tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 25, 2013 5:00am-7:01am EDT
>> remarks from congressman adam smith on u.s. drone strikes and national security. the washington state democrat said congress should have more oversight of the use of drones. from the center for strategic and international studies, this is about one hour. it isnk you very much, great to be here. i really appreciate the relationship with csis. my desire to learn more about issues -- nobody has been more helpful in that then john. the level of expertise here at csis is very helpful. throughrying to puzzle some difficult and challenging national security issues. i want to talk about how we continue to proceed with our fight against al qaeda and their ideology. congress,time in
nothing has changed our policy more than 9/11. it was a major shift, we have been reacting to that event ever sense. we created the department of homeland security, the national director of intelligence, invaded afghanistan and iraq. this war fight effectively? it is unlike any other battle that we have ever fought. what i want to do this morning is set the frame for where we are at and where we should go. more than a dozen years after the event, how are we doing, what are the challenges, how do we move forward. the central challenge that we have is we are still trying to accomplish two things. it is still a war, people forget that. al qaeda declared war on us in they have not changed
their mind. the only thing stopping them from attacking us is our ability to stop them. that has not changed. the organization, the groups have metastasized and changed, we have grown in some way stronger than others. theational security in u.s., the dod, cia, the primary thing you are thinking about is whether or not there's going to be a terrorist attack and what you could do that day to present it. that is the dominating aspect of our national security policy. the challenges we have with russia, china, the asia-pacific, latin america, the number one thing on our minds is protecting this country. the number one threat to that is terrorism and al qaeda and their offshoots. war, oneo fight that of the best ways is to get them before they get us. that involves military action.
the second thing we have been trying to accomplish -- as president bush and obama have try to figure out how to do this win the ideological struggle. to stop people in the muslim world from wanting to join organizations like al qaeda. to bring greater stability and move towards a more moderate form of government in these countries. the great challenge is -- number one, it conflicts with number two. we see that in the drone campaign. undeniably, it has been effective. the ability of al qaeda central leadership to plot attacks has been degraded, one of the biggest things is we have effectively targeted and disrupted their leadership. when your top terrorists are spending all of their time every day worrying about how they can
stay alive, they cannot plot as effectively. that has worked. the other thing that is true is that the military campaign has made it more difficult to win the ideological struggle. to convince the muslim world and others to get away from al qaeda. the one narrative that al qaeda are the onethey group of people standing up against western aggression. standing up against the west's attempts to influence and attack the muslim world. to the extent that they are in war, that of the feeds into that narrative. that is not an argument for not doing it. it is an argument for figuring out how to balance that. in any war, if you choose to attack, you will anger your enemy. you are trying to prevent them from attacking you. -- when he got
into office, i had a very specific vision for how to do that. we are going to reset relationships. the goal was -- the notion was -- the world was not find -- not fond of the bush administration. they viewed us as trying to force our will on the rest of the world. you have a whole bunch of issues, you're going to change all that and work with the rest of the world. deliver a different message so that we can build broader support. it is fair to say, five years into it, that that has not worked. seenis point, i have not any polling data, if you were to the people in europe, muslim world, elsewhere -- the level of support to the u.s. is probably about back to where it was during the bush
administration. that is not the be-all end-all, we are not trying to protect our national security and thinking the number one goal is for everyone to like us. it is an important element. one of the more troubling things is not just the lack of support that we see from some of our allies, but domestically, some of the central underpinnings of our campaign to contain al qaeda arewin the ideological war not a supported in this country as we would like. us outhave long wanted of afghanistan. there is concern about drone the nsa revelations have undermined confidence. of differentumber reasons. i will point out the reasons why we have not had as much success as we had hoped in terms of building broad support for our campaign. and then second, what we should do about it. the reasons why are clear, number one is the drone strikes. it has gotten a fair amount of
attention. a number of civilian casualties, the justification for those attacks, the world is focused on this. i do believe that drones are getting an unfair portion of blame. a drone is a weapon of war. i don't feel that the world would feel any better if we were launching cruise missiles. i think there is too much emphasis how this has changed things, a drone is more dangerous than sending in a seal team. if anything, drones are more surgical. they are not the perfect instrument that they are sometimes described to be. we should be clear, as secretary gates was yesterday, it is war. in war, civilians suffer. we should not pretend that we -- we have come up with some way to prevent that. we want to minimize that, but
there will be innocent to suffer. the drones are one of the biggest reasons. another big reason is the fact that guantanamo is still open. for all of the efforts we have made to change interrogation, emphasizing normal civilian constitutional trials, the fact that guantanamo is still open, that is all the rest of the world needs to know. all the other efforts get swept under the rug, we still have over 160 people in prison, guantanamo. the other challenge is the arab spring. thomas friedman said it best, no president has faced as chaotic a situation in the middle east as president obama. whether you are talking about egypt, bahrain, libya, syria. it is a chaotic situation. we have seen the difficulties in
developing our relationships with allies like saudi arabia and israel. everyone wants something different. goalse broad goals, but conflict. we want democratic governments that represent the people. we want stability, we want to stop the rise of extremism. but what do you do when you have a situation like egypt? stability, het did not bring democracy and freedom. no matter which way you choose, you are contradicting one of your stated goals. that is one of the major problems we have with saudi arabia. when the democratically elected rep -- government was removed, that is contrary to our goal. but the democratic government that was removed was not terribly democratic. how do you strike that balance? that has presented a challenge. i will also mention the fact that the federal government here
in the u.s. has been unable to function, unable to pass budgets. i could go off at length on this topic. i will just say two things. of the tea party, the basic notion that all they want to do is hurt the federal government -- and they are incredibly indiscriminate about is a realo it -- problem. one of the things the federal government does is it provides for our national security. if you are hurting our federal government, you are hurting our ability to do national security. i cannot imagine what it is like to work at the pentagon right now. i was talking with people yesterday -- it is great, the government is open. that is how low a bar we have set. [laughter] with the cr, sequestration, every four or five months the
threat of a government shutdown, there is no way we can function effectively. whatever you may think of how large the federal government -- it be is unacceptable is unacceptable to set up a situation where it cannot function. make no mistake, that hurts us and our ability to work with the rest of the world. asy do not see us as credible a force. those are some of the challenges that have made it more difficult to as effectively advance our policy. a couple quick things and then i will take your questions. the things that we need to change -- there is a need for greater transparency of our drone strikes. we need to make clear why we are targeting people. there are a bunch of different groups, that is the thing about al qaeda. some groups are formally affiliated, some groups have adopted the ideology. we need to make clear that our number one goal is to stop those groups that are plotting and
planning attacks against our homeland and against western interests. there are a lot of other groups that we do not like, boko haram in nigeria -- they are not putting attacks against us. it is self-defense if we are going after groups that are plotting attacks against us. it changes -- it was pakistan for a long time. and then the underwear bomber -- some attacks were coming out of yemen and we had to respond. i make no apology for the fact that we targeted anwar al-awlaki . he was targeting us. unfortunately, far too often, we do not make it clear why we are doing this. i understand the need for secrecy. we do not have to reveal all of it. whenever we do a targeted whether it is a
drone or sending in special operations, we need to at least briefly explain why. i realize that some of these strikes are on the title 50 side, they are secret. we can reveal what we want to reveal. enough to to reveal say this is why we hit this person. it was clearly self-defense. i also think it is good at the president is moving us towards into the deity title x side, so there is 10ater -- the dod title side. also -- guantanamo is a big part of this. cannots no reason we close that prison. it would be a step in the right direction. the third thing is something that we have done, we need to do it more broadly -- build partner
capacity. instead of the u.s. showing up in firing the shots, let's work with local allies to stop an insurgency before it gets started. number two, make sure it is then local forces that are enforcing the law. we have done this effectively in the philippines. we have had a presence there for a while. ofy are battling insurgents a variety of stripes down there. it has been by and large effective, there has been in -- ofuptick in the last couple months. no u.s. person has fired a shot, but we have been integral to success. the same is true in the horn of africa. we have worked with ethiopia, , so it is adi local fight, not something being dictated by the u.s. that would help, building up partner capacity. the points get to
where we actually find our government on a regular basis. that but i will leave it at that. the last thing i will say is -- we need to better manage expectations as to what the u.s. can do. a large part of our problem with allies like israel and saudi arabia is that they expect that whatever problems it is, we should show up and solve it. there has always been a far greater gap between expectations and abilities, that gap is growing. the rest of the world is becoming more powerful. the u.s. is as not dominant as it used to be. the expectation that the u.s. can show up and fix it is a huge problem. during one of the riots in cairo, the interviewed a young a movie played and got
the muslim world all upset. the young man said "this would not be on the internet if president obama did not want it there. oh and interesting -- want it there." we need to make it clear that we are not part of the problem. that is the problem with syria, the u.s. stepped up and said it is an international norm, but somehow it is the sole responsibility of the u.s. to enforce it. that reinforces the message that if something bad happens in the world, it is because the u.s. has decided to allow it. that we could decide otherwise. that is not true. when i is it is a refugee camp in northern jordan, i was shocked at the number of refugees who said why don't you stop this. assad must be stopped, why isn't the u.s. doing a? we really are not capable of doing it. incannot fix every problem the world.
