tuesday through friday at 8:00. the tv features a wide range of topics. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching.

or you can e-mail us. join the c-span conversation. here is the latest news out of iraq. the new president is nominating the country deputy parliament speaker as the new prime minister and giving him the responsibility of forming a new government in the next 30 days. the president's choice is a public stomach of nouri al-maliki, who in an angry midnight beach, all but demanded that he be renominated. the u.s. is providing arms to iraqi kurds. the ap reporting this. they are starting to make gains against militants in northern iraq. they are being rearmed. of statecretaries madeleine albright and condoleezza rice, along with

robert gates shared their insights on iraq and ukraine, as well as the role of the u.s. on the international stage. this is one hour 20 minutes. it is hosted by aspen institute in aspen, colorado. as bob said, we are extraordinarily fortunate to have two great secretaries of state, madeleine albright and condoleezza rice. the third person will arrive. i spoke to him by phone. his plane was diverted. he had to drive in. i said we would filibuster until he arrived. one way to do that is to say a word about our aspen strategy group. we are a unique institution, i think, in the american foreign-policy because we are nonpartisan.

not just bipartisan. we are republicans, democrats, and independents come together once a year. we are in our 30th year. we were founded by two great americans. the general who is not here right now but will be here in a couple of hours and professor joe nye. i would ask you to salute joe. maybe you can stand. [applause] we are going to be discussing russia over the next 3.5 days. there is nothing to talk about, u.s.-russian relationships these days but everything to talk about. as we await bob's arrival, we might talk about the issue that united condoleezza rice and madeleine albright. it was a shared interest in

russia. it was one individual who brought them both to that shared interest. if you could start and madeleine will finish. >> absolutely. thank you all for joining us here and thank you, nick for this conversation. i want to echo thanks to bob and walter who pull off a extraordinary conversation. in a wonderful and simple way. well, i was, not to put too fine a point on it, but i was a piano major in college. i was supposed to be a great pianist. i started playing at the age of three. i came here as a 17-year-old rising junior at the university of denver to go to the aspen music festival school. i met here, 12 year olds who laid from site what it took me all your to learn. i thought, find another profession. i went back to denver. fortunately, i wandered into a

course of international politics taught by a soviet expert and a great diplomat. it was joseph korbel that stimulated my interest in things international and things russian and interest and a diplomatic history. and he convinced me that it was ok for a black girl from birmingham, alabama who wanted to be a soviet specialist. that was the start of my career. he also said and i have a daughter that i would like you to meet some time and she is studying at columbia. her name is madeleine and now you can take that story. >> what happened was my father was a czechoslovakian diplomat who did not want to work for the communists and came to the united states and defected. at that stage, i understand the rockefeller foundation found him

a job. we had no idea where denver was. my parents bought a car and started driving across america and my mother said it is the mile high city and we are not going up so maybe we are going the wrong direction. [laughter] my father started teaching at the university of denver and ultimately became dean of the graduate school. he died in 1977. by then, he was a very big deal. there were lots of flowers and tributes at his funeral. among them, there was a ceramic pot in the shape of a piano. i said to my mother, where did it come from? she said from your father's favorite student, condoleezza rice. in 1987, when i was working for my long-string of losing democratic presidential candidates -- [laughter] i thought, why not in fact get in touch with his woman, condoleezza rice, who was i knew

an african-american music major from alabama who wrote her dissertation on the czechoslovakian military with my father. i will ask her to join my group. joe was a part of the group. i said, condi, this is what i am doing. she said, i do not know how to tell you, i am a republican. i said, how could you be? we had the same father. [laughter] so, here we are. >> ok. [laughter] and bob has not arrived yet. let's get started. russia. condi and madeleine, the question i will want to pose is to you the following. at the end of the sochi olympics, maybe the opportunity president putin decided to evade and take over crimea. we have seen a rather deliberate

campaign to support -- here he is. [applause] how was the car ride? >> fortunately the colorado state patrol was nowhere in sight. [laughter] >> we won't tell. we were filibustering until you major very dramatic entrance and i was posing the first question. what unites the panel is madeleine started her life in czechoslovakia. she had to be concerned about russia. condi did her dissertation. bob, a career soviet specialist in the central intelligence agency. they have all lived in this

issue. >> so have you. >> i have as well. we have seen the formal annexation of crimea and have seen a deliberate policy to destabilize eastern ukraine through russian military forces. intelligent support. they are in the throes of a civil war. they have russian troops on the borders of that part of eastern ukraine. the question for the three of you, is this the most serious east-west crisis since the end of the cold war? and here is the easy part -- what should we do? >> yes, i think it is the most serious east-west crisis since the end of the cold war. in large part because it has been a longtime since a country, a big power in europe annexed a part of its neighbor. when great powers start behaving badly, it is really dangerous. the malaysian airplane that was shot down was shot down because

of this sophistication of the equipment. 30,000 feet is a long way to catch a civilian aircraft. when great powers behave badly, it gets really dangerous. vladimir putin never accepted the outcome of the end of the cold war. he said the collapse of the soviet union was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. that is something when you think that russia lost 30 million people in world war ii and to say that was the greatest tragedy. and he said something that was particularly dangerous and that is the reason it was a great tragedy was because 25 million russians were orphaned outside of the soviet union in other countries. he meant poland and ukraine. i remember sitting with him at the nato in 2008 at his last talk to the nato russia council and he said something that every body said, did we hear that right. he said ukraine is a made-up state.

and i can remember going to see vladimir putin in one of my last encounters with him and having say, you know us, condi, and you know russia was only great when ruled by strong men like alexander the great and alexander ii. like peter the great. i remember thinking, is vladimir the great supposed to be in that line? and so, we have for i think a very dangerous, perfect storm between a leader who was unreconciled to the postwar order in europe willing to use a combination of economic pressure, military force, intimidation, and surrogates to get his way to undo the order. and international community and that seems at times uncertain on how to respond. let me leave it as in the

analysis question and then perhaps we can get to ways to think about approaching it after madeleine and bob. >> i do think it is the most serious event since the end of the cold war. and we all have been a diplomat or in the government and many people here with the same background. there are things that happen all over the world all of the time. there are changes, border disputes, various arguments to go on. that is what people like us do for a living. the bottom line is there been two huge game changers. that is the russian annexation of crimea as condi sad. and the other is what is happening in the middle east. in many ways, i think they are related and maybe we will get into that. i think that -- i have had, i have been further away from when i met putin. i did not like in from the moment i met him and he did not like me, either.

the bottom line is i think he has developed his own version of history. that is the troublesome part. anybody who can say the dissolution of the soviet union was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century is delusional. i do think that he has lived in his own version of history as he keeps making it up as it goes along. i see we depend on the fact that there's a rational actor on the other side of the table. i am worried about his own approach to issues and it does lead to the question of how we deal with it. i think what he has done is identify himself with a very -- it sounds like psychobabble, problem that russia has been having. you were there. one of the things we were asked to do, and so were you bob, basically how to dissolve the power of our major adversary at the end of the cold war without doing it in the field of battle.

it is true. i happen to think they lost the cold war rather than we won it. the system did not work. we, in the 1990's, were working to figure out how russia could be brought into the system and be a normal country and operate in a functional international system. i went and i was doing survey work in 1991. i will never forget this. i was in russia with a focus group and this man stood up and said, i am so embarrassed. we used to be a superpower and now we are bangladesh with the missiles. that loss of identity is something that as a motivating factor in russia. what has happened is putin has identified himself with that. vladimir the great. i think he has what accounts for his popularity at the moment. i think we have to deal with what has been happening in russia since the end of the cold war, what is the relationship

with the united states and the identity crisis and a leader who has made up history. >> bob? >> first of all, i agree in terms of the magnitude of the crisis. also agree it has its roots in what happened after the collapse of the soviet union. in the early 1990's, we did not fully appreciate the humiliation that the russians felt. the collapse not just the soviet union but of the centuries-old russian empire. one of the reasons we face it as such a serious crisis and why it is the worst since the end of the cold war is because putin is trying to upend two aspects of that. two points of international order that people thought was settled.

