can change it, and i agree it should be begun done. >> i think an even democracy means you have an ability to compete, and if all of a sudden things are skewed one way or another, you really don't have a chance to compete. and mr. now mr. hastert gephart have prior engagements [applause]we will continue to >> i want to go back to one time during the house, i was a health care reporter in 2003, and the politics at the time were that a republican -- that republicans control both parts of congress,

and there was an outcry from seniors. and seniors always vote. and that is very important. they did not like the rising cost of prescription drugs. seniors use a lot of drugs, and it was not paid for, so you have to have an expansion of the government. remember, we are going into 2004, president george w. bush was up for reelection, and he was running against john kerry, and what happened was that the conservatives did not like the expansion of the drug benefits, and the democrats did not like the bill itself, and so by a large, you had the struggle to get 218 votes. it was called the longest phot otes usually go 15 minutes, and this went for over three hours, and george w. bush had to be woke up in the middle calls forht to make people who were not voting. how do you wake up the

president? who goes in? do you shake him? >> it is interesting. it is really an interesting study of the dynamics. when medicare was put into place, that was in the 1970's, there was a need for senior health care costs, and basically in the 1970's, the health care twos were divided between groups, doctors and hospitals. in 1972, if you had a heart attack, you probably died. toay, people are expected live, partly because of the pharmaceuticals, the drugs, that are keeping people alive and keeping people healthy. weree cost of the drugs not allowed in medicare, they were not involved in medicare, and that was not an issue back in the 1970's. i thought, whatever happens in the economic aspects, whatever

happens to the economic side of thing, there is also a political side of thing. people were working. seniors were not taking the drugs that were prescribed to them because they could not afford them. a senior had to make a decision if they could afford their diabetes drug or their heart condition drug or get their groceries. they had to make that decision of what it was going to be. so for good politics, we had to do something on an economic basis, and that was to find a prescription drug benefit onto medicare. not like did republicans going out and trying to find a solution, they felt that we were going into their territory, but the fact of the matter is, it was really an economic thing. that way, people could buy their insulin or their drugs for

diabetes, and if you had had aes, you probably limb cut off or would have renal analysis, or if you are a heart patient you would have triple bypass, and that is something that would cost the government or the doctors are the hospitals hundreds of thousands of dollars. but yet you could prevented by giving them $30 a month of insulin and prevent that thing. so i was a preventative thing, and i thought it was very important to have health care for seniors that would have that third part of the benefit. we went through that legislation three times in a house before we were ever able to get the senate to pick it up. first of all, you had a group -- and this is a really political situation, this is how things really happened -- i had some of my folks are voting with

democrats because they wanted to reimport drugs from canada. now the drugs that were sent from canada was because of a deal that was cut from the clinton administration. canadians were buying their drugs that we use it at a discount, basically. if you reimported those drugs back to the united states, first of all, people would not get the drugs they were supposed to and to screw up the market. it would not know where those drugs were coming from, it could become a from bangladesh, or india, and you do not know if they are legitimate drugs are not. they were in legitimately and philosophically there. -- thesay, the update

ability to get things that was a poor, and so we had 200 and 16 votes, and we had a couple people gone, so the democrats were under leader policy, and they said that she was not going to give us any votes. to 20 democrats who wanted to vote for this bill. so the week before -- there was a deadline -- a week before the vote, i had asked the president to meet with some of our people, because there was a concern. they were holding off and they wanted to talk to the president. the president went off to the the-- to england to visit queen or something. so he was gone for a week. so the night of the vote, he comes back, and we can't get him toget him to make the call get those other phone calls. so by the time we have everything together and the amendments and the changes in the things written out and distributed, it was 1:00 in the

morning. we are up against a deadline, it was the last day of congress. so we open the vote at 1:00. i can't get a hold of the president. i finally get a hold of the president of 4:00 in the morning, three hours later. he called the senators, they were satisfied with the answer they got, so they walk over to the senate, and they give us the vote that they need. the fact is, if you had to do this by yourself, it is pretty tough. the fact that you believe that this is a really important issue and if you did not get it done now, you are never going to get it done. there was no constraint on how long the vote was open. note was a tradition but restrained. you had to do what you had to do to get things done. if you look over the things that we did over that eight years, that was probably the most important votes that we did for congress and the american people. think they would have

won the election had you failed? the democrats would have hammered you had you not got that done. >> that was more issues between and the contention of the democrats rather than what the legislation dead. -- legislation did. >> i was told there was an story behind where you were during the attacks on 9/11. could you tell me where you were during the time leading up to the attacks? herering 9/11, i had to be in d.c., it was a beautiful tuesday. usually congress does not come in until later in the day on tuesday, people are usually traveling back to their -- ask from their districts, and i was doing that to. we had a tough economic situation, and i wanted to talk ringingresident about

economist in and looking over the horizon, and how we should treat our tax situation on investment. we had lost, at that point, $250,000 on revenue from capital gains, so that was a discussion that we were having. so i knew the president was not tuesday, sothere on i got in there on monday afternoon. so i was in my office early on tuesday morning, and all of a sudden there was a knock on the door, saying mr. speaker, there is something happening at the is a trade center, there plane or a fire or something. so i went into my office and i walked in just as i saw the second plane go into the second tower. it was pretty evident that this was not an accident, this is some type of terrorist attack. we did not know why, we did not know who, we did not who the

players were, we had her suspicions, but we did not know. it was an interesting day because we were supposed to have a joint session in congress that day with the prime minister of australia, john howard, and it really show the commitment from both governments to bring these leaders together. so i was thinking that maybe this is not a good idea, this joint session of congress, you have both houses of the congress, you have the joint chiefs of staff, you have the president, you have the supreme court, as you have the prime minister of australia all in the same room at the same time. though it was probably not a good idea, especially if you do have a terrorist attack out there, people are flying planes into things, so i think it is not a good idea. the president is out in air force one someplace. we are trying to get every down,- plane in the sky

getting them down on the ground, and we had planes across the atlantic, coming across the pacific, planes coming across the caribbean, and they had to get down immediately. get a hold trying to of vice president cheney, and he security going, and i have security going, and we had to push buttons and turn a key, and we just cannot get through. i had a secure phone on my desk, and a red phone, and every time there is a call on it a light goes off, and the light went off, so they put cheney through on the red phone. and i said, hello? what are you guys doing up on capitol hill? you guys are charging too much and there are koreans everywhere. and i said who is this?

me who held not tell was an i figured it was a wrong number. suddenlyking that there is something as i'm a window and there is smoke coming across the national mall, so i figure out that there is a real problem, so i get back to my office and i say, sam, go figure out what is happening. i willi don't know, but be back in a second. and then he told me that a third plane had just gone into the pentagon. i could not find anybody in the senate, it was too early in the morning to find anybody around, so i made a unilateral decision that we are going to close down congress. i don't know if that had ever been made before. het i was very adamant that should be done, because i did not want anyone in the government going on. i figured anyone would

understand this. office and the speaker pro tem, who later became head of the cia, was in my office, and i said we're going to close down, and we had and iting chaplin, -- walking across the hall and all of a sudden i had two of my security guys grabbed me, one on its side, and they just kind of scurvy through the hallways and down into the stairways and down into a tunnel and across over to the rayburn building, and next thing you know i am in the back of this suv suburban and hurtling across the back streets of washington, and i said what is going on ? and they told me that there was a fourth plane that was out, and

so people five fourth plane was going to go into the capital. so they told people just get out and go run and just get away. people in the white house and the old executive offices, because the smoke was coming down along the state department, that area, they said get out of there, go north, run north, get away. so it was just kind of a panic. so i am out at andrews air force the, and i got a hold of vice president at that point, and he said we have all of the planes down in the united states, and there are three planes going across the atlantic that do not have their transparent -- transponders on. -- if we can't get these planes down, we have to shoot them down, and we don't want to do that. so all of this drama was going on, and i said i am going to have to put you in his

undisclosed location. and the next thing i know i am in this helicopter flying across the southern portion of d.c., and you look down, and there is nothing moving, no traffic, nothing on the bridge, everything is kind of dead, and we get over to reagan international airport, and you can see all of the planes are stacked up on the tarmac. there are not enough gates to take care of all of the planes. i can't never seen anything like that before in all of my life. all of these helicopters were going across to the airport, and there is the pentagon, and this blue-black smoke and a dark orange flame underneath pushing it up, coming ofoss the northern suburbs virginia. this is a beautiful, crisp september morning. myself, thinking to now, i taught history, u.s. history, taught about the 1814 inof washington in

