tv Washington This Week CSPAN August 10, 2014 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
but they are teva process. i've been concerned with the administration's approach. they didn't inform the community and i said we shouldn't do this. i believe there is a humane, appropriate process. that will require conference of immigration reform. it will require more judges so children can be processed, many of which will be sent back. >> mr. glaspie, these children in stanton virginia. >> this is heartbreaking, there's no doubt about it. i can imagine. my father king at the age of eight and a two-week boat journey from ireland. but with his mother and brothers and sisters. the notion of turning a child over tricky are the -- coyote to go through churches territory to come to this country, can american should -- imagine with his parents go through in this children go through. the compassion responses to make clear, don't keep doing this.
don't keep sending this children are because you're not going to be afforded american citizen ship as a result of that. we do need to get resources for more judges, about 40 more from what i've heard. i support that. again, let me be clear. the most compassionate thing we can do is to 17 and afforded a process under the expedited, the need to be returned. >> next the format is the candidate question. mr. glaspie has a question for senator warner. >> it has to do with health care. my question is, as obamacare was being debated, use of the most important reason for it was to bring down costs. he said you would never vote for a bill that would mean losing our insurance if he wanted to keep it. we learned this week again that premiums in virginia will go up our double digits again next year. virginians are losing plans a like for plans they don't.
a court struck down subsidies for states without exchanges, which could affect millions of virginians, and the congressional budget office says there will be 2.5 million fewer workers and the economy as a result of disincentives to work in this bill over the next decade. knowing what you know now, would you vote for the law today? >> on the dueling court cases, you might not be surprise, i support the virginia court. my opponent supports a d.c. court. when i believe when i voted for obamacare and still believe is that health care -- when health care was 18% of our gdp and going up. almost twice as much in america is all most every other industrial country. as someone who started the virginia after foundation to
provide health care for the close to one million uninsured virginians, this spoke to me. people don't want to go back to the days where pre-existing conditions could disqualify them or women were charged for the men. they want us to roll up our sleeves and fix it. seven months into the campaign, he is criticized the plan and not laid out any specific alternatives. i've given ideas. i am open to more plans. all we have to do is provide health care, fairly and more efficiently. >> mr. glaspie. so, yes. that is a concern, obviously. we do know a lot of virginians do know the damaging effects of this policy.
by the way, i knew that it would have this effect when you are working to pass it. i was warning against its negative impacts and i said it was going to kill jobs and raise our premiums and harm the quality of our care. i can say, i am right about that and you were wrong, but more importantly, wrong about what to do going forward. i do it to replace it. i prefer specifics of my energy plan is part of my five-point plan for growth. i listen to virginians and talk to virginians. the woman i spoke to last week from danville who provides insurance for her family. both she and her husband worked. they have six children. her premiums have gone up $600 a month. $7,200 a year. i said how are you going to accommodate this? she said i don't know. she is scared. we need to replace this bill with policies that work and protect people who are being harmed for his seriously but the
negative impact you voted for. >> this question goes to mr. glaspie. most virginians have a pretty dismal view of washington dc, which they believe is controlled by special interests. you have spent your dull life in washington, part of a recent life as a lobbyist, etc. -- as senator warner mentioned. from enron, many others, a group called the cayman islands financial services. i looked at the website. you have worked for closely with karl rove, the political action group, american crossroads. is it does -- does this make it harder for you to capture this anti-washington sentiment out there? >> judy, again, senator warner has said here in virginia many things that he is not done in washington dc. i believe my experience, 15 years working on capitol hill in the white house, in the private
sector as chairman of my party here in virginia, as senator warner was chairman of his party here. i was a congressional aide -- a top congressional aide and so was he. it would allow me to stand up to special interest groups, to stand up to senate leaders, to stand up to the white house for virginians, and keep my promises to the people of virginia. i believe my experiences would make me effective on day one. i'm proud to say that all the jobs i've held, people have felt that i have performed them very capably and very well.
i promise i will fight every day for hard-working virginians and virginians who want to find work heard >> senator warner. >> judy, i think you asked a good question. is not that you're a lobbyist, it is who you lobby for. enron. lobbying against fuel efficiency standards, against financial regulations that might have stopped the financial crisis. washington is broken. it is broken because of the absolute partisanship on both sides. i believe my opponent has got a long and illustrious record, but it is a record as a lobbyist and a partisan operative. everything is viewed use up the nose down, republican versus democrat. if you want another partisan warrior in washington, user guide.