one was, border changes could only be resolved through peaceful negotiations and the consent of the parties and not a satisfaction of revenge or claims by force. the second was the freedom of sovereign states to choose which other countries with whom they wanted to ally, politically, economically, and for security. both of those, putin has essentially thrown aside. and so what the europeans and we for a long time felt was a matter settled at the end of the cold war is now very much back on the table. i think putin has two goals. i do not know that he is

delusional. maybe because we both came from the spy business. he and i had a very interesting relationship. we did not like each other, but there was a certain interesting respect. or suspicion. i am not sure which. [laughter] we would speak very frankly with one another. partly because i was not a diplomat. neither was he. but i think he is after two things. one is what condi alluded to, this sense of historical mission to protect the russians who were left behind. the second is more traditional russian behavior. and that is the re-creation of a band of states on the periphery of russia that lean toward moscow economically, politically, and for security. he does not want to re-create the soviet union and be this

possible for the economic basket cases on the periphery. but he does want to re-create this buffer, if you will, the has been a big part of russian history for a long time. and frankly, i think he sees ukraine as a launchpad of that. kiev is where the russian empire was founded over a thousand years ago. i think he does see it as a made-up state. and i think that he will never rest easy as long as he thinks that ukraine might slide west. and away from russia and not a part of that buffer of states. >> let's get to policy. what should the united states do?

we will hear tomorrow from the assistant secretary of state of europe, who is been at the center of this. i appreciate what president obama has tried to do and he has worked very hard on this, sanctions on russia to drive up the cost. he did not have much help from the europeans until two weeks ago when they finally joined the united states and canada in tough sanctions. second, try to help the ukrainian state which is a basket case of its own, economically high levels of corruption. to raise economic performance and try to pull together. ineffective military. and third, try to reinforce nato. the front-line states, poland, lithuania are protected. they have deterrence there. is that the right strategy? should all of that be reinforced? >> i have no problem with the three pillars. i think they are the right three pillars. you have to do them in a way that is committed and likely to have a really big effect.

when it comes to sanctions, i am up to my eyeballs in sanctions. i think some of the sanctions are going to have an effect. after all, 80% of russian exports are in oil and gas and minerals and they are likely to run out of money before europe runs out of energy. anything that takes what is currently, according even to the russians, an economy that is probably in retreat and puts more pressure on it, that is fine. i do not think we can expect it will have a short term or even medium-term effect on putin. in the long term, there is more we can do to the energy front. go ahead and allow keystone today. go ahead and prepare export terminals today. because you have to show russia the future of energy is not going to be in russia if they continue to behave this way. yes, sanctions -- let's call it economic pressure. the second element, by all

means, the ukrainians have demonstrated they are more capable of fighting than i thought they were. arm them. it is not provocative to help people defend themselves. i would provide lethal assistance to them. not just nonlethal assistance. i would provide further intelligence to them so they can help themselves. third, i would do more with the strengthening of nato. we do not know what is coming out of the september summit. perhaps more will come out of it. let me just, for this purpose, position myself between madeleine and bob on the question of vladimir putin. i am not sure he is delusional. i am sure he is not wholly rational. leaders of great countries do not go around fighting tigers bare-chested. he is a megalomaniac. and you have to deal with the 5% chance he might be delusional and he is making up his own

version of history and chance -- and i do not see anybody around him telling -- and he is talking about russia but coming self-sufficient. how long has it been since we heard those words, joseph stalin? you have to prepare for the 5% of him that may not be totally rational and that means when you reinforce nato you do it in a really serious away. we do not need forces in italy. let's put them in the baltic states and poland in large enough numbers to manage. he may indeed be a megalomaniac but he is not going to attack a country in which there are american forces deployed. i would make a much bigger move to make nato a real bulwark in case he has some notions he might do some of the things he did in ukraine in the baltic states of which we have an article five guarantee. you do not want the president of

the united states to have to make a choice of refusing to act on our article five guarantee or fighting russia. deter it now. >> thank you. madeleine? >> i think all of us here in our little humility in terms of our soviet expertise. i want to tell a story. in october 1964, i was a student at columbia at the russian institute where nobody predicted the ouster. nobody predicted the disintegration of the soviet union. and so, trying to predict putin's behavior is pretty difficult. i am not a shrink. maybe he lives in a parallel universe or whatever the right term is. i think one of the problems out of there is it has to be a part of the solution that whether putin can only think in zero-sum terms because these countries are where they are.

as bob said, ukraine has a very complicated history and geographically, it is a buffer. there is no question about it. what could be done is to try and figure out some way where the ukrainians have the possibility of turning westward which is what they want. the ukrainians want to be poles have the kind of life they have in a poland. and they could have a rational economic relationship with russia. the question is whether putin only sees things in zero-sum terms? i teach a course. i say foreign policy is just trying to get countries to do what you want. what are the tools? there are not a lot of tools. i think that president obama is using the tools in the best possible way of finding a regime finally in cooperation with the europeans.

it is going to hurt. i have said that putin's victory in crimea for the same reasons of their economic situation. i do think the ukrainians need more assistance. i think the question is, and i cannot answer this. i was in ukraine for the elections and i was there as an observer. i met with not-yet president poroshenko and he said that his real agenda was to do security and the economy. the question is, if all they do is fight in the east whether they forget the fact their country is basically are basket case and provide, they have to get their act together economically. we needed to give more assistance to the ukraine. we have to figure out a way. i certainly agree on the intelligence. i would probably give them some lethal weapons and i would definitely strengthen nato.

nato has turned out to be the best and most political military alliance. the other countries that do have russian speakers, latvia, the baltics, they are under nato. they have article five rights privileges. and i do think i was strengthen nato. >> i want to get on the table, too. we have to try and hold in place relations with russians who putin is not the future. we have had 20 years since the collapse of the soviet union, we are a whole generation of younger, middle-class russians, some them are in my classes. you have worked with them. they work in western banks and law firms. there are in a terrible state. i've had a couple of e-mails from the students saying i am about to apply for american citizenship. it is possible that russia would

experience a brain drain. i would hope and it is hard to do that we go find a way to isolate putin and the putin regime without completely turning our backs on russia's future. >> just to distance myself from two secretaries of state in this respect. i always like the definition of diplomacy is saying something "nice doggy" until you can find a rock. [laughter] i think putin -- the thing to remember is putin could remain president of russia until 2024. he is playing a long game. and i think we need a long game. i agree with everything in terms of reaction, short term. condi and madeleine have

described. i would provide lethal weapons but with a heavy emphasis on those that are largely seen as defensive rather than an offense if capability. sometimes that is a thin line. i remember the long game -- i remember in 2008, condi and i realizing how much intelligence we were getting on how extensive russian black ops were in central asia and so on trying to stir up anti-americanism. this is not something that just started six months or a year ago. and i think what we need to do is not only strengthen nato's military presence, my biggest worry for the baltic states is not that putin will send troops across, it is that he has such an extraordinary economic leverage in all three of those

places. and so one of the things we ought to be looking at with respect to the baltic states and ukraine is how -- what can we do to create a better safety net economically under those states so that if putin does turn screws using russia's leverage in the baltic states, economic leverage and also cyber capabilities that he demonstrated against estonia back in 2007, that those baltic states do not have to knuckle under, that they have an economic alternative. our focus ought not just be the short-term security but we need to focus. let's face it, that country's government has been a basket case since independence. focus on reform, supporting reform in ukraine. but also, how can we help them economically?

and then i think we need a more coherent, pro-american, pro-western agenda and activities all along the periphery of russia. i would not cede those states to putin. i think we can make a strong case -- and we did fight back in kyrgyzstan. we fought back against what the russians were trying to do there. i think in addition to the short term sort of military the appointment, we need to be thinking of the long the game. how do you prevent this buffer for being created? and by taking these actions economically and in security terms, how do we try and push putin or others in russia toward and adjusting the zero-sum game attitude? >> i want to ask the secretaries about the last news in iraq and talk about american leadership.

