here because they are not going to be afforded american citizen ship as a result of that. we do need to get resources for more judges, about 40 more from what i've heard. i support that. again, let me be clear. the most compassionate thing we can do is to 17 and afforded a process under the expedited, the need to be returned. >> next the format is the candidate question. mr. glaspie has a question for senator warner. >> it has to do with health are.

. healthcare, when healthcare was at close to 18% of our gdp and going up, almost twice as much in america as almost every other industrial country, and as somebody who 20s-plus years ago started the virginia healthcare foundation to provide healthcare for the close to million uninsured virginians, the system is broken. what i hear again is people

don't want to go back to the days with pre-existing conditions or women treated different than men or parents not being able to keep their kids on the healthcare plan and they want us to fix it. seven months into campaign, you can criticize the plan. he doesn't lay out specific alternatives. i have laid out three alternatives around cheaper plans, making sure we cut back on the bureaucratic regulations, on more competition with the insurance plans and i want open for more plans. democrat, independent, republican. we have to provide it more efficiently. >> that's a concern obviously because we do know a lot of virginiaans now know the damaging effects of this policy. by the way, i knew that it was going to have this effect when you were working to pass it, i was warning against its negative i am impacts and said it would

kill jobs and raise premiums. i am right about that and you were wrong, but i think more importantly wrong about what to do going forward because i want to replace it. as i have put forward my specifics on the energy plan as part of the 5-point agenda, i will continue as i listen to virginians. the woman i spoke to from danville who provides the insurance for her family, both she and her husband work, six children. her premiums have gone up $600 a month, $7,200 a year. i said how are you going to accommodate this? she said, i don't know. she is scared, and we need to replace this bill with policies that work and that protect people who are being harmed very seriously by the negative impacts you voted for. >> all right. thank you. we are moving on now to another question. this is the next block. this one goes to mr. gillespie. most virgans have a pretty

dismal view of washington, d.c. that they believe is all but controlled by special interests. you have spent your adult life in washington. part as a lobbyist, represented interests before the government from enron, which you mentioned, many others, a group called the cayman islands financial center. you have worked closely with karl rove, american crossroads. my question is: does this make it harder for you to capture this anti-wasn't sentiment out there? >> judy, again, senator warner has said many things in virginia ma many things he has not done in washington. i believe my experience in 15 years of working on capitol hill, in the white house, in the private sector as chairman of my party here in virginia, as senator warner was chairman in virg i was a top congressional

aid. i was successful in business, not as successful as senator warner was in business but i believe those experiences of having worked on capitol hill, having been a party chairman, having advised private sector people how to get things done with bi-partisan support in washington make me an effective senator and would allow me to stand up to the special interest groups, to stand up to senate leaders, to stand up to a white house for virginiaans and keep my promises to the people of virgin virginia. i believe it would make me effective on day one. i am proud to say in all of the jobs itch held, people felt that i performed them, you know, very capably and very well. i promise, i will fight every day for hard working virginians who want to find work. >> senator warner? >> judy, i think you asked a good question.

it's not that you are a lobbyist. it's who you lobby for. enron. fuel efficiency standards, lobbied against financial regulations that might have stopped the financial crisis. washington's broken. but it's broken because of the absolutely partisanship on both sides. i believe my opponent, he's got a long and i will of the tr illustrious record. everything is viewed who is up? who is down? republican versus democrat. if you want another partisan lawyer in washington, he is your g guy. >> we dismissed misleading and not reflective of my record, i didn't bring that independent

voice. i wouldn't have john warner support, form ter republican legislators supporting me than when i ran in 2008. on every piece of legislation, i start with a republican partner because that's where you get things done. >> mr. gillespie. >> if senator warner had been the senator he said he would be, i wouldn't have 47 of his former donors giving to me because of their frustration with his time in the senate. look, governor warner wouldn't recognize senator warner today sadly. in terms -- i believe the phrase was happy partisan work which is what you do when you are a chairman of the republican national party or of virg. our current governor is a former chairman of the democratic committee. you are a former chairman of the democratic party of village.

