what i've said on this issue is that as a man i am not going to have to face the hard decision that women have to face. i trust women of kansas are smart and they can make decisions on their own about their own reproductive health. with that said i think we spend a lot of time in this country talking about this issue and we have spent a lot of time over the last couple of decades talking about it. it prevents us from talking about other important issues. what i would like to see us do is start focusing on some of the big problems that we absolutely need to get our arms around if we are going to preserve the american dream and our financial futures. >> are you pro-life or pro-choice? >> i am pro-choice. >> ok. >> he is obviously pro-choice. i am pro-life. i think it is that we have to get past this issue. get past the rights of the

unborn? get past the guaranteed life for those end-of-life? i don't think you can say that with any degree of conscience, more especially as i'm concerned, the question that was raised is a state issue. federal mandates, i don't know of any federal mandate i agree with with the paperwork and regulations out of washington and taking over states rights. but with abortion, and you have to move past it? i think that is unconscionable. i really do. >> justice roberts when he was in his confirmation hearing referred to this issue as settled law. i think it is. it is an port in question but i think we've spent a lot of time debating it and it is time to start debating other important issues as well. >> thank you.

>> it isn't settled. we had a great fight over hobby lobby. the rights of individual business people to say i'm sorry we are not going to send obamacare because it strikes at our religious beliefs. the hobby lobby one. it isn't settled law. not by a long shot. that is why i am proud to receive the endorsement by the national right to life and the cans is right to live. they support me. they don't think we ought to get past this issue. >> let's go back to social media with our next question. via twitter, i would like to know the stance on gun control and if you are a gun owner. >> i'm not a gun owner. my opponent supported the harry reid ease of legislation that would have been tearing apart the first amendment. the second amendment.

i've a protector of the first and second amendment. my opponent is not. that is one of the many issues that proves he is a liberal democrat and he is not an independent. first amendment, freedom of speech, you should be concerned about that. harry reid's bill would have had congress decide what happens with regards to campaign contributions. imagine that. that was the wrong thing to do. the second amendment, i strongly support the right to bear arms and am pleased that i have the support of the kansas state rifle association and the nra. >> first a couple of things. the first amendment thing that senator roberts is referring to is overturning citizens united. he doesn't want to overturn citizens united because his buddies from washington have

flown in and are spending millions of dollars in campaign ads attacking me in a desperate attempt to allow him to stand office. i am a gun owner. i have two guns. when i bought those guns i had to go through a background check. i don't believe it was intrusive, i don't believe it intruded on my second amendment rights. i support the second amendment. i would point out that what i talked about in terms of ending the gun show loophole is the same long that senator roberts in the past has said he supported. when he found himself in the middle of a difficult primary and realized that direction his party was heading you change and flip-flopped on the issue. as a gun owner i believe in and support the second amendment. >> i am 64 out of 64 on right to life. the nra, i can't tell you where i am.

the way you describe that situation i don't think that is accurate. i've always supported the second amendment and i will continue to do so. >> again, i'm just -- >> rebutting the rebuttal? i'm concerned we are getting rebuttals to rebuttals. >> [indiscernible] go ahead sir. >> as a gun owner i support the second amendment. i do support expanding background checks to cover gun shows. if you think about what a background check does, it prevents someone who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent subject to restraining order, has been discharged from the

military or sentenced to a year or more in jail from getting a gun. those are people i don't want to see having guns. with that said, for a law-abiding citizen willing to go through background check, i support the right to keep and bear arms. >> thank you for your responses. >> kansas ranks as one of the top five states affected by drought according to the u.s. department of agriculture. what role should the federal government play in helping kansas in similar states achieve water sustainability? >> what i have talked about in that regard, i've spent time in western kansas with folks talking about the awful for and the issues associated with water in western kansas. it is clearly a depleting resource. i think we need to do a couple of things. we need to make sure federal policy isn't discouraging the planting of low water crops.

