-- purchase card users. >> there is poor management, poor controls that was a done a fight. >> yes, sir. >> we would have to assume that a significant number of those purchases were not compliant. i think you spoke about, actually, the lack of compliance or lack of training or whatever -- actually, it sounds like a lack of management or administrative oversight and thattion of employees causes this. is that what you found? >> we've done a number of audits on this topic over the last number of years, and we have over the audits we've done that there have been a lack of

controls and a lack of oversight, but we have also seen the departments take our controls and implement them, so they are working hard to improve their environment and their internal controls and oversight. to do that, have you published a manual, a set of guidelines? what have you done? it meetings you conduct on training? >> we have published a number of reports. you are looking at our latest report from january 2014, and we published a number of reports -- i believe two in 2013 and one in 2012. >> your report talks about some of the problems, sort of an audit or overview of what is a simple but is there guideline that you publish? >> we do not publish a guideline for the department. that would be a management function. we have provided recommendations

on what they should include. >> have they published that to your satisfaction? >> yes, sir. >> again, we have some noncompliance at significant levels. thate see -- you testified the department of defense or at least the air force -- you are speaking for air force -- you calculate that you save about $70 per transaction by using the credit card or -- i don't know if you used of it cards, but -- you do notn have paperwork. you do not have the administrative costs and all of that. is that how you calculate those savings? >> yes, as opposed to traditional government contracting. to one of myked dod contractors from my district who did not have very kind words

about federal defense it probably ist one of the most ethical to proceed with. that is where you calculate $70 per transaction. >> correct. >> and you have 1.2 billion dollars worth of purchases with credit cards just at air force? huge.as got to be we have gone from, you know, $12,000 worth of starbucks billion, and$1.2 you said 26 thousand credit cards at the air force? >> 26,000 cardholders. >> why shouldn't dod and the air force be subject to the same provisions of the 2012 law? >> i cannot speak for the entire department of defense, but i know for the air force, we are proud of our accomplishments in

the system i talked about during summary.mmary -- brief it's also included in my testimony. the system audits 100% of all transactions, and then 3% of the high-risk items that might have items like gym memberships or hair salons or things like that in the card code. if they pop up in this report, they will flag a risk item, and that will require a manual the cardholder supervisor, the approving official, or the agency and program coordinator will go in and look at each of those transactions. -- do you havect a system that you have set up internally, or are you using a credit card company that does it for you? >> that is a system that has been established within the department of defense, and the policyr of procurement

-- that office administers the system across the department. >> in a private contractor that operates it? i don't believe that it is. i believe that a private contractor established that system, and it rides right along with the gpc program. u.s. bank provided that. >> ok, because i do know some of the bank credit card folks are .ncredible i've had several instances where -- in fact, i gave my credit express formerican sandwiches for staff one day. i don't spring that often, but somebody picked up the credit card number, and that was at lunch time. -- this i was called by happened to be american express, "we'vey said that,

examined your purchases, and your wife does not usually spend $5,000 at nordstrom." canceledacted me and the card immediately. summit had gotten the number and within 6, 7 hours was charging things. you have that kind of system that can pick out -- >> yes, sir, but what you are talking about his potential fraud abuse. did someone unauthorized get the card? >> yes, that is a little bit different, but you are using the the creditples, that card has some aberration and purchases. do we have anything like that in dhs? a i don't know that we have specific program designed, but we do have the data, and they do do data analytics to identify those kinds of anomalies. >> i would be interested to find out. maybe you could ask staff to

pursue that. i don't know if your model is good. we should also check that out. again, we need as many assurances that the cards are not being abused, that they are properly used, and there is some dramatic aberration in the use, and you have a system that kicks it out, that would be good, but we mirror that and other agencies. quite upas not caught with air force. again, if you have 20%, 30% -- 96% that are registered, the 4 percent is usually turned over. one person leaves, another coming in, so we will never achieve 100% of cardholders registered in the system, but we are confident we are doing well. in fact, about six months earlier this year, we were down to about 91% and made a big push -- within air or's

the air force. we elevated our registration. would you have a problem if similarou under provisions? we might advise you to look under similar safeguards, but is there any reason air force or dod should be exempt? >> i started to answer your question by stating that because of the internal controls we do ase already with the pcol's well as the 30-day audits by area or agency and program coordinators, that has been working very well. about .45 percent of all of our we had, and i will ,o back and refresh my memory ,ut of those transactions, .45%

we had some potential risk violations. that's a total of about 1910. each of those was reviewed, and we found that 26 resulted in civilian personnel actions we will have to take. kicked those where they kicked out, you do ? vestigate every one of them >> every single one of them. >> but that still does not answer my question asked to whether you would object -- i guess you cannot speak -- >> i cannot speak for the entire department of defense. i would have to take that for , but from an air force perspective, i can see how the act that you passed is definitely something that is viable and worthwhile, and we would look at it and see -- >> well, and has had some heard from the

department of labor, but we still have some obvious -- i do not want to say rampant abuse, but significant abuse, and we do not have government credit cards withwild tamed yet, but that, i have more questions, but let me yield to mr. connelly, who has been waiting. >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to make sure i followed your answer to the espressoof the machines. you said they were purchased with unappropriated funds. is that correct? correct. >> what are unappropriated funds? golf course, bowling center, when you go in and buy a hamburger, play a round of golf, those are nonappropriated fund dollars. >> generated by those activities

? >> yes, sir. >> were government-issued purchase cards or debit cards used for that acquisition? >> no, sir. >> ok. that's what i wanted to know. let me ask our ig's. is it ever permissible to use a government-issued purchase card, debit card, for a hair salon gym membership -- personal gym membership, or personal gift cards? >> hair salons, we did not have in our transactions, but we did do some research on the idea of gym memberships, and there is a comptroller general decision that says in some circumstances, it is permissible to purchase gym memberships, if it is part of some health and welfare program. >> authorized by your employer? >> right.

>> let's put that aside for a minute. let me rephrase the question -- is it ever permissible to go to a hair salon or your personal gym -- unrelated to that exemption -- for you or your family or to purchase gift cards issuedg a government debit card, purchase card, debit card? >> not a lesson has a government-approved use. >> the policies you look at -- are they explicit about that prohibition? >> they are not explicit. that was part of our recommendation in the report, that they be more explicit about the issues of gym memberships and gift cards, that internal controls needed to be improved. epa is in the process of improving their policies in that area, but they have not completed their policies in that area. >> that does not sound complicated. what goes through one's mind if

you are a federal employee, and you have a federally issued credit card, and you decide, "you know, i need groceries tonight, why not just put it on the government card?" i'm not saying anyone has ever done that, but clearly, some alarm bells ought to go off in your head, that's not a proper use of a government issued credit card. >> you would expect most people to think that, but there are people out there that ink, "no one is looking at this -- that think, "no one is looking at this." >> temptation is a different issue. what about the department of labor? same question. >> i cannot think of a case where it would be permitted. it would be very narrow. there would have to be some nexus to government business in order to do that, and i do not know what that would be in the department of labor.

were theose if you department of labor employee of the year and you were going to meet queen elizabeth, we might done,"eah, get your hair but other than that, i cannot think of an exemption for a hair salon. can you? >> no. are the policies of the department of labor explicit in this provision? >> we currently have an audit looking at the general purchase cards across the department. we are still looking at how well that has gone. in terms of this audit -- >> that's not my question. is there an explicit prohibition in the policy of the department of labor saying you cannot use credit cards for those purposes? >> i do not know exactly what the policy says for the purchase cards in general in the department. that is what we are looking up. for what we have looked at in the job corps program that was explicit for what you could use the cards for, and in this case, -- e were only two uses

>> but not explicit in prohibited activities? >> no. explicit in terms of -- >> and my life, i often will engage in various and sundry things, and the question that always comes to mind that you ought to ask is, "what could go wrong with that?" explicit "thou may not use it for personal purposes" -- i do not understand what is hard about that, but it is astounding me they did not have one. >> in the case of these debit cards where there were only teed of uses -- baggage claim -- or baggage fees when traveling and the allowance they give them for meals while traveling. in that case, it's very easy to stipulate there are only teed of uses. you do not need to stipulate all the things you should not use it for. >> ms. richards?

