>> a farmer from law school who never went -- a farmer who never went to law school. >> i get very upset. >> those ads are running in iowa. bruce braley is running against joni ernst for the open u.s. senate seat. watch more live campaign tomorrow night. georgia, a candidate debate last week. this included amanda swofford. this is one hour. >> good evening. welcome to the georgia national

fairgrounds for tonight's debate among the three candidates for the soon-to-be vacant u.s. senate seat in the state of georgia. we want to thank all of you who are watching live on 13 wmaz in macon, those watching on a tape delayed basis, and those who have turned out at the arena in support of their candidate. thank you very much. [applause] my name is frank malloy news , anchor with 13 wmaz in macon. i will be moderating tonight's debate. obviously, the purpose of tonight's debate is to hear what our three candidates have to say on the issues and why they should be the next senator in the state of georgia, and while we appreciate your passion for politics, those of you who are here tonight, we are going to be able to hear what the candidates have to say.

they will have to hear what each other is saying, they will have to do with the panelists are saying, so we appreciate your cooperation in that regard. at this time it is my great pleasure to introduce the candidates left to right. the positions they have drawn beforehand. republican candidate david perdue. [applause] democratic candidate michelle nunn. [applause] our libertarian candidate amanda

swafford. [applause] the format of the debate is as follows. each candidate will get a one-minute opening statement, they will then answer questions from our panelists, who i will introduce in a minute. they will then be allowed to question one another. then more questions from the panelists, and then one minute closing statement. that is the format. our panelists going left to right, the special projects editor with wmaz macon, mr. randall savage. host and reporter with gpb radio, ms. leah fleming. news anchor and reporter in atlanta. and veteran columnist with the "ajc," mr. jim galloway. candidates, analysts, crowd,

thank you for being here tonight. we are officially underway, and in we will begin with a one minute opening statement as drawn. mr. perdue, you have the honors. >> thank you. wow, great to be home. welcome to perdue country. [applause] folks, this race is not about michelle nunn, it is not about me. it is about the direction of our country. we have a full-blown crisis in america today. we have fewer people working than any time since jimmy carter was president. middle class wages have dropped

dramatically. and yet in the last six years we have put 4 million women into poverty under the failed administration of this president. [applause] no wonder 70% of america believes we are headed in the wrong direction. we can fix this, my democratic opponent will be nothing but a rubber stamper for the failed agenda. we cannot give harry reid one more vote in the united states senate. [applause] >> opening statement. ms. nunn, your turn. >> thank you, thank you. [applause] thank you to our panelists, thank you to david and amanda, and thank you to our raucous and enthusiastic crowd. [applause] i'm really grateful to be here in my hometown. perry. just a few miles -- [applause] just a few miles down the road from our family farm. here at the fair where my kids love to come every single year. it is great to be here.

i am very proud of my 26 years of living and working in georgia, and mobilizing younger volunteers, going from an organization with a few thousand dollars to $30 million budget. i know that we can change washington, change the dysfunction, if we send someone who is committed to collaboration and creativity and georgia values. [applause] >> ms. swafford, one minute opening statement, please. >> i am amanda swafford, and you may not have heard about me, but i stand for true freedom. i am bringing personal responsibility to this race, running for the united states senate because i believe it is that important. i am counting on my full-time job running for the united

states senate because i believe in the american dream, and that you deserve a real choice in the united states senate race. we know it makes no difference which party controls congress in washington because both parties have controlled us for decades. it is time we get serious about electing a candidate for united states senate who understands the power and responsibility of the individual lies with true liberty, not with big government. i hope you will keep an open heart and open mind and listen to our message of true liberty tonight, and i thank you so much for the honor and privilege of participating in tonight's debate. [applause] >> thank you, candidates. at this time we will begin questions from our panelists. the first will come from randall savage, directed to mr. perdue. >> let's begin with foreign affairs.

not so long ago, isis wasn't a household word, but it is now. how do you think the united states is handling the situation, and do you think ground troops should be used? >> this started when our president did not heed the advice of many experienced people in the military. about taking care of this in iraq. he created a vacuum that allowed the rise of isis, and today i believe our security and national border needs to be taken into account, because of security at the border is not just an immigration issue, it is a national security issue. i have said many times that i want to do with this over there, not over here. thank you. >> how about ground troops? how about ground troops? >> right now what we need to do is make sure we have planned an -- a plan, a mission. and we don't have that right now. when we put boots on the ground we better give them a chance to

win, right now we don't have that. >> our next question is firmly a fleming. directed to ms. nunn. >> good evening. the world has been outraged by the beheadings and murders by isis. you said in an interview that isis is a dangerous terrorist organization and it has to be defeated, and we must take the lead in that. if elected, how would you vote on the issue of isis? >> first of all, i have said it is an incredibly dangerous that could i go back to one year ago when we were asked as candidates what we would do about syria, and david perdue said we should do nothing. i said we should intervene and lift up the moderate forces. there is a big difference in this race, and it is about leadership and it is about foresight and not about political expediency. it was the popular thing to do a year ago to say we should do nothing.

it is now the popular thing to do to say that we should engage. we need leaders who will do the right thing, not the popular thing. we need to do the airstrikes and make sure we have congressional authorization for long-term engagement. >> mr. perdue, you want 30 seconds to rebut. >> times have changed in a year. this president drew a line in the sand. then he backed up from it. he had no plan then, he has no plan now. this is a very dangerous time in our history. we have got to get serious about our national defense.

right now because of our debt we are threatening our ability to conduct our nationals. -- protect our own national security. secretaries of defense have said biggest threat to our national security is our own debt. thank you. >> next question for ms. swafford. >> we want to thank the candidates for being here. there was a story in "the washington post" last week that the trend is for candidates not to appear in these kinds of debates. particularly there was one in minnesota like this and it has been canceled, so a big round of applause for the candidates for being here tonight. give yourself a round of applause for caring enough about government to be here as well. ms. swafford, if you are elected from you would be the only libertarian in congress. with that would be an issue of where you would caucus. would you caucus with republicans, democrats, or neither? >> if i am elected as the first

libertarian in the senate, i would ask which party wants to caucus with me, as the first candidate with a solid record of working in government and reducing government and giving our citizens more freedom. which party would want to caucus with me? that is the true question. let it be clear i would not , support any of the leadership currently in place because congress and the leadership has done a dismal job, dismal. >> next question will come from jim galloway. direct it to mr. perdue, please. >> you were quoted in a 2005 deposition saying you spent most of your career outsourcing. let me finish, please. let me finish. you would say services, others would say jobs. you say you are proud of that.

let's -- we will be talking a lot about this evening, i think, so take an extra minute and lets you begin to make your case. >> well, look, don't be confused, folks. this is another attempt by my desperate opposition to use one line out of a 186-page document to define a career. let me tell you what the issue is. the issue is over the past 30 or 40 years we have decimated an entire industry because of bad government policies. tax policies, regulation policies, compliance issues. what i have fought for in this campaign is to get this economy going again. i believe we have got to stop the nonsense in washington. it doesn't work for us. we have to reform our tax code. we have to reform regulatory overreach. and finally we have to unlock energy resources.

that will help us compete with the rest of the world. if one man can define an industry and kill it that is not , possible. what i am here representing as a way forward to get our economy going and putting our people back to work. thank you. >> jim, you have a follow-up? >> so david has said he has unique experience to really give him opportunity, with 10 other folks who have business experience. but i tell you, he would be even more unique than that. he would be the only senator who from his own words has built his career around outsourcing american jobs. that is not the experience we need in washington. david in his deposition talked about 16 countries, thailand and singapore and india and pakistan, not once did he talk about creating jobs in the united states.