talking to farmers what i have heard is the reason they don't plant is the crop insurance is four times as expensive as other crops. i think we need to look at federal policy and make sure that we are not discouraging the planting of low water intensity crops. we need to lean on the innovation of the farm community. we have seen improvements in irrigation technology and i would like to see those technologies expanded so we can conserve water and ultimately extend the resource that we have in western kansas for agriculture. >> it's interesting the only federal response we have had from this administration is when the president went out to california and discover the drought. he spent $8 billion for climate change centers. we've never figured out what a farmer would do if he went into climate change centers as opposed to the farm service agency that we have in every

county. i represented the first district for 16 years. i come from western kansas in terms of my home. i know what farmers want and i certainly do not want another federal regulation or mandate coming down telling farmers based on water usage what plants, what they should not plant. we already have that too much in the federal government for the latest farm bill that is once again have a farmer's land for the government and not the market. >> i have come out as a small business owner myself. i recognize that government getting deeply involved in businesses is a mistake. which is why i have my small business plan intended to roll back regulation. with that said we have a crop insurance program and that right now provides for premiums farmers have to pay.

if they have to pay more to ensure something they are less likely to plant it. my concern is i don't want to discourage farmers from planting low water intensity crops because they think it would be good for western kansas. >> we just had one heck of a time putting together, saving, and improving our insurance. here you go messing around with water usage and telling farmers what they can plant, what they can't, which will also directly involved crop insurance program that we improved. i'm the father of crop insurance. it was a bipartisan effort. we improved it and saved it in the farm bill rated number one priority. when we did crop insurance i didn't hear anybody saying somebody could come out with the federal government and say due to your water usage we are going to encourage you to go to a different crop.

>> back to our panel. >> let's keep talking about this. washington looks to kansas congresspeople for expertise on farm issues. considering one of you will go to washington, what would each of you like to see in the next farm bill that is not in the current farm bill? >> in the next farm bill you're going to have to go over the current farm bill and see if it is working. in wichita the farm service agency folks are meeting with regards to the farm bill which is headed in the wrong direction. having said that we need a shakeup and understanding department agriculture means a lot and businesses up and down mainstream need a lot. 82% of the funding in the budget goes to snap or food stamps.

this a program that cries out for reform. this is another example of where my opponent will not support anything like that because that is a primary concern of barack obama and harry reid. this program has exploded in spending. the cup is only 1%. it is going to cost $800 billion in the next 10 years. we at least ought to stop and think about what we do with that research, greater export row -- export programs -- >> let's talk about that when you rebut. >> i think if you want to talk about the food stamp program ultimately we need to see economic growth in this country. when he decreed the jobs where people don't need to be on food stamps. i have talked a lot in this election about how i think we have a new american paradox.

how i believe it is harder than ever for the average american to get ahead and yet paradoxically easier to do nothing with your life. i have talked about looking about those programs and asking one very simple question. are they promoting upward mobility or the proviso that promoted complacency? if they promoting in place and see i think we need to adjust and improve. ultimately we may need to end them. >> let's are from the senator. >> my amendment would have had effective eligibility in taking advantage of loopholes. it was defeated by harry reid and the democrats. obama would not go there. that is one of his chief programs. you have to get back to production agriculture and understanding farmer and rancher feed not only this country but a hungry world. 9 billion people on the planet the next couple of decades.

our farmers and ranchers have to be looked at and that context can have the usda pay more attention to them and their likelihood than some bloated program that cries out for reform. >> let's hear from -- we took with 15 seconds. sorry. >> i was going to say we need to reform programs so that they are encouraging upward mobility and not complacency. i would point out senator roberts has raised our last debate as the state fair, i got a thumbs-up from him. apparently that doesn't make sense anymore. >> we've come to the final question of the night from me. you get 30 seconds to answer green over bottles. -- no rebuttals.

say something nice about your opponent. >> i appreciate senator roberts and his service to our country, in the marines and every time i have an opportunity to talk privately with the senator he has been a gentleman with a great sense of humor. >> thank you sir. >> marines take the hill. i would say that you're a well-dressed opponent. i admire your accumulation of wealth, i have a question about how you got there from here but i think that is the american dream. i would hope we can make that possible for everybody up and down every small kansas community. you have a nice smile. and you're for the royals. >> they disagree but they had mutual respect. i believe we have come to the point of the debate where we are going to do closing remarks.