i amar of 1812, and now the speaker of the house and someone is doing the same thing now. how can this happen? all of the leadership ended up location"isclosed across the state. figure outing to what happened that we did not have any intelligent source, and i talked to the vice president probably two or three times that day, and the final conversation getis that we were going to the leaders of the house and the senate to come back and land in the capital at 6:30, and the president is coming in at 6:00, so you are coming in at 6:30, we are going to land you there in helicopters. so i came out of my undisclosed location, and came across the north lawn of the capital, and senator daschle was the president pro tem of the senate,

and i was the speaker, and we were each going to give 15 or 20 seconds to the mic. it was going to be outside on the senate steps, we walk around to the senate steps, and there must've been 250 members of congress, house members, senate members, democrats, republicans, all on the stairs. so we walk on the stairs, and daschle has his 20 seconds, and then i say we have a lot of work to do, and we will be back to work tomorrow to try and solve these problems, and this country will stand shoulder to shoulder, and as i turn around after that, somebody broke out into a group america," andless chills went down my spine with a happened. and then i thought, this country will be ok, we are going to be ok. stand and look out

my window, i think of that smoke coming across the national lawn mall, and i think about how great our country is. i think about the firemen who went up into the towers and the police and people trying to save lives, really great americans who wear uniforms, and we also have people who wear uniforms or don't wear uniforms who are also hear a. i went to the celebration of andht 93 last september, going there and talking to those , the 10, those people or nine, or eight, or seven, we don't know how many people, those people actually took down for of these terrorists who were armed in some way, and they took control of the plane, and they knew they could not fly. they were on the telephones and talking back to their loved ones in their offices and they knew

what was going on in washington and they knew what was going on in new york and they knew what their fate was. and those people stood up and made a difference. and we know today because of the sow we hearings that that plane i hearings, that play was probably headed to the capital building and headed to my front window. i looked out my window over the next five years and always thought about those people who were the real heroes, and those of the people were sitting across from you at in -- in an airplane or at a restaurant, those are people everywhere. those are people that i will never forget and they in my mind all the time. is all theaid that time we have, and i would like to thank speaker dennis has to. astert.is h

[applause] >> our campaign 2014 coverage continues with a week full of debates. c-span tonight at 8:00 p.m. time, the georgia governor's debate between nathan deal and his opponent.

and then the montana u.s. senate debate between danes and curtis. then south carolina governor's and thursday night live at 8:00 eastern, the iowa fourth debate between u.s. representative steve king and jim mowrer. more than 100 debates for the control of congress. ofand last week, part wepan's debate coverage, shut the wisconsin governor's race between scott walker and mary burke. >> actually i am on record saying there are not enough consequences for the first offense, and i think we have to make sure that there are there are 5000

crashes that have alcohol-related causes. this is costing us and costing our society a lot of money and the personal injury that it cost us. so we have to take a tougher stance on this. i have been endorsed by the wisconsin professional police association, and i will work with law enforcement to make sure that we will have what we need him place to cut down the number of fatalities, to cut down the number of crashes, and also to make sure that it does not overburden our justice system by having alternative methods to address this. >> governor walker?

>> this is one of those tragic issues out there. i remember a couple of years ago , one of the most heart-wrenching cases we had to talk about was about a family from our area who had lost a son due to someone who was a multiple, repeat offender. some of the problems you talk about are just numbers, it there are people who have been out on the roads multiple times who have in committing drug driving offenses. i agree with the other two attorney general candidates, it is going after repeat offenders, toughing of the penalties, and i think this is one of those issues that republicans and democrats can come together and work on. i am going to work with law enforcement and i am pleased to work with the manager women of the the the walkie police association and the milwaukee we haveassociation, and

people out on the road to understand that we need to crackdown on people who are repeating this criminal activity over and over again. governor walker has had over for your to address this. the fact is, you avoid a lot of the repeat offenders if you had just handled the consequences on that first offense. theye need to know that cannot get into the habits of drinking and driving and that there are real consequences that come from that. >> governor? >> i was just at our annual governor conference -- governor's conference on safety, and we have seen traffic accidents go down, and our safety measures have improved over the last year or so. we want to continue to build on that. we want to show that the consequences are serious for

those who continue to go back on the road, even after they have been pulled over. recent polls list this race as a tossup. you can watch the entire debate, and dozens of others, on c-span.org. arkansas had the u.s. senate race between senator mark pryor and representative tom cotton. alls list this debate as tossup. they debated for about an hour. good evening, i am 4029 news and weangela taylor, have viewers tuning in on katv in little rock, and we also have viewers tuning in from jonesboro and from across the country from c-span. thanks to the fayetteville chamber of commerce and the university of arkansas

for their help in tonight's worst and only televised debate between the two u.s. senate candidates. tonight's debate focuses on tion, topics: educa economic development and job creation. each candidate will be given a 62nd chance to answer each question. and the moderator from talk business and politics, rosie bronx. >> our audience of more than 300 invited guests has been asked to remain silent during this debate. i know it will be difficult but i have total faith in our audience tonight to be able to do this. we will make an exception at this moment as we welcome the stage the candidates for the united states senate, tom cotton and mark pryor.

[applause] mr. pryor, mr. cotton, it is to this eveningee you and have you in the same room at the same time for a change. i talked to both of your mothers tonight for some tips on how to keep you guys under control should you guys get out of line tonight. i got a lot of recommendations from them. if i call you by your first, middle, and last name, you know you will be a little out of bounds. a drawing earlier today determine the order for opening

and closing statements, how that would be and how the questions would be answered and mr. pryor, you are up first with your opening statement. >> thank you. when i talk about arkansas coming first, that is not a slogan for me. arkansas is written on my heart. you know i love this estate. -- this state. you know the most important thing i can do is listen. that is what i have done. i have taken your good ideas to washington and we have made a difference. not so with congressman cotton. two years ago when he was running for the house, by his own admission, he was down in his own polls and struggling. but that changed one day when he got a fedex. he opened it up and looked in there and there were $300,000 in checks from out-of-state billionaires. he must've thought, this is easy. all i have to do is carry their water and they will keep writing checks. that is exactly what he has

done. this year it is not $300,000. this year it is over $20 million from the out-of-state billionaires that have written to try to buy the selection. why? because they know they can count on tom cotton. they know he was the only one in arkansas to vote to increase the age of medicare and social security to age 70. he was the only one who made big cuts at arkansas children's hospitals. they know he was the only one to vote to double the interest rate on student loans. that is the difference in this race. i listen to you and he listen to the billionaires. that is what i mean when i say arkansas comes first. >> mr. cotton, you have 90 seconds to open. >> i spent the last year traveling around the state, speaking to a truck driver, a farmer, a nurse. they are frustrated with washington and they should be. i have not been in washington very long, but i have been there

long enough to know washington needs change. it could use more of the comments as i learned growing up on a farm in yell county. it could use leadership and courage. washington simply is not working for arkansas families. wages are down, prices are up, obamacare is a disaster it, and we are $18 trillion in debt. parents are worried about their kids' future. so am i. my wife and i are expecting our first child. we do not want our baby to have a future that is less prosperous and less safe. that is the future of obama's policies. less prosperity, lesson safety and security. senator pryor has voted with obama 93% of the time and he cast a deciding vote for obama care. there is a better way. let's get the economy going. let's for po obamacare.