>> we are going to move on. randall savage the next , question, please. >> we were asking viewers to send in questions, and we got a ton of questions. they range from cutting education -- >> i think we are having trouble hearing you. >> anyway, they range from amnesty to getting american citizens jobs and the cost of educating children of illegal immigrants and health care reform. if you are elected to the senate, what would you do to -- regarding amnesty and those costs? >> i am in support of the bipartisan immigration framework put forward by marco rubio and john mccain and 14 republican

senators and the bipartisan coalition of democrats. it is also advanced by the u.s. chamber of commerce, the farm bureau, and it is a framework for investing, with 20,000 security agents on the border as a part of this bipartisan bill. when david talks about our border security, let's talk about what we could have already accomplished with that. it also gives us a pathway, not amnesty, a long journey of going to the back of the line, paying back taxes, security checks, and learning english, and it gives us the opportunity to create jobs and to cut our debts. >> the follow-up. >> mr. perdue, it look like you were pulling at the bit on that one. did you want to respond?

>> yes. let me tell you what was wrong with the bill. if i was in the senate i would have gone against some of my republican counterparts because of two things. it did not define amnesty properly, and it gave the department of homeland security discretion about securing our border. now with isis, we see that that is not acceptable. my opponent would be nothing but a proxy for this president who is not enforcing the laws of the land in terms of securing our border. >> ok, the next question. >> this could sway the election by causing a runoff. how could you get beyond that 3% and possibly secure a win? >> i think i am a true, real choice for the united states senate, that we do not have

someone who represents americans who go to work every single day, and i thought when i was involved, it makes a difference when you have these real concerns, and you try to decide, should i raise the thermostat? these kind of things make an impact. i think if we have an electorate that is tired of the same for both parties, we have had a conference for decades that have promised tax reform, spending reform. have we got it? both parties have controlled congress at various times in the last 20 years with majorities. what have we gotten out of that? that is the important question that i think we need to ask. i think it is time that we elect a senator who represents more of the diversity that we see in georgia every single day. >> that concludes phase number

one for the debate, and it is time now for the candidates to question one another. again, we will look and see who has this backstage, and the first question will be from ms. nunn. you may directed to either candidate. >> david, i have said throughout the campaign that i support raising the minimum wage. you run a company with thousands of employees that makes the federal minimum wage, and you have opposed raising the minimum wage. so i would like to ask you, what do you think that the federal minimum wage should be, specifically? >> let's talk about the minimum wage. we have proven time and again that this is about supplies and supply and demand.

if you get the economy going, all rates go up because we have more people, more demand for people working. the problem right now is that my opponent wants to tear me down in terms of my business career, but let's talk about what she really stands for. she supports obamacare. she supports amnesty. she supports more regulation on energy, and she supports the economic policies of this administration that have caused this crisis that we have today, where 4 million women have been thrown into poverty in the last few years. >> ms. dunn, a 30-second rebuttal. a 30-second rebuttal. >> you did not answer my question. let me ask my question again, because you did not answer it. in a single day of working at dollar general, you made one of -- what would take one of your employees earning minimum wage in entire year to make. let me ask you again, do you believe we should have a federal minimum wage, and what do you think it should be? >> if you increase the minimum

wage, you will kill jobs in this country. that has been proven. bigger government, higher taxes, more regulations. this is the plan that my opponent supports. >> we are moving on. next question. i appreciate it, but i can't even hear what they are saying, and in order to be able to figure out if there is time for rebuttal, i have to be up to hear, and i think our panelists are having a little trouble hearing as well, also. i love your passion, but we need to be able to hear what everyone is saying. you have the next question. you may direct it.

>> my question is for ms. dunn. in 2012, the democratic party finally put in place allowing -- a clank in their platform allowing individuals the freedom to decide who they wanted to marry. were you in favor of that platform before that time, or do you now support that platform that allows the individuals the freedom to decide who they want to marry? >> i'm not sure i heard -- could you say it one more time i am sorry. >> yes. in 2012, the democratic party finally put a plank in their platform allowing people the freedom to decide who they want to marry. were you in favor of that before 2012, or are you in favor of it now? >> i have said throughout this campaign that i believe that all people should have the same right as my husband and i have to marry. i also believe that marriage is not only a legal construct but a sacrament, and that everyone needs to be able to define marriage for it self. that has been my position throughout the campaign.

>> mr. perdue, you can ask the next question. >> michelle, i grew up down here off highway 96, working on our family farm. i understand the needs of the agriculture community. i have said publicly i want to serve on the state agriculture committee. you have said very positive things about agriculture in the state, but in your plan you rank agriculture number 18, and in rural issues number 30. my question tonight is your , campaign just a well-funded effort to deceive the people of georgia, to keep them from finding out who you really are? and what you really believe in? >> david, i did not hear all of that, but i think i got the gist of it. i will tell you, for you to question my georgia credentials is somewhat ironic.

i have been born here. i'm a ninth generation georgian. i have served and build organizations for 26 years here, while you were spending your career in places all over this country outsourcing jobs according to your own deposition. so i have learned my georgia values of service and integrity and commitment across georgia, and i worked alongside georgians, again, while you have been outsourcing jobs. i will say that is a part of the american enterprise system. i just don't think it is actually what we need more of in washington. >> all right, we will wrap things up with a 30-second rebuttal for mr. perdue. 32nd rebuttal -- 32nd rebuttal. >> you know, michelle, back at you. you did not answer that question at all. have you justified to the

farmers that in your list of priorities, there are 17 items more important than the farmers in the state? >> now, where did you get that? >> out of your plan. >> that is not true. there is no plan that has that and i will tell you that for , over a year, i talked about serving on the agriculture committee, and let me put it this way. saxby chambliss and others said the farm bill was the most important piece of legislation for georgians as citizens, and yet, you stood against it. the farm bureau was for it. every single farmer i spoke to said they were for bipartisan compromise, but you were against it. >> we will wrap this up. folks, i am sorry. i am just a business guy, but in my board room, we have to answer questions. she still do not explain to farmers why you have 17 items more important than farmers in this state. >> we will move on.