let's start with mr. orman. >> thank you and thank you to the sponsors for having us tonight and everyone at home that took the time to listen. thank you to my wife and family for their continuing support. the question we have in front of us is simple. is washington working? if you think that it is i am not your god. i believe the system is broken. i believe sending a senator back to washington who is been there in that broken system for 47 years isn't the answer. i'm asking kansans to join me in sending a message to washington that the status quo is no longer acceptable. kansans deserve better. we are the country that the man on the moon and figured out how to harvest the power of the atoms. that took computers that used to fill the room and put them on the head of the pen. they can solve any problem that they put their minds together

and work together. we will not get that if we keep electing partisans instead of problems -- instead of problem solvers. two parties using more interested in seeing the other party fail facing our country succeed. this election is an opportunity to send a message to partisans of both parties that if you don't roll out your sleeves, solve problems, we will find people who will. it is opportunity for us to send a message the nation about what's right with kansas. i'm asking for your vote on november 4 to send this historic message and helpless in washington back in the business of solving problems for every american. >> thank you. >> thank you again to ksn. president obama said a week ago

this election was about a referendum on his policies and his agenda. his legacy. that is true. there is only one way that we are going to stop the obama reid agenda. to elect a majority of republicans. this is so much more about me, it is the future of the country. they have endorsed me because they know i will vote for a republican majority in the dictatorship and gridlock by harry reid and stop the obama reid agenda. about this time tomorrow night my phone is going to have dinner in new york at a $5,000 a plate fundraiser with the soros family.

going with him is an endorsement by the iof cfo. going to a soros fund raiser, i have never known that family to endorse independents. they endorsed liberal democrats. >> thank you. thank you to senator roberts. thank you to mr. orman. special thanks to our panel. greg anderson, brian lowry on the wichita eagle. we will have more on the kansas senate debate at 10:00. remember to get out there and vote. thank you for joining us. >> thank you.

>> c-span's campaign 20 is bringing you more than 100 debates. you can stay in touch with our coverage by following us on twitter. join the conversation at facebook.com/c-span. fbi director will talk about technology, privacy, and law enforcement. he is expected to discuss how information on encrypted devices is designed to increase the security that may hinder law enforcement investigations. the will be at the brookings institution's tomorrow morning. will, ahead of the cdc testify about the government's response to the ebola virus.

members of the house subcommittee, live on c-span. georgia, democrat michelle nun is running against david purdue. hosted a debate last week, including amanda swafford. 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 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 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. would you caucus with republicans, democrats, or neither? if i'm elected as the first libertarian, i would like to ask which party would like to caucus with me. as the candidate for liberty and reduced government who has a solid record working in government. i've been elected on the local

government level and i have a record of giving our citizens more freedom. to caucusy would want with me? that's the question. >> the next question will come from jim galloway. in au have been quoted 2005 deposition saying you spent most of your career outsourcing. you would say services and others would say jobs.

let me tell you what the issue is. over the past 30 or 40 years we decimated an entire industry because of bad government policy , tax policy, regulation policy. this have fought for in campaign is to get this economy going again. i believe that we have got to stop the nonsense in washington. we have to reform our tax code. we have to reform regulatory overreach. we have to unlock our energy resources. that will help us compete with the rest of the world.

had uniqueid he's experience to serve with others with business experience but he would be even more unique than that. he would be dla senator and his own words that has built a career around outsourcing american jobs. that is not the experience that we need in washington. david, in his deposition, talked about thailand, singapore, india, pakistan, but not once did he talk about creating jobs in the united states.