-- repeal obama care. let's balance the budget. let's rebuild the military. let's stop apologizing for america. >> mr. cotton, the 188 fighter wings mission was previously changed. the 188th, originally based in were transferred out of state. the river valley was promised new jobs when drones were added to the mission. what will you do to ensure these jobs return to fort smith? >> is a former infantry officer who has been in combat, i can tell you there are few things that an infantryman love to hear better than the sound of an a-10 warthog coming over the mountain. it is not sleek, it is not modern. it does save lives. it supplies close support for infantryman. i try to fight it from the very

first day that i entered into office. we need a manned up flying mission in arkansas. as your next senator, i will work to restore that because we have some of the lowest cost, highest efficiency training facilities in the river valley. i'm going to work the pentagon day in, day out to make sure the arkansas air national guard provide tools for soldiers overseas as well as jobs at home. >> thank you. i love working alongside people in fort smith. i started working on the 188 several years ago when b.r.a.t came along. we were able to get that mission converted from f-16s to a-10s. that is converting from a-10s to drones. to answer the question specifically, we need to get faa approval to have those drones fly over this particular

airspace and i have been working on that. i don't have that done, but i do know that recently we have been working to save the fire trucks in the emergency vehicles at that airport and that is an important part of keeping the airport open. i love working for fort smith. i love working alongside fort smith, it is a very patriotic community. the 188 is a very proud wing. they have a long history. they have done great things. we need to keep them flying and strong. >> mr. cotton, you are entitled to a 30-second rebuttal. >> it is one of the reasons we are having to cut back on forces and arkansas. that is why soldiers deployed are being told when they return, they will not have a job.

mark pryor voted for every one of those cuts, mark pryor will not take national security seriously because he is supported the radical military drawdown. >> one of the things i talk about to the military leaders in washington is the strategic important of the 188. they have great airspace. they are the crown jewel of this. it does not show up the first time you look at it. fort chaffee is basically right off the runway. the fact that they can do joint training, the fact that the navy seals are there, the fact they can do close air support, drones, everything they need right there. >> mr. pryor, the second question comes to you first. it is from scott inman. >> we reported last week that walmart is dropping its health insurance for part-time workers, following similar decisions by other big companies and they have raised premiums for full-time workers because of an

inux of workers required to buy health insurance under the federal health care law. do you believe this is an unintended consequence of the law was it expected and should the lobby changed? changed? >> let me say what i would say to those walmart employees. they now have an option. insuranceet private because the state legislature, democrats and republicans, came together to provide the private option. when it comes to the affordable care act, people in arkansas pre-existing conditions were routinely denied access to coverage. they are one medical emergency away from bankruptcy.

back then the insurance companies had all the power. what we needed to do was to get patients back in charge of their health care. now i do want to make changes in the law. i have already supported many of those. but i don't want to go back to those days. i think that would be a mistake to go back to those days. >> mr. cotton. >> those workers at walmart lost their insurance and their premiums went up because of obamacare. because mark pryor cast the deciding vote for obama care. this is not an unintended consequence. this was the intended consequence of obamacare. which is government run health care. they want people out of private insurance and onto government insurance. those people at walmart or other companies do not want an option. they want their health insurance. mark pryor and barack obama promised them that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. they did not keep that promise.

and so many other arkansans, they are feeling pain and stress of losing their insurance and trying to find a better option when they have an exact plan that suited their needs. they took that plan away from them so they could have government-run health insurance. i don't think that is good for arkansas workers, families, or businesses. >> 30-second rebuttal. >> i want you to pay attention to what the congressman did not say. he did not say he had any solution for people with pre-existing conditions. the reason he does not say that is because he really does not. in other contexts, he talks about the high risk rule. i am a cancer survivor, as you all know. i have been in the high risk pool. i have lived there. it is no place for any arkansan to be. if we go back to the high risk pool, it is like throwing sick people to the wolves. >> i, like all arkansas, and think of that senator pryor survived his cancer. but many people were happy with their coverage under the high

risk pool before was a limited. they should have been allowed to keep that choice, but obamacare eliminated the choice. senator pryor enforced changes in the law, but why did he insist then? he voted for barack obama's legislation. >> mr. cotton, the next question is from diana davis. >> when we speak of entitlement programs, first and foremost this election year has been a discussion and focus on food stamps and they are being tied to the farm bill. how long have food stamp spent a part of the farm bill and why did you vote against the farm bill?

>> i voted for the real farm bill and a food stamp reform bill. food stamps have been part of the farm bill for decades. it is one constituency working with another 48 deal that was not good for arkansas farmers. i grew up in a farm in yell county. my dad taught me that you cannot spend more money than you take in. we are $18 trillion in debt. the food stamp will, which is what i would call the farm bill, is a most a trillion dollars of new spending. farmers can expect to get one half of 1% on the return on that built and 75% of arkansas farmers get no benefit. what we need is a farm bill that focuses on the needs of farmers and i supported that. and a food stamp reform bill that gets people food when they need it, but also eliminates waste and abuse and the institutionalized fraud that you see in states like massachusetts and illinois. mark pryor insists on doing things the old way. if you like the status quo, mark pryor and barack obama are on your side.

>> mr. pryor, you didn't vote against it, you voted for it. >> >> one of the reasons i did vote for it as well as all the other members of the arkansas delegation, except for congressman cotton, is because we did a billion dollars in food stamps reform. we addressed $8 billion in this bill. this is an example of congressman cotton says one thing in arkansas, for the farm bill, but does another in washington. he was the only member of the arkansas delegation to vote against it. if you want one insight into why, you can go online and there is an audio tape where he is at a luxury resort in california with his billionaire backers and as they are introducing him, they say that he has voted against the farm bill and that that is a vote against arkansas and you hear a a huge over nation. that applause is still ringing in his ears. that is who he is listening to. he is not listening to you. he is listening to his

mega-donors. >> i'm the only candidate on stage who grew up on arkansas on a farm. i am the only candidate who went to high school surrounded by soybean fields. i know what keeps farmers up at night and gets them up in the morning. the simple fact is, we passed a in the house of representatives and all four arkansas congressman voted for. president obama issued a veto because he wanted more food stamps. mark pryor listened to who we always listen to, barack obama, and went along with him in the status quo. >> the rhetoric sounds good, but he is trying to further his political career and he is leaving arkansas behind. ladies and gentlemen what you , see with congressman cotton is a business transaction. he goes to california to meet with his billionaire backers. if you listen to other audio he is in a room full of investors. why should we invest in you?

this is why they invest in him. cuts, ande makes big invest in you but he turns around and gives him big tax breaks. they are going to get a big payday. they will get a return on their investment with congressman cotton. >> there's a lot of talk about helping the middle class. what is your definition? >> under law, there are a lot of different definitions. when i think of middle-class, i think of most of arkansas. that is maybe up to $200,000. that is different ways to judge it. we need to focus on the middle class. we need good middle-class jobs. that is why i have the america made strong legislation. we focus on the middle class. congressman cotton seems to want to build the economy from billionaires down. i want to build it from the middle class out. that is what we need in this country. that is what has made america great. we had a strong middle class but the middle class is hurting right now. we need to do everything we can.

in washington, we should be able to agree on jobs and the economy. we need to focus on the middle class and that has been my focus. we need middle-class jobs here. we need to bring manufacturing jobs back to arkansas and to america. all the economists say the time is now. >> mr. cotton? >> when i think of middle-class arkansans, i think of people i have met on the campaign trail. ann and i were on the campaign and we met a couple with a two-income family. because obamacare drove up the price of their health insurance, they had to sell their home and move in with her parents. that is the economy that mark pryor and barack obama created. in arkansas we have added 28,000 jobs in the last six years, even as the population is growing. we have added 88,000 people to be foodstamp programs. i think that is a tragedy and

has to stop. one way to stop it is to get government out of the private sector. trusting arkansans and businesses and communities. we need to balance our budget. we need to repeal obama care. we need to let you keep your money in your pocket, rather than send it to washington dc and hope you get scraps back. >> i am not sure i have heard a definition from either one of you of what the middle classes. >> i said up to $200,000. there are different definitions, but that is my working definition. i talk about the american-made jobs package. the first part of that is to repeal that inexcusable provision in the tax code were corporations get a tax deduction for shipping jobs overseas. i want to repeal that. it is the first section of the bill. congressman cotton has taken a pledge with these mega-donors to

not do that. i disagree. >> senator pryor must be hanging around with billionaires of the if he thinks $200,000 is the middle class. a typical household makes $40,000 a year. that is down by oma's 5% over the last six years because of the obama economy. they raise taxes on businesses and individuals. that is what is driving jobs overseas. that is what is making it harder for arkansans to get good jobs on arkansas. that has got to stop. >> i would like to pivot back to health care. we have certainly heard stories positive and negative about how the health care law is affecting arkansans. what we do know is more than 200,000 of them have signed up for coverage on the newly created health care exchange. many of them did not have insurance before.