the department of homeland security. >> i cannot think of an instance where the purchases would be appropriate, but again, you have to look at the individual purchase to see if there was a nexus to government services. >> assuming there was not, though. >> the department of homeland security's regulations do state that government purchase cards are to be used for government business only and not for personal business. we do not have an explicit prohibition naming those items. >> just guidance. ok. understanding that you cannot speak for policy for the air force -- we understand that -- but can you think of a reason why we would not want to include the pentagon and by extension the air force and a government wide, consistent set of standards and enforcement

and standard operating procedures with respect to the use of such cards ? especially since you are, by ? r, the biggest user >> yes, the department of defense is the largest user of ivernment purchase cards, and can speak for policy for the air force, just not for the department of defense. the policy for all of from an air force perspective, the internal controls i mentioned earlier -- and i'm not saying that these internal controls would not -- need theiate or not government control act as far as thetransaction as far as government charge card prevention act -- i'm not saying we would not benefit from that, but i can tell you a little bit

about our internal control process we have now. weaddition to the pcol's, have six levels of control. we also have a requiring organization or person that has the need, the cardholder, and then the pay her, and no one person can have all three of those functions or responsibilities. there must be one person to prevent those kinds of frauds, and the only way that could happen is that all three people would have to be in collusion together to be able to execute fraudulent-type action of that caliber. it's not to say that it's not impossible, so whether or not the card prevention act would prevent that, that is something we should certainly look at. as far as those fixed levels post talking about, the agency or the program coordinator does monthly reviews of every transaction -- excuse me, an annual review of every transaction, but the approval of official of the cardholder looks

at every single transaction. once again, the separation of power and control and function so that no one person has .uthority and control >> has the air force ig audited the use of these purchase cards? >> i'm not aware of the ig looking at these particular cards, but the air force has. they usually are for to the air force -- they usually refer those issues to the air force. >> it's just that when you are spending $1.2 billion -- >> right. with 26,000 purchase cards in distribution adjust the air force -- >> right. that's hard to believe there has not been some misuse. >> as i mentioned, we documented 26 actions -- >> but you heard the statistics

here today. that would put you at radical variance from other federal agencies in the civilian sector. >> yes, that's not to say that we do not have of uses of the card or misuse of the card -- ,raud of uses -- fraud abuses and we check on every single one of them -- >> if your numbers are accurate, maybe we need to have the u.s. air force takeover issuance of all the u.s. credit cards and debit cards -- >> give us the resources, and we would be glad to. >> i think that is quite a record. proud of oury accomplishments. i'm not aware of any fraudulent issues other than the 206i mentioned. eachnot know exactly what and every one of them are. >> let me ask again our three ig's.

two questions a layman might ask -- are there just too many cards in circulation for us to really ? t our arms around it and are there too many employees authorized to use such cards? should those numbers be more manageable and more controlled? >> within epa, they do conduct an annual review to make sure we've got the right number of people with purchase cards. the idea is that they also be at the local level and that they be supervised locally. not 2000 employees is the right number, i cannot really say at this point. >> how many employees are there in epa total? >> 16,000. >> what if i said everyone who is an employee, when you become

an employee of the epa, we are going to issue one of these cards to you because you might need it? and they say why not have everybody have won the? what would be wrong with that? >> you would have to have quite a few controls -- >> that's my point. do we have an idea of what is an optimum number? on 2000hold judgment but exercise judgment on 16,000. >> am not aware what the optimal number is, and i'm also not aware that the epa knows. >> when you look at the problem, was it your impression that the epa was challenged with managing this number of cards issued to this number of people? is that beyond their management skill, or do you think it is just right? >> upa was challenged in managing that number because they left it up to each of the approving officials to come up

with their own standard operating procedures, and that resulted in a lot of variance. >> because there's a lack of uniformity in standard-setting. >> one of the things epa has done based on the audit report is now implemented standard operating procedures that will be instituted across the agency in the hopes of trying to level mores out and institute controls. >> well, that's a novel thought. i work for a large company. when credit cards were issued, there was a standard policy companywide. we had standards, and it works for a very large company. mr. lewis, you indicated in your testimony that 98 of 104 centers

had impropers travel purchases. is that correct? >> correct. had a piece of testimony where she said she is not withroblem the design of standards but with the enforcement of those standards, correct? >> yes, sir. >> how would you characterize it in the department of labor? do you think the design of standards is satisfactory or, you know, exemplary, or is there a problem with the design of standards it self? >> in this particular instance, i think it is the design of the standards or lack of design as well as enforcement or oversight , but again, this was a very, i guess, narrow and unique issue within the job corps program to

utilize these debit cards. they are such small individual purchases being handled in this matter that when you put the controls in place to ensure that purchases were proper, it would cost a lot more to administer that then it would be worth. the department was buying -- or the job corps centers were purchasing these cards ranging in value from $10 to $60. they paid six dollars apiece, so a $10 debit card cost them $16. no matter how you administer that, it was not going to be an ineffective tool. and the fact that they had so ony of these debit cards hand made it much more tempting to people to misuse them. so they had to switch to either using the travel cards, which were available to pay for some

of these expenses, or the very smallest things, such as a five dollar meal allowance. it would just be best to give the student cash for that rather than pay an additional six dollars to provide a debit card. >> right. -- it's myestion understanding your office has issued three previous reports on the department's use of purchase cards since 2010. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> each report contained recommendations. has the department of homeland security acted on those previous recommendations? >> yes, sir, they have. i would have to get back to you with a list of specific actions they take in. >> i would like to see that because, obviously, we do not want to see recommendations ignored. it tells us something when an agency is making a good-faith effort to comply with recommendations. thank you very much.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. a couple of questions. we were looking through your and then your report. 925aid you reported -- million purchases totaling $439 million. that is in the testimony. >> that's from 2013. when you divide that up, it comes up to about $.50 per transaction. are we missing -- is that correct? >> those are the numbers that i have. >> an average of $.50 a transaction? >> i would have to get back to you. >> we do not think that these records -- i mean, something is missing here. i just don't think that is accurate. but as you repeated that in your

testimony -- >> those are the department reported numbers. >> that is the report we have as well, but again, something does not make sense. if you could check that. and we will be leaving the record open for two weeks without objection, so ordered, so we will have additional questions we will be submitting after this. ok, the number -- the 2012 law notwed -- and air force is under this, but the 2012 law allowed employees to be fired, dismissed, terminated, prosecuted. can you tell us how many that were terminated, discipline, or prosecuted? >> we recommended in our report that epa take action. epa was supposed to be taking action by september 30.

we have not done the follow-up review yet for those actions -- >> do you know of any? >> i am not aware of any. >> could you check that? >> yes. action,"ou say "take does that include -- and if so, how many -- referrals to prosecution? >> that could potentially be among the actions they could take. >> but you did not make that recommendation? >> no, we just said that they take the appropriate action. >> leaving it up to them? ok, thank you. >> again, the law has to be enforced, and there has to be consequences. giuliani i had rudy here years ago when he became mayor of new york, and i was fascinated by his zero-tolerance . man, they threw the book at you. new york today has the residual effect of the zero-tolerance

policy. people were taken to task, prosecuted, gone after, but we passed a 2012 law. -- we tools in a cap site put tools in a cap site -- we put tools in a campsite. does anyone terminated, prosecuted, discipline? >> to my knowledge, there is no one prosecuted, but i would have to get back to you on that. >> we did refer all the to oures we found investigators, but to my current knowledge, no one was actually prosecuted. i am not aware of any departmental employee that has been fired since this law has been emplaced, for such actions. in this case, these were so theyor employees,

already had more latitude in terms of addressing that than we would have had in the past with the federal employees. >> just for the record, i have to put this in. in my own area in central , i had a housing authority director who had come in after i had gotten the housing authority taken over by hud. it was so mismanaged a brought in another housing authority director. when i came to office, the housing authority director came to me complaining the state attorney was going after her, and part of it was credit card abuses, making false payments, and she asked me to weigh in for her. i asked her to find the door because the list of charges were just incredible. i go back to having hud take over the same housing authority.

