>> thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> a guy in a wheelchair can move faster than traffic on some roads in texas. i am transfixed and my plan at my plan at the billiard to new road construction without raising fees or tolls. we pay for it by ensuring money dedicated for rose will be spent totally on roads. and no more taking highway funds by the legislature to pay for their projects. elect me and i would get texas moving. >> in a texas courtroom, greg abbott made the case against our children. he thought for $5 billion in cuts to education made by insider buddies and now avid is proposing giving standardized tests are for your souls. wendy davis will reduce the number of standardized tests across the board peers she will cut bureaucratic use education to build an economy for all hard-working texans.

you decide who will be best for taxpayers. >> wendy davis is involved in scandal yet again. estates that matter, she is to influence on contracts then voted on bills that helped her own law firm. davis profited from her day job as voting and twisting arms in the senate. she crossed from potential to conflicts of interest. now davis is legal work as part of an open fbi investigation. unethical behavior unfit to be governor. >> he was a texas surgeon performing operations while reportedly using coat game. two patients died, others were paralyzed. the hospital did nothing to stop it. victims suing the hospital and weeks after accepting a quarter million dollar campaign contribution from the hospital chairman, greg abbott got involved using his office to go to court against the big dance.

greg abbott, another insider not working for you. >> pulls with this race as leaning republican. watch the final debate tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. last sunday, c-span covered in iowa senate debate between democratic congress and bruce braley and republican state senator joni ernst. this is the first debate between the two candidates. here is a look. >> moderator: ms. ernst, you say you oppose subsidies, but support renewable fuel standards. how long would she make an exception for the renewable fuel standards? ernst: until we are on equal footing. if you look at all the subsidies going out there to oil and many others sectors out there within the energy industry, our rss needs to be on equal footing.

so i am someone that will continue to support the rss. i grew up on a southwest iowa farm and my father is a farmer, a proud farmer. one in six jobs are created by the iowa farmer and that is why i'm so proud to have the endorsement of the iowa farm bureau. again, i will continue to support the rss and use that as your next united states senator. braley: if i could respond come i'm not sure that is what senator ernst told the coat others but she which is a secret meeting. she was supposed in a perfect world would exist. my support of this standard has been clear, strong and unequivocal. my first term in congress have voted to triple and i stood up to big oil at every opportunity because their interests are not iowa strong. ernst: i would like to respond.

you are not running against these other people. you are running against me. i am a mother, i am a soldier and i'm an independent leader. you are being funded i thoms dyer, who is a california billionaire extreme environmentalists. to remember please that you are running against me, not against any of these other groups. you are running against me. braley: i realize that. president obama's name is not on the ballot and i am not going to owe president obama anything on election day. you are going to other koch brothers everything. ernst: i owe them -- >> moderator: please continue. ernst: i owe nobody anything except for these iowa people and i'll stand up and do what's right for iowans, not for california extreme environmentalists. not for senator harry reid. not for president obama, but again for the iowa people.

i am someone who has to do for my community, my state and the nation. i have not left my rural roots, but i think congressman, you have left those behind in your beltway ways. >> moderator: 15 seconds to wrap up the topic. braley: i have never forgotten where i came from. that is why i voted to pass a five-year farm bill and every major farm saved it. that's why the iowa corn growers are supporting me and the national farm union has given the award. i have not forgotten my rural values.

[applause] >> i'm absolutely delighted to be here and the senator and i just gotten our first real argument. i'll tell them how happy i am to be here and we are so proud of him and the great work you've done all these years and that is going to keep doing not just for kansas but the rest of america. he said well, i'm the fourth most conservative senator. i said no, you are third. we were going back and forth. he is a conservative and he has what america needs. i know i'm supposed to be kansas centric right now, but i'm talking about all of america. i am talking about the need to have fighters there in the senate who will fight like our country's future depends on it because it does. and we have a senator right here who is tried, tested and true

and -- [inaudible] [applause] >> no question where he stands. i am so thankful that he proved that a year ago today. on last night, he, one of the few senators for filling campaign promises, do them at american people asked him to do, standing there on the floor with senator ted cruz to do with a code to get rid of obamacare. the filling has promised. [cheers and applause] i love it that he is not wishy-washy on the fence like you know who, the other guy. i am so thankful because we need that with the principles that are so convict did within them that they don't know.

they'll pick a side and he obviously picked the right side all these years. so he there with senator cruz, senator michael b. and those others too sad all get a little bit clobbered for what i'm going to do tonight and i'm sure that was probably going through to get clobbered by the press is specially. [laughter] he did it anyway because he was doing the right thing. once a marine, always a marine. [cheers and applause] my son in the army told me never say that in public again. you don't know how to pronounce it. it's really, really good to be again says rs barack obama would say, flyover country. but here it is that you are rowing our food, helping feed

america, sending good coming-out folks to the united states military to fight for your independence. it is here that you are bracing children with a strong work ethic and it is here where you can reelect someone who will fight for the freedom to make sure the work at stake is rewarded. that is what will this most wonderful, most exceptional country was the expectation of reward for hard work. i think of canvas or not is what i think of. i think a hard-working farmers. i think those those who're unpretentious and who have for so long been able to work as a community united, especially in tough times. our country is going through tough times and now is the time that we need to be united. the primary is over. time to get together.

we are counting on you to get it together and make sure independents, but they understand that if you want principles with values, the virtues in the marine corps, but if you want that, you don't have to be stuck with someone who is wishy-washy. you've got the person they are already in the senate. for unity after his tour is the reason of unity, knowing that united will stand, a lot of countries i survive you today, making sure that you make the right decision. we need to be on the united states country will stand. here at independence, i know a

little bit about kind of going broke and been independent. i do. [laughter] in fact, my husband, todd, i never even registered the republican party. he's independent because he said i don't want to get involved in all the machinery they are as a political party. i just want to do what's right. our daughter, paper is indeed for independent. it means something to me. i know it means something to you. something grand, something important that independent spirit that has to translate into something tangible when you're talking politics. you can't explain as greg orman claimed to be able to not pick a side and the effect is. that defies common sense. it is in the dangers pcs, but

we know what it's going to take for america to be safe and that is the republican party been strong there for you. so what not, are good senator here who is pro-and mark, pro-life, pro-gun. it got a lot of cleaners and wing mirrors around here, don't you? [cheers and applause] he found the right side of the issue for america and for our independence. again, as for his opponents, i know at independence and anybody that the liberal record like greg supporting barack obama,

supporting obamacare, supporting amnesty, supporting harry reid? that is not independence. that is the one who's trying to schnook are you, kansas come into thinking he can have it all plays. it doesn't work that way and politics in d.c. especially. your senator knows what he's doing. we need him back there appeared we thank him for his service to our country. [cheers and applause] he is the right man for kansas and for america. so with that, let's hear from the senator. we are so extremely proud to be here. good, bad or ugly, we are supporting you. i know kansas will do the right thing and send you back to d.c. thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you. [cheers and applause] i just told the governor think i'm just going to read the speech again and it would be all right. governor, we are going to model you. that message needs to be said loud and clear altar at this election. if you just to show a little more enthusiasm. [laughter] thank you all for coming out. thank you for taking time out of your schedule to, and listen to a true grassroots, courageous republican. [cheers and applause] the governor is extremely courageous because she says what

is on our hearts and minds. when we talked to one another in our living rooms, at home, in meetings, it is always how is always housebound days, how come our country is going the wrong direction? how come we're been from behind and getting into all of this problem with bad people? how come we than $18 trillion debt? how come obamacare is raising premiums and now we can find out yours to the doctor pays the relationship endangered. how come we are allowing people to come across our border during a time of crisis when we have terrorists that are threatening. our intelligence shows they made many, many threads. how come we have a country where we are now worried this country that we honor, we cherish, we love is now endangered? and may not be the country for her kids and grandkids. that is the biggest issue

because we worry about the government, more spending, more regulations. i had one farmer out wes tell me how come i don't feel governed. i field goal. that is the people are thinking about. governor, i offered to you the statement that people are losing faith in our government here that's a terrible name. it's an egregious thing. turn it around because our government does not have faith in us. that is really what this is all about. that is what president obama is all about. government knows best. i've got to tell you, folks, not on my watch. that's not going to stand. [cheers and applause] the reason the governor is here is that the republican party is united. [cheers and applause]

every square inch of the republican party knows what is at stake. we have to take the senate back as a first step to turning our country around to kansas values as opposed to what is going on in washington. [cheers and applause] there is only one person on the ballot that will go to washington and kate kure read-out as opposed to giving him a stamp of approval and change the direction of the country with united states senate in republican hands so they can come back to the constitution, come back to the foundation that made our country great, celebrate hardware, celebrate kansas and what were all about here. that is what were going to do. that is why the governor is here, pardon me, mama grizzly is

here. [cheers and applause] have you ever seen a mama grizzly dressed as a wildcat? [cheers and applause] you wouldn't feel it to kick a field goal, would you? [laughter] sorry about that. i make a promise to you. i have thought for you before. i have thought in virtually every issue that you care about with regards to agriculture, getting into crop insurance, all of the big reasons the farm program policy and everybody back there. that i know what you do. i know what you do. you are hard workers. we produce the food for our

country. show a nation that cannot beat itself in your utter chaos. that is what you have tiered you are pretty important. i will be supporting you, supporting your conservative values. marines take that hill. i'm going to take the hill and win. [applause] by opponent, greg orman says he's an independent. zero goodness knows everybody likes to be independent once in a while. but you are not an independent if you get thousands of dollars to barack obama, hillary clinton and yes, harry reid. you are not an independent -- wait on it, wait on it, wait on it, wait on it. you're not an independent when you run against me in 2008 as a democrat. okay? he is not an independent.

he will be a stamp of approval for harry reid and a continuation of the obama agenda. that is not going to happen. [cheers and applause] winston churchill said kites fly highest in the strongest of ways. there's a lot of wins blowing in our world and country. we are going to change that around. i promise you. thank you so much for coming. let's go to work. every phone call you make, every congress, you are part of a wave to take this country back. let's get started. god bless, semper fi. [cheers and applause] >> thank you.