the obama administration understands that. pushed to continue for a more cooperative approach. let us work with our allies to solve these problems instead of assuming that the u.s. has to show up and fix it. --t is why in afghanistan everything that happens is our fault. we did not do enough for we did too much. we pulled out after the soviets and --ow we are back in we have got to set more realistic expectations. work with local partners and international allies and try to fix the problem. this will be a long, tough battle. we are not going to be universally loved while we are trying to protect our country from al qaeda. of thosee some changes, we can prosecute that war more effectively ended in a way that will build greater -- build a greater chance of winning the ideological war,
which is the most important piece. >> thank you very much, that was many ofe force across the most relevant issues today and national security policy. we will be challenged to stay inside our time. let me pull a few of the elements you raised together. early in your talk, you spoke on the use of unmanned systems. in the news, it is the aerial systems in particular. it is safe to say that there is a general consensus that these systems will become ubiquitous -- not of their legal use, but in other uses. while it is -- not of their in other uses. while it is aerial now, land and sea will proliferate as well. -- given thesense issues we have had on the lethal targeting side -- different from
a cruise missile, what are ways the u.s. can lead the rest of the world in setting norms in this area? that is difficult. i will come back to the central argument. are looking at is when is a legal strike appropriate? i do not know -- drones, we are supposed to call them unmanned i don't know that they change the fundamental questions. other countries are going to develop these things. them is going to fit into many of the same conundrums and difficulties of what is an appropriate way to fight. you have seen that in syria. assad has killed tens of thousands of civilians, apparently a few thousand with
chemical weapons. i agree that chemical weapons are a problem. you still have that -- if you are killing someone in war, the instrument that you use is really only one piece of -- not even the most important piece. i do think that we can make it are doingat what we here is fighting a war. i think people have forgotten that. they assume that the rooms -- drones, we are going to use them -- it is part of the war. you have to make the self- defense case within international law. i think it is right there for us to make. when you read amnesty international and other reports, their main complaint is that they don't know. they go from saying that they do not know too that they do know. you're not telling us why you do this, therefore you are doing it illegally. a leap of logic.
the point is, transparency and oversight. that is true of any military action. you can get into spying issues and all that. in terms has changed of information. i cannot begin to articulate how we manage all that. weapon of war, a we should stick to traditional international norms. >> that goes into the authorization for the use of military force. the president has said he is interested in working with congress to modify it. what are your thoughts on how the aumf is still applicable today. given the fight from pakistan to other leaders and how congress can help the president craft a way forward. >> it is very much still applicable. it has gone through a fairly tortured history. originally, it was tied to those who perpetrated 9/11 and it
morphed from some interesting court decisions that interpret it more broadly. we codified it in congress in 2011, it allowed us to be the groups that threaten us. al qaeda, taliban. it is within the self-defense context. i would say it is highly unlikely that we are going to modify the aumf. mark inge a punctuation that thing, you are looking at 10 years worth of losses for both sides. congress must have -- of lawsuits for both sides. congress must have meant this. as if we move as one body. if you is the risk, that is whymf, the white house was nervous when we did it in 2011. it was not that they wanted more or less authority, but if you change it you give rise to a variety of legal actions.
it is probably going to stay where it is out. the larger question is asked al anda and -- as al qaeda groups move around, there are a letter different groups out there who affiliate in some way with the violent and nihilistic ideology of al qaeda. there are only a few that are actually plotting attacks against us. tose are the ones we need focus on. afghanistan prior to 9/11, a lot of them moved to pakistan, to yemen, somalia is a tougher question. we now have concerns about what is going to happen with aqim in mali and libya. the existing aumf give the president flexibility to follow those targets. modification would cause more trouble than it would solve. >> i would ask one more question than open to the audience. as the ranking member of the authorizing committee for defense, given your very
appropriate comments about the of the shutdown and continued uncertainty on the defense and national security community, what is it that you and your committee are thinking of being able to do in this year and in this environment. to help on the strategic front and creating a pathway forward for the defense community? >> we are working on different 1203, trying to give greater flexibility to the war fighter as they confront the challenges that they face. we are strongly supportive of the special operations command. that is a key piece of this ally development, building partner capacity. they refer to it -- preparation of the environment. what are you preparing it for,
exactly? the answer is -- we are trying to prepare it so we do not have insurgencies. that is training security forces, making sure governance is happening. care in certain places, trying to build a local population. and a lot of that is what we have done in the philippines. approach in this ideological struggle -- you things run strikes have negative consequences. send in western troops to a country -- not a winner. that, to focus on building the partner capacity, using the asymmetric tools that we have. that is all great. as long as we are lurching from crisis to crisis and you have sequestration and the cr, as you know, it is tough. it is tough to function when you don't know how much money you're going to have.
