fighting, this is an alternative. there is no winner takes all. even if they don't go the political route, neither side will give up unless you give them an alternative. i had hoped that when we returned to new york, they would focus on the substance of the political assessment. for the first >> but when they got back to new york they focused on chapter 7 when the russianians and the chinese told news new york they wouldn't accept. so in the process we dropped the instance -- substance and i'm convinced they will go back to this. but me say say also on this response tobblet protect international community will not be able to intervene in

every situation and it will be accused of double standards. but my answer to that is you cannot intervene in every situation does not mean you should not intervene where you can and do it to make a difference. there are situations where use of force would make the situation much worse, that we should look at other things and not even consider force. but i think some governments have made the nation that the fastest way to end the conflict in syria is to arm one side over the other. it's not going to happen. they're only going to get more people killed. in the end they need to look for political settlement. >> staying with your answer to martin's question for just a second. you know the russianian leadership, you know that the russianians are concerned that

once again their support for a chapter seven solution would come back to haunt them and the region. but at the same time they are paying a considerable price in the arab world where they have diplomatic equities and interests. do you see their position changing over time? >> i hope serve concerned at the moment because it is getting worse. i did discuss this with russian leadership. and he shared with me the concerns. i have tried in geneva to push for the question of chapter seven with them.

on that they maintain that they were deceeved in libya, that they did not stop the libyan operation. they abstained instead hoping that we will go in and protect the people but that resolution was transformed so quickly into regime change that what i am refering to will be the slippery slope and they will find themselves with a libya type situation. secondly, he believes that what happens in syria will have impact on russia and it's neighborhood which they have the islamic problem. u.s. argues it is lucky at a distance with two oceans on either side and not as exposed as russia is and nobody has been able to tell him what happens when assad leaves. they also believe that the

worst groups around assad much leave which pushes assad to dig his leels in and pushes russia to make it happen. i'm sharing the conversation i had with him. and that was not going to happen. and his key question is what happens when assad leaves and this is where the communique and approach we're discussing becomes important. let me for theoretical purposes say for arguments sake. let's say everybody grease to the political set mment and transition. and we agree for a period of a year to go through the political transition. the key question becomes at what point does assad leave? the worst argue that is with assad in place, you will not be

able to make any changes or go through transition. so assad must go up front. the russians would want assad to go but maybe at the point when you establish the interim government with full executive authorities to be able to ensure that the scaffold and everything stays in place even when you move him out. when you take to the iranians the national security advice sor tapped president they all have the same message when you pushed them that -- we accept that assad may have to go but the syrian people should be allowed to decide through elections even if it's organized on the u.n. authority. and one choice they gave me is

democracy is a solution. democracy is a solution in syria. but then they tell you what is good for syria is good for -- and they let it hang. and i'm sure they will mention other countries which will have to go through the same thing. so they are looking at it from their own angle. so within that one-year period, the difference i see between the groups is at what point does assad leave? so for those who want assad to leave up front, that one year is too long. for those who want to have some mechanism in place so the system doesn't collapse, let assad go up front is not realistic and when people are that close, it would seem to me

it is not beyond human imagination to work together and push forward. honestly unless the security counsel sell comesing to and grease on a common approach. they have have common interest in their country. but it's going to blow up for everybody and the syrians will pay the biggest price. they're the ones we should all be crying for. so we will see what happens. they will probably go back. and i would want to see a situation where u.s. and russia come together to explore what could be the solution and work with the others, pull them in and find a way for -- it won't happen without that. and in the meantime countries in the region are pumping less

weapons into syria just as it happened in libya. and in libya we know we can't collect these weapons. and it is become a collateral damage of libya. >> it also calls to mind the experience we had during the vulcans and the height of that war. >> i'm a student. right now i just received about the humanitarian crisis in syria where it talks about the 3,000 killed and 1.2 million refugees and they need clothes and everything. right now in mexico we've been where we have seen 50,000 people die in the last five years. we still live in a country where we have 10 million people

in extreme poverty and we have illegal revjees that live here in the united states. so what would be your position on the moral obligation of the mexican government to their citizens to the war on drugs that has been going for the last five years? and i'd like to remember what the counselor of the u.n. on security said about repression which means more violence general rates more violence. so what would be your stand on the war in drugs in mexico? >> i have a feeling you're going to be a good lawyer. >> thank you. >> let me say that the drug issue is a big one in mexico and is becoming a big issue globally.

last year there was a global commission on drugs headed by former president of brazil. i was on that commission. and the main point in the report was to decriminalation, not legalation, but deation because of the way laws are a plide. it doesn't work. it's got the prisons filled with lots of young people who come out destroyed for having a half an ounce or whatever. and we should approach it through a health issue rather than a brute al reaction. there is also responsibility on the -- we often focus on the supply side but there is also the demand side. the two sides have to work together.

i know mexico has been extremely concerned about the gun ships along the border of the u.s. and the free flow of arms that go into mexico to these wars. at the same time when you look at the results of the efforts, most people will tell you it has not worked. it's gotten lots of people killed. there is need for change in policy. but it has to start with a debate and discussion because there are very strong emotions on either side. i told you the global commission report which was shared. but i was the one who was attacked by the drug decar saying we are trying to distribute drugs freely and get everybody on drugs. so we have to start with a debate. and i think the whole approach has to be reviewed.

i was worried that you were going to say we should go and intervene in mexico. but you stayed away from that that's why i said you're going to be a good lawyer. >> i'm a specialist in public law and policy group. my question is regarding the ability to protect something you talk in your book. it's regarding what you were saying about defect of libya in syria -- affect the libya in syria. and i was wondering if you have any comments in establishing the mandate when you have to intervene. i know your position is syria is not intervene. but when you have to intervene so that n.a.t.o. has enough flexibility to combat but also have strict standards to

prevent abuse like what happened with gaddafi? >> let me stress that response tobblet protect has truths in the book. it's not just military. let me give you an example that i lived through. i think that perhaps the best example is the kenyan example where after the elections and there was a conflict, 1300 people were killed, 650,000 uprooted and within a week to 10 days, the members of three or four neighboring countries were because they all relied on kenyan infrastructure. so things came to a stance and prices shot up. and this is a country with 42

tribes so we are almost facing another are you wan da. and the african union asked me to go in and see what we can do to stop the killing. we managed to get them to agree to form a coalition government and agree on a long list of reforms including a new constitution which they managed to pass through a referendum in 2010. during that period the cooperation with international community was incredible, the u.s., the european union, the african union and the u.n., we all worked hand in glove. just to give you an example, even when the u.s. government decided to put sanctions on

individuals who are disrupting the process who are playing the role of spoilers, without telling me the name, this is the right time or be count productive. it was that sort of cooperation. and they told these individuals, when we talk of withdrawing visa, it's not just for you, it's for all the children studying in the united states, and your wife there shopping, they all cannot go. this was even more powerful. people were asking [indiscernible] . i'm sharing this to say there are other means of putting real pressure on the people. but on the question of syria, when you talk of nafment a.t.o.

flexibility that is the consulate will answer led by nate toe to go in and do what you suggested they do. but i'm not sure that is likely scenario to happen that often given the history that we just discussed. but i think even in situations where you do not have the military option, where you cannot use force, one has to look at other things which are viable because really today, some of the countries in the region would want to see intervention. they also know that the intervention will not take place without n.a.t.o. they want n.a.t.o. to come in. and if n.a.t.o. is not able to go in, shouldn't we be looking at other options of how to get

the situation under control. because creating the impression that help is coming encouraging people to be stubborn and many more people get killed. >> i am a student. i wanted to ask you about libya again. recently human rights watch produced a report showing in detail in a report called "death of a dictator" that there are dozens of loyalists who were mass executed. and i was wondering how we can encourage the libyan government to prosecute war crimes? >> i think the situation on the ground in libya is very difficult. they are trying to establish

institutions. gaddafi did not run the most democratic institution based regimes. so these people are starting almost from scratch in many ways. and we already have this debate going on about gaddafi's son whether they should be tried in libya or the i.c.c. and where is he likely to get a fair trial. at the same time you can't take everybody to the i.c.c. you have to have local capacity to deal with these kind of impunities. and it's going to take time which i don't have a clear answer for your question. the international committee can encourage them and help them set up the course and systems to be able to deal with this but it does take time. and i don't see it happening tomorrow. but i.c.c. is aware of this situation particularly in the case of some of the prominent

ones. i'm not sure what the view will be on . this and we face a situation in kenya where you have institutions before the i.c.c. but there were thousands or hundreds involved in the masacre and the displacement of the 650,000 or the 100 who were kilt. and we've been prussing for five years they set up a local try bunele to deal with all of this. before we do -- if i may say one word on libya again because i think it's important. lots of people go around saying that the attempt to mediate in syria, my atevert to mediate in syria gave assad more time to kill people. i've never had such a piece of

unmitigated nonsense. honestly it in effect is saying don't even try. don't give the people hope, let them go on and kill each other. and this is propagated by those seeking intervention, who wanted to use force to set it will situation. i'm sure they started saying the same thing about the man who replaced me. but the problem is not the mediator. it's the fighters who refuse to stop. the problem is those who are fueling the war by sending in weapons on either side. they had one year to resolve this before i got in. if it was that easy, why didn't they resolve it. i've never heard this nonsense before. >> before we go to other questions, i'd like to stay with that region of the world for entirely understandable

reasons you've been getting questions including one by me at the beginning about the two most disturbing violent situations. but there is a phenomenon swept all across the arab world t arab awakening. how do you assess that general phenomenon and is there some good news there as we've been focusing on the bad news? >> let me say that the one has to look at the arab awakening not so much country by country but also its regional impact. and that regional impact can eventually even spread beyond the arab region because there is a tendency for people to say if they can do it, why not us.

we have similar problems. but i think when it comes to the outcome and the results, it will differ from country to country. i thinkta niece i can't based on the chance of getting it right. egypt ha has challenges, it's a big country. it has on top of the political problems, there are going to be economic problems. these are countries that have tourists have stopped coming, investments are not going in, reserves are dwindling so if you're not careful, you will get a situation where you will have not just political problems but economic and social ones which makes it messy. and the leers who take over immediately get challenged what have you done for us. why are we snill this

situation? and you are also dealing with newly acquired freedom and new sense of independence and new sense of democracy. and they will is set and i go back to the comment who as a young boy farmed in india and he said people in democracies do not starve, they'll get rid of you. they know how to challenge the leaders. and this is something that we need to bear in mind as we see developments in the region. what is also interesting is so far the most organized and cohesive force appears to be the islamic brotherhood. and when you have this sort of situation, the organized always wins a day. and they've done well in egypt,

they've done well inty niece i can't. i will not be surprised if they do well in syria. this sometimes gives the impression to people that [indiscernible] . i believe that it should be a bit more relaxed about the fact that muslims are becoming prominent in politics in an islamic nation. it's like going to italy and saying you don't want to see catholics in politics, you're dreaming. but how do you work with them and move it in the right direction. you can be islamic and democratic but there needs to be work. we need to watch out for is so far, all these movements has taken place against military

and autocratic leaders but not against the monarchies. how long will that hold? will it turn in that direction? i think that's something we need to watch out for. >> and the monarchies are certainly looking out for it. >> it's very important book, deals with crucial episodes of the u.n. and is utterly candid, honest, informative and wise as your discussion of the middle east has been wise. but i have to say frankly you don't do yourself justice in the slightest in this book.

i will just put it in a phrase when we were working together during the 10 years we worked so closely together, you started to speak about a culture of prevention. you recently gave a marvelous overview since you fwran the culture of prevention. but you are speaking your long term contributions to the u.n. your culture of prevention is important. i wish you would say something because many people here have not heard of it. it's a genius thing that you devoted much of your time to. >> this thereby an excellent blush on the paper back version. >> we did do lots of work

together and you did do quite a lot on this issue. unformally there was so much that had gone on and so much that had been done that i had to select and make some choices. i had to cover -- i couldn't cover everything without putting out a thousand page book. i don't like to read long books so we made some choices. but david is right, the culture of prevention is extremely important which and if we can present crisis before they -- prevent crisis before they explode we are way ahead of the game. and to get governments and institutions around the world to focus on prevention rather than figuring out where are we going to get the troops, where are we going to get the money to intervene, it will be a

much, much better approach. and i know david is working on a book. when is it coming out, david? >> a few weeks. >> which is good so the gap will be filled. but you are right that prevention is always very important which it was only yesterday i was talking to somebody about diplomacy and i know a lot of decors here say we tend to -- sbors say we focus on the defense as the first way to nip the problem in the bud. as the first attempt to prevent and diffuse but we don't want to invest in it. we invest in the military and give them money they don't ask for but don't want to give it

to the preventive actions by diplomats. >> excellent answer. this gentleman back there. >> thank you. it's an honor for me. i'm studying international relations. [indiscernible] changing and even the problem that you elaborated in the book and the problem is still happening and yet to be resolved in our world. and i think i also suspect since you're no longer secretary general of the united nations whether you take on the needs for the u.n. to be reformed in terms of the

decision making process in the u.n. and the members selected and how you see it will tasket future conflicts in the world? >> by the way, i would have answered this question even if i was secretary general. i believe the security counsel and the u.n. should be reformed and i've made that clear. the financial institutions here in washington and the security counsel should be reformed. as secretary general i propose a creation of five to six additional seats not with veet toes because it's indefenseable that latin america doesn't have a single permanent seat. india with almost a fifth of the world's population doesn't have a seat. africa with 54 countries

doesn't have a seat or japan, the second largest country. today you have major nations including your country which are becoming quite powerful and inflew herbal and we need to reform the counsel for other countries to feel that it's fair in terms of representation and in terms of democracy. if it is not down the council is going to come under stress and pressure. instead of collaboration you may get into destructive competition where some would challenge or ignore their decisions t. structure today reflects the reality of 1945 t. world has changed and the u.n. need to adapt. why did don't you take away the

veet toes? it's not going to happen. to take that away, you need the agreement of the countries holding the vetoes. >> that's not going to happen. but reform is essential and it will come. when? maybe sooner than we think because there will be pressure. >> you do say in your book at one point that the institution is finally catching up with the new configuration of power in the world and that it's maybe at a turning point compable even to the one that brought about its founding. >> i believe in that because of what we're seeing around the world, not only what's happening in the middle east but the emergence of now powers

and the role of civil society and the private sector and people to people contact. it's really changed quite a lot of the way we used to do business and i think we should be asking ourselves what should we be doing, what adjustments do we need. i don't think we're asking that enough. but i do see quite a few scholars here who might want to take up this challenge. >> a lady in the back there. >> thank you. i am pleased to meet you. back to europe for the first time in history macedonia was denied it's constitution this

named dispute which has been going on for 20 years. as secretary you didn't find a solution. what do you think now is a solution possible? >> well, the two countries have been discussing this for a while and i named a special enjoy he's one of the longest special we've been talking to you for 20 years, both sides and at one point it looked as if you had an agreement. but then it fell apart. you seem ready to -- macedonia seems ready to accept any compromise that will have the word macedonia in it but i'm not sure greece is ready for that. the discussions are going on. there are other priorities in

the region, other challenges in the region. whether it will help in solving the problem or complicate it, i cannot say because i'm not that close to it now. but i think it's a shame this issue has been going on for so long and hopefully one will find a way out. >> this gentleman right here. >> thank you very much. i wanted to take you to central africa. so you've mentioned in your opening remarks that the united nation could have done a bit more to address maybe the genocide, maybe not stop it but do more and given what we've gotten from there, we've seen the conflict merg to congo and

now we've seen the renewed islands in year experience working intervention and from a u.n. secretary general, what are your thoughts on perhaps replicating the success we've seen in kenya to hopefully bring some peace in the region? >> i think the situation in eastern democrat of congo is quite different from the kenyan situation and it is not going to be that easy no replicate what happened in kenya there. first of all, we so a -- we have a situation where we have an effective government in control. and it is extremely difficult to get the international community to send in the size of force required to tame that

region. i hear people talk of the u.n. as 17,000 troops in congo what they are doing you know and i know that given the size of the country which is almost the size of western europe, 17,000 is nothing. in fact, in 1992, when bush sent in troops to somalia and remember the side of somalia to help with the humanitarian assistance, there were thousands. in fact, when you add all the supports staff, all other troops from other countries, it was close to 900,000. and we saw even there, the difficult. no one is going to give us troops anywhere near that

number to go in and pass fy congress go. we need to find a way to getting the congo people and neighbors to work together in this effort. we need immediate who will sit with them and really work very hard with other pressures on some of the neighbors and perhaps on themselves to do the right thing. but a reply indication of kenya is not possible. >> i would like to say it's a great honor to be here. i have a question in regard to demunety of the yuan troops particularly those in the dutch courts which are rarely actual now.

and what is your perspective of that and what is your future of the immunity of u.n. troops? >> i know that there are a lot of people that believe that the dutch soldiers should be held accountable. i don't know for those of you who are not familiar with this case, it was a location, a town in boss any i can't that the u.n. declared a safe haven. it declared it a safe haven with other resources to protect it as a safe haven. i was involved and i was head of peace keeping operations at the time. when they started talking of safe havens i asked one of my generals to do a report for us and to indicate what it entailed. the report was very

enlightning. it said if you're going to create a safe haven, it has to be large enough, about 36 square dime terse to allow the people to live a normal life. and for it to be beyond so they can't shoot into it. and he went further to say to require 34,000 600 troops, the counsel changed the mandate and said go for the lighter instance, 7600 troops instead of 34600 required and said the u.n. should use it's presence to dissuade attacks. men when they see blue hell

mets, they won't shoot. so we went in that likely and faced this situation. the original soldiers who were there were the canadeyans. they managed to get redated out and to get other governmentes to agree to go in. the dutch decided to go in. and we know what happened t. operation or slightly armed and they didn't have the capacity to stop the seshes coming in which was probably right. do you blime the soldiers who were put in that situation who couldn't help or you want to blame those who send them in

unprepared, ill quipped for the task? i don't know. i'm asking the question. and if indeed, we manage to get the best soldiers made accountable and responsible and taken to court or asked to pay compensations, what happens tomorrow? if there is another boss any i can't, which government will send troops? which government will expose his men and women to be held accountable who went to help and couldn't fill mandate 100%. there are lots of questions about it. i'm not dismissing your question but i'm raising other questions for you and the lawyers who are going to consider this to ponder. >> i'm going to live the last question to this very patient lady over here. >> good afternoon everyone.

i've really enjoyed the discussion today regarding your book. i just wanted to get your perspective of on the popular consultation process. there are many in the community that feel it might contribute to the unraveling of the fradgejile peace that's been put in place by the comprehensive peace process? >> peace process where? >> in sudan. >> i really don't know how to answer that because in some situations popular consultations can be very helpful. in others, it opens up a can of worms particularly where you have situations where people

are vying for power or for influence and believe that what one group gains, they lose. sometimes they use a popular consultation to combat for support for themselves and become devicive. but if it is set properly and you have a good moderator working with the whole group with specific questions and issues that they want to deal with and everybody understands that, you may be able to steer them in the right direction. we had that with the afghanistans when we organized the lawyer in born when we brought out all afghanistan parties and it was which led the discussion which is led the

formation of the government. it was specific, it was well-focused. and so if you have that sort of approach, it could work, otherwise it could be quite messy. >> i'm going to make a final comment that i hope reflects the views of all of you but first just a housekeeping point. i would ask that after we have thanked kofi annan for being with us, you would all stay in your seats and let me escort him out. those of you who received invitations for the reception afterwards we'll be gathering very nearby. my final comment is this and it came to me while listening to kofi annan's end of this terrific conversation he's had with all of us. 67 years ago when the united nations was created and the position of secretary general

was created it was no accident and happened for a reason that came up in this conversation that not very much power was invested in the position of secretary general of the united nations. kofi annan was many things but he was not the c.e.o. of the world and that derives from the jealous guarding of the power of the super powers of the time and the five since then. and those secretary generals who have been successful have been successful by virtue oh of their qualities as human beings, their dedication to the values of the institution and their ability to convey those values to persuade and explain tooned arctic cue late and per son fi the best things about the institution. so in a way, paraphrase what's

often said about a successful president of the united states, a successful secretary general of the united nations speaks calmly but carries a big vision. and i think all of us have had a reminder of what's the good news in this and that is when an individual like this gives up the position of secretary general of the united nations, he does not give up those gifts and those strengths. and we thank you for bringing those to this audience this afternoon. [applause]