>> randall savage, the next question. of questionson about immigration. they raise from cutting education for illegal aliens -- they range from amnesty to >> ial immigrants getting 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. 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. >> 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? >> 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 bonnie and me into this race. >> it is the crisis that pulled us into the race. we have an almost $18 trillion debt. this president is on track to double it. the way to get out of this is to cut spending and grow the economy. the best way to grow the economy is to cut taxes and unlock do you think 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 long-term debt can be solved by working together and focusing on compromise 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. it has to be done with collaboration. >> you have said repeatedly your role bottle in the senate is your father -- role model in the senate is your father. you said you would reach across the aisle , and the senate is a radically different place then he left. is it possible to reach across the aisle.

in reality and by her father's own admission it's a radically different place than the senate when he came back from georgia. is it possible to reach across the aisle? if you attempt to do so, your party will penalize you for operating in such a way. do you agree or disagree with that? >> he failed to think of one.

the only way we are going to change leadership is people focused on relationship and things like campaign finance reform. we can change washington but only by people who are committed to it. we have 385 bills. we cannot spend 10 more years possibly in this direction. >> it could very well become a precursor to overturning

we cannot stand two or possibly 10 more years of this direction. you said you want to be a team builder. you will not bite the hand that feeds you. >> next question from jim galloway. you're going to have to pardon me. i'm kind of death at this point. -- i'm deaf. this lower court ruling could very well become a precursor to overturning georgia's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. please, let me finish. are you content to let the issue be determined by courts? if elected to the senate would you contemplate congressional intervention. >> government should not be

involved in the decision of how we structure our individual relationship. the libertarian party has been on record since the beginning of this issue. individual power is at the core 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. it is a very sad reason in our nations history. the purpose of our federal government 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. >> this is one of the worst laws ever passed in united states history. to allow the u.s. government to manage 16% of the economy. jobs are being destroyed. the difficulty of the next two years i think we need to delay the mandate 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 not perfect, but do you support 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 our rural hospitals, and i do not think we would have been -- we want to be having this

argument for the next few years. if you want to have people that are going to work together pragmatically to do things that matter to people's lives, and you want to put the people of georgia first, i would ask you to look at my candidacy. >> 30 second rebuttal. >> let's think about obama care for a second. my opponent talks about working across the aisle. >> just, you have the next question.

>> you talk as a libertarian. so many republicans and democrats adhere to these principles. it is somewhere between 4% and 7% across the country. at what 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 candidate in 2012, and i am a

candidate running for united states senate. we have a whole new theory there i have been with the libertarian party for 20, 18 years, and i can tell you the world of difference our candidates are already making. we have a serious sense that there are a lot of people who are standing up to getting tired of voting for the same old, same old. everyone is tired of the irs and the fair tax. the american people are ready for the power and responsibility of the individual. [applause] >> jim, you have the next question.

>> mr. perdue, let's talk about saxby chambliss, who you want to replace. he has been working with warner in virginia to bring down a deficit through an accommodation of reductions in entitlement spending and increased federal revenue by closing the federal tax loopholes, and increasing decreasing the corporate tax rate at the same time. even though you say the federal deficit is the nations rate if national security threat. tell us what your approach will be? >> first of all, we have low hanging fruit. we have $480 billion of redundancies. this is the general accounting office number. that is the first place i would go. the second in terms of growing of the economy, what we have got to do is put people back to work again, and the way we do that is

replace jobs. we have been working hard to get jobs or families to take care of themselves. what we have to do right now in my opinion, we have to pull the regulators back, and we have to finally unlock our energy resources. this country has the best workers in the world, but bad government policies are keeping us from putting them back to work. why? because this failed administration does not understand how to create jobs. my opponent believes that more taxes and regulation creates jobs. i am living proof that it is not the case. [applause] if we can give them 30 seconds on that same question, if we could, please. >> could you clarify the question, please? >> on saxby chambliss and how to reduce the $17 trillion federal deficit, do you do it through a combination of spending cuts and

revenue increases? >> well, i tell you, one thing is that the government is really bad at picking winners and losers, and if you are not connected to the right people, or your industry does not have the most effective lobby, you are at an extreme disadvantage in this regulatory environment. the libertarian solution is really a three-step process. you have to strip government. and you have to bring spending in line with the actual budget. why have we not done that already? it is a simple question. >> i have said during this campaign that i may have been the only person that said and complemented saxby chambliss for his work with senator warner. we do need to grow the economy, cut spending, and reform our tax code.

david talked about his experience in actually creating jobs, but i just want to remind folks that he said he was proud of a career where he spent the majority of his time outsourcing jobs. >> we will wrap up this question with a 30-second rebuttal. >> i am proud of creating and saving real jobs. attacks will not change anything. the next question goes to nunn.one. -- ms.