back to panelist questions. jeff, you have the next question. for mr. perdue, please. >> mr. perdue, since we are talking a bit about agriculture here, or, at least, i believe we can hear some of that, maybe about 10% or 15 percent of that, so let me weigh in again on the issue of immigration, and one of the more searing images, at least from television spots, during this campaign has been of you, a close-up, saying "no amnesty," but the reality in this state defined by agriculture, even at times when unemployment in this state was hovering between 11% and 12%, we could not get anybody to pick crops. there were all kinds of fields left unattended and unharvested. does that not constrict the agriculture business in this state? >> absolutely, but, first, let's put context on this. the immigration issue is a very complex issue. i think we need to break it down

in its components. the first components we have to solve is our border. it is not just an immigration issue. we have to secure our borders for national defense. secondly, to your point, farmers in this state have a hard time getting legal labor. why? because it does not work for farmers. the program only has about 14 farmers in the state that can even use it because it is so expensive. the number one thing we need to do in the state of georgia for agriculture is help these farmers revise the laws so they can get access to legal labor. >> thank you. >> next question. jim galloway you ask it to ms. , nunn, please. >> a state court of appeals judge has said there is the -- it has been stalled because of votes in favor of the confederate battle emblem on the american flag and because of

opposition to gay marriage. if you are elected, will you support this? -- the nomination? >> let me go back for one minute and talk about agriculture, because i do, again, want to ask david -- you have, again misrepresented my position on agriculture, and i just want to make sure that people know that. the boggs nomination is one that i think is problematic, and i think that i have real concerns about it, as a number of other s do. i said i would, as any senator would expect, would want to have a dialogue with him. but i have serious reservations about that nomination. >> all right. randall savage next question, , please? >> there has been a lot of discussion about legalizing medical marijuana in the state

of georgia. if you were elected to the senate, would you support legalizing medical marijuana throughout the united states? >> i believe georgia, we have had unique cases in georgia where we have need people really -- seen families really struggle with the issue of a unknown substance that is helping them with their children with seizures. that's a well-known fact. we have families having to uproot their lives and move to other states, and in georgia is not good progress in these issues we will have other states around us who will do it and the families will leave. and that is leaving a lot of economic vitality. that is very important. we need to definitely allow the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. >> the next question, directed to mr. perdue, please. >> this week the treasury department released an excellent

of the figure for fiscal year 2014, ending september 30. the total deficit is expected to be over $9 billion. i is having a elected hitting the national debt under control and balancing the budget would be your top priorities. how would you do that, and how would you do it without raising taxes? >> thank you. it is the crisis that pulled >> it is the crisis that pulled us into the race. we have an almost $18 trillion debt. tos president is on track double it.

the way to get out of this is to cut spending and grow the economy. the best way to grow the economy unlock dotaxes and she is going to go against this mess where we have fewer people working today than anyone -- any time since jimmy carter was president. >> i think we would agree can be solved by onking together and focusing

but also cutting out waste and fraud and abuse but at the same time curbing our medical expenditures. we have our work cut out for us. withs to be done collaboration. repeatedly your role bottle in the senate is in thether -- role model senate is your father. you said you would reach across the aisle , and the senate is a radically isferent place then he left.

it possible to reach across the aisle. >> he failed to think of one. the only way we are going to peopleleadership is focused on relationship and things like campaign finance reform. we can change washington but who are committed

have 385 bills. we cannot spend 10 more years possibly in this direction. >> it could very well become a precursor to overturning

georgia's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. if elected to the senate would congressionale intervention. >> government should not be involved in the decision of how we structure our individual relationship. libertarian party has been on record since the beginning of this issue. is at the corer of what we believe. we believe you should be allowed to make that decision, because how do we trust the government to make that decision for you? the whole reason government got involved in the first place. is a very sad reason in our nations history.

the purpose of our federal is to protect personal rights. >> you said you would repeal affordable care act. in light of the fact that obama carries president obama's baby, he will get that done. the worst lawsof ever passed in united states history.

to allow the u.s. government to of the economy. jobs are being destroyed. the difficulty of the next two years i think we need to delay and let the people of america votes in the presidential election and have a referendum on obama care. >> i know you said obama care is supportect, but do you

the affordable care act? >> i have said there are things we need to fix and things we need to build upon. i think we need to extend tax credits to small businesses, repeal cuts that are threatening hospitals, and i do not think we would have been -- we want to be having this argument for the next few years. want to have people that are going to work together pragmatically to do things that , andr to people's lives you want to put the people of georgia first, i would ask you to look at my candidacy.

>> 32nd rebuttal. >> let's think about obama care for a second. my obama -- my opponent talks about working across the aisle. >> just, you have the next question. >> you talk as a libertarian. many republicans and democrats adhere to these principles. it is somewhere between 4% and 7% across the country. point does the libertarian party break through become a real challenger.

will it happen in our lifetime? i think we are getting there. we had a candidate able to take one million votes in georgia. the libertarian party had a i am ate in 2012, and candidate running for united states senate. we have a whole new theory there were a lot of people getting tired of voting for the same old, same old, because we have time andising reform time again. everybody is tired of the irs

and the tax. you have to ask these questions. for the power and responsibility of the individual. >> you have the next question. >> let's talk about who you want to replace. he has been working for the democrats in virginia and the deficit in entitlement spending and increasing revenue through .losing federal tax loopholes you have rejected that approach, federalugh you say the deficit.