they put in another housing director who, when i found out about his reputation, tried not to get him appointed. washington overrode me. atlanta overrode me. hired him, and we had spent millions to bring the thing back up, turn the thing over. hud took control, and within 7, . years, he ran it down i think there were thousands of .ollars of credit card abuses i wish i had remembered this before we did this hearing, but made aestigated the ig, criminal referral to the theytment of justice, and never -- we asked justice, and they never pursued it. abusingagencies who are

-- well, some employees who are abusing the public trust, and we have some mechanisms to go after i was just stunned. the department of justice refused to go after them. you go in with a mask and a gun and held up and taken 10% of what was gone, but again, i just have to recall that for the record. ms. richards, you are next. anyone prosecuted, terminated, or disciplined in dhs? >> am aware some employees have been disciplined and terminated for credit card abuse, but at would not becords managed, so i would not have the scope to get the action i was taken. >> if you could review that, let o. know for the record, to

we are leaving that in. we passed a law to try to be better stewards of public money. it was decided that you can save money by using these for small , and they are a lot of benefit, but there also are a lot of abuses. epa today, about half of the sampling abused. labor, 35% on the debit cards. dhs -- she has not come totally clean with us, but we will get the information one way or -- we have our methods, ms. richards. extracting the information. just teasing. we are relying on you to report to us. again, we would like to kind of on what isr handle taking place, and if the law needs -- my last question, too, anyach of you is that recommendations for tightening

up the law -- this is interesting because some of it poor management practices or poor administration. some of it is not having the proper protocols in place that are sort of standard and can take the law to implementation with better understanding and byformance and compliance federal employees, but tell us, if you can, if there is any tool missing or anything we can do. the other thing, too, is omb should possibly have some role or requiring at least that in agency come up with some set of protocols that are .issing in some of the agencies any recommendations for myself, mr. connolly, the committee? >> the law contains many of the controls that are necessary, and no most all the controls are

necessary regarding purchase cards. the issue at epa was epa was not overseen to make sure that those actual controls were -- >> again, ms. richards said lack of compliance. >> right. >> we might look at some .echanism to ensure that mr. lewis? >> we have not found anything that we believe would require legislation to address. , as well, was a complete lack of oversight or attention to this, and the requirements are already there for that to be in place. the focus that this act has put assessmentsdic risk and audits, i think, has been good, and that is working to start bringing these things -- >> you have cited some successes andringing about compliance also implementing the intent and purpose of the law.

mr. lile with the air force has cited what they have done to try get the proper use of these cards. ms. richards, any changes? anything you see we need to do from law or procedural standpoint? >> no, sir, not at this time. the law very wisely puts in place the regular risk assessments and reporting to the us toand requirements for look back at what the departments are doing. i think as that plays out over time, it will better inform any changes you might have to make in the future. that? i just follow-up on first of all, i will answer your question. certainly, one thing that came out of this hearing is we need an explicit prohibition on the personal use of these cards, period. there cannot be any circumstance of un-job-related use of a

credit card issued by the government. that is wrong, and we have to make it an explicit prohibition, it seems to me. required atht to be every federal agency that issues such cards -- that ought to be required of every federal agency that issues such cards. at any rate, that will be one way i would answer your question in terms of how we might update the law. other than that, i'm glad to hear the 2012 law is help all -- helpful. >> does oh would be enforced the law or point out any guidelines -- does oh would be -- does omb enforce the law or point out any guidelines? >> they put out a circulate that a think was updated to comply .ith the new law >> do you think that is adequate? i'm not aware of the provision. >> am not aware that there's any

issues or problems. ? ok, mr. lewis, anything >> no, they have put out guidelines and are collecting reports on what issues we are identifying with purchase cards and the status of recommendations. >> ms. richards? >> i agree with my fellow be --ant ig's, that would that omb has put out additional guidance. >> but they really do not go back that much to check. have you seen them adding compliance? >> they put out the guidance, and it's up to the individual departments to enforce it. >> and you all oversee some of that as inspector general's. >> the only thing that strikes me here, though -- correct me if i'm wrong, but in a sense, neither the 2012 law nor the omb guidance give explicit guidance for criteria of who gets a card

and when a card can be used. would that be fair? if i understood you, ms. casper, you were saying even within epa, there was broad discretion about that guidance -- if i understood per. ms. kas >> i'm not aware of guidance as to who can get it or how it can be distributed. >> you would agree with that? >> same here. we are currently looking at the utilization of these cards because we know some people have them and do not use them. >> evidently they do not need them. >> we are also looking at it, and it is a matter of in the department of homeland security because we are geographically widely dispersed. you would want to have a card available at a location, but you may not need to cards, so that's one of the ways we are looking at it, in order to minimize the number of cards out there. >> that is always a challenge for us, too.

you do not want to codify things like guidance and unwittingly make it, if possible, to achieve the savings and efficiencies such cards can provide. on the other hand, the access of any guidance does allow for even within an agency a mary at of standards that can lead to misuse, deliberate and not deliberate -- even within an agency a mary a -- even within of standardsmyriad that can lead to misuse, deliberate and not deliberate. you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thing -- i am a renowned tightwad, and i try to get as much from my book, whether it is the taxpayer's book -- i try to get as much

it isy buck, whether the taxpayer's, or my own. do any of you have any detail in negotiating with these? the federal now, government is broke. we are borrowing warty cents on every dollar or something in that range. our job is not only to see that waste, fraud, and abuse is eliminated, but the maximum going out.can get is you are shaking your head yes. have you found some good return for the government and taxpayer? >> in addition to the transaction savings discussed earlier, we did receive $14.7 million in rebates this past year. we are also increasing the use on the government purchase card above the micro-purchase threshold for preestablished contract fulfillments to protect the taxpayer dollar from that perspective. we would not want government

purchase card holders to go out a negotiate contracts, but if it is pre-priced, we will increase the use of the card up to the simplified acquisition threshold, 150 $5,000, to take advantage of the transaction savings as well as the rebates. $155,000, to take advantage of the transaction savings as well as the rebates. >> 2012, 2013 -- $2.6 billion in credit card purchases. just heard the success story of the air force. are you familiar with any savings? >> i do not have the dollar figures available, but the department does receive a rebate the purchasee card. >> could you also make that available? >> i will. >> we are looking for waste, fraud, and abuse, but we are also looking for savings. -- ime as ms. richards know there are rebates, but i do

not know the dollar amount. >> i also know there are rebates. they get rebates depending on how fast they approve the purchase to be paid, but i do not know exactly how -- what the amount of rebates was. >> again, this is a small sampling of federal agencies, and we appreciate your cooperation. we are looking to see how a law we passed in 2012 works. there are a number of reports dating back to january of this year and subsequent reports we have reviewed for this hearing. each of you that would take time to come in today, where our job is, again, to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. --well as all of us forfeit all of us as federal employees. i thank you for working within this particular time frame to make certain we did this.

i think we have done a record number of hearings. appreciate your cooperation. businessng no further before the subcommittee on government operations, this hearing is adjourned. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> just a note, a couple of hearings coming up thursday on the house side. 10:30, the fbi director. new, the cdc director, and folks from nih as well, testifying about ebola. other than that, congress is out until after the midterm elections. ahead of those elections, c-span's campaign 2014 coverage brings you more than 100 debates for the control of congress. on tv, online, and c-span radio. follow us on twitter @cspan, and like us on facebook.

one of his campaign debates is eastern.t 8:00 p.m. mark pryor seeking a third term. he is being challenged by republican congressman tom cotton. the two debate at the university of arkansas fayetteville. here's a look at some of the ads from that race. >> i mark i are and i approve this message. >> on the director of a 24-hour emergency domestic violence shelter. we got to do something to break this cycle of violence, and tom cotton is not doing anything to help. congressmen voted against protecting women and children from domestic violence. he was the only republican or democrat from the state of arkansas to vote this way. there is a big difference between mark pryor and tom cotton. one wants to protect women and children. the other doesn't. >> i mark prior and i approve this message. >> i'm courtney. i've never been political, but it's hard to ignore the senate race. the more i read, more i am

concerned about tom cotton. did you know he voted against equal pay for women, and he thinks women should be charged more for health care than men? cotton was also the only arkansas congressman to vote twice against helping women who were victims of domestic violence. it makes you wonder -- what's cotton got against women? >> i'm tom cotton, and i approve this message. >> my husband and i started this message -- this business on a leap of faith. our dream now is survival. obamacare has already raised premiums. it's already costing us a fortune. it has not only hurt our business. it has hurt our employees. it was supposed to make health care a lot more affordable. it has done everything but make health care affordable. next year, we might not be able to afford coverage at all. our hands are tied. it is frustrating to realize that your own senators cast the deciding vote on obamacare.