>> that's your job. >> partisanship. come and talk to me. >> the role you play when you are in those jobs. the role of a senator is different. i understand that. i believe that i would get bi-partisan support for the common sense economic growth proposals and policies that i have because i believe you can reach across the aisle. reaching across the aisle is not an end in and of itself. you have to pass bills and the entire time you have been there with a democratic president and a democratic the majority senator, despite despite the press releases you have passed two bills, the first lady's get up and move program and a recent billy suspect senator reid wanted to make sure it got moved after i aannounced my candidacy for the senate. >> i am proud of what i have been able to get done, two pieces about government

translate planes, the beginner bill that has government agencies under reporting programs. the other bill, the data bill, my partner was darrell isa. called the most important bill on government transparency because you have to be able to follow the money. i feel proud about the work i have done. we didn't get done on debt and deficit and the gang of 6 and broad dialogue we started there. i am glad of some of the things that don't actually make the news in terms of helping every day virginia families. military families in inadequate business. we got that fixed. just recently the whole delegation -- let me take my time and i will stop. funding of the gorge washington, 11th carrier in our fleet to make sure national security and thousands of villagen johno jobs, i am proud of my record and the bi-partisan approach. >> next question for senator warner. there is an issue that

potentially effects jobs. you are on the senate banking committee. you have supported the government's export/import bank which your oppose charges engages in chrony capitalism sdprol disproportionately helps large corporations. >> i absolutely the export/import bank. this is maybe not that well known but it supports american businesses in a global economy giving a financial backstop. it helps, i think the number was about $200 million of village companies, large and small. it has traditionally been partnersh bi-partisan sported. as the right moves farther to the right and my opponent embracing that agenda, it's out of the mainstream.

this small group are opposed. the u.s. chamber of commerce. every business group in america says this is where we ought to keep the torch. there may be some ideological argument that says in a perfect world, we shouldn't support exports, but i am not going to unilaterally disarm american businesses when canada and brazil, countries smaller than ours, have much greater % of export support and lord knows, when you go against the chinese, it's not a level playingfield whether we go from export/import and tax reform andett entitledm reform, the sproechl particularly of some on the far right is way out. that will seems to be where my opponent is landing. >> i don't recall saying chrony capitalism in my remarks about

t the ex-i mbank. we have to evaluate every program. we are at a point where our debt is going to equal over the next few decades our entire gdp. i agree we need to open new markets, exports for our american goods abroad and our agriculture goods in virginia. we haven't had a new trade agreement since this administration took. i think that's a mistake. i think we should fight to open new markets for goods and services. look, if we are going to get control of federal spending, we have to find bills where even r our friends are for them. i have a lot of friends who support the export/import bank. i hear their arguments. you can make a case for any federal program. i think it's an area we can get some savings and the broader effective of reducing the drag of the debt on our economy along

with other areases that need to be subject to cuts offset the long-term benefit. >> that's hard to do. i know it's hard to stand up to the chamber of commerce, national manufacturers but that's the job of a senator to stand up for the country t i know i have a lot of members of my own party who do not agree with me on this. i understand that. i think when you come to a colon collusion that this is in the long-term broader interest of the country, you need to stand up on principle and fight. >> one more. >> my opponent didn't next the export/import bank doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime. it returns money each year. why would america disarm it. i support additional trade. why would we say we are going to open markets but not provide our

businesses with the same tools other countries have. dpebt and deficit. we need to make more progress. i have taken more arrows from the administration be, the left and the right because i have laid out based upon the simpson-bowles program individual tax reform. entitlement reform. >> that's the most important thing we can do. i have heard plattudes. i am going to go constitutional amendment. when you have been in the trench trenches. it is the most important issue phrasing our nation. >> brief rebuttal? >> thank you. first of all, we are going to have a dispute because it does not. secondly, the experience the senator is talking about is