>> we have redundant agencies. this is the general accounting number. $480 million. in terms of growing the economy, what we got to do is put people back to work again, and the way you do that is create jobs. tohave been working hard help families take care of themselves. we have to reform the tax code. finally unlock energy resources. aregovernment policies keeping us from putting people back to work and competing. my opponent believes bigger governments, more taxes, more regulations create jobs. i am living proof that is not

the case. them 30 can give seconds on the same question. question? repeat the >> on how to reduce a $17 trillion federal deficit. do you do it through a andination of spending cuts revenue increases? >> the government is really bad at picking winners and losers. if you are not connected to the right people, you are at an extreme disadvantage. the solution is really a three-step process. reforme to reduce tax and bring spending in line with our actual budget.

these are several things. why haven't they done that already? it is a simple question. i may have been the only person who complemented his work. essential weis have bipartisanship. i believe we need to reform our tax codes. david talked about the experience in creating jobs. of a careeras proud in which he spent the majority outsourcing american jobs. >> let me tell you what i am proud of. careeroud of spending my

creating jobs. those attacks will not change the nextat. >> question goes to ms. none, please. >> do you support a balanced budget amendment. second, if you are elected senator, how would you go about changing their mind and get them to approve a referendum on the balance budget? is time.k it ask everywe should member of congress to say they don't get paid unless we pass an .nnual budget i believe there are measures we can take that give us an

opportunity to restore regular order, pass an annual budget. we don't need the kind of dysfunction that leads to government shutdowns. he is shutting down the government as a political tactic. costing us millions of dollars. need principles, efforts, and ideas, like the balance budget amendment, but we also need to send people to washington that are not just about polarizing our governments. >> it is interesting that my democratic opponent said she would support a balanced budget. we cannot give -- get barack obama to give us a balanced

budget in five years. 70% of us know that we are the wrong direction. we can name call all day. we need to set people back to work in this country again. >> you have the next question. has had a 9% approval rating. both democrats and republicans stability.ibed if elected, what is one issue you can agree with president obama? with the callee for open and transparent government. i would like to push them to be more open and transparent across government. i don't think we know enough about what goes on in the

government. government dos in we really not know what is going on? the federal reserve? we really didn't even know what until 60 minutes showed us what was going on. there is so much we don't know about. i would like to see more effort on his part. familiesas to support support to our black communities. it is an admiral program, and he doesn't speak about that enough. jeff, you have the next question. >> let's talk about outsourcing.

has resonatedhat through your opponents. before washington is the solution for outsourcing. if that is correct, what should the policy be about this subject that is very divisive in this country? whatt's get this straight. causes companies to fail? because they cannot compete. things being decimated. management didn't cause entire industries to disappear. do not be misled by false statements about what i have said or what i have not said. there is a 180 page document taken from years ago. what we have to do is get

america working again, and that is why we have to focus on tax reform, regulatory reform. this is critical to set the stage for a new era of economic growth in america. our kids deserve better. >> what do you feel about public policy? what is your view on this? >> david has talked about failed government policies of president obama and harry, and, in fact, i think he does not realize he is not running against hairy reed or barack obama. he is running against me. his tenure of outsourcing took place over 40 years, period, so to blame this administration for what happened during his work at companies when he was outsourcing thousands of jobs, there have been others creating manufacturing jobs right here in georgia at the same time. >> david, we are going to wrap

this up with rebuttals. mr. perdue, 30 seconds. >> michelle, i have a lot of respect for you, but you are dead wrong. i am absolutely running against barack obama and harry reid. no amount of false advertising -- no amount of false advertising will remove the fact that barack obama has funded you and is mentoring you. do you really believe that we think you will bite the hand that feeds you? you will not. >> ms. nunn, we will stick with

this topic. many believe the american free trade agreement is to blame. do you think we should rework that read tre agreement with canada and mexico? >> i believe that we should always ensure that we are creating an equal playing field. i have talked to business people, unions, farmers, and over and over again, they have said we do not need a favor. we need an even playing field. >> do we have that field? >> i think we need to continue to work towards this with the transatlantic trade or the transpacific going forward. we need to make sure that environmental protections are in place and that worker protections are in place but that we are creating an opportunity for jobs and for more.

>> to we have time to ask mr. perdue that same question? >> that is hard, but we do not have a level playing field. american jobs are being lost because this administration is making it harder for manufacturers to compete around the world. this will be a rubber stamp for this failed agenda that has put more people out of work since when jimmy carter was president. >> we will wrap this up with a 30-second rebuttal, ms. nunn. >> i am not sure what that was in response to. did you actually address the question?

again, he has said that he is running, he is prosecuting the president in this race, prosecuting harry reid. he is running against me. my name is on the ballot. her name is on the ballot, and those are the people. we have two more years of president obama, and then we will have another president. and we need someone who is going to work with and respect whoever is the president who actually get things done on behalf of the american people. >> ok, we have time for one more. one more question before closing statements. >> president nixon declared war on drugs back in the 1970's. as a senator, what suggestion would you make to win that war? >> every 48 seconds, we are

using precious law-enforcement resources to arrest someone for the possession of marijuana, every 48 seconds. individuals are being sent to jail for just possessing marijuana, and those are precious resources where we can be working with truly violent criminals, so i would look at the industrial complex of prison. prisons are really big business in america right now, federal prisons, especially, and that is huge, so has really made a difference? with what the federal government is trying to do? the federal government is really bad at almost everything it tries to do. maybe it is time to take a new approach and look at some options that in may be to look at the war on drugs for my health and alternative

perspective and things like that. >> folks, we have to give them their 60 seconds so we will be able to hear them. when we interrupt them, we have to take away from their time. >> thank you and thank you to our panelists a passionate crowd across the sector. thank you for participating. i want to tell you all. they say we need to change washington, that it is broken. david has evidence that he does not have the leadership that is necessary, whether that is opposing bipartisan immigration, the farm bill, embracing the

government shutdown, or during his campaign, actually putting forth what has been called the worst ad in all of america. and this was by president bush and his son, neil bush. i have the experience, the values, the aspiration to bring people together and to get things done in washington to serve the people of georgia and to make a difference in their lives, and i ask you for your vote and your support. >> next up, mr. perdue. mr. perdue has 60 seconds.

>> president obama even said this week that his policies are on the ballot this year in this race in georgia. he hand picked her. he funded her. he supports her. do you really think that she is not going to support him when she gets there? look. the decision in this race is very simple. if you like what is going on in washington, vote for my opponent, because she will be nothing but a rubberstamp of barack obama and harry reid, and nothing will change, but if you are as outraged as i am by this government, by the failed policies of this administration, and by the debt that they are piling on the back of our kids and grandkids, then stand with me. let's bring america forward for everyone. i am asking for your vote. thank you. >> one final closing statement. she will give her closing statement, please. closing statement, please.