the final question on russia talked about amongst ourselves. our good friend and colleague, richard hawes, wrote an op ed. he made a very important point that we have not talked about yet. all of us agree -- we need a relationship with putin and russia. as we sanction and isolate and push back, we need the russians to prevent the iranians from becoming a nuclear power and stabilize the afghan government and entertainment north korea and fight terrorist groups. we are both victims. how do you keep their relation with president putin? richard suggested that perhaps what did the united states and west should do is to essentially say to the russians, we, the west, will not support ukraine and georgia for nato membership. in return, putin will respect the sovereignty and control of the ukrainian government.

is that a bet? is that an agreement that we should? >> first of all, the countries in question should be the one making a choice of whether they show want to be a member of an alliance or not or what their future is. as someone who was born in czechoslovakia, during the munich, the checks were not at the table and do nothing can be done without the ukrainians and being a part of the decision-making process. nato is not a charitable organization. it is a functioning military alliance and countries have to be ready to be a part of it. and countries have to request to be a part of it. they have indicated they are not working in that direction at the moment. i think is important for us to maintain a relationship with the russians, but not at the cost of where we they think they are more important than they are.

it may have something to do with what happened in syria. i think that there needs to be -- the channels need to be maintained. there are relationships that have to stay in place. we cannot be a zero-sum in terms of thinking there's only one way to do things. i do think it is up to ukraine to make the choice. >> i agree completely. country should be able to make their own choices. we several times in history have done this thing where we negotiated over the heads of small countries and it has not ever worked out so well. i think there is an assumption that this is what putin wanted. he may want a relationship with us right now and he may want other things. we also have to remember that would the russians act, if they act on north korea, they have certain interests that may be identical to ours. we can continue to work where we have coincident interest. i always felt between 2006 nick,

you helped to set up the p5 plus one with iran. chinese were the problem with dealing with iran. the russians have had their own problems with iran. the ethnically islamic states. again, not to make them seem more important but to recognize that have their own interests. very often, our interests will come together. it is beneath us as a moral issue and simply also does not work to negotiate over the heads of small states. >> i agree with both madeleine and condi said. >> ok. [laughter] >> kansas brevity. two more questions. i think all of us would agree that we are facing a burning middle east with a crippled

egypt, economically, with a big sectarian and religious fissure. syria, 22 million people and 9 million homeless. isis controlling northern syria and western iraq. isis has taken the second biggest city in iraq. now 30 kilometers west. kurdish forces have been defeated in battle's over the last two days. the administration has airdropped relief to refugees in the mountain. they launched three airstrikes against isis positions in the last 24 hours. what would you advise president obama? will it take a reimposition of american air power over weeks or months to contain and pushback isis so that iraq has a chance

of remaining a unitary state? bob, this is right up your alley. >> first of all, i would say we need to keep in line that there are multiple, huge historical conflicts going on simultaneously. shia islam led by iran versus sunni islam led by saudi arabia. you have this struggle to see if artificially stuck-together states like syria and iraq and libya, comprised of adversarial ethnic and religious groups, can be held together without oppression. we overestimate our ability to shape events in the middle east. so madeleine talked about humility when it came to talking

about the soviet union and what was going on. i think a lot of humility is required in the middle east as well. that said, my view is the president has done the right thing in terms of providing humanitarian assistance. and also trying to stop those columns of isil forces that would like to slaughter all of these people. i think that our efforts to help the iraqis, first of all, the outcome, i hope this weekend, the power struggle in iraq in terms of who was to lead the country gets resolved without maliki coming out still in his job. he has been a very destructive

force in iraq, particularly since we left and i think that somebody can reach out to the sunnis and give them a sense that they have a stake in iraq is absolutely essential. if that change, my caveat is if maliki stays in office i am not sure i would recommend what i would otherwise recommend. which is, i think we ought to be much more aggressive in helping the iraqis and helping the kurds take on these guys. we should not let them take control of the mosul dam or have a stranglehold on water and electrical supplies for a good part of the country. i think intelligence and a variety of kinds of military assistance could be made available. and i think were already doing

the intelligence. i think there is an aversion, obviously, in america to the introduction of any kind of ground troops. my own view is once we start targeting isil, they will start mingling or using civilians to raise the public costs of any kind of western intervention. but i still think we need to make that effort. in terms of syria, syria is a much more challenging problem now that it would've been three years ago or so. but the challenge in syria seems to me is there a path through which you can weaken both assad and isil? my guess is that is more -- first of all, it needs to be done in cooperation with other, some of the neighboring states

of the middle east. i also think it is more of a work of intelligence, operatives then perhaps overt military. but i think our objective would be to see if there is a seam there, particularly in syria, where we could weaken assad. if we were to identify an an opportunity for conventional military forces to accomplish both of the objectives, then i would be willing to think that ought to be on the table. >> well, i agree with everything bob has said. i think maliki is a big problem and i would be most happy if he could go tomorrow. i would have been happy if he had gone six months ago. whether he is there or not, we have a serious security problem. when isis, who is so bad that that al qaeda expelled them,

have taken a swath of territory between syria and iraq and you might have noted moved toward lebanon recently, engaging the lebanese forces. by all accounts, that are organized. they are capable. but there are 10,000 of them. one of the dangers and the president has said many times he wants to know there's a threat to the united states and our interests. we watched what happened when bin laden was able to use the territory of afghanistan to burrow in, to train and get stronger with al qaeda. when and if the hijackers, not a single one of them was on a european or u.s. passport. these fighters have amongst them probably 100 american passport holders and maybe 1000 european. that's a homeland nightmare.

i think we have got to do something to help the iraqi forces and a particularly the kurds, for whom we have a long history of cooperation, to do something about this really dangerous circumstance in the middle of the middle east. i agree with bob. one wonders whether the state system under the twin pressures now of their breakup of the states and the pressure still for popular revolutions, whether or not the middle east is going to go through a major convulsion anyway. if it does, one piece that we cannot leave standing is a jihadist group with that much standing that is capable of attacks across europe and the u.s. >> we have to worry to the threat of the homeland.

no question and the way condi described it, absolutely accurate in terms of the number of people who have american passports was that is a concern. the thing that is also a concern and is something that has led the president to change in terms of the airstrikes has to do with the humanitarian situation. and one of the things that has troubled me all along is that we have not cared enough about the humanitarian situation in syria and not only the specific things about the numbers of people who have died were being displaced, but the effect of having those displaced people whether in the jordan which itself is a fragile place, or lebanon or turkey, the combination of the humanitarian aspect and political displacement is something we need to worry about. there really is a question of whether the u.s. can do anything about what is a major convulsion

in the middle east. i happen to believe the u.s. has a role. i do believe we are the indispensable nation. there is nothing in the term indispensable that is alone. it is a problem for the international community and it is political as well as military. the humanitarian part is something that is an international responsibility. what i find interesting is the blending over the weekend of the political and military. one of the questions, as i understand it is, in fact, a question of whether there was a reluctance to use force to be maliki's air force. humanitarian part of this has changed that analysis and equilibrium and maliki might be out. the bottom line is what the president has done and the last 24 hours is exactly the right thing and may in fact affect the

political situation as well as military. >> thanks to all of you. one last question. it is about american leadership and the willingness of the american people and congress to support an energetic american foreign policy. opinion polls show after the great recession and iraq and afghanistan don't want to see american military troops committed to long-term ventures. congress is having a hard time supporting the state department budget. we had a huge number of american ambassadors waited for six months or more to be confirmed. when the 51 african heads of states came, we do not have an ambassador for most of those countries because we do not have ambassadors in those countries. are we turning inward? it is too simplistic to say we are facing a new isolation. are we turning inward in a way that would limit our ability to play the role we have to play?