worth revisiting because the fact is, when i was working on capitol hill, now, it was as a stamp but i was a top stamp as you know, very involved in the room with the discussions, the negotiations for the first balanced budget in 25 years with a republican congress and a democratic white house. we can do it again with the right priorities, i think it would be helpful as senator warner believed before flip-flopping on it. i would also say we need one without that amendment. >> we now have another candidate. the candidate, senator warner to mr. gillespie? >> ed, you have been ranked as one the top d.c. lobbyists and described, i think judy mentioned as the ultimate washington insider. you were the lead lobbyist for enron who committed the greatest

corporate fraud in modern american history. you and your lobbying firm made more than $700,000 and helped enron avoid the kind of regulations that swlouz them to gouallows them to gouge jobs. you are a job executioner, focus pensions and savings. i guess was that really fair for you and your firm to take so much when so many folks lost so much? >> a couple of things, one, when my bi-partisan firm, which was one of the most effective at he helping to advise major employers will how to get things done with bi-partisan support, when enron, at the time, approached our firm to be a ine is client and to represent them, they had been on the cover of either fortunate or forbes. i am not sure which. but one of those two magazines

as for the fifth year in a row as the most innovative country. that was the perception. perceptions aren't always reality, i would say. the fact is that what we saw was that they were cooking the books. one of my partners joined a class text lawsuit against him. he had been a shareholder and was hoodwinked about what was going on. it was a year long contract. it was only 10 months because two days after ken lay pleaded the 5th in a senate hearing, we said, this is not the company we thought it was. clearly, we weren't hired to do this kind of work and we left them. and so i am very proud of how effective our firm was one, one of the best reputed firms in the business. and again, i think it's one of the things that i will be able to help get things done with bi-partisan support.

>> what we didn't here was whether it was fair or he and his firm to make 700 go grand being involved with the biggest corporate scandal where 20s,000 folks lost their jobs. seriously, what he also didn't mention was that even afterwards, he lobbied against legislation that might prevent future enron scams. the record speaks for itself. >> a final round of questions. i want to start with foreign policy. this first question in this block goes to you, senator warner. ukraine: president obama invoked limited economic sanctions against russia. after initial aggression. after we were watching at a time malaiysian passenger plane shot down, president putin, instead of backing off appeared to be

escalating the congress. russia is intervening directly. shooting down planes, russian art illery is shooting across the border into ukraine. what should be done now to stop putin, and has president obama been too timid on this? >> judy. >> we live in a dangerous world. i think the president should have started calling for sanctions, bi-partisan, back in march. i have to tell you, at the same time i have heard from american businesses who said if there is not european sanctions as well, all we are doing is russians are trading american contracts for german or british or french contracts. but i believe we need to have firmer sanctions. i think this is an extraordinarily import time for nato and the west to stand up to this kind of bullying activities

and aggression. i believe it's well -- that's an area where i differ from the president. i think we ought to be expediting the permanenting of liquidfied, export more to start it's why i support keystone signalling to europe that you can look elsewhere for your energy supplies. i believe it is going to require i believe he should have acted sooner. >> i believe we should give to the ukrainian army and to the military government, to the government there the help that they have been looking to in terms of arms as well. >> lethal weapons? >> yes. i believe that they need the right to defend

themselves as a nation. i also think that what we are seeing here is the long-term effect of what has been described as a foreign policy approach of leading from behind. there is another word for that. >> word is following. when the united states receives from leadership around the world, it becomes a more dangerous place. we are seeing that today as well. we should lift the ban on export of domestic lick quite a fewfied natural gas and the ban, i believe, on the export of domestically produced crude oil as well. in the same way that lick quite a fewfied natural gas export would diminish putin's leverage over western european countries, the lifting on the ban woman reduce iran's government's leverage as well. >> are you describing the most immediate things that could be done to stop president putin? >> i think the sanctions, we

need to send the energy signal. it may not be p c but to give the europeans more backbone. cameron has stood up as well. french are selling assault warships, assault carriers to russia. if nato has any reality in the 21st century, we need to stop that. the these are actions we need to take right now. i think, as well, my opponent criticizes the president, but i would like to remember, he was part of the bush/cheney administration and an advocate for the initial movement into iraq where we were told saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that we would be greeted as liberators, that it would be equipped in-and-out operation. wrong, wrong, wrong.