>> more white house coverage coming up here on c-span. chris trissty campaigning in virginia today for mitt romney. we'll have that live at 4: 45 eastern. we are bringing you live coverage from around the country of senate and governor debates. and tonight the senate race debate of texas. earlier today vice president biden informs florida for a campaign rally in that swing state. we'll show all of it to you

tonight at 9:00 eastern. here is some of what he had to say. >> on afghanistan, you may recall in my debate, i maid it clear the president andly leave afghanistan at the end of 2014 period. our job -- because our job will be done. we have trained 315,000 afghanistan soldiers already. it's time for them to step up and take responsibility of their own countries and for us to come home as we did in iraq. but governor romney and congressman ryan made it clear, they're willing to stay. they say that maybe we can leave in 2014 and this is their phrase, it all depends. well folks that shouldn't surprise you because with them everything depends. it depends on the moment, it depends on who they're talking to, it depends -- no i don't

think that's unfair. it depends on in the case of governor romney what day of the week it is. i mean i've never seen a man move on so many fundamental issues over a period of four to six years in my life. >> and again, all of today's event with vice president joe biden tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> i have to be honest with you, i love these debates. these things are great and i think it's interesting that the president doesn't have agenda for a second term. don't you think it's time for him to put together a vision of what he would do in the next four years if he's elected. he's got to come up with that over this weekend because there is only one debate left on monday. >> let's recap what we learned

last night. his jobs plan doesn't create jobs, his deficit reduction plan ad r adds to the deficit. so iowa, everybody here has heard of the new deal, you've heard of the fair deal. you've heard of the square deal. mitt romney is trying to sell you a sketchy deal. we are not buying it. >> watch and engage monday as president obama and mitt romney meet in their final debate. our debate preview starts at 7:00 eastern fold by the debate at 9:00 and your reaction at 10:30. >> former governor in the second debate for the wisconsin senate seat.

this race is rated as aes to up. the hour long debate >> let's kell come the cappeddats. >> our format tonight mixes the q&a in between unmoderated questions between the candidates. the candidates will talk with each other on the issues. these will be one-on-one conversations. we will not participate in those exchanges. >> instead, it is a chance for them to challenge their opponent for more detail on their position and have a healthy exchange of ideas. >> you can join the conversation tonight by going to wisconsinvote.org or today

pmj4.com for a web chat. our first topic -- jobs and the economy, a subject that was high on the list of voter concerns as we traveled the state. >> jobs is number one. a lot of people, myself included, ended up losing their jobs. so i think jobs is the biggest key right now for a wisconsin. >> i am concerned that once i graduate, am i going to be able to find my career? >> it is my age that is pulling me down. nobody calls you back. >> with that backdrop, we ask our first question. economics 101 is about supply and demand. it's demand that promotes hiring. what is the best way to an increased demand for products and services and to stimulate the economy?

you have 90 seconds. >> first, thank you very much for having us here tonight. thank the audience for coming. thank you. when i was governor, i was faced with a similar situation. i worked with democrats to cut taxes 91 times. we created a state that was very open for business. we were able to create 742,000. working together, we were able to establish a state that was on fire. in regards to economic growth and development, job creation, unemployment below 2%, everybody that wanted a job could have one. that is my record. i am a reformer. my opponent on the other side -- a paper company. there was a rule put in by the epa that would cost the paper

company 7500 jobs. some of those jobs here. my opponent, voted with the epa and those jobs could be lost next year because of the epa rules and regulations. the paper industry is a very crucial to this area, the state of wisconsin, and i want to tell the people of this state, just like i have always fought for wisconsin, create jobs and opportunity, i will continue to do so. i will not give epa the opportunity to close down paper companies in wisconsin like my upon it does. >> congresswoman, your turn. >> i want to thank you for sponsoring this debate and the audience as well as the television audience for participating. if you ask about demand and the impact on jobs. right now, the middle class in this state is struggling. the census bureau figures say

that median income has gone down 14.5% of the last decade. we are not talking about the recent recession, we are talking about the decade. and i think we need a plan moving forward for jobs, deficit reduction, taxes, etc. that keeps the middle class and the strength and the growth of the middle class at heart. when people have extra money in their pockets, they will spend it in small businesses across this state. growth is one of the key, having people with discretionary income is key to growth. i agree we are in the heart of the paper producing region of wisconsin. that is why i introduced bipartisan legislation earlier this year, got wrapped into a larger bill, signed into law by the president that levels the playing field and stops china's cheating. that is the real threat to our paper industry. senator kohl and i met with

lisa jackson and urged for more time. i hear from my opponent about his time in the 1980's and the governor's mansion, but for the last seven years he has been a partner at one of the most part -- powerful lobbying firms and washington. >> i think we can continue this conversation in our next segment. as we start -- said at the start, during parts of the debate, the candidates press each other on these issues. meanwhile, we step out of the way. >> we will sit on our hands. the idea is to get the candidates to be more interactive. these on moderated segments run six minutes. we are not kidding -- charles and i are not involved. we turn them loose on this question on how to grow the economy and jobs. there is no direction on who speaks first or less.

we will not run interference. the floor is yours. >> wisconsin is a state that makes things -- ships, paper, tools engines. and manufacturing has taken a hit in recent years. it is why i championed bipartisan legislation are referred to earlier, to level the playing field, to crack down on china's cheating, whereby they subsidize the paper industry to the tune of billions of dollars. but that is not enough. we have seen too many of our jobs out sourced. we have to get rid of the perverse incentives in our tax code that leads folks to bring jobs overseas. my opponent not only refuses to repeal those but has a huge addition to that in his proposal that i have heard him talking about throughout this campaign. lastly, we in manufacturing

need to promote buy america policies. when we are securing our homeland security, and securing our defense, we ought to be using u.s. tax dollars for u.s. jobs. it is something i have been pushing but we have more to do. that is just the manufacturing economy. we also need to protect the very investments that we need to grow. that is education, innovation, that's infrastructure. and unfortunately, the paul ryan plan that tommy thompson has campaigned on throughout this campaign is one that would give an of enormous tax break to the very wealthy, pay for it by increasing middle class taxes, and cut the their investments we are talking about in order to grow our economy -- investments like education, infrastructure, and research and innovation.

>> thank you. i cut taxes 91 times when i was governor. she has voted for 155 tax increases. i cut regulations. she went to bat for epa is the paper industry. the paper industry is going to lose 7500 jobs because my opponent did not have the courage to stand up against epa. i can assure you that will not happen. birthrate, we have a chance to build a pipeline -- number 3, we have a chance to build a pipeline from canada. 20,000 jobs could be created. the pipeline from -- my opponent is against the pipeline. i do not know why. possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs. we can drill oil and bring it

down and become energy independent. my opponent is opposed to that. my opponent is on the extreme side of the democratic party. she talks about one bipartisan bill, but the truth of the matter is, she voted 98% of the time with her political party. she did not cherry pick. this is the only example. she did not do anything for 14 years. her 14 years in congress has been about passing three bills.one bill changing the post office in madison's name. that's nice but it does not create any jobs. the truth of the matter is -- i cut taxes. i cut regulation.

she increases regulation. i create jobs. she drives jobs out of the state. >> i want to reflect what again that tommy thompson talks a lot about his time in the 1980's and 1990's when he was governor of the state. but the fact remains that for the last seven years he has been a partner at a powerhouse lobbying firm in washington d.c., representing interest that have tried to write their own rules. i know we will be talking shortly about issues like the deficit and taxes, where this comes into play, but outsourcing is one of the key concerns in growing jobs in our economy. and his firm has represented companies from china as well as out sourcers. he refuses to bear down on the perverse tax incentives that lead, incentivize people to bring jobs overseas.

i want to once again press down on this. he said a number of things that are untrue. with regard to the epa and the regulation that he keeps referring to, senator kohl and i conducted a meeting with the administrator of epa on behalf of our paper industry just a couple of months ago because this rule was being announced and we were concerned it was not going to be fair to wisconsin paper manufacturers and we are pressing for changes just so we can protect our air and water, which paper workers, by the way, cherish as much as you and i do -- >> you can talk all night and you can talk untruth. the resolution was in front of congress. it was in congress to postpone the epa to keep the jobs in wisconsin. you voted against it. you talk about taxes. i was in wisconsin creating

jobs. i was an individual to help create jobs. >> we are going to move on. we appreciate that. we are moving to another issue that separates a voter and candidates alike. as we traveled the state, we discovered that the future of health care and medicare was at the forefront of their minds. >> healthcare is the most important issue for me. i work in health care. everyone should have access to health care regardless of income. >> care seems to matter to us the most, my husband and myself because he has health problems. >> i hear of so many people that are falling through the cracks, especially the elderly who cannot afford their medicine. >> medicare-medicaid need to be addressed. you have a baby boom coming. you will have enormous health care costs and needs. >> this is a question is specific to each candidate.

we have heard the campaign commercials that feature both of you making statements about health care. governor thompson, you are quoted as saying, "who better than me to come up with programs to do away with medicare and medicaid?" congresswoman baldwin, you said, "i was for government takeover of medicine." what did you mean by that? >> i have received more letters on the issue of health care than any other from people who were battling insurance companies abuses, being cut off after one chemotherapy treatment, cutting the second one on the credit card, the third on a home-equity loan and many going bankrupt. i heard from parents unable to get children with pre-existing health conditions any coverage at all. and these abuses and practices and needed to be reined in. frankly, they were with the

affordable care act to a great extent. so specifically, there is a role for the federal government. i find that your clip your show before asking the question talked about both health care in general and medicare specifically. medicare is a program run by the government. i was raised by my grandparents. i got to see at an early age the difference that medicare and social security, but particularly medicare, made in our families economic security. it is one that -- it is a program that is not just a program but a promise and one that i've got to keep. we need to strengthen and extend the solvency of medicare, not voucherize or do away with as tommy thompson said. >> what did you mean when you were asked, who better to do

away with medicaid and medicare? >> what i meant is very simple. i was able to reform welfare. became a model for the country. my opponent voted against it. who better than somebody like me to be able to preserve, protect, and improve medicare? my opponent has been in congress for 14 years, has not lifted a finger, put in a proposal to save medicare. medicare is going broke by 2024, bankrupt. i want to save it. i want to make sure the seniors in america and wisconsin especially are protected. able to have medicare. and i also want young people to be able to have medicare when they reach 65. if you do nothing, it goes bankrupt in the year 2024. that is the answer my opponent has. i want to be able to come up with a system that protects medicare for all seniors, and

all those over the age of 50 in the year 2020 are going to have the current medicare. but those 50 and under in the year 2020 are going to have a choice, not a voucher. that was yesterday's news with somebody else, not me. my program would allow you to have an opportunity to choose medicare if you want to or the federal employee health benefit program, the same insurance that the congressmen and senators and the president of the united states have. >> again, we get to go into a 6 minute unmoderated in our next segment. again, we will not be taking part in this. >> since she started last time and took up 4/5 of the time, i think i will answer. >> go ahead. >> she talks about national health care. she expects you and america to

allow the federal government to direct your hospital, your doctor, your pharmacy. she does not believe that obama- care went far enough. she has said that many times. she was the federal government, ladies and gentlemen, to run your health care program. now, i don't think anybody in america would like to see us take the same kind of program that canada has and run it. i'm opposed to that because it would be trillions of dollars. and i know that does not bother her because while she has been in congress, the debt has gone from $6 trillion to $16 trillion. i believe sincerely, ladies and gentleman, a health care system where you, the individual, have the opportunity to pick your doctor, your hospital, to be able to determine exactly what you want in your health insurance, to be able to put

that out for a bid and allow insurance companies to bid on it. to put individuals in a position where they can take care of themselves. 93% of the cost of health care goes to get you well after you get sick. only 7% is used to keep you well in the first place. that is a mistake. let's change it and keep people healthier. when i was governor, i started the best health care program in the country. to this day, i started seniorcare, which is the best elderly program for seniors and america. democrats supported me. my point was opposed to it. >> that is not true. it is about time for me to jump in on this. i like mcallum a started that. we start with the record on medicare.

when tommy thompson left wisconsin in 2001 to join the bush to ministration, he ran medicare. you could say he ran it into the ground. when he came, medicare -- when he came to the administration, medicare was approaching bankruptcy in the year 2029. when he left, it was 2020, nine years closer to bankruptcy. that is his record as secretary under george w. bush. let's talk a little bit about that. i believe strongly that seniors need access to affordable prescription drugs. part of the affordability is making sure that medicare can someday negotiate with those drug companies for better prices. the v.a. gets discounts of 40% to 60% over what our seniors get. they should for our veterans, but we should be doing that for our seniors. under his watch, it was made illegal for the federal

government, for medicare to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices for our seniors. the bill was not paid for. if you look from today, 10 years forward, it is going to add $1 trillion to our national debts. i believe you pay for things. i support the policy of having seniors have access to affordable drugs, but you have to pay for it. that is one of the reasons why we are in the mess we are in. all on larger issues of health care, i supported the affordable care act. >> you can keep talking but why don't you tell the truth? >> i am telling the truth. >> the truth is that medicare under part d, which you voted against, at 90% of seniors support. you also have to realize that the bill you are talking about is introduced by bill clinton,

who is a democrat. it was put in by tom daschle. mr. gebhart put it in. you had your time. let me speak. only then, it was passed in part d on a bipartisan basis. i am not in congress. you are. you voted against part d. >> you are the mess -- mastermind of medicaid part b but you have nothing to do with that? >> it was tommy thompson that passed part b that allow you to do that. it was tammy baldwin who voted against it. >> the sale and point here, -- the salient point, as secretary under bush medicare moved in nine years closer to bankruptcy. it was an important program but it was not paid for.

it costs us $700 billion and $800 billion over 10 years. we did not change one guaranteed benefit in medicare. we strengthen them. >> used all $716 billion out of medicare -- you stole $716 billion out of medicare. >> the aarp says your allegation is simply not true. >> you took it for obama-care. who else he would like to see more money taken out of medicare to fund obama-care? i do not know if anybody does. >> you are going to have 30 seconds for follow up and respond. you talked about the sweetheart deal with medicare part d. under the affordable health care act there was talk among democrats, let's get rid of this. we do not like it.

had an opportunity when the democrats controlled the house and senate to say, let's get rid of it. why did that not happen? >> i would -- i regret it did not happen. i have introduced legislation to get rid of the sweetheart deal. i started working on this issue when i first came to congress to try to, even before there was a medicare part d, i joined in legislation to allow medicare to bargain with the to companies. this is something i will not relent on. on the affordable care act, we move forward, make it work for the american people and fix what is broken. that is one of the things i pledge to work to fix. >> you call yourself the architect of medicare part d. so why didn't you push for the government to negotiate with drug companies? >> it was not my responsibility. we put in the proposal without that in there, then senator bachus and bill thomas put that

language in. it was first introduced by the democrats in the 1999 congressional session. they passed it. i don't vote in congress. i am a secretary. i administer the programs that congress passes. i do not vote on it, i do not write it or introduce it. >> thank you. before we return to more to win it, i want to remind you that you can join in online by going to wisconsinvote.org. now, another question for the candidates, this time in the issue of taxes and spending. in national debates have brought the middle class front and center. each of you take a position on how to tax individuals and treat corporate tax and its loopholes. the question is -- how specifically does your platform protect the middle class?

>> first off, i cut taxes 91 times. my opponent voted for 155 tax increases. during the discussion on affordable care, there are 21 tax increases in the affordable care act. most of those individuals are going to hit the middle class. there is a proposal in there that you are going to get taxed on your health insurance proposal. 87% of the responsibility for $47 billion is going to rest strictly on the middle class, the lower income class. i do not think that is right. my opponent ordered for every single one of those 21 taxes, taxing the middle class of america. take a look at my schedule. what i was governor, i cut income taxes three times. i cut property taxes by over $1 billion, not once but twice. my opponent was in the assembly at that time. most of the democrats voted

with me, congresswoman balwin voted against it. property tax is a huge tax on middle class. she voted against it. my -- every chance my opponent gets to vote for a tax increase, she will vote for it. 155 tax increases, 21 in obama- care. most of those impact adversely on the middle class. >> congresswoman baldwin. >> on the issue of taxes, there is no stronger contrast between myself and my opponent. i introduced the warren buffett rule to address the fact that people making over $1 million a year were too often paying at a lower tax rates, like our nominee on the republican ticket, romney, paying a lower rate than hard-working families like nurses and construction

workers. tommy thompson has embraced and campaigned for many months on the ryan plan, which according to the tax policy center, increases the tax cuts for our very wealthiest by $265,000 on average for millionaires like himself. middle-class taxes. recently. >> that is a falsehood. >> is is not the exchange time. i support a middle-class and small business tax cuts, but the program i told you about my opponent supports, the ryan plan, raises taxes on middle- class families who buy roughly $1,300. lastly, i talked already about the perverse incentives in our tax code that prompt companies to bring jobs overseas. i want to bring those to an end.

my opponent wants to double down. >> we now move into the 6 minute unmoderated section. >> feel free to talk to each other. >> you are absolutely wrong. i have a tax bill that is different than paul ryan's. the truth of the matter is, my bill does not reduce taxes on the wealthy at all. my bill allows for individuals to make a choice whether or not you want a flat tax. you put down your gross income. you can do it in half time between the green bay packers and chicago bears. put in the percentage. you cannot scam the system, but you have enough time left over to go get a glass of beer out of the refrigerator. or you want to do of the deductions? fine. you have a choice. no changes whatsoever.

you make a determination. she keeps throwing out that i'm for the millionaires. i have no tax whatsoever to lower that. she's making the stuff of whole cloth. >> let me b specifice, at the republican state convention, you said, i am going to be the 51st senator to pass the ryan budget. the days before your primary, you ran an ad on the radio saying i will be the 51st senate vote to pass the ryan vote. cannot say, i have nothing to do tothe ryan budget which gives tax breaks to millionaires like yourself an average of $265,000 and to pay for it, raises middle-class taxes. this is the joint economic committee and the tax policy center. let's move on. >> let's not. you take up the time. the truth of the matter is, i have had my tax plan up on my

web page since i started. it was not the ryan plan. it is the tommy thompson. you might even like it. no, you wouldn't, because it does not raise taxes. you only want to raise taxes. by lower taxes. i do not raise them. in regards to the warren buffett rule. the buffett rule would raise enough money to run the government for 11 hours. it would cost 75,000 jobs. -- 750,000 jobs. i would say that is a pretty expensive tax. >> the issue is the fairness in the tax code. it is why introduced the buffett rule. it is wrong that people who make over $1 million a year who should not pay at the same tax rate is hard-working middle- class families.

the corporate tax size is rigged. there are a couple problems and play. one is that too many of congress and my opponent is included in this have taken a pledge to washington d.c. lobbyist by the name of grover norquist whereby they have sworn that they will not ever ask those with the most privileged to do more, to do their fair share. you signed the pledge. >> that is a falsehood. and he signed the progressive tax bill. here is somebody that teamed up with the most liberal, far reaching, far out, taxiest people in congress. she introduced a budget, ladies and gentlemen, that would increase taxes by 3.9 trillion dollars -- $3.90 trillion.