[applause] one other thing. as the person who called through the fire fans, one more point not true. that's a terrible, terrible joke. hey, we are going to go flip and cakes. let's go have some. thank you. [applause] >> i just want to remind you that the distance from the white house theory where he came in from the green room is about 80 feet. this is only 60 feet, the width of this ran the 60 feet.

[inaudible] >> now, it would be yards. it is 70 or as long come at 30 yards inside the house. inside the house. i've been there many, many times. you know, to talk about somebody transversely and the white house foyer, but full links of the east room down to the green room to the american public, that would be half of a white house tour. that is what that would be. that is it just hitting inside. that is half of a white house tour to the american public. you keep minimizing this stuff. i am just wondering, why do the red flags go up for the secret service?

i know you've got a lot of wonderful people they are. this is not their best work. we have a serious, serious issue here. about% gain the president and his family. this is disgraceful. this is absolute disgraceful this happened. somebody had shot seven rounds into the white house. this is beyond the pale. i listened to the testimony deliberately and i wish to god he protected the white house that your protection and the reputation. i wish you spent that time enough for to protect the american president than his family like i am hearing people covering for the lapses of the secret service on the several occasions. i really do.

so what are we going to do? this whole thing is the united states secret service versus one mentally challenged man, one man with mental illness that you do have mental illness. the secret service had one individual with mental illness. and you last. you had three shots at this guy come in three chances and they got to the green room of the white house. what happens when you have a sophisticated organization with nefarious intent and we resources going up the service. what happens then? >> i was some of the hearing out early today by the house

government reform committee. you can watch the entire hearing tonight at 8:00 eastern time here on c-span2 or watch it anytime online at c-span.org. >> our campaign 2014 debate coverage continues tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. live coverage of the texas debate between state senator democrat wendy davis and state attorney general, republican greg abbott.

>> democratic incumbent scott peters is being challenged by san diego congressman demaio and what polls have caught a tossup race. this is about an hour. >> moderator: and now an nbc news special, a conversation with the candidates. >> good evening, catherine garcia. welcome to this special edition of nbc's seven is the 6:00 here tonight we hosted a conversation with the two candidates in the most hotly contested race on the november ballot. the congressional seat currently receiving national attention because the close race between democrat or republican. do not want to up the two kind comments. scott peters if you are not with councilman carl demaio. they want to do something different with this debate rather than a typical debate which candidate is given a set amount of time to answer our questions, we really wanted this to be morbid conversation with the candidates hopefully to benefit the viewers.

>> before we get started, let's set the political concede. give you a good idea of why the raiders nationwide importance. >> fifty-second congressional district stretches from la jolla into la jolla into the hands grasp how we rancho bernardo. registered voters in the district are split. 43% republican, 32% democratic, 29%. >> they are very highly split between either republican or democrat. one of the few nonstate seats in the country. >> which is why this race matters. ..

>> the challenge for the demicrocampaign has been how to try and take that track record and those experiences that carl had at the local level, translate them into a national race. >> but what about those issues they'll tackle in congress? immigration reform, homeland security, defense spending. >> not particularly interested in talking about national security, he's not particularly interested in talking about foreign policy. he wants to focus the race on business issues and budget issues, and that's where he thinks he can make inroads. >> but recently the national chamber of commerce endorsed

peters, sending off an ugly tweet from the chamber. it could all come down to voter turnout, and eric says that includes a critical bloc of several thousand student voters at ucsd. >> we think of student debt, we think of postgraduation job process, what the economy's going to look like for us five, ten years down the line. >> okay. so with all of that in mind and our colleague already, certainly, bringing up a lot of issues we'll touch on here, we really wanted to start with what is the big story of the day, and it's certainly an issue congress is going to be dealing with for some time. the u.s. began airstrikes against isis targets in syria last night. this action has pretty much received bipartisan support. what i'm curious about, though, is this issue of ground troops, because a lot of military experts have said that without adequate ground troop support on the ground, we're not going to be able to bring an end to isis, and they don't think the kurds,

the iraqi security forces are up to the job. so my question to both of you is at what point, if ever, would you support ground troops in iraq or syria to fight isis? >> well, san diego's a military town, so national security issues are, indeed, important to us. if you're going to ask a service member to leave their spouse, to leave their children, to put their lives on the line, you best satisfy two key tests. first, make sure that it's a national security crisis or issue that is of direct impact to the american national security positions. i think in the case of isis, that clearly has been established. this is a terrorist group, it has already killed several americans, and it continues to threaten americans. if not checked, we will see this continue to spiral out of control. but the second is equally important, and that is that we have a thoughtful, common sense strategy to win. when we intervene, we should have a strategy to actually successfully win, immobilize our

enemy. in this case i don't believe that the president has laid out an adequate strategy. i've talked to some of my own military advisers. these are flag officers -- generals, admirals -- who are advising me, service members who are currently serving or veterans, and they all have expressed concerns that the president seems to be playing more of a political game of talking about just airstrikes and a little bit of technical advice on the ground. well, i think that we're going to find in the next several weeks that that's probably going to be inadequate. and if we have to build a case for an expansion, that has to be something that the american people will support. and that's where the administration and congress should not treat this as a democrat issue or a republican issue, this would be an american issue, and we need more members of congress to approach it that way. >> so at this point it sounds like you think not enough information for u.s. ground troops. mr. peters, what about you? how do you feel about the case the president has laid out to this point, and when would you support ground troops in this region? >> my important job is to keep

you and your family safe from harm, and we know that around the world, not just in the middle east, there are people in darkrooms and each caves planning to -- even caves planning to hurt our country, our families, and we have to go to those places and stop them. isis is a tremendously dangerous force. these new terrorists are even much more better equipped, much better funded, much more tactical than al-qaeda which attacked us in 2001. and so we have to take this very, very seriously. i support the plan that congress, the president and our commanders, most important, agreed to which is going to build a multistrategy plan for dealing with isis. part of it is these airstrikes which will degrade the enemy, but there's a much bigger plan too. part of it is developing a political system in iraq that everyone can rely on that's going to provide some stability so that these people will be motivated and equipped to fight for themselves. part of it is what we saw yesterday which is allies in the area, people who are also interested in their security. they have to be part of the

fight as well. part of it is getting international support. we know that france has indicated they're interested because they know that before terrorism gets to the united states, it's going to hit europe first. they're concerned. and part of it is the equipment and training of some syrians who will be carefully vetted on the ground. >> moderator: both of you all are expressing a good measure of support for going in and trying to eradicate isis. i think for a lot of your would-be constituents, where's the line in the sand for both of you? how far, at what point would you say i'm no longer going to support an effort? demaio: that get toss the two criteria i laid out, articulated first by cap weinberger who served in the reagan administration. he said if you're going to put men and women in our armed services in harm's way, that we have to satisfy first that issue is a direct national security

threat to our country and, second, that we have to have a well thought out plan. i believe that we have gotten into conflicts around the globe where the first criteria has not been adhered to, where we've allowed mission creep. we've gotten into nation building, policing other countries, imposing governments, running public health systems in certain cases, roles that we should not be in that don't really relate to our national security interests. they may be humanitarian, but they are not a direct link to our national security interests, and i think a lot of americans are upset by the mission creep we saw in afghanistan and in iraq. second, we have to insure that when we do use force, that it's part of a sensible, strategic approach to winning. and that should not be a democrat or republican issue, that should be something where congress asks tough questions and isn't afraid to challenge, perhaps, their own party when they're not getting those sorts of answers because you're asking men and women to leave their families and put their lives on the line.