if we start over on health care reform, what happens to those arkansans? >> i think we have to start over because obamacare has been a disaster. it has continually created harm. we know we had problems with the health care system in 2010 when mark pryor cast his decisive vote. people with pre-existing conditions could not get coverage or it was not affordable. it has only gotten worse under obamacare. premiums are up 138%. 4000 arkansas just got cancellation notices of their medicare advantage plan because mark pryor voted to cut $700 billion from medicare to pay for obamacare. when we repeal it and start over, we will do things like trust families, patience, and doctors, let you shop across state lines, give you tax treatment. it is not about replacing obamacare, it is about reforming broken programs like medicaid, cutting red tape, sending programs back to the state. the state can treat their own populations as they see fit, not

how barack obama think they can under obamacare. >> as ronald reagan said, there he goes again. he throws all these fake facts -- i think george w bush called it fuzzy math. i think that is charitable. here is the bottom line. in arkansas, we have over 200,000 people that have private insurance thanks to the private option. let's give the state legislature, which is led by republicans and the governor who is a democrat, let's give them credit for coming together with a great bipartisan arkansas solution to get over 200,000 people private insurance. in addition, there are 40,000 people in the exchanges.

that is close to almost 250,000 arkansans that have private insurance that have it today and not a year ago and commerce and cotton insists on taking that away from them. >> i would remind you that the question is specifically asking what happens to those arkansans if that is overturned? >> senator pryor wants to talk about fake facts. i would encourage him to go see the arkansas seniors who just got cancellation notices that they were losing their medicare advantage plans because he voted for $700 billion in cuts to pay for obamacare. part of health care reform is performing all health care programs, including medicaid which is a broken entitlement system and running out of money. we can return that money to state governments and we can encourage them to make choices right for the population under obamacare programs. >> let me respond to that very briefly. he talks about medicare advantage.

there are many more arkansans that are on medicare advantage today than the day the affordable care act past. he has no answer for the people he would take off of these private insurance policies in arkansas. he has no answer on pre-existing conditions. he has no answer on keeping your children on your health care until age 26. he has no answer on any of this but is insistent on repealing it. >> senator pryor, shifting the focus to education, on this university campus as well as in northeast arkansas and arkansas state university and around the state at various institutions of higher learning, we have students who are incurring a mountain of student debt. they are caring this burden with them into their professional lives and paying well into the years they should be saving for their own children's education and higher learning. what you think is a fair

interest rate for student loans and do you have a plan for helping students to pay back student loan debt? >> i'm a graduate of the university of arkansas, undergrad and law school. this is a college town. little rock is in some ways a college town. we have great colleges and universities all over arkansas and we need to make education more affordable. i think a good student loan rate is 2.3%. congressman cotton has voted to double the interest rate on student loans. in addition, he says he wants to repeal the stafford student loan program. here's the problem. when he went to harvard, he used stafford student loans. now he was to repeal the program. that is what climbing the ladder and then pulling it up behind

you so no one else can climb it. >> i can understand the struggles students face in higher education. i took student loans my cell. -- myself. my dad is a farmer and my mom is a schoolteacher. we made the right choices, a mix of federal loans and private loans from our local bank. you don't get to make that choice anymore as a student because obamacare nationalized the student loan industry. obamacare grabbed money to pay for its own programs and took that choice away from you so the bank where you have a checking account can't help initiate a loan for you. government bureaucracy can give that service even when they had competition. when they are a monopoly, it is really bad and that is why the cost of education is going up so high. under mark pryor's 12 years in office, the cost of tuition has increased about 84%.

under the obama economy, people in their early 20's are seeing their unemployment rates increased by over 50%. that is bad for arkansas students and their families. >> once again, you look at congressman cotton, no solution. the reason he does not is because of his voting record. he went to harvard and we are proud of that. he did go to harvard, but one of the things you see over and over with congressman cotton is that he brags on the fact he went to harvard. he has used harvard to further his political career. that is ok. it is not ok to then turn around and say you want to eliminate the very same student loan program that you used to get your education. >> i don't want to illuminate

the student loan program. i wanted to compete with your local bank. this goes to show the hubris of mark pryor and barack obama. what did you think the student loan rate should be? he said 2.3%. where did he get that, thin air? is mark pryor going to set your mortgage loan? is he going to set a loan for your tractor? washington politicians monkey around in the private sector and it hurts students. you can see it in the private tuition of the university of arkansas which has increased 84% in the last 12 years. >> the massive construction project to widen interstate 49 is underway in arkansas. what can you do to ensure we get federal dollars for construction and quickly, and do you support earmarks for arkansas highway projects? >> i do not support earmarks. it is the gateway to hire spending, which is what we have had under mark pryor.

in the last six years, senator pryor has voted for every dime in new spending. it is an immoral burden for the next generation. we can build an infrastructure right here and all across the country but we should get bureaucrats out of the business. why do we have to spend our money in arkansas to washington dc and hoping liberal politicians from around the country will send a few scraps back to us? i think we should keep more money ourselves and make our decisions or work with interstate compacts with states like missouri when we are building regional roads like i-49. that is the best solution for arkansas, not to spend ourselves into $18 trillion in debt and begging politicians for a few dollars for rose we can build at home. >> i will disagree with congressman cotton on this answer because i believe in infrastructure. i believe infrastructure is critical to jobs. it is not just immediate jobs.

it is not just construction jobs. american-made steel and cement is good, but is the long-term benefit that we get from an investment in infrastructure. the congressman takes the position because he voted to cut infrastructure dollars in washington. why? because the billionaires who underwrite his campaign have told him to. they say jump, he says how high. he voted against infrastructure investment right here in arkansas. that is bad for our future. i talked to the mayor of warren a few weeks ago. they got a poultry plant. he thanked me. they said you got infrastructure dollars on wastewater disposal. they would not have come here had they not had that. infrastructure means jobs. >> it does mean jobs and we need more of it in arkansas. we do not need to go begging to

washington politicians and bureaucrats, asking to send scraps back. it is a good revelation of his mindset. he thinks your money is his money and you should be grateful for him returning a few pennies of it. we need a highway bill that will build bridges right here in arkansas, not send billions to california for light rail. pryor if senator focused on infrastructure, why did he vote for an $800 to must which is more about giving away money to corporate cronies and buildings in washington instead of roads in arkansas? >> i would remind you that the question addressed i-49 and do you support earmarks? >> i do support i-49 and i supportedearmarks in the past. we do not do it anymore. i will say this -- if i'm elected to another six years, i want to finish i-49. i want to finish i-69. i want to finish i-55. i want to deepen the arkansas

river to a 12-foot channel. every single one of those will add many, many jobs and help arkansas not just immediately, but in the long term. all of those are good investments. >> you are doing a fine job of staying on time. keep an eye on that red light. mr. pryor, the next question comes from scott inman. >> the congressional budget office announced last week that the federal deficit did shrink to a six-year low in fiscal year 2014 but the projection for the deficit over the next decade is still $7.2 trillion, presumably adding two more than a $17 trillion debt. what evidence can you provide that during your time in washington, you have had a commitment to cutting spending? >> if you look at my voting record in the last three years, i have cut $4 trillion in

spending. in the last three years, i voted to cut $4 trillion in spending. they were wait too high when they were a trillion dollars a year. it is good news they are going down, but they are still high. this is what we need to remember -- we can balance the budget. we balance the budget 20 years ago when president clinton was in office and we did it by using discipline and good old arkansas arithmetic. that is what we need to do. one of the things we can do to help balance the budget is grow the economy. let's focus on jobs and the economy. let's get our economy moving again. let's build that middle class. that means more people paying taxes. fewer people getting things like unemployment. that means it is good for the budget, good for the economy, good for america, and good for everybody. >> mark pryor and barack obama simply have no credibility on reducing the deficit in the future because look at what is happening to the deficit over

the last six years. $1 trillion on average every year. mark pryor has voted for every penny of it. look what is happened since he got the washington. $2.1 trillion in spending. now we are at a 3.5 between dollars in spending. that is a terrible tragedy for the next generation. i think of a time when my constituents came from the river valley. we were talking about issues and the debt. how much are we in debt? you are in debt over $50,000. he looked like the kid from "home alone" when he learned he was a wave from his parents at christmas time. we should not do that to the next generation. mark pryor and barack obama have done it continuously because they are not serious about reducing the deficit. i will. >> you all know me and you know i am serious about this. people in washington know -- i watch this closely and we have to get spending under control. that is why i voted to cut

spending by $4 trillion in the last three years. where i focus is on the middle class and small businesses. congressman cotton focuses on congressman cotton focuses on the top tier wealthy. i don't think you build the economy from the billionaires down. i think you build it from the middle class up. >> over the last six years of the economy, if you make a living off of assets or investments like stocks or bonds, the top 5% of all income earners, you are doing ok. if you make a living by working, if labor is your means of putting food on your table, your incomes are down. arkansas have seen a decline of 5% in their household income. that is because mark pryor is a rubberstamp for barack obama's policies.