>> which is less than the ryan budget. >> and obama says, that will raise taxes on the middle class. nancy pelosi, who has to turn left to talk to my opponent because she is so extreme, she said, we cannot do that. i'm telling you, my opponent can only see one things -- raise taxes, increased spending. that has been her mantra ever since she has been in congress. >> a couple of things. first of all, i do believe, given the challenges facing our nation, that for everyone to have a fair shot, everyone does have to do -- >> you agree $3.90 trillion increase in taxes is something that we need? >> the romney plan is $5 trillion. >> over 10 years. >> correct. >> the $3.9 trillion. that was one year. >> it was not.

that is ridiculous. let's move on. why is the system rigged? we read stories of the fortune 500 companies, some of the most profitable corporations of our time paying zero or next to zero in taxes. why is it rigged? because the wealthy have a legion of lobbyists putting in special tax breaks. we know our tax code is loaded with them. [both talking at once] >> you have been in congress for 14 years, you have not closed one loophole. all you do now because you are running for the senate -- >> have worked to expand the child tax credit. >> all of these corporations that you talk about the you have

never put in any legislation whatsoever. you just have not. now you want to come out and say corporations are bad. therefore, we have to close loopholes. i was not in congress. you are. i was in wisconsin creating jobs, something you probably do not understand. >> it looks like you're getting comfortable with the unmoderated area. [laughter] if it becomes clear that iran has nuclear availability, under what circumstances, if any, would you support putting u.s. soldiers on the ground in iran? in this question first goes to the congresswoman. >> thank you. the ambitions of iran to gain the capacity to build a nuclear weapon is an enormous threat to our world, to our country, to the region and is certainly to our ally israel. in fact to them, it is an

existential threat. and this is a threat that i take enormously seriously. and we cannot let iran become capable of making a nuclear weapon. it's why i believe that the president, all options on the table approach is the right approach. we have looked at it carefully over the years of conditions have changed. and dealt cooperative way and in high collaboration with senior israeli intelligence and military officials and u.s. intelligence and military officials. i believe right now we are at a point where we are in agreement that the crippling sanctions i supported are doing, are beginning to do their job. but we cannot let iran become capable of manufacturing a nuclear weapon.

and so, i absolutely support israel's right to defend itself. we leave the military option on the table. but you never go into a war without having an exit strategy and a plan for victory. >> governor thompson. >> we are in a very unsafe world today. iran is run by the ayatollah. and the prime minister by the name of ahmadinejad, who has some real mental problems. he does not believe the holocaust existed or ever happened. he believes that he can wipe out the country of israel. he believes that if he gets a nuclear bomb, he can close the strait of hormuz. closing the strait of hormuz would close down all oil production coming into the world. we would have an economic disaster i believe without a

doubt that more severe sanctions we can have, the better off we are. my opponent voted against sanctions in 2001, 2006, 2009, 2010 and received $60,000 from an organization that supports iran. i cannot believe anybody would take money from an organization supporting that madman in iran and takes $60,000 for her campaign. that is why she was against the sanctions. because she is running for the senate now, she believes that she would now have to vote for sanctions, which she did for the first time this year. i think it is because she got a belief that she is running for the senate, she had better do that. but i also believe we can never allow iran, ladies and gentlemen, to have a nuclear bomb. >> it looks like you are ready to jump in. go for it.

>> first of all, i have voted for sanctions starting when i first came to the united states congress on iran. you have your facts wrong. i did, indeed, on two occasions -- >> four. >> you are incorrect. believed that there was a prospect in iran for regime change from within. many of those who look at the region carefully saw that there were hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy protesters who took to the streets and stood up to a ahmadinejad and the ayatollah khomeini. -- khameini. and i felt that very important that we send a message to those people that we wanted them to succeed in regime change from within, especially when we are

talking about stakes as high as sending wisconsin young men and women into harm's way, i would sure rather see that regime change happen from within. you have probably read the same histories i have. they were brutally beaten back by the iranian government. i think we missed an opportunity for regime change there. it so we had to go back to the tactics of crippling sanctions, crippling sanctions. that is where we are right now. i want to add one thing. i was so disturbed after having heard some of your rhetoric around my position on iran to have read a report hours before taking this stage that you have tens of thousands of dollars in investments in companies that do business with iran, including a company that teams up with iran doing uranium mining in africa.

i find that shopping. -- shocking. if you want to be tough on iran, we have to isolate iran. we have to make sure that companies do not do business, to make sure that they are isolated in the world stage. that is one of the ways that we are going to be successful i still hope without war but with tough sanctions. >> iran is building a nuclear capability. 175 feet in the ground. you would not be building a peaceful, nuclear energy plants 175 feet in the ground. it is only a matter of time they get the nuclear bomb. we have to do everything we possibly can, ladies and gentlemen, to stop iran. my opponent, four different times, she mentions the fact --

it would of been nice if she did th she dide unrest when the -- did something about the unrest when the people were crying out for help. she did nothing. but he did send a letter to the palestinians when the israelis put up a blockade supporting the palestinians against the israelis. she received a $60,000 in campaign funds, $60,000, ladies and on and, for a campaign from a company that believes and supports no sanctions in iran. >> who are you talking about? >> i heard about this stock. let me finish. you want to interrupt me, joe biden, give me a chance. [crowd boos] >> the other thing is, ladies and gentlemen, if she is talking about stock. i did not know about the fact that my stockbroker had purchased two shares, tw companyo stocks.

i sold it today. i do not. i found out today and i sold it today. i do not tolerate, i do not agree with anybody doing business with iran, nonoe whatsoever. i think you should turn back the $60,000 you got from that company that supports no sanctions for iran. >> first of all, companies cannot give campaign donations. and i have never taken a campaign donation from a corporation or company. you know it is individuals. maybe there is a super pac out there that i do not know about that is supporting you. just to say there is a company. you know you have misspoken. also, you know enough about campaign finance laws to know that people or companies cannot give and that sort of quantity of money. whatever you are saying, i have no idea what you are talking

about but it is ridiculous. back to the issue at hand. >> are you saying you did not receive any money from the council for a living earth? >> council for a living earth? >> i am not familiar. >> they have been supporting you for 10 years. it was on the front page of the milwaukee journal this morning. >> i will have to look at that. i have never heard of the council for a living earth. but back to the security questions that are before us. the preamble to the constitution which should be the guiding document for all of us, talks about providing for the common defense and the general welfare. there is no for it -- no responsibility that i take more seriously than trying to do everything we can to keep america safe. when i saw your shoot from the hip, think later approach, and not learning from the mistakes that were made in the past, it

troubles me. >> i did want to ask a follow- up on a slightly different topic but related to foreign policy. i will go first to you, governor thompson. president barack obama has been recently described as the only nobel peace prize winner with a kill list. what is your position on unmanned drones, and the target killing of terrorist? >> i think unmanned drones are something that is absolutely necessary. we have to be careful that we do not kill absolute -- innocent bystanders. drones are used to take out many individuals from terrorist organizations. they have been very successful in pakistan and in afghanistan and in libya. but the truth of the matter is, we have to have all our assets available.

these individuals are terrorists. >> 30 seconds. >> congresswoman, what is your position on these unmanned drones? >> first, on the technology, i would say that drones are huge and important advance and, especially when you compare to the investment in cold war technology. this is important for surveillance and intelligence- gathering. and, as you note, they are used for strikes. i think with this new technology, we have to review the rules of engagement. and we have not yet with this new technology. >> thank you for obliging me. so far we have worked three jobs, health care, and middle east policy. if there is to be any real movement in congress in these areas, there needs to be some form of bipartisanship in congress, something that according to many voters is a

tall order. >> people on both ends of the issue, republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, need to come together, stop fighting. but i do not believe that either party has helped in recent years. i would like to see whoever is elected make some effort to improve relations between members of the two parties. >> they need to compromise. it is time we find some compromise. you're not. to get anything done if we keep fighting. >> with that, we wonder from each candidate, can you name and describe one policy decision on the part of your challenger that you would support? we go first to you, governor thompson, but we just have one minute. >> pretty hard but i would certification liz support anything that we could do on a

bipartisan basis -- i would certainly support anything we could do on a bipartisan basis to cut back on spending. if there is anything that we can do to hold down on spending, we have to do it. we have to learn to live within our means. we have learned that in wisconsin. i did it as governor. if there is some way that the congresswoman could show me a proposal that would save money at the federal government, i would support her. i have not seen any yet, but i hope someday i will be able to do that. >> one congresswoman? >> let me start by saying that there are many things upon which tommy thompson and i agree. it may be surprising to those in the room, we have worked closely over my years in the state legislature and when he was secretary. with regard to this campaign, i believe he supports the dream act. i do, too. i believe i heard him at the

last debate say that he believes we should bring our troops back from afghanistan as quickly as possible. if that is what i heard, i am in strenuous agreement with him on that. we talked about senior care briefly early. i am a huge proponent of senior care and have fought both when he was bush's health secretary and after he left to make sure that wisconsin would be able to keep the waiver they need in order to keep that operating. we have worked together. that is why i will be successful because i can see the common ground and i have always reached out for it. >> are done with the unmoderated part. we are going to move to the topic of education. the u.s. is falling behind the world when it comes to math and science competency. in the midst of talking about cutting budgets and eliminating programs, what is the best

prescription for making u.s. students math and science literate? >> well, i love this question. i was a math major in college, a double major in mathematics and political science. i used to say that and there would be an audible gasp in the room. i believe very strongly that the key to economic growth in this country, as i said earlier and we talked about jobs, are investments in education and innovation and research. we make things in this state. we have seen that decline. we need to start doing that again, and that means we need engineers and scientists and other innovators and

entrepreneurs. i agree with the president that we need to make an emphasis -- 100,000 youths across american schools. >> education is really basic. we have to do everything we possibly can to improve the education quality, the graduates, college graduates and vocational training in america. when i was governor, i was able to pick up 2/3 of the cost of education, the biggest increase ever so that local property tax payers could have a break and we could put more money into schools. i increased the money for the university of wisconsin. i set up vocational programs for individuals that are not going to university, for skills training, so that individuals can become a plumber, whatever the case may be.

because that is the jobs out there that are going because we do not have the individuals that are skilled to do it. math and science is absolutely important and we have to put the dollars, encourage individuals to go into those programs, because that is our future, ladies and gentlemen. that is what i am dedicated to do. pell grants is one way we can do that. >> it is time for closing statements. we flipped a coin to determine the order. congresswoman baldwin chose to go last. >> thank you very much. thank you for the audience. it has been a spirited debate. our country has some serious problems. we are $16 trillion in debt, $10 trillion of that is while my opponent has been in

congress. we are over the gross national product, which means that we are placed in a category with other countries like spain, like greece. i want to change that. i am running, ladies and gentlemen, because i have three great children and grandchildren. i am running because of them, but more importantly, your children and grandchildren. we have always promised children and grandchildren and america that they will inherit a country that is stronger and fairer and safer. we can no longer say that. a baby born right now today is $51,000 in debt. so the debt was accumulated in the last 10 years. in the last four years, that has gone up by $5.50 trillion. the people in congress have not even passed a budget in 3.5 years. that is malfeasance in office. the spending goes up, the taxes

go up, and our country is facing a fiscal cliff. if we do not do something about it, ladies and gentlemen, we are headed for a fiscal abyss. who is the best person to do it, so when you cut taxes 91 times. or someone who raised taxes 155 times. someone who balance the budget 14 years ago with democrats? or somebody who has not passed any budget in 3.5 years? i am looking out, ladies and gentlemen, for the future of our great country. we can balance the budget, putting jobs back for 23 million americans. just like they did when i was governor of the state of wisconsin. >> thank you. i want to start by thanking you, tommy, for joining me on the stage and also to our host and moderators, wisconsin public television, the audience, and

those watching on television. it has been a privilege to be engaged in his u.s. senate campaign. as i traveled the state, i have had an opportunity to listen. people open up about their struggles. they are working hard, playing by the rules, trying to get ahead, but too many of them are just getting by. theirve listened to frustrations with the disconnect that they see between the debates that are going on in washington d.c., in the tea party-controlled house of representatives, the disconnect between those debates and their lives. they want -- what they want is somebody that will fight for them. not for wall street and the big banks, not for the big health insurance companies or the big drug companies or the tea party,

somebody that will go and fight for them. that is what i have always done and pledge to do as your u.s. senator. there is a clear contrast in this race. tommy likes to talk a lot about what he did as governor in the 1980's and 1990's. but the fact remains that he has spent his last seven years as a partner at a big, powerful washington lobbying firm that lobbies on behalf of those very same special interests that i have spent my career standing up against. there are differences on taxes, on how we would attack the deficit, on how to grow the economy. it all gets down to whose side are you on? the people or the powerful? i ask you for your vote on november 6 and encourage everyone to participate in this election. >> we thank you, both candidates, for joining us. that is our debate. good night. [applause]

>> the campaign's continuing to focus on the swing states. the new jersey governor will campaign for romney in richmond, virginia this afternoon. c-span is bringing you coverage from the base to run the country electionnow and and debates. tonight, the debate between ted cruz and paul sadler at 8:00 eastern from texas. tonight, vice president biden speaking at a rally in sun city, florida. we will show you that at 9:00 eastern. >> i love these debates. these things are great. i think it is interesting that the president does not have an

agenda for a second term. don't you think that it is time for him to put together a vision of what he would do if he were elected? he has to come up with that this weekend, because there's only one debate left. >> let's recap what we learned last night. the tax plan does not add up. the jobs plan does not create jobs trade is deficit-reduction plan adds to the deficit. everybody here has heard of the new deal. you have heard of a fair deal. you have heard of a square deal. mick romney is trying to sell you a sketchy deal. -- mitt romney is trying to sell you a sketchy deal. >> the final debate from florida on monday. the debate preview starts at

7:00 eastern, followed by the debate at 9:00, online at c- span.org. >> i use c-span in a business capacity. i love to keep up on hearings. i was thankful to be able to watch the hearings live. i was able to watch it live while keeping up with my work. i felt like i was up to date. cybersecurity was the last one, and i needed to know what was going on. i turned to c-span. >> megan pollock watches c-span on directv. >> up next, the fourth and final virginia senate debate between tim kaine and george

allen. the race is considered one of the closest in the country. it is rated a toss up. this debate is courtesy wsls-tv from roanoke, virginia. ed >> welcome, everyone, to the last debate of this virginia campaign. i am coming to you live from the beautiful campus in virginia. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [applause] >> again, good evening. i am jay warren, your monitor for tonight's debate. joining me also has to be the chairman of virginia tech, and a professor here. behind us is a very lively and enthusiastic southwest virginia crowd filling the theater. we welcome them, and we welcome all of you. not only across all of southwest virginia and the commonwealth, but coming to you nationwide on c-span. tonight is your opportunity to hear directly from the candidates, unfiltered and

unedited. it is our hope that this will be a lively hour, one that will explore new ground and forces the candidates to really face the issues that are not only troubling here, but our entire country. you will be able to vote on november 6, making a more informed and educated decision. it is my honor to introduce them to you. in the interest of time, we have asked our audience to not applaud tonight -- only at the end of the debate and at the beginning of the debate. the former governor and senator of virginia, george allen.

now, the democrat in this race, from richmond, virginia, a former governor of virginia, tim kaine. i think i told you we have an enthusiastic crowd. we do. thank you for agreeing to participate in this important debate and participate and put yourself out there. we decided everything by the toss of a coin. the result of that, we will begin with governor kaine. 90 seconds. >> thank you for this opportunity. it is great to be back to virginia tech. i feel close to this community. we have challenges as a nation. the main one is to continue to accelerate the economy and grow jobs. in order to do that, we have to have a congress that knows how

to work together. i learned some valuable lessons as mayor and governor. one started here on this campus. in 2008, we were going through what became the worst recession in 75 years. your president and other university leaders came and said times are tough. why don't we do a construction campaign on the state colleges? there was an idea to build a virginia tech school of medicine. i worked together, and by the end of it, we did a $1.4 billion bond package of construction. that is to revitalize the roanoke economy. it was about jobs, public, private partnership, education, infrastructure. i have a long jobs plan. i just summarized it. democrats and republicans have

to work together. that is what is needed in washington. that is how i have governed. that is the u.s. senator i will be if you send me and i have a chance to serve. >> thank you. >> thank you for watching. susan and i have been listening to the people of virginia. they want leaders to work together to get our economy back on the right track, create jobs, stop washington spending, and restore the american dream. i want to be virginia's senator. tim wants to be president obama's senator. he went around the country giving partisan speeches. instead of staying home and dealing with economic crisis, tim chose to leave. on every significant issue, he has been for the obama policies that have been hurting virginians, from the harmful

energy policies that are devastating communities to our electric bills skyrocketing, "obamacare" that is endangering the access of medicare to our seniors. now this sequestration deal is threatening another 200,000 virginia jobs. in washington, you deserve a strong, independent voice. if i have the honor of serving as your united states senator, i will work hard to build a society where hard work is rewarded and every american has an opportunity to succeed. >> thank you for those opening statements. we want to get to the questions. you will receive 90 seconds to answer each question. we have a lot of great questions from our viewers.

we will be weaving that into these questions. neither candidate or campaign has knowledge or access to any of the questions we will ask tonight. this is your last opportunity state-wide to communicate to the voters. as a result, i want to begin with what i think is the campaign narrative and what has become the criticism for both of you. governor kaine, we will begin with you. you will be president obama's senator. you heard it just now. you are friends with the president. you were the chair of the party at his request. you are touting your working relationship with the senator in virginia. he has voted with the democratic leadership of 93% of the time. how can you reassure the voters

tonight? >> let me start with the comment that i will not be obama's senator. this is the difference between the two of us. i do not think it is anti- virginia to support the president of the united states or to support the commander in chief. when i was governor for three years, president bush was president. i worked very closely with him on the response to the tragic shooting here at virginia tech. we disagree a lot. in many area we do agree. i consider him a partner. i will always work with the president of united states to be a partner. when george was in the senate, he voted for president bush 96% of the time. no one suggested he was not a virginia senator because he

supported president bush. i have had a long track record of serving my community as a non-partisan city councilman, winning accolades for building schools. when i was governor, we were the when i was governor, we were the best managed state for business all four years, and my favorite, education week, the best state to raise a child. i did that by being a good leader and making the kinds of independent choices virginians want. >> senator allen, you have 90 seconds to respond to what he said. >> he had a choice to make when he was governor. he talked about the economic crisis in virginia. he chose to go around the country, demonizing republicans.

he called them corrosive. he called them the downer party, the teabags party. that does not bring goodwill amongst people. when you are the governor of virginia, you have the greatest honor that anybody could be bestowed upon by the people of virginia. he chose to leave and spend his time going around the country raising money and giving partisan speeches and advocating for these policies that are so harmful to virginia, whether it is the energy policies that are devastating southwest virginia communities, or seniors with medicare, we have skyrocketing spending that has us in debt with china, and the sequestration deal. while tim was going around uncovering funds for the democratic party, he should have been spending time here in virginia on covering funds for

our department of transportation. maybe he would not have been shutting down rest areas all over virginia. that is not good management. that is an embarrassment. if he was actually paying attention to his job, he might have found there were over a billion dollars and you could of found about $8 million and not had that and harassment of shutting down rest areas. >> your rebuttal? >> he has a double standard. when he was the senator from virginia for two years, he was the head of the republican campaign committee. he praised the governor who became the chairman of the republican national committee. he praised governor mcdonald for being head of the republican governor's association last year. virginia is an important state. our leaders are strong. what virginians care about, in 2009, four states were singled out and it was said four states have done what it takes.

virginia was one of the four. we banned smoking. virginia was ranked number 1. we worked with the bush administration. i recruited the following companies to move their headquarters to virginia. hilton, rolls royce. canon. we made great strides cutting infant mortality. we reformed our sexual violence laws. virginians care about results. in the toughest times since the 1930's, we got results every year i was governor, especially in 2009. >> thank you. the criticism of your campaign has been a lingering question of how will george allen be in a second term and how will that be different? you walked with the republican

leadership and the bush agenda. you just heard that from governor kaine. at times, you voted with their party up to 98% of the time. if you are reelected, will you return to that voting pattern or will you espouse a more bipartisan agenda that will actually move forward in virginia and the country? >> i will be a senator for the people of virginia. losing that last election was a humbling experience. you learn from losing and have time to reflect. and see how things are going in washington and how every vote matters and how they seem to be out of touch with the needs and concerns i hear from people all over virginia. i will be focused on jobs, virginia. that is what is needed in washington. i have worked across party lines. you talk about records? the democrats control the legislature when i was governor. we were able to cut taxes by $600 million. not as much as i would have

liked, but we did. tim trying to raise taxes. we also reduced the size of the state work force by 9000. there were over 300,000 net new jobs created. i use all of my time i could for jobs and recruiting investment to virginia. tim was out running around the country advocating for obama's policies as well as raising money and trying to get folks like harry reid and nancy pelosi reelected. when he was governor, over 100,000 jobs were lost. i have worked across party lines. i want to work with republicans and democrats to get this economy going. i think we can find common ground to make sure our tax laws are more competitive and simple. if we do that, i think we will send a message to the world america is open for business again. i look forward to doing that for

virginia and america. >> i think what the audience sought is he was asked a question about his senate record and he was talking about being governor. he is running for reelection to the united states senate. he had a fiscal irresponsibility. george came into the united states senate with historic surpluses. we were in great shape. by the time he left, we had massive deficits. he voted to increase the debt by $16,000 every second he was in the senate. he expanded medicare, which was good, but he did not pay for it. he was part of a senate and a house that declared two wars but did not pay for the wars and instead put them on the credit card for our kids to pay. he made a massive tax cuts to help the wealthy. he did not pay for them. we went from surplus to deficit. he voted four times to raise his own pay. he voted four times to raise the debt with it, he voted for

52,000 earmarks that totaled $121 billion. even george had to admit, spending was a problem when i was in the senate. we do not need to go back to it. he is a harsh partisan. he attacked hillary clinton as someone who does not share our values. attacking john kerry. george would not joined a gang to bring senators together. he said, we do not need to compromise. >> your rebuttal? >> john warner and i worked as a team for virginia. i am proud of john warner as a friend and ally. as far as my office budget, we turned back $1.40 million in the six years i served as senate. we showed you can reduce. as governor, i was comparing it because that is a comparison one can make. i cut my salary by 10% all

years. tim waited two years and cut his by only 5%. when i left the senate, the unemployment rate was only 4.4%. has been hovering around 8% for 44 months. the spending, it does need to get under control. there needs to be disciplined. the annual budget deficit was $160 billion. now, it has been over $1 trillion. seven times worse. the credit worthiness has been downgraded. it is because of the policies and spending tim kaine has been advocating. you talk about $16,000 per second. it is now $47,000 per second spending. he criticized the tax cuts i reported? 7 million american jobs were created. i am glad we reduced taxes on families and small businesses.