>> i am concerned about that and i do think -- i hate to see washington dysfunctional. i hate to see the fact that it is time to blame the press. the story about what is going on has not been explained enough to the american people to explain what our real effect is where we are not involved. i can understand why, given the problems that exist in the u.s., that we have no effect on this. there really is a question at the moment about the united states turning inward. if you look at history, the times america have looked inward, terrible things happened in the world. i do hope our leaders try to explain why we need to be a part of things and why there has to be partnership. i believe president obama believes in partnership. americans do not like the word multilateralism. it has too many syllables and

ends in an "ism." [laughter] all it basically means is partnership. there has to be partners out there that are persuading that we can change the dynamic whether in the middle east or with russia, but we cannot let our people decide that america can be an island. >> i completely agree. i would say i am all for partnerships. partnerships, usually in international history, at least since the end of world war ii, came about when america took a position and find partners for it. the international community does not function very well as a community in which one gets together and everybody decides what to do. i think with the situation we are in it now, europe more than ever looks at us as having turned inward. for a variety of reasons. we have always hoped the new

emerging strong democracies and places like india and brazil would step up to international responsibilities. they really haven't. they demured. the united states is left to define a pathway forward in this extremely difficult circumstance in which we find ourselves. our subject matter today is europe and russia and in the middle east, but we know there are problems in asia as well where china is asserting certain responsibilities and a certain territorial claims that are also a challenge to our allies. the united states and i understand being tired. believe me, i understand being tired. i told a story in august of 2008. i was in the oval office with president bush. the polls were really awful and he said i do not believe we are this unpopular. i said, mr. president, the american people are tired.

it has been war, vigilance, terrorism and they are tired of it. i said i am tired of it, too. it is time for us to go home. at that point, everybody was tired. the great power cannot afford to be tired. vladimir putin is not tired. china is not tired. isis is not tired. the united states will have to find a way not to be tired. i have only one suggestion -- [applause] i have only one suggestion in how to signal that. it is actually just a pretty basic thing. washington is dysfunctional. that means you are not likely to get budget reform. and so, signaling that the defense cuts have been contemplated by secretary hagel, just reconsidering them might

send a signal to our allies and foes that america is really into the game. i do think we have sent signals that we are tired. we send signals we will not ever use military force. we sent signals that we want somebody else to step up to the plate. i am encouraged this weekend by president obama's decision for humanitarian support and to the iraqis. but we needed to do much, much more if we are going to turn the tide. when the economist is asking what will america fight for, we have a problem. [applause] >> in terms of perception of us abroad, extricating oneself from conflicts, and particularly two wars or any war did not end in a

clear-cut victory, is a very tricky business. the truth is, nixon and kissinger were able to significantly mitigate the consequences of our losing in vietnam by the opening of the soviet union and china. in effect, reasserted that the united states was still going to be the primary player in the international environment. that we were still going to be calling the shots. we do not have opportunities like that right now. the more we talk about coming home and nationbuilding at home and the more we cut the state department budget, the more we cut the budgets of all of the instruments of foreign power that we have, the more we send the signal that we are turning inward. i think this is going to be tough under any circumstances not to send a signal that we were pulling back.

i think some the things condi has suggested and some of these madeleine has suggested for more aggressive leadership roles in putting together some of these partnerships particularly in the middle east, i think, is in order. when it comes to the american people, i think it is important to remember that virtually none of our wars have ever been popular. world war ii was pretty popular until the middle of 1944 when people started getting pretty tired. the mexican war, the spanish-american war, world war i, korea, vietnam, the american people do not like wars. the truth is, the best advice i have seen in terms of war in this country was given by the most important general probably no one has ever heard of.

a two-star named fox connor whose protéges were george marshall and dwight eisenhower. fox connor had three axioms in talking about war. never go to war if you do not have to, never fight alone, and never fight for long. the way we have overcome this in the past, americans generally are not interested in what goes on in the rest of the world, foreign aid has always been about as unpopular as something terrible. and so it is always fallen to our leadership to persuade and educate the american people why these things are necessary. why these tools are necessary, why our engagement is necessary.

people forget in the summer of 1941, selective service was continued by one vote. so what is missing, it seems to me, is the kind of persuasive leadership, not just from the president, but from the leaders of both parties and in particular in congress. that in this kind of -- our leadership is still needed in the world. and that without that leadership, we are going to face far worse circumstances one day in the future. it is that leadership that has always made the difference for us. [applause] >> thanks to bob and condi and madeleine. we have not talked about china or africa. glancing reference to india and brazil. we have about 20 minutes for

your questions. you will have microphones in both aisles. please step forward into the aisle. let us know your name and make sure what you say ends in a question mark, which is a very important in part of this exercise. it is not a hearing. >> thank you. i am judy allen from houston, texas. just come out of this three-day symposium on the ukraine. i know just enough to be dangerous. there was much discussion in our seminar on the 1994 memorandum of understanding between the united states, the ukraine, and russia that allowed the ukraine to give up their nuclear forces, they were the third largest nuclear power in the world at

that time, we were told. the united states signed and russia signed and ukraine signed it. do we not have a moral obligation to defend the ukraine because we promised in that memorandum that if they gave up their nukes, we would support the ukraine economically if there was aggression against them and militarily? >> thank you very much. that is a very good question. i would like to state a couple of facts and ask madeleine to address it. we were with president clinton in budapest in 1994. the clinton administration believed the presence of nuclear weapons in kazakhstan and belarus was fundamentally destabilizing. we worked with them to give up their weapons and their return

to the russian federation and i still think it was a very good deal for the united states. it has been supported by president bush and president obama. we gave the ukrainians a document that is public, you can read it online, assurances. we said very clearly to them if you are sovereignty is threatened, we will try to help you but we do not give them what a diplomatic parlance is called a guarantee. we did not say we are giving you a security guarantee we will be there with military force to protect. the president of ukraine clearly understood that. >> that is the record. there is a misunderstanding, it was a memorandum of understanding, not a treaty. and it was the russians who broke memorandum of understanding. i think people understood what it was about at the time. >> thank you very much. over here. no question over there.

oh, there is. >> i am charlotte buchanan. i would like to know why it was alright for the united states to recognize the overthrow of the ukrainian government and elected yanukovych as president and within a few days acknowledging as legitimate the self-proclaimed leaders at the same time, we said the ukraine which had been part of russia until it was given back but gave it to russia in the 1950's that they had a government and referendum that was closer to

democracy which we support. why was one ok and not the other? >> let me start, and maybe madeleine would like to -- she was there for the elections. yanukovych lost to the people. we were very careful to say we needed elections for a properly elected president of ukraine or -- who the united states would recognize as legitimate leader of ukraine. madeline was there for those elections. that is that side of the equation. when it comes to crimea, it is true that crimea was given to ukraine in 1954 when nikita, recognizing by the way that since it was all the soviet union, it did not matter, in a gesture of friendship, gave crimea to ukraine. but whatever the circumstances, when borders are fixed internationally, it is generally

the belief that those borders are then fixed. a referendum that took place under questionable circumstances in crimea under the threat of russian power does not stand the test of a democratic referendum for the future of crimea. and so, that would be my answer. >> i feel that the pictures and everything out of kiev and ukraine were clear about the will of the people. one of the things you left out is yanukovych disappeared.

he basically abandon his country, and there was a real question as to what government would come into existence. and i believe it was a government that came out of parliament and chosen in a way, the best possible way at that particular time. and i was in kiev just a month ago. the square there, which is in memory of all the people that were there for months, calling for elections and freedom and a government that responded to their wishes. i think the crimean issue is very complicated. all of us have been steeped in the history of ukraine, crimea, russia, and crimea has played a huge role in russian history. i happen to believe that had there been a completely free and fair referendum it may have been possible for crimea to join russia. there have been many examples of countries, pieces of countries being moved over or being part of a new country in a democratic and careful legal way.

the thing that was so outrageous was the penetration of crimea by the little green people that were basically stooges of the russian army. that had notng been done in the 21st century, seizing land illegally. it tainted everything done in terms of yanukovych's behavior and the democratic aspect of this. >> this is a very important question. the ukrainian nation has been divided. a significant minority in the eastern part of the country that does not feel comfortable with the ukrainian government in kiev, that wants some cultural ties with russia, local a time in a may, russian in the schools. is that something that should be taken into account? >> i think so, and i think that one of the things the new

ukrainian government and leadership has talked about is in a democratic process, in the context of a unitary ukraine, having a debate about what kind of autonomy, greater autonomy different regions, and eastern region in particular, might have. in terms of assuring the rights of the russians, their language, their religion, so on and so forth. but i think the thing has to take place within the framework. it's like we used to talk about with iraq. we can talk about autonomy. when i would go to talk to them, it has to be in the context of we will support you and you need to have autonomy, but it is within the framework of the unified iraq. that ought to be the attitude come it seems to me, dealing with ukraine at this point. greater autonomy ought to be on the table, but it ought to be on the table as ukrainian terms.