>> had he really heard anything different from these two parties? all they really want to do is rearrange big government and make the government more efficient. at its core, i do not believe big government solutions work. both parties have controlled congress at various times for decades. can you name one government program that they have given us that has actually worked? can you name anything that they have done to reduce government interference in our lives or to restore personal freedoms to us? take a look around you. government politics is big money. a lot of you came out here on buses that were provided at free costs. you came out here on free buses and had free meals provided for you by both parties. it is time that we look at the power of responsibility of the

individual. i am honored to be here because i do not feel entitled to your vote in any way. thank you very much. >> david, michelle, amanda, thank you for being here tonight. and thank you, audience, for being here. remember to show up on election day to make your vote count. >> c-span campaign 2014 has more than 100 debates for congress. joinan stay in touch and the conversation at facebook.com/c-span. fbi director james coney will

talk about technology, privacy, and law enforcement. he is also expected to discuss how information on encrypted devices designed to increase security hinders law enforcement investigations. at the brookings institute tomorrow morning at 10:30 eastern. later, the institute of allergy and infectious diseases testifies about the government response to the ebola virus. noonll take questions at here on c-span. president obama met with his cabinet and health agency officials wednesday about the government's response to the ebola outbreak. after the meeting the president spoke with reporters. >> everybody set up?

there is news of a second health care worker in dallas with ebola. i thought it was important to bring together our team to hear how we are ramping up our efforts. we want to express concern for the health workers who have been affected. workers areare vital to our families. time, notfice all the just in this case, but the case that affectnesses us. they work hard. they are often underpaid. our thoughts and prayers are with them. sure we areake

doing everything we can to take care of them, even as they take care of us. as a consequence what we have been doing today is reviewing what we know about what happened in dallas and how we are going to make sure something like this is not repeated and that we are in a much more aggressive way what is taking place in dallas and making sure one of the lessons is transmitted to hospitals across the country. directed the cbc to do is as soon as somebody is diagnosed with ebola, we want a swat team to be on the ground as quickly as possible, hopefully within 24 hours so they are taking local throughs step-by-step

exactly what needs to be done, and making sure the protocols are properly observed, that the use of protective equipment is appropriately, that the key thing to understand about this disease is these protocols work. we know that because they have now,used for decades including the cases in amory and nebraska. and nebraska. if done properly, they work. we have to make sure certain hospitals are walked through the process as carefully as possible. reviewing every step of what has happened since mr.

duncan was brought into the hospital in dallas so we understand exactly where some of the problems may have occurred and doing a thorough inventory. workers who had contact with mr. duncan, including those who engaged in testing that took place. are communicating to hospitals, clinics, first responders around the country, and given all the attention this received, we are going to make sure the provision of information is ongoing and being updated on a real-time basis. addition, we are working carefully with the mayor of dallas, the governor of texas, and others to make sure in the event other cases arise from these health workers that they

are properly cared for in a way that is consistent with public safety. i know people are concerned the secondact that health care worker had travel. here is what we know about ebola. it is not like the flu. it is not airborne. way that a person can contract ebola is by coming in direct contact with bodily fluids of someone who is showing symptoms. symptoms,n't have they are not contagious. what we are able to do is to so anyone whog may have had contact with someone, even if they weren't showing symptoms, being able to identify who those individuals are, and making sure they are being monitored in a way that allows us to make certain the

disease does not spread further. that is currently taking place, a very aggressive process by the cdc and the rest of our teams. i want people to have a sense of science. i shook hands with, hugged, and kissed some of the nurses at emory because of the valiant work they did in treating one of the patients. they felt -- i felt perfectly safe doing so. this is not a situation like a flu in which the risk of a rapid spread of the disease are imminent. do protocols properly, if we follow the steps and get information out, the likelihood

of widespread ebola outbreaks in this country are very low. i think we have learned is these clinics don't have a history of dealing with these. we need to be a monitoring of these workers. we need to make sure we are on the ground 24/7 to provide the support, information, and assurance they need to get

through this challenge. we are also going to be examining our screening process in airports and making sure in the event we have additional cases transported to specialized hospitals, that those teams are in place and facilities are in , and we will make sure we provide the public with all the and anyion they need updates about what has happened not just in dallas but what is being done across the country. this point.ith we are going to have to make sure we do not lose sight of the importance of the international response to what is taking place in west africa. i am absolutely confident that we can prevent a serious outbreak of the disease here in

but itted states, becomes more difficult to do so if this epidemic of ebola rages in west africa. if it does, it will spread in an age of frequent and the kind of constant interactions people have across borders, so it is important for us to understand the investment we make in helping people deal with this problem is an investment in our own public it is not simply charity. it is important america take the lead in the humanitarian crisis, but it is the single most important thing we can do to ebolat a more serious

outbreak in this country, making sure we get what is a raging epidemic in west africa under control. last night i had a call with prime minister abe from japan to solicit international effort. i spoke with chancellor merkel of germany, the prime minister of italy and president of law of -- president hollande france to make sure we are coordinating our efforts and putting in a lot more resources than the international community has put into this process. bottom line in terms of the public, i want people to understand that the dangers of , theontracting ebola dangers of a serious outbreak are extraordinarily low.

we are taking this seriously at the highest levels of government. be able tog to manage this situation, but we have to look towards the future, and if we are not responding internationally in an effective way, and if we do not send -- set up preparedness and training here in the united states, not just for this outbreak but future outbreaks, we could have problems. in the meantime i want everybody to be thinking about it and praying for the health workers .ho have gotten sick those who treated this patient with compassion and care, we want to say thank you to them. we are going to be doing everything we can to make sure they are properly cared for. they thank you very much, everybody. thank you.

>> coming up, the senate armed services committee cha discusses u.s. relations with afghanistan, then of fda governors debate with rick scott and charlie crist. later pat roberts defeats the challenger praying robin. robin, anger incumbent. >> from the review festival, a conversation about dealing with undocumented youth coming into the u.s.

the events in missouri in st. louis. richard nortonn smith on his recent biography of nelson rockefeller. friday night at 8:00, drones and their impact on aviation and how they transform the american military. , jakeay night at 10:00 halpern on the questionable practices of the health industry and the festival of books. martin luther king's poor people campaign and the 1968 election. saturday, the life and legacy of booker t. washington, and sunday 4:00, "exercise delewar." find our television schedule at

c-span.org. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> now the senate armed services committee chair talks about afghanistan and some of the other foreign-policy challenges facing the u.s. senator levin is retiring at the end of this congressional term. this is just over an hour. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the institute of peace.

we are very pleased to host the chairman of the senate armed services committee. has been a strong supporter. in 1981 he was one of the legislation. the by of the bills was signed ronald reagan and established the institute 30 years later. i am pleased to have senator levin join us. he has been to afghanistan many times. most recently in july. april.that in he organized a group of people for the senator to talk with and share experiences with.

i was talking with several of the staff, and they said that was a useful session we organized for senator levin in kabul. time when thet a political crisis was still real. he had something to do with having conversations on both sides. intense,ical focus was and the senator played a major role. secretary kerry followed up. we know that story. today senator levin will give his remarks. steve hadley, who is the chair of the institute of peace's also former national security adviser and know something about afghanistan will moderate the discussion that will follow the comments.

let me welcome senator levin to the podium, and steve will join him afterwards. the senator. [applause] wordsnk you for your warm . thanks for the invitation to join you today. i had a very wonderful visit with your folks in kabul. they did briefed me on the situation. i won't report your view that i led the way with discussions and he cleaned up after me. i was delighted to be able to meet with the two candidates, both of whom i have great respect for.