>> thank you. our next question goes to governor kaine. >> according to forbes, medicare is scheduled to cost the country $1 trillion annually in the next 10 years. simply put, the rate of growth is simply unsustainable. you have proposed some changes to the system which seem modest. is there something bigger needed, including possibly increasing the age for eligibility for those under 50? >> thank you for asking. medicare is critically important. it is an important safety net proposal that helps our seniors deal with the cost of medicine. the budget is growing in a very accelerated way. let's start off and say it is growing for a good reason. we are living longer. this is a problem.

it is caused by success. but the knowledge that. we have to get medicare costs under control. i have put a plan on the table. when medicare was expanded when george allen was senator to cover prescription drugs, i heartily support that. i think it is great. the congress made two huge errors. they chose not to pay for the expansion. second, they guaranteed pharmaceutical companies they would not negotiate for the prices of prescription drugs. that was foolish. no pharmacy would make that mistake. if we allow the federal government to negotiate for prices with pharmaceutical companies, and we already do when we buy the same drugs, we save $25 billion over a year. we should have made that change years ago. we will have more to do. essentially, what we need to do is continue on experiments that are pilot projects under way

where we pay in our health-care system for health the outcomes rather than just pay for procedures. we get great procedures and a lot of them. if we pay for health, we will be held year and spend less money. -- healthier and spend less money. >> to answer your question on medicare, i have proposed a way to make sure medicare is solvent for the future. i believe we need to make sure social security and medicare for current recipients, as well as for generations. two ideas i think would help. one, a gradual age increase for eligibility. as well as an income adjustment to it. tim criticizes it. i think it makes a great deal of sense that we treat someone with high blood pressure before they have a stroke. there is more competition and choice. seniors to not have to go up hills and worry about whether

they have to afford medications. with the competition, it came under budget. as far as obamacare is concerned, he said it is "great for democrats." i do not think it is great for seniors. they are very worried the obamacare approach will raise $700 billion from medicare. we have already heard from someone who has had heart trouble. he will go back to medical research rather than providing the help to him. he will have to find another doctor. as far as seniors are concerned, while i was governor, we have cut taxes on senior social security benefits and remove the discriminatory tax. tim should explain why he wants to raise taxes on people earning as little as $17,000 a year, including many people on social security and medicare.

>> let me talk about senator allen and health care. when he was in senate, premiums for american families went up by 80%. he does not have a health care record as a senator, except for voting for the medicare expansion. i said i thought it was a good idea to expand, but i criticize george for the cost to american taxpayers $25 billion a year. why do we not fix that? i am saying we should not be giving $25 billion away to pharmaceutical companies. preventative care, reduce price prescription drugs. george wants to repeal the affordable care act, and give it back to insurance companies. that is not my idea of a medicare reform or a health- care plan.

>> another question going to senator allen. >> senator allen, i have a straightforward question. if the bowles-simpson plan to reduce the deficit and balance the budget came in the senate as is, would you vote for it. if not, what is your math to get to the balanced budget? >> i think the bowles-simpson approach was an idea from the president, and the president walked away from it as if it was a dead animal on the front porch. i think there were good ideas in the simpson-bowles approach. i think what ought to be done -- here is my plan that ought to be done for fiscal sanity. we ought to repeal every obamacare. it is adding $1 trillion in spending.

it is hurting small businesses and job opportunities. secondly, tim talks about revenue. the only way to raise revenue is by raising taxes, he thinks. raising taxes would cause more job losses. another way is with a vibrant, strong, healthy economy, where businesses are profiting and people are working. this is what i do like about bowles-simpson. comprehensive reform. eliminating loopholes of our tax laws. i am proposing in my blueprint a 20% tax, much lower than the world 25%. that would create new jobs a year. another way to get revenues -- if we did that, throughout virginia, there would be hundreds of thousands of jobs

created, we would have more affordable fuel and food and electricity, and the federal government would get over $1 trillion in revenues without raising taxes. that is the plan that will get america moving in the right direction. >> i let you go over but you did not answer the question. we have to have a balanced approach for dealing with the budget. you cannot get balance through imbalance. george's approach is to close it as follows. make all the bush tax cut permanent, even for the wealthiest. now it is getting bigger. then, close the tax all through cuts. dictation, the fans, medicare. -- education, defense, medicare.

if you have to have that big a gap, you will cut deeply into priorities that matter. i have a different approach. let the bush tax cuts expire. if you do that, you start to close the deductions. i had to do that as governor. i am the only governor in modern times to leave office with a smaller general fund budget and when i started. 2% smaller in four years. george's budget went up 45% in four years. i know how to make cuts. an all-cuts approach as he proposes, he said not $1 of revenue for $10 of cuts, the all-cuts approach that starts with extending tax cut for the wealthiest would hurt our economy, heard our priorities, and hurt virginia. >> just to make it clear, we ought to reform the entire tax code in washington.

the bush tax cuts helped to create over 7 million new jobs. what i would like to see is a tax code that is more simple. i think there really is the basis of a bipartisan agreement on the spirit i am abrogating 20%. some people are advocating higher. i think we can get around the table and come to agreement and have a comprehensive tax reform. tim talks about added spending. we cut state taxes. we promoted virginia for economic development and over 300,000 jobs were created. net new jobs. it is a prime example of the differences tim and i have. i think more jobs, more hiring, more investment is the answer. virginia is the perfect lesson

of tim'quangs star years as govs were lost. while i was governor, we cut taxes, froze college tuition, and over 300,000 net new jobs created. you talk about results, those matter. >> a question was fairly specific. will you vote for the simpson- bowles plan as is. i interpret your answer as a no? >> it should be brought up and work its way through the legislative process. >> would you support it as is? >> i would supported the way i propose our ideas. [laughter] >> as is? >> yes or no? >> i would amend it. >> same question. >> i would support a plan that makes $2 or $3 a cut for every dollar of revenues. that is the way i govern. the particular plan, there are a couple things about and i do not like. i do not think they need to reform social security.

it is not contributing to the deficit. >> you are hearing laughter because they are confused. is it no and no? >> as is, we are both saying no. [laughter] >> we have agreement. this might be the only time. you will get to ask each other a question in this segment. you will ask a question of senator allen. >> when you were in the senate, one of the votes cast was to begin the privatization of security, giving folks an opportunity to give their contributions into private accounts. that would weaken the solvency for the current retirees and left to the camp for bidders at the mercy of what happened in the market. -- left the contributers tto

the mercy of what happens in the market. our fiscal cliff collapsed two years later, it would have hurt them. would you now agree that was a bad idea? the cost of social security should never be privatized? >> it is important we recognize such as security needs to be solvent for current recipients as well as future generations. i would never force someone. employers pay into it. if people want social security, which most do, that should be the case. we need to make some reforms in social security. the age of eligibility can be increased gradually for those who are younger than age 50, currently or soon on social security, leave it the same. there should be an income adjustment. that would help the solvency. another thing that will help is jobs. the most recent forecast, it will go bankrupt three years earlier. you delve into why fewer people are working. people to provide for themselves and their retiring

years. it is why i think people ought to be able to use their social security funds or 401k's so they do not have to lose their homes and lose all their assets in the events they need assistant living later in life. i want to make sure social security is solvent for future generations. >> governor? >> what george did not defend his earlier votes, and he continues to believe it is a good idea. i will battle against the privatization of social security to and nail. -- tooth and nail. i will tell you why. social security since the 1930's has been designed to help seniors not live in poverty. workers chip in, out of their paycheck, to support a dignified retirement for the people who raised them, their

parents, grandparents, people who coached them little league or talk and sunday school. if you allow people to not ship into the social security trust fund but set up their own account, those retirees who are counting on that, have a trust fund that goes insolvent very fast and their retirement is jeopardized. people putting money in their own accounts have a potential problem, too. we saw that when the stock market collapsed. maybe you are a good investor but people do crazy things and they cause an international meltdown. what you count on for retirement is gone. the social security program passed in the 1930's has enabled american seniors live not in poverty. options for retirement, that is fantastic. we should never privatize social security and give people to keep in accounts and jeopardize the solvency for the retirement of seniors.

>> i want to focus my question on jobs. tim, you supported 3 obama initiatives that our job killers. energy taxes that could cause 66,000 jobs in virginia. obamacare. the devastating for small businesses. jobs losses. and the sequestration deal which is threatening to hundred thousand jobs in virginia. why did you support president obama on these job killing proposals? >> let's talk about jobs. let's compare our records. you were proud as your record as governor, but you were governor during the clinton years, the biggest expansion of the american economy since world war ii. i was governor during the deepest recession since the 1930's. that was largely promoted by

policies you voted for when your in senate. was the unemployment rate higher when i was governor? it was in one measure. let's measure fairly. let's look at the states and rank them best to worst. virginia was doing better, we were nearer to the top in terms of unemployment when i was governor than when you were governor. it was harder to manage during tough times and i was doing it. on the three points you mentioned, i did support a notion to try to control -- carbon. you have a different view on signs. -- science. you cannot believe human activity of the climate. i think human activity affects climate. we have to find strategies to stop over using our car been used. we can do it. -- our carbon use. we can do it. i work hard to permit a plan that shows there is a cleaner future for coal. that is what i will promote.

on the affordable care act, i like seniors having free preventative care. i like 21 to 26 year olds on their family policies. i like insurance companies not being able to charge women differently from men. on sequester, i know my time is up. i will save that. >> can thank you. -- thank you. [laughter] >> do i get a rebuttal? >> yes. >> he admitted he did not answer the whole question. there were tough times when i came in as governor as well. my predecessor had tough times, as well. what we did is not raise taxes. tim, you try to raise taxes on working women, seniors, and people earning as little as $70,000 a year. that does not help make the -- making as little as

$17,000 a year. that does not help make the state more attractive for business. we do have a record. a record of jobs for virginia. you mentioned the same facility. under the regulations i oppose, and if i am in the united states senate, i will stop those regulations, by those regulations, that plan could not be permanent. it is a clean coal facility. is a great facility. it is enormous. >> thank you. >> you can thank everyone who made the investment. the reality is the regulations that the obama administration is proposing would not allow that plan to be built under those regulations. you say, do not fight those. do you know what that will mean? higher electricity and fuel costs, and food costs. the people in washington would be proposing this tax that would hurt lower-income people the most. other countries, china, india, russia, brazil, none of them would propose that on their own

citizens. it is the kind of approach that american enterprise systems not have to have on them, nor working families. >> thank you. i apologize for skipping your rebuttal the next question goes to tim kaine. you have mentioned that already. you want to let the bush tax cuts expire. you ted president obama's plan. get more specific. are you saying you would not, under any circumstance, vote for an obama budget or an obama bill that came to the senate that says we will cut the bush tax cuts and let them expire? draw a line int h the sand. >> i think my proposal is the

right proposal. i will not vote for of bills that i know have a no chance of passing the house. you saw what happened this summer. they let the bush tax cuts expire over 250,000. full knowledge nothing would happen. the house passed their bill to make the task cuts permanent. they sent it to the senate with full knowledge it would not happen. the time for the no compromise positions is over. we need a compromise. a year ago, i put on the table this compromise. we have to find one, the bush tax cuts are set to expire, and if we do it right, we can avoid defense cuts. if we let the tax cuts expire over $500,000, that raises $500 billion of revenue over 10 years. if we do not come up with a solution, let the bush tax cuts expire, there is have a solution. fix this medicare problem george voted for he would not take back and allow negotiation for prescription drug prices. another $240 billion.

let's take away the subsidies that the oil company's debt. they make $135 billion in profits last year. why are we giving them subsidies? now we have a compromise that, instead of $1 trillion of sequester cuts, we have to find $235 billion in savings over 10 years. that is the kind of compromise that can be supported by democrats and republicans. now is the time for compromise. we can do it for the good of the virginia economy and our defense industry. >> senator. >> >> tim talks about raising taxes again. i think it is wrong. to use the 200,000 men and women in virginia whose jobs are threatened by the sequestration deal that i opposed and tim set in debates is the right thing to do. they should not be used as a political bargaining chip to raise taxes on small businesses. president obama said in 2009

that raising taxes in a weak economy is a bad idea. the growth in our economy and gdp is worst now than it was then. it will always be more harmful. in a recent debate, he said he would consider everyone pay more taxes. that is consistent with him trying to raise state taxes on people earning as little as $70,000 a year. -- $17,000 a year. you are wondering, do you realize folks out there are hurting? people cannot afford any more taxes. people are paying $30 or more more every time they fill up with gasoline compared to january 2009. you start blasting oil companies, and you were ultimately pay the price. it will go on to consumers. i know someone who could only afford $20 of gas. i asked her if she could fill

up and get it all. it would cost to $37 more. what would you do? she said, i could provide for my family. these are real people in the real world being hurt. the last thing we need is more taxes on working families. >> george, he started by answering i am trying to hold the military hostage to raise taxes. >> no, i said -- >> you and i are both fathers. this is very personal to me. [indiscernible] i have a son who has started a career in the military. i will not do things that will hurt the troops or defense. i will not do things hurting veterans. our veterans services budget doubles because we have work to do to make sure veterans were protected. i was commander in chief of the virginia guard during two wars, and i went to iraq and afghanistan to see those men and women.

i went to homecomings and funerals and wakes. i will not do anything that will hurt the defense. i recruited contractors to move to virginia. i put a plan on the table, very specific, a compromise, that will avoid defense cuts. appealonly plan is to the affordable care act, which would increase the deficit, then require more cuts. >> this next question, it goes to you, senator. you said we ought to repeal and replace obamacare. in the same answer, he said in the last debate one of the most popular provisions in this law should be kept. peopleng alloweing should stay on their parents' health care until they are 26. that is popular but it has to be paid for. specifically, how would you keep the popular provisions of the health care reform what if you repeal the rest of the law. >> let me finish up on what tim said on the previous and i will

get to this. it is very important. i will tell you about holding hostage men and women. >> we are not talking about hostages, george. >> you used the word hostage. [laughter] chips.aining >> we are not talking about hostages. >> let me use the words of the secretary of defense, a democrat. he says if this sequestration deal, it would be devastating to our military. i cannot imagine myself voting for something that could be so potentially harmful to our military readiness and jobs in virginia. you supported it and said it is the right thing to do. you cannot avoid that the secretary of defense said this would be devastating. if you listen to defense contractors, it has already

affected -- on health care reforms, i think it is better for young people to be on their parents' policies. young folks are graduation and things are bad these years. i think we ought to allow small businesses to band together across state lines and get more competition and afford health care. i think we ought to be promoting affordable, reliable, health saving accounts that people can take from job to job. >> governor. >> we do not need a panel making decisions. >> thank you. saying someone will hold the military hostages is like saying someone is anti-virginian if they support the president of the united states. is the kind of rhetoric we need less of, not more of in washington. on the sequestration issue, let's go back to the deal as it was done.

in the summer of 2011, a deal was needed to avert an international fiscal collapse. the deal was not pretty. the alternative was america would default on its credit for the first time ever and we would have an international fiscal collapse. we were trying to avoid a fiscal collapse. that is why this sequestration deal, although it was not pretty, was supported by john banner, by our governor, a veteran, by president obama, the u.s. chamber of commerce, and by everyone in congress trying to find a compromise. george allen stood outside and shook his fists and said, we do not want to support a compromise. we did not the fault, we got a bond downgrade. the reason for the downgrade was not the deal. it was that so many leaders light george were willing to stand up and play chicken with

american finances. we can avoid these defense cuts. we can only avoid them with a compromise. the only compromise you have heard is repealed be affordable care act. it has already been tried. the has been a two-year litigation in the supreme court. that is not a compromise. >> could you address the mass of -- the math of how you pay for it if you repeal? >> if we are talking about sequestration, let me point out what we need. [laughter] we need spending caps. a balanced budget amendment. as far as averting these cuts, the house of representatives and others passed a measure in may to avert these cuts. went over the senate. what have they done? nothing. they have not passed a budget in over 3.5 years. i will tell you a place where we are spending these cuts. i do not think the members of congress should get paid if they do not get the bills done on time.

they are passing these continuing resolutions that call on for months. the health saving accounts and employers being able to ban together businesses, there is no great cost to that. people are taking care of themselves. businesses are getting more affordable insurance. as far as 26-year-old on parents' policy, mom and dad will be paying for but it is better for your children to be covered then not covered. >> this goes to mr. kaine. >> with the recent attack of our consulate in libya, and the admission from our administration that this was an act of terrorism, as the obama administration, in your opinion, overstated the degree to which it has slowed or dismantled al qaeda? >> i think al qaeda remains a very serious concern in different parts of the world. we went to afghanistan to wipe out bin laden and al qaeda. i am happy we have done it.

virginia troops are not being deployed so repeatedly now that we are out of iraq and we have gotten bin laden and al qaeda. we need to take the fight to al qaeda where ever they are, yemen, africa, we have to continue to go after al qaeda until all the leadership is gone. the incident in libya was a very troubling one. we need to get to the bottom of it. to find out everything that happened and everything we can find. i have been asked about foreign debates. when something like this happens, it reminds me of how we work together in the aftermath of that horrible tragedy to get answers and make improvements. you find what happened, you find everything that has been done differently. find out everything what have been done differently,

what virginia tech has done on campus safety has not only made this campus safer, but it has served as a model for other campuses. we need to take the same model with respect to the attacks on libya. get to the bottom of it. find out what went wrong. then do what we need to do to protect our personnel across the globe. the other thing we can do is the house budget will reduce spending for security. i do not think reducing spending on security is a good idea. that is something we have to fix going forward. >> this is an example of what has happened to our consulate and our ambassador being killed and our embassies throughout the middle east, north africa, brought the world, being attacked. it is why the sequestration deal is not only wrong but it is dangerous. we have to find who was involved in libya. my view is any country that does not protect our embassies ought not get a penny of american taxpayer dollars. $450 billion going to egypt and

the muslim brotherhood. i do not think that money ought to be sent because they proved they will be working with us against terrorism, by their trading with our good friend in the middle east, israel, and we need to be unified with israel, shoulder to shoulder with israel, preventing iran from getting nuclear weapon capability. one of the big missed opportunities of this president being quiet when they had the spring uprising and the revolution in iran. i remember ronald reagan said -- he called the soviet union the evil empire. we should have at least said those in iran who wanted a free and just society. the president kept quiet.

i do agree with tim kaine on the issue of virginia tech. everyone should be commended by that response and all campuses are more say. -- safe. i would like to ask you do you think we ought to be spending $450 billion? to egypt? >> governor. >> in my response, george talked more about sequestered. i want to do the same. we put two very clear visions on the table. we agree we have to stop defense cuts. we have two plans. i say we can avoid defense cuts and keep our economy strong buy these simple three steps. bush tax cuts expire. reform medicare. take tax subsidies away from oil companies. george's answer to the sequester is to be against it but his only answer is to repeal the affordable care act, which is not a compromise and it makes the deficit worse. i think the balance the budget on both sides of the balance

sheet. i reduced taxes, business taxes, utility taxes, real-estate taxes. i took tens of thousands of low income virginians off the income tax rolls. if we need more revenue for the good of the country and defense, i will ask for it. i have the experience of cutting spending, something george allen has never done as senator kerry ver don as governor or senator. >> thank you for asking those questions. by the toss of the coin, we have determined 90 seconds for senator allen. >> thank you for watching this debate. you will determine the direction of our country. we do have two different missions of the future of our country. we have earned various endorsements. i have been endorsed by the u.s. chamber of commerce.