>> very true. we will have some mics going around. raise your hand, give us your name and affiliation. right appear -- up here. >> thank you for your understatement and restraint in describing the political situation. i would like to go back to the ideological struggle. 10 years ago, the defense science board released a report to arnold rumsfeld about the war about theld rumsfeld war on terror. it said that we have to win the war of ideas, we are losing the war of ideas. during world war ii, we and the brits had great propaganda. during the cold war, reagan's, to take down the wall. why are we there like -- de
relict in having a propaganda campaign to discredit and do all the things we need to do. is only thing state is doing trying to turn a couple use off the internet. why is it impossible for us to mount the ideological campaign and would haveal big dividends for a small amount of money. great point.- a to quote tom friedman, two understory -- to underscore the successare not having with the ideological struggle. , you have aassad lot of moderate democrats who want to overturn him and create a better style of government. is one ofn -- that the challenges. we should not approach this by saying the world should be like
us. the world does not want to be like us, we cannot blame them. it is not the same as the cold war. the cold war -- the way we won the cold war was here is your grocery store, here is our grocery store, we win. religion is much more central to the way they want to govern. trying to convince them to be like us is not going to work. you have got the moderate elements and then you have al qaeda. there are foreign fighters coming from all over the muslim world. they are coming on the side of al qaeda. oulthere is one single s showing up in syria to fight for the free syrian movement, for freedom and democracy, i am unaware. we're not doing as much as we should. we have very little credibility. that makes it hard.
as a member of congress, i can tell you how difficult it is when you do not have much credibility. in detail. for a variety of reasons, it was very interesting in egypt -- both sides were claiming that the other side had u.s. support. opposed people who were -- the muslim brotherhood, they were claiming that the u.s. was behind them. basically -- if it appears the u.s. is involved in something, it is by definition not credible. how do you do that, how do you handle that? i do not think we have been as creative as we need to be -- the is negativeve thing campaign. al qaeda has killed more muslims than any movement in the history of the world. they are not good. show andan -- we can any rock, to some degree, we were successful. the iraq movement was driven by the fact that these violent
people -- they are killing you, they are terrible. we need to use that more effectively. the real challenge is, in a transparent world, how do you do propaganda? we have not figure that out. propaganda is dependent upon probable deniability and the hidden hand. there are no hidden hands, that makes it more difficult. one of the big problems with the whole nsa thing -- people had this perception, a lot of the articles were flat wrong about what we were doing. a good thing convincing -- but good luck convincing people of that. credibility is a challenge. the most effective way to do this is partner capacity. get moderate, credible elements, there are some groups doing this. within the muslim world, they have to be the messengers. if we are the messengers, it is
not going to go over well. that is where we should focus our efforts, building partner capacity and delivering that message. >> very good. james from the open society foundations. towe expand our efforts build partner capacity, we might encounter the dilemma of democratic society to achieving stability. units that are engaging in questionable behavior, we might be losing the second challenge of the ideological battle. how do you strike that balance? where does contractual -- where does congressional oversight like 1206 come into play? >> that is one of the symbol biggest problems we have. there is no government that is not going to have something that people can criticize. no matter who you are backing,
there will be an argument that they are not open, free, fair. amendment, the leahy trying to limit our ability if whereve situations militaries are committing atrocities and we have to pull out. overthrown,ent is we have to pull out -- mali, egypt we are wrestling with out a little bit. this engagement is the wrong approach. is the wrongent approach. saying that if you do anything bad, we are out and we won't have anything to do with you. it is more harmful than helpful. we have to emphasize that we are trying to push these countries and his allies to have greater respect for human rights and be more democratic. number ofne that in a places.
it is not perfect. the power of negative campaigning, if that is what about,are concerned amnesty international came out with a huge study of our efforts. where is the amnesty international study of all the people al qaeda has killed and how indiscriminately they have gone after civilian? it is not even comparable. to say that they are not trying to do that -- you know, let's have a little balance. let's point out that the people we are fighting have killed far more innocent people and we have. they do it intentionally, as part of their plan. we have to emphasize the alternative. there is no perfect system. if we are held up to that standard. in the u.s., you have to only support perfect governments, that is a propaganda war you can never win. >> ok, right over here in the purple shirt.
>> you expressed your belief that the killing of how a walking -- omar all walking -- alwaki was justified. how about the drone attack of his teenage son? we neednk that is why to be more transparent in explaining our tax. if an attack happens there needs to be at least a one paragraph justification. al alwaki, case of the administration has not released justification. i do not have any doubt that there are some drone strikes that were mistakenly made. that there -- for whatever reason, they misread the target, misread what they were doing,
that is a problem. that is why transparency is important. i do not have an answer. i do not know the specifics of that attack. >> [indiscernible] the investigation that amnesty did? oversight, weget do get briefed. i do not have the details of the different tax. i have been briefed on them. hat is a misconception. congress has access to all the information for why these attacks were done. part of my problem in presenting this is that is classified. even if i did know the answer, i could not give it publicly. that is where i think the administration can be more transparent. they can keep a lot of it choose to, they can release enough so that people know here is why we did it.
and that there is a clear justification. the amnesty report, the biggest part of it is the transparency. no transparency. was this attack justified? the administration said that it was, i believe them, but the public has not seen the information and is .nderstandably skeptical the oversight congress is able to exercise is helpful, but we cannot be transparent either. we cannot go out and talk about it. >> i would add that the u.n. report, coming out a few days before the amnesty report, hits transparency very hard. right here. >> i am from upi. of --wondering, in terms you said some of the attacks might be mistaken. would you advocate for
repercussions in those cases? oversightritique that would interfere with national security decisions, if you could, and on that.-- if you could comment on that. >> no, this is war. made allistakes are the time. as i said, civilians suffer in a war zone. they always do. part of the problem with some of the article -- arguments on the unmanned vehicles campaign, we have tried to argue that this is different. --y are more discriminating all of those things are true, it is somewhat better than a traditional military invasion. it is somewhat better than a cruise missile. stillstill we-- it is war, civilians are going to be
vulnerable. we went through this in iraq, afghanistan. there are certain times where mistakes are made, we had the horrific mistake with the joint base lewis mccord soldier who was a civilians, that crime. he has been prosecuted and convicted. i do not see evidence of that, but it is war. the second part? >> [indiscernible] >> there is that balance to be struck. seems todministration have the attitude that we can share nothing. if we share information, it is going to make is for both. that is particularly ironic in this day and age, it comes out anyway. part of the justification for not talking to congress is that they do not trust congress not to leak it. but we read about in the paper
from someone who leaked it from the administration. sources, you want to protect that. but how does it make us more vulnerable to come out in one paragraph and say here is what we know about this guy, this is why we took this shot. it was in self-defense, this person is a fill you did with this group, they were putting these attacks. affiliated with this group, they were plotting the attacks. then you can say it is classified, but at least make the justification. as an obama' -- president obama's speech, mr. brennan made johnson, they have play this out. the administration things that they give a speech and then it is done.
we explained it, leave us alone. it is a more constant process of justifying and explaining your actions. a message has to be repeated. the momentgn person, when people are sick of our message is when it will penetrate to the people we are trying to reach. iu cannot just sum it up, told you, believe it, leave me alone. that is by greater transparency would be helpful. i think you can do it in a way that does not jeopardize national security. here in middle. -- right the middle. >> pat with defense daily. meare at war, but you remind of the remarks about the u.s. involvement in vietnam. we may kill more of their soldiers but eventually we will tire of the war. matter is that
budgets are down, sequestration is the law of the land. how much longer can the u.s. afford to be fighting all these wars against an enemy that will continue to respond as long as we are prosecuting these efforts ? it seems that we have a limited amount of money, but our prosecution needs ever more amounts. >> in this case i disagree very strongly. prosecuteonger can we this war? as long as it takes. this is not vietnam, some domino theory abstraction. this is a group of people who as we sit here today are trying to figure out how to kill as many of us as possible. we need to figure out how to stop them. as -- the goods news is, it is not quite as expensive as you describe. what we learned in the last decade, full-scale, 100,000 troop invasions are expensive
and not a successful way to prosecute this war. if we build partner capacitym maintain -- partner capacity, ntel, it is cheaper than people realize. we have built and for structure -- we have built an infrastructure, by and large we have been successful in disrupting al qaeda cells. the larger part is the ideology and the metastasis nation -- different governments creating environments for the ideology. stoppingfic problem of terrorist groups that are plotting attacks against us has to be something that we cannot give up on. we cannot say we're going to and seeing to stop them what happens. i think we can do it in a cost- effective manner, we have to.