we told him personally how this would affect our business and our employees. i wish he had listened to us him how obama care would affect our business, and a wish he would have voted against it, but he did not. >> the arkansas senate debate between democrat mark pryor, the incumbent, in a republican tom cotton is live on c-span at 8:00 eastern. over on c-span2, a debate from the louisiana senate race. democratic incumbent mary landrieu running for reelection. the top two finishers will advance to a runoff at month later if no candidate wins a majority of votes. >> be part of c-span's campaign 2014 coverage. follow us on twitter and like us

on facebook to get debate schedules, video clips of key fromts, debate previews our politics team. c-span is bringing you over 100 senate, house, and government debates, and you can instantly share your reactions to what the candidates are saying -- the battle for control of congress -- stay in touch and engage by following us on twitter and .iking us on facebook richmond,ght in virginia, democratic senator mark warner debated his republican challenger, ed gillespie. polling has shown senator warner with a comfortable lead. the debate was hosted by the virginia affiliates of aarp and the league of women voters. >> welcome to the people's debate. tonight, candidates will answer questions about the issues the voters of virginia face.

i'm bill fitzgerald, your moderator. some ground has been covered in prior debates. we will try to fly on new ground tonight. we may come back to some of those issues, but first, let's introduce you to the candidates. , democrat tonight mark warner, and his challenger tonight, republican ed gillespie. tonight's debate is being broadcast on television stations throughout virginia, and you can join a live conversation about the debate on twitter using #peoplesdebated. bothach question, candidates will have 90 seconds to respond. in the first candidate will have an additional 60 seconds to rebut. the candidates will alternate taking the first response with each question, and a signal will determine when their time is up. the candidates will also have two minutes each for opening and closing statements. who goes first has been decided

by a coin toss. let's meet the panel -- joining us tonight, the president of league of women voters of arlington. pbs, a political reporter, and the president of aarp virginia joins us tonight. thank you all for joining us tonight. it was determined by a coin toss that mr. gillespie will go first. he'll be first to deliver his opening statement. a second coin toss has determined that he will get to answer the first question now. let us start with opening statements. >> it is great to be with everyone here. i am running for the united states senate because they want future generations to have the same opportunities i have had. my grandfather was an immigrant janitor. my parents did not go to college. i got to be counselor to the president. we are losing that kind of economic opportunity and upward

mobility as a result of the obama-warner policies. president obama says these policies are on the dollar this year, every single one of them and in voting with the president 97% of the time, mark warner has voted for every single one of them. these policies are making us less safe as a nation and making us less able to meet growing threats to our national security and public health and safety. they are squeezing too many virginians between lost jobs, lower take-home pay, reduced working hours, and higher prices for health care, energy, and food. in virginia since the senator has taken office, 65,000 or woman have gone into poverty. for every net job we have created, to virginians have gone on food stamps and 250,000 have the health care plans canceled as a result of the vote for obama care. this election presents a big choice.

we can continue down the path of the obama-warner policies or we can take a new and better direction with my five point agenda for economic growth that would create jobs and raise take-home pay and lift people out of poverty and reduce energy prices. it is a choice between higher taxes and lower take-home pay or tax relief and increased wages. a choice between more debt or a balanced budget. more regulations on energy that kill jobs and drive up prices or unleashing american energy to create jobs and hold down prices. my approach would ease the squeeze and make it easier for the unemployed to find work and i look forward to debating those issues here this evening. >> thank you. >> it is good to see you. i would like to thank our hosts and all the virginians who are watching tonight. it has been a great honor to serve virginia. first as governor and now a senator.

what brought me to public service was the notion that in america, everyone not to get a fair shot. everyone ought to get a fair shot. and to make sure that sense of opportunity exists. we have to make sure people in washington can work together. that is what i did is your governor. we turned a deficit into a surplus and virginia got named the best managed state in the best state for business. i brought that same bipartisan approach to the u.s. senate. that is why i am honored to have the endorsement of john warner who held this job for 30 years. and had more former legislators endorsing me this race than when i ran the first time. in the senate i have wrestled with issues like bringing down the debt and deficit. making sure veterans get the care they deserve, bringing jobs back to virginia and making sure young people do not get crushed i student debt. on every issue that i have

worked on i always start with a republican partner because that is how you get things done. my opponent has a different approach. he spent his whole career as a d.c. lobbyist and partisan political operative. he sees every issue -- he even went out and called himself a partisan leader. i do not know about you but the last thing washington needs is another partisan lawyer in either political party. the world needs a strong american. economically, militarily, and morally. you have to have leaders that can work together. thank you. >> thank you. we will go to the questions as per the point toss. mr. gillespie will answer first. let's go to christine goss. >> thank you both for being here. last year, the supreme court gutted the key section of the

voting rights act that for decades had help you protect color from discriminatory voting laws. legislation is pending to update the voting rights act. so that its full protections are once again in place. presumably the bill will be reintroduced in the next congress. when you correspond -- cosponsor this legislation? >> i would look at that, i believe that it is free clarence. the voting rights act is critically important, must we enforced and this is one of the most sacred rights we have. people have shed blood in died. we saw here that the voting rights act is being enforced and

we have district lines overturned and it is one example of why the federal courts are so important. it is an example why so many virginians are concerned about the recent reports that senator warner made a phone call talking about the potential of recommending the daughter of a state senator for the federal bench, a lifetime appointment in relation to a political decision, whether or not that senator would stay or leave his seat came in the same timeframe as the story of the governor's chief of staff making a job offer. this is very serious in terms of the federal bench has a big impact, and we need to make sure that qualified people are put on the bench and i would never play politics with recommending judicial appointments, and i would not raise the prospect of it in the context of a decision about expanding obamacare further in the commonwealth.

>> let me answer the question. i strongly would support that legislation. i think we need to expand voting rights. it is remarkable that we see all around the country efforts to restrict voting rights. oftentimes in a political posturing point. i am not surprised my apartment would not be in support of expanding voter rights. but let's do with the issue he just raised. i have been a friend of senator philip puckett and his family. when i heard that philip was considering resigning from the senate, i reached out to his son joseph and to find out what was going on. during that conversation, we brainstormed about possible opportunities for his sister. his sister had been a substitute state judge.

because of that tenure, she could not be confirmed. we talked about a lot of options. i did not offer her a job, nor would i offer her any kind of position. the following day i talked to senator puckett. he decided he was going to resign. he even drafted his letter of resignation. i have been friends with the the family for long time, and i respect the senator's decision. >> your rebuttal, and bear in mind that republicans face similar accusation in this case commits a federal investigation as well. >> let me be clear. i am talking about news reports and questions that are out there. the senator has answered the question here that i do not think is being asked. i have not seen a suggestion

that he was offering a job, and i understand the difference between the execute and legislative branch. i can tell you this, the role as senator plays in the judicial nomination process is a critically important one and a very influential one. the recommendations are made have a great aid in terms of what nominations are made. i have not seen anyone suggest that there was a job offer. there has been talk of private sector jobs with a federal contractor. even that discussion raises questions about the notion of a lifetime appointment to the federal bench in relation to a political decision and to further the effort of expanding obamacare in the commonwealth of virginia, i do not know if that has been answered. >> it will address the second question starting with mr. warner.