>> two parts. first, do you support a balanced budget amendment, and then a previous attempt to implement this, and if you are elected senator, how would you go about this to get them to approve a referendum on a balanced budget? >> i do support the amendment, and i think it is time. i have said, for instance, that we should ask every member of congress to say they do not get paid unless we pass an annual budget. so i do think that there are measures we can take that would create more fiscal discipline and give us an opportunity to restore regular order, pass a budget, and we do not need this to go to government shutdown. shutting down our government, that is not helpful.

it has cost our economy billions of dollars. 77,000 people in georgia were for load during that government shutdown, so we, again, we need principled efforts like a balanced budget amended, but we also need to send people to washington who are not just about paralyzing and polarizing our government. >> well, it is very interesting that you would support a balanced budget. we could not get harry reid to give us a reconciled budget for five years. look. the decision in this race, 70% of us know we are headed in the wrong direction. we can sit here all day, but we have to put people back to work in this country again. that is what is at stake in this race. thank you.

>> the next question, please. >> congress has had a 9% approval rating, something very low like that. both republicans and democrats have described the stability to restore washington. if elected, what is one issue that you can agree with president obama on? >> more open and transparent government, but he is not doing it. more open and transparent, across all levels of government. i do not think he knows enough about what goes on in the government. just look how long the nsa spying went on before we knew what was going on. we did not even know what existed until 60 minutes for the first time showed us what was on tv. there is so much we do not know about what is going on.

i would just like to see more effort on his part to do that, and also on his initiative, that he has got support to bring more openness and family support to our community. i would really like to see him do that more to support that. it is an admirable program, and he does not speak about it enough, so those are two programs i could definitely get behind the president on. >> the next question goes to mr. perdue. >> let's talk a little bit about outsourcing. this has resonated through reporters, through your opponent in this race for the u.s. senate. you have said before that washington is the solution for outsourcing. if that, indeed, is correct, what should public policy be about this subject which is very, very divisive in this country?

>> well, first of all, let's get this straight. what causes companies to fail? because they cannot compete. we have entire industries being decimated by government policy. apparel, footwear, electronics, even furniture. bad management did not 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. [applause] >> 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 harry reid 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 folks 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 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? >> 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 trade 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 export. >> to we have time to ask mr. perdue that same question? >> what?

we do not have a level playing field. american jobs are being lost because this administration is making it harder for businesses 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 and 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. shameful. 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. [applause] >> 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. >> have you 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. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, campaign 2014 is bringing you more than 100 debates for control of congress. join the conversation at facebook and twitter. >> on the c-span network, from the texas tribune festival, a conversation about dealing with undocumented youth. 8:00 p.m..ght at

coverage of events in ferguson, missouri. and sunday at 8:00, richard norton smith on his recent biography. and drones and their impact on aviation. how they transform the american military. saturday night at 10:00, jake 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 afternoon at 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. >> on the next washington journal, we will talk about the response to ebola infections in dallas. she will give us a preview of the hearing scheduled for noon eastern. texas congressman greenwald also join us to discuss ebola. plus we will look at the day's news. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 on c-span. now senate armed services

chair talks about afghanistan and some of the 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. senator levin has been a strong supporter. in 1981 he was one of the cosponsors of the legislation.

one of the bills out of his committee was signed by ronald reagan and established the institute. i am pleased to have senator levin join us. he has been to afghanistan many times. most recently in july. before that in april. 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. he was there at a time when the political crisis was still real. he had something to do with having conversations on both sides. the political focus was intense,

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 board and also former national security adviser and knows 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. please welcome the senator. [applause] >> thank you for your warm words. 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 unity, 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 months back, i told them what they needed to do was to be as brave as their troops and the coalition troops and that they 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 possible for the elections and then to have a resolution and

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. you have worked hard to find wisdom that can lead to peace. the kind of wisdom in his famous comment he said. "we need more owls -- not more hawks or doves." that puts it in perspective. i do want to focus on afghanistan. i 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 harmony with our goal, with strong security forces and honest governance. afghanistan faces immense challenges, from taliban terror to political tension. the progress the country has

made is also immense. too many people forget what afghanistan was like before 2001. the access was once extremely limited. women were barred from attending school, working outside the home, or leaving their houses unless accompanied by a male relative. medieval rules were enforced by armed thugs, using public executions and floggings. television, music, and the internet were banned.