but as i have stated when we dismiss the so-called attack city uses, which are misleading and not reflective of my record, i didn't bring that in. i wouldn't have john warner support. i wouldn't have more former republican legislators supporting me this time than when i ran into thousand eight. on virtually every major piece of legislation i worked on, i start with a republican partner. that is where you get things done, from the middle out. that is why that is what i believe we need more of. >> judy, the fact is that of senator warner had been the senator he said he would become i would not have 47 of his former donors giving to me because of their frustration with his time in the senate. look, governor warner would not recognize senator warren today thomas atlee. in terms of being -- i believe the phrase i used was happy
partisan warrior, is what you do when your chairman of the republican national committee chairman of the republican party of virginia. our current governor is a former chairman of the democratic national committee, your colleague in the senate is a former chairman of the democratic national committee. you are former chairman of the democratic party of virginia. that is your role. that is the role you play when you're in those jobs. the role of a senator is different. i understand that. i believe i would get bipartisan support for commonsense economic growth proposals and policies that i have. i believe you can reach across the aisle. reaching across the isle is not an end in and of itself. you have to pass bills. in the entire time you're been there with a democratic president and a democratic majority, senator, despite all the press releases and gangs and bipartisan talk, your past two pieces of legislation. one that is a unanimous consent request and another is a recent
bill that i suspect senator reid wanted to make sure got moved after i announce my candidacy for the senate. >> i'm proud of what i've been able to get done in a pretty broken place. two pieces of legislation about government transparency. one bill that has government agencies underreporting programs. the other bill, the data bill. my partner was darrell issa. it was called one of the most important bills of government transparency since to freedom of information act. you have to be able to follow the money. i feel very proud about the work we have done. the gang of six and the broad dialogue we started their. i've done things that don't make the news in terms of helping everyday virginia families and businesses. military families were in inadequate housing. just recently, the whole delegation -- funding of the george washington. the 11th terror in our fleet to make sure national security and thousands of virginia jobs? i'm
proud of my record. proud of my partner -- my bipartisan approach. >> there is an issue that potentially affects jobs in virginia. you're on the senate banking committee. your support the governance does the government's export/import bank. your opponent charges it engages in crony capitalism, disproportionately held large corporations. we vote for its refunding? if so, how do you justify? >> i absolutely support the export/import bank. this may not be well-known, but it supports american businesses in a global economy, giving financial backstop. it helps with two hundred million dollars of support for virginia companies large and small. it is been extraordinarily
bipartisan supported. a certain tea party wing of the republican party moves further to the right and my opponent embraces that agenda, it is way out on the mainstream, but now the small group of folks are opposing this institution. the national association of manufacturers, the u.s. chamber of commerce, every business group in america says this is what we are to keep the toolkit. there may be some ideological argument that says we shouldn't support exports, and i'm not going to unilaterally disarm the american businesses when canada and brazil, country smaller than ours, have a greater percent of export support. this again is a litany of where we go from export/import bank to questions about how we do real meaningful tax reform. the approach of someone on the far right is way out of the mainstream. unfortunately, that is where my opponent is landing. >> judy, i don't recall seeing
crony capitalism in my remarks about the bank, but i do believe that we have to evaluate every program. we are at a point where it is going to equal over the next few decades our entire gdp. i believe every program needs to be subject to scrutiny. i agree we need to open new markets exports for our american goods abroad, in particular are agricultural goods here in virginia. we haven't had a new trade agreement since his administration took office. i think that is a mistake. we should fight to open new markets for our products and goods and services. look, if we are going to get control of federal spending, we have to find bills were even our friends support them. i have a lot of friends who support the bank.