it would be vastly more easy to do if we would get rid of this nihilisms isolationist that the federal government is awful and we must cut it. people say the tea party is running this country. grover norquist is running this company -- this country. he wants to shrink the government down so we can fit it in his bathtub, that is the ideology the republican house is governing on. we can argue about ideology, plenty of things wrong with the democratic party. when you consistently take the crowd out of the federal crap outt -- kick the of the federal government by not funding it, threatening to raise the debt ceiling, that undermines our ability. i hope that at some point we will get over this. that makes it more difficult. it is too important a problem to
walk away from. >> over here. congressman, retired. what about the use of drones? isconstrained -- dod constrained. >> that is not the topic this morning. i am more focused on the aumf. ishave had that issue, it not just drones, cameras have proliferated. there is a controversy in seattle, they wanted to put up putbell's -- they wanted to up cameras in the port of seattle. they have been counties and cities that want drones, people are concerned. i can give a lengthy answer about policy applications of that, i will say it is a big challenge.
a lot of times you do not have that information. you think about the people we have captured -- the bombing and boston,e bombing in there were a lot of cameras around. security versus liberty, that is getting increasingly confiscated due to technology. >> how about right in the back. >> thank you. andre, u.s. army retired. i used to teach counterinsurgency. working in michigan now. i think it is the most , objectivelucid description i have heard of how we use drones and why we use trends -- drones. by question is this, on drones. my feeling is, from hearing president obama's speech at the
ndu on national security. his idea, what he is working towards, is phasing out drones. using them now for the reasons you articulated, we are at work, they work. to that targets that are targeting us. you gave such a great description, he has, too, of the blowback andthe range problem of countering the ideology. do you believe that his comment that the war on terror must end. dealing with the ideological problem by phasing out the drones and handling remnants of al qaeda with police forces and
cooperation among police forces and intelligence. senator kerry believes that. >> i think i got it. i think that is the intent. this is also a challenge. this is one of the battles that we fight in congress. senator graham is on the opposite side. ,he controversy over al-libi captured in libya. they think that we should hold militaryd as a war, custody. they were aggressive in saying that anyone we captured affiliated with these croup -- with these groups should be in military custody domestically. the argument is that there is some greater value you can get out of questioning somebody in military custody then in a law- enforcement setting. you could debate that a little
bit. the fbi has had success in getting information out of people. granting that there is more information you can get out of military custody, the downside of the perpetual war approach is what is being missed. our allies, the muslim world, u.s. citizens get tired of a approach.war that is the closing guantanamo, the other thing that i meant to mention, we need to get rid of indefinite dissension -- i ndefinite detention, the notion that we have the right to grab anyone in the world and hold them without charge indefinitely. we may have a justification for that. but the downside, in terms of winning the ideological war, is enormous. it cannot simply be dismissed. as much as i would like -- i wouldn't actually like to live in this world -- as some people would like to live in a world
where we decide something is important to us and everyone has to fall in line. we have got to figure out how to work with them. we should move back towards "regular order." we have got a constitution, a court system, once upon a time, that was the envy of the world. to the extent that we get back to us, that helps us in the ideological war. >> you mentioned closing guantanamo. i want to make sure you had an opportunity talk about that. there are various ways one can do that. in combination or in singular. transfer, release, movement to a u.s. civilian or military facility. do you have a preferred approach to closing guantánamo? >> absolutely. i do not think it is that constipated -- it is that, given
-- i do not think it is that complicated. this, there is somewhere in the neighborhood, we are down to 160 folks there. well over half of them had been deemed releasable. there are concerns, recidivism, all of that. you release those who are to their ownack country. is there any risk and that? time you really someone, there is risk. but then the argument is we will not release you, that is not good criminal justice policy. and everyone else down there that we at determine that we cannot release, we try and convict them, we houston in the u.s. -- we houston in the u.s.
-- we house them in the u.s. policyre many public arguments. the notion that we cannot hold dangerous people safely in the u.s. is patently absurd. yet, it drives the debate. the reason that we have not closed guantanamo, keep in mind, this was not some big liberal goal. s, john mccain, george w. bush said we should close guantanamo. i will skip the political argument. it isgument was that placing us at risk. we cannot bring criminals into the u.s.. that argument took hold. in the u.s. right now, we have mass murderers, some of the most violent, nihilistic people you could imagine, we have terrorists.
sheikyousef, the blind h. if we cannot safely hold dangerous people, we have problems that have nothing to do with guantánamo. we can absolutely hold them here, and we should. congress continues to block it. how to get around that argument? i do not know. -- the takes hold solution is simple, release the ones that can be released. walked up the rest in super max ck up the restlo in super max facilities. just like we have done with other folks. >> one must question. >> air force fellow at csis. thank you for being here today. you talked about building partnership capacity. what role do unmanned systems play in that?
mtcrb -- should it be revised? the missile technology control regime. >> a couple of pieces to that. -- theirsystems inability to gather information. that is one of the capacities that our partners don't have. as we pulled out of afghanistan, how do we build that capacity? i think they can play a role. the thing i am worried about, we have paranoia about selling these systems. we have a huge problem in italy and elsewhere. that is a huge mistake. i have done a great deal of work on export control. our export control policy has been a disaster. on the premise that somehow we in the u.s. are the only ones t-mobile of building
-- the only ones capable of building military equipment. will don't let it out, it never happen. that does not work well, it demonstrates -- it devastates our industrial base. satellites are a great example. 2/3 of late 1990's we had the global satellite market, we are now down to three percent. %.sically -- 20 if the component parts you sold could go into a satellite, you could not sell it overseas. that went intots a satellite, you could not export that without going through this regime. ofneed a more open way looking at this. people are going to develop drone technology.
we certainly should sell it to our allies. build partnerto capacity. we are concerned about these things falling into the wrong hands, i get that. they fall into the wrong hands whether we are selling them to our allies or not. we have an overly paranoid approach to export controls that harms us. we have reformed it, one of the things we got last year was a dramatic reform of the export control regime. gave the administration flexibility, that is moving forward in a positive direction. the regime right now is problematic. finally, it is very problematic because it harms domestic u.s. industry. i used to have these arguments on the armed services committee. people would yell at me, we cannot choose corporations over national security. i tried in vain for better than
a decade to explain that that was not the choice. our industrial base is important to our national security. one of the great advantages we have had for decades is the best, brightest companies, u.s.ology, equipment were companies. that is not to say that we cannot buy things. we have a vastly better relationship with a us-based company to meet our industrial base needs for national security if they are the leaders. if we hamstring them so they cannot compete, they will cease to be the leaders. once they cease to be the leaders, we lose a national security advantage that is not insignificant. there is no way for the rest of the world -- they're going to build technology, we are not going to dominate the way we dominated post-world war ii. i would still like to leave. to hamstring u.s. companies' ability to get markets is
problematic. inlet me mention that csis november will be beginning and unmanned systems working group series. we will look at a lot of these issues that have come up today. i asked the audience to join me in thanking representative smith for spending time and getting a great talk. thank you very much. [applause] >> they give very much. >> up next, last night's government debate -- ate.rnor's deb journal," talking about problems with the governments health insurance website. that is live at 7:00 eastern. privacy and security analysts
will investigate the nsa surveillance program. posted by the congressional and that caucus advisory committee. live coverage at 12:00 eastern. will bening, ted cruz speaking at the iowa republican party reagan dinner. our live coverage begins this evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern. saw, firsthand, the tragedies that children face when they are not cared for by a loving parent. it was in the sheriff's office where i first witnessed the horrors of child six trafficking -- sex trafficking, and convinced we that we need to do more to protect our youth at risk of abuse. >> like me and many other youth, we become accustomed to being
isolated. moodspting to multiple from home to home. this allows us to adapt for when traffickers move us from state to state. these exploiters go without fear of punishment due to the lack of tension -- lack of attention. no one looks for us. >> when they use the term child americanscking, most think it only happens in other that foreign children are brought here. most of the victims of child sex trafficking are american kids who are trafficked in small towns and large urban areas. if people are not aware of it, they are not looking for it. >> this weekend, house ways and changing foster care systems to prevent sex
trafficking. texaspan2, live at the book festival. saturday and sunday on book tv. on c-span3's american history tv, how did candidate lincoln resolve the dilemmas created by the issue of slavery? sunday evening at 7:30 virginia governor candidates, ken cuccinelli and terry mcauliffe spoke at a debate last campus of virginia tech university. it comes courtesy of wdbj 7 in roanoke. >> we have republican and attorney general, mr. ken cuccinelli and democrat terry mcauliffe.