>> this year the general assembly reformed the state's sol's, but there have not been reform since no children left behind. a major criticism of the current system from teachers and administrators is that it does not celebrate progress made by struggling students who start from behind. what specific changes would you make to no child left behind? >> i believe that no child left behind needs to be reformed or gotten rid of. i think the pendulum has swung way too far in terms of testing alone. i would argue that one of the things i have done that i am proudest of is back when i was governor. we fixed virginia's budget and made the largest investment in public education in virginia history, and we need to have that kind of approach. the challenge is going to be not only how do we reform education, but how do we adequately fund

it. my opponent talks about easing the squeeze or his commitment to virginians, but he has taken one of the most important pledges of this campaign. the grover norquist pledge says in effect it is better to cut better to cut support for for seniors than to close a single tax loophole. i doubt with the debt and deficit. no serious person has said you have to look at both sides of the balance sheet. i know about that as a business person. even republican members of the delegation have said taking the grover norquist pledge is an impediment to tax reform. you need education reform, but

you need to fund education. my opponent has already taken a pledge. he will not be able to reform or fund education. >> this is another debate where senator warner has made a flat-out wrong statement. i do not sign any pledges. i have not signed the atr pledge in terms of repealing obamacare. i have made a pledge to the people of virginia that i will not vote to raise taxes on the floor of the united states senate. senator warner has voted to raise taxes by nearly a trillion dollars and they have been implemented. that is one of the reasons we have the lowest the perforce forceest labor participation rate in 36 years and half of all recent college graduates are unable to find full-time quality jobs. i do not believe in raising taxes. i will make a pledge to my i will fight to lower taxes.

that is one of the big choices in this election. in the six years he has been there, our debt has gone up $7 trillion. we need education reforms. i support education reforms. if you go to my website, you can see my economic growth agenda. if you believe in a society based on equal opportunity, you have to have quality schools. >> let's go back to the pledge he took. i've got the letter from grover norquist. it said you will go up above and beyond the pledge. we should not vote for anybody who signs -- we would be happy to give you

grover norquist complimenting you on taking the pledge and going above and beyond the pledge. let's go back to what the effects are. you will end up saying it is better to cut education, it is better to cut the military, it is better to get senior services rather than closing a tax loophole. you want to hire somebody with one hand tied behind their back. no serious group who has looked at our fiscal issues have said you have to look at both sides of the balance sheet trade what i did as governor and senator, there is a clear choice between the two candidates on this issue. >> we're going to go to our third question.

>> social security turns 80 next year, and it is the basis of retirement for older americans. how would you protect social security for today's seniors and strengthen it for future generations? >> we have to start with the point you just made. we must protect social security for today's seniors. then we have to save it for future generations. my son and daughter are with me this evening. in will not be there for them. if you are 47 or younger, you are looking at your retirement point getting a 70 cents on the dollar of projected benefits because of the insolvency that is looming. we need to save social security and medicare for future generations so it is there for them. unfortunately, senator warner voted to raid medicare. it did not extend the life of

the program at all. we do take a serious look at what we need to do to reform those programs. that entails a number of things bipartisan support. -- that entails a number of things that would have to get bipartisan support. i think looking at retirement ages, we are looking at increasing the retirement age to 67. we need to look at other options. our children and their children will have the same benefit of a safety net in their retirement that my parents have had and that i will have. it will be there for me. people younger than me will be at risk. >> social security is important. we got to make sure the promise

of it is still be there. the math doesn't work anymore. there were 16 people working for everyone personal retirement. today there are three working for every person on retirement. we have to make changes. i have laid out some specific changes that i think ought to be considered. chained cpi, the idea that those people under 35, if they would be willing to wait an extra year to get security if it would be there. maybe we ought to raise the tax in terms of how much is taxed in terms of income. for those people who are 80 and above, we should increase the benefit because they are not living their savings. my opponent has a different approach. he was the major cheerleader for the bush-cheney plan to privatize social security. think if that had become legislation in the midst of the financial crisis.

it would've been devastating. it would've been devastation for millions of seniors. he would think after that crisis, he would no longer be an advocate for that. just last year, he wrote an editorial saying it was good for the country and good for the the country and good for the republican party if the bush privatization plan had been put into law. i strongly disagree with that great we've got to strengthen social scared and make sure it is still there. >> senator warner has been a top staffer himself. he has worked for elected officials. i am running on my proposals. i have my own ideas and policies that i'm putting forward. i do agree about the reference to inflation, the chained cpi. i appreciate senator warner's

recognition that that is an option that we should look at and i would look at it as well. let me look at a so security and medicare as a whole. it is part of the social safety net. i met with home health care providers in virginia beach. they are having their services slashed to pay for more obamacare. that means that the medicare population who are more sick or elderly and more poor than the broader population are going to find themselves not having access to home health care. that was so important to my mother. i want to protect it for seniors in the commonwealth. >> the next question will be addressed to mr. warner. >> in light of news reports over the weekend, is it appropriate for elected officials to help find jobs for other lawmakers or their family members in exchange for their support? >> let me again restate the

circumstances that you refer to. i have been friends with phillip puckett and his family for 20 years. when i reached out to his son before i talked to philip, i did not offer anyone any job, nor would i. that is a fact, and where do we go from here? virginia has been a bit tarnished over scandals. i hope we would come together with stricter ethics laws. we need stricter ethics laws. we need to make sure that we would restore trust in our political process. that starts with people who are willing to work together. people who won't see every problem through the lens of republican versus democrat.

but who have a record of being bipartisan, and that is what i have done as governor and senator. >> maybe it was a coincidence that this call to an old friend came in the same timeframe as the call from the governor's chief of staff to offer a job to the state senator's daughter. maybe it was just a coincidence. i do not know her. i'm sure she is a fine person. maybe she is qualified to be considered to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. nobody is suggesting that. i realize the senate does not have the ability to nominate. the executive branch has that ability. senators have a great deal of influence on who is put forward for a nomination to the federal bench.

we know the impact of these appointments have in our country. we talked about it earlier today. i will not play politics with recommendations to the bench. i will be careful about this important role, and i don't believe that the questions that are out there have been answered.t been i think the people of virginia deserve some answers. >> i agree with ed. we need to have an appropriate process. that is what we do. we go through a lengthy process where candidates are reviewed by the bar. only those candidates are interviewed.

we recommended two candidates for a judgeship for the western district of virginia. i think two very qualified candidates and i think the present move forward on one of them. how do we make sure in virginia that we have a stronger ethics laws? it goes to the trust people have in our elected officials. they are so tired of the partisan gridlock and political attacks and innuendo. that is not the way i have operated. >> we will now go to the next question. >> thank you. you both said you are troubled by the sums of outside money flowing into political campaigns.

what policies might be effective in remedying the problem? >> one of the things we are dealing with is a bill that went through the congress that was intended to try to fix the problem of money in politics. that was the campaign finance reform act. at the time i argued against it. i thought it would result in money going to outside groups that are less accountable in the political process than are the political parties. as chairman of the rnc, i filed an amicus brief against the law. now we are living with him today. them

senator warner suggested that we take a vow not to have any outside money after his super pac spent $1.4 million in attack ads on me. i do think it would be better for us to have laws where the parties and the campaign committees were more accountable for their election messaging than outside groups. this is the result of a bill that was enacted not that long ago. we are seeing the unintended consequences of that today. i would like to see campaigns and parties that have greater transparency and more accountability in the process. >> i support campaign finance report. i think the supreme court got it wrong on citizens united. i don't think we ought to have all kinds of unlimited and undisclosed money in our system. i don't think that's what the founders had in mind.

i would be willing to get rid of acs. in addition to campaign finance reform, he and karl rove formed the granddaddy of all super pac's. i'm not surprised he is not willing to say that citizens united got it wrong. we need independent redistricting reform as well. too often right now, our legislators choose their constituents rather than the other way around. if we want to end the partisan gridlock and get back to where there is more centrist candidates, redistricting reform should be on the agenda. >> i did support efforts on the conservative side of the spectrum to counter what the liberal side had been doing for some time in the campaign

process. one of the things that i am sure senator warner would not support is ending the practice of having compulsory union dues taken from hard-working virginians or hard-working americans and put toward a political action committees and political ads that they don't agree with. one of the reasons i'm sure the afl-cio support senator warner but small business groups are for me is because senator warner is willing to say that any finance reform bill exempt labor unions. >> the next question will be addressed to mr. warner. >> you both said you support and

an all-of-the-above approach to energy development. what should a centerpiece be? what resources would you seek to aggressively develop? >> i think one of the great success stories of the last decade has been the explosive growth of american energy. who would have thought that we would soon be a net energy exporter and that we're able now to bring back a number of manufacturing jobs because our energy costs have driven down? as much as my opponent wants to claim otherwise, i support all of the above energy policies, including coal, including natural gas, including renewables, including nuclear, all of the above. what we need to do is to make sure that we unleash the complete potential of american energy. now, i do believe, and one of the areas where my opponent and i differ, i think we also have to deal with climate change.