>> mr. secretary, madam secretary, madam secretary, thank you very much for your comments. my name is fletcher. i'm in the nuclear energy business and do all of my work in the former soviet union. the question of sanctions. do we run the risk of somehow painting the russians into a corner? particularly given the fact sanctions at this point really have not done much? what has been most damaging to the russians, i think, is the immediate reaction of the credit markets. russians are now absolutely unable to sell any more uranium in the united states, not because of sanctions but because fuel managers simply will not buy russian fuel because of what's happened. my question is, are the sanctions something we should use, or should we instead abandon that approach and, to your point, mr. secretary, focus more on the kinds of political leadership -- and i would

actually say engagement in russia, because that in fact is what provides for the most significant penalties they will pay when they behave as they are behaving now? >> i think the trick here is figuring out what the right balance is in terms of trying to increase both the internal and external pressures on putin to change. i want to go back to something condi said. don't forget there are other russians out there. condi and i met a couple of times, she more often than i did, with dmitry medvedev. i came away with my sessions with him saying, this guy gets it, he understands why russia needs greater rule of law, why it needs to be more democratic, and why it needs to move more towards the west. i think it's one of the great

tragedies of russia, which seems to happen with great regularity in russia, that all of that potential was essentially wiped away by putin's desire to resume the presidency. so sanctions are, in some ways, they can be very narrowly focused, and in others have very broad effect. the narrow focus, i think, has been in going after specific individuals around putin and those we think have been involved in these activities in ukraine, the security services and so on. i think the tough issue, and first of all i agree with the sanctions in place one russia at this point, but the key is, going back to condi's comments, how do you bring pressure on putin without breaking russia? dysfunctional russia or a russia

that faces grave internal problems for a long time to come is not in the interests of the international community or the united states. so far i think they have the balance about right, but it's something i think you have to keep your eye on. but you have to bring both internal and external pressure to bear. >> i think that's the right answer. >> we have time for two more questions. the first is from julio, who is president of aspen italia. >> what about germany? what about germany and the absence of europe? what about the relationship between germany, russia, and china? so, the oldest scheme was the atlantic one.

the new scheme could be continental. do you feel a new edition of the old book written by kai schmidt? >> i have a great deal of confidence in the unified democratic journey. i have a lot of confidence in chancellor merkel's leadership, which i think it's been extraordinary given all that germany has faced since the financial crisis. really, to keep both the euro and the european union from unraveling at times when it looked like the greek crisis and the prolonged crisis might do that. it is not that we have strength of intentions from germany. we do. it's clear it's not the kind of atlantic feel we had with helmut kohl and those are remembered

world war ii, remembered the way the united states defended a democratic germany. but things change with generations. what i don't think has changed is the rock-solid shared values with the unified germany. i'm confident about that. germany's role of always bridging to russia has always been something that people worry about in the atlantic relationship. but if you look at what is happening in the last month, at least, if there was a chance that germany was going to move closer to russia, vladimir putin has made sure that is not going to happen. angela merkel is herself an easterner. i have watched her in nato engagements with the east europeans. she had a natural affinity for them. even though they do not support membership action plans for ukraine or georgia, she knew how to talk to the east europeans

about their inclusion in nato. so i'm not actually concerned about a german-russian pact. and let me say one thing about a russian-china aspect. the big 30-year gas deal they have been trying to make right. there's something interesting in one day it was not done, the next day it was. one wonders if that was not essentially a political deal, the details to be worked out later. did gazprom get an international rate from china were not? nobody seems to know, and i think the possibility of a china-russia axis can also be overestimated, most importantly because china has extremely hard work to do. they're going to try to make 363 reforms that are not just economic reforms, they are big social reforms, like a social

safety net and the like. the road for china to sex filled bash road for china to successfully reform does not go through moscow, it goes through the united states and europe. while you may have some of that relationship between russia and china, i'm not worried it becomes a long-term strategic relationship. the piece i am a little worried about is what people are now calling the call to illiberal democratic leadership, and vladimir putin does represent for people like xi jinping, an alternative to western democracy. just dump your interests, i see that neither moving towards russia, and russia and china. >> a quick anecdote about russia and china. so i'm in this giving a talk to

the russian general staff academy in moscow as secretary, and the colonel stands up in the back and says why are the united states and china plotting to take over siberia? [laughter] and i must say, i don't get stumped too often, but i cannot figure out where the hell that came from. [laughter] so i gave some kind of comment we were not interested in siberia. then i asked bill burns, our ambassador, where in the world did that come from? he said, well, a couple of months ago madeleine gave a speech in which she said, how can russia possibly exploit siberia with the depopulation of the country? that is essentially all she

said, but it is a measure of the paranoia about both china and the united states that exists in moscow. >> and deep paranoia about madeleine. i'm chairman for the national democratic institute. we do believe in western values. basically, which is a good way to answer the question, and i think we sometimes forget about the importance of western values and when it has linked the united states and europe for a very long time. i believe it's a good time to kind of reaffirm our vowels. i look at javier solana, secretary-general of nato and the amount of work we did together at the time. there will be a nato meeting in september. i think some of our discussion here today makes very clear the importance of that relationship. i was born in europe. i often say to any european, i'm just like you.

i just happen to have been raised in the united states. i think europe needs to pull up its socks. i can say that as a european. and i really do think the reaffirmation of the values, the western values that have united us, some of them humanitarian, and condi and i have talked about democracy a lot, understand who we are, what role the united states and our allies can play in the most famous recent statement i have made, which is that the world is a mess and they need us, and a reaffirmation of western values. [applause] >> we have time for one more question. right here.

yes, please. >> thank you very much. michael hanna. i'm curious about, clearly we all agree getting inside president putin's head is dangerous, but last september 11, "the new york times" op-ed that president putin released about syria, reading that today is a little confusing and terrifying, given everything that has happened between now and then. what do you think president putin was after? >> you can start that. [laughter] >> bob is the one who had a certain professional camaraderie with them, so we will let him start. [laughter] >> in all honesty, i don't remember the op-ed, but i will tie you what i think putin is up to in syria. syria is really the last -- the russian navy base is about the last naval base outside of russia's borders that remains

from before the collapse of the soviet union. saddam hussein was one of the soviet union's primary clients. syria has been a primary client for decades. my view is that putin is determined to retain syria as a partner in the middle east, as a place where russia has a presence. and because of its presence and influence there, therefore a role in anything that happens dramatically in the region. i think they see their presence and their support for assad as being their entry fee into anything that happens in the region, whether it has to do with security or anything else. and i will tell you my own personal opinion, i think that he was -- whether he is

delusional or not, his move on the chemical weapons was tactically extremely clever. because with the anticipation of being able to get the chemical weapons out of syria, the u.s. policy there went in place of a week from assad must go to implicitly assad must stay to fulfill the commitment on the chemical weapons. so in my view, we got distracted by a horrible atrocity involving 1400 people, and it led us to neglect the fact that one hundred 50,000 people have been killed by conventional weapons. in a i think putin's initiative was clever tactically. it helped assure assad more time in office.

