policies i believe when you look at obamacare and

the regulations and he's not opposed that would result in the 30 to 50% of the plants being closed in the commonwealth that we needed more last jobs for the coal miners but also it would mean higher prices for the electric bills and price at the pump which is already doubled since the senator took office. i want to raise take-home pay, hold down health care costs and my agenda that starts with replacing obamacare has taxed and regulatory relief unleashing american energy would do those things and that's important because there's human dignity and work and we need more of our fellow virginians to have the dignity and rival titanic sure they do. >> in your response you brought up in trade. very quickly four months ago you said you were reviewing the rules. where are you on that? warner: i joined the 51 senators and i said let's extend

the comment period so that we can get though words right. what's with the science dictate. what i differ from my opponent and i would like to give my full response on energy i am for all of the above including cold is also a challenger on climate change. i would like to take you down to see the rising senior levels that's costing millions because of the affected rising sea levels. he refuses to acknowledge that. he lobbied against fuel efficiency standards and i'm not sure that is the approach that we need going forward and i would add let's turn off all these charges. his economic parties were two words on the credit card, the tax cuts that we cut that we couldn't afford and the entitlement for them that wasn't

paid for that drove us into the fiscal digit. i'm not sure the country can afford -- >> moderator: he brought up climate change. man-made? gillespie: at there is climate change occurring and that man contributes to it. i also believe closing 50% of the plants with these rules that senator warner took a close stance to say we should extend the comment period i can tell you right now i don't think we should close it and in india and indonesia they have the quality standards than we do and so if you care about the clean air and reducing the nation in the last thing you want to do is push places like that. >> i have three or four lightning rounds, some of them yes or no don't try to make more than 30 seconds. model supreme court justice.

gillespie: i had the privilege and the owner to guide chief justice roberts and chief justice alito. i admire them both immensely and i think that they are -- they do their job. it would be tough. like i said i helped hoped to get them both confirmed. >> moderator: your model? warner: on the current supreme court's? justice ginsburg does a good job. >> moderator: what is your philosophy class warner: i've had the opportunity to vote on the supreme court nominees and i think that you need to look at the temperament and the ability to stay open and i think that the opportunities that i've had to vote on the nominees met that criteria. >> let me ask you and this is for both of you but it's worded it differently.

what is the biggest shortcoming and what do you look forward to actually president obama supports what you look forward to working with him on tax gillespie: i differ not pushing more to get the balance sheet in order. 17 trillion in debt interest rates go up and add $120 billion of payments and the only way this is going to get solved is if we have the folks that are willing to chuck their hats which i've done on this issue and say we have to do a and entitlement and tax reform and disappoint and push it harder. >> moderator: would you look what do you look forward to working with him on? gillespie: we are in a difficult time and face serious threats and i did serve as counsel to president president of the united states in a time of the war and i've been there

in the oval office when the commander-in-chief has gotten reports of the casualties with our brave men and women serving in the field and i would want to work with them to make sure that he is doing and gets the support he needs to prevail in the defeat of isis and i pray for him in that regard. >> moderator: what is the job of the u.s. senator? gillespie: it's to work every day in my estimation to pass and enact policies that make sure that we can keep the american dream alive to make sure that as i said future families and other generations can have the same blessings of liberty that i've seen in my lifetime. in the case of the commonwealth i've been on the campaign trail

and i would fight for people and met along the way. >> moderator: what is the job description plaques warner: to fix problems. that's what i've done in my career and what i'm trying to do in the senate. is that right sometimes? i would never get into say that america is not the greatest country in the world and we can't fix the problems. the difference is that he sees every problem through the lens of republican versus democrat. i see it as what we can do to move america forward and that means you have to be bipartisan. >> moderator: that concludes our questions. now mr. gillespie, you have a one minute closing statement followed by governor warner. gillespie: thank you to the panel and everyone here today. it was a pleasure to talk about my ideas and solutions, comments and the solutions that would get bipartisan support on this united states senate and create

jobs and raise pay compay and hold down health care costs. that's why i was so proud today to get the endorsement of the national federation of independent business and champion of small business in america and they understand my agenda is the agenda that will create opportunities. i'm getting a lot of support from those that supported senator warner in 2008 because they see that he's not the senator that he said he would be and they like my agenda and they realize that i will fight to create jobs, raise take-home pay and lift people out of poverty. most americans don't longer believe we are a nation that can do better than the generation that came before us. it must be the future in the right policies and those are my policies and that's how i ask virginians to vote for me on november 4. warner: we've heard a lot of negative attacks tonight and i'm proud of the fact there are more

republican legislators supporting me this year than when i first ran. i am an optimist about america. see, i have been blessed to live the american dream. i failed my first two businesses but it doesn't stop me from picking up and trying again. in business and government i tried to be problems over and too often we end up seeing the forces of political gridlock and i just don't agree with that. more than ever we need people in washington willing to blow roll up their sleeves and get things done. america is the greatest country in the world and we have to get back to the notion that when we see a problem we come together and fix it and move onto the next. that is the quintessential aspect in america. if you hire me that's what i will do.

>> moderator: thank you to the candidates and the the panelist at the fairfax chamber for hosting this debate. stay with us for continuing coverage all month long of decision 2014. [applause] saying that he wrongly packs african americans and a single in a single district. the "washington post" reports the court of appeals in the 2-one-vote and the republican dominated the general assembly until april 2 make the third congressional district of the one you see there. and there will require lawmakers to redraw other districts as well however the court sai the november 4 election can go ahead as scheduled. the elected officials will be

the topic of american progress. congresswoman donna edwards joins the discussion and c-span will have live coverage of 12:30 p.m. eastern and about the same time a half hour or so from now on c-span2 will be live with alive with the briefing with spokesman josh earnest who will likely give questions about the u.s. bombing of isis targets and the death of the dallas patient today. pennsylvania governor tom colbert appears to be trolling in the polls against his democratic challenger tom wolfe according to the latest. figure having their final debate tonight and you can what shall i coverage at seven eastern on c-span. in north north carolina incumbent democratic senator kay hagan and her challenger tom tillis held their debate last night. when north carolina house speaker. here's a brief look. the problem that we have in washington is that it's broke.

the people are communicating across the aisle. senator kay hagan hasn't offered a single bill that's gone to the president's desk and that is a problem. we need people that are going to bring people together. in areas we can't agree, don't take the time and move into areas where we can agree. take the time to find policies that can create jobs other than kill them. $2.5 million. 600,000 with the epa lets reduce the regulation to create jobs that is something i believe we have to agree on. >> moderator: which if she would you issue would you take on the party leadership? tillis: i will speak for the senate cannot for the house, offer the house, harry reid hasn't allowed anything to be passed. you know this better than most people when you have the house and 350 bills in the senate you only have a few dozen votes in the house and only a few dozen votes in the senate an