virginia voters, veterans vision, the nra. the fraternal order of police. the promise of american dream is at stake right now. if you envision a better future than what we have to endure these days, i invite you to join with us in this campaign. i do not care to talk about republicans versus democrats. everybody who uses electricity should be on our side. anybody who drives a car, unless you like paying $30 more when you fill up, ought to be on albert side. -- be on our side. if you think health care decisions ought to made by doctors and physicians and not a panel, you should be on our side. if you pay taxes, you ought to be with us. if you have a child or want to -- if you have a job or want to get work, you should be on our side. our idea is to create more job opportunities. if you care about the future of your children and grandchildren, we welcome you to our side. i ask you all to examine the

records of the two candidates closely. if you care about virginia and jobs, i respectfully ask you to allow me to work for you in washington where my job will be to protect yours. >> governor. >> i don't think there is an "our" side or "their" side. >> one of my favorites scriptures is psalm 133, how wonderful it is one brothers are in unity. we say the pledge of allegiance every day to one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. there is a lot of unity words there. the problem is while we can act that way, none is more apparent than here in virginia tech in 2007, the way the community pulled together, you did not have to be on campus. you could see it on the tv screens something special was happening. our congress does not know what unity is. we have to put people in congress to do. when john warner, republican,

was proud, he led a gang of 14, seven democrats and seven republicans. george allen was in the senate. he did not joined a gang of 14. he ridiculed senator warner's efforts and said we do not need republicans to compromise. there is a new effort. the gang of six. democrats and republicans work together. i have pledged to join that gang if i join the senate. george allen has made pledges that would be contrary to everything we are trying to do to come together. he says things like kaine does not support virginia because he supports the president. we need less of that in washington and more people who can build bridges. >> chairman, thank you. -- gentlemen, thank you. let's give them a round of applause. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you to our audience. [applause] again, thank you for holding this off to the end. we have a few seconds left. a feisty debate but a formidable one. i commend you both for dedicating your careers and lives to public service here in virginia and to advance in the issues you care the most about. let me thank my partner and all of this and the wsls team to pull this all together. i would say you are the most

professional, dedicated, passionate group. i am really honored to work with you every day. this would not have been possible without virginia tech. they did a tremendous job and they were a great partner. thank you at home for watching and to the audience for participating. with that, do not forget to vote on november 6. good night. [applause] >> on c-span, we take you live to richmond, virginia. chris christie is said to be here shortly to campaign for governor mitt romney. it should get under way shortly. virginia is one of the important swing states both candidates have been spending time in. "the associated press" reports the unemployment rates fell are

held steady last night in nine key swing states for the presidential election. rates dropped in ohio, florida, north carolina. things were unchanged in virginia and also in new hampshire. the rolling average of state polls in virginia and the latest data from the politics as of yesterday, it was a dead even tight in the polls for the average of real clear politics. earlier today, vice president biden campaign in florida. we will show you that later today. paul ryan and mitt romney are not in virginia. they are in florida as well. they will hold the event this evening. live in virginia for governor chris christie.

we are in richmond, virginia. we are waiting to you're from new jersey governor chris christie speaking for mitt romney. virginia is an important swing state for both campaigns. here is some of what does the obama had to say. >> now we're 18 days out from election, mr. severely conservative wants you to think he was merely kidding about everything he said over the last year. he told folks he was the ideal candidate for the tea party. now he is saying, who, meet?

--who, me? [laughter] he is betting that you will forget. he is changing up so much and back tracking and sidestepping. we have named this condition he is going through. i think it is called romnesia. that is what it is called. [cheers and applause] i am not a medical doctor, but i do want to go over some of the systems with you. i want to make sure no one else catches it. if you say you are free equal pay for equal work, but you keep

refusing to say whether or not he would sign a bill to protect equal pay for equal work, you might have romnesia. if they use a women should have access to contraception, but to support legislation that would let their employers deny contraception, you might have a case of romnesia. if you say you'd protect eight woman's tears to choose, but you would be delighted to sign into a law outlawing -- protect women's right to choose, but you would be delighted to sign into law a bill outlawing that, you might have romnesia.

if you say in a debate you do not know anything about tax cuts for the wealthy, you probably have romnesia. [applause] if you say you are a champion of the coal industry when what you're a governor, you stood in front of a plan and said that it will kill you -- >> it's romnesia! >> it's romnesia. i think you are starting to begin to identify these symptoms. if you cannot seem to remember the policies, or the promises you have made over the years you

have been running for president, here is the good news -- obamacare covers pre-existing conditions. [cheers and applause] we can fix you up. we have a cure. we can make you well, virginia. this is a curable disease. >> that was president of, from earlier today in fairfax, virginia at george mason university. this is a richmond, virginia. new jersey governor chris christie is said to speak out and speak for governor romney. governor romney and paul ryan are in florida this evening. they have eight rally set for daytona beach. you can see our twitter.

you can follow us. you could also use the hash tag #cspan2012. california's unemployment numbers were not included. if you are on twitter and want to send us a tweet, go to #cspan2012. obama is heading to camp david for the weekend. on monday, it is the final presidential debate when both candidates will return and focus on foreign policy.

it is another 90 minute debate. our coverage on monday will get started at 7:00 p.m. eastern. the debate itself will be at 9:00 p.m. we will follow the debate with your reaction to the final presidential debate. >> the governor just got here. he is meeting with employees inside and he will be speaking to you in about two minutes. [cheers and applause]

>> not sure if you heard all about, but an announcement was made. the governor is inside meeting with employees at the ball office products company. the person said the governor will speak in about two minutes. there is some applause and cheers from the crowd gathered here. the final debate is on monday. on our debate hub on cspan.org, you can see the entire past debates. we have broken down debate by topics. there are individual cuts and clips. you can watch that and share with your friends on social media. you can also create your own clips on c-span.org/debates.

>> road to the white house coverage waiting to hear from chris christie here in virginia. he should come out shortly which our plan is to show you all of this live then bring you vice president biden who was in florida today speaking to a rally. there here is some of what he

had to say about afghanistan. >> on foreign policy on afghanistan you may flall my debate. i made it absolutely clear that we will leave afghanistan by the end of 2014 period because our job will be done. we have trained 315 afghanistan soldiers already. it's their time to step up and take responsibility of their own countries and for to us come home as we did in iraq. governor romney and congressman ryan made it clear their willing to stay. they say that maybe we can leave in 2014 and this is their phrase shes it all depends. well folks, that shouldn't surprise you because with romney and ryan it all depends. it depends on the moment, it

depends on who they're talking to. it gppeds on in the case of governor romney what day of the week it is. i've never seen a man move on so many fundamental issues in a period of four to six years in my life. >> and on c-span we're live and governor christie here for a rally for mitt romney. live coverage just getting under way on c-span.

>> we have a lot to be excited about today.

i know there are a lot of small business representatives here today and thank you for your efforts and your hard work. give them a hand. [applause] small business drives our economy, it fuels our community tiss and it feeds our families. small businesses like ours represent 97 .8% of all

employers. we employ half of america's work force and create between 60% and 80% of the jobs in this cub tri. it's where job growth comes from and we all know how important those jobs numbers are. and i need my job and so do our employs. thankfully here at ball we have secured jobs and you will see trucks coming and going any minute now. and i can't image the stress of being out of work and the anguish that would cause. unfortunately 23 million of our fellow americans are struggling for work today. but it does not have to be that way. mitt romney and paul ryan have a plan for a stronger middle class. more jobs and more take home pay. and at the heart of their plan

is put in place policies that champion small business so we can grow our economy, create jobs and get america back to work. no matter who we send to elected office, they have a big job ahead of them. that's exactly the point though, is who we send to office. each one of us will make a big difference when we go to the poles in a few weeks. so when governor romney asked could they borrow our parking lot to talk about small business i said sure. and when they said governor christie would be joining us, i said absolutely. but before we hear from governor christie, it's my privilege to introduce our great lieutenant governor bill.

>> thank you very much. good afternoon everybody. how are you doing? [applause] >> we are 18 days away from taking back america so i want to ask you the only question that really matters, are you ready to win? [applause] are you ready to win? are you ready to win? that's better. thank you guys so much. let me do just a couple of thank yous and we're going to get governor christie up here to fire up the virginia faithful. first of all i want to thank the entire ball family. they've been so supportive of the governor and of me and of small business of everything that we have tried to do but it

is above and beyond the call of duty to open up your office in the middle of a beautiful friday afternoon and have 500 of your closest friends come over for a rally. so let's give them a great round of aplause. i want to thank you guys. some of you got here as early as 2:00 this afternoon. thanks for coming and hanging out with us this afternoon. i know there are a lot of places you could be today, a lot of things you could be doing today. but i trust you're here because you believe in the cause of good government in america and you know you have to work for it and invest in it. and by being here today you're working for it and investing in it and on blave of governor romney and paul ryan i want to

thank you all for doing what you're doing to take america back again. give yourselves a round of aplaws. [applause] . we are 18 days away from an election that i think will be a defining moment in the history of our country. it's about where our country is. it's in serious trouble today. whether we're talking about unacceptably high unemployment rates 23 million people out of work, no sign of things getting better or the recommendless fiscal policies of washington with a $16 trillion national debt, no sign of things getting better. we're talking about the fundamental assault on liberty that we have seen from this administration over the past four years, the weakening of the standing of the united states in the international community. in all of these areas, the truth is america is a nation

today that is in serious trouble. four years ago we took a very wrong path. the american people took a chance on president obama. they were moved by his powerful rhetoric and his promises of hope and change but four years late they're rhetoric has faded and we're left with a record of failed leadership with our country and it's time for him to go. [applause] melissa said it right when she said it doesn't have to be that way. we have a candidate in mitt romney and paul ryan that we can be proud of. and i had the privilege of chairing governor romney's campaign in 2008. i had the privilege of chairing it again this year. i've gotten to know this man pretty well over the course of the last four or five years.

and i'm as confident as i can bethat mitt romney is the right person at the right time with the right experience to get america back on the right track. it doesn't have to be this way. so we got 18 days to take our country back. we got 18 tace to work hard. the polls are very close. but let me tell you something, polls don't vote, people vote. this election will be won or last in the next 18, 19 days and it will depend on what you and i do to identify our supporters and turn them out to the polls on election day. so everything we can do, every event we can do like this to get our message out to the american people, to talk about how we still believe that the 21st century can be an american century, we need to do everything we can do in these last 18 days to get that message oufment because i still believe america is worth

fighting for. don't you? i still believe in america, don't you? [applause] last but by no means i want to thank chris christie for being here today. i remember governor back in 2009 when governor mcdonald and i would be traveling around in a bus and we'd dial up this guy in new jersey named chris christie and there was this big buzz going around which people were saying this guy might actually get elected in new jersey. and i remember -- you probably don't remember this but we called governor christie just a couple of days before the election and said how are things looking in new jersey and he said we're going to win and he talked about the reasons y. and we got off that phone and said if chris christie can bin in new jersey bill and bob

can win in virginia and that will send a good message and it did. and governor christie has done a wonderful job over the last three years leading the state of new jersey. this is a guy who inherited a $10 million budget short fall, balanced the budget the old fashioned way. he cut spending and said no to taxes and is that not a good message for washington. and he has become an out spoken respected statesman and spokesman for our conservative republican values. and we are honored that he would take the time today to come down to virginia and help campaign for governor romney and congressman ryan and senator allen and our entire republican team. so i want you to give a warm virginia welcome to the governor of the great state of new jersey, governor chris

christie. [applause] welcome. thank you so much. thank you for waiting. i had a lady in line say you're late. i'm sorry ma'am the weather is bad in new jersey so we were on the ground for a little while. i know you all been waiting a long time for me and i appreciate you doing it. but i know you're not waiting for me. you're waiting for 18 days from now when mitt romney and paul ryan are going to change america for the better. [applause] now you all may know i'm an old prosecutor and those old has been bits die hard. and whenever you were trying to win a case, trying to drive it home during the closing

argument to the jury, i all the said to my prosecutors don't use your own words, use the words of the person that you're putting on trial. use their words to try to prove yoir case. they're powerful. here's what we're going to do today. we're going to use the president's words and use two instances. now a few weeks ago i watched the democratic national convention. i did it as a sacrifice for the service to my nation. by watching at home on my couch, i made my son patrick bring me big bottles of water because whenever i hear that much b.s. i get lightheaded and i had to remain hydrated and stay conscious because i wanted to hear every word they said at this convention. and let me tell you one of the

most amazing things i heard them say, president of the united states party and his convention said the following words government is the only thing we all belong to. now that was a little bit of moaning. but i want you to listen one more time. government is the only thing we all belong to. now listen, i'm from new jersey and there's 700,000 more democrats than republicans and it's a tough spot to be a republican. but even in new jersey we were taught growing up that we don't belong to government t government belongs to us. that's this president's

philosophy. it's that we belong to the government, that our lives belong to the government, that our earnings belong to the government. that we are pawns for him and the millions of additional buretcrats he's hired in cube cals all over washington d.c. to plot and plan all of our futures. that's what this president believes. that statement can't mean anything else other than that, that we belong to the government. government is the only thing we all belong to. i don't understand what else that could mean. this is him looking at us as if we're possessions of his grand plan. see that's never been the country that i thought we were. i've read the constitution. i think all of you have read it to. it doesn't start off we the government. it starts off "we the people".

we the people who give limited power and authority to the government to help run a civilized society. we did not hand over our lives to the federal government. we did not hand over our treasure to the federal government or our children's future to the government. those things belong to us. but if we re-elect president obama we are going to be looking once again at a country that he thinks should be owned by the government, that the government should pick the winners and losers. that the government should decide if a company like this is successful or not. i think america should pick winners and losers like it always has based on the integrity of each individual. two, ingentlemen newtty, who has the best ideas, the newest

ideas, those are the ones that should be rewarded and three most importantly, work eth i can because americans have proved we'll work harder than anybody to get the job done. [applause] if you belong to the government you don't have to worry about that. the government will take care of all your needs. you don't have to think for yourself anymore. that's the club we belong to, the government. that's not a club i want to belong to and especially when it's run by club master barack obama. now that worked in chicago but it won't work in the united states. and the second thing the president said recently was he said you can't change

washington d.c. from the inside . now i was listening to that one and i started to feel bad for the president and i know we got some media folks out there but the president loves me. he really does. he loves watching me on tv. he loves the stuff i say. he loves me. and so since he loves me i want to help the president. here's what i want to do. i want to talk to you mr. president. i want to let you know you've been living inside 1600 pennsylvania avenue for the last four years. if you don't think you can change washington from inside the white house then let's give you the plane ticket back to chicago you've earned.

it's a scary thing you can't change washington from the inside. really. it shows his arrogance. because if he believes that then what the shell he doing for another four years? you can't change washington dc from the inside. that's fine. we'll give you a bus ticket to the outside, mr. president. and the worse part of that is when he says that it shows even more about his arrogance because what he's saying is it's not my fault. it's not my responsibility. it's george w. bush's fault. it's big oil's fault. it's the coal company's fault. it's the gas company's fault. it's the fault of the republicans in congress.

it's anybody's fault but mine. that's what he's saying to us and he says please give me another four years,, i'll figure it out. you know what, mr. president, we're tired of waiting for you to figure it out. i feel bad for the ment, i really dofment see he doesn't know anything about leading. he's never led anything in his life until we made him president of the united states, he never led anything. i don't want to be disrespectful to any legitimate chures but that doesn't make you a leader. you put something to the committee and made him a united states senator and he barely showed up to take the oath and

started running for president of the united states which and he spent the next two years running for president. he was a state legislature. he never ran anything in his life so the president doesn't know how to lead. watch what he's been like for the past four years. he's like a man wandering narned a dark room hand up against the wall, clutching for the light switch of leadership and he just can't find it and he won't find it in the next 18 days. blindly walking around the white house looking for a clue, looking for a clue. and you know the unfortunate thing for the president is this, there are cluse everywhere if he would just open his eyes and learn how to lead. there are cluse everywhere. the american people want to be led. 23 million americans out of

work want a leader in the white house that will get the government out of way and let the millions of others like them grow and prosper and start putting people back to work. here is another clue mr. prpt, only you and the congressman that wanted obama carry, the country didn't we need to get rid of it and mitt romney will. listen up, here is another clue from the people. they believe they can spend their money better than government can and they don't want your higher taxes. [applause] they want a smaller government and smaller government that's more smisht.

america has all the been a compassionate country. we take care of our neighbors whether they ask us to or not. mitt romney believes that too. and he knows that we need to have a government that is efficient enough in other areas that e limb nates other spending so that we can make sure we do the core things the government needs to do, defend the safety and security of our nation and make sure the least fortunate are given a hand up to get themselves back on their feet so they can start working for themselves and their families again. what we don't need mr. president, what we reject and will reject on november 6 is agenda that says government is the solution to every one of our problems. i heard the president the other night in the debate say governor romney wants a bigger

government and that's just not true. governor romney is not the guy who has run up $6 trillion in new debt. he's not created new bords, commissions all over government that he's paying millions and millions of dollars to of our money to try and man late more and more things in the private economy. mitt romney is not the guy looking to take money away from working americans and redistribute it across the country. he thinks the american people should be able to decide how to spend their money, not the government. a few sundays ago before the first debate, governor romney asked me to go on those shows for him. the campaign wasn't flying high. people were feeling a little

nervous about how the campaign was going. so they asked me to go on those shows and deal with all those feistty hosts. i don't know why they picked me. and so they asked me what is going to happen governor christie on wednesday at the debate. what is going to happen isn't the race really over? and i said you wait until wednesday night because mitt romney is going to win that debate and turn this race upside down. you heard all the general youses on tv the next three

days said governor christie stepped in it this time. he made a huge mistake. did you want he know that governor romney is debating the almighty barack obama. doesn't he know you're not supposed to raise expectations. doesn't he know you're supposed to lie to the american people about what you think. they can't handle the truth. here's what i think about the american people. they deserve to hear the truth from them and let me tell you what the truth was, mitt romney is better prepared smarter and more ready for the presidency. and i knew he would show that in those debates and he did. >> you know what happened in

politics, i was the dumbest politician in america. i was the guy that governor romney would never speak to again after daring to predict he would win the debate and make this race a horse race again. but you know the great thing about the media is their principles are pliable so on monday, tuesday and wednesday they were calling me a dummy and on thursday morning i was albert ion stine everybody. [applause] how did you know, what did you know, when did you know it, how didn't we know? and i just looked at them and said here is why i said what i said. it's two reasons. first i know mitt romney. i know mitt romney i've been supporting him and campaigning for him for over a year and i've been friend with him for four.

and i know that every time in this campaign when mitt romney was up against the wall, people were predicting he was going to finish his campaign, lose, be ended by other people. the competitive fire inside him said no. ask newt gingrich. after he beat him in south carolina and said i think it's pretty clear i'm going to be the republican nominee for president and he went to florida and mitt romney wiped the floor with him and ended his campaign. and then rick perry came up from texas saying he was the front runner in new hampshire and governor romney stood on the stage with him in new hampshire and gave him such a wooping that he couldn't remember which department he wanted to eliminate. mitt romney reduced him to saying oops and now we go to barack obama.

a week ago wednesday. and if i were on the president's campaign i would have said give the guy a red bull or something, wake him up, get him moving. i watched mitt romney and i took him seriously, unlike some others. so i knew he was going to do it. and you know the second reason i said it because i say what i believe in my heart. i don't give you political spin. i say what i think and that's what mitt romney will do when he's president of the united states. so we have 18 days to go and let me tell you this it encourages you so much to see you out here today because virginia is a state of consequence. i come from new jersey, we are not.