but i think syria, i think he sees that as his marker in the middle east. >> i think if you look at syria in the context of what he was saying, there is a lot about how others should not consider themselves exceptional, so on and so forth, which was a direct attack on american exceptionalism. i think what you really see is the vladimir putin has decided, perhaps for reasons of reestablishing an identity, which russia really do not know what its identity was after the soviet union collapsed, we have to remember that the soviet union was a rough approximation of the russian empire. so russia has not really existed without the empire for a very long time. when the soviet union broke up, they lost ukraine, they lost

central asia. what was russia, what was russia's future? it really got called into question. the great thing about the soviet union, if you were a russian nationalist, even if you do not think if option very well, was it had both identity and it had respect and power in the international sense of great powers don't mind their own business. great powers want to shape the international environment. the soviet union had a view of how international history all to unfold. towards communism, toward state control of the economy, and they impose that on a lot of unwitting countries, particularly in eastern europe. in all of that collapses. now vladimir putin is coming back. and i think syria, ukraine, they are all part of a piece, which is to reestablish a russian identity rooted in a great power identity. and it has a view. there is an interesting tome that was written from somebody that i have a lot of respect, who was the russian defense minister at one point thomas somebody i've dealt with who i felt was one of my best persons in the russian government. it is a wrong piece about how whether russia is neither western or eastern.

you russia is unique. it says that russia should not give way to western values like tolerance and multiculturalism which weaken russia. a this is re-creating a view of what russia is, what russian identity is, and how it relates to russia's great power role. and this is russia the third version. and that's why i thought he wrote the op-ed that he did. it was a kind of manifesto for a russian future that he feels. and just to close, a good friend of mine, a russian, said, "you americans with your support for democracy and your national endowment for democracy, you won't be satisfied until russia is back among the borders of the dutch." think about that. it means for those particular

people, the russian empire, russian expansion, and russian identity are solid. >> congress is in recess for their i've week summer break. a congressmen frank lobiondo says he welcomes a look or word that he looks forward to welcoming secretary jerry fox. they're heading to the outpatient center to meet patients and talk about the new v.a. law. this from congressman chris murphy. "10:00 a.m. and i have already accomplished more than the senate has in the last few weeks. the associated press is responding that the u.s. military has destroyed several

vehicles and is part of an islamic state group convoy looking to attack kurdish forces in northeastern iraq a city. it was one of the series of hits against islamic militants in the past few days. we will get the latest on the situation in iraq. that is scheduled for 2:30 eastern. you'll see it live here on c-span. the american institute of certified accountants is kicking off a two-day conference in washington. here on c-span we will have live coverage of several panel discussions, including the role of the inspector general. at 2:50, senior leaders from the office of budget and management will talk about key financial issues and future challenges. live on c-span. it starts at 2:50 eastern. break,ongress is on c-span's time features a wide range of local views and topics.

this week a debate on america's -- we visitedany the atlanta press club and we take a tour of the civil war. monday through friday 8 p.m. eastern. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. us.can e-mail join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> incumbent democratic senator mark warner and his challenger a soft in their first debate for virginia senate debates, including same-sex marriage and the border crisis. was 90 minute debate cohosted by the virginia bar association and pbs news hour. moderator was is our anchor judy woodruff.

>> i want to thank the virginia bar association for inviting me to be a part of this. i want to thank senator warner and mr. gillespie for participating. i want to thank the state of west virginia: ms.. the candidates have agreed to a format that gives them as close to equal time as possible and we are going to do our best picture that. i'm happy to say the pbs news hour is streaming this debate so we expect a large audience to be watching in virginia and across the nation. ourill live afterwards in website. now let's begin. each of the candidates has a two-minute opening statement and he will begin with you. >> thank you, judy. thanks to the vba for hosting us.

mark, its good to be with you today. i'm running for the senate because i want future generations to have the same opportunities my family has seen. my father came to america from ireland because my grandfather found work here as a janitor. my parents did not go to college, but insisted that i do. i took out student loans and worked a lot of different jobs. i was even a senate parking lot attendant to earn my degree. over time, i became a counselor to the president of united states. what a country. but i fear that we are losing that kind of economic opportunity and upward mobility as a result of president obama's and senator warner's job killing policies. our economy shrank by new three percentage points last quarter. every matchup created, three people leave the workforce entirely. more businesses are closing and opening. his is not somehow a matter of faith, it is the result of the governor that ashe of a

government that is going to bake, squeezing too many virginians between lost jobs or stagnant wages and higher prices for health care, energy and food. i appreciate senator warner's service to our commonwealth am a but unfortunately his votes in the senate have tightened that squeeze on hard-working virginians and made it harder for the unemployed to find work. in voting with president obama 97% of the time, he has not been the senator he said he would be. instead of being an independent voice for us, he has been a blank check for president obama. i will be a check on the president. i will have a simple test for every senate vote i cast. will this ease the squeeze on hard-working virginians if it does not, i will not vote for it. have a five-point economic growth agenda to create jobs, raise take-home pay, lift people

out poverty, hold down health care costs and reduce energy prices. i look forward to an opportunity to fight for it and for us in the united states senate if you give me that chance. thank you. >> thank you, mr. gillespie. senator warner. >> thank you, judy. hello to all my friends at the virginia bar. ed, it is great to see you again. is been the greatest honor of my life to serve virginians. like ed, i was the first in a family to graduate from college. i first two businesses failed. the third went pretty well. the plumbing to public service was a recognition that in america everybody ought to get a fair shot. we can't guarantee success, but in america everybody ought to get a fair shot. that is what i have tried to do my public life. first as governor, where with it two-one republican legislature we managed to turn deficits into surpluses and virginia got recognized as the best managed state for business. in the senate i've tried to bring the same approach, whether

it is wrestling with issues around debt and deficit, whether it is trying to advance policies that will bring jobs back home. it is my recent work on trying to deal with some other crushing amounts of student debt. on these issues and many others, i have worked in a bipartisan fashion in a town where it is not easy to do. my opponent has a different approach. he spent his entire career as a d.c. lobbyist and a partisan operative. he views every issue through the lens of republicans versus democrats. he even went on tv and called himself a partisan warrior, his words, not mine. i worked there.

the last thing washington needs is another partisan warrior. virginians want leaders who are willing to work for the common good, work across party lines and get things done. that is why have done throughout my whole career. if her jeans give me the honor of rehiring me, that is what i will continue to do. >> thank you, senator warner. we will return to questions by drop. the first question does go to senator warner. you have voted with president obama most of the time in the senate, including for the affordable care act. your opponent, as we just heard, says this proves that rather than being an independent voice for virginia, you are in lockstep with the white house and you bear responsibility for the problems with obamacare, especially since you vowed not to support a measure that i quote you, takes away any health care plan that you like. how do you answer? >> judy, let's set the record straight on the statistic that is used. independent political observers have called it misleading and not revert -- not representative of my record. the national journal ranks me in

the center. one of the reasons why senator john warner had this job for 30 years. when i disagree with the president, i stand up with him. whether it is on oil or support for the keystone pipeline, whether it is supporting tort reform and that is a hard thing to say in front of a group of lawyers. i've taken arrows from both the left and the right on my efforts to deal with the debt and deficit. on health care, what i hear from virginians is that they're tired of this issue being used as a political football. they actually want to see it fixed. they don't want to go back to the days when people with pre-existing conditions could

not get health care and women were charged to from even men, or when seniors appear higher price for drugs. the obamacare -- i wait out for plans and how we can improve it. it cheaper plan called the copper plan. working to try to get rid of some of the overly bureaucratic regulations, a plan that has been supported by a lot of small businesses, including all the national retail federation. why don't we allow insurance companies to ensure with appropriate consumer protection to sell products across state lines. what virginians want is get this health care working in a way that is fair and efficient. >> a couple of things. first of all, independent fact checkers have declared a 97% figure accurate and true. what it comes to offshore drilling, senator warner just said that he supports it. i know that he is said that, but in 2012, there was a vote for drilling for more oil and gas throughout the outer continental shelf. five democrats voted for it, including jim webb. senator warner voted against it. in 2012, despite saying he's for the pipeline, there was an amendment to move it forward for approval. levin democrats voted for it, including jim webb, his own