thank you for being here tonight. panel, dr. harry wilson, the director of policy at roanoke college and political analyst, chris, will beor, asking questions that came from you, the viewers from across the state. each candidate will have one answer eachconds to question followed by a one minute rebuttal by the first candidate. on a viewer candidates, each -- each candidates, will have 30 seconds to answer. i asked the candidates to remain in the allotted time. we have timers to keep track. first, we began with opening statements. determined by a coin toss, terry mcauliffe goes first.
you have 90 seconds. >> thank you to virginia tech for hosting us this evening. there has been a lot of back and forth over the last 11 months. there is a simple question that virginians must answer over the next 11 days. who will work with both parties to focus on jobs and education. i have been honored to earn the support of an historic number of republicans, many of whom have never supported a democrat for governor. it is the same kind of coalition i will assemble in richmond, with responsible leaders who will put jobs first and partisanship behind, focus on mainstream issues of job creation and maintaining fiscal responsibility. my opponent has become increasingly desperate. attacks ones false me and false attacks about his own record. , just like debate
his previous campaign, my opponent will claim he will focus on jobs. even the conservative richmond " pursues his, he strident agenda with --" he tried to derail the transportation bill. this week, he refused to say whether he supported reopening the government. , that is yourfe time for an opening statement. >> thank you. i want to thank my wife for being here as well. unlike my record of service, fory mcauliffe did nothing virginia or virginians before deciding to run for governor. nothing. some people run to be something and some people run to do
something. plan to only one with a create 50 8000 new jobs, improve education at all levels and 8,000 jobs. -- 5 by opponent will speak in platitudes without telling you he will pay for all of the empty promises he has made. big government spending promises add up to new taxes. the obamacare plan is unfolding with failing websites and sky high premiums. was the first to fight obamacare. my opponent did not inc. it went far enough. he wanted the federal government providing your health insurance. look how badly they are doing with the health care exchanges. now they say obamacare has to be expanding -- expanded in
virginia. ?hy would we expand failure vote for me on november 5. creating jobs and fighting off washington overreach is what i will do as your governor. let's go right to our first panelists with a question for terry mcauliffe. your proposed budgets suggest billions of additional spending. you havenelli, suggested covering loopholes, but there is not enough to cover suggested spending. you suggest the expansion of medicaid, but that is not guaranteed. will you raise taxes on virginians or cut programs? if it is the latter, be specific and tell us what you would cut. of all, no new taxes. i have talked about the medicaid
expansion, which would free up $500 million from the general fund. what we need to do is first figure out what efficiencies we can have in the government, the money we could save from medicaid expansion. once we know how much money we have, we can put the priorities teacher pay,t -- investing in committee colleges, financial aid in higher aid -- that is the approved way of improving government. my opponent has proposed a 1.4 billion dollar tax cut. he does not say how he will pay for it. of the houseair appropriations committee says it will bring fiscal disaster to virginia if his plan actually went through. jackson said he and ken want to eliminate the
culprit tax in virginia. rid of the corporate income tax. he did not work the governor's tax package. he does not want the medicaid expansion. his plan is a fiscal disaster for the commonwealth of virginia. we cannot grow and diversify when we cut public education and much-needed money we need to grow our economy. >> that is time. mr. cuccinelli, you have 90 seconds. >> the washington post said a lot of what you just heard from terry mcauliffe was not true. my tax cut plan would grow and raise the business income tax. i am the only candidate with enact jewel plan with details to grow new jobs. we pay for that because, unlike
reduced thewe growth of government spending to just under the world 3.5% and 6.t one sick -- 1/ the only major spending program i have proposed is in the area of mental health. i have said how i would pay for that. it is to move jobs that are now used for non--healthcare services over to treat children -- non-healthcare services over to treat children with mental health needs. i have explained how i will pay for my proposals. proposeduliffe has spending. he pretends to get $500 million out of a medicaid expansion. a jobs program. it is welfare. you cannot make magic money out
of the federal government like he would like to. that is going to cost every family a $1700 tax increase. , dr. bob hasliffe said where the money will come from. what programs would you turn down? >> we can always bring efficiency to government. study.s a my opponent talks about staving money from tax incentives. .t is not billions of dollars his plan has been attacked by democrats and republicans. of the houseairman appropriations committee said it would bring fiscal disaster to virginia. senator mark warner just commented on it, as have so many local elected officials. do 14 $4that you can billion in tax cuts per year with -- $1.4 billion in tax cuts
per year and say -- in not say how you will pay for it is fiscally responsible. would see thousands of teachers laid off. we are facing cuts with sequestration. we need to be growing and diversifying our economy. domr. mcauliffe, that will it. i do not know if you answered what we asked. we will go to question number two from dr. harry wilson. this question is for ken cuccinelli. >> both of you have acknowledged be a problem with teachers teaching to the test. what are your alternatives to l.'s?.o. >> i do not want to get rid of them. i want to improve them. was reform of 20 years ago a great addition to our
educational system. it gave us accountability for taxpayers and teachers. i do not think it is working quite as well as we all envisioned. we are teaching to the test too much. i believe we can go to more generalized tests. we are still testing children for their progress, but allow us to be more flexible source -- so schools can test at different times. they do not all operate on the same school schedule. we will involve teachers, parents, academics in putting together a commission to review tests so they better evaluate our children and so we more fairly- evaluate our teachers. i have talked about the need to make sure parents have control over their children's education,
particularly where they are in failing schools. we have great schools in virginia. every school is not a success. terrance need to be able to move their children out of that school to another public school or to a private school. need to be able to move their children out of that school to another public school or private school. , your mcauliffe alternative to the s.o.l. not work for our parents or for our teachers. we need accountability. they are judged on whether students pass and -- an s.o.l. trail,am on the campaign i talk about reform. teachers said, i was teaching to the test. students are being forced to learn how to memorize.