there is vibrance in afghanistan society. in one decade life expectancy has increased by 22 years. child mortality has decreased by 62%. under the taliban there were 900,000 students in school, all boys. student enrollment is more than 8 million, including 3 million girls. in 2001 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. i believe our principal mission is to help establish afghan forces so they can protect our people and hopes for a free nation. that is the taliban's worst nightmare. when i asked a group of village elders whether they want us there, their spokesman answered, 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.

as they have formed a unity government. we have seen the maliki regime's pursuit of sectarian agenda left the nation vulnerable to the poison of isis. the fact that the afghan government's first official act included signing agreements with the united states and nato and the reopening of the big scandal gives people hope they are more 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. first is the value of broad international support for our military 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 governance worth fighting for. fourth is the value of setting limits on our own military involvement 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 accomplished much and are glad we came, polls in the united states show americans believe our involvement in afghanistan has failed.

former secretary gates has made the pungent point that the afghan war is the first he has experienced, the first war that looks better closer up than at a distance. i believe the american public's failure to understand what we have accomplished in afghanistan is due in large part to the constant, almost totally negative portrayal of events in the american press. the press understandably reports 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 women in uniform and their families, of a sense of accomplishment that they deserve to feel about our effort in afghanistan. and the relentless negative focus of the press could have a serious negative effect on afghanistan's future. for two reasons. first of all, it could dampen 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 congress will do what we should do, which is to be steady and constant in our support, economically and otherwise, for afghanistan. but there's a second reason. and that is that, while afghanistan's gains have been impressive, they remain reversible. afghans continue to fear that the united states will abandon

them, as they believe we did after the soviets left in the early 1990's. the afghans have assumed responsibility for their own security and for their own political affairs. but they continue to depend on international funding, training and institution building, in particular for sustaining the afghan army and police. the economic life of the country is far more vibrant than it was under the taliban but it will take years for the afghans to develop a sustainable economy, 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 to believe that afghanistan is a lost cause, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. simply put, if we don't

understand what we and our coalition partners have gained in afghanistan, we risk losing it. we've accomplished much, along with our afghan and coalition 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 us and others. and while much remains to be done, i believe if the afghan people remain united and if we remain constant in our support of them, that afghanistan will take its place among the achievements of which our nation can be proud. before we move on to questions, i want to touch briefly on something that congress is going to face when it meets after the elections. and that question is whether we should vote to authorize the president to use military force against isis.

in my view, the answer is clear. we should. the poisonous ideology of isis is hostile not only to the region but to the world. and there is a real risk that the area that it controls could become a training ground, then a launching pad for future attacks against the united states and our friends and allies. isis is terrorizing the iraqi and syrian people, enslaving minorities, attacking schools and hospitals and cultural sites. but if the fight against isis is to succeed, it must be visibly an iraqi and syrian fight, an arab and muslim fight, against an internal cancer and not be perceived as principally a western fight. though some have sought to minimize the contributions of arab and muslim nations in the battle against isis, the open

public participation of those countries is sending a powerful political signal to their populations and to the world. we have a unique opportunity, at this crucial moment in history, to bring the world together, to confront a common violent enemy. our role should be to help bring together a broad coalition in support of a unified iraq and a moderate syrian opposition by training and equipping them for the fight. and as part of a broad coalition with a strong, visible support of arab and muslim countries by providing air power that the iraqis and syrians lack. boots on the ground are needed. but they need to be iraqi and syrian boots. i also believe that we should

seek to establish a delineated buffer zone, along the turkish border, in order to protect civilians, a zone which would be secured by turkish boots on the ground, if turkey is willing, protected by a coalition no-fly zone. both things will be necessary for turkey to consider turkish boots on the ground in that part of syria, along that border, there must be a no-fly zone that protects that buffer zone. and we should surely consider doing that and seek to do that. so, yes, congress should vote to support the president in this effort, because it will be destructive to our drive to unite the world against isis if congress and the president appear disunited. we should vote, because