democratic colleague from virginia, and senator warner voted against it. on health care he voted to kill an amendment that would've prevented cuts to medicare advantage, which over 170,000 virginians are enrolled in. senator webb afforded against killing that amendment and senator warner voted for it. it is part of a pattern. as part of a pattern of not being a senator he said he would be. his press releases are very bipartisan, but his floor votes are very partisan. that is a difference. i will make sure that we replace obamacare with policies that work, that allow us to keep the insurance we like, that make health care more affordable, does not kill jobs and when it comes to energy of a part of my five-point economic growth agenda is to unleash american energy and actually fight for lifting the moratorium on our drilling off of our deep sea coasts and to make sure that we do get the keystone xl pipeline

approved, along with the number of other proposals in that plan. >> senator warner. >> i think my opponent has to get his facts straight. on keystone, i support that. i got protested against in harrisonburg. on offshore, i have had legislation for that for years. i believe virginia should have a share of the royalties. the bill that ed mentioned did not include that. the question that we didn't hear, we have heard my opponents criticism of obamacare, but we don't hear a lot of talk about before obamacare and before romney care, there was gillespie care. both a lobbyist and in his book, my opponent was a big supporter of the individual mandate. it is key to the obamacare approach. somehow he seems to have forgotten that. even today, the richmond fun -- richmond times dispatch has said that my opponent has said he is against obamacare but not laid out specifics. i laid out specific areas where we can fix this law. i think that is what most virginians want. >> can i give an additional 30 seconds?

>> that is not true. i never lobbied for an individual mandate. fact checkers have disputed that as well. i fought obamacare every step of the way. senator warner did not just voted for it, but he strong-armed his colleagues to vote for. i said it was going to end up killing jobs, raising the costs of higher premiums and harming the quality of our care. on one of the most important issues, i was right. senator warner was very wrong. >> let's move onto the next question. this one is to mr. gillespie. you are running on a progrowth economic plank. he championed more tax cuts, less regulation, no increase in

the federal minimum wage. in today's economy and the current tax system, corporate profits are booming. wall street is enjoying record success. in a working-class americans, as you say, still struggling. could it say your plan is basically a reprise of the policies of george bush under which the census bureau shows median household income declined, poverty increased and childhood poverty increased even more. are they right? >> no, judy. the me share with people what i'm talking about when i talk about e.g. squared, which is that gillespie's agenda for economic growth. if you're for growth, you are for me. we've seen the job losses as a result of obamacare, which senator warner work to pass. it will mean 2.5 million fewer workers in our economy over the

decade as a result of our disincentives to work built into that legislation. i believe having the highest corporate tax rate is responsible for having other companies go overseas. i believe we need to simplify and bring down the highest corporate tax rate and incentivize american companies to bring profits from overseas and invest them here in the united states. to believe policies like unleashing american energy, replacing obamacare with market oriented reforms, education reform which i believe is progrowth, and cutting wasteful spending could result in a doubling of our economic growth rate, which is low after a recession. if we doubled our growth rate for percent on average, it would mean 10 million new jobs in our economy. it would mean we would be able to reduce our deficit by one third. >> judy, there's no issue more

important than getting our country's balance sheet right. 17 trillion in debt was a 3 billion a night. simpson bowles, not perfect, but i built a bipartisan group that would have taken on entitlement reform, tax reform and would've done more for job growth than any single program. you did not hear from my opponent was any acknowledgment of the fact that he was a cheerleader for the bush/cheney economic policies, policies that put two wars and the credit card, that added to entitlements, that provided tax cuts it can be paid for, that increased the debt 86% if that is my opponent policy, i'm not

sure we can afford e.g., much less e.g. squared. >> when senator warner first ran for the senate, he said he supported balanced-budget amendment. after he was elected to office, he voted against it. 10 democrats voted for it, including senator joe manchin from west virginia. again, bipartisan press releases, partisan votes on the floor, i believe that we can spur economic growth, but not with the kind of intrusive government regulation and mandates and taxes at senator warner has supported, again, nearly a trillion dollars in tax increases since being elected. $7 trillion in new debt and support for mandate after mandate, including, obviously, the mandates an epa rule that i believe will result in devastating our coal industry further than it has artie been devastated in southwest virginia. >> i give them a chance to respond in the last round. >> what i find is a full two had to pay for the balanced-budget amendment, it is usually people that don't have a plan. california, new york, their balanced-budget amendments.

if anyone here thinks that is how they got balanced budgets, i don't believe that is the case. on this issue, we have a record. i was governor. i turned deficits into surpluses. he was part of an administration that turn surpluses into deficits. >> we will move onto the next question. this is for senator warner. it is on the environment. both of you have artie raised. as you know, there are trade-offs between protecting the environment and economic growth. the obama administration's environmental protection agency has proposed new carbon emissions regulations at the chamber of commerce charges would cost thousands of virginia jobs, would force the closure of

existing power plants in the state, and cost consumers at least $200 a year. to these proposed regulations go too far? >> judy, one of the great success stories of the last decade has been the explosion of american energy sources. we are the largest provider of oil and gas. i have supported consistently and all of the above approach to energy. renewables, fossil fuels, conversation -- conservation. that includes use of coal. i do believe we have to find ways to use it cleaner. that is going to come about from american innovation and american technology. regardless of what we do, there will be 800 new coal plants built in china and india over the coming years. they ought to be using american cleaner coal technology. on these new regulations, they're in the midst of a -- period. we ask for that additional time and they should

give it. my opponent has never been willing to acknowledge the science around climate change. and that man has an effect on it. i would love to take my opponent to -- the navy has spent tens of millions of dollars just raising the piers. my opponent does have two energy credentials. he lobbied against increasing fuel efficiency standards. and as a chief lobbyist for enron, lobbied for regulations that basically allowed enron to gouge consumers all over america. >> this is another example where senator warner is not being a senator he said he would be because he says he's going to stand up for coal miners and are very important coal sector in virginia, yet when there was an amendment to offer on the senate floor to prevent the epa from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, high democrats voted for it. jim webb cosponsored it.

once again, senator warner voted with his party leadership against the interests of virginians. i was just out in southwest virginia as i often am, campaigning. i visited with a gentleman my age, and he was telling me about the difficulties he has found since being laid off his job as a minor. and fact, he is not helping to support his family. he has three children like i have. he's now mowing lawns and doing odd jobs to help support his family. i respect him immensely. for doing that hard work. the wages he is making our far cry from what he was making as a minor. we are seeing all across

southwest virginia the damaging effect of senator warner's policies in support of president obama. i, to, agree we need to clean energy and cleaner air. we are all for clean air. when you shut down one third to 50 percent of her coal-fired plants in virginia and you force production overseas to places like china, india and indonesia where they don't have the same high air quality standards that we have, you're not going to enhance air quality, you may damage it. >> again, i'll go back to what i said. i support and all of the above, including coal. we need to handle the enormous challenges. we need have a coal industry that leads the world in cleaner coal technology. in carbon capture and increased -- i think it is a smart pro-business approach. what i'm curious with my opponent who talked about the gentleman who are know is had his circumstances changed, a lot of the folks who circumstances change are now on minimum wage. my opponent made some comments about minimum wage recently. he said minimum wage is a place where you learn the social aspects of work and afterwards you go play softball or drink a

beer. otto, there are an awful lot of folks around virginia that are on minimum wage. more women than men. we can debate the statistics, but most folks say about 20% of minimum wage earners are the breadwinners for the family. i don't understand why he refuses to acknowledge we have to increase the minimum wage. he can debate time and implementation, but i do think his comments are disconnected. >> i believe the senator knows a context of his comments because i said a lot of first-time jobs at minimum wage jobs, which they are. i'm sure there are many people in this audience whose first job was minimum wage. what senator warner supports is destroying between half a million jobs according to the cbo and up to a million jobs. you're right, there are 20%, little bit less, of minimum age earners who are head of the household and responsible for the family. i agree with you, we need to make sure that people were working full-time can support their families. i don't think we should do it by making the working poor the nonworking poor.