critical reasoning going on with our students so we can build jobs of the 21st century. it is great we've memorized the date a the man -- the man landed on the moon. but how can virginia become a world leader in space exploration? we can understand how that child is thinking. collaboratively come together and work for our students. education is important. that is how you build a 21st- century economy. my opponent has proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow public school funds to be taken out for private schools. i do not support that. as governor, i do not want to see a penny being taken out of our public schools. we need to make virginia a model the globe for our k-12 system. , your opponentli
has criticize you saying you want to cut funding for education. your response to that? is important to note i want the strongest possible public school system we can have . it is more important to make sure every child in virginia has the best opportunity to veggie -- to be educated as possible. he has made that charge before. i have told you how we would pay for our tax cuts. it is not like washington where terry comes from. we have to pay for the things we want. i will give you my last 30 seconds. you did not tell us how you are paying for any of your pet -- plan. it again.say we need to look at government efficiencies. untilot committing money i know exactly how much money we
are going to have. i am not going to have fiscally irresponsible budgeting like ken cuccinelli. money from thehe medicaid expansion and we can cy, that isien what we will have. >> that is time. this comes from michael anker -- my co- anker -- anchor. this comes from a viewer. >> on the issue of gun control, we got a lot of tweets from our viewers. support or oppose universal background checks on every gun sale, even on private sales where neither seller nor purchaser has a firearms license. and do you support a ban on
high-capacity magazines and assault rifles? >> let me first speak as a parent, as a spouse. it is important to understand that when we drop our children off at school or our loved ones off at work, we want to make sure our children and loved ones are safe. the a strong supporter of second amendment. universal background checks. my opponent and i differ on that . i am wearing my pen today in memory of all of those folks at virginia tech that went through that tragedy. the other day a young man came to see me. he was in one of the classrooms. he was shot 4 times. he still has three bullets in his body. i think it is critical, imperative for every community and every elected official to do
the best thing we can. some people should not own guns. >> that is 60 seconds. mr. cuccinelli. >> what happened here at virginia tech is a tragedy that affects every virginian. none of the rings you asked about would have affected that tragedy. -- things you asked about would have affected that tragedy. i have spent more than 15 years working to help people suffering for -- from mental illness. we need to do more in that direction to make sure less of those tragedies happen because they are all tied in one way or another to mental health failures. i also would note that i am a strong advocate of enforcing our gun laws. virginia is one of the best states in the country for doing that. candidate and i
am running against the only f- rated candidate running statewide. ad that says an the only way we can be safe is to have restrictions on law- abiding citizens. >> we have a panel question from dr. bob. this is directed at mr. cuccinelli. >> southwest virginia has been hit hard. what in your job plan would specifically help the hard-hit areas here in the commonwealth of virginia, particularly south side and southwest virginia? you that theyh have had the hardest time economically over a number of years. my jobs program was designed to maximize the number of job
creation in the private sector without the government picking winners and losers. that is what we started the whole campaign with. it is what we still advance as one of the most important things i am campaigning on. that matters most in the parts of for junior that are struggling the most like southside, where we have the longest term unemployment. from ae also suffering lot of the regulatory onslaught out of washington. the war on coal heard west virginia. -- hurtwest virginia west virginia. my opponent said when he was running last time that he never wanted another coal plant in west virginia. fought that kind of onslaught from washington that kills jobs and kills opportunity in the parts of opportunity we need it the most. you look over in southside
virginia where an enormous torsion of electricity is from coal-fired electricity generation. it is critically related to job creation for manufacturing, which we would like to see coming back to that part of virginia. it will not happen if we do not have reliable low-cost electricity, and i have been fighting for. >> thank you. mr. mcauliffe, 90 seconds. to focus on these communities and open these communities up to new business opportunities. woulddicaid expansion help tremendously. millions of dollars would be invested with quality, life- saving care. a lot of people get forced into poverty by their health care costs. i supported the governor's transportation plan. my governor sided with the tea party. if you want to open up communities, we have to get
trucks off of 81. i support the coalfield .xpressway i also talked about what we need to do. phone access. , was out of cell -- broadband cell phone access. i talk about the work being done here at virginia tech. heret met with a professor . the idea that we can create all of these new jobs is really spectacular. it is there in front of us. we need to invest in that research. i commend virginia tech for the outstanding work they have done. you cannot grow the economy and bring in new professor. -- new professors. you cannot grow an economy by suing scientists. >> mr. mcauliffe.
area of some agreement here. the state has a role to play in energy research. where we part ways is terry mcauliffe wants to have one quarter of our electricity wind, andm solar, geothermal by 2025. that would cause 30% higher electricity rates. toy estimate they are going lose 10,000 jobs by 2020 and they are less than half our size. jobs for0,000 lost virginia. that is not the way to ensure the southwest can continue on. you here again, the medicaid expansion. the magic money tree that funds talkshing terry mcauliffe about. the $300 million in new spending that will cost every family
$1700 more in new taxes every year. >> dr. harry wilson, your question for terry mcauliffe. >> many citizens say they want elected officials that will compromise to get eggs done. at the same time, people want -- compromise to get things done. how can you know when to compromise and when to fight for principles? can you give an example form your own experience when it was right to compromise and an example of when it was right to stick to your principal? medicaid expansion is critical for virginia's future. i spoke to both democratic caucuses twice. i thought it was important for how we grow our economy. i want every woman to know that i trust women to make their own decisions about their own health care did -- health care decisions.
my opponent will not compromise. rigida rigid -- he has a ideological agenda. it is my opponent who threatened and bullied the board of health that could result in 20 women's health centers being shut down. thousands of women use the centers for cancer screening and affordable birth control. has referred to gay virginians as selfless and soulless human beings. ?ho talks like that you cannot grow and diversify our economy with its mean- spirited language. he sponsored legislation to tell virginians when they can and cannot get out of a marriage. he wants to define when you can get divorce. there is an important bill to increase child support payments to rise with inflation. not all that controversial.
guess who voted against it? ken cuccinelli. compromise is not a bad word. >> time. mr. cuccinelli. only person with experience working on a bipartisan basis to do anything. terry mcauliffe did not do anything for the transportation bill. previousmpromised on a transportation bill when i was actually involved in it. in 2007 when i was in the state senate, we got 21 votes for a compromised transportation bill. governor tim kaine proceeded to make it unconstitutional and it collapsed. i did not compromise when it came to getting property rights passed in virginia. it took eight years of hard fighting. the you know who the key vote democrat.ast
it took many years of fighting with the leadership of both parties. there is a time to fight in a time to compromise. he mentioned abortion clinic regulations. i have long sought to compromise and they rejected. what he said was flat out false and i believe terry knows it. that personhood till was a bipartisan bill. we have never had a bill -- that personhood bill was a bipartisan bill. he is treating you falsely and you have to be careful not to believe what he is saying. , do you want to address that? we are talking about compromise. having thed, experience to work with
government. how would you work with richmond? >> the day after the election, i will meet with ever republican in the house of delegates. sequestration is going to be in for another year. you have got to learn to work together. that is why 12 former public and legislators, many of whom worked with ken cuccinelli, have endorsed my candidacy. the mayor of virginia beach. commerceax chamber of supports me. look at the endorsements i have received. the washington post, the virginian-pilot, the daily post, which endorsed mitt romney. they say, terry mcauliffe will bring people together. ideology. over in order to move forward, we have to do it in a bipartisan way.
that is why so many republican business leaders and leaders -- officials have endorsed me. with a question from the viewers. the libertarian candidate for governor has been denied the opportunity to take place -- take part in this debate. how do you feel about the decision not to allow him to participate in this debate? was his exclusion from the debate in the commonwealth's best interests and why? an invited candidate here and i am happy to participate. and i abide rules by the rules. i inspected be participating in an event with him on saturday. the race is not over yet. i am proud to have congressman ron paul's endorsement. in my lifetime in virginia, i am the strongest pro--- liberty
-- pro-liberty candidate ever elected. , have fought for the smallest one person, who served 27 years for a crime he did not commit. i defended his liberty to get him exonerated. i worked with democrats in the senate to make that possible. next month, i will argue another one of those cases to exonerate another man was convicted falsely. >> thank you, mr. cuccinelli. , what do you think of his exclusion from the debate? >> we were happy to have him. we made that clear to the television and everybody else. a lot of the issues that he campaigns on, he and i have talked on different issues.