and they need to know it's not only an important issue that they should be involved in that relates to our national security, but we have supported them by giving them the right sort of intervention and approach. >> moderator: congressman -- thank you. congressman, at what point would you say no? peters: >> well, we've really seen the limitations of our ability to affect afghanistan and iraq with ground troops. and so i think we've got to resist that. at this point i don't think the case has been made to put ground troops in and, frankly, no one's proposing it. so as a member of the armed services committee, we listen very hard to the briefings about what our ability is to influence this and what our real ability is for our own security, for our own families. >> moderator: do you believe isis can be defeated without ground troops, without u.s. ground troops? peters: i think they can be degraded, but i would say, too, it doesn't have to be american ground troops. one of the advantages of the strategy we've tried to employ is we'd like the people in the area to be fighting for their own freedom, iraqis, kurds,

syrians who we would like to equip and train. >> i think the problem is people are saying those forces are not going to be able to accomplish it on the ground, and that is maybe the concern among the american people that we are being told something that then down the line is not going to be what was pitched. peters: well, we share that concern, and, you know, you can't guarantee this is going to be successful, but i have a lot of faith in our military commanders and the strategy they laid out. now, they may come back and ask for more, but the one thick we insisted on in congress is any further authorizations would have to come back to congress. and the one thing i would say, too, is i've been critical of the president for not being as close a partner with congress as he could be. in this case we've worked very closely with the president and with our commanders to figure out what the best strategy is at this point in time. >> well, can i follow up with this, and this may be a very early hypothetical, but best case scenario, the airstrikes are successful or whatever surges may come afterwards and isis is reduced, let's say, to

a, quote, manageable problem, maybe even eliminated. what moves then should the allies make in order to fill what could be a power vacuum that is going to attract other terrorist groups that rise up, the taliban morphs into al-qaeda, now we've got isis. peters: once again, gene, we had an iraqi government that wasn't politically sufficient to carry the weight, bringing peace to the region. the maliki government was only concerned with one sect. didn't include the kurds or the sunnis, and we have to have an inclusive government that reaches across the sectarian lines. that's been our first priority. we've seen a change in the government, we've seen some promising, some promising signs that the next government will be more inclusive. we can't be the government of iraq. we just can't be it. we have to use diplomacy, and we have to ally with other countries in the region to create a political system that's more sustainable. >> mr. demario.

demaio: this is a situation where, again, politicians from both sides of the aisle are trying to sugar coat it. we have to have a more focused view on our national security interests, and we have to have a more limited use of force that reflects our national interests. clearly-defined missions are important, and my concern here is that the mission is not clearly defined. and as katherine pointed out, i think that the concern that most people of san diego and many americans have is we wake up one day and find that what was sold to us by the politicians is not actually the case and that we've seen mission creep. we saw that in afghanistan, we saw that in iraq, and members of congress need to be willing to take on their own party, their own administration to make sure that we have clarity and limitations and focus on wherever we're putting people's lives on the line in the u.s. military. >> um, moving on to issues which still are international in scope, but it's a big domestic

issue. you were a member of -- you are a member of congress right now. i have heard it said that immigration reform is a lot like the weather, everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. do you have any specific policy ideas, initiatives that would break the gridlock here? peters: it's not the case, gene, in this case. the senate last summer voted with 69 votes on a bipartisan immigration bill. it's a compromise. it's not perfect, i don't want love everything in it. but -- i don't love everything in it. i'd like to see the speaker put it on the house floor. it would pass and have tremendous economic benefits for growth, 5.4% over the next ten years, help stabilize social security, increase border security, allow in the amount of workers to earn a path to citizenship by paying a fine, paying their taxes, but allow the workers we need. in the tech sector, if you talk to qualcomm, this is very

important to them. in biotechnology, we're sending people home who we educate to cure diseases and start jobs in other countries instead of keeping them here right down to farm workers who we don't have enough farm workers, we're letting some crops rot in the field. my opponent says he wouldn't vote for that. the vote is right before us. we could do it tomorrow. >> what's the problem with what you're hearing? demaio: you get all these special interests who load up this big bill, thousands of pages long, and we crowd out the issues that people actually agree on. here's an issue that i think everybody agrees on, we need to secure the border. we need to secure the border first. we need to put the resources and the attention and the accountability behind securing our nation's border. not only so that we can prevent an immigration system where people get to run to the front of the line, but also for national security issues. who knows who's able to cross into our border in terms of terrorist groups that may want to harm the american people. so border security is a critical

prerequisite. but instead of focusing on something that democrats, republicans and independents -- and look at the polling, nationally and here in san diego. latinos support a secure border, democrats support a secure border, ip dependents and republicans, but members of congress constantly want to put poison pills pills in these bild then they sit there and point fingers at each other. i think we ought to focus on issues where we see great unity in this country. securing the border first should be a single-subject bill, and i think that it would get bipartisan support if we focused on those areas of agreement. peters: really, this is the magic of mr. demaio trying to confuse the issue. we had a bipartisan approach in the senate. part of it is securing the border, by the way. they want to build a fence, virtually double the size of the border patrol. and what republicans and democrats agreed on this compromise. we can't get a vote because the speaker of the house, mr. boehner who's for

mr. demaio, won't even put it fun around a vote. the farmers and the farm workers agree, the faith community and the tech community all agree can, and we also know that business analysts, the harvard business school says this is one of the most important things we could do to get job creation going, get the economy moving and how important would that be to san diego? all we need is the speaker to put this before the house, and we would have, we would have immigration reform the next day. demaio: well, color we surprised -- me surprised, scott peters, because you had an opportunity when the bill came before the house on funding for border security, much of that money would have ended up here this san diego to deal with some of our challenges, and you voted no on a scaled-back version. so when you sit there and say, well, if we could just have a vote, scott, when you had a chance to actually be part of the solution, to actually be part of a modest step forward to provide resources necessary to

secure our border, you voted no. and you know what? you bent to your own party's pressure. nancy pelosi and the democrat leadership twisted arms to say we want to make sure no democrat votes are part of this compromise package. you voted no. that bill actually did go to the house floor. peters: i voted no because border security isn't the only element of immigration reform we need. we need to deal with these labor supply issues. >> well, let's talk about that -- peters: i'd just like to say one thing about mr. pelosi. i think the councilman knows that i was rated last year the fourth most independent democrat because i'm willing to take votes against my party, and i do rank my country first, my district second and my party third. i would not have gotten that ranking if i was voting lockstep with my party. that's also the reason i got the endorsement of the united states chamber of commerce out of 250 candidates that they endorsed, five were democrats. and what they're concerned about is they want democrats they can work with to solve problems. they've seen that as my history.

what they don't want is tea party extremists, the kind of people who shut the government down and threaten our nation's credit rating. they see mr. demaio as part of that camp. demaio: let's just stop right here. you wallet to continue to apply labels to me, so you can call me names all you wallet. i haven't sat there and called you names. i have issues that i disagree with you, and there are differences in our records and the way in which we approach issues, but to sit there and say i'm going to call my opponent a tea party, right-wing, nut job extremists, it's dishonest, divisive, and it's what's wrong with politics today. and let's talk about -- >> talk about the party thing, first, because, obviously, we knew this was going to come up. we've seen it in a lot of commercials on television, and it's certainly a label that your opponent is trying to have stick. demaio: nonstop. you can't turn on the tv -- >> now let's bring up the quote that has been attributed to you where you basically said you

would owe to the tea party, explain to me -- >> actually, no, this is important. scott peters actually took a video, and he spliced it. i gave a speech across san diego to many groups including labor unions who, of course, politically don't support me, they are on the far left. there's not a whole lot we have in common. but i stood before any group that could listen to our plan on pension reform. in this speech i was not talking about social issues, because i disagree with the tea party on the right-wing approach to social issues. i don't think social issues should be part of our focus in washington. i stood before them and i said let's focus on a positive agenda, and what can we do positive in san diego? we can reform the out-of-control pension system at city hall, we can replace those fat cat pensions that the politicians have voted themselves, including mr. peters, and put in place a system that's not only sustainable, that allows us to save money and restore services. i implored them just like i

implored the labor unions to come to the table and be part of the solution to move san diego forward. i will continue to reach out to groups, katherine, that disagree with me -- >> here's the thing though, the quote that's attributed to you is i will owe you and our collective movement everything. demaio: correct. and did you see the question that mr. peters spliced out? the question was who's backing your opponents? and i said, well, look, in the mayor's race, the downtown insiders and the government unions, i'm not their candidate, and i'm proud of that. who do i owe? i owe you, the people, i owe you, the people, everything. and that is exactly how i've always approached every issue. for mr. peters to try to deceive voters is just an example of desperation because he can't defend his own record of putting the city of san diego on the brink of bankruptcy. >> let's let him talk about these issues. peters: first of all, i'm more than happy to defend my record, and i'm more than -- >> was that taken out of context though? peters: how do you take it out

of context? first of all, the whole video is on my web site. the quote is the tea party is the conscience of the accountable government movement. if i win, i will owe you and our collective movement and everything. later in the video you see mr. demaio sneer at people who would sit down around the table and work out solutions. it's his own words. the second is his supporters. there were three republicans in the primary running in this race. the tea party, every tea party member, every tea party pac chose mr. demaio as their candidate because they know when he gets there, he can join up with them. demaio: that's absolutely not true. peters: third is his own record at the city when 102 times he was the one no vote, he voted all four of the council's bipartisan budgets because they weren't extreme against. he voted against the $700 million health care reform that they worked out at the table with the labor unions.