i am glad they came together. it was essential they come together in a government of but i think afghanistan was lucky to have the two people as qualified as they are and is willing to come together. when i met with them, a few them whatk, i told they needed to do was to be as brave as their troops and the theytion troops and that needed to be politically brave if they wanted to work out a solution when they were recounting ballots like chicago. that is an inside joke.

nobody from chicago likes it. it was very tense, a very tense moment. the fact that they were able to come together for the good of our country and show the political courage the troops of afghanistan and the coalition forces have shown they make it for the elections and and to have a resolution was as peaceable as you could hope for. i am very appreciative of the institute that helped brief me. we appreciate the work of the institute in many ways. have worked hard to find wisdom that can lead to peace. the kind of wisdom in his famous comment he said. -- not moree owls

hocks or gels. hawks or doven -- s." perspective.in i do want to focus on afghanistan. have a few remarks about another subject after i spent a few moments on afghanistan. i am somebody who is hopeful about afghanistan's future because of the progress we helped bring about in the last seven years, and i am hopeful because of the transition of power, which is the first in afghanistan's long history. the transition offers increased reason for optimism that we have an essential ingredient for success in place in afghanistan

-- perhaps the essential ingredient, and that is a unity government whose goals are in , withy with our goal strong security forces and honest governance. afghanistan faces immense terrorges, from taliban to political tension. progress the country has made is also immense. forget whatple beforestan was like 2001. extremely was once limited. women were barred from attending school, working outside the home, or leaving their houses unless accompanied by a male

medieval rules were usinged by armed thugs, public executions and floggings. television, music, and the internet were banned. there is vibrant in afghanistan society. in one decade life expectancy has increased by 22 years. child mortality has decreased by 62%. taliban there were 900,000 students in school, all boys. student enrollment is more than 8 million, including 3 million girls. afghanistan had 2000

teachers, all male. today there are 200,000 teachers, including 60,000 women. universities are sprouting up, including an inspiring one in kabul. afghani forces have exceeded our expectations. the taliban threaten to prevent the peaceful transition of power in afghanistan but failed spectacularly. afghan people support security forces. missione our principal is to help establish afghan forces so they can protect our hopes for a free

nation. that is the taliban's worst nightmare. of villaged a group elders whether they want us answered,ir spokesman stay until you have trained our army and then leave. someday they will welcome you back as guests. afghans have hopes for better governments as well. have formed a unity government. we have seen the malley key regime's pursuit of sectarian agenda left a nation vulnerable to the poison of isis -- the maliki regime's pursuit of sectarian agenda left the nation vulnerable to the poison of isis . that the afghan

government's first official act included signing agreements with andunited states and nato the reopening of the big scandal they are moreope interested in building afghanistan's future than pursuing sectarian or corrupt agendas. the progress we and our afghan allies have achieved in afghanistan has been built in adherence with a number of important edibles. of broadthe value international support for our milita efforts. second is the value of training local forces willing and able to train their own people. third is the value of pressing for unified, inclusive worth fighting for. fourth is the value of setting limits on our own military

in order to incentivize development of domestic, military, and government institutions able to stand on their own. while public opinion polls show the afghan people think we have gladplished much and are we came, polls in the united states show americans believe our involvement in afghanistan has failed. former secretary gates has made warpungent point the afghan >> i believe the american public's failure to understand accomplished in afghanistan is due in large part to the constant, almost totally negative portrayal of events in press.rican

reportss understandably on negative events. a taliban truck bomb in kabul does make a more dramatic story than a million girls going to school. but it would be tragic if this negative focus deprived the american people, our men and and theirniform families, of a sense of accomplishment that they deserve to feel about our effort in afghanistan. the relentless negative focus of the press could have a effect ongative afghanistan's future. for two reasons. could dampen it the willingness of congress to continually support afghanistan. if the american people think we failed and that we've wasted our resources, it's less likely that will do what we should do,

which is to be steady and in our support, economically and otherwise, for afghanistan. a second reason. and that is that, while gains have been impressive, they remain reversible. afghans continue to fear that the united states will abandon believe -- as they believe we did after the soviets left in the early 1990's. the afghans have assumed responsibility for their own ownrity and for their political affairs. but they continue to depend on funding, training and institution building, and particularly -- in particular for sustaining the afghan army and police. of the countryfe is far more vibrant than it was will the taliban but it take years for the afghans to economy, sustainable

and they won't be able to do it without substantial economic assistance from not just the united states but from other allies and other members of the coalition. and so if the public continues believe that afghanistan is a lost cause, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. simply put, if we don't ourrstand what we and coalition partners have gained in afghanistan, we risk losing it. we've accomplished much, along coalitionfghan and allies in bringing more security and stability to that country and preventing it from, once again, serving as a safe haven for terrorists, who would attack others. and while much remains to be done, i believe if the afghan people remain united and if we remain constant in our support them, that afghanistan will take its place among the our nations of which

can be proud. before we move on to questions, want to touch briefly on something that congress is going meets after the elections. we that question is whether should vote to authorize the forceent to use military against isis. is clear., the answer we should. of isisonous ideology is hostile not only to the region but to the world. real risk that the area that it controls could then aa training ground, launching pad for future attacks andnst the united states our friends and allies. tire -- terrorizing the iraqi and syrian people, enslaving minorities, attacking schools and hospitals and sites.l but if the fight against isis is

visiblyed, it must be an iraqi and syrian fight, an and muslim fight, against an internal cancer and not be principally a western fight. though some have sought to contributions of arab and muslim nations in the isis, the open public participation of those a powerfuls sending political signal to their populations and to the world. unique opportunity, at this crucial moment in history, the world together, to violent enemy.on our role should be to help bring andther a broad coalition support -- in support of a moderateraq and a

syrian opposition by training and equipping them for the fight. broad coalition with a strong, visible support countries byuslim providing air power that the lack. and syrians boots on the ground are needed. but they need to be iraqi and syrian boots. i also believe that we should to establish a delineated zone, along the turkish protectin order to civilians, a zone which would be secured by turkish boots on the ground, if turkey is willing, a coalition no-fly zone. both things will be necessary for turkey to consider turkish boots on the ground in that part along that border, there must be a no-fly zone that protects that buffer zone. and we should surely consider

that and seek to do that. to yes, congress should vote support the president in this beort, because it will destructive to our drive to unite the world against isis if and the president appear disunited. becaused vote, president obama has organized a broad coalition that includes critically arab and muslim openns who are public and participants. their publics know about their participation. i do disagree with those who president cannot act without an express militarytion to use force. and that's really the other question. should he, should we -- should we vote on it? is yes.er

if we don't vote on it, can the president act without that authority? and i believe the answer to that question is also yes. the president has the authority, under article 2 of the constitution, to act where defend theo united states, and indeed presidents have used military force overseas on dozens of occasions. congressionalved authorization only a handful of times to do that. so in the last 25 years, we have campaigns tor enforce a no-fly zone in iraq, end the bloodshed in bosnia, serbian about a withdrawal from kosovo, and to from gaddafiians in libya, all without authorization. congressional support would strennen the international -- strengthen the international

fight against isis, but the united states should continue in or without aith vote on a resolution to authorize it. thanks for the invitation to be with you this morning and for the work that you do. be happy to try to answer a few questions. [applause] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to start off with some questions. we will then throw it open to the audience. and we will have mics that will be brought to you. so let me begin. mr. chairman, there was some reference to the agreement that kerry negotiated between now-president ashraf ghani and ceo abdullah. you were, of course, there before.