we are about bringing folks together to move the, well forward. my opponent always attacks the federal government. he was quiet on one big issue. when the violence against women fore came up reauthorization, 47 attorney generals -- attorneys general signed a letter asking that that be reauthorized. only three attorneys general did not do it. one of them was ken cuccinelli. got to stop this attack on women. we have got to stop this attack on gay virginians. we cannot put walls up in virginia if we are to grow. >> thank you, mr. mcauliffe. now we go to dr. bob with a question for terry mcauliffe. >> the two of you have raised over $40 million for this election.
the libertarian candidate has raised less than $100,000. polls suggest he is drawing support from both parties and across the ideological spectrum. can you explain how you have not been more effective at keeping your natural constituents more loyal to your campaign? what message are you hearing from the voters? >> i hope on election day they will be loyal. everybody until actually goes and votes. from the beginning of this campaign, december 4, when i got into this race, i talked about the issues that are important. in northern virginia where dorothy and i have raised our five children, i can tell you as , we have serious issues on transportation. we are stuck in traffic 67 hours a year. our tourismreserve
business. we have to make sure we are protecting our military assets. transportation, bipartisan, it is important. i talk about education reform. i talk about pre-k, early childhood development. if you take the average teacher out of 50nked 50th states. this is a great nation. we need to be bringing everybody together. i talk about what we need to do with the community colleges. i have visited every single one of them. how do we build upon that? that is what i have talked about from the beginning of this campaign. we have a difference on the medicaid expansion. i want to make sure the commonwealth of virginia is the best of the 50. the way to do it is do a bipartisan way. i hope the voters will show they will listen. >> thank you, mr. mcauliffe.
mr. cuccinelli. >> a lot of platitudes and no details. this is one thing terry mcauliffe is the best in the history of the country at. that is raising lyrical money. you can -- that is rating political money. likes book, he says, i governor's race the best. when he was asked about a teamsters case in which he was an unindicted co-conspirator in in the 1990s, he said, you help me, i help you. that is politics. that is not my politics. i believe good policy is good politics. i passed a piece of electricity legislation. i had donors on both sides of that.
virginia got lower electricity bills by about $1 billion between now and 2025. candidate in this race who have ever poke holes -- who has ever proposed a solution. the gas companies did not like it. if you elect me your next governor, we will move ahead with a mandate from you to implement that solution whether those companies like it or not. you.et you help me, i help that is politics from terry mcauliffe. or you get good policy from ken cuccinelli. , you talk about the medicaid expansion. if you do not get them, how will you pay for the things in your budget? get them until you pay for them. he called social security and
medicare -- he said these were government programs created by politicians to make people dependent on government. old.ther is 91 years she has paid into this her entire life. she is not dependent on the government and it was not created by ad politicians. that was in his book. he talks about the own nations. $100,000nelli got a contribution from counsel energy. they were siding against thousands of people who were due money and the attorney general's office was providing data, hurting thousands of for genuine's. >> mr. mcauliffe, thank you. dr. harry wilson for ken cuccinelli. governor serves only 14-year term. assuming you are the next
governor of virginia, at the conclusion of your term, what do you hope journalists and pundits identify as your signature issue. please limit yourself to one issue. i believe getting the economy moving as fast as possible and more diverse as we watch the damage we are taking in virginia from aquestration, federal government we all know has to shrink. we have such a big part of our tied to those federal dollars. we need diversification in those areas. you have already asked about the needs in southside and southwest where we have longer-term and more difficult circumstances. the single most important thing i can get accomplished is my jobs land. it will create 58,000 new jobs by reducing personal income tax. that is where small businesses pay their taxes.
when they are growing, they hire faster than any other business. also, we will lower the business 4%, which will states most competitive in the country, paid for by reducing the growth of government spending. as well as getting rid of about tax credits and loopholes. if there is one thing i can get done, that is the one. more people are dying for the dignity of work and i mean full time work, not obamacare part- time work. >> mr. mcauliffe. obviously, growing and diversifying the economy is the huge challenge we face. sequestration will most likely be here for another year. will have a dramatic impact on the virginia economy.
number onenumber recipient of dod funds. how do you grow and how do you diversify? that is why i talk about education. the great work being done here at virginia tech. old dominion university. new-wave technologies. tax credit. the r&d doubling the angel investor tax credit. we need to be doing a better job of taking the great research we have and helping to take that out to market, to commercialize it. that is how you grow and diversify an economy. have to have an effective health care delivery system. >> what one issue do you want to be remembered for? you still have a little more time. you have 20 more seconds. will say it again.
creating jobs and diversifying the economy. is with me tonight, we want our five children to stay here. i have 2 in college. they will be getting out soon. we want to make sure they stay here. you have to have those jobs in the future. >> mr. cuccinelli. more platitudes -- >> more platitudes. no plan. he has made clear he does not like my plan. andng the words education research, that is all great. those are goals. those are platitudes, what they are not plants. i like education. i like puppies. a puppy home if i do not have a plan for dealing with that puppy. he is all copies and no plans. that is the way this has gone.
look at his jobs promises from green tech. he promised 5000 jobs. in 2010, 2000 union jobs in virginia from green tech. then 900 jobs in the. i the time he left -- 900 jobs in mississippi the. you.ank we go to chris with a question from someone in the commonwealth. >> what will you do to address child poverty and preschool readiness given that current governor's decision not to apply for money for preschool readiness? upwe should not be giving money that is due us from the federal government. my government likes to attack the federal government. i want to work with the federal
government to bring those dollars in. i always talk about what we need to do in early childhood development. it is absolutely critical. , betweenild is born birth and three years old, 80% of the brain has been developed. let's not start and end early age picking winners and losers -- an early age picking winners and losers. that will be one of my top priorities as governor. it is important to build the workforce development of the future. it will be one of my biggest initiatives when i am elected governor. i will apply for that federal funding. i do not want to see us giving away our virginia federal dollars. >> thank you. we have a plan as part of our education program to provide for
parents who are eligible for vouchers at the pre-k level so parents can waste their children where they can do the best job in development. thing for anytant poor family is employment. it comes back to so many things that grow out of that. ronald reagan said the best social welfare program in the world is a job. and he is still right. my italian grandfather did not have a sixth-grade education. he was proud to work to support his family. there are so many people in -- that juste us want the opportunity and the dignity of work. as we fight off the washington regulation, that is when it is appropriate to fight washington. that hurts the poor first and worst. i will be a governor for the war and all virginians. >> thank you, mr. cuccinelli.
dr. bob with a question for ken cuccinelli. averages over 25 thousand dollars per graduate, an all-time high. -- 25,000 dollars per graduate, an all-time high. will you increase funding for statein just -- institutions or make state institutions semi-private or more independent? my greatest concern with higher education is affordability. do aof our universities good job providing financial aid for those at the lower end of the economic scale. as we have seen with the numbers -- and you have cited some of them -- but a class families are getting squeezed. we are committed to providing degreescredit, 10,000
m. programs.t.e. and using online teaching. the biggest university in virginia is liberty university because of their 92,000 online students. classroom100% of the experience, but it is cost- effective. our public universities need to catch up with that. it is a way to share resources effectively across virginia. you mentioned the semiprivate approach. -- washington post people wrote two articles about my opponent when he got donations about rich out-of-state uva alumni who wanted to go the semi private approach. later, his website changed and the plan changed. when the washington post got the
e-mails, they saw the two were related. state funding is obviously the most important thing we can do. i want to promote more state funding for our higher education institutions. it is important that our children have that opportunity and it is not so expensive and prohibitive that they cannot go. i talked about more that we can do on financial aid. that so many of our virginia students be able to send their students to higher education. i met with the state council on higher education. they told me i would have to put $50 million more in the budget 15 million more $15ars in the budget -- million more dollars into the budget. we talked about efficiencies.