when he lost the mayor's race, the ut, which was a great supporter of his, editorialized the next morning he would leave a legacy of divisiveness, and when he wanted to be mayor after mr. filner resigned, they had a big meeting at la jolla, and they said we want kevin faulkner to be the candidate. carl, you're too divisive, you belong in congress. and that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what's wrong with congress. we have enough of that. in sending a tea party extremist to fix the problem is not the way to move forward. demaio: oh, where do i even start to unpack that? first and foremost, the tea party did not support me in this primary seat. they put in a right-wing candidate and backed that candidate to the hilt. why? because i have a record of taking on my own political party and challenging them to change. i'm taking on the right wing on social issues. i don't believe that social issues should be part of congress' agenda.

i think that we should allow people to make decisions on social issues in the context of their own faith, their own family, their own personal beliefs first. second, when you talk about the accomplishment that is we had at city hall, everyone in san diego saw that when mr. peters left the city council in 2008, the city was on the brink of bankruptcy. billions of dollars in debt, hundreds of millions of dollars in shortfalls in the budget. the city was paying out lavish pensions to government employees that we could not afford. mr. peters talks about an extreme budget, he voted to eliminate daycare programs for needy families. he voted to cut library hours by 42%. he voted to undermine police and fire services. he eliminated the only fire rescue helicopter three months before a major, catastrophic fire. so my budget plan has always been how do we make government work again, how do we restore services, and, scott, the very clear fact basis that all sand

yea gans know is in four years' time i cleaned up the mess you created after eight years. bipartisan vote after bipartisan vote on the city could be -- council and the pension reform initiative of 2012 that brought democrats, republicans and independents together from around the city, it carried every socioeconomic group. why? because we built a solution-oriented agenda to fix our city. mr. peters, however, opposed those reforms every step of the way. i would consider that pretty extreme. >> let me ask you this -- peters: i think i need to address that, if that's okay. >> yeah, of course. peters: you know, the city of sand yea quo had a couple of decades of bad financial practices when i got on there, and i wasn't on the city council that started pension funding, but i was on the council that ended it. and we worked for many years before mr. demaio got there, and mayor sanders call me his partner in meaningful reform: at

the end of our work, the sec said that san diego was a model for other cities to follow. and even mr. demaio when we negotiated a new pension system in 2008 that would save the city about $22 million a year in pension payments, mr. demaio came to our press conference to congratulate us on the work. so to say that nothing was done is really disingenuous. i'd also say, too, we did, we had a lot of issues with the bubble bursting on the internet, and we had to deal with a loot of tough budget issues, and we did it as a bipartisan group. we worked with the mayor, with the republican mayor, with democrats on the council, cape up with budgets -- came up with budgets every year that i supported. and they weren't always great. i was proud to be part of a solution-oriented, consensus-building group which is a problem-solving approach we need in congress. what mr. demaio was voting against every single budget and then --

>> we're on the clock here, less than two minutes. demaio: i understand. mr. peters handed off a city that was on the edge of bankruptcy. the city's roads were falling apart, the city's services were at historically low levels in terms of library hours and police and fire coverage. mr. peters, after cutting all those services, gave politicians a 42% salary hike in the middle of one of our worst budget crises. he took $69,000 in auto allowances for his new bmw. this is the sort of leadership that he gave us on city council. now, in four years' time what did we do? we balanced the budget. we did it without accounting gimmicks. we put an end to the six-figure pension payouts. we were able to actually make san diego a model that is cited around the country. and more important than anything else, and this is what i'm really passionate about, we actually started restoring the services that mr. peters cut; library hours, road repairs,

getting our city moving in ways we hadn't seen in nearly a decade. it took democrats and republicans working together, and no amount of distortions, mr. peters, can change that reality. >> thank you, gentlemen. hold that thought. we're just getting started here. well done so far, and as we head to this break, we wanted to pass along an item on, in the nature of full disclosure. while doing research, we learned that comcast -- the company that owns nbc 7, has a political action committee that has donated to congressional candidates around the country including $2,000 to mr. peters, the incumbent dem california interestingly, that political action committee donated $8,000 to his republican predecessor, brian bilbray, during the last election cycle. that committee's actions have no wearing on what we do here on -- bearing on what we do here or on any of the questions, but we wanted to be as open as possible. we'll continue our conversation with the candidates right after this. welcome back, i'm mark mullen along with katherine garcia and

gene cummings. the two candidates facing off in the november election are incumbent congressman scott peters, and former city council memberrer demaio to. here's. >> scott peters earned his undergraduate degree from duke university and attended new york university school of law. he was an environmental lawyer before going into politics. he served on the san diego city council from 2000-2008. he became the first council president after the switch to a strong mayor form of goth. peters lost his bid for the city attorney's office in 2008 and was termed out of office as a councilman the same year n. 2009 he became a commissioner of the san diego unified port district. in 2012 he successfully challenged republican brian bilbray for the 52nd congressional district. he lives with his wife in la jolla, they have a son and daughter. >> carl demmaio attended

georgetown. before running for office, he started the performance institute, a for-profit think tank that provides training for government officials and later founded the american strategic management institute which offered financial and management training the to corporations. both companies he later sold for millions. demaio moved to san diego in 2002 where he began speaking publicly and backing efforts aimed at city government reform. in 2008 he ran and won a seat on the san diego city council representing district five as an openly gay man later backing proposition b. after one council term, carl demaio ran for mayor. his partner is jonathan heal hale, the owner of a marketing firm targeting the lgbt

community. >> one thing both candidates have in common is they think we left off with a come loose ends they wanted to clear up, so we're going to give them both 20 seconds, and then we want to move on. let's start with you, mr. peters. peters: just on the car allowance, everyone got the same car allowance. it was part of the compensation package that existed when i came into the council. i was the first councilman to turn it back, but everyone got the same amount. the only person now taking a car allowance in the 52nd district is lloyd zap who supported mr. demaio in his tv commercials. i don't that -- i don't understand that he's asked her to top stop taking it. mr. demaio made millions of dollars himself off government contracts. i guess by his logic, you could say that the taxpayers bought him a bmw -- >> that's more than 20 seconds. peters: nothing to do with

creating a job, educating a kid or -- >> mr. demaio? demaio: he ought to lead by example. you're worth $100 million, but you took $69,000 worth of auto allowance payments, and this is years while you're cutting services to our kids in terms of after school programs. the issue i wanted to respond so is this false attack about the tea party. gay, socially moderate, focusing on government reform, speaking truth to power including taking on my own political party. making government work. that is not a tea party agenda, that's an agenda of trying to fix broken government and actually standing up to extremists in my own party and saying, look, cut out the social issues, let's focus on job creation and fiscal reform. that's been my life's work, and mr. peters, no amount of distortion can change that. >> well, let me ask you this, it was kind of interesting, i was

kind of struck by your remarks last september, you had some very harsh statements about the republican party. one of your quotes was tarnished brand. but now it seems they're touting you as someone who can remake the image of the party, and you at one point have touted yourself as being someone in the mold of senator ted cruz. so how's that all going to shake out? demaio: that actually is also not true. what i have said is people can make a difference even if they're one perp, and that can be a good difference, or it can be a destructive difference. and that was the context of the speech which mr. peters once again took completely out of context, and the full video is on the internet. let me talk about -- >> so destructive difference would be senator cruz. you're attributing this to him. demaio: if you have individuals who will stand out in the public square, light their hair on fire and not move the ball forward, i don't see how that moves the needle and actually solves problems. i'm willing to take on both the

establishment republicans who think there's nothing wrong with wasteful spending, nothing wrong with corporate welfare and certainly nothing wrong with giving politicians, including themselves, perkings. i'm also -- perks. i'm also willing to take on tea party republicans who have a social agenda that i don't believe fits the future of our country, who also would rather stand there and say we have to get everything done overnight or everyone else is somehow suspect. i think that we ought to have a focus on what i talked about that day, gene, when i announced and what i've talked about throughout this entire campaign. my life's work has been offering positive solutions and trying to build consensus. i don't care whether it's a democrat, republican or independent -- >> disrecollect, sir, that if you are so busy taking on everybody and speaking truth the power, a lot of constituents, a lot of voters would want to know whether you're going to go to washington if elected and fight with everybody, or if you really can get things done. demaio: and i would point to the