>> common core teaching has established standards all across the country that if a child moves from california to arkansas, they are on the same footing with their knowledge. at the same time, some teachers are saying that we have removed creativity and critical thinking skills by hearing to the common core standards. if we eliminate the opportunity to explore critical thinking, aren't we turning our schools into assembly lines? >> i grew up the son of a schoolteacher. my mom helped make a public school the best in the state. we need to have strong public schools. we do not need washington, d.c. dictating educational standards to our schools. that is what happened with the common core. it started out as a voluntary, nonprofit idea, to try to establish general standards that

could be adapted by states and local communities. and then barack obama and mark pryor hijacked it. they used it as a tool to dictate how you get federal money for education. i don't think that is right. i don't think parents should have to struggle to help their kid do math homework. i don't think we should use a one-size-fits-all method like, common core to distribute your tax dollars back to local schools. that is barack obama's way. my ways to trust local communities. >> common core is an important issue. i hear from teachers and parents about this. it started with the governors. it has largely been a state issue. it has passed the arkansas state legislature. i don't support a federal curriculum. i am a big supporter of public education. i went from first grade to law school in public schools and i'm proud of that.

i think we need a first-rate education system in the country. children today in jonesboro and russelville, they are competing with children in china, and mexico. we need to have that superior education to train our workforce, to get people ready to compete in the global economy. >> the fact of the matter is mark pryor does support a federal curriculum. it is called the common core as implemented by the department of federal education. barack obama and posted on the state. you do not get the money if you do not use common core. mark pryor went along with it and we have teachers who are frustrated that they do not know how to teach their students. parents are frustrated because they cannot help their children do homework at night. they are struggling already.

i don't think we need mark pryor telling what curriculum should be. >> again, education is very important and one reason congressman cotton is putting up this big smokescreen about education is he is trying to take your eye off the ball because he has voted to cut education. those are his votes in the house. he has voted to cut education, and you ask why he does that. it is because the billionaires, the folks who have spent $20 million to try to buy this election for him have said to vote against it. if they vote against the, he votes against it, he turns running gives them a tax break. >> gridlock in congress has caused one government shutdown which some say hurt the economy. many blame that on purely partisan votes were members of each party vote only with their

party. when have you voted against the party line and why? >> lord. i have voted against the party line so many times, i am always criticize by democrats. the shutdown was terrible. i did not support that. congressman condit. congressman cotton did. when we reopened the government, i was part of the group that brokered that. we got the government back open. i have to give a lot of credit to susan collins. she called and said i have ideas. we you come to my office and talk about it? that was the beginning and we got the government open. one thing that people in washington know about me is i always try to work in a bipartisan way. that is leadership to me. that is getting things done for arkansas. it is something that you know

about me. it is my trademark, if you will. the good news is i continue to work with republicans and i always will. >> mark pryor says he votes in a bipartisan way. i guess that is true if you consider voting for barack obama 93% of the time. he has voted for $1 trillion of new get every single year. standing up to big spenders in washington is where i said i stood up to my party. earlier this year, we passed a spending bill that broke through spending caps nine months old. how did they pay it? senator pryor and barack obama and too many republicans trying to balance budgets on the back of veterans. they extended spending caps out nine years. big spenders in congress can't have some spending discipline for nine months. i don't think they can do it nine years out. that is in keeping with his record of rubberstamping the obama agenda.

you say that you vote against your party. which of the 93% of your post that you passed for barack obama's agenda did you regret? >> the question is when did you vote against the party line and why? >> i mentioned a few times and why and that is because i represent you. i am not there to oppose or support a president. i am there to represent you and i take that seriously. the people who watch the senate every your have ranked me, and this is folks that know the senate and know how we vote, not all the rhetoric and spin you hear from the congressman here, they rank me every year as one of the most independent senators in washington. i am independent because i listen to you. >> last rebuttal for you. when have you voted against

it? >> i did not hear many instances of senator pryor voting against barack obama and he only does it when barack obama gives him permission. if you want to go back to the shutdown, i voted for every spending bill to keep the government open, to reopening the government, and to open it. it is senator pryor who kept voting against arkansas. you did not have to pay a tax you could not afford. i guess senator pryor thinks that congressmen and senators have special perks, but you should have to follow obamacare and was will to shut down the government to do it. >> according to the social security administration, the trust fund will be depleted between 2033 and 2041. there are many proposals out there to avoid this and we have seen both of your campaigns highlight the unpopular ones. this problem is certainly unavoidable without congressional action.

which proposals would you support to strengthen the financial health of social security, and why? >> my mom and dad are on social security and medicare. sorry, mom, you probably did not want me to reveal that. i would not do anything to hurt them or the arkansas seniors that depend on social security and medicare. that is why i voted for no changes for anyone approaching retirement. senator pryor and barack obama cannot say the same. they robbed $700 million from medicare to pay for obama. if they did it once, they would be willing to do it again. senator pryor is resorting to typical washington hypocrisy. he is trying to scare seniors and hang onto power. a few years ago, he said he could save social security if he raised retirement age for teenagers today to 69. now he is saying he did not say that. the most important thing we can do to promote social security

solvency is get people back to work and paying into the system, not taking out. that is not happening in the economy. >> i would caution the audience to beware about what congressman cotton says in a debate of social security. when he was running for the house, he was asked a similar question and said he would never do anything to harm people on social security today. guess what? it took him a grand total of five months after that election, five months, and he got the call from his billionaire backers. they told him to vote certain ways. when the aarp look at his voting record, they said his voting record would result in immediate benefit cuts. that means benefit cuts to seniors today. there are two lessons. you cannot trust what tom cotton says in a debate. you cannot trust tom cotton on social security. >> i will remind you the

question is specifically which proposals would you support to strengthen the financial health of social security? >> senator pryor once again is trying to confuse the matter because he wants to run from his record on cuts to medicare. $700 million in cuts of seniors benefiting from medicare today. i met a senior who said he had received his cancellation letter. that it was a result of senator pryor breaking his promises. if he did it once, he will do it again. we have to get people back to work. grow our economy, get more money in the social security trust fund. that will save it right now, not make the cuts that senator pryor did when he voted for obama care. >> i want to answer the question but i have to respond to the scurrilous charge about $700 billion cuts to medicare. let me tell you. what i did is cut waste and overpayment to insurance

companies in the medicare advantage program. more people on medicare advantage than there have ever been. it has been hurt the program at all. i saved $700 billion and i extended the lives of medicare by 13 years. congressman cotton has taken the same budget votes where he takes that 700 billion and he gives huge tax breaks to billionaires, the ones underwriting his campaign. that is the difference. >> our next question comes from diana davis. >> as proud americans and arkansans, we don't like to think these two issues go together, but sadly they do. what percentage of our military personnel are eligible to receive food stamps? how can we do better for our men and women who serve? >> it is true there is a

surprisingly high percentage of our enlisted men and women, mostly the very lowest rank with families, that also receive food stamps. it is just the way it is. we can pay more, pay our men and women in uniform or a, and that is a start, but it underscores a problem that congressman cotton has. he continues to dance around the farm bill. he voted against the farm bill. his reason for that is he calls it a foodstamp bill. his analysis of that has been totally debunked by anyone who is look at it, but nonetheless when he voted against the farm bill, he was the only one in arkansas to do it and he voted against arkansas's largest industry. agriculture is 25% to the state's economy. devoted against it and he voted against 25% of the people in this state by doing it. >> one soldier is too many on food stamps.

when i was a platoon leader at arlington national cemetery, i had to help my soldiers. i had to help them in personal finances, learn how to make a budget. i did that with my staff sergeants and platoon sergeants. we worked together to help our privates make sure they could meet ends meet. i and my soldiers were the beneficiaries of your generosity, taxpayers that give us the best training, weapons, and equipment. i met a mom in jefferson county. her son had died in the last decade of war. she has a son in active duty. she came up to me and urged me to make sure that he has the very best training and equipment and weapons so he will not die. senator pryor and barack obama have gutted our military by $1 trillion. that means we are putting lies on the line overseas and we are putting our future at risk as well by cannibalizing our military forces, training, maintenance, and procurement. it is bad for america and that for arkansas.