>> a wrong assumption or assessment shared by an awful lot of people, senator, not just the bush administration, as you know. it was also the view of the clinton administration and it was the view of a majority and senators on both sides of the aisle who believed that was the case relative to iraq. but we should obviously learn from mistakes of the past. we should also recognize that mistakes of commission are bad but so are mistakes of omission. i believe when president obama initially very early in his administration made a decision to negate the agreement with policy land in terms of missile defense agreements that had been made there, that that sentence a strong signal to vladimir putin and en bold ended them. i think we are seeing the effec

effects. >> some would argue some of that goes back to when the bush administration, there weren't firmer actions tape when russia invaded georgia. >> we will move to the next question for mr. gillespie. iran, if a satisfactory nuclear deal cannot be reached with the iranians as israel prime minister netanyahu is saying, it cannot, would you support military action to take outran's nuclear facilities? >> well, you know, i believe that it's important that the united states never take that option off of the table. obviously the preferred approach is one where you have a negotiated agreement and that's not necessary. my view is that we have to watch very closely what they are doing because time is their friend in

iran. whether the president said there is a deadline and you don't enforce that deadline and you are going to ease the sanctions anyway. i saw there is a bill now being introduced that would stop the president from using sanctions, you know, prematurely. i would support that inc. the senate has supported sanctions on iran. but i think it's important in terms of as a principle with u.s. national security policy in foreign affairs that you not take off any options off of the table. on this issue, i think my opponent and i generally agree. i think no options should be taken off of the table. i think that we cannot allow iran to have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon or have a nuclear weapon. i believe we have to be very

careful in terms of leakage on the sanctions. more visibility in terms of the status of our ability to view the iranian facilities at this points in terms of observers, and i think we need to stand shoulder to with our most important alliely in the region, israel, both in terms of making sure iran doesn't move forward and also, i think we see the tragedy going on in the middle east right now. as we have seen since 9-11, things in the middle east are always challenging. i believe israel has a right to defend itself. these morning pictures but remember that hamas uses citizens to defend its missiles yesterday israel use as it to defend it's citizens. i think israel has the right to clean up those missile i see, those tunnels. they have a right to self defense and we need to stand solidly with them. >> do you want to comment on that as well as your -- you both

agree on iran. do you want to comment on iran? >> some unique agreement here today because mark is right. the fact is that as netanyahu has said, israel uses its rockets and missiles to defend -- to defend its innocent civilians, unfortunately hamas uses in fact civilians to defend rockets and missiles and israel has a right to defend itself long-term. we have to come to terms with, you know, what do we do to ensure that, you know, this doesn't go on in the future but in the many meantime, in the immediate present tense, we need to, you know, stands by our most important ally in the middle east. >> a quick response from both of you: is there anything the u.s. should be doing right now? mr. gillespie and senator warner to bring this middle east crisis to a better place?

>> the secretary is there. i think he is still on the ground now. you know, one of the things that i think doesn't actually help in the negotiating process in my estimation is undercutting the israeli government in the process. >> are you saying that's what's going on? >> i sale i have become concerned about this administration's approach in that regard. >> senator warner? >> you know, judy i think we need to continue pressure on the europeans. the challenge, again, with iran -- and i think again, we have to keep all of the options on the table, but we were sanctioned for working -- sanctions were working. sanctions brought the iranians to the table. they were working but they were only working because they were done in concert with the b 5 plus 1 global approach. i would also add it may even be an agreement again but i am worried about the economy from both the left and the right, the

increasing isolationism we haven't talked about china in the south china see. we need and the world needs a strong economy economically and mor morally. >> i will give you a a chance to respond to that, mr. gillespie. this is for senator warner and it has to do with china. china, as you know, is increasing its defense budget rapidly, up more than 12% this year alone. did is threatening vietnam, japan and other asian neighbors. should china be considered a major adversary of the united states and does the obama