i hate to tell you that i'm confident barack obama will be winning new jersey. gorment was there with a small group of people in a hotel there were about 20 folks and this one guy from new jersey was impassioned governor romney you must campaign in new jersey, you could win new jersey. governor christy won new jersey. you must do it. mitt took a sip and said chris is there any way i'm going to win new jersey and i said no, there's not. and he said next question. you on the other hand. you in the common wealth of virge, you are a state of consequence. you see this entire election could come down to what you do in virginia. in fact, it's likely to what you do in virginia. so when mitt romney asked me to come down to virginia i said

yes because you're a state of consequence. because you're a difference that's going to make a difference in our country's future. i see young guys standing up here in front of me. i see these young guys right here and what you do in the next 18 days isn't for me. and it isn't for mimple and it's not for mimple and it's not for paul ryan or george allen. what yire doing in the next 18 days is for these guys. because when i look at most of the faces in ths crowd, we've already had a great american life. we've had a life that's been blessed because we've been americans the country that is the freest the world has ever known. what about them? every generation before ours has met the test which is to leave this country better for

the next generation that was left for us no matter what the challenge no matter what the threat, no matter what the cause, the american people always rose to those challenges not for themselves, but for them. and so now with 18 days left, my question to you in virginia is how hard are you willing to work to meet that challenge for them? for them? [applause] because i know we agree on this, i know we agree on this that we don't want to be the first generation that decides we're going to sway ourselves for creachchure comfort that we're going to bury ourselves in the sand to say these problems are too big and that everything is too difficult and we're not strong enough to

fight back. we don't want to be the first set of americans who does that. and think about this, you know you have a lot of people who helped start this great nation in this common wealth. america wouldn't be america without thomas jefferson, without james madison all from the common wealth of virginia and of course without george washington. but we had a great pate yot up north too, few, john adams, john adams who understood and arctic cue lated almost as good as jefferson what it meant to be an american and after 50 years of america, the america he fought for and put his life on the line for sh and this is what he wrote in his diary and he wrote it for us, this is what he said. he said you shall never know

the sacrifices you have need secure your liberty make a good use of it for if you do not i shall repent in heven for how we immediate the sacrifice at all. john adams understood that it was not only enough to serve his country but he needed to challenge the next generation to serve as well. and on his dying day he wrote that in his diary, not for himself but for us. so that when this challenge came, a challenge he could have never foreseen in an america who is only part of his most distant dream a continental country the most powerful and success tfl world has seen with $16 trillion in debt and a country full of citizens who are hopeful but dispirted he never saw this challenge but he

knew the challenge would come and he does not deserve to repent in heaven for the sacrifices he made because we are unwilling to meet that challenge for the next generation t. difference in the election is mitt romney and paul ryan understand the gravity of the challenge. they understand it's going to hurt to fix it. but what they believe in more than the president of the united states does is the strength and resilience of the american people to hear the truth to step up to the plate to make the sacrifices and restore our country back to a greatness that we have often had and always deserve. and so now i want all of you in the next 18 days to decide how much of your time are you willing to sacrifice. how much of your time are you willing to put forward to make sure that america pick it is right course this time. i will tell you i am going to be all over the country for 18 days because i have four

children between nine and 19 and i do not want nor will i willingly permit them to know about america by reading abet in text books i want them to live in the second american century and we have to make it happen for them. mitt romney and paul ryan can take us there. if we help them over the finish line. so i'm here for governor romney and congs man ryan today but i'm here much more for you. i want you to understand your state of consequence, you can make a difference in america's future. you can get home and get on the phone with every friend and relative and business associate and client and customer that you have and tell them all that

now is not the time to sit on the side lines. with 18 days to go they need to give you their oath they're going to vote in this election and vote for mitt romney and paul ryan because that's the way to fix this broken country. so get on the phone, go door to door. go to call centers, do anything you can over the next 18 days. go home and look at it. you can give an hour a day for the next 18 days, an hour a day. just an hour a day for the next 18 days. if you do that, i'm willing to guarantee you something, virginia is going to turn the beautiful red of this woman's vest right here in the front and i'm going to be sitting up in new jersey watching my tv and when they put that big old map on the television set and virginia starts flashing and it comes up red, that is going to be the red carpet that leads

mitt romney to the white house. so if you're willing to do that in the next 18 days i'm willing to fight with you. if you're willing to say we're going to restore america to greatness by electing leaders, leaders who know how to lead who are not afraid to lead, who are not afraid to tell us the truth and care more about getting re-elected, we got to get hid of those and worry about putting somebody in the white house who wants to fix these problems and doesn't care whether their re-elected or not. i've asked mitt romney this question will you do whatever you need to do to fix our country regardless of the politics and he looked back and said that's why i'm running. that's why he's running for president of the united states.

so i want to thank melissa and the whole family for what they do to make virginia a better place. and i thank all of you for being out here today. and i want you to know i will do everything i can do to make sure these kids have the future we have been blessed enough to have. if you are willing to fight for it then so am i.

thank you very much. [cheering] [captioning

performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> new jersey governor chris christie rapping up in the swing state t. poll show that state in a dead heat. if you missed any of his comments we're going to show it

again at 9: 45 eastern an c-span. ahead of that a debate in texas. this is a seat being vacated by hutchison. that debate is live from dallas at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> i have to be honest with you. i love these debates. these things are great and i think it's interesting that the president still doesn't have agenda for a second term. don't you think that it's time for him to finally put together a vision of what heed do in the next four years if he were elected? he's got to come up with that over this weekend because there is only one debate left on monday. >> let's recap what we learned last night. his tax plan doesn't add up.

his jobs plan doesn't create jobs. his deficit reduction plan adds to the deficit. so everybody here has heard of the new deal, you've heard of the fair deal. you've heard of the square deal. mitt romney is trying to sell you a sketchy deal. we are not buying it. >> watch and engage monday as president obama and mitt romney meet in their final debate. our debate preview starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern fold by the debate at 9:00 and your reaction at 10:30. >> and before monday's debate vice president biden is spending two days in the state. his first stop today at sun city south of tamp pennsylvania he talked about issues like afghanistan, women's rights and healthcare,

this is just over 40 minutes. >> [applause] >> good afternoon. one of my first questions is going to be are you ready but you answered it. i stand with president obama and vice president biden because they represent middle class america. [applause] they are one with us. so when there was a chance to volunteer with the campaign, i could not say no. every one has their story and why they're on team obama biden and mine is one of winning a battle against breast cancer. now i know there are many

people in this room can also share that same story. i've been cancer free for ten years, but i was worried, always worried that it would eventually return and i would hit my lifetime cap. and that my insurance would no longer cover me. it was really flightening to always have that in the back of my mind. i kept worrying what if i relapse. but because of president obama and vice president biden, that day finally arrived where i and millions of americans would no longer have to fear that unreasonable limit of a lifetime cap and worried that i would go broke just because i got sick again. [applause] so i'd like -- [applause]

. so i'd like the name of obamacare because to me it just shows that we have a president and vice president who cares about all of us.but mitt romneye that. he promises to repeal "obamacare" on day one. he says he will kill it dead. this would let insurance companies deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions and bring back those lifetime limits. we cannot afford to let that happen, florida. we cannot. the only way to make sure it does not is by standing by

president obama and vice president biden, because they have stood by us. they fought for us, and now we need to fight for them and vote for them. so are you fired up? [cheers] get ready for joe, ok. please welcome -- >> thank you. thank you so much. everybody, how are you? thank you, barbara. thank you. thank you. >> four more years!

>> thank you, thank you. i want to introduce you -- thank you. thank you. thank you so much. folks, before i begin, i want to introduce you to the love of my life and a life of my love. this is my daughter ashley biden. ashley is a social worker and a married lady, but my mom was an irish catholic named jean biden, and one expression of hers was a son is a son until he gets alive, a daughter is a daughter until the rest of her life. thank you. and i am glad to be here with

one of my truly good friends. in the contrast, you will stand up and a congress person will say, my good friend -- well, this is my good friend. i want to tell you something about this guy. this guy has a backbone like a ramrodded, and he has the most important currency anyone can possess. i would argue in life, but clearly, in the business he is in, and that is he is a man of his word. whenever he says he does, and i love him for it. folks, before i begin, i want to remind you -- you do not need reminding -- but in florida, you can vote now, even before early voting starts on the 27. go to your county supervisor and ask for an absentee ballot.

in most places you can fill it out there, and it is done. if you look around the country, in places like iowa, the early voting, i hope it keeps up because we're winning the early voting. folks, look, i know no one paid attention, but we have now had three debates. only about 70 million or however no. it was people watched it. two between the president and the governor, and one between me and the congressman. i think that one thing that has come across clearly, and this is not hyperbole. we have fundamentally different views on how to move his country forward, and equally important is a different value set, a fundamentally different set of dallas. these are honorable, decent men, but they have a fundamentally

different value set on how we think about call about moving this nation. the differences are profound. i made it clear that the president and i will lead at -- leave afghanistan at the end of 2014, no ifs, ands, or buts, because our job will be done. we have trained 315,000 afghan soldiers already. it is their time to step up. and for us to come home. as we did in iraq. governor romney and congressman ryan made it clear they are willing to stay. they say that maybe we can leave in 2014, and this is their phrase -- it all depends. folks, that should not surprise you, because with them, everything depends. it depends on the moment. it depends on who they are

talking to. it depends -- i do not think that is unfair. it depends in the case of governor romney, what day of the week is. have never seen a man move on so many fundamental issues over a period of four to six years and my life. another place where the differences could not be more stark between our team and their team is that -- is on women's rights. president obama as i have said repeatedly, we have demonstrated repeatedly, the president and i are committed to one thing, and no one should make any mistake about this, because some of you may not like what i am going to say, but nobody should make any mistake -- we are absent headley, positive the committee that my daughter and the president's daughters and my four granddaughters at every single solitary opportunity to control their lives that my son

and i grant scion, without exception. -- and my grandson, without a session. you have heard the debate. it was made clear that they do not share that view. they did not believe a woman has the right to control her own body. romney and rye and made it clear they are willing to impose their private views and the public. they do not believe in protecting a woman's equal access to health care. on women's health, they are prepared to turn the decisions back to the insurance companies, where, if you check with your daughter's out there, check with them, they get charged 50% more on average for the same health care your sons get charged. where pregnancy is literally a pre-existing condition. [laughter] i'm serios.

the obama legislation, that cannot go on. they're not allowed to do that. and folks, and after listening to congressman ryan, because it was very stark, the view that he and -- expressed on behalf of he and governor romney, how many of you think after a romney appointed supreme court four years from now roe v wade will still be the law? when the governor was asked a direct question about equal pay for women, he talked about binders. that was his answer. if it this was not so serious, you would think i was making this up. he said i have binders full of qualified women. how did he happened to don't ask for binders to find qualified women? really, it is pretty -- it gives

a window into how he thinks about these things. ladies and gentlemen, and he did not answer the question. are women entitled to equal pay for equal work? i want to tell you, this is not just a matter of equity and fairness. i did not want my daughter who graduated from tulane and a master's degree from penn and is a qualified social worker -- i do not want her doing this in a job as a man does and somebody tell me she is not entitled to the same exact date. i do not want to hear that. and by the way, nor does her husband. nor do your sons-in-law, because it is about economic economice impact on powf

issues. when a woman does not get paid equally, the family suffers. your grandchildren suffer. or son in law suffers. but folks, it should not surprised you the governor did not answer the question, coming from a man who was not even for the lee ledbetter act, and all that did say if a woman finds out she has been cheated at work in terms of her just compensation, she can sue for just compensation from the moment she finds out. there used to be a law that say if she did not find it out for time, first little bit of she lost the right to bring that action. ryan voted against that incentive, and romney's spoke person said he would have voted against it if he were in congress as well. top about being out of touch. and now they are abandoning the

court organizing principles of this new republican party. when i say new republican party, i do not mean that any denigrating way. this is not your father's rivkin party. -- republican party. these are not republicans you grew up with. my colleague work with all those years in united states senate -- this is, as my young granddaughter said, this is a different breed of cat. good people, but this is not even mitt romney's, father's republican party. what are their corp. e organizing principles? they are smart and they have a firm view, and that is based on t.d. of things, massive tax cuts for the very wealthy, because they are the job creators in these people's views, and significant cuts for people for

entitlements to vital programs, because that is the only way to get the country in shape. is not an illegitimate position to take. i fully disagree with it. that is their organizing principle, of the republican congress for the last four years. that has been the organizing principle of all the candidates who ran for the nomination for the republican nomination, and after the convention we find out that we did not mean that. [laughter] there is no $5 trillion tax cut. we do not have one of those. you heard romney and ryan say that. and now all of a sudden congressman ryan said his budget does not actually cut vital programs. is what he said, he changed the map view. i am serious. he said i did not cut those programs. i just slow the growth of those programs. [laughter]

that is the same budget has already passed the house with every republican except maybe 1 or two voting for it. newt gingrich called it right- wing social engineering. that was his phrase, not mine. all of a sudden, it is not their budget anymore. they have already passed it, and now ryan is saying is budget does not eliminate the guarantee of medicare, does not eviscerate education. that is like romney standing on the unemployment line in florida and sank to a guy, i did not outsource your job, i offshored it. you guys may remember, and the quiet type.

you remember about three months ago i pointed out that romney, when he was running bain, honorable company, but the point is their job is totally different than the job of the president. their job is to maximize profits, and not a bad thing, but that is not the job of a president. that is why "the washington post," king at the wreckage, said romney was a pioneer in outsourcing, so i was making these speeches about that is a legitimate business enterprise, but it is not what it the president does. his job is to create jobs in america, bring jobs back to america, keep jobs in america. that is the president's job. when i had made that first speech, the romney campaign responded and said -- at some

important guy responded -- and he said the following -- vice president biden does not understand. there's a difference between outsourcing and offshoring. [laughter] tell that to all those folks who do not have a job because a factory picked up and went to the cheapest place, the cheapest wages, with the least regulations they could go, helped by governor romney. it is and gentlemen, the president said today after the debate that romney's plans become sketchy. i am reluctant to correct the president on that. [laughter] i would respectfully suggest they are not sketchy. they are etch-a-sketchy.

remember those tablets? just dial into a new sketch. i'm serious trip a second about medicare. with medicare, they have gone to great pains to tell you about how we, barack and i, have cut medicare, have stolen from it, and have done all these things you see these ads about $719 billion, etc. ladies and gentlemen, i know there's no woman out here who knows anybody on medicare, but some of you guys do. here are the facts, and you know them. the facts are since the president has moved and streamline the system, people who are approaching the donut hole, and only we seniors know what that is, that prescription drug place when you fall into oblivion where you have to pick up the total price, they are saving $600 a year already.

that has happened. secondly, today if you go for a wellness is a, there's no copiague. -- there's no copay. if you go for a colonoscopy, there is no copay. we have guaranteed the solvency of the medicare trust fund until 200024. what they tell you is not true. it is what they do not tell you that is most important. remember sometimes when your kids come in after curfew and they tell you that when they left, but they would not tell you where they had been? you know what i mean? let's take a look at what they are not telling us. what they are not telling you is that there move would eliminate all those things immediately,

and this is factual. facts are stubborn things. if they succeed, if they are elected in january and immediately repeal what we have done with regard to medicare and health care, your premiums will go on average $312 a year, immediately, for those of you on medicare right now. that is what will happen. medicare trust fund will become insolvent in 2016 if they do away with the savings we have put into the system. they really do know what to talk to you about is what they call this premium support. it is a voucher. a voucher is a simple thing. you'll get this chip in the mail if you're 55 years in the mail, but by the time you get to qualify, and everybody will be off of medicare automatically. you can buy it back in with that chip if you can afford to buy

back in, or you can buy private insurance if you can afford with that chip. every study has shown -- the reason why they are doing that is they need to save a lot of money for these tax cuts. first one of these they passed, which passed overwhelmingly, and romney said he would sign into law, it would increase the yearly fee for the same health care you are getting now by $6,400 a year out of pocket. that is the congressional budget office, the referee that democrats and republicans acknowledge. they went ahead and passed it anyway. when that got no traction because of guys like bill nelson stopping it in the senate, and they realized it was so unpopular -- [applause] then what happened is that they came along with a new program.

it is still the sand a voucher. the voucher is jusst working a little differently. it will still cost seniors tens of thousands of dollars. there are three studies, the one of which, the harvard study, said it would cost of the body 54 years old 64 grant more to have the same medicare, the san coverage medicare gives them now -- the same the coverage medicare gives them out over the life. you would in fact have ever been going on medicare if it was in place now and would cost you about $120 a month more than you now pay for the same health-care you are getting. now. that is if it went into effect. that is the kaiser family foundation. this is not joe biden. they found the voucher plan like

posed.e being pro the average increase for seniors would be over $200 per month or $2,400 a year. folks, this is a pea in the shell game. no matter how you cut it, their combined massive tax cut for the super wealthy will cost seniors a lot of money out of pocket. and it is going to put great pressure on your kids and your grandkids. the one thing that i have a problem with from our friends on the right -- i like congressman ryan -- but he talks about we got to save this for my generation. his generation. that me tell you something. like a lot of you, when my mom and dad got sick, i had the great honor of being able to take that into my home and care for that. my dad was a hard-working man

and never did anything other than work. my dad, when he was in hospice his last six months, and i convinced my mom to move in with me, and she would not, because she -- when she was my age, my entire life growing up in wilmington, delaware, we had for those 19 years we were in that house there was only four years we did not have their relative permanently living with us who needed help. my mom swart she was not going to move in. i finally convinced mom. let me tell you something. like all of you, you have on the same thing with your moms and dads trick the one thing these guys do not get is there's not a son or daughter worth their salt that if mall or dad was in need in terms of bell health or in the economic need, they would not make sacrifices with their own family to help mom and dad. i remember we used to like the

devil to my mom who was a smart woman. she had social security and something left from the sale of her home. we would tell the press, whenever the price is, tell her her prescription drug benefit covers it. here's the credit card. because you know about it. too much pride. my mother would not have her children the. when these guys say they're cutting benefits for seniors, how do you think that is going to help kids put those kids will go out there and they will make up the difference. if they are worth their salt, and they are. they are from the families like we all are. they say they value the middle- class. my dad used to have an expression, my dad say, joe, let me tell you what i'd value. show me your budget. i will tell you what you value. i will tell you what you value.