we can bring some more inefficiencies to save money. it is important that we do that. that is what we need to do to provide for all of our children. a $1.4 opponent proposes billion tax cut, it will come out of education. he soon the university of $rginia, costing them nearly 600,000. time. your thoughts on semi private or financially independent state universities. >> i am sorry. i am not understanding your question. >> clarify your view on making virginia's diversities more financially independent. >> i understand.
i do not support that. we want to see better financial support. from the state government, that would come from a growing economy. kerry keeps using the word efficiently -- efficiency. you have to know how something works before you can make it efficient. i am the only candidate with on- the-job training. i have been a state senator and read the bills that came to me in my committees. i have done my homework as attorney general. at the beginning of this year when my opponent was asked about who was in the cabinet, he did not know. the virginia pilot ran that on the front page. you have to know the basics before you can make things more efficient. i also support grants to virginia citizens to go to private virginia universities so they can stay here in virginia.
we can make college more affordable for every family. you, mr. cuccinelli -- thank you, mr. cuccinelli. increasedlleges have school security. what is your opinion of arming teachers and administrators who have been trained in hiring firearms? how can you effectively deal with the mental health issues that underlie these problems? >> this is a serious issue. the commonwealth should help. there is also federal money. i do not believe we should be arming our teachers and our professors. there are programs we can take advantage of that would allow us to put security officers in our schools. it is critical. andre here at virginia tech
the horrific tragedy that occurred. i went out and visited a memorial today. i looked at a headstone of a happyman and it said birthday. this would have been your dirtiest birthday. h birthday. we need to do everything we possibly can to make sure our communities are safe. my phone it like to say i got an . from the nra i do not care what grade i got from the nra. i do not want to see another new virginia tech. there are things we can do. mental illness. that.ing more in there is a big piece of the medicaid expansion money that will help with until illness. someone who has a mental illness probably should not going --
should not be going to jail. there are people who should not buy weapons. you do not know that unless you have universal background checks. >> time. >> thank you for the question. there are a lot of issues wrapped up in your question. cochaired the task force after the connecticut tragedy. none of us want to see this again. i agree with terry on that point. how do we make them as unlikely as possible. the most important thing we can do is be much more aggressive in addressing mental health needs across our society. it is nearly impossible to find he problem before it happens. we can find people suffering from mental illness and help them. we have a lot of work we need to
do with children and adults. i have proposed where that money can come from to expand the resources. gotttorney general, when we the largest health care fraud resolution in the history of the the first place we put the money we obtained from that case was in training law enforcement to be prepared to deal with people suffering from mental illness. it keeps officers safer. it keeps people suffering from mental illness safer. it gets them out of the criminal justice system and into the care they need. that is where we need to go as a society. earlierl go back to my point. this is a real difference in the race. i support universal background checks. my opponent does not. this is a fundamental difference in this race.
of americans today support universal background checks. the idea that an individual can go to a gun show without any back round check to check if there is a mental illness, has this individual been charged ?ith domestic abuse this is a simple process. i have gone through it and read it takes 5-10 minutes to go through a background -- i have gone through it and it takes 5- 10 minutes to go through a background check. i am standing on the stage at virginia tech where we experienced one of the most terrific events with a gun in american history. it is time we stand up. >> time. thank you to both of you. we go to chris. this question comes from one of you in the audience today. chris, your question. this goes to mr. cuccinelli first. >> this comes from jenny and our
audience. graduate as a recent with a high gpa, i am still struggling to find a career. what will you do to help recent graduates? the most important thing we can do is to get the economy going faster. when you asked me earlier what is my number one priority, this is it. the people hit the hardest is are those -- are those coming into the labor market. when companies are not hiring, they keep what they have got and they do not add more. i would also point out that obamacare has been terrible for hiring. it is destroying the opportunities for millions of americans because small businesses, medium-sized businesses do not know how much your next employee is going to cost them. did not think
obamacare went far enough. he wanted to go to the full- blown single-payer. this is what obamacare is doing to the economy. small businesses are having to lay people off or throw them off of their health insurance. you do not have the new people coming into the labor market. , what would you do to help recent graduates? have called for doubling their research and development tax credit. he needs to do a better job of taking our great research from our universities and taking them out to market. it is an to do that. we cannot do that unless we have an effective transportation system. we should become the global leader in cybersecurity. lots of investment and loss of jobs can be the aided. -- lots ofogy
investment and lots of jobs can be created. we have to bring folks together. you cannot do that unless virginia is viewed as being open and welcoming. here when not move can could tonelli -- when ken cuccinelli want to make the pill it legal and they are attacking gay virginians. >> we are coming up on the and of the hour and we will go to a one minute posing statement from each of our candidates. .e began with mr. cuccinelli you are first. heard my vision for virginia and terry's divisive attacks. his hardest and pals, like supporting obamacare.
he did not think it went far enough. can you imagine? now he wants to expand obamacare right here in virginia. if you want to reject obamacare 's failed biguliffe government approach, you have your chance on november 5. kerry also wants to raise your also $1700 to pay -- terry wants to raise your taxes $1700 to pay for his promises. with your support on november 5, i will keep fighting for you. never told us his plans for virginia, just his platitudes. without mentioning me, tell us one detailed land and how you will pay for it. want to thank everyone for being here tonight. i want to thank virginia tech for hosting us. i would like to thank my wife for being here tonight. virginia
had another candidate for governor who came form -- came from a business background. he was attacked for not having richmond experience. he went on to save our aaa bond rating. he brought people together both democrats and republicans, and build a strong record of forking for virginia. his name is mark warner. warner is out campaigning for me every day. we face huge challenges in virginia with sequestration. we need that same kind of governor again, someone who will bring people together and focus on the economy and not on a divisives -- ideological virginia. i want to move virginia forward and i would appreciate your vote on virginia five. -- on november 5. >> it is hard to believe that
our has already passed. he got to a lot of good topics. forant to thank both of you taking time and for being here. [applause] well to the live audience. virginiaant to thank tech for cohosting and andonsoring this debate allowing it to be brought to you. thank you for being here and all of the viewers who tweeted on facebook and wrote. we hope you had some of your questions answered tonight. good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] a look at transparency at the u.s. supreme court.
being hosted by the group, reporters committee for freedom of the press. 9:30 eastern on c-span -- live coverage at nine: 30 eastern on c-span 2. 9:30 eastern on c-span 2. tonight, ted cruz will be speaking at the iowa republican party reagan dinner. that is live from des >> later this hour would talk to ron paul of the families usa's -- ron pollack at the healthcare website. then a conversation on religion and politics with russell moore of the southern baptist convention. later, a discussion on how u.s. adults rank globally in literacy and problem solving.
washington journal is next. >> and next week come health and human services secretary stability us. yesterday was the federal contractors turn. you know it's in the paper. we want to talk about that. we want to talk about that hearing, we also want to talk about the health-care law. reprinted with the numbers up on the screen. what you want to see done with the current health care law? repealed ordelayed, kept as is?