i hear their arguments. you can make a case for any federal program, but i think it is an area where we can get some savings. the broader effect of reducing the drag of the debt on our economy, along with other areas and programs that need to be subject to reform and elimination and cuts, offsets the long-term benefit. that is hard to do. i understand that. i notice hard to stand up to the chamber of commerce, but that is the job of a senator, to stand up for what is in the best interest of the country and our commonwealth. i believe in this instance, as hard as it would, i know i have a lot of members of man party you do not agree with me on this, i understand that, but i think when you come to a conclusion that this is in the long-term broader interest of the country, you need to stand up on principle and fight. >> might -- what my opponent didn't mention was that this
bank is that cost the taxpayer dime. it earns money each year. why would america unilaterally just -- disarm in the economy? we are not going to provide our businesses with the same tools that other countries have. debt and deficit. there is no issue that i spend more time on. we need to make more progress. i've have taken more arrows from the administration, from the left and right, because of laid out significant corporate and individual tax reform. i've laid out entitlement reform. i've been getting that -- i think getting that right is the single most important thing our country can do. what i've heard from either opponent are platitudes. when you're been in the trenches
actually fighting for this, you realize it is hard, it is the most important issue facing our nation. >> rate brief rebuttal. >> first of all, we're going to have a figure of dispute over whether or not the bank generates money or doesn't. cbo says it is not. the experience of the senators talking about is worth revisiting. fact is, when i was working on capitol hill, i was just a step or -- just a staffer. i was for involved in the room. it was a first balanced budget with a republican congress and a democratic white house. we can do it again with the right priorities in the right leadership. i think it would be helpful to have a balanced what did the judgment -- a balanced budget agenda -- amendment. the house is move forward with
amendments to provisions to do that. the senator has voted for seven trillion dollars in new debt, despite the fact that he says he wants a balanced budget. >> ed, you're been ranked as one of the top d.c. lobbyists and described as the ultimate washington insider. you are the lead lobbyist for enron who committed the greatest corporate fraud in modern american history. you and a lobbying firm made more than $700,000 and helped enron avoid the kind of regulations that allow them to gouge consumers with higher electric bills. you talk about job killers, you are an executioner. knowledge jobs, but folks pensions and savings. was that really fair for your firm to take so much when so many folks lost so much? >> a couple of things. one, my part -- my part partisan firm which has been most effective in advising major employers and how to get things done with bipartisan support, and enron approach our firm to be a client and represent them, they had been on the cover of either fortune or forbes, i'm not sure which.
one of those two magazines as for the fifth year in a row the most innovative company in the country. that was a perception. perceptions aren't always reality, i would say. the fact is that what we saw with this company was that they were cooking the books in a way that nobody knew. one of my partners at the firm joined a class-action lawsuit against them because even a shareholder said he was hoodwinked about what was going on. the supposed be year-long
contract but it was only 10 months. after -- two days after ken lay pleaded the fifth, we said this is not the company we thought it was. clearly, we were not hired to do this work. we left them. i'm very proud of how effective our firm was. one of the best reputated firms in the business. i think i can get things done with bipartisan support. >> we didn't hear from my point was whether it was fair for him and his firm to make $700,000 being involved with the biggest corporate scandal in modern american history were 20,000 folks lost their jobs. he didn't also mention was that even afterwards, he lobbied against additional regulations that might prevent future enron scandals. again, i think the record speaks for itself. >> we now move to a final round of questions. i want to start with foreign policy. this first question in this lot goes to you, senator warner.
ukraine. president obama invoked limited economic sanctions against russia after their initial aggression in ukraine. as we were watching, even after this horrible shootdown of the malaysian passenger jet, almost certainly by russian separatists with russian help, resident lieutenant -- president vladimir putin is are backing off when father. he is shooting down ukrainian military planes, russian all charlie batteries are shooting across the border into ukraine, what should be done now to stop president putin. has president obama been too timid on the seattle >> judy, we live in an extraordinarily dangerous world. i think the president should have acted sooner and tougher on sanctions on russia, started calling for the sanctions about bipartisan, back in march.