i've invited ed before, i still want him to come down to norfolk and see how the navy is spending millions of dollars on raising the piers because of the costs driven by rising sea levels. as a matter of fact, the secretary of defense came out with a new study today on additional costs from climate change. so we've got to get this balance right. i support that all-of-the-above approach, including coal. but we've got to find ways to use coal cleaner as part that have approach because regardless of what we do in america, china and india are going to go ahead and build 800 additional coal plants. so i do support all of the above. i think it's important for american manufacturing and jobs. >> believe me, i haven't put 53,000 miles on the road over the past nine months. i've been to norfolk. i understand the concerns there in this area. and i've put those miles on the road. i don't charter planes. i drive everywhere in the

commonwealth. and i understand those concerns. i also understand the need for to us create high-paying jobs in the hampton roads region by lifting the ban on drilling off of our deep sea coast, which has been in place since senator warner took office. when there was a bipartisan amendment on the floor of the united states senate to do just that, former democratic senator jim webb stood up for georgia and he voted for that bipartisan amendment. senator warner sided with harry reid against it. when there was a bipartisan amendment to move forward with the keystone x.l. pipeline, senator webb voted for it. senator warner voted to block it. when there was a chance to stand up and have bipartisan support and say that the e.p.a. does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, senator webb voted for it and senator -- in that bipartisan amendment -- senator warner voted against it. this is a classic area where what mark warner says in virginia is very different from what he does in washington, d.c. and i will stand up for our coal miners and for the people who pay electric bills and put gas in their car.

the price of a gallon of gas has doubled since mark warner took office, promising us that he would vote to bring down energy prices. and now, you know, when you put down $20, it used to get 10 1/2 gallons of gas, when he took office. today it's about 5 1/2 gallons of gas. that's why virginians are feeling squeezed as well. >> again, my opponent didn't give you the facts. i strongly support and have legislation for six years to allow drilling off the coast of virginia. but he forgot to include was only if virginia gets a share of the proceeds. i think virginia should get a share of the royalties the same way louisiana does. the legislation he talked about would have cut virginia out. i support the keystone x.l. pipeline. as a matter of fact, even got protested against it in harrisonburg. my opponent does have two areas around energy that he's got quite a record on. one is he lobbied against increasing fuel efficiency standards. talk about costing virginia consumers more money out of their pocket because he didn't

want to have the auto industry raise their fuel efficiency standards. and we've heard him talk about easing the squeeze. well, we ought to have him address easing the squeeze when he was the largest lobbyist for enron, where 20,000 folks, energy company, manipulated the markets, lost their jobs, lost their pensions, $700,000 he and his firm made. i'm not sure that's called easing the squeeze. >> i should be allowed to answer that question given that he raised it. >> you can have 10 seconds. >> when my bipartisan firm had enron as a client, 13 years ago, they've been on the cover of "fortune" magazine as the best place to work in america and were considered one of the best companies in america. that's why senator warner i'm sure was an investor in enron at that time. >> and lost money -- and lost money. you made money. >> look at the facts.

we discontinued the contract two months before when it turned out they were fraudulent. >> people lost their jobs. >> hang on. this is a very personal attack and it deserves for the voters of virginia to know the facts. and that is this. the fact is that just like he as an investor in the same company that was a client of my firm 13 years ago, i had no idea the fraudulent practices of this company. no one did at the time. this is why good people don't run for office. i don't know what happened to mark warner when he went to washington. this is classic washington attack politics. >> mr. gillespie, i'm sorry to cut you off. but there's a question to you. the next question. >> another classic issue. for 50 years, medicare's provided people 65 and over and those with disabilities with access to health care. what is your view of the effectiveness of medicare, and how would you put medicare on stronger financial ground to protect seniors and future retirees from rising health costs? >> medicare is a critical part

of our social safety net, and, again, it will not be there for future generations, and we need to save it for future generations and get it on a more sound financial footing. it is on its way to insolvency. and we can fix that. while making clear to anyone who is on medicare or near retirement that any changes wouldn't affect them at all. although they are being affected right now, and again there are about 200,000 medicare advantage beneficiaries in the commonwealth of virginia who are very much at risk because of senator warner's cuts to medicare to pay for obamacare. over $715 billion siphoned out of this important program, again, not to reform it and save it for future generations, but to fund the obamacare program that he still supports and that i would replace with patient-centered reforms. we know, as i mentioned also, those who rely on home health care, many elderly americans on

medicare want to be treated in their home, not be put in a hospital. by the way, that's also more cost-effective for the program. and it's more affordable. and we need to restore those cuts. a 14% cut by centers for medicare and medicaid services, as a result of senator warner's support for the affordable care act, obamacare, i would replace those cuts if i was elected to the united states senate. >> a charge he just made which has been recycled a half dozen times, has been called by independent political analysts totally false. the challenge is, we have to strengthen medicare. what i've laid out are specific plans where we can strengthen medicare, to make sure it's still there. for example, combining part a and part b and trying to cut down on some of the bureaucracy. i've been a big supporter and have worked hard to make sure medicare advantage programs, particularly here in virginia, are protected.

i've looked as well at trying to say let's get rid of some of this phony budgeting with so the called sgr doc fix. i said we ought to replace it and repeal that and make sure we have true accounting. the challenge, though, is if you're going to deal with medicare and entitlements, you can't deal with those and then have the positions that he's taken, privatizing social security and taking the norquist pledge which says you can't find any tax break at all that can be closed that might allow you to go ahead and shore up medicare, that might allow you to invest in senior services, that might allow to you invest in n.i.h., the military or education. it's a question of whose side you're on, ed. i think when we look at your policies, i'm looking forward to november 4 when i think virginians will say, do you want somebody who has a proven record of working together or someone who has taken, i believe, extreme positions, whether it's norquist pledge or privatizing

social security, which will not save medicare? >> again, we've already rebutted this. the senator is factually inaccurate. i did not sign any pledges. look, i'm pledging to everyone here in the studio tonight and watching on television i will fight against more tax increases. senator warner's already raised taxes on the middle class, on small businesses that are hurting us by $1 trillion already. we don't need to raise taxes anymore. we've got to cut wasteful washington spending. and i will work to do that as well. the other thing, senator, in terms of whose side you're on. i will be on the side of virginians 100% of the time. you have been on the side of president obama 97% of the time since taking office. i will not be a blank check for the president. i will be a check and balance on the president, and i will work in a bipartisan manner to pass economic policies that will create jobs, raise take-home

pay, lift people out of poverty, hold down health care costs, and reduce energy prices, none of which you've done in your six years in the united states senate, despite saying that that's what you were going to do. >> the next question will be addressed to you, mr. warner. >> gentlemen. thomas eric duncan, the first ebola patient to be diagnosed here in the united states, sat in virginia's busiest airport, dulles, for hours before flying to texas where he later died from the virus. it's unknown how many people he came in contact with there. now one of the nurses who treated duncan has become infected and investigators don't know why. has the federal government failed to adequately respond to the ebola crisis and should virginians be concerned? >> i think, like every american, we're concerned about ebola and the challenges it presents. and i think the administration should have acted quicker. a couple weeks back, i wrote the

administration and said, we need to dramatically increase the screening at our gateway airports, which they've finally started to do, including dulles now. i think they should have done it earlier. i believe we need to make sure that we have better coordination between all of our federal agencies. so in effect, i believe there ought to be one person in charge. and i think we need to make sure that we train our public health officials so that they are able to spot early on the signs of ebola. while at the end of the day i believe we need to rely on our health care experts, i believe it may be time to consider, particularly with a nation like liberia, where ebola has spread so widely, doing what certain european nations have done in terms of restricting flights. but again, governing is about choices. i think i heard in the last couple of days, the head of the n.i.h. said that, but for sequestration, we might have been able to find a vaccination against ebola. we've seen cuts to public health.