four years i was in the city council where we took on a sales tax, and people overwhelmingly stood with me to reject that tax increase in the middle of a recession. we took on the pension system where government unions and several republicans tried saying we don't need pension reform, i took them on. so i'm pointing to a record of helping save the city from bankruptcy, and that means you need members of congress, members of the city council who are not worried about pleasing the special interests, but they're worried about making sure we provide quality services -- >> let's hear from our member of congress. peters: mark, your question hit the nail on the head. the fact is, you know, the tea party -- the frustrateed establishment republicans are frustrated with the tea party. the tea party talks back too. it says shut down the government, get our credit down graded because they don't seem to have any duty to come together and reach an agreement. and that's the mold that

mr. demaaio has followed. you're right, he bought with everybody, and no one would say he's not a fighter. even people who like him. but the problem is we have too much of that in washington, d.c. today, and what we need is people who are willing to have the courage to go to the center of the room and to shake hands. and, you know, i was proud to be unanimously elected as the city council president. it was a sign that my colleagues trusted me, republican and democrat. you know, mr. demaio is the only member of the city council who wasn't -- the city council or the one before it, mine -- who wasn't trusted with even a committee chairmanship because they didn't see him as someone who could work with other people. and that's what we've got to avoid in congress. we can't cure the divisiveness by sending another tea party extremist. demaio: take a look at the problems we cured, we balanced the budget, we restored services that mr. peters had cut, we eliminated the politician pensions and perks that they were giving themselves, we stopped the down town

redevelopment shell game where they were taking our money from the general fund and putting anytime pockets of develop canners, we stopped the largest tax increase in the city of san diego that mr. peters was backing. take a look at the list of accomplishments we were able to get done in four years. that's a positive record. we benefit today from the fact that we fixed the financial crisis. i'm part of that work -- >> mr. demaio, i'm going to respectfully cut you off because i think while people care what you did for the city, they also want to know what you're going to do in congress. you think we should leave social issues out of our politics. that being said, you're going to have to deal with a lot of these social issues if you are elected to congress. you both are telling us that you're moderate on a lot of these issues. where do you disagree so that the voters know, if you do, on social issues, or can we justly that off as, yep -- demaio: i think that gets back to gene's

question, i said that we ought to trust individuals to make decisions for themselves. >> but we're going to trust you to make decisions if you represent it, so we have to know how you're going to vote on it. demaio: and that means going to washington and saying, look, i respect your faith beliefs each if i don't necessarily agree with them. but this is not the place. government and congress will not be the place to impose your moral views on the rest of us. and that's why i will oppose any attempts to put social issues or social agenda at the forefront of congress' priorities. peters: i'm proud to be endorsed by pro-choice america, by planned parenthood, and i have a longstanding track record of standing up for women, women's reproductive freedom and their economic security. the thing about mr. demaio is, you're right, you didn't get an answer to your question. he won't fill out the form that planned parenthood puts out to see where he really is on these issues. planned parenthood is an organization that endorsed republicans like jerry sanders,

like greg cox, like ron roberts who filled out this questionnaire. they make it public, you're welcome to see mine. i have 100% record on standing up for women's reproductive freedom. i've been an advocate for equal pay for equal work. we didn't hear mr. demaio take any stand on any of those women's workplace equity issues until a press conference two weeks ago, and he didn't mention the paycheck fairness act which i've been championing for almost two years, since i got into congress. we, again, he could ask mr. boehner, who's raising money for him and sporting him -- supporting him, to let us have a vote on that. we don't even know from his own mouth whether he would support it. so i like him saying he's a moderate, but it's more than labels. you have to say what you'd be willing to do for people and women. >> would you be able to say that you would -- demaio: absolutely. i've said that months ago, but this is what's wrong with our political system. democrats want to use social issues and keep them alive, and

far-right republicans want to use social issues and keep them alive to constantly battle on issues that should have nothing to do with what happens in congress. we should allow individuals to decide these issues, we should err on the side of personal freedom. >> when you say franchise, though, look to the government for some sort of help. demaio: i absolutely believe our civil rights laws ought to defend full equality for all individuals. we should treat everyone with respect. and i'm a change agent in the republican party. jeep, you said we're getting a lot -- gene, you said we're getting a lot of attention as perhaps someone who can break the mold of an old -- and this is to quote the editorial -- someone who can challenge the intolerance, inflexible views of the republican party and say, look, this is the 21st century. let's trust people. if we're willing to trust people through their tax dollars, the free market to solve problems faster than government mandates, can we trust people to love who they want to love, to make

decisions for their health? these are issues that we should settle on the score of equality, respect and nondiscrimination. i will be a voice in the republican party to change those issues nationally -- >> let's let the computers weigh in now. -- let mr. peters weigh in now. peters: i supported marriage equality. we used to call it same-sex marriage back in 2000 when i was first running for office. mr. demaio was elected in 2008 in june because he won the primary, and the next thing up was proposition 8. and they asked him, which was to ban marriage equality, and they asked him won't you, please, as a republican be a change agent, won't you stand up and say this is the wrong thing to do, and he told his own community, no, he won't do it. so that's why when at the pride parade you saw mr. demaio get booed, and he won't go anymore because he can't stand the treatment because he feels like -- the community feels that he turned their back on them. and he didn't stand up. so i think these words are hollow. i think what we see is someone

who's running for office and says what's now popular but has no history of really being the change agent that he purports to be today. >> you being ambiguous? demaio: i think i've always been clear about my orientation, if that's what you're referring to. on the issues, i have always been a believer in personal freedom. i have not reserved any sort of support for those issues and, in fact, i have 100% lgbt voting record on the city council. i led the charge to get the city on record against don't ask, don't tell which allowed gay service members to serve openly with dignity, without any fear of retaliation. i also supported the equal benefits ordnance that said we should be treating people equally whether they're married or domestic partners. but mr. peters wants to use and misrepresent my positions. he wants to divide us, and that's what's wrong in washington. they look at these social issues as issues to excite the base.

and do you know what it distracts us from? getting people back to work, creating middle class jobs, balancing the budget, dealing with the national debt and holding government accountable for, like, veterans programs. we've got to get off these divisive social issues. i'm willing to do my part, scott, by challenging the republican party to change, but you have shown in this debate that you are willing to deceive and distort my record. and i think it's a shame. peters: there's been no distortion in the record. it's been quite clear, but i'd be, you know, happy to move on -- >> let's talk about health care -- >> a devisive issue. >> one that we should probably address now. with national health care, with the so-called obamacare, same question for both of you all. repeal it? replace it or fix it? peters: well, i'm a fix it guy. i wasn't in congress when they passed the affordable care act, but we couldn't -- we can't go back to where we were before, people getting their health care from emergency rooms which costs

us money. people not having enough money to pay their medical bills, it was the largest causeover personal bankruptcies, costs spiraling out of control, insurance companies able to deny you coverage because you had a pre-existing condition. we had to move beyond that. and so i think that this has been progress. now, i would say that there's a lot left to do, and one of the areas where i've distinguished myself as independent is i've been willing to take votes, frankly, with other party, to fix law. i voted to let you keep your plan in you like it -- if you like it, to give individuals the same suspension of compliance time as businesses got can. i think when we saw the rollout, how that was kind of botched, that that was a good vote. and i've shown again and again that i'm willing to work on it to make it better, but i don't support repealing it. i think we can't go back, we have to move forward. demaio: look, health care was in a crisis state before obamacare. obamacare adds to the problems, i think it's the wrong direction. neither party has offered a solution to provide for accessible, affordable, quality

health care where people, individuals, get to make decisions with their doctors. not some health insurance company getting in the way, not some government bureaucrat getting in the way telling us what's good for us. so i support a different approach to the health care reform debate. i hope that we can get past the label of obamacare, republican or democrat, and just say can we support common sense health care reforms that bend the cost curve to make health care more affordable? there are some things i would keep about obama care. first, i would keep the e will imnation of the pre-existing -- the elimination of the pre-existing condition penalty. i've never understood why that was in place. i think it's a very punitive policy that health insurance companies use to limit access to care. second, i would allow children in college to continue on their parenteds' -- parents' insurance if they so chose to. i would also keep health care exchanges, but i would not have government manage the exchanges, i would allow the market to

handle that because health care exchanges allow us to get bulk purchasing power. i would go even further. i would allow people to redeem their employer health plan on the exchange to get a better plan or a plan that actually allows them to keep their doctor. i would allow competition across state linings. i would also reverse the $700 billion in cuts that mr. peters supported as part of obamacare to medicare. and that threatens the health care security of seniors. and most importantly, above everything else -- just to lead by example, i would strip members of congress of those special health care subsidies that they put in the obamacare law. because, you know what? if a law's good enough for you and i to comply with, why in the world shouldn't members of congress be expected to live under the same law? peters: i think the implication is that mr. demaio would vote to repeal it, but i didn't hear that. the $700 million was an attack the last campaign had against