i've heard from american businesses who have said if there are not european sanctions as well, all we are doing is treating american contacts for german or british or french contracts. i believe we need to have firmer sanctions. this is an extraordinarily important time for nato and the west to stand up to this kind of activity and aggression. that is an area where i differ from the president. i think we ought to be expediting liquefied natural gas. we need to help cut europe's reliance on russian gas. they can have a little more back on. it is one reason i support keystone as well. sending the signal to europe to you can look elsewhere for your energy supplies. but i also believe it is going
to require the europeans as well. the president needs to ratchet these up. i believe he should have acted earlier. >> mr. glaspie. >> i agree, he should've acted sooner. i agree we should stiffen the sanctions. i would say we should give to the ukrainian army and the military government, the government, the help that looking for in terms of arms. >> lethal weapons. >> yes. i believe they need the right to defend themselves as a nation. i also think that what we're seeing here is the long-term effect of what has been described by this administration itself, the aussie leading from behind. there's another word for that is following. when the united states receives from leadership, the world
becomes a more dangerous place. should lift the ban on export of domestic liquefied natural gas. we should also lift the ban on export of domestically produced crude oil as well. in the same way that the lng export ban relief would diminish vladimir putin's leverage over western european countries, the lifting of the ban on domestic crude would diminish iran's governments leverage internationally as well. these are actions we need to take now. my opponent criticizes the president, that he was part of the bush cheney administration. with an advocate for the movement of into iraq, they said saddam hussein had weapons of destruction. that it would be a quick in and out operation.
wrong, wrong, wrong. >> you want to answer? >> a wrong assumption or assessment shared by an awful lot of people and not just the bush administration. it was also the view of the clinton administration and the majority and senators on both side of the aisle believed that was the case relative to iraq. we should obviously learn from mistakes of the past. we should also recognize that mistakes are bad, but so are mistakes of omission. when president obama very early in his administration made a decision to negate the agreement with the czech republic in full on in terms of missile-defense agreements that have been made him send a strong signal to vladimir putin and russia. it embolden them. mistakes of omission can also have negative ramifications for our own national security. >> i believe some of that goes back to the bush administration
when russia invaded georgia. >> we will move to the next question. this is for mr. gillespie. iran, if a satisfactory nuclear deal cannot be reached with the iranians as the israeli prime minister was saying, will you support u.s. military action to take out iran's nuclear facilities? >> well, i believe that it is important that the u.s. never takes that option off the table. oversee the preferred approach is one where you have a negotiated agreement and that is not necessary. my view is that we have to watch very closely what they are doing. time is their friend in iran.
when the president set a deadline and we don't enforce that deadline and negotiations go on, they will use of the sanctions anyway, there is a bill being introduced that would stop the president from using sanctions prematurely, i would support that. i know the senator had bipartisan efforts to increase sanctions on iran and have expressed concerns about this. i think it is important in terms of the principle of u.s. policy and foreign affairs that you not take off any options on the table. >> on this issue, think my point and i generally agree. i think no option should be taken off the table. i think we cannot allow iran to have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon or have a nuclear weapon.
i believe we have to be very careful in terms of the sanctions. i think we need more visibility in terms of the status of our ability to view the iranian facilities at this point. i think we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with our most important allies both in terms of making sure iran doesn't move forward, but also we have seen since 9/11 things in the middle east are always challenging. i believe israel has a right to defend itself. as we see these horrible pictures -- remember that hamas uses its citizens to protect missiles and israel uses missiles to protect its citizens. >> you want to comment on that as well?
you both agree on iran. we want to comment? >> no. that is a unique area of some agreement today. mark is right. as benjamin netanyahu said come israel uses its rockets and missiles to defend is innocent civilians. unfortunately, hamas uses civilians to defend its missiles. israel has a right to defend itself. what do we do to ensure that this doesn't go on in the future? in the meantime, we need to stand by our most important ally in the middle east. >> is there anything else the u.s. should be doing right now? mr. gillespie and then mr. warner. >> the secretary is there. i think he is still on the
ground now. one of the things that i think doesn't help in the negotiating process is undercutting the israeli government in the process. >> are using that is what is going on? >> i am saying i'm concerned about this administration's approach in that regard. >> mr. warner? >> i think we need to continue the pressure on the europeans. the challenge with iran and i think you have to keep all the options on the table. we were sanctioned. sanctions were working, but only working because they were done with the p5 + 1. i am worried about the left and