>> it is interesting to hear congressman cotton talk about this because when you look at his voting record when it comes to the middle class, guess what? he is actually voted to raise taxes on middle-class families by up to $3000 a year. he voted to raise taxes on middle-class families. that is going to work even more of a burden on our men and women in uniform. i on the other hand have a very strong record for standing up for the men and women in uniform and veterans. >> i think our men and women in uniform would wonder why senator pryor voted for the trillion dollar military cuts. it is part of the reason we lost our air wing at the 188. senator pryor talked about the middle class and i guess that is his $200,000 a year income earners in arkansas. i think about the real middle-class where the wages have fallen by 5%.

because of radical cuts to the military and high taxes and excessive regulations, they are struggling to get by. >> mr. cotton, the question is from angela taylor. >> veterans in arkansas say they are enduring wait times that are too long in fayetteville and little rock. can the v.a. system be rehabilitated? >> we need massive reforms in rva system. earlier this year, veterans were literally dying waiting for appointments. i was one of the first congressman to insist on reform and the v.a. i was insistent that we give veterans choices so they did not have to wait too long or drive too far. they can use local caregivers in the private sector, just like private citizens. i demanded early that the president hold eric shinseki accountable and call for his resignation. mark pryor wait until the last day for eric shinseki resigned to say so.

he only supports barack obama. arkansans simply cannot trust mark pryor to hold the president accountable, whether it is the v.a. or any other government agency. >> the answer to your question is yes. we can reform the v.a. that me tell you something. i have marching orders from the people of arkansas. what they tell me is that when it comes to honoring the commitments we made to our veterans, that is nonnegotiable. that is what i will do. the first bill i ever passed in the senate, the first year i was there, dealt with men and women in uniform. so far i have had to 13 pieces of legislation to help our veterans and to help our military personnel. i put that record up against

anybody. as soon as i heard about the terrible scandal out in arizona, i picked up the phone and set up meetings with the little rock fee eight and the fayetteville v.a. i wanted to make sure those same things were not happening here. congressman cotton seems to think that the hard work is done when the press conference is over. the hard work is just beginning. >> senator pryor does not do much hard work in the senate. that is what veterans did while overseas. my dad was an infantry man in vietnam. he walked point for the fourth infantry division. i think about him when veterans get their care from the v.a. and i will always hold the v.a. accountable when they do not get their care. unlike senator pryor, who voted for barack obama's budget which helped pay for the spending

increases by giving unilateral cuts to veteran's pensions. >> last question i am told. mr. inman, you get to ask the last question. >> this is for congressman cotton, is at right? >> that is correct. >> i apologize. it is for senator pryor. >> there have been several claims in the advertising made about your opponent's positions on changes to medicare and there have been claims made about your positions on changes to medicare. what specifically would you change about the current system, if anything? >> here again with medicare, there have been these charges and they are just not true. i voted to extend the life of medicare by 13 years. that is all the savings, the overpayments we were making in the medicare advantage program and also some of the fraud that was going on.

we took all those savings and we added, extended the life of medicare by 13 years. my opponent has voted for the very same 700 billion that he wants to criticize me for. he has voted for that same 700 billion except what he does is turns around and gives the billionaires who underwrite his campaign a massive tax breaks. i don't think that is good for our seniors. we have well over 500,000 seniors in arkansas who rely on medicare. they paid into it all their lives and they need to be there for them when the retire. >> the answer to your question is i will make no changes to the current system for current retirees and anyone approaching retirement. mark pryor cannot make that claim because he robbed $700 billion from medicare to pay for obamacare. he calls it fraud or waste. the guy i met in warren called it his health insurance. mark prior and obama promised that if you like your plan, you could keep it.

they did not keep that promise. now 4000 seniors are losing their medicare advantage plan. senator pryor likes government-run health care. he wants more people to lose their plan, whether it is private plans and you have a choice or a plan at walmart for part-time workers or if you have a plan your small business. that does not mean that senator pryor should not have kept his promise that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. he did not keep that promise when he voted for 700 billion dollars in medicare cuts. >> we are out of time for rebuttal so we will go straight to closing. mr. cotton, you get to close first. >> i was blessed to grow up on a farm in arkansas. my wife and i are excited to be expecting our first baby. we want our baby to have the same opportunities i did on that farm and i want your family to have those opportunities for a better life.

barack obama's policies are making that harder. those policies are on the ballot, every single one of them. in arkansas, those policies are called mark pryor. a vote for mark pryor is a vote for barack obama. mark pryor backed obama's failed policies and cast the deciding vote for obama care, hurting workers in driving up because cost of health insurance. mark pryor has voted for every penny for $6 trillion in new debt over the last six years, even as he cut $1 trillion from our military will be islamic state is rampaging across the middle east, beheading americans. mark pryor is a rubberstamp for barack obama's policy of indecision. i think there is a better way. get the economy moving. get people back to work. repeal obamacare. quist you and from our kids. rebuild our military. that is the choice that you face in this election.

if you are satisfied with barack obama, that is your guy. your vote for mark pryor will be a vote for barack obama. if you are ready for a new direction and change that helps working arkansans, i would appreciate your vote. >> thank you. what you heard tonight is that he is running against one man, but i am running for 3 million arkansans. i want to thank the audience tonight. i want to thank everyone who is watching on television. i want to thank the three tv stations and the panelists. you have done a great job. you all know me. you know that i am about hard work. i don't hold a lot of press conferences. year after year, they rank me as one of the most independent senators in washington. i am proud of that because i represent you. i know that arkansans are stubbornly independent. when it comes to issues, we are very different.

he voted to cut student loans. he voted to make big cuts in arkansas children's hospital. he voted to make cuts in social security and medicare. he voted against the farm bill. he also voted against the release. it helps arkansans. it else people in mayflower and other communities that have gone through disaster. we have a clear choice here. who listens to whom? i listen to you. congressman cotton listens to his mega donors that are underwriting his campaign. if you talk to him anytime in the next six years, he is going to hit the mute button because he listens to them. thank you very much. early voting is october 20. i appreciate your vote. >> that concludes tonight's debate. have a great night. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its

caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> campaign 2014's bring you more than 100 debates for the control of congress. watch our coverage and join the conversation -- follow us on twitter and like us on facebook. tonight, c-span's 2014 campaign coverage continues with the georgia governors debate between nathan deal and jason carter. the race has been listed as a tossup. you can watch it at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. live montana u.s. senate debate. recent polls find this race but to be solid republican. you can watch it live at 8 p.m. eastern. earlier today, the director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

took part in a town hall meeting focusing on ebola. he talks about the u.s. response and the recent appointment of the ebola czar, ron klain. a czar, it is an ebola response coordinator. he is highly talented. he has been chief of staff for vice president gore, vice president biden and has experience in the congress. he will be coordinating the interactions among a multi agency endeavor that are involved each of which have their own response abilities. ,he dod is involved, usaid, hhs homeland security and on and on which meets in coordination. nation hadthat court been coming from the white house in the form of lisa monaco who is a homeland security advisor and susan rice was the national

security advisor. they have really important day jobs to do like ices and other things -- isis and other things. i think ron will do a terrific job on that. >> just some of the tunnel meeting of the u.s. response to ebola. you can watch the entire event at 10:40 p.m. eastern time on c-span 2 or watch at any time online at www.c-span.org. tomorrow on washington journal, chelsea parsons of the center for american progress discusses gun control. after that, former health and human services secretary michael leavitt on the a-bomb -- obama administration's to the ebola crisis. plus, your phone calls and facebook comments on washington journal at 70 and eastern on

c-span -- at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span 2015 student camera competition is underway. willnationwide competition award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a five to seven minute documentary on the topic -- the three branches and you. video needs to create -- include c-span programming and must be 2015.ted by january 20, grab a camera and get started today. >> earlier today, the foreign research institute and the kennan institute held the discussion on efforts to promote democracy around the world with representatives from the state department and former ambassadors to the czech republic and georgia. this is one hour and 45 minutes.