we've got to not have one hand tied behind our back by taking stupid pledges, if we're going to wrestle with our nation's balance sheet and finances to make sure that we can, yes, shrink government, but invest in areas that are essential. >> mr. gillespie? >> the time to consider stopping flights coming in from west africa, whether there's an ebola outbreak, has passed. it's time to impose a flight ban in that regard, and that's what this administration should do. and while that flight ban is in place, yes, we need to have proper protocols. we just heard the story coming out of dallas of the nurse who has been affected. we need to make sure that our health professionals are properly trained in terms of how to approach this. we need to get more of the drugs into production and stockpiled. the screening process, i have to say, i find not that reassuring

from what i have seen. and the president, when he said not too long ago, that the chances of ebola coming to america, you know, there's not much of a chance of that, he was wrong. this administration has been slow to act. and the senator voted for the sequestration he just decried here today. in fact, that sequestration cut the centers for disease control by $345 million. it's been cut by $1 billion. one of the problems with the obama-warner policies is that under those policies the federal government is doing too many things that are better left to state and local governments or the private sector and it is failing at too many things that it needs to be doing right. and we need to rearrange those priorities and replace sequestration, and i would do that as our next senator. >> i have met a lot of charges in this campaign. but i think ed's last one really takes the cake. you all remember how we ended up

with sequestration, which i've called consistently stupidity on steroids, it was because the alternative was that our nation would default. so i assume that ed's position is we should have defaulted, which would have created economic chaos. i remind ed, the majority of the virginia delegation voted for the budget control act. john mccain, the speaker of the house, eric cantor all said, we've got to take a responsible action. and how we ended up with sequestration is because we didn't roll up our sleeves and take on what i had advocated, the simpson-bowles plan, the gang of six plan, that would have dealt with entitlement reform and tax reform. why didn't we do that? because too many people had taken pledges where they wouldn't even look at tax reform, they wouldn't look at closing tax loopholes, and we end up with this. on sequestration, i've in fact been celebrated -- ed got a little time on the last one. let me get a little time on this. the navy has given me their highest civilian award for fighting this war on sequestration. >> it leads to my next question

on this topic, and we'll start with mr. gillespie. >> that's my question, actually. we learned an ugly word. "sequestration," recently. it was supposed to be impossible. but a budget deal could not be reached. that's the easy part of this question. the hard part is, what do you do as a member of congress when there's brac, we all agree, we have to cut some of the fat, we have to streamline. virginia installations are still hurting from that sequestration, so how does a member of congress stand up and say there might be something superfluous in my district, an employer that needs to trim down? mr. gillespie? >> a couple of things. one, in terms of sequestration. mark's right. the delegation, most of them did vote for it. in the house they voted to replace it. and that replacement has passed the house. it did not pass the senate, and it never will as long as mark

warner and harry reid are in the majority, and harry reid is the majority leader, which is the first vote that he casts in january. second, you know, the sequestration in terms of the impact, langley, fort lee, 3600 jobs, 3500 jobs, both those places, you know, we have got to stop making national security priorities based on random deep arbitrary defense cuts and start budgeting our defense budget based on our national security priorities. that's why i will seek a seat on the senate armed services committee if i'm fortunate enough to be the honor of being our next united states senator. i think it's imperative not just for our national security but here where we have always been proudly on the front lines of our fight for freedom and liberty and national security. and so, yes, i believe that if we were to budget according to our national security priorities, rather than set national security priorities based on our budget, that would have a very beneficial impact in

virginia, but more importantly it would have a beneficial impact for our national security. >> mr. warner. >> i'm not sure we heard an answer from ed on how we make hard choices. because if you view everything through republican versus democratic lens, you don't make hard choices. what he didn't tell is you i voted for both the republican plan in the senate and the democratic plan in the senate. and again, don't take my word in terms of sequestration. the navy gave me their highest civilian award for fighting against the sequestration cuts. we've made some progress. we've restored a lot of the funding for our ship repair contracts, and the whole delegation hung together and i opposed the president on this, on making sure that george washington, one of our aircraft carriers, got refueled. important for hampton roads and for national defense. the way we're going to get rid of sequestration, it comes rushing back next year, is recognizing that when we've got $17 trillion in debt and it goes up $3 billion a night, we can't keep punting.

1% increase in interest rates, that alone adds $120 billion a year off the top that could be spent on aircraft carriers or education or roads or n.i.h. and the challenge is going to be everyone who's looked that the issue, the one place again where i have dug in the deepest is on our nation's finances. i did as governor and i'm doing it as senator. you cannot do this unless you look at tax reform and entitlement reform. if you keep coming back to defense spending and domestic spending alone, you end up with a nation that's not able to compete going forward and unfortunately that means you have to look at both sides of the balance sheet, and when you take the norquist pledge, you can't do that. >> your rebuttal. >> just because he keeps saying it doesn't make it true. >> happy to show you. >> look, you know, we have heard the senator talk about it time and time again tonight.

for the last six years i have fought for increasing our military spending, even though it's been slashed by $1 trillion, balance our budget, even though we're $7 trillion more in debt than when he took office, fought for offshore drilling here off the deep sea coast of our commonwealth of virginia, still there. fought to get the keystone x.l. pipeline approved. six years, none of these things have happened. talks about being a problem solver. ask yourself, what problems have been solved? and the fact is, even on the priorities he talks about, they haven't happened. you get this sense with the senator when he expresses his frustration, washington, d.c., the senate, how it's so hard and everything, that he's a newspaper columnist or a commentator on msnbc, not someone who's been there for six years. at some point you have to take accountability for either getting something done or not and stop complaining about it. >> we are just about out of time for full questions, so we have kind of a quick question. 30 seconds each. 8% approval rating for congress. people apparently not happy with what's happening there. do you foresee the next time one

of you should be running for re-election a different approval rating, that is, can we all get along? let's start with you, mr. warner. >> if we don't improve, our country's going to be in a pretty bad shape. and again i go back to where i started. is it frustrating up there, yes, at times. but the only way it's going to get solved is if you're willing to be bipartisan. look at my record. not my opponent's partisan attacks. my record. every bill i work on i start with a republican partner. i've laid out a specific plan on both entitlement reform and tax reform, taken arrows from both the left and right. everything my opponent has done in his whole career is partisan. he formed a bipartisan lobbying firm. i am not sure that qualifies as solving problems. >> he takes arrows from both sides because he says one thing in virginia and does something completely different in washington, d.c. we can get things done. i will fight for bipartisan support for all of the e.g.-squared, five-point agenda

for economic growth. and i believe that i could get that bipartisan support. i have a very simple test. for every vote i cast and every action i take as a united states senator for virginia, which is this -- will this bill ease the squeeze on hardworking virginians and make it easier for the unemployed to find work? and if it won't, i will fight against it, and i will fight for policies that do. and those will get bipartisan support, and i will fight to get that as well. >> thank you both for answering the questions. it is time now for your closing statements. we begin with mr. warner per the coin toss earlier. >> tonight we've heard once again a lot of attacks from my opponent. if you spend your life as a d.c. lobbyist and partisan political operative, that's what happens. the squeeze, the squeeze is what happened to the employees at enron. the squeeze is what happened when we had the policies he advocated for, which were two wars on a credit card, a tax

that we couldn't pay for, entitlement programs that weren't paid for, and an economy that was driven into the ditch. do we need to do more to get our economy going? absolutely. but it's going to take people who are still optimistic about possibilities in america. i've been blessed to live the american dream. i've failed at my first two businesses. but it didn't stop me from picking up and trying again and being successful. i believe that the best days of our country are in front of us. but at the end of the day, it's going to require people who are willing to roll up their sleeves and work together and get things done. that's what i did as governor. that's what i've been doing as senator. and that's what i'll continue to do if you hire me. i believe in america. that we've got to get back to the notion that when you see a problem, you roll up your sleeves and fix it and move on to the next problem. you might not get it 100% right at first but you don't keep kicking the can. the only way that's going to happen in america, and as somebody who has worked in the

senate, i can tell, is if we're willing to occasionally put aside republican and democrat and put our country first. that's what i did as governor. that's why i work on every bill in a bipartisan fashion in the united states senate. and when it comes, again, to finances, there's a major difference between us. i took a deficit, turned it into a surplus. when ed was working with the administration he supported so much, he took a surplus and turned it into a deficit. going forward, the only way our country can get back to that kind of prosperity that we all believe in is if we have people with a proven record of getting things done and working together. thanks so much. >> thank you, mr. warner. your closing statement, mr. gillespie. >> thank you for this chance to share my commonsense solutions to the problems we face as a nation. i believe they would get bipartisan support in the united states senate, and that's why i've put forward my five-point plan for economic growth, so that if i'm honored to stand before you again as our senator, people can hold me accountable for getting these things done.