me. i wasn't even here when obamacare or the affordable care act was adopted. and so is i think that that's, that attack is misplaced. let me do say this about health care because he raised this issue of perks. you should know that i've turned down, i've led by example, i've turned down my congressional pension. i've turned down the congressional health care. when the tea party sequester went into effect and there were 8% across-the-board cuts, i led by example and cut my own pay by 8%, donated it back to chairty. and -- charity. and when the tea party wanted to repeal the aca, i turned my whole salary over to veterans and seniors affected by those cuts. so what i don't want to hear is i'm not attuned to what these perks are. the other thing i would say just that mr. demaio will tell you that i take a city pension, it's about $20,000 a year. what he won't tell you is i've given every dime of it back to

city libraries and proud to do so. demaio: it's about leading by example, it's about will our elected officials put themselves in the same bowls as the rest of us. mr. peters -- >> let me ask you about an overarching issue here which is, actually, pretty crucial here in the western states, especially california. we've got a drought going on. what specific plans, ideas, legislative initiatives do you or, congressman, do you have for dealing with especially since there are concerns about whether san diego is going to get another waiver from the clean water act to keep discharging sewage into the ocean to the extent that it is treated and to the extent that we've dope it for a number of years, and what about funding for san diego's pure water program? is there anything that you have that you think you can get through congress and the white house? demaio: well, i would be happy to talk about water, but this is important. he's worth $100 million,

congratulations. he's the eighth richest member of congress. this is a man who while on the city council voted to increase his own salary, he enrolled -- >> drought, drought. demaio: -- and he took his pension early. this is very important. he also voted in congress to protect the perks of members of congress. he allowed them to get paid each though they shut down the government. so i need to correct the record before we move to water, because this is very important. i think this is also a lead-by 46 an-example issue. >> we've got some other stuff we'd like to -- >> this is in congress now. do you have something that's immediate here in terms of -- demaio: the water issue in sand yea -- san diego is making sure we invest in water, now, mr. peters had a federal law called the clean water act. he voted to not follow the clean water act in setting water rates in san diego on residents so that he could subsidize businesses. we won't save water --

>> mr. peters, we're on the clock. peters: sure, well, i'd like a little bit of time to address one of the fundamental issues. the localities, the state and the federal government have to be in partnership. san diego has taken the lead in taking care of its water supply. when i was on the council, we did a deal to bring water in so we weren't get for imported water only on north. we also invested in storage. i supported desalination which was a very controversial thing both when i was at the city council and on the commission. we have to diversify our water supply. the other thing we supported locally was the pure water thing which people demonize as toilet to tap, but we need to recycle our water. mr. demaio was a consistent opponent of that. we can't be sending what's treatable water out four miles into the ocean. we have to take care of that resource right here. what i will do at the federal government is just what you said, you know? we've gone from being behind the

curve in san diego, always asking for permission, to discharge waste that's not treated to the level of other places. we always made a scientific justification for it. we didn't want to impose the cost on rate payers. but today using this water recycling, we can be the leader in the nation, and we can show how to do recycling, take care of our own resource, do can it right here. that needs the permission of the federal government. the federal government also needs to be a partner on building infrastructure, and we hope folks will support the state water bond which is also a critical component as well. >> i want to ask you a question that i think may speak to more of a big picture, how you would look at having this job in congress. representative jackie speier of california has asked the house oversight committee to hold a hearing on the ray rice domestic abuse incident and, basically, into how the nfl handled it. also three democratic senators have introduced a measure to eliminate the nfl's tax protection if it continues to support the washington team's name, the redskins. i'm wondering if you, you as a

congressman, if you were in congress, would you support having a hearing like this, and would you support that sort of legislation? demaio: well, i think the rice case is just deplorable. women should not be treated that way, and we have role models, and we should hold them to a higher standard. so my hope is that the nfl can clean up -- >> but would you hold hearings on it? demaio: it's important because it's part of raising the consciousness, part of raising this issue, and if we aren't satisfied they've dealt with these issues, then congress has a number of levers that it can use to push the issues along, if you will. but at this point i want to see what the nfl does. i think the message has been cement loud and clear as -- sent loud and clear as it relates to the redskins' name, i don't want support that name. i think it is offensive to many of our native americans. we have 19 drives -- >> and you'd support the legislation? demaio: my hope is that the team ownership will see this is not a

good economic decision for them, but if necessary, i think that the congress can take action on this. >> congressman? peters: i would just say, you know, we should recognize that domestic violence is a problem that extends far beyond the nfl. and the interest that congress has in it is beyond whether it's in the football league. forin fact, we've been dealing h this, and jackie speier's been a leader, in the military. we play a very important role in congress in facilitating a national conversation about these thicks. we have to -- these things. we have to shine light on this. so the idea of having hearings, i don't want you to think we're so much about regulating the nfl, but we have to have a discussion about domestic violence in this country. and i think that it's important for congress to participate in that and to play a role. >> so we're just about out of time. we'd love to give both of you all one minute just to give some final thoughts or 30 seconds, rather, we're that short on time. you first, please. demaio: well, in this campaign you're going to see a lot of these nasty attack ads, and i

think you deserve better. in the four years i was on the city council, we were able to save the city from the brink of bankruptcy, and the measure i always used was restoring important services to our communities. in washington we have to tackle the fiscal crisis, we have to get the middle class jobs back in this country so the american dream is restored, and we have to hold government accountable to get results in key areas like veterans' benefits and the border. i'm a proven reformer. no amount of name -- >> we're out of time, sir. peters: i would just say when i was elected in to 12, i promised to bring a problem-solving approach to congress to get beyond this tea party divisiveness, and we've made tremendous strides. we have our first budget in congress in three years. the local delegation, darrell issa said we have a group of five people, finally, who like each a other and work together. we need to continue to extend that ethic throughout congress, and if the 52nd district voters are willing to do so, i'd be happy to go back and continue to

fight to make it better. >> seems like a good place to end it. our special thanks to the two candidates for sharing their views and time tonight. republican carl demaio and democratic congressman scott peters. the 52 pped district is an important district to not only us, but the entire country. the entire nation watching to see which one of these two men will represent some of you in -- so many of you in congress. >> we hop tonight -- hope tonight you were able to to get a better sense of how they would work for our commitment don't forget, the election is november 4th, though a lot of you will be voting by mail. we hope you were able to get information to make a choice. thanks for watching. we'll see you again, of course, for the news tonight at 11 act. >> have a good night. >> in just under ten minutes here on c-span2, we plan to take you live to the centers for disease control in atlanta to hear from dr. tom frieden who's director of the center and other health officials. this is because a patient is being treated at a dallas

hospital as tested positive for ebola, the first case of the disease to be diagnosed in the united states according to federal health officials. the director will be joined by some of those officials from texas, and we will have that briefing live when it starts, expected at 5:30 eastern here on c-span2. in the meantime, we will take you to today's white house briefing. the briefing mainly focused on testimony today on capitol hill by the direct canner of the secret service. >> nice to see you all. apologize for the late start. we were delayed a little bit by that spray. before we get to your questions, let me do a little piece of news here at the top. in an e-mail that some of you may have seen and that was sent to the white house e-mail list earlier this afternoon, senior adviser dan pfeiffer announced that the president will deliver remarks thursday at northwestern university's kellogg school of management. the speech will make a forceful

case for american strength and leadership at home. the president will highlight the progress we've made building a new foundation for the american economy, recovering faster than almost any advanced nation, and underscore the steps we need to take to continue our progress and insure that more middle class families feel that progress in their own lives. the president will continue to discuss these urgent priorities in the days and weeks ahead, and i can announce here that the president will travel to my eleven judgement steel in -- millennium steel in princeton, indiana, this friday as part of a nationwide manufacturing day to highlight this broader strategy. so some interesting events to look forward to at the end of this week. jim, let's start with some questions. >> thanks, josh. frankly, we're surprised you're not wearing a chiefs or royals -- [laughter] >> my royals pride with my blue and white pride. it's a very exciting day in kansas city, obviously, a historic one. the first playoff baseball game in kansas city in almost 30

years. i won't be staying up late to watch tonight. >> wanted to ask you about the secret service. does the president believe that the secret service misled the public and congress by not initially revealing how far the intruder got that friday night? >> jim, it's the responsibility of the secret service to conduct an investigation into what exactly happened on the night of the incident in question. as has been publicly reported, mr. gonzalez jumped the fence in front of the north lawn of the white house and entered the white house. this is a subject that the secret service have been reviewing since the night this occurred, and it is their responsibility to make decisions about what information is collected, what information has been locked down and what information should be, can be properly revealed to the public. obviously, there is sensitive information that is, that comes

up in the context of this review that relates directly to security measures that are in place here at the white house and around the president. not all of those details can be discussed publicly. but it is their responsibility to determine as this investigation ongoing what and should be revealed to the public. now, let me say two more things about that. the first is it is my view that it is in the interest of the agency in question and all of you for the information to be accurate and released as soon as possible. there is legitimate public interest in this matter because it relates to the safety and security of the commander in chief. separately, the second thing i would point out is that the director of the united states secret service testified under oath before congress today on live television relating what she knew to be the case based on her current understanding of what occurred.