you had, i think, a cat littic role in achieving that agreement. one of the things, as i understand it, you emphasized the two leaders -- to the was to need for an audit of the election results. and that became a part of compromiseerry's proposal. that audit has now been completed. what is your assessment of how how thecess went and electoral process went, putting aside the agreement now reached two leaders? did it achieve what you had that when you made recommendation? achieved ast aclevelan a-- much as could be expected. you're an old hand in washington and i think you understand the necessity of reaching practical agreements. and there was a practical agreement reached at the end of that audit, which is that the announced bute not the numbers. and that was essential for an reached, for all

political,rnal, reasons that drove it. and so even though ideally, on if we were teaching a civics class, we'd say, well, of you announce the results. but that was not a perfect to put it mildly. there obviously had been fraud on both sides. have an outcome both was acceptable, which sides could subscribe to, there had to be that practical resolution that the result would to who won., as but because the numbers, no matter what the numbers were announced, would create problems, second-guessing, third-guessing, fourth-guessing, they had to agree that the result would be and that the numbers

public,t be made because they are very imperfect numbers at best. wererms of the powers that ceo going to be in the position, that is another practical resolution, which both sides could sign up to and which, i think, helped pull a nation together. it's almost miraculous -- i think people look at america of the negative view, the negative way in which the press has treated afghanistan, they view something as a failure it at all, in the case probably of the question is asked, but it really quite extraordinary. that outcome is really an extraordinary outcome, that they not just on whether or not to announce the numbers, votes, and the ballot count,

but also that they could share and propose -- i guess it be to -- it's sort of within the culture of that they were able to come together. and when you compare that to on in iraq and when what maliki left in his wake, the contrast is huge. which is veryst positive in terms of afghans. proud that they were able to come together after a bitter election campaign. >> it is remarkable, and i think a lot of afghans felt they unity government, if they were going to go forward. they now have one. creates a -- sort of a practical challenge for people in the administration and in they go to kabul. and it's a little bit

reminiscent but not parallel in but when the president was made president of russia, putin was then prime minister, there was the old question, so who do we deal with? do we continue to deal with putin? other one?with the the decision the obama administration made was deal with the president. now we have sort of an analogous but quite different situation. with -- who doal you deal with? do you go to ghani? is the sequence? >> that's not unusual. by the way, that's true in many weces in the world where obviously deal with both. but the sequence is that they a president, and it's important that we obviously deal with both. both powerful figures. one was elected president. the fact of the

matter. and i hope that both accept the sequence. both understand the necessity that both be very discussionsved in and hopefully agree. we have a sequence problem in this country in a sense too. i don't know if anyone looks at it that way, but we're not very good at compromising these days. i don't think we can lecture people with too much power about the importance of compromise. ground toave a lot of stand on in that. some -- you know, we ought to have a little humility. tost of all, we ought congratulate them on what they've done, because it is really extraordinary. refrain aly, i think, little bit from being too tof-righteous about the need work together. we could probably follow their of vicese days instead versa. >> it is a remarkable they have doneat

in terms of the election and the unity government. than i,now better there's a lot of fatigue in the with afghanistan, compounded by, as you made clear in your remarks, the sense from that it's not been a success but it's been a failure. so americans, i think, are going ask the question, is afghanistan still important to us, the united states, and if it rebuild thee support within the country and within the congress for the afghan project? >> the afghans have helped a great deal in their agreement their unity government agreement, in their taking on the kabul bank again, that issue. and working out a bilateral security agreement, with us and with nato, to the extent the american people have focused at i doubthose issues, and that too many have. but nonetheless, the extent they they'll benk

reassured by that. the bottom line, i think there's lot of fatigue in this country in just about everything. that means leadership has to lead. if you've got people who are tired ofeard it all, the election, tired of politics, scared about ebola, worried about isis. i mean, just go down the list of things that happen. leadership becomes more and more important. and that means hopefully that be greaterng to unity in this country, particularly in the area of foreign policy, by the way. short. fallen i, again, want to avoid being too partisan. real short been a shortfall after bipartisan foreign policy recently. i come from a state where we had a famous senator who helped truman, you know, not just win a war but win a peace. was an isolationist, as a

matter of fact, this republican senator, before the war. and he became somebody who really became an internationalist after the war truman win nato and aid for turkeyet and greece and a number of other things that were so important. we have fallen away from that beently, and there's not enough, i think, enough critique of thatalling short goal of having politics stop at water's edge, that is so important in this country, so important to our success. somehow,would hope even if the battles continue on domestic front, over health the budget and all the other things, that somehow or other, there can be a coming

together more in the area of foreign policy. you on that,ss because you've been in the anate now over 30 years, been real student of washington. how do we get that back, since the media seems to push us to the extremes? now with sol system many saved seats, republican candidates fending off right.ges from the democrat candidates, challenges from the left. it almost seems like the divisions have been institutionalized in our media.s, in our how do we get it back? >> it's going to take leadership, people who are willing to sit down together, leaders have until out.tly, and work things it may be just a matter of getting through an election -- this election, and hopefully then there's a new environment. but given the fact that heatedy -- probably a

presidential election is next in line, just two years away, which like two minutes away in terms of political time, i think against it in the short-term. fortuitousto be a combination of leaders. reason, who see it in their political interests to come together. sequestration. i don't want to get way off the suggest. you know, these mindless across-the-board cuts, which nobody who voted for them, that would of, thought they ever take effect. and they cut into just about everything. and they're mindless. not a way to budget. we all know it. whether you're liberal, democrat,ve, republican. 80% of us, i think, say it is crazy that we are now going to face in january and february another round, the first of or four more rounds of sequestration. it affects everything, including support,e're going to