[applause] folks, let's take a look at their budget. let's take a look at what they value. governor romney wants to maintain the bush tax cuts for the top 2%. we want to maintain them for the 98% of the american people. it is and gentlemen, let me put this in perspective. the top two%, $800 billion of that tax cut to people with a minimum income of $1 million. $500 billion of that tax cut goes to 120,000 families in america. all the national press is with me. you will not see what correction on what i just sent you. it is a fact. 120,000 families that they want to continue to be able to get

500,000 -- $500 billion tax cut. what they will not tell you is how the airport to pay for it. you heard in the debates. experts point out that there's no way to pay for it. what he is on to say is i am going to cut all those exemptions for the what the guys out there. ladies and gentlemen that are not enough exemptions for the wealthy guys. the reason why the middle-class, your kids' taxes will go up is because they have to cut all those so-called tax loopholes like a mortgage deduction or everything with people making less than $150,000 a year. that is why it goes up. they say that is not true. you heard in my debate, the moderator or the president said

governor, can you tell me one loophole you will eliminate. think about this. they cannot name one. not one of will they name. folks, it does not work. they cut medicaid by $800 billion. by the dying and cutting the benefits they get to the states, the portion they get to the states. they say you are on your own. that is 19 million people that are going to be thrown off of medicare. how many of you know of someone in a nursing home who had to sell their property to qualify, and the only reason they're there is because of medicaid they will get kicked us where are they going to go? where -- is are not poor folk. these are middle-class people who have broken their next their whole lives, and the only thing they have is access to that

home. ladies and gentlemen, middle- class children with disabilities, families will lose the benefit. they decimate education cannot eliminate all that help to get to caught. a $2,500 tax cut to help your kids get into college. the cut help grants for working- class families. instead of signing a pledge as they have, including the nominees, to a guy named and grover norquist -- that is what it did, but a waste. there is a pledge signed, that says we will raise not one single solitary penny in taxes, even in people fmaking millions of dollars who do not meet the tax cut and are not asking for in delaware we have a high per- capita income. i found wealthy people are just as patriotic as poor people. it is time they step up and

contribute more, incit. they should sign a middle-class pledge to the people of this country and saying they aren't play for and equal playing field. merkel to maintain this tax cuts to help your kids get to college. we will recruit 100,000 new math and science teachers so we remain the best in the world. because we believe children tend to become that what we expect of them, we expect more of our turban and they should expect a lot from us. sec can come on jobs, we will craig a. milligan new manufacturer jobs. stop giving breaks to tax cuts overseas. give them tax breaks to jobs

coming home. there are over 600,000 jobs available in america today without the skills available. that is why they tied them up with community colleges. ladies and gentlemen, on energy, we will cut our oil dependence in half. well, clean coal, renewable resources, when, oil, biofuels. these guys voted against what the president pushed which doubles mileage on cars by two dozen 24 -- 2024. saving 12 billion barrels of oil. on taxes, we both have cut

taxes $3,600 so far for the middle class families, and we will make permanent the tax cut for the middle-class. we will ask wealthy to pay a little bit more, and we will reduce the deficit. in the red. if the notice, when romney was asked by the moderator, if you could reduce the budget deficit and it required anyone new revenues, he said would you support it? he said under no circumstances. ladies and gentlemen, as we end this war in afghanistan, that will result over the next 10 years, a savings of $825 billion. we will bring half of that to bring down the debt and the

other half to build american roads, american businesses, american schools. look, it's a basic proposition all about expanding the middle- class. we have to give them some peace of mind. recession in 2008. romney and ryan plan is all about the same old thing, the governors of the first thing i will do is read the regulations and replace them and let wall street write the rules again. that is literally what he said. he said shred the regulations, continue these massive tax cuts which amount to over $2 trillion for people to make $1 million or more. folks, we have seen this moviewe know how it ends. it ends in a catastrophe for the middle-class. 9 million jobs lost, $16

trillion in lost wealth for watching the equity in your homes -- the price in 2006 was about $240,000 and now averages about $86,000. many of you have been here and planned on that equity in yourhe planned on that equity maybe for yourself maybe for your kids. it is up in smoke. tens of thousands of good people in the cities you come from, they did not do a thing wrong. they never missed a mortgage payment and all the sudden they find they had those wacky mortgages and they got foreclosed on and the value of their houses upside down. they lost tens of thousands in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars. that is how they planned on doing what i did, borrow against that to center kids to college. retirements of it would not have to depend on their children.

this resulted in the great recession of 2008 and we will not go back. we have a different vision. we don't see the american people in terms of makers and takers. that's how they talk about it. in a major speech, mr. romney said 70% of the american people are takers and 30% are makers. he said people are unwilling to the american people should worry about that. he does not even understand who half of america is. there were my mom and dad who broke their necks are all alike. there are millions of people paying their payroll taxes and property taxes and sales taxes at an effective rate higher than mitt romney paid his federal taxes. ladies and gentlemen, they are the people like some of you may be in this room or a lot of people you know, in fact, all they have is social security

and they do not pay tax and should not have to pay tax on it. there's also 68,000 warriors that are traipsing through those mountains of afghanistan. i have been in and out of their many times, they are not paying taxes because they should not have to pay taxes. that 47% are the people who are the heart and soul and spine of america. veterans? we owe you. that this generation, my sons' generation who spent a year in iraq, this generation has been incredible. they have stepped of. 9/11, over 2 million of them have signed up knowing that we would go -- 200,000 have stepped on those boats and gone to iraq and afghanistan.

we only have one sacred obligation and i think the veterans would agree with me. we have many obligations to our schools but only one sacred obligation -- that is to equip those we send to war and care for them when they come home. honor that sacrifice. when you go to afghanistan or iraq, one of the most moving things that occurs is the first time i guess my sixth or seventh trip to iraq and a full colonel said to me, mr. vice president, permission to board a fallen angel. that's how they refer to our

warriors when they fall in battle, fallen angels. they brought in a flag-draped casket and strapped it to the floor in that c-17 and turned it into a cathedral. all we could think about and it happened more than once was about the family way to get the other end. ladies and gentlemen, every single morning, i checked the number of dead and wounded as a consequence of these two wars. as of this morning, 6500 fallen angels. 50,010 wounded. many of them, close to 25,000, with loans that will require extensive medical care the rest

of their lives. those of you guys and women who were in korea and vietnam, over 50% of the wounds suffered in afghanistan and iraq, if they had been severed in korea or vietnam, they would have been dead but because of the so- called golden hour and triage capabilities today, they are alive but they will need our help the rest of their natural lives. we owe their families and overwhelming debt. must never forget their sacrifice and keep them on her chair and in our prayers. these are the men and women who really are the backbone of this country. the american people -- let me conclude by saying to you that the american people are

so much better, so much stronger, take so much more responsibility and neither congressman ryan or governor running give them credit for. i've never seen two candidates for the highest of his and the lad who were more negative about the state of the country, more negative about the prospects of the future, and have less faith and the willingness of the american people to accept responsibility. they talk about -- the phrase that has been interjected in the last four years -- the culture of dependency. that is to those 47% of people are. i don't recognize the country they are talking about. number i come from, not try live. how could they have such a american people? ladies and gentlemen, this election is about a lot and it

is also about who we are as a country. i've got news for governor romney and congressman ryan, they are dead wrong. america is neither dependent nor are we in decline. period. i will say to my two colleagues what i'd say to every foreign leader i have had the privilege of meeting with and negotiating with or taking issue with -- gentlemen, it is never, never, never a good bet to bet against the american people. ladies and gentlemen, we need you. we need your help to win the state of florida if we win the state of florida, this election is over. this election is done. go out there and vote.

we need your help. god bless you all and may god protect our troops, thank you. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

where's the spirit that'll reign

reign over me where's the promise from sea to shining sea where's the promise from sea to shining sea wherever this flag is flown wherever this flag is flown wherever this flag is flown we take care of our own we take care of our own wherever this flag's flown we take care of our own we take care of our own we take care of our own wherever this flag's flown we take care of our own ♪ ♪

♪ >> c-span is bringing you live

coverage of house, senate, and governors' debates. tonight, the debate between ted cruz and paul sadler, live from dallas at 8:00 eastern on c- span. the event you just saw with joe biden we will show again tonight

at 9:00 eastern. and then chris christie, who was in richmond campaigning for mitt romney, that is coming up at 9:45 eastern. the general in charge of the defense department's task force on improvised explosive device said attacks are down. he was introduced by the atlantic council south be asian center director. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am shuja nawaz. on behalf of my colleagues and on behalf of our president, i want to welcome all of you to this very special session with lt. gen. michael barbero, the director of the joint ied defeat organization as the u.s. department of defense.

i do not think one can understate the importance of the issue, particularly at this stage in the battle in afghanistan. not only within afghanistan, but the effects of the war on neighboring countries including pakistan, where the i.e.d.'s are also huge problem. we thought it would be useful to have lt. gen. michael barbero on what the nature of this global threat is and what is being done and can be done to counter it. i will briefly give you a little background and then we will listen to lt. gen. michael barbero and open it up for an exchange with all of you. he was commissioned in the infantry after graduation from the u.s. military academy at west point. in 1976, in addition to every

assignment at the tactical level, he has commanded at every grade from lieutenant- colonel to lieutenant-general. as a brigadier general, he commanded one of the combat training centers of the army, the joint readiness training center. as a major general, he commanded the u.s. army infantry center at fort benning, georgia. prior to joining jieedo, he served over three years in three separate tours in iraq where among his many duties he commanded the multinational security transition, and, iraq and training mission in nato. his a master's degree in national-security and strategic studies from the national defense university washington, d.c., is a graduate of the army's command and the school of the advanced military studies program. he has far too many awards for me to list, but you can see it on his chest.

i think that should be where i will stop. i am delighted that he agreed to speak with us. the floor is yours. >> thank you for that introduction. other than the year i was commissioned, i am reluctant to mention that as i get older. thank you for the opportunity to see many familiar faces. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss a little bit about this and how i have framed my comments, i want to discuss a organization briefly and what we do. how we see the current fight in afghanistan and then how this is truly a global threat and an enduring one. what we're doing about it, then briefly, some thoughts about future capabilities i think need to be retained. first of all, as you know, the joint ied defeat organization or jieedo, was acquitted in 2006, with some fairly unique abilities. -- was created in 2006, with

some fairly unique abilities. the war fighter is our customer. we have about 200 individuals for it in afghanistan down to the maneuverable battalion level. we are well resources. we have some rapid acquisition authorities that allow us to field capabilities with the goal, fielding them in months and not years. the most important word in our mission is rapidly. that is why we exist. if we cannot respond in a rapid manner, we should not exist. we prosecute our mission along three lines of operation, the first is training the force. often not discussed or thought about, but as we found out, the based capability we have as a well trained soldier is -- the best capability is a well trained soldier or marine.

when i arrived in jieedo i would have told you our biggest gap is training. which we worked hard to fix. the second line of operation is defeating the device. frankly, that carries or requires a large amount of our funding. we must focus on that because by defeating the device, we afford our commanders freedom of maneuver and limit casualties. however, the third line of operation, attack the network, is the the size of effort. that is where you have, in effect, on the network that supplies and everything that goes into the employment of this weapon. so the current fight in afghanistan, the ied remains the weapon of choice. it is in during as a weapon of choice. in the last two years, i.e.d. events have increased 42%, from about 9300 events in 2009 to about 16,000 events in 2011. 2011 had our highest annual

number of ied events ever. june 2012 is a little bit below 2011, the june 2012 was the highest monthly level of ied events we have seen. overall number of i.e.d.'s has remained high. there are some areas where i think we have seen improvement. two critical areas are look at are found and cleared, are we to in the ability to fight and clear these i.e.d.'s before they are deployed in front of us. that has steadily been proved. -- improved. in the same 90 days compared to last year the same time, increased 12% for our mounted forces. the second metric i would point to is the obvious one, casualties. casualties are below 57% below

last year's rate, despite, as i said, the high number of i.e.d.'s. we focused on limiting effect of attack, those attacks that caused casualties or killings. many factors have contributed to what we see as progress in this fight and increased effectiveness of i.e.d.'s. i will list a couple prefers from supplying lessons learned. what are we doing right? what is the enemy doing? what are best practices? and applying that in our pre deployment training, which i said, has been a focus for it equipment search. in the last year, we fielded an increased number of capabilities, especially focusing on dismounted operations and is very vulnerable dismounted troopers.

just a few numbers. we feel that in the last 10 months, 1100 ultralight robots, 210,000 sets of public protection, more than 8000 hand-held devices and to locate components of the ied, and another 2000 will be filled before the next fighting season. improvements to batteries and external battery packs. it is a continuous process to field a prepense to existing capabilities. we repositioned eight airborne systems from iraq to afghanistan and delivered an additional four systems, focused on the ied and components that comprise them. there has been in equipment surge. increase in biometrics collection and capability. dna, fingerprint, and other indicators. this is critical. through biometrics, we can remove the greatest defense these networks have, that of anonymity.

there has been adjustments to tactics, which is a continuous process. one of will point out is how we approach clearance operations. a tremendous focus on that. also, our commanders tell us the increase in part during operations with the afghan security forces. they're found unclear rates are much higher because they know what to look for they have engagements with the local population. finally, we have super commanders and troopers on the ground or continuously refining techniques, procedures, and adjusting and tailoring those adjustments to the specific threat. but as i look at the fight in afghanistan, i see two fights back view it. first is a mounted one and one is dismounted. they have different threats and require different capabilities. mounted, there is an individual at the end of a wire when he sees a vehicle, a specific

vehicle cross into the danger zone and will detinate the ied. largely using culverts, where they can pack more explosives for a greater net explosive weight that they try to defeat our vehicle improvements. the attack rate remains down for mounted. we're not seen the lethal weapon we saw in iraq, but we are seeing large amounts of explosives with the command wire. i look at that as the enemy's precision guided munitions. what are the critical neighbors? airborne sensors of all types, culvert denial systems, predetination capabilities, robots and vehicle-born ground penetrating radar. as i look at the dismounted operations, the i.e.d.'s we see are mostly in the south and southwest, largely victim operated, nonmetallic pressure

plates, two pieces of wood increasingly carbon rods from batteries that are used in these multiple number from a larger number of i.e.d.'s. we had one incident a couple of weeks ago with over 20 i.e.d.'s and about 100-150 meter radius as they were moving. multiple i.e.d. a raise. smaller, two to 3 pounds of explosives is devastating to dismounted squad. the found unclear rates continue to improve. critical enablers for these operations are hand-held detectors, protective undergarments, explosive line charges where we can shoot out a line of explosives and that make those along the path of movement, ultra thin, robots, dogs are all key in this fight. in talking about afghanistan, it is about home explosives. over 84% of the i.e.d.'s are used combine with common

explosives. different than iraq and different from what is seen in other locations. 84% are home explosives. 84% are home explosives. of those, more than 50% or ammonium nitrate based, derived from fertilizer. this continues to be a problem. in the last 90 days, compared to the previous time last year, our seizures of home explosives have increased 133%. in the last 90 days, we have seized 131 tons of homemade explosives, largely ammonium nitrate. so this is the challenge in afghanistan, detecting and the flow of ammonium nitrate. it is easily processed into an explosive. it is being used increasingly around the world. so that is a brief description

of afghanistan. that is our focus. every day. it starts with the discussion of what took place in afghanistan and how we can attack it. it goes without saying, as was said, this is a global threat, not exclusive to afghanistan. outside of afghanistan every month, there are more than 500 ied events. and since january 2011, there have been more than 10,000 global ied event occurring in over 112 countries, executed by what we judge to be more than 40 regional or transnational threat networks. as of september, the top five countries in ied incidents outside of afghanistan, the first is pakistan. our pakistani partner suffer greatly from these networks and these weapons. columbia, the second. india is third. syria and somalia are in the top five also. it is not just about the devices. it is about the networks.

and we see increased collaboration and cooperation between the networks. for example, in africa, with the increased coordination between al qaeda and the islamic group and al-shabab. in somalia, and nigeria as well. collaboration and training and resources. sharing funds and techniques materials. nigeria is seeing a large surge in ied activity. in 2010, they had 52 events. this year, so far, 218. similar growth in somalia. not as drastic as nigeria. syria has seen a tremendous increase in i.e.d. activity. in 2011, we estimate syria had 330 casualties from i.e.d.'s. so far in 2012, 2086 casualties.

it has been a tremendous growth. colombia and mexico also. as i look at this, it is an enduring threat that i think both operational and to our forces and domestically will be here for decades. as i said, it is not just about the devices, but about the networks. and we see the ied as a weapon of choice along the threat continuum. at everything from the low end criminal smugglers, narcotics networks, all the way up to the high end terrorist networks and everything in between. these networks are resilient, adaptive, and very agile. as i tell my friends there centers of excellence are virtual, flat, and unencumbered. they seamlessly communicate sharing recipes, ttp's. i think the way they communicate their command and control system is a huge strategic advantage for them.

then we see the proliferation of techniques across these various networks. the projectiles we saw used so effectively, the iranian weapons we saw in iraq, in the gaza strip, and have seen them start to appear in somalia. the vehicle born i.e.d.'s originated in the middle east. we see in mexico as the drug cartel's target each other. the female suicide bombers. we think originated with the tigers in sri lanka. we have seen across the middle east, southern europe, somalia, and nigeria, russia, and as we see in afghanistan. i like to say that while we in the military in the u.s. march to the sound of the bands, these threat networks march to the size of instability and take the ied with them. we must address the network. it is the critical enabler to attack these.

whatever is most cheapest, readily available components. largely an increasingly off the shelf. command wire, pressure plates for it when they can, radio control triggers. off-the-shelf components, improvised blasting caps that are harder to detect. in the future, when will they migrate is not a question of when they agreed to ultrathin electronics, used wi-fi and bluetooth as triggering devices from optical initiators and how can they mix highly energetic materials to create an explosive? and enhanced concealment, as we have seen on aircraft and other places. it is a threat both to networks and devices are here to stay. how do we approach this? i think in the future as we are exercising today, increasingly the whole of government approach. dod cannot do this alone.

the phrase is, it takes a network to feed a network, and that is true. we have partnered and we have 17 federal agencies and services that work with us and have liaison's assigned to us. atf, department of homeland security, fbi, state, commerce, etc., plus our international partners, the u.k., australia, and canada all have officers working with us. we also have a link with nato intelligence. so in order to execute this whole government process, it starts with intelligence, focused intelligence on these networks where their operating, what are their vulnerabilities. then applying all of the tools that are interagency partners bring to the table. i refer to it as non kinetic targeting. how can we sit tools of state, treasury, and commerce. the me give you some examples of how we have done that and the results of this process. commerce has added 152 persons

to the entity list because of ied-related matters. it stops u.s. companies from trading or working with a foreign entity. treasury is imposed economic sanctions on 33 targets that affect the ied flow into afghanistan. there is a news report in reuters i saw today where they just designated three additional individuals. as of september, dhs global sirte -- global shield program has 40 enactments and 44 seizures. the state has applied a public outreach campaign in various places and also using diplomacy to engage government's that and have an effect on some of their entities. those are just a few examples being applied in this whole of government approach. we have also engaged the fertilizer industry and encouraged them to apply a whole industry approach. i will tell you want to describe the problem to the

fertilizer industry, i believe there are very committed to this. both the international fertilizer association, the largest association of ammonium nitrate, they have created a product security board. we have as the industry to first, implement a universal by program so these materials can be easily present nine by border police -- recognized by border police, border authorities. they look something easier to identify than they are today, which is a milky white, to be disguised and often repackaged as detergent or other materials. the second, develop a non- detinable alternative to calcium nitrate in its current form. right now it is too easy. as an industry, they need to take this on. third, institute affected industrywide standards on the distribution and tracking of their products. finally, fourth, produce a global education and awareness program on what to look for for

the misuse and misappropriation of these products. we understand there is a huge challenge. given the ubiquity of these products, they're essential nature to the global agriculture, however we feel, this must be addressed using every tool possible. as with the to the future, what do we think? i know if i get asked about the future of our organization, i will talk about it. but in my view, enduring threat requires enduring capabilities. whenever we have come out of any conflict, we have taken a hard look at what worked, what we need to retain as far as to the ability and what are the threats we need to prepare for for the future. i believe we need to retain his rapid acquisition and fielding capability. we cannot go back to the acquisition and fielding capabilities that we had on september 10. how do we do this? how do we share this with our allies? we must retain this operational intelligence and information

fusion and analysis so we can provide our commanders in real- time through reach back intelligence they need to immediately have situational awareness and to conduct operations against these networks. training. we must institutionalize the ied and the networks that employ them as a key threat and factory in our training. the whole of government approach. there's a tremendous sense of urgency in our government because of the casualties and affects to our troopers and nato troops in afghanistan. we must maintain this capability because the networks will endure. next-to-last, i think weapons, technical intelligence. as i said, this removes the anonymity from these networks. everything from biometrics, dna, fingerprint, how can we retain these and not break them apart? it is a powerful game changer. how can we retain that as a skill.