much of that information was drawn from the review that has been ongoing for ten days or more now. so that is, that is the status as things sit now, but there's an ongoing investigation that's still underway. and whale you heard some additional -- while you heard some additional details from director pearson today, i'm confident that as investigators continue to do their work, there's likely to be more information that they uncover, that they're able to lock down. that is why once this investigation has been completed , it will be easier to discuss the facts about what exactly occurred. it also will be the responsibility of the secret service to release the results of that review that can with be released. again, we are talking about highly sensitive information. in some cases it's even

classified because it relates directly to the security protocols in place to protect the president and the white house. but there are results of this review that can be released to the public, and we would expect them to do so. >> you've described the president's reaction as, obviously, concerned. i'm wondering whether once he realized how far gonzalez got into the building whether his reaction was a little bit beyond concerned. >> i wouldn't do any more to characterize the reaction of the president than i already have. as you point out, based on the short conversation i did have with him more than a week ago, he did relay that he was, obviously, concerned about this situation. as a parent and as a father who is raising two young women here in this building. so, but that said, the president does continue to have confidence in the men and women of the

secret service to perform their very difficult task with professionalism and with kind of dedication that you would expect. >> fortunately, gonzalez was apprehended by an off-duty secret service officer. can you confirm that? >> i'm not in the position to confirm those kinds of details. again, there is an ongoing investigation into this, and as the circumstances of his apprehension are part of that investigation. and once the secret service is in a position to release more information about that at the conclusion of the investigation, i would anticipate they'll do so. >> you mentioned an economics speech, the president's job approval on the economy is low. does the president think that by talking about this he can change public opinion, and is this, essentially, the beginning of closing arguments for the fall campaign? >> i would characterize the

president's remarks primarily as an effort to highlight what his priorities are. the president has talked a lot, particularly in recent weeks, about how his number one responsibility as the president of the united states and as the commander in chief is to insure the safety and security of the u.s. homeland and to protect our interests around the globe. when it comes to his domestic priorities, the president's top domestic priority is putting in place policies that will strengthen the economy for middle class families and to insure that middle class families are positioned to enjoy the benefits of the progress that we have made in coming back from the worst economic downturn since the great depression. so this is, this has been at the top of president's agenda since his first day in office. part of the president's speech will include the tremendous progress that we have made so far in coming back from the worst economic downturn since are the great depression as mr. pfeiffer noted in his e-mail earlier today. the united states and our

economy is recovering faster than almost any other advanced nation in the world. that's a testament to the president's leadership, it's a testament to the courage that the president demonstrated in putting in place a some policies that in the short term were politically unpopular, but over the long term have created an environment that has allowed for this strong economic recovery to take place. at the same time, the president is very mindful of the fact -- as he mentioned in his interview with "60 minutes" over the weekend -- that too many americans in the middle class respect feeling -- aren't feeling the benefits of that economic recovery. and we need to have a discussion about what that recovery has looked like and what additional policies can we put in place to insure that we are doing the kinds of things that will grow our economy from the middle out. ..

>> did he know ahead at that point how far? >> the president has a couple briefings on this matter. beginning shortly ten days or so

ago. i'm not going to be in the position to detail the contents of those individual briefings or updates or conversations president has had on this topic that the president did receive a number of updates the weekend after the incident occurred and you will recall at the end of last week the president asked the director of the secret service to the white house and to give him an in person briefing the oval office on this matter and update him on the review that is currently underway. as it relates to the details of the conversation i will get to the podium what is the timeline the secret service is giving? >> i don't have a timeline could share if they make the about to find additional information. let me just restate the principle that i articulated earlier which is we do beat me there is a common interest that exists between all of you.

the officials at the secret service to provide accurate information as soon as possible to the public there is a legitimate public interest as this matter. justin? >> [inaudible] and request the usher so i'm wondering if president obama or any members have asked the secret service to step up? >> this relates to the protocols in place to protect the president, the family and the white house itself. the security protocols that have been in place and were in place the night of the incident is the subject of this review, and i'm

confident that if it is found in this review that some of the reforms in the protocols need to be implemented and that they will recommend doing so and the president has confidence in the senior officials. it is to ensure the safety and security. the >> in the testimony on capitol hill they called for an independent review on the matter and congress can do what they want but i wonder if there is any talk in the administration to bring outside agents to look at the secret service. the leadership of the agency and the ability. >> i think the fact that the director of the secret service herself testified under oath before congress ten days after the incident occurred indicates a commitment on the part of the secret service leadership to get

to the bottom of what actually happened, and to try to communicate clearly with the american public about what occurred. the other thing that is notable to me as i was watching some of the testimony is that she took responsibility both for what happened and ensuring that it never happens again and i think that is a testament to her leadership and her commitment to this job. so, the secret service is cooperating with the congressional review of the matter and that is an indication of their commitment to consider perspectives from even outside of the building reforming the secret service in a way that strengthens the security around the white house. but as it relates to any sort of

investigation i don't have anything in that. >> shortly after the president left for camp david we know that some members and it was immediately before the un summit so i'm wondering does the president meet with any senior staff members, congressional members or leaders? >> not that i know of, no. >> [inaudible] how would they shape this agreement and do you think this new president will take some tangible steps -- >> the united states congratulates kabul on the bilateral agreement.

it comes after two weeks of hard work by negotiating the teams on both sides. at the bilateral agreement represents an invitation from the afghan government to strengthen the relationship that has been built between the united states and afghanistan over the past 13 years and provides military service members the necessary framework to carry out to separate critical missions after the end of this year. the first mission is targeting the remnants of al qaeda and the second is training from advising and assisting the national security forces. the finding also reflects the implementation of the strategic partnership agreement that the two governments signed in may of 2012. the other development you didn't mention that that is significant is afghan and nato officials assigned the status of forces agreement giving forces from allied partner countries the legal necessary to carry out the nato operation resolute support when isaf comes to the end.

the afghan people exercise their right to vote and ushered in the first peaceful than the correct transfer of power in the nation's history. they reflected the continued commitment to support the new afghan unity government and we look forward to working with this new government to submit an enduring partnership that strengthens the sovereignty comest ability coming unity and prosperity and contribute to al qaeda and its extremist affiliates. as it relates to the policy the president will pursue, we obviously value of a strong working relationship in the united states with the people of the united states and their elected government. but ultimately, those are the kind of decisions about the policies that they will pursue that will be the responsibility of the elected leaders in the country. >> -- does that extend? >> absolutely.

>> a couple of reasons. one is that we sold a willingness that she demonstrated testifying before congress under oath on live television today. a commitment to leading an agency with a difficult mission. she is somebody who took responsibility for the incident that occurred about ten days ago. she also took responsibility for ensuring that the necessary reforms were implemented to ensure that it never happens again. that is a sign of leadership. at the same time, it's also important to recognize how complicated the mission of the secret service is. while they are responsible for protecting the bush family and the president, they are also responsible for protecting the complex that constitutes the white house. and they have to do that on the doorstep of lafayette park which is a significant historical place where individuals express their first amendment rights

pretty freely. this is also a facility that is visited by hundreds of people a day that work here on a daily basis. me and my colleagues come to the white house gates every day and there's a responsibility the men and women of the secret service have to allow you regular access to the building while at the same time try to keep you into the building safe. they also have a responsibility for allowing the american public to have access to the building. just today thousands of people toward the building at -- >> all of this available at c-span.org really are going live now to atlanta the center for disease control. we are going to hear from the head of the cdc doctor tom friedman about the first case of ebola in the united states. >> as you've been hearing from us, ebola is a serious disease. it's only spread by direct contact with someone who is sick

with the virus and its only spread through body fluids. the incubation period is eight to ten days after exposure. it can be as short as two days or as long as 21 days. it's a severe disease that has a high case fatality rate even with the best care to read but there are core tried and true public health interventions .-full-stop it -- backstopped it. today we are providing the information that an individual traveling from liberia has been diagnosed with ebola in the united states. this individual left liberia on the 19th of september, arrived in the u.s. on the 20th of september, had no symptoms when departing liberia or entering this country, but four or five days later around the 24th of september began to develop symptoms.