president obama has organized a broad coalition that includes most critically arab and muslim nations who are public and open participants. their publics know about their participation. i do disagree with those who argue that the president cannot act without an express authorization to use military force. and that's really the other question. should he, should we -- should we vote on it? the answer is yes. 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 necessary to defend the united states, and indeed

presidents have used military force overseas on dozens of occasions. and have received congressional authorization only a handful of times to do that. so in the last 25 years, we have engaged in air campaigns to enforce a no-fly zone in iraq, to end the bloodshed in bosnia, to bring about a serbian withdrawal from kosovo, and to protect civilians from gaddafi in libya, all without congressional authorization. congressional support would strengthen the international fight against isis, but the united states should continue in this effort with or without a vote on a resolution to authorize it. again, my thanks for the invitation to be with you this morning and for the work that you do. now i'd 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 secretary kerry negotiated between now-president ashraf ghani and ceo abdullah. you were, of course, there before. you had, i think, a catalytic role in achieving that agreement. one of the things, as i understand it, you emphasized to the leaders was to need for an audit of the election results. and that became a part of secretary kerry's compromise proposal. that audit has now been completed. what is your assessment of how that process went and how the

electoral process went, putting aside the agreement now reached between the two leaders? did it achieve what you had hoped when you made that recommendation? >> i think it achieved as 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 result would be announced but not the numbers. and that was essential for an agreement to be reached, for all of the internal, political, psychological reasons that drove it. and so even though ideally, on paper, if we were teaching a civics class, we'd say, well, of course you announce the results. but that was not a perfect election, to put it mildly.

there obviously had been fraud on both sides. and in order to have an outcome which was acceptable, which both sides could subscribe to, there had to be that practical resolution that the result would be announced, as to who won. but because the numbers, no matter what the numbers were that were announced, would create problems, second-guessing, third-guessing, fourth-guessing, they had to agree that the result would be there, and that the numbers would not be made public, because they are very imperfect numbers at best. in terms of the powers that were then going to be in the ceo 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 because of the negative view, the negative way in which the press has treated afghanistan, they view something as a failure or don't view it at all, in the case probably of the question you asked, but it really is quite extraordinary. that outcome is really an extraordinary outcome, that they could agree not just on whether or not to announce the numbers, the votes, and the ballot count, but also that they could share power and propose -- i guess it will be to -- it's sort of within the culture of afghanistan that they were able to come together. and when you compare that to what's going on in iraq and what maliki left in his wake,

the contrast is huge. it is a contrast which is very positive in terms of afghans. they can be very 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 needed a unity government, if they were going to go forward. they now have one. it creates sort of a practical challenge for people in the administration and in congress, when they go to kabul. and it's a little bit reminiscent but not parallel in any way, but when the president was made president of russia, and putin was then prime minister, there was the old question, so who do we deal with? do we continue to deal with putin? do we deal with the other one? the decision the obama administration made was deal with the president.

now we have sort of an analogous but quite different situation. so who do we deal with? who do you deal with? do you go to ghani? what is the sequence? >> that's not unusual. by the way, that's true in many places in the world where we obviously deal with both. but the sequence is that they elected a president, and it's important that we obviously deal with both. they're both powerful figures. one was elected president. and that's the fact of the matter. and i hope that both accept the sequence. but i think both understand the necessity that both be very deeply involved in discussions 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. we don't have a lot of ground to stand on in that. so it's with some -- you know, we ought to have a little humility. first of all, we ought to congratulate them on what they've done, because it is really extraordinary. but secondly, i think, refrain a little bit from being too self-righteous about the need to work together. we could probably follow their lead these days instead of vice versa. >> it is a remarkable achievement, what they have done in terms of the election and the unity government. as you know better than i, there's a lot of fatigue in the united states with afghanistan, compounded by, as you made clear in your remarks, the sense from the media that it's not been a success but it's been a failure. so americans, i think, are going to ask the question, is afghanistan still important to