i would support a work incentive tax credit that allows people to keep their jobs and get the supplement -- to supplement their income so we can help people have a livable income as opposed to increasing minimum wage in a way that kills jobs and continue to work. there is human dignity and work -- in work. more people to experience that. >> the minimum wage, when i started it was one dollar and -- it was $1.70. i had -- there's less purchasing power at seven dollars and $.25 today. >> first, mr. glaspie, do you believe that science proves that climate change exists echo >> i believe there is ample scientific evidence of -- that contribute to climate change.

where don't believe it is i'm not entirely dismissive and sneering against those who have a different point of view and have different evidence. in my view, the evidence i've seen is that there is climate -- look, norfolk is the only -- with rising sea levels. it is indisputable, 2.5-5 years. we need to help norfork and the region adapt to that and deal with that. >> senator warner, a quick follow up. do those epa relations go too far? >> i'm not sure if my opponent agreed that man is a contribute to climate change. i think science overwhelmingly says yes. i think we need to go decides. we ask for additional time so we can try to get them right. i think one of the key things administration said it is are they going to use 2005 baseline or something else. all across the state, we are both ends of the -- where do believe is, part of the energy mix in america and the world

going forward is going to be cold. let's find ways to use it cleaner. >> the may be clear, the epa relations go too far. >> next question for mr. glaspie has to do with immigration. in 2012, president obama gave some undocumented children in this country a shield from deportation. if they're therefore 2007, if they had a clean work record, and had graduated from high school, they were given work authorization. now, senator ted cruz of texas is proposing to overturn this executive action. if elected, would you vote with senator cruz to repeal the protection from deportation for these so-called streamers? >> it is an executive order. i think it is an executive order. by acting you -- unilaterally as a president has come i believe he is contributed to the crisis we are seeing on the southern border today.

what we're seeing there is because people in guatemala and honduras and el salvador and other countries saw the president and it created a spike in people coming to the border. i believe we need to secure our border. we need to enforce our existing laws. the something senator warner said when he was running for this job six years ago. unfortunately, when there was an amendment brought to the senate floor, after saying we need to secure our border in 2009, senator warner posted -- voted against the requirement of a fence to be completed by 2013. 21 democrats voted for it. jim webb was one of them. senator warner, after saying it should be the first priority

voted against it. i do believe we need immigration reform. my father is an immigrant to this country. i'm proud to be the son of an immigrant. i believe that the reform that -- the reforms we should enact legislation that would allow us to keep out those who don't want to enter illegally or allow us to bring in people that we do want to come in legally. >> would you vote with senator cruz? >> i have not seen the bill. >> he would repeal or overturn what the president signed. >> i have not seen senator cruz is bill, but i think that president obama overreached when he issued an executive order in this regard. i think we're seeing the consequences of it today. >> i think the tragedy at the border is an example, one more example that our current

immigration system is broken. it is why in a bipartisan fashion and a bill that was fashioned by john mccain and lindsey graham, the senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform that would've doubled border security. i'm not sure if my opponent says they're not tough enough on the border, but we want to put in place a process that would deal with guestworkers and dreams and others. it was probably supported by business, by labor groups, not a circumstance in central america we need to do two things. we need to speed up the processing of these children. that was going to require additional judges. many of these children will be sent home. we need to intervene, stopping the flow. we met with those ambassadors is weak. we said you have to tell you people not to come. cut out the drug smugglers and coyotes. again, what is curious is, a year ago, a bipartisan bill passed in the senate. my opponent said it was good policy and good politics. i do know what is changed. is it that politics now? why were you for it then against it now?

>> i said it was a good approach. i also said as you know, the time, that we needed more border security provisions to be added to it. i support those steps by the house as well. my position has been consistent on this. red river disagreement in terms of policy here. senator warner believes that in addition to the reforms, some of which we agree on in terms of the reforms of immigration system going forward. i do not believe as a son of an immigrant who came here legally, was processed to ellis island, that it is in the country's best interest to grant citizenship to those who are here by virtue of having broken our laws. it is not fair to those who play by the rules. the same time, i do not believe that we will deport 10-12,000,000 people who were here in this country.

i favor a reform of our visa system that would allow them to have fresh fees is after meeting some criteria, for example criminal background checks and self-sufficiency and other measures. my position on immigration reform has been consistent throughout. >> ever follow up for both of you. it now there are about two dozen undocumented immigrant children being house about 100 miles from here in stanton, virginia at a juvenile detention center. some of them came in from central america just in the last couple of weeks. should these children be deported? >> i think these children, 20% of these kids under 11. they -- the process to go through the border with a get health checkups, immunizations and other things, i think they are due somewhat of a process. that process will result in sending some of us kids back, but they are teva process. i've been concerned with the

administration's approach. they didn't inform the community and i said we shouldn't do this. i believe there is a humane, appropriate process. that will require conference of immigration reform. it will require more judges so children can be processed, many of which will be sent back. >> mr. glaspie, these children in stanton virginia. >> this is heartbreaking, there's no doubt about it. i can imagine. my father king at the age of eight and a two-week boat journey from ireland. but with his mother and brothers and sisters. the notion of turning a child over tricky are the -- coyote to go through churches territory to come to this country, can american should -- imagine with his parents go through in this children go through. the compassion responses to make

clear, don't keep doing this. don't keep sending this children are because you're 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 care. my question is, as obamacare was being debated, use of the most important reason for it was to bring down costs. he said you would never vote for a bill that would mean losing our insurance if he wanted to keep it. we learned this week again that premiums in virginia will go up our double digits again next year. virginians are losing plans a like for plans they don't. a court struck down subsidies for states without exchanges, which could affect millions of virginians, and the congressional budget office says

there will be 2.5 million fewer workers and the economy as a result of disincentives to work in this bill over the next decade. knowing what you know now, would you vote for the law today? >> on the dueling court cases, you might not be surprise, i support the virginia court. my opponent supports a d.c. court. when i believe when i voted for obamacare and still believe is that health care -- when health care was 18% of our gdp and going up. almost twice as much in america is all most every other industrial country. as someone who started the virginia after foundation to provide health care for the close to one million uninsured virginians, this spoke to me. people don't want to go back to the days where pre-existing

conditions could disqualify them or women were charged for the men. they want us to roll up our sleeves and fix it. seven months into the campaign, he is criticized the plan and not laid out any specific alternatives. i have made -- i've given ideas. i am open to more plans. all we have to do is provide health care, fairly and more efficiently. >> mr. glaspie. so, yes. that is a concern, obviously. we do know a lot of virginians do know the damaging effects of this policy. by the way, i knew that it would have this effect when you are working to pass it. i was warning against its negative impacts and i said it was going to kill jobs and raise

our premiums and harm the quality of our care. i can say, i am right about that and you were wrong, but more importantly, wrong about what to do going forward. i do it to replace it. i prefer specifics of my energy plan is part of my five-point plan for growth. i listen to virginians and talk to virginians. the woman i spoke to last week from danville who provides insurance for her family. both she and her husband worked. they have 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. we need to replace this bill with policies that work and protect people who are being harmed for his seriously but the negative impact you voted for. >> this question goes to mr. glaspie. most virginians have a pretty dismal view of washington dc, which they believe is controlled

by special interests. you have spent your dull life in washington, part of a recent life as a lobbyist, etc. -- as a group called the cayman islands financial services. you have worked very closely with karl rove, american crossroads. does this make it harder for you to capture this anti-washington sentiment out there? i believe my experience, 15 years working on capitol hill, in the white house, in the private sector as chairman of my party here in virginia a senator warner was chairman of his party in virginia, i was a top congressional aide