the right, the increasing isolationism that seems to be raising a. we live in an extraordinarily injurious world. we have the circumstances with isis and the situation with russia and china. we need and the world needs a stronger america. >> all right. we will move on. i will give you a chance on the question -- this one is for senator warner. china is increasing its defense budget. it is up more than 12% this year alone. it is aggressively threatening vietnam, japan, and other asian neighbors over disputed islands. should china be considered a
major adversary of the u.s.? does obama administration reflect that? >> i believe the administration's tilt toward asia was an appropriate position. what we couldn't have predicted for the other eruptions in the middle east, europe, and elsewhere. i think we have been very guarded with the chinese. i'm not prepared to say this is an adversarial relationship, but i do think we need to do more to promote activities with vietnam and other nations that are anxious for the u.s. to take a bigger -- this brings back to my mind -- it sounds like i am repeating -- but the deficit issues. $17 trillion in debt. in english, that means
education, or infrastructure, research, and development. if we're going to have a strong america economically, that is not where we should be cutting. if we're going to have a strong economy and military, we have to make savings, but the stupidity of the sequestration shut down the government. it cries out you have got to have people who are willing to be bipartisan up there. that goes to how we deal with china. >> mr. gillespie on china. >> china is embolden again based on the approach of this administration. the pentagon believes that in order to secure our national security needs, we should have a
365 ship navy. we are moving in the wrong direction. i agree with it. we need to have the right priorities. what we disagree upon are the priorities. the reason we are seeing that going on is because this administration is slashing the navy to pay for more obamacare. no doubt about it when you look at the budgeting here to that is one of the reasons we see china, russia, iran, the terrorists, isis, and iraq emboldened. you want to intervene militarily? that is not the case. on this particular comment, we
have a hard time protecting the american strength abroad when we are weak at home. that is why we need to unleash economic growth and double our economic growth rate. it will help us project strength abroad. >> he makes the same charges over and over again like a broken record. doesn't mean that is true. on this very important question, i believe we need to be strong militarily teared we need to be strong economically as well. the rhyme budget my opponent has approved would cut investments in education, infrastructure, research and development that are already at historic lows. i don't care which party you belong to. but it will not allow us to be strong.
i would never invest in this enterprise. we should be for government, infrastructure, r&d. there needs to be specifics. i have been protested against. yelled at. we need smarter ways to cut. >> i'm not sure which was not true. that china has been embolden by this administrations approach? i'm not sure, but i will leave that to you.
the policies and putting forward great jobs, great take on pay, live people out of poverty him and reduce energy prices. the price of a gallon of gas has nearly doubled since he took office saying you would vote for policy the bring down the cost of energy. we used to be able to fill a tank on $20. now it is nearly double that. most don't even fill up the tank. we try to squeeze out from the pump as much as we can. that is why people are feeling squeezed. to this skyrocketing insurance premiums and the virginians has resulted in that all across the commonwealth. >> i will just say the rhetoric doesn't match the record. if you are concerned about gas prices, why are you lobbying against higher fuel standards? how do we deal with china? we need a strong military, we need a strong economy. we need a business plan that
takes down this $17 trillion in debt. the former joint chief of staff said this deficit -- if my opponent has a different plan, let's debated. >> the next question is for mr. gillespie. it has to do with afghanistan. some in your party like senator john mccain won u.s. troops to remain in afghanistan
indefinitely or at least for quite some time to come. others say to bring the troops home as soon as possible. are your views closer to those of senator mccain or senator paul? >> my view is that we need to keep our troops there for as long as they are serving the needs of our national security interest and we have national security interest in afghanistan. we know that. i think we need to make decisions of whether -- based on what does the pentagon, the state department, what does a homeland security department believe? do they need to be here now? what size do we need there to make sure we don't have happen in afghanistan what we saw happen in iraq? withdrawing our troops over the
objections of recommendations of commanders in the field are not getting a status enforcement agreement. that is what we are seeing go on. that is long-term. this is a threat to our homeland security. my point is i don't think we should make arbitrary decisions either for president or from the fellow republicans. i think you make a decision on that east on what is the best assessment of our national security interest. it seems to me given the recent election in afghanistan and what is going on there on what is going on in iraq that it would not be in hours interest to bring them home now. that is not to say i believe in an indefinite presence. >> i think the circumstances in afghanistan are complicated.
you have got two candidates still bickering about the votes. i would be open to leaving the forces longer. i find it a little curious on iraq that no president ever has left american troops. american troops could be subject to -- >> that was my point. >> let me finish. when i think about how angry i was when we saw iraqi troops know the way at the first sign of resistance, we offer them our deepest treasure, our men and women. we offered them a chance in afghanistan and iraq.