in the same way i'm asking virginians to hold mark warner accountable for saying he'd be an independent voice in a bipartisan vote on the floor of the senate, but siding with president obama 97% of the time and consistently voting against bipartisan amendments, as i pointed to time after time here this evening. i also want to hold him accountable and voters should hold him accountable for saying that he would balance the budget. for saying he's be a pro-business senator, but voting for job-killing policy after job-killing policy, including nearly $1 trillion in tax increases. and of course for saying that he would never vote for a health care reform bill that would mean losing our insurance if we wanted to keep it and then working to pass the affordable care act, obamacare. he's not the senator he said he would be, not the senator so many virginians hoped he would be. that's why so many of his supporters are supporting me this election cycle. so many of his voters and over

75 of his donors are supporting my campaign. today, i'm proud to say the fraternity order of police which endorsed him last election is endorsing me he this year. most americans no longer believe we're a country where the next generation can do better than the generation that came before us. that does not have to be our past. it must be our future. and it can be with the right policies. but we cannot afford six more years of the last six years. we need to change course, and we cannot send senator warner back to washington and expect to see anything different occur as a result of that. we need a new and better direction, and i have put forward policies that will ease the squeeze on hardworking virginians and will fight for them every day as our senator. i hope you will give me that chance, and i ask for your vote on november 4.

>> thank you, mr. gillespie, thank you, mr. warner. we appreciate your vigorous participation in this debate tonight. i also want to thank the audience for taking part and a special thanks to our panel. thank you all for taking part in this. this program has been brought to you in part by aarp virginia, the league of women voters of virginia. thanks again to the candidates for appearing together on this stage tonight. i'd like to thank you, the voters of virginia, and our live audience, of course, for watching, and don't forget election day is only 22 days away. on behalf of everyone who brought this debate to you, i'm bill fitzgerald. good night. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

virginia senate debate. you can also check www.c-span.org for schedules of debates. cspan. us on twitter @ one of those debates was last night in kentucky where mitch mcconnell is seeking a sixth term. his democratic challenger is

kentucky's secretary of state alison grimes. >> the minimum wage increase she advocates will cost a lot of jobs for younger people. and much better way to target the a low income people is the earned income tax cut it. the way to deal with that underemployment problem -- the problem of those who are employed at not making enough, a better way to do it without killing jobs is the earned income tax credit, which is already a part of the tax law and ought to be grown and expanded. >> let me stop. that is amazing to hear the senate there say that the earned income tax credit should be grown because he has supported ashed that.t slah

his record is against the earned income tax credit. is --ave no idea what he what she is talking about. >> he supported budgets slash ed >> >> that coming. in a large budget vote, there are probably things in there that you can pluck out that anyone of us might not have preferred. when you put together a budget, and secretary grimes has not had that experience yet, you will not approve of absolutely everything in there. dothe budget is designed to is put an overall cap on what we are going to spend, and you cannot serve in a legislative body and not occasionally cast a vote for something that you are not crazy about, because there are other things in the measure that you liked. was thenight's debate

only debate in this year's kentucky senate debate. you can see that in its entirety tonight at 7:00 eastern. the:00 eastern, on c-span2, debate from the louisiana senate race where mary landrieu is running for reelection and she faces two republican challengers, of the and rob man ess. if no candidate wins a majority of vote on november 4, the top two finishers will be involved in a runoff. also debates is challenger tom cotton tonight. they debated yesterday. here is that debate.

debateome, everyone, to week. the arkansas education educational network. we are in the halls of the of arkansas.rsity at this hour for our race for the united states senate, tom nominee,e republican the representative of the green party, mark pryor, the incumbent and democratic nominee, and mark sweeney. the nominees will be questioned by panel of arkansas journalists.

each candidate will have two minutes for an opening statement. each will have one minute 50 seconds to respond to a question , and rebuttals are limited to one minute. at the conclusion of the broadcast, each candidate will have two minutes. the order of the opening statements, questioning, and rebuttals was determined prior to the parents tonight by drawing in which the candidates or their representatives participate. , andimekeeper is elizabeth our first opening statement comes from mr. sweeney. thisank you for watching debate. i'm with the green party. the green party is the only regressive political party in this senate debate. the green party has certain principles that distinguish itself from the other parties. sometimes i hear people say they

think the green party is just like the democrats, but this is not the case. the green party has three principles we believe strongly in and guide and a lot of positions on our issues. they are peace, social justice, and protecting the environment. early in his first term as a senator, senator pryor was a strong supporter of the iraq war. 4477 war in 2003 cost lives, added more than $1 trillion to our national debt, and did nothing to protect the united states of america. the green party believes it is immoral and wrong to hire people to work and not pay them enough money to live during the time that they are working. because of that, we support a living wage. senator pryor cannot even call foris own party's

an increase in the minimum wage. he only wants to go as far as $8.25 an hour. the green party believes climate change is the most serious problem facing the planet, and we believe carbon tax is a necessary first step to address this problem. billor pryor voted for a that prevented congress from discussing a carbon tax. these are just some of the differences between myself and senator pryor and the green party and the democratic party. >> thank you. i want to thank you for allowing me to be your senator, and i want to say that 12 years ago you sent me to washington to work in a bipartisan way to get things done for america and for arkansas. that is exactly what i have done. we have done a lovely good things to the other -- together, from saving jobs in exarch anna, to making toys safe for our

children, due to shrinking size of the federal government, but honoring commitments we have veterans.r i believe we have a lot at stake in this election. i do not know if you have heard the audio, but several months ago congressman cotten went to a luxury resort in california dispense on with his billionaire donors. this is an audiotape on where they brag about him as a introducing for voting against the farm bill. it is a vote against arkansas. you can hear the ovation on the tape for voting against arkansas. folks, he is not listening to you. he is listening to them. that applause is still raining in his ear come and those dollar are still in his eyes. congressman houten will do anything, say anything, but however he can't so he can get their money to win this race.

he has his billionaires, but i have you. that is all i have ever had, you, the people of arkansas. you have trade for me. you have given me the courage to keep going. you have set my course, given me direction. that is why tonight i am asking you for your vote on november 4. i know together we can keep america strong and keep arkansas moving. that is what i mean when i say arkansas comes first. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i want to thank atm and the university of central arkansas for hosting this debate. it is an honor to be here. i think in this debate you will find a distinct dichotomy between myself and the libertarian party platform and the other three candidates for u.s. senate. the i mean is though republicans, democrats, green

party have their own issues they focus on, their own interest groups, that influence how they vote in washington, all three parties have one common goal. that is to grow the size of the federal government. it is consolidate control and power over our lives in washington, d.c., because that control means more that is a cycle i think needs to end and end now. the overarching goal of my platform is to take this consolidated power in washington, d.c. and diffuse it down to the state level, to the county level, to your communities, because this is america, and this is founded on local government and a limited federal government. so now we have a federal deficit of over $18 trillion. it is a federal deficit both republicans and democrats have controlled over the last 10

years. no matter which party was in power, we saw spending and the deficit grow. i think it needs to end now. so what i will bring to arkansas and the rest of the country is a voice in washington of a true limited government. we will return that paur back to -- power back to you and to your economies. >> mr. cotton. >> as i've traveled around the state of arkansas i have listened to people. they are frustrated with washington. and they should be. i have been in washington long enough to know it needs to change. washington could use more of the common sense that i learned growing up on my parents' farm. washington could use more courage, as shown by our combat