for the military, how can we continue to convert intelligence into evidence, to enable our agency partners to apply the tools they have. the final skill i think we need to have is what i call financial intelligence. the life blood of these networks is there funding. where is it? what institutions are cooperating? where is that nexus between licit commerce and activities and illicit activities? where are the vulnerabilities and their funding and have to me go after them? in my view, we have built this capability. everyone in the u.s. interagency, everyone does a little and no one does enough. how can we build this capability and retain it into the future? just some parting thoughts. just as the artillery was the greatest casualty producer in the 20th century, the i.e.d. i believe is the artillery of the 21st century. there is no silver bullet to

stop these casualty producing devices on the battlefield or here at home. and these networks and devices i believe are and enduring global threat both wherever we go operational in the future and here at home. they must be met with a coherent and focused approach into the future as we deal with these. with that, thank you for the opportunity and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general. if i may, i will launch with a couple of short questions and hope our colleagues will then join in the conversation with you. i very first question relates to the transition in afghanistan. you mentioned the training of partners. clearly, a big challenge which will remain is the ied, once the in the states and the coalition departs. to what extent is their

capacity? do you have enough time to convert that capacity into a fighting force that will be able to counter the ied once the coalition ceases fanatic operations? >> we're in the process of to transitions. one is from a leading combat to an advisory role, and different formations with differing capabilities, u.s. for missions are deploying to answer that. the largest challenge is a transition to afghan security forces. first on u.s. forces, through 2014, we are focused on supporting this force. as we saw in iraq when the number of your troops reduces and you're no longer in the lead and as active as you are, your situational awareness becomes less. how do compensate? there are a number of capabilities. additional counter id

capabilities, isr. as our boots on the ground, the number of troops goes down, does not mean all of our capabilities will reduce proportionally. many will stay the same, some will need to increase. the afghan security forces, because of my funding, i cannot directly fund their capabilities. but we are engaged, dr. carter, secretary of defense, has taken it as a party to look at how we can support the building. as you talk to brigade commanders as i did in july and will do next week when i go, they tell you when the department operations, the afghan forces are very effective. they don't need the same abilities we do. they need capabilities they can

sustain and capabilities that are suited to their skills. so that is what the isaf has looked at and in the process of building. counter id, route clearance and other capabilities are being dealt appropriately. as i said, when they are out front are partnering with us, they are very effective in this effort. >> my next question is about the relatively smaller part of pakistan. i know this has been the source of some debate and discussion, particularly with the pakistani partners on how best to prevent the flow of fertilizer that is used to create these weapons. pakistan is not the sole source of this fertilizer, i understand, but to what extent is that discussion yielding fruit? >> you use the right term

there, they are our partners. as i said in my remarks, pakistan has suffered greatly. their security forces, civilians to these networks and these devices. as i said, outside of afghanistan, they have the no. 1 in monthly incidents. so we have had discussions. we have had several exchanges. we have had two groups of pakistani military visit here to our headquarters and similar training facilities. i've been there twice to meet with our pakistani partners to talk about this. every leader from secretary clinton and general allen and our ambassadors in pakistan have made this a topic of discussion. in our view, this is a mutual threats that should elicit a neutral response, and is an area that is obvious for cooperation. as i have engaged i iraqi -- i'm sorry, pakistani partners,

i have said, we are here to assist. let us know where we can help. we have capabilities we can share with you, however, we must do something about these networks and this flow of materials into afghanistan. so what can be done? in my view, pakistan has taken the step and developed a national strategy, the minister of interior has responsibility for that. however, i believe in needs to be resourceful and there needs to be an action plan on how to implement it. we must improve interdiction. i have given you the figures of what we have interdicted in afghanistan. there must be a partnership in that also. then we must cooperate to go after the money and these networks in operating in pakistan that threaten both the

pakistani military and the nato forces. we are ready to cooperate with this effort. we are partners. this is an area where we both agree. we need to move from discussing cooperation to active cooperation. >> thank you. i would like to open it up. could i request when the microphone comes to you, identify yourself, please. also, if you wish to ask a question, if you could sit by me by putting your name card on its side. then i know who to go to next. >> good to see you. three questions related to your comments about the future. post 2013, -- 2014, when we're out of afghanistan, could you expand on the future of jieedo and the context of austerity? you can make the argument what

we spend to what they spend, it ain't in our favor. second, you did not touch on the issue of sea-based i.e.d.'s. that may be more of a naval issue, but i'm not sure. perhaps most interesting, what about airborne i.e.d.'s and drones with the other side gets them? >> hezbollah has been flying drones over israel. some character was arrested in virginia for trendy use one. but certainly the bad guys would get these things and will be flying i.e.d.'s. i wonder what your thoughts are as to how you or someone else is addressing these? >> for the first one, the future of my organization, that is the wrong question. the question is, the ied and the networks that employ them, are they here to stay? and they are. if we have an enduring threat, do we require capabilities that endure? yes. dr. carter has taken on the effort of looking at not only jieedo, these other task forces that were created throughout the years in the department of

defense to address an exigent need or urgent requirement. what endures, how to reshape that, and how we resource that. he has taken that on. over the next few months, he has said we will work through this. but he has told us clearly, our mission, our resources, our support remains unchanged. that is our focus. more to follow on the future. my view is, there are certain problems and challenges that are best served with a joint response, and this is one of them. services do great work. but when you're talking about different program managers, the navy has the lead for counter radio controlled i.e.d.'s, for jamming, the air force brings other skills to this, the army and marine. this requires a joint response that is tapped in not just for

this, but for all combat and commanders, for intelligence and analysis and other capabilities. that will grow in the future. it does look at africa, the organizations i mentioned. it must be joined, must be tied in with a global perspective. seabased i.e.d.'s, we are involved with the navy. there are three specific initiatives we are funding through the navy from sensors to the ability to look for counter swimmer and some other capabilities. as to go to the future, we need to look to how the wide range of what is possible and start developing counter capabilities whether it is seaborne or, as you mentioned, in the air. you mentioned the cost exchange ratio. their business model is crushing hours.

i talked to my industry partners and said, the days as of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this are over. we have to be more effective and more efficient. whatever we develop has to be expeditionary and has to apply in other regions other than afghanistan. when you can buy a bag of fertilizer for about $100 and out of that with a little propane, water, and a tarp to try it out, some plastic jugs, a few blasting caps and detonation cord creates 6 to 8 devastating i.e.d.'s, we cannot sustain that. we have to do two things. we have to figure out a way to build capabilities more efficiently and effectively on our and to drive down our costs the drive up theirs. of physical cost, finances right now, how to go after their money, how to seize blog assets and make it more costly in a wide range of ways for them to do business.

that is what i see we must do in the future. until 2014, we are here. we are well resources and focus on the fight in afghanistan. >> thank you. >> will you wait for the microphone. >> kathleen mccormick from cbs. i have some statistics. did you say june was the highest month we have seen? >> june 2012 was the highest number of ied events. that is one that is detonated, one that we find and clear a cache of i.e.d.'s, every ied we encounter. the number of those was at an all-time high in june. >> and the space of time that has passed, what have you learned about why? were there more operators? were there more locations in which they were planted? was there a baseline there that had changed? >> i think it goes back -- 2011

was the highest of war. an article said, these high number of ied events can be interpreted as failure. i don't look at it that way. we had a larger number of troops taking a fight into some areas that were described as safe havens. these are weapons they're going to employ, so you have a higher number of events when you are active. in the last few months, there have been operations that set the transition to the afghans. so they have been very active in certain areas. it is hard to explain, but it gets back to a supply problem. when we are sweeping historic amounts of this fertilizer and other materials off the battlefield and the number of i.e.d.'s remains high, we have to do something different other than playing defense in afghanistan. >> secondly, on the number of explosives seized, the ammonium

nitrate, were there certain areas where you found more of that and where was it coming from? >> we see ammonium nitrate everywhere, calcium ammonium nitrate, the fertilizer, and bags, largely, also after it has been processed into ammonium nitrate, which is more explosive form at it. we also see potassium chlorate, which is another product used in industry to make matches and other things. we have seen a slight increase in that. potassium chlorate, we shall see associated with the haqanni network. those are the two prime components of the explosive charges. most of it has come through pakistan. >> we have a question. >> general, i would like to

delve a little further into the seaborne, which is relatively new for your organization. could you go little more in depth into what these programs are and are you involved in the research are just finding? how is it going? >> we are involved. it is the navy -- we need to get more involved as we move to the future. i can give you some specifics on the three initiatives. one is a sensor for remotely operated vehicle to detect waterborne i.e.d.'s. as i said, it is a remotely operated vehicle with sensors, command and control software, and a manipulator to invest these for inspections around piers, pilings, sea floor, etc. the second one is and mobile queing, which helps us map using underwater mapping sonar. there are a number of other

initiatives that deal with other waterborne threats, swarm, and other things like that, which i probably should not talk about. i see this as an area where we need to become more engaged and involved with the navy. >> [indiscernible] >> i do not have the exact figures but i could probably get back to you. >> thank you. >> when you met the pakistani interior minister earlier last month, was anything specific that pakistan had asked for in terms of countering i.e.d.'s? as you mentioned, the u.s. is willing to cooperate, so what specific equipment, training, can the u.s. provide pakistan to help them with their international ied strategy? >> the minister of interior was here for discussions at the state department.

i think counter-terrorism and other threats. i think it was just two weeks ago and there was a press release put out by the state department. i have seen others. it was a wide-ranging discussion about what we can do to cooperate in this area. as i met with the pakistani military, we have agreed to develop a framework of cooperation. where can we cooperate? i believe we can contribute with training. we can contribute with some equipment. i know there has been some equipment transferred and there have been some general discussions of requirements in some areas where they could request some assistance. one is forensics and hand-held devices and the like to help better detect these instruments. so we're in the discussion. we look forward to better specifics on what we can do to help, and also the next step in these discussions.

>> thank you. >> roger kirk. of the presence to carry regulations at airports, the dhs has put in, are they adequate to detect current i.e.d.'s and is that an increasing threat that they use different kinds of ways to make i.e.d.'s? >> i cannot comment really on the adequacy of them, but i will tell you for every new invention we have for every new communication system, there is someone else in the world looking on how to use that whether it is wi-fi as a triggering device, how to use broadband effectively, how can we develop nonmetallic and undetectable components to be able to use in aircraft in times square and other places?

so they are actively working to bring this threat to the homeland and we have seen in. times square and other examples, underwear bombers on airplanes. and continuance for product improvement with every step along the way. it is of concern and it is of concern and something we are dealing with and will have to deal with for the future. >> i am the navy fellow here the council. i was wondering if you could comment on the speed with which these actors evolve? >> in afghanistan, we used to be engaged in arms race that took years to produce a new radar or new icbm.

now it is weeks and months and not years. they adapt in several ways if they can tell -- they watch and see if we're successful in detecting in seizing certain things, they'll change the way the process it. they watch as tactically. if they watch where we dismount and our vehicles, then that is where you'll see the i.e.d.'s. they know for a fact if they can engage us with small arms and inflict casualties, we bring in helicopters. where is a likely landing zone? when we make contact with our dismounted troops, the first and we do is look for place to put our machine guns. that is where the i.e.d.'s are. it is as we adjust, the rhythm of combat, we must always stay agile. we must remain more agile than them rid our commanders and troops on the ground, it is a continuous learning process that we try to bring back to the training base.

the first time a trooper sees a piece of equipment or lines how to use it is not in afghanistan when he arrives at his operating base, or at his home station than at a big training event than in afghanistan. so they are watching our tactics and adjusting. there also, as i said, the materials, how they employ them, how to construct these devices is constantly evolving both in afghanistan and globally. it is seamless, how they're sharing these. you can go on into that now and learn how to process the calcium, nitrate, the projectiles as i have said that have migrated, so it is a continuous process. they are learning, adaptive. >> thank you. steve. >> thank you. my question is, how is industry performing for your mission?

in particular, i am interested to know how they're performing with respect to the speed, responsiveness, the expeditionary nature of the mission and if you can go so far as to say lessons learned for industry and how to be effective mission like this, that would interest me. >> early on, it was apparent to me from the back we were a little too opaque with our requirements to industry. we developed an unclassified, here is our gaps in our capabilities. it is on our website. if you bring us this, where the venture capitalists, we're here to invest in it, get it to a point where it is good enough and get it fielded. so they have been very responsive. i have yet to find an industry partner who says, i'm not

interested in helping out with the number one killer of our troops. they're all motivated. some things we will not get out there fast. if it is a nuisance to the -- new sensor committee created over time, you can throw as much money as you want and it is not rapidly fielded. a lot of them, they have been very responsive and very attuned to the requirement to rapidly, as something that is good enough. for example, last year in talking to a group of marines down at camp bastian, there had been -- i said, i heard you need robots, something that can pre detonate these things. they said, we want something like we can throw about 100 meters. less than 5 pounds. it gets blown up, we have

another one in our backpack. so we came back, issued a broad area announcement. we got 40 proposals. we narrowed it down to 6. by then we have received the official request. we did some testing in the states to where we thought it was good enough, then we said use these with your dismounts and your ground clearance and tell us which ones you want or tell us how to improve them. i think they will come back and say, we want either two or all three types of this in certain numbers. then we have already set the conditions with these three producers. we're ready to write the check and get them as fast as we can. that is kind of how we operate. very responsive, very interested and very engaged with us, to answer your question. >> the meeting you had with the

squad, when you're able to give them time? >> this is not ideal, but it was shrinking robotics and there was a challenge in getting a day/night camera in there. it was about eight to 10 months before we got them over there. that is not what we strive for. another example, when we looked last year at the injuries that our dismounted troops were taking. we called our british partners and said, what have you got? they came over and laid out the hand-held devices. we were already investing in one of them, and doubled down on that. they also brought over protective undergarments. we said, what is it? we sent a couple across and within a few months, we had fielded 210,000 kits. they have been effective in limiting the damage, the injuries to our troopers when they do get hit by these i.e.d.'s in the dismounted node.

we're looking at how to improve those, make them lighter, more comfortable. that was done in four months. that is the target on how we can do things faster, how to get them before the fighting season. i mean, if we can get them a certain amount of funds, that is great. if it is ended june or july, we have missed the fighting season. we're looking at accelerating capabilities before the next fighting season. >> i recently attended a night class briefing for organization put on. i was real impressed with the way you put out the contract bids for people to come back with a different type of equipment, the size, the range, etc. also, the way your during the acquisition has to be praised

because the reaction needs to be done. if anyone wanted to know more about it, it was unclassified. that was a great briefing. until they got into the nano matter. i just wanted to sing your praises of jieedo and what they're doing. >> it goes back to what i said about unique authorities. i can sign off on it and we can get on with it. we realize last year our first time troopers resting hand-held devices and afghanistan. that was the right thing to do, to get them to theaters as fast as we can. they're saying, sir, i am a little busy first week here in the country. so for $24 million we said, let's buy 70 sets, put it at their home stations, let them train at their camps and put them at these big training

center so they, hopefully, see them twice before they occupy their battle space. anything above $25 million we have a rapid staffing for all of these services to dr. carver, in i think 10 to 18 days. if not, then, we start making phone calls. >> [inaudible] >> industry, the national labs, this is about building a partnership and who else we can partner with and use their unique skills in this fight. that is an area i said we must retain. we cannot go back to focusing on programs of record, five- year plans. on the other part of the world, there is some guy sitting there not constrained like that. he is as agile as he can be. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have two questions, if i

may. if you could clarify, what would be the single biggest contributor to the delay in getting whatever it is to the field? is the geography? is it industry? >> it is not funding or bureaucracy. some of these sensors we are fielding detect a very small component from 10,000 feet to 40,000 feet is just plain hard physics. the sensors either do not exist and it takes time to develop tests and get them to good enough. or it is day one of that takes a very long time to develop. there is one -- i want you what it does, if it was very useful and iraq. we shifted them to afghanistan. they are our best detection platform for this one type of ied. we just got a request for two more. the first response was, well, it

will take x number of months. is it going to cost us more? how much? it is not the bureaucracy or funding. at great funding authorities and responsive staffing within the department of defense for anything above $25 million. every time we have staff one of those initiatives, it has never been denied or held up. some of these are very hard to put together. >> [undiscernible] all of these factors coming together. kind of -- how to adapt jieedo to make somebody on the hill or elsewhere say, ok, you are funded.

>> we get great support on the hill. we're out there all the time. had met with bricks dosser with staffers. we have never been told no are held up. that is important to be transparent with them and everyone else. our budget last year was $2.4 billion. for next year we have requested 1.9. we're taking a very serious and don't look at our budget. we had a search of equipment last year. we have different requirements this year. there are certain things that are not known. what is next? the i.e.d will be the weapon of choice.

there'll be another fighting season. we have two transitions to go through. when is the next cut in the number of troops on the ground? that has not been determined yet. how will they develop their capabilities? we think our budget request for next year is appropriate. anything below that would be accepting-we would be accepting a significant risk to our mission. >> kahlo. hello. i am a pakistan does caller. -- scholar.

i know you mentioned the whole issue of that. can you shed a little bit of light on that on why there has been little progress on that? the other question is that you talked about there was a question of where the incident has arisen. their high numbers in june 2012. can you give us a profile of the highest number of around compared to the south and central areas? knowledge transfer is very quick. there were followed by i.d's in iraq. india agree with that -- and do you agree with that of the

element? >> has been a large transfer of knowledge from iraq to afghanistan? >> it is the first time it really started in afghanistan. how come we have not really seen that knowledge and technology and use in apepakistn and people said it was basically because of iraq. >> first of all, as far as where received a number of ideas, lester it was out west. marines were moving in. that was probably our-marines were moving out west. now it is rc south. rc east as you may significantly high. as far as the transfer procedure from iraq to a afghanistan, someone asked me if afghanistan

was a testing ground for the rest of the world. i tell them, no. we are seeing developments in different areas. i mentioned the expos a projectile, which is a signature weapon in iraq and something we are seeing in somalia and in one incident in pakistan. we are seeing blasting caps. i cannot draw a line from what we saw and expense in iraq as far as a tactic techniques and procedures go. iraq was largely military a offset. that was what was available and affordable. the expos a project of become the weapon. in afghanistan, it is homemade explosives. it has been that way. in iraq, it was real controlled. -- radio controlled.

the materials are too ubiquitous and cheap. they will use whatever is most readily available in the location in which the are and what works best. that will change. >> the next question is about the lack of progress. >> i cannot answer that. it is a common threat. the fertilizer industry has taken this on. they are moving out to take a look at this. i believe they will take some actions to institute some of these changes and have adopted. as far as progress, there has been some activity in pakistan, another had change the numbers of the fertilizer and the bags.

hundred 30% increase. we have not seen the texas. -- 130% increase. we have not seen the effects yet. >> you mentioned attacking the network. the network is a lot of things, it is information and people. you have eluded them might be the center of gravity. you also commented on the fact that information sharing on tactics and techniques and procedures is fairly easy. ted gravity has to be a definable thing. can you -- tech gravity has to be a definable thing. can you describe this frequently misunderstood a phrase? there are a lot of hungry people

who want to be on the offensive side on the cyber piece. >> it is a huge challenge. i am not engage in that. we do very little in that area. i am probably not the right person to talk to. we need to take on. that is their commanding control. it is flat and virtual. how do we neutralize that? it is a strategic advantage. we have to take on the future. i cannot answer exactly what is being done in that area though. >> if i could go back to my first comment. the issue in the end is not just technology because you are doing their best to try to deal with

what are the symptoms and underlying disorder within the society is operating in. there is a missing nexus in my view between counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism. once the transition is over, the challenge will be for the local governments, particularly in the region we have focused on in afghanistan and in pakistan, to change the underlying conditions that breed the need for this. there is also that the own that once they depart, there will not be a reason for fighting. i am wondering whether there has been any debate or discussion or adequate debate and discussion

within the country's consent. you might not be privy to that information to answer that. i want to throw that out there and is anyone in the group want to know. >> i am not sure what those discussions are. those are most difficult and complex challenges you have in detecting bonn abilities. it is critical, but it is -- in detecting those abilities. it is critical, but it is difficult. >> second question. >> general, you mentioned that we're using dogs to detect. talk a little bit about how we are using dogs. are there also are other

chemical sensors you are working on? as are some metal and all? -- are these some metals involves? >> our challenge is to imprint the dogs and what the opponents to look for and detect. they are very effective. interestingly, the key variable is the selection of the can dollar for the dogs -- handler for the dogs. selection of the handler and keeping the dogs of current. there are a wide sweep of sensors airborne and on the

ground that can detect these homemade explosives, especially ammonium nitrate that is used in the field. they are proving to be pretty affected. >> we have another question. >> i am almost embarrassed to ask this question because i have been on the board for ever. is there at natal of excellence for ids given the fact that the secretary of general -- how have you made much progress? >> when i left iraq, my boss as me to take on a new role and work with nato. we've worked very closely. they own the responsibility for counter id policy. they have written and published a new account id strategy which

is being killed in both strategic commanders are ready to adopt -- in which both strategic commanders are ready to adopt. there is a counter center id and intelligence. we're helping them with cork film development and some- curriculum development. in brussels, i met with eight made a commander. we determine how to better partner with them as they go about their mission. we have established a presence there so we can have an exchange of intelligence. as the come out of these 10 or 11 years effort, it is important. smart defense, there are three

smart defenses that nato plans to look out. there are three counter id related capabilities. we have pooresproposed a fourth. we are pretty confident that will be adopted. we are for the three that the u.s. has. we're tied into them. >> from now, what would you like to be able to say about where things are, particularly at the end of the transition? >> two things -- first, we were effective in eliminating casualty's in afghanistan. that is our focus is a. -that is our focus. when i talk about progress, we

have to do better. second, as we look beyond 2014, we institutionalize the right ways. . we will work hard as hell and the first one every day. i am confident that i will be able to report success in the second one. >> thank you. we appreciate you taking this time. we do not have any other questions. we thank you. >> thank you for this opportunity. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]