as we should, afghanistan's recovery. and so will we be able to find a course to deal with that threat? ought to be doable. that is a budget issue. deficits --t our our deficit is actually coming down to a level now lower than they were when president obama office. we ought to be able, in a better to avoidvironment, these additional threats to some programs,tant everything from education, infrastructure, to national defense. maybe that would be the way, if that needle could do be that one budget needle called sequestration where everybody says they hate it just about. railverybody, 70%, 80% against sequestration. democrats and republicans, on my just services committee,

rail against sequestration, including me. to know, i've laid out a way avoid it. i won't go into it here, because it isn't in the right setting, i've laid it out publicly. thee after an election, in lame duck session, our leaders can see it's in everyone's interest to do that. that maybe could set us on a better course. kindu mentioned in remarks of a conversation you had with some afghan elders. said to you train our security forces and then leave, and we'll welcome you back as friends. obviously the training of the security forces, enabling them to take more responsibility for the security of the country is critical. you followed it now for a long time, on the armed services committee. how are they doing? more help do they need from us? and the question a lot of for hows will ask, long? >> they're doing well, better than we expected. think they protected the

elections. of any area, and there may be some, where the taliban have been able to hold ground. they've taken huge losses. the army has taken huge losses, the afghan army. there's a willingness to fight. this isn't like those iraqi divisions which just disappeared when isis showed up. willingness to fight. there's a hatred of the taliban, afghanistan. most afghans don't like the the army.d they like and so they've done well. they're going to need continue support. and they deserve continuing training, equipment. to -- they need training particularly with air power, intelligence, logistics. those are three areas they're going to need continuing

support. we now have a goal of removing all forces by 2016. general campbell and dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, have said, circumstances change by 2016, they're going to make recommendations to the president, whoever the chairman or whoevert chief is our commander in afghanistan is. whatever thee circumstances indicate they should make as a recommendation when that timet, comes, when all forces are pulled out. but in the meantime, there are areas, including i left out counterterrorism, which i should put in there, but counterterrorism, logistics, intelligence and air power are areas i would say they need particularly special support. but they're doing well. they're well-liked. and there's some local police too, which are well-liked, by

the way. they are close to the village leaders. that effort is being apparently successful as well. and are doingal police better too. years ago, everybody said the army is great, clean. afghan army has got strong support. police wasional current. national police was corrupt. you haven't heard that lately, because even the national police to have cleaned up their act somewhat. >> i want to ask one last quick invite you a little bit into a potential controversy. and then go to the audience for questions. think the former ambassador -- here aa piece published few days ago. brought something to my whichion, said something i had not understood, which is that u.s. air operations which

continue in afghanistan are used to defend -- and david, correct wrong --e got this used to defend u.s. troops and coalition troops but not at this of afghanupport security forces. fight, thatll one surprised me a bit. do we have that right in terms using our air power? >> i'm not sure that's been decided, by the way. because i think they've got a good point. i don't know that that's been resolved yet. think they make a good point. >> great. let's have the questions from the audience. ma'am, we'll start with you, in the back. >> thank you very much. i really appreciate your statements. i'm a correspondent from afghanistan. afghanistanm from too. everything looks wonderful after the big change in afghanistan. only concern that onrybody has is their policy

pakistan. do you think that after the new afghanistan, will be able to change their policy on afghanistan? >> we've been pushing them to change their policy for as long as i can remember. used to -- i made maybe a trips to afghanistan in the last ten years or so. add pakistan,ys go to pakistan. but i received so much false information, baloney in afghanistan about their policies that i just finally don't even anymore. i don't want to hear their lying anymore. lying about what they're doing. i had the head of intelligence saying if you could to us where in pakistan the people are that are supporting the taliban in

afghanistan, we'll go after them. and i looked at them like, are you kidding? know where they are! you know absolutely where they are. supporting them. of just given up in terms of trying to change their afghanistan.s we shouldn't give up. the fact that i'm frustrated is way. policy, by the [laughter] it's just a fact of life. i'm just being honest with you. now there may be some additional ways in which we can pakistan to really go after the people who are inside ofrouble afghanistan. there may be -- and we talked meeting earlier in the we had -- there may be some new towardspersuasion pakistan to really go after the inblem that's being created afghanistan, created in

pakistan. so we've just got to keep beking for ways and not frustrated by my frustration. >> sir? >> good morning, senator. >> good morning. world, ifpart of the the mountain doesn't come to mohamed, mohamed will go to the mountain. you, sir, are the mountain. so we are here to talk to you. older but -- [laughter] >> i'm an afghan american. ten years, i have been the president of the national coalition for dialogue with the tribes of afghanistan. i've been dealing with tribes all over, for the past 12 years. i came here for medical treatment recently. first of all, i want to extend forpeople's appreciation the partnership that has always existed between the afghanistan, and

especially the tribes of afghanistan. theere partners in fighting soviet union. you supplied us with the weitary and equipment, and supplied the manpower. and after a loss of three of our citizens, one and a half million on the battlefield and one and a half mill through genocide, we theged together to bring soviet empire down to its knees. the afghan people are not getting the credit for that. secondly, we as two nations partnered together to fight against terrorism. when the united states first entered afghanistan in 2001 with 500 soldiers, it was the ground forces of the freedom fighters, air support the from the united states, that we managed to get rid of the taliban and al-qaeda. since then, sir, i see a strain relationship. after 2005, it was okay. but when iraq happened, started getting on

the back burner. today we do not see the strength of the partnership that we had in the past. that you beingr, in the position that you are, with thet play marbles pakistani people. they are blatantly supporting the afghani group. established bases inside afghanistan. sent rockets, killing our people, driving our people out. but i do not -- you know, we have a partnership. we just signed the bsa. does this include the actionstates bringing against the pakistani government through the united nations by imposing sanctions against them to stop this carnage that the people?sing on i appreciate the fact that we want to develop afghanistan and peace and bring rity to afghanistan. but the people of the united states, sir, you said how bring the people?

we bring the people of the united states back into the arena by fling them and -- informing them and letting them that the battle is not iran,n afghanistan and but this is a battle that al-qaeda, and the new kids on terrorists, isis, are fighting against the west, using afghanistan as a battleground. as we keep the door open for these people to come in you,o this battle against myxtend my condolences and appreciation to over 2,000 american soldiers that have sacrificed their lives in afghanistan. but they have not sacrificed their lives on their own. their livescrificed for the children of the united states, so that their futures are secure, so that cannot makethat trouble for you, sir. toust want the united states voice its opposition to what the -- pakistani isis is going

in afghanistan. >> there was a question in the back. yes, ma'am? >> thank you. i have a question about counterterrorism efforts in iraq right now. there have been some u.s.adictory reports about and russian counterterrorism collaboration, so i'd like for to clarify what that collaboration looks like. then also, in terms of financing, what is the arabia?status of saudi are they moving towards financing thet way they've promised? don't know any more about the u.s.-russian collaboration, if r