administration's tilt toward asia reflect that? >> i believe the administration's tilt toward asia what we couldn't have predid were the eruptions notice middle east, europe and elsewhere. i think we have to be very guarded with the chinese. i am not prepared to say that this is an adversarial relationship but i do think we need to do more to promote activiti activities. this brings back in my mind with 17 trillion in debt, 3 billion a night, where all of the cuts are

being made education, infrastructure and research and development. if we are going to have a strong american economically, that's not where we should be cutting and a strong economy, a strong america militarily, we have to find ways to make savings. but the kind of stupidity of sequestration which shut down the government and which is coming back you need bi-partisan folks to sort through these issues and that goes to how we deal with china. >> mr. gillespie on china? >> china is clearly emboldened as a result of this administration and by our military budget the pentagon believes in order to secure our needs we should have a 306 ship navy. we have about 282 right now in

any given day. we are on our way to 255 ships. i agree with the senator. we need the right priorities. i guess where he and i disagree is where those are because the reason we are seeing that going on our defense budget and in the navy is because this is slashing the army to pay for obamacare. there are no 2 ways to look at it. >> that's one of the reasons we see china, russia, iran, emboldened. there are a lot of straw men. you want to intervene militarily. >> that's not the case. we have seen in history time and time again, we are more likely to have peace through strength. we have a hard time projectingly

american strength at home when we are weak at hole. just because my opponent keeps making the same charges over and over again like a broken record doesn't make them true. >> is what political operatives say. on this very important question, we need to be strong militarily and economically. the budget he supported could cut investments in education, research and development, at historic lows over about 60, 70%. i don't care whether you are a republican or as democrat but as a business guy, the romney gillespie business plan is not going to allow us to be strong.

for a government, at this education, infra straubing tour and r & d. we have to get this fixed. what i have done unlike with specifics. and i have been protested against. i have been yelled at. it would be smarter ways to cut. we have not heard that from my opponent. >> i am not sure what was not through, whether that we are moving the wrong way in terms of the ships in our navy, slashing the navy to pay for more obama care, that time has been emboldened by this administration's. i will leave that to you to explain. i know this: the policies that i am putting forward would create jobs raise take home pay and reduce energy prices. a price of a gallon of gas has nearly doubldz since you said you would bring down the cost of

energy. you used to fill a tank on $15. now it's about 55. most don't fill our tanks. we put down $10 or $20 and squeeze out as much from the pun pump as we can. when you took office, you could get, you know, about 10 and a half gallons for 20 bucks at the pump. now it's about 5 and a half. people see sky itro rocketing costs. as a result of your policies of president obama has resulted in that squeeze all across the common wealth. >> senator warner? >> i just say the rhetoric doesn't match the record. why would you lobby against higher fuel efficient standards, why would you help enron which gouged consumers? again, we need -- the question you asked, which was how do we deal with china? would he need a strong military.

we need a strong economy and we need to have a business plan that takes down this $17 trillion in debt. as a matter of fact, admiral mullins former chairman of the joint chief of staff said the single biggest threat to our country is the detand deficit. if my opponent has a real different plan, let's debate it. you have heard sound bytes. >> next question has to do with afghanistan, a place where there are tens of thousands of american troops right now. some in your party, like senator john mccain, want u.s. troops to remain in afghanistan indefinitely or at least for quite some time to come while others, likenator rand paul say bring the troops home as soon as possible. are your views closer to those of senator mccain or senate

paul? >> we need to keep the troops there as long as they are serving national security interest and we have national security interests in afghanistan. we know that from september 11th. and i think we need to make decisions that are not -- well, they have to stay there indefinitely or come home right away but what does the state department, homeland security department believe? what is the size of the forces we need to have a force there so we don't see what happened in iraq as a result of the president withdrawing our troops together keeping troops there longer. not getting a status. we see what's going on iraq and that is long-term, i fear, and not just my fear.