and present this conference to you. welcome all of you. this is a timely and important subject. it has always been but i think it never has it been more timely. russia-ukraine, former soviet world, the question of whether democracy, the development of democracy, democracy building and promotion matters. whether he can be successful, what are the tools? these are questions we are addressing and questions on many other important questions hinge, including those of security and prosperity, not only for the

region we work on at the kennan institute but for the wider world. forward to hearing the insights are panelists at and all of you have and i look forward to spirited discussions. before i hand the floor over to the ambassador, i want to thank him for really taking point on organizing this entire event for many months now which has become more and more compelling. as well as the ambassador who unfortunately due to trans-siberian syndrome, he does came off a 2.5 week training journey from moscow and picked up the cold that we all got last year. he is not able to join us today. deputy whohank my will moderate his next panel. madison brady, and many others who make it possible.

ambassador, i think we will introduce the first panel. >> thank you very much and welcome to you all. hat of -- has the dual having being associated with the transitions for the last nine years. and, being a global fellow here at the kennan institute. working with him, with will, matt -- we put it together. you are kind to give us all the credit. it would not be possible without the cooperation with you. let me thank you and the wonderful team here at the kennan institute and wilson center and for these wonderful facilities you provide as well. hard to imagine a more appropriate venue for

today's event than the woodrow wilson center. given that president wilson started it all a century ago when he called for the united states to strive to make the world safe for democracy. furthermore, the timing could not be more opportune. suggested, it was opportune will last spring and even more so today. this is the 25th anniversary give or take a couple of weeks of the fall of the berlin wall and the entire change of central europe, the revolutions in central europe. it is also a season of severe testing or threat to democracy. in many of these same countries where things look promising two decades ago, but also most notably in ukraine and hong kong today. are extraordinarily fortunate

in having as our lead speakers today two of the most revered and respected american figures in the field of democratic transitions. for over 30n, years, president of the national endowment for democracy. and larry diamond who is in the second row, one most eminent scholars of democratization. it is based in stanford university and a hoover institute. we are also very pleased to have younger scholars and practitioners in our two panels who have been chosen for their fresh perspectives and their often dissenting views from the conventional wisdom of traditional policies of the last 30 years. indeed, one of the goals of this conference -- could we have --

if there are guests in the back row, could you move up? -- thet need to use reserve seats can be used at least for this session rather than having them stuck in the back. if you are able to stay the whole session. so, as i started to say, one of the goals is to engage the younger generation and deciding what we should for should not do. of support for democracy a body -- abroad in the decades ahead. it is appropriate the younger generation has a voice in formulating the new consensus. you have bios. only two of our speakers by name. you have bio information on all of them. our goal is to have a really intense, focused discussion

where people have a chance to engage, the panelist have a chance to engage with each other. they have a differing views and then we have plenty of time for discussion with you. that is why we are going to skip the formalities. whore going on, thomas, was our fourth panelist is stuck in traffic. he is confident in being here in time to engage in the discussion. i just wanted to explain that will hopefully be part of the agenda. here are the three central questions that we have asked our speakers and i ask you, the audience present here and through webcast, to think about and focus on during this entire day. three questions, three topics, three issues.

first, should support for democratic transitions continue to be a major goal of u.s. foreign-policy? particularly, in view of the drastically changed circumstances we face today as compared to the 1990's. what priorities should begin to democracy support when it conflicts with other major u.s. national interests? that is the first cluster of issues. there is room in the front row. you can use the reserved seats for now. please, come up. second issue. policiesuld continue and backed up support for democracy abroad, what do we need to do differently to make them more effective? where should we focus our efforts in the coming decades and what should future democracies of these programs look like if we indeed continue them?

third question, if we should no longer continue providing active support to democratization abroad, then what should be a the alternatives? is not enough to say no, no, we have not done anything right. tell us what we should do differently? should america still work to support human rights and basic freedoms abroad at some level or should we entirely instead drop this traditional and deeply rooted theme of u.s. foreign-policy in favor of a real politic. before going any further, let me underline one key definition in framing today's discussion. the potential for proper framing of discussion. what we do not mean by democracy support is the imposition of

democracy through external interventions on the model of afghanistan, iraq, or other places. instead our focus today is on the pros and cons of assisting and nurturing existing attempts of transition and supporting new locally driven attempts of transition when and if they occur. just a quick word about foreign-policy research project onnd our democratic transitions. by the way, are the acoustics ok in the back row? all right. we are an innovative, agile think tank based in philadelphia. we especially pride ourselves in trying to maintain an

independent, outside the beltway perspective on global issues. this is why we dare to tackle so many issues that are debated and disagreed on in washington and try to take them from a different perspective. we might be able to break new ground here. folders, if you don't have one, there are some outside. welcome. you made it through the traffic jam. i mean you made it safely. so, you have in these conference folders a one-page summary of our activities and we have here president alan luxembourg will introduce our luncheon speakers. there are several of us here who are scholars affiliated with f

pri and the program on democratic transitions. invited to start this program home was 10 years ago -- to set up a program, it was on democratic transitions, it was mostly the post-communist transitions we focused on. leaders of thehe orange revolution just came to power as you all recall. the initial positive outcomes of that seemed to be happening in the first months and couple of years of that revolutionary movement and more importantly of the many precedents of the 1990's, the sexual -- the successful beginning of transition. most analysts and policymakers were led to believe that the prospects for post-authoritarian transitions, not only in the post-communist world, the inspects for democratization former authoritarian countries were very promising, not only in

communist countries but other areas of the world. ourse, when the russian federation fell apart -- soviet federation fell apart, people more optimistic. today, by contrast, we see authoritarian regression in many of these same countries. deeply disappointing results over the past three plus years in the so-called arab spring countries. the background for a conference is one of significance, i would call a democratic disillusionment, and much questioning as the efficacy of u.s. policies in support of democracy abroad. today is wey hope will come away from our proceedings of this conference with a clearer sense of whether this current pessimism over discouragement is warranted and whether democratic retrenchment

either on the grounds in countries overseas or in the u.s. policies in support of democracy abroad, whether that is inevitable or whether there are new rationales and new approaches that might permit us to be more effective with these resurgent autocratic trends. those are the three questions. more our stress once desire for real dialogue, not talking past each other, not making speeches, but looking for alternatives to the extent that any of our panelists or any of the audience disagree with current policy. we have asked our speakers to be very brief and their initial presentations. they all said they will try to stay to a very short -- will our moderator kylie step in -- kindly step in?

he has promised to be very strict with his gavel and watch. presentations by our panelists and then a very brief round with a can respond to each other or at a point or two that may be simulated by the others' comments. then, we will open it. we want to have your comments and questions so think about your questions but please keep them brief. your questions and comments, please keep them brief. we have a microphone, is that correct? when the time comes for questions. what we are seeking is real engagements and discussions of stimulate fresh thinking and breaks new ground. thanks to our very large turnout. the sessions into this large part of thorium --

auditorium in which no food is allowed. the result of that, after the second panel, we have a very short time to move into the wilson dining room in order to permit our luncheon speaker larry diamond proper time to make his presentation. he has agreed to speak as you eat so when you go into the conference room, it is important you grab your lunch and beverage quickly and sit down so we can get started very promptly. dr. diamond will speak for 30 minutes and then we will have 30 minutes of discussion. immediately after that, we will in the same room, go into the final panel you see in your programs and the idea of that is to have four different members of the organizers of this conference give you their takeaways. they will no doubt be different takeaways, but we view this conference as a starting point for further discussion and

further deepening of our understanding of these issues and what the way forward is on these issues. now, as you probably have noticed from the cameras in the back, the entire -- c-span is broadcasting all of the proceedings in this auditorium live. unfortunately, they cannot switch over to lunch session for technical reasons. will bere webcast available on the kennan institute and foreign-policy research institute website. we encourage you to tweet and ask questions online using the #democracymatters. all one word. so, thank you for stepping in. i turn it over to you to strictly keep to the agenda.