us, the united states, and if it is, how do we rebuild the support within the country and within the congress for the afghan project? >> the afghans have helped a great deal in their agreement and 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 all on those issues, and i doubt that too many have. but nonetheless, the extent they have, i think they'll be reassured by that. the bottom line, i think there's a lot of fatigue in this country in just about everything. that means leadership has to lead. if you've got people who are kind of heard it all, tired of the election, tired of politics, scared about ebola, worried about isis. i mean, just go down the list of

things that happen. it's where leadership becomes more and more important. and that means hopefully that there's going to be greater unity in this country, particularly in the area of foreign policy, by the way. we have fallen short. i, again, want to avoid being too partisan. but there's been a real shortfall of 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. and he 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 and helped truman win nato and helped truman get aid for turkey and greece and a number of other things that were so important. we have fallen away from that

recently, and there's not been enough, i think, enough critique of the falling short of that goal of having politics stop at the water's edge, that is so important in this country, so important to our success. and so i would hope somehow, even if the battles continue on the domestic front, over health care or over the budget and all the other things, that somehow or other, there can be a coming together more in the area of foreign policy. >> let me press you on that, because you've been in the senate now over 30 years, been a real student of washington. how do we get that back, since the media seems to push us to the extremes? the electoral system now with so

many safe seats, republican candidates fending off challenges from the right. democrat candidates, challenges from the left. it almost seems like the divisions have been institutionalized in our politics, in our media. how do we get it back? >> it's going to take leadership, people who are willing to sit down together, just the way leaders have until recently, and work things out. 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 probably a heated presidential election is next in line, just two years away, which is like two minutes away in terms of political time, i think the odds are against it in the short-term. it's going to be a fortuitous combination of leaders. and for whatever reason, who see it in their political interests to come together. we're facing 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 i know of, thought they would ever take effect. and they cut into just about everything. and they're mindless. it's not a way to budget. we all know it. whether you're liberal, conservative, democrat, 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 three or four more rounds of sequestration. it affects everything, including whether we're going to support, as we should, afghanistan's recovery. and so will we be able to find a course to deal with that threat? that ought to be doable. that is a budget issue. and we've got our deficit -- our deficit is actually coming down to a level now lower than

they were when president obama took office. we ought to be able, in a better budget environment, to avoid these additional threats to some very important programs, everything from education, infrastructure, to national defense. maybe that would be the way, if that needle could do be threaded, that one budget needle called sequestration where everybody says they hate it just about. not everybody, 70%, 80% rail against sequestration. democrats and republicans, on my armed services committee, just rail against sequestration, including me. you know, i've laid out a way to avoid it. i won't go into it here, because it isn't in the right setting, but i've laid it out publicly. maybe after an election, in the lame duck session, our leaders can see it's in everyone's interest to do that. and that maybe could set us on a better course.

>> you mentioned in remarks kind of a conversation you had with some afghan elders. and they 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? and how much more help do they need from us? and the question a lot of americans will ask, for how long? >> they're doing well, better than we expected. i think they protected the elections. i don't know 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.

there's a willingness to fight. there's a hatred of the taliban, inside afghanistan. most afghans don't like the taliban and they like the army. and so they've done well. they're going to need continue support. and they deserve continuing support, training, equipment. they need to -- they need training particularly with air force, 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. both general campbell and general dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, have said, well, if circumstances change by 2016, they're going to make recommendations to the president, whoever the chairman of the joint chief is or whoever

our commander in afghanistan is. they will make whatever the circumstances indicate they should make as a recommendation to the president, when that time 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 the areas i would say they need particularly special support. but they're doing well. and 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 very successful as well. and the national police are doing better too. years ago, everybody said the army is great, clean. afghan army has got strong support.

but the national police was corrupt. you haven't heard that lately, because even the national police seems to have cleaned up their act somewhat. >> i want to ask one last quick question and invite you a little bit into a potential controversy. and then go to the audience for questions. i think the former ambassador -- it was a piece published here a few days ago. brought something to my attention, said something which i had not understood, which is that u.s. air operations which continue in afghanistan are used to defend -- and david, correct me if i've got this wrong -- used to defend u.s. troops and coalition troops but not at this point in support of afghan security forces. since it's all one fight, that surprised me a bit. do we have that right in terms of how we're using our air power? i