i know that our attorney general and homeland security cabinet secretary both said this is a threat so i don't think we should make arbitrary decisions. i think you made make a decision based upon what is best assessment of our national security interests? seems to me, given the instability relative to the recent election in afghanistan and what's going on, that it would not be our national security interest. >> that's not to say i believe in an indefinite presence. >> senator warner? >> i think the circumstances in afghanistan are complicated and obviously with the recent election where you have the two candidates bickering about the votes, this is an area where i think senator kerry stepped in and brokered a recount. you have to have a unity

government. and i would be open to leaving forces longer. but i think in these cases, it can't be an open-ended commitment. i find it a little curious on iraq, no president ever has left american troops which basically means that american troops couldn't be then subjects to the local law. >> that was my point. >> let me finish. but what i believe whether it's afterganistan or iraq. i think about how angry i was when we saw in mosul 50,000 iraqi troops melt away at the first sign of resistance. we offered these countries our deepest treasurer, young men and women and trillions of dollars. we offered them a chance not a guarantee forever. and in afghanistan and in iraq, people in those countries have to show a willingness to defend their own country and a

willingness to absolutely form unity governments that represents a true cross section of the respective country's populations. coming in as a one side or the other simply in the middle of a civil war in those nations is we have seen the history of that over the last decade plus in the middle east. >> mr. gillespie? >> i don't think i disagree with that. i think we need to, you know, for as long as we are going to have the al-malaki government in the iraq, we need to help him make sure that he is inclusive of the kurds and the sunnis and the shiia as well. that was one of the big contributing factors to the melting away of the army. it is discouraging and disspiriting. but that said, you know, we need to -- i believe we need to bolster the iraqi government in baghdad and make sure that we don't allow for isis or isil to make any further progress.

>> just a follow-up to both of you on afghanistan and i guess in iraq. at a time when the american people seem to be weary of military engagement abroad for our young men and women in uniform, how prepared do you believe this country needs to be to engage in the future, whether it is remaining in afghanistan, going back into iraq, even syria? there are so many other countries on the planet we could mention. >> the american people are war-weary. i understand that. and unless it's in our national security interest, we should not intervene militarily. my fear is that there will come a time when there is the need and it is in our national security interest and that, again, will have a mistake of omission rather than commission and that that will result in something very damaging, very harmful and a loss of lives here in the united states of america. so look.

we have to be, as always, thoughtful. i think one of the most important votes you could cast as a united states senator is a vote to put american women and men in harm's way and that is a vote that has to be weighed very, very cable, but the world is unstable right now, i believe, because of a lack of american leadership. >> doesn't mean military intervention. it means asserting american interests and authority that the country, that the world, the globe looks to and we are not providing right now. but, yes, the country is war-weary. understandably so. it is the role, i believe, of a commander in chief when you make an assessment that american national security interests are at stake. you have got to make the case for that with the american public. >> senator warner? >> i think colin powell got it right when he said, forget the store but when you brake it, you

own it. >> pottery barn. i am here to help you? >> i think that is a lesson we need to take to heart. when american national skoouft interests are at stake, we need to be prepared to intervene. we need to be prepared to take action. again, i pointed out where i differed from the president, natural gas and stronger sanctions on putin but it is an interconnected world. there is military and economic and we do need, i think the american people are allegations weary for the effect, paying for defense not only for america but for the whole world. basically, our navy that protection the shipping lanes for the whole world. i am disappointed and think we need a more aggressive, again, bi-partisan approach to allies around the world that they need to step up. very few of the nato countries even get close to what is supposed to be the minimum

requirement of 2% of spending on defense. so we need to do this domestically but we need, also, our allies to step up as well. >> final two questions: the first one goes to senator warner. the u.s. military, we have been talking being it, but this is a question about sexual assaults. they continue to be pervasive in our armed forces. the marine corps common data can't says women victims often don't come forward because they don't trust us. they don't trust the command. you voted to leave prosecutions as they are within the chain of command. so, a not to disrupt order and discipline. many other countries, including israel have independent prosecutors and military sexual assault cases. why shouldn't the u.s. military do the same? >> judy, i have heard some of those horrific stories of female veterans and male veterans talk about what's happening, and we should not accept any culture of