>> thank you very much, mr. ambassador and welcome to the first panel on revisiting the case for democracy assistance. we have a group of very distinguished speakers as the ambassador noted. their biographies are in the panel but this is a really distinguished group that can get through the basic questions about how to prioritize democracy promotion and where to allocate different resources as we go forward. the first speaker is carl gershman. it is a great privilege for me to introduce him who no longer -- who not only lead of the endowment for democracy for decades, but has been my boss for a good seven years. the floor is yours. >> is it on? thank you very much. it is a great pleasure to be here. i've been given 10 minutes to give you a picture of the whole world. bear with me. i will raise a lot of issues. i will probably talk about all of them.

it is a very different period today that it was 25 years ago when the communism fell. when the third wave of democratization crested, communism collapsed and democracy appeared to be triumphant and inevitable. it was a period of a lot of this allusion. all countries were thought to be poland. it was no longer needed in the view of a lot of people. the government could step in because they were no longer terribly sensitive. there were something called the transition paradigm where democracy was progressed in transitional companies according to certain stages. an article ond that in 2002. a was a period that i think vacation from history. today we are a lot wiser.

we understand how difficult it is to build democratic societies, especially societies that lack strong institutions or middle-class. stronger resistance to democracy is from the old establishment. this is not mean people don't want democracy. they are fighting for it in crimea, venezuela and russia. it does not mean there has not been -- there has been some kind of failure of democracy promotion which in my view trivializes the problem which has five broad dimensions. the first is that there is a growing effort by the world to push back against the advance of purpose is toe control civil society and independent media. their ownto project version of reality into the flow of information around the world and to modify the international norms and body in the declaration by elevating the principle of sovereignty above

all others. the second is the dismal fate of recent efforts to achieve successful democratic transition, most notably the failure of the arab spring uprising to produce any significant gains for democracy in the very fragile transition that is underway in tunisia. these uprisings that generated such hopes once has succumbed to authoritarian backlash. autocrats have successfully retained power and where they face the concerted challenge they have not hesitated to use savage violence as we know in syria. the third problem involves backsliding in countries that were once considered stable or newly consolidating democracies but are now experiencing a surge of populism come extreme nationalism and threats to independent media and civic institutions. in thailand, the trend is liberal democracy. the growing centralization of power in turkey as they retreat

in venezuela. other countries in latin america are examples of such backsliding. the response of the world's major democracies to the challenges posed by the new authoritarian assertiveness is the fourth problem. the problem speaking in a conference and ukraine and the partnership we organized years politics are " economic insurance are put above basic political values and not only immoral, they are suicidal." speaking about ukraine today, the ukrainian philosophy has said the valleys are sacrificed for security, we will lose both. the suicidal tendency to narrate interest over value is stronger than ever in both europe and the united states. we were speaking about the weakness of europe but the united states is also at fault for the silent in latin america.

it has been deafening. we live at a time where the sords of the poet william yate has a special relevance. the fifth problem has been the crisis of democracy in the united states and other leading democracies. it has many dimensions, polarization and them available -- that of developmental. the financial crisis of 2008 that undermined the influence and standing of the u.s. and other democracies. the impacts of which was heightened by the likes of china which claims to be an alternative model of capitalism. the situation is not all gloomy. i will point to three factors that go to the other direction. been ahere has democracy recession, there has

not been a reverse way in the number of democracies. it is at 116. it is not a reverse wave. there has also been democratic resilience during the economic crisis of two dozen eight which surprised a lot of people that there were not a massive collapses. there was democracy movements with real vigor in hong kong and ukraine and other countries. we must also recognize that some of the fundamental problems that affect the state of democracy have little to do with the success or failure to a democracy. however of effective or ineffective some of the month and. -- might have been. we have to commit ourselves to the restoration of american leadership. this is not an expression of american arrogance or reckless form of overreaching, rather it is the recognition of a fundamental geopolitical reality. would be without u.s. a world with more violence and

disorder and less democracy and economic growth that a world with the united states continues to have more influence than any other country in shaping global affairs. president obama himself acknowledged this in a speech last year to the u.n. general assembly when he called u.s. disengagement a danger for the world and a mistake which would create a vacuum of leadership and no other nation is ready to fill that. the urgent challenge is for the u.s. to exercise leadership in a convincing matter so the backing is not filled with chaos or violence. the problem today is not overreaching, as some analysts want to say or try to impose democracy on other countries which is ridiculous. we need to return to a policy of real engagement. that is not mean training our resources by getting bogged down in distant wars, but it means backing up our diplomacy with military power and deterrence of which we will

have little leverage in negotiations with countries who did not share our commitment to peace and the rule of law. why should they negotiate seriously if they feel we have -- they have the option of achieving their objections -- objectives by other means? why should we hold back from providing ukraine with the wherewithal it needs to defend itself. i will call your attention to the article in the water -- in the washington post. the restoration of u.s. leadership will not be possible unless we have the political will and capacity to bring the spiraling u.s. debt under control. grosshe last decade, the federal debt tripled to more than $17 trillion and now exceeds the gross domestic product. there are many reasons for the continuing public search -- surgein in public debt. the principal factor is the war in iraq and afghanistan.

it is spending that has gone from less than one third of the budget to more than two thirds today. robertwords of samuelson, the welfare state is taking over the federal government. human capital to international programs and even defense spending which is expected to shrink over 40% over the next decade. there are things that can be done to address the other problems i mentioned even though there are no quick or magic bullet solutions. in conclusion, i will give a quick list. the effort to put -- pushback against the growing autocratic oppression must be continued. more needs to be done. president obama statement on defending civil society made last month in a speech to the clinton global initiative is a step in the right direction if there is real follow-through. the effort by the house foreign affairs committee voiced to reform the structure and radio

liberty and radio free asia is an important step for the information offensive that is being carried out by russia and other autocracies. the difficulty of achieving successful democratic transitions is important for civil society and protest activists to learn lessons from past failures such as the need to prepare, to engage in political action and take responsibility for governance in the event that protest movements lead to the downfall of autocratic regimes. the process movements must start strategically. this is happening in ukraine today. a lot of the protest leaders are taking part in the elections that will be held next week. there are many things that need to be done to reverse or retard democratic backsliding. corruption has to be fought with real determination. in addition to conditionality,

something that larry has talked about and we will raise today, we need to look for new ways to integrate into development strategies. efforts to explicitly build of the capacity of independent media which can provide a means for economic growth and accountability against corruption. we also have to develop strategies that strengthen the democratic culture by supporting indigenous groups committed to building tolerance societies and by helping to connect these groups to civic movements like the movement in china. we have had enough movement in senegal to connect these movements so they can learn from each other. we also have to maintain and build up efforts to support indigenous democratic actors. we have to remember that the democracy must come from within. it cannot be exported or imposed. this has been the model and it worked. cutting edge support over the long term to each local

situation. the support needs to be copy intensive involved -- comprehensive involving training, networking, research and political solidarity. democracy activists need all of they placed special emphasis on the need for political solidarity at a time where autocratic regimes are cracking down so harshly. we must find a way to rebuild the sense of democratic conviction in the u.s. and europe. i was just back from the czech republic and i was struck that our friends there are as concerned about the growth of cynicism and illusions about the dangers they face as we are here, some of us are here. we will soon be celebrating the 25th anniversary of the orange revolution with a ceremony in the u.s. capitol unveiling a bust. we should remember how strongly we felt about the suicidal character and policies that put narrow economic and security interests so perceived above freedom and human rights and the

concern about sacrificing values and interest would and of undermining both. i think the best way to we build democratic conviction is the connect americans with people on the front lines of democratic struggles around the world. people who know the dangers and who are prepared to sacrifice to defend their dignity. drawing spirit from them and having a life line of support is important not just for them, but for the security and future of our own democracy. >> thank you, so carl. >> thank you much. it's a pleasure to be here. let me just note, since i am affiliated with the naval war college that my comments are my own opinion and do not reflect any official position of the college or of the u.s. navy. those of us that come from the american realist tradition accept the proposition that american national security in

the long run is enhanced by the existence of other well-established stable democracies. on the most part they provide higher standards of living, more responsive to the citizens. generally find ways to resolve conflicts without going to war. they are better, they're transparent and how they engage their affairs. where the rub comes in is two things. the first is that in the short-term, democratizing states leaves usually to greater insecurity. those who are familiar with the work of ian bremmer and his j. curve, you generally have drops in economic prosperity can the general have drops in security, the work that snyder and mansfield and others have done which is you open up close societies, you run the risk of greater complex mix of this great security problems for the u.s. because we generally don't like