people in those countries need to show a willingness to defend their own country and a willingness to actually form governments that represent a true cross-section of the respective country's population. coming in in the middle of a civil war is -- we have seen history of that. >> mr. gillespie. >> i don't think i disagree with that. as long as we have the maliki government, we need to make sure he is inclusive of the kurds and the sunnis and the shia as well. that was one of the big factors of melting away the army. it is dispiriting. i believe we need to bolster the
iraqi government in baghdad and make sure we don't allow for isis or isl to make further progress than they have. >> at a time when the american people seem to be leery of military engagement abroad, how prepared are you believe this country needs to be to engage in the future whether it is iran or remaining in afghanistan and going back to iraq, even syria? there are many other countries we could mention. >> the american people are weary. i understand that it unless it is in our national security interest, we shouldn't interfere militarily. but again will be a mistake of omission rather than co-mission. so, we have to be as always thoughtful.
it's one of the most important votes we could cast as u.s. senators to vote to put american men and women in harm's way -- that has to be weighed very carefully. the world is unstable right now because of a lack of american leadership. we are the country the world looks to and we are not providing right now. when you make an assessment that the national merrick and interest is at stake, you have got to make that with the american public. >> senator warner. >> i think he got it right. if you break it, you own it. >> i'm here to help.
[laughter] >> i think that is a lesson. when america national security interest is at stake, you have to be prepared to intervene. it is an enormously interconnected world. there is military and economics. i think the american people are weary. paying for defense not on for america, but for the whole world. basically our navy that protects
the whole world. i'm very disappointed and think we need a more aggressive and bipartisan approach to allies around the world. they need to step up as well. we need to do this both domestically and our allies to step up as well. >> final two questions. first to senator warner did the u.s. military, we have been talking about it, but this is a question on sexual assault. the marine corps says women victims often don't come forward because "they don't trust us, they don't trust the command." you voted to leave prosecutions as they are within the chain of command. so as not to disrupt order and discipline. many other countries come including israel, have independent prosecutors in military sexual assault cases. why shouldn't the u.s. military be the same? >> i have heard some of those horrific stories.
i have had female veterans and males talk. we should not accept any harassment whether it is in the military or bipartisan legislation i'm working on now on college campuses. what you didn't ask is in the legislation that we passed, there were 30 additional changes for the prosecutions in trying to ensure that the someone had an harassment, they would go to an outside prosecutor. make sure that whistleblowers were protected. i thought long and hard about this.
the proposal that was put forward doesn't just include sexual harassment. it included all felonies should measure taking out the chain of command or someone stole another soldier's wallet out of the barracks, i still believe that the best way to keep the chain of command -- we have got to see progress in here. >> mr. gillespie. >> i agree. obviously these are crimes and should be treated as such. i hope that the steps we are taking to improve the process improves the process. i would be willing to revisit it if that was the case sheared a kind of behavior and those kinds
of activities cannot be tolerated and need to be stopped. i'm hopeful that the chain in the legislation would do that. >> you believe he is wrong when he says women victims don't trust the commands? >> i have heard an extraordinary amount of conflicting testimony and even within the command. we cannot have this culture. i think we took major steps forward. if we don't see results, needs to be revisited. >> i don't doubt the general in that regard. i'm hopeful that they will after reforms are implemented and that that will change. if that is still the case after we have implemented these reforms, yes, they need to be revisited. >> final question for mr. gillespie. this is for virginia -- do you believe the commonwealth of virginia should join 19 other
states that have recognized same-sex marriage as legal? yes or no? >> well, i believe -- first of all, i respect and love people for who they are. i have a lot of friends who are not on agreement on this issue. i also believe as a senator, it is not my will to legislate on it and i believe the appropriate venue for it is the states. the states are working this out. the state of virginia doesn't recognize that. maybe it will be visited at some point. the voters will decide. >> do you believe the state should not recognize it? >> my vote would be no. but i do not believe in government sanction of same-sex marriage. >> i'm sorry. could you elaborate? >> i believe marriage is between
one man and one woman and it is up to the state to vote on a referendum in virginia. i believe it is a state issue. >> i support marriage equality. i think it is the right thing to do and the fair thing to do. i also believe that it is a smart business thing to do. i have lots of employers. we want to iron everything regardless of who you are. i respect his religious view, but we have very different views. he supports an amendment that would ban certain forms of contraception.