harassment, whether it is in the military or bi-partisan legislation i am working on right now on college campuses. what you didn't ask in your question, though, was that in the legislation that we passed, there were 30 additional changes in terms of prosecutions and reporting and trying to ensure that if someone had a harassment they wanted to go to an outside prosecutor, we added, i added an amendment part of my record that i am proud of to make sure that whistle blowers were protectebl i thought long and hard about this issue and said if we don't see progress, it perhaps will be and re-visited but the proposal that was put wasn't didn't just include sexual harassment but all felonies: i am not sure taking out of the chain of

command, one sold stole another sold's wallet out of a barracks. i believe the best way is to keep that in the chain of command. we have to see progress or it will be and re-visited. >> i don't think it should be taken outside of the chain of command. obviously, these are crimes. they should be treated as such. they should be treated as such within the military structure and the chain of command and i hope that the steps that we are taking to improve that process improve that process. and i, too, would be willing to revisit it if that were not the case because, you know, that kind of behavior, those kind of criminal activities cannot be tolerated and need to be stopped. i am hopeful that the changes that were made in the legislation would do that. >> you both think the marine comma commancan't is wrong when he says women victims don't trust the command and that's why the system doesn't work? >> i have heard an extraordinary amount of conflicting testimony

from and in, even within a split within the jag corpse, split within the command. but again, i leave my answer with that. we cannot have this culture and i think we took major, major steps forward. if we don't see results, it needs to be and re-visited. >> all right. >> i don't doubt the general in that regard in terms of women victims not trusting the chain of command or trusting the command. em hopeful that they are after the reforms are implemented and that will change. if that's case after we have implemented reermz, yes, they need to be and re-visited. >> final question for mr mr. gillespie: do you believe that virginians, on same-sex marriage, do you believe the commonly wealth of virg should join the 19 other states is that have recognized same-sex marriage as legal? yes or no? >> well, i believe -- first of

all, let me start by saying, i respect and love people for who they are, and i have a lot of friends who where i am not in agreement but i believe it is between one woman and between one man but as a senator, it's not my role because i believe the appropriate venue for it is the states and the states are working this out. the state of virginia does not recognize that. it may be revisited at some point and the voters will, you know, will decide. >> do you believe the states should not recognize? >> my vote would be, no, but i believe it is the proper purview of the states but i do not believe in government sanction of same-sex marriage. >> what do you mean? i'm sorry. could you elaborate on that? >> i believe marriage is between one man and one woman and i believe it's the purview of the states. if i were to vote for a referendum in virginia or some other way, i would, you know,

not vote to -- for recognition of same-sex marriage but i believe it's in the right place, which is it is a state issue. >> i support marriage equality. i think it's the right thing to do and the fair thing to do. i also believe that it's a smart business thing to do. i have had lots and lots of employers all across virginia say we want to be able to higher everyone regardless of who they love. down to the last question but we didn't get to a question that will take the balance of my timetime i respect ed's religious views but on woman's reproductive health issues. he would vote to overturn roe v. wade. so far out of the mainstream it would ban some forms of contraception. some of his biggest supporters were the architects when

ultrasound. he has not repudiated. i trust the women of virg. i think the supreme court and hobby lobby got it wrong. i don't think a for-profit corporation ought to be able to interfere in employees' healthcare choices. again, this is just an area where i respect his views but we have a different approach, whether it's marriage equality, reproductive rights, large differences between the two candidates. >> this is an area where you are making up my views. it's not an area where you are disagreeing with them. please provide the documentation for my support. the fact is that i am catholic and as is by the way the current govern.