on the 26th of september initially sought care and sunday, the 28th of september, was admitted to a hospital the hospital in texas and placed on isolation. we received in the laboratory today specimens from the individual. they tested positive for ebola. the state of texas also operates a laboratory that found the same results for detecting ebola is highly accurate. it is a pcr test of blood. so what does this mean? the next steps are basically threefold. first, to care for the patient, and we will be hearing from the hospital shortly to provide the most effective care possible and safely as possible to keep to an absolute minimum the likelihood of possibility that anyone would become infected. second, to maximize the chances

of the patient might recover. second, we identified all people who may have had contact with the patient while he could have been infectious and remember, ebola doesn't spread from someone who's not infectious. it doesn't spread from someone who doesn't have either and other symptoms solely someone who is sick with ebola can spread the disease. once those contracts are all identified a are all monitored aro monitored for 21 days after exposure to see if they develop fever. if they develop fever, then the same criteria are used to isolate them and make sure that they are cared for as well as possible so that they maximize their chances and to minimize or eliminate the chance that they would infect other people. the bottom line is that i have no doubt that we will control

this importation or this case of ebola so that it doesn't spread widely in the country. it's possible that someone that had contact with this individual, a family member or other individual could develop ebola in the coming weeks. but there is no doubt in my mind that we will stop it here. it does reflect the ongoing spread of ebola in liberia in west africa where there are large numbers of cases. and while we do not currently know how this individual became infected, they undoubtedly had close contact with someone who was sick with ebola or who have died with it. in west africa we are searching the response not only of the cdc where we have more than 130 people in the field but also throughout the u.s. government

to president has leaned forward it to make sure to make sure that we are acting very proactively and the defense department is on the ground already strengthening the response. we are working with usaid as well as the broad coalition to confront the epidemic. but ultimately, we are all connected by the air we breathe. and we are invested in ensuring that the disease is controlled in africa also ensuring that where there are patients in this country who become ill they are immediately isolated and we do the tried and true public health interventions that stop the spread of ebola. >> i would like to next introduce the second speaker doctor david, commissioner of the commissioner of the texas department of state health services.

>> good afternoon everyone and thank you, doctor for the support of the cdc as we work through the current situation. as i start off i first want to say our thoughts and prayers are with the family and the patient and the treatment team for this individual. the texas public health laboratory in austin has a specially trained team to handle high risk like this. we've are certified on the 22nd of august to-do ebola testing. at 9:00 this morning, we received the blood sample. all of the controls were within the expected range, and the pcr was definitely positive for ebola. we got that result at 1:22 this afternoon. i want to reiterate that we have no other suspected cases in the state of texas at this time although we are closely monitoring the situation, and we are ready to assist in any way that is needed.

we have been insignificant contact with the hospital, the local health department and the cdc. and they have a full support as we work through this situation and we are committed to keeping texas safe. again i want to thank the cdc, the local health department in dallas county and the hospital for the work that they are giving and we are working through the situation together. thank you. >> thank you, doctor lakey. the next speaker is doctor goodman the hospital epidemiologist with the texas health presbyterian hospital in dallas. doctor goodman? >> thank you doctor friedman, doctor lakey, the cdc. i want to correct one statement that may have been misinterpreted when he commented on the air that we breathe. ebola is not transmitted in the air. it is not an airborne infection. texas health dallas is a large

community hospital with a robust infection control system that works in close cooperation with the dallas county health department, the centers for disease control as well as other epidemiologist within the system and in the community. we have had a plan in place for some time now in the event of a patient presenting with possible ebola. ironically enough, in the week before this patient presented, we had a meeting of all the stakeholders that might be involved in the care of such a patient, and because of that, we were well prepared to deal with this crisis. thank you. >> thank you doctor goodman. the final speaker is the dallas county health and human services director, zachary thompson. director thompson?

>> our thoughts and prayers go out to the family as well. i want to thank doctor friedman from the cdc, doctor lakey, texas health presbyterian for the response to the case in dallas county. i also want to commend the director of the health authority for the work that they have been doing conducting public health follow-up on the patient, which includes contact investigation to gather information based on the patient's travel patient's's travel history come activity "-end-quotes -- "-end-quotes contact -- let me reassure the public health is our number one priority. dallas county health and human services staff will continue to work hard to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of dallas county. thank you. >> thank you director thompson. we will now take questions.

doctor friedman. >> thank you. for questions we will start in the room and then go to the phone. thank you very much also for that comment, doctor goodman. ebola only spread by direct contact, not by any other routes but we have seen in any other outbreak. i also really want to think texas, the dallas county health departments for their collaboration. the cdc has a team of epidemiologists on route texas now at the request of the texas department of health, and we work hand-in-hand collaborative way to do what public-health does best, which is protect people. and we protect people in this case by making sure that we find the contact, identify them and make sure that they are traced every day for 21 days and if they develop a fever that they

are immediately isolated into the context would be identified as well. first question in the room thank you said he started showing symptoms and went to a hospital and then was released and sent home and then was admitted until a day or two later? >> the initial symptoms of ebola are often nonspecific. that means there may be symptoms that are associated with many other conditions, so it may not be immediately identified as ebola. and that is why we have encouraged all of the emergency department physicians to take a history of travel in the last 21 days and something to reiterate and to do rapid testing. doctor goodman come is there anything else that you would like to say about its? >> no, i think that you summarized it very well. >> doctor friedman, i know that you are limited a little bit with patient privacy, but can you tell us a little bit was this person involved in fighting the epidemic and also, did they

travel on a commercial aircraft >> the information that we have now it doesn't appear that an individual was involved in the response to ebola but that is something that we will investigate more. i do want to emphasize that the focus over the next period needs to be focused on getting assistance that we can do the patient that to the patient that we understand is critically ill at this point and then in the community family members or others and then any other possible contacts through the healthcare setting and then tracing those contacts. in terms of the flight i understand that people are curious about and wonder about it.

she didn't get sick until four days after he got off the airplane so there is no risk to anyone on the flight at this time. >> michelle malay. how long is this to be a concern to people coming back from the region showing symptoms than and what is being done at the airport and people coming into the country to ensure that it doesn't intended to be an issue. as long as there continue to be cases in west africa the reality is patient's travel, individual's travel and as it appears to have been in this case the individuals they travel before they have any symptoms. one of the things the cdc has done in liberia, sierra leone and lagos is to work with airport authorities to 100% of

the individuals getting on planes are screened for fever before they get on the plane. and if they have a fever they are pulled out of the line and assessed in adult fly unless it is ruled out. they are safe during a transit transit and the airlines are willing to keep flying. but that doesn't allow a situation like this one where someone may have been or was exposed and then came in while they were incubating the disease but not infectious with it. >> can you tell us where he was and why he was in the country clacks >> the details of the individual we will investigate and some of that has to do with patient confidentiality so we went would keep her to the hospital and to the family for any further information on those details. >> shall we go to the code after this one? >> do you expect the patient to

remain in texas or be transferred to facilities at one of the other specialties around the country that have been treating them in the past? >> so, one of the things we really do want to emphasize is that virtually any hospital in this country that can do isolation can do isolation for ebola. in fact over the past decade although this is the first patient in this country we have had five patients with other forms of very deadly viruses with what are called fevers or four of them loss of fever and none of the five patients spread of the disease to anyone who cared in the hospital even though they were not promptly diagnosed because it was an unusual situation. so we don't see the need for either a medical or infection control standpoint to try to move the patient. is there anything more that you would like to say? >> that summarizes it very well.

>> the first question is cnn news. the line is open. >> thanks for taking the call. can you tell us a little bit more about how sick the patient is, how the patient is being treated and how many contacts you are trying to reach? that might be something for the folks in texas. also, while the patient be staying at the hospital in dallas? >> whitney turned to mr. goodman for any information that you can share about the patient's status and treatment. >> while, because of the patient privacy, we are unable to share any information about the patient's symptoms or treatment at this time. i can say that he is ill and under intensive care and being seen by highly trained competent specialists and the health department is helping us in tracing any family members that might have been exposed.

>> director thompson, do you want to say anything further about contact? we've been doing follow-up since day one and we will continue to process and have more detail in the days to come but right now everything is going fine. thank you. >> as i mentioned earlier, we have a team en route to texas. they will work hand-in-hand with state and local and hospital public-health staff to identify possible contact and then monitor the everyday for 21 days to see if they have a fever. this is core public-health work. this is what we do in public health and we are delighted to be getting it in partnership with texas. we are very concerned about the status of the patient and very much hoping for his recovery area on the phone? >> the next question comes from "the wall street journal." your line is open. >> i just wondered if i could ask for a little more detail

about potential exposures. do you have -- is there anything any of you could say about what the patient was doing between the 24th when he had had symptoms and the 28th when he was admitted? was he just at home and it's only family members were potentially exposed, or was he out of? are we talking about a handful of people that were potentially exposed or more than that or doesn't? >> i think that handful is the right characterization. we know that there are several family members. they may have been one or two or three other community members and we are there to do additional investigation to identify any other possibilities our approach in this kind of case is to cast their net wisely to ensure that we are identified and even people that may not have direct contact so if they are airing on the side of safety is there anything else you would like to add?

.. th effort. we think, again, it's a smll framewrk tat we are lking at ms of the number of ple. oncewe get additional ftion we'lleport out to and resulted in a number of secondary cases. but even then largo sent even with 19 secondary cases, they appear to have been able to stop th