some of his biggest supporters were the architects would virginia was the butt of a late-night jokes because of the invasive ultrasound. i trust the women of virginia. i don't think a for-profit corporation should be able to interfere in an employees health care choices. again, this is an area where we have a very different approach. there are very large differences between the two candidates. >> this is an area where you're making up my views. [laughter] please provide the documentation. look, the fact is i am catholic. i went to the same catholic
school. your democratic candidate is a catholic. i can also send you a copy of john kennedy's catholic speech. 2012, the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists that there is no medical reason any longer, there is no reason for the pill to be a prescription drug. it should be available by the counter. i support that. but that would make it a lot easier for women. even when obamacare passed and you're making the case we needed to enact it because there were millions who are uninsured, when it is fully permitted, there would be 17 million who get insurance and 30 million that aren't. we would disrupt the insurance of people to ensure those
people, but are still 30 million that aren't. they should be able to go to the drug store, grocery store and purchase the pill without a prescription. it would make it more affordable and acceptable. it would move this debate over the first amendment and employers in all that and i think it would be good for the country. it would make it more accessible and affordable. that is the way to go. that is the way i would approach my policy as senator. >> can i clear this up for the record? >> this is not a vote. >> did you not also support an amendment? >> no. when did i support that amendment? [talking over each other] >> would you vote to overturn roe v. wade? the folks who endorsed --
>> the folks who endorsed me -- [talking over each other] >> we are now at the moment of closing statements. mr. gillespie, you're first. >> i have laid out my agenda as i have all across the commonwealth. i want virginians to know. i want voters to hold accountable on the same where i'm asking them to hold mr. warner accountable for saying he would be an independent voice, but voting a majority of the time the same as president obama. for him saying he would be a fiscal moderate, but voting to increase our taxes. and for saying he would never
vote for a bill that would make us lose our insurance and that we could keep it, but he voted for obamacare. and i can understand that, but governor warner would not recognize senator warner today. that is why many virginians support me who have supported him in the past. he is not comfortable defending the votes he has cast. he talks a lot about the jobs he had before this campaign trail. i'm proud of my career. mark is proud of doing a job that makes of the richest member of the senate.
my time in the private sector will enable me to stand up against special interest groups, senate leaders, and the white house and keep my promises to virginians. virginians have a clear choice in november. we can keep on the path we are on, where we are losing jobs, wages are stagnant, debt is mounting and prices are rising, we could have a progrowth policy agenda like mine did great jobs and lift people out of poverty and reduce energy prices. we could easily squeeze, bolan of the change of policies in washington. thank you for watching. i would like your vote. >> thank you, senator gillespie. now senator warner. >> thank you. i think we saw this morning two very different approaches to the
issues important to virginia. i am very proud of my tenure as senator. i talk about transparency. whether it is moving forward and building that national consensus to get our balance sheet right. i'm proud of that when we heard those awful stories of the -- five years ago, rolling up our sleeves i come up with an innovative approach. i'm proud that we heard the challenges around our veterans program. i wanted to make sure female vets get the same as their male counterparts. process the v.a. claims in a faster way. there a lot of ways to get things done.
repeat, repeat, repeat like a broken record. that is what political operatives do. actually, more republican legislators this time than when i ran in 2008. my point has a very different approach. he sees things in a very partisan lines. who is up and who is down. his words himself -- happy partisan warrior. if you think what washington
needs is another partisan warrior, you have got your candidate right here. if you want folks who can work across party lines and bring a business minded approach to government, i would like to have your vote. i promise i will continue in that style going forward. thanks so much. >> thank you very much for the spirited debate. we thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> that was lively. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] tonight on c-span, "q&a" with prize-winning author edmund morris.
after that, sarah palin speaking in denver. then discussing the prospect of hillary clinton running for president in 2016, followed by the latest on the conflict in the middle east. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> this week on "q&a" our guest is pulitzer-prize-winning author edmund morris. he talks about his most recent work, "this living hand and other essays," and his upcoming book on thomas edison and his other works as a biographer of presidents and other notable historical figures. >> edmund morris, in your book, "this living hand and other essays," i notice you are writing a book about edison. >> that's right the >> why edison?