my religious views should not be at issue here. i may send you a copy of john f. kennedy's speech to the baptist convention over 50 years ago. let me make clear, i believe, actually, we should make contraceptives easier for women to obtain, adult women to obtain, you know, two years or 2012, the american college of obstetricians said there is no reason for oral cop traceptives for the pill to be a prescription drug. it should be available over-the-counter. i would support that. i think it should be behind the counter like supsouedfed. when obama kay passed and you were making the indicates because there were 47 million uninsured. when it's inplemented there will be about 17 million who get insurance and 30 million who still aren't. we are going to disrupt the insurance of 250 million people to ensure 17 but there there are

millions who aren't, those women in that situation should be able to go to the drugstore, the grocery store it would rye move this debate. i think that would be good for the country. i think to march make it more assessable and more aufrdable is the way to go. >> that's how i would approach my policy as senator regardless of what my faith were. >> if you were in the senate would you vote to overturn roe v wade? >> this was not -- >> did you not support an andment. ? >> no. >> of the documentation? >> when did i support the personhood amendment? >> you will get the documentation for it? >> yes. will you also -- >> good. >> acknowledge. >> i would like to see that. >> would you vote to overturn roe v. wade.

>> that's sproort decision i am running for the united states senate, senator. the right to the life movement. >> i will go through your view. 123467 we at the moment of closing statements. mr. gillespie, you are first? >> thank you again. i have laid out my positive agenda for economic growth as i have done all across the common wealth because i want i want voters to hold me accountable and mark warner voting 97% of the time with obama for saying he would be a physical moderate but voting to increase taxes by nearly a trillion dollars and debt by $7 trillion, fors saying

he would be pro-busy but supporting job killing policies like a carbon tax and for saying he would never vote for a bill that we would be losing our insurance if twenty to keep it but voting for obama care. oil talked about more jobs for our fellow virginians mark talked about his time as governor, mentioned it 5 times by my count, i think, 10 years ago. i can understand that but governor warner wouldn't recognize senator warner today. that's why i have so many supporting me today who supported him in the past. uncomfortable defending the votes he has cast as a senator. he talked a lot about the jobs he has had abobefore this one o the campaign trail and a job i had three jobs ago i am proud of my career. my 15 years in congress and the

white house, my time in the private sect offer will enable me to stand up against special interest groups, senate leaders and the white house and keep my promises to villagens. virginians have a clear choice in november. we can keep on the path we are on where we are losing jobs, wages are stagnant, debt is mounting and prices are rising. or we can have a pro-growth policy agenda like mine to create jobs, raise take home pay, lift people out of poverty, hold down healthcare costs and reduce energy prizes. we can ease the squeeze but wouldn't a change of policies in washington. thank you for watching. i would love your vote. >> thank you, mr. gillespie. senate warner? >> thank you, judy and to my friends at the virginia bar. you know, i think we saw this morning two very different approaches to issues of importance to virginians stylistically and substantively.

you know, i am very proud of my 10 years as senator. i am proud of legislation i passed. i talked early about transparency but i am prouder of the activities whether it's moving forward and more work to be done. i am building that national consensus to try to get the balance sheet right that would will more for job crimeas than anything else. i am proud of the virg families we help, of the fact that when we heard those awful stories of the arlington cemetery five years ago t didn't take a bill. it took rolling up our sleeves and the community coming up with an innovative approach. i am proud of when we heard some of the challenges around our veterans programs, we had to fight for additional resources but to make sure the female vets were treated the same way as the male counterparts. when we saw the backlog, again, an innovative approaches where we got the law clinic we have now expanded around the country

to and my opponent makes the dement about repeat, repeat like a broken report. that's what political operatives do. if there were proof in these charges, i would be it wouldn't be 30 years in the senate would report me. more republican this time than when i ran in 2008. ply opponent sees everything through a partisan lens, who is up, down, republicans, democrats we know every evil in america lays at the foot of the president in his view. his words, himself, happy partisan warrior, partisan warrior. if any of you think is what washington needs is a partisan warrior, you have your candidate right here. if you think we need more

problem solvers, more folks who could work across party lines, if you think we need more folks who bring a business minded approach to government, i would like to have your vote if i get rehired, i will continue in that style. >> thank you very much, senator mark warner, mr. ed gillespie for the spirited debate on behalf of the virginia bar association, we thank you. >> thank you [applause.] ...