now the debate between incumbent pennsylvania senator pat toomey and his democratic challenger katie mcginty. this debate was hosted by ada atv in pittsburgh, it's just under an hour. >> welcome to a debate in the race for the u.s. senate from the studios of kdka tv, it's downtown in pittsburg. >> welcome to a debate from the senators from pennsylvania, i'm from kdka news serving as tonight's monitor but welcome the candidates, pat toomey of lehigh county and his democratic challenger katie mcginty of chester county. i will be joined tonight in questioning the candidates by my colleague, money and politics editor john delano

and reporter and talk show host lynne hayes-freeland. here are the rules for the debate.candidates will have one minute to answer each question then an additional 30 seconds for rebuttal. the questioners may jump in with follow-up questions. we will make sure the response times are equal. each candidate will have two minutes for closing statements. so let's begin. the first of a two-part question. as a leader in your party, yes, sir no. do you support and will you vote for and encourage others to vote for your party's presidential nominee and what if any are specific issues on which you disagree with your party's nominee. according to a poll, you go first. >> thanks to all of you for tuning in. i do support hillary clinton or president because he's going to work for working families, the same reason i'm in this campaign. there will beissues that i disagree with secretary clinton about . we might talk about exposing i don't think we can afford

to do that. but what i think is objectionable is that senator toomey has refused to answer this question, won't tell the voters that why he is still standing with donald trump. we will hear the senator says he has disagreements with donald trump and we will hear the senators say he's still waiting to be persuaded. these agreements don't cut it with a guy who's invited russia to invade our allies, a guy who has confessed to and brag about sexual assault and i'll tell you, waiting to be persuaded is political speak for waiting for the next poll. >> he is the only person running in the united states of america who has not told his constituents how he's going to vote. i think it's past time. >> thank you, senator toomey. >> because katie is so partisan, she can't grasp the idea that somebody might have trouble with a candidate in

their own party. i do. i've been very public about my many disagreements with donald trump. i've been willing to criticize him as i think he's a badly flawed candidate. on the other hand, i know if you were president he would sign legislation that would be constructive like repealing of obamacare and restoring sanctions on iran but i can't believe that katie mcginty can't criticize anything about hillary clinton including all her lies. maybe that's because katie started her campaign with ally herself. she went around the state planning she was the first in her family to graduate from college, she knows about that her older brother had already gone to college and gone back for a graduate degree before he ever got out of high school so maybe that explains why katie is willing to overlook the serial lies of a very badly flawed candidate on the other side. >> yes, sir no, are you voting for. >> as i said, i have not reached a point where i can endorse donald trump because i have so many concerns about his candidacy, the things i have mentioned.

i do acknowledge that he would sign some legislation that would be constructive so i feel like i'm in the same position as an awful lot of pennsylvanians. we got to badly flawed candidate. i can't believe in a country of300 million this is what we got katie mcginty can't even bring herself to acknowledge the incredible flaws of the candidate of her party . >> again, can i think it's a pretty simple and straightforward question that you have asked and answered that question. i will work with secretary clinton to bring good jobs back to pennsylvania and grow income but the senators only person in the united states of america who has not leveled with his constituents on this simple question, are you voting for donald trump? i will yield the balance of my time back to the senator so he can answer that question. >> katie started her campaign with a life that was a pants on fire line by the third-party observers we saw how egregious it was. another thing i have a hard

time understanding is how the obvious corruption of hillary clinton is acceptable to katie mcginty. the corruption of the clinton foundation is unbelievable, we learn more on a regular basis from the leaked emails. maybe this is because of katie's own problems . >> were going to move on, senator, one last go at this. will you disclose who to your constituents and other voters how he will vote? >> at some point i probably will but there is more that we need to talk about on ethics also. >> let's move on. next question, john delano. >> in your tv attack ads, each of you are referred to as millionaire katie mcginty. with one accusation after another following. let's give you a chance to respond. your financial reports do confirm that you are millionaires. how did you become rich? senator toomey, did you enrich your self on wall street and then while serving on the senate banking committee co-own a bank that

foreclosed on people's homes and approve laws that help banks like yours? is that how you got rich? >> absolutely not. i worked in new york in finance in the 1980s. i left when i was about 29 years old and wants to small business with my brothers, i'm proud of the hundreds of people that we employed and the success of our business. katie mcginty, she funneled pennsylvania tax dollars to a foreign company to set up shop in pennsylvania, then they rewarded her with a lucrative see, every pennsylvania worker lost their job, pennsylvania taxpayers lost their money but katie did quite well so now she's a multimillionaire who enriched herself in this corporate revolving door, it's part of what people are disgusted about in american politics. >> so you did not get rich on wall street? >> i worked as hard as i did when i worked at new york in finance and i made some money

but i was a kid in my 20s. i started at the bottom and when i left the 29th i wasn't too much higher than that. >> miss mcginty, did you read millions of dollars as secretary of environmental protection to groups paying your husband as a consultant and then join the revolving door of government in companies and corporate boards that you regulated when you were in government? is that how you got rich? >> john, as every independent fact checker has said, the senators allegations along the lines you just articulated are false . misleading, untrue. i'm proud of the work that i have done both in the private sector and in business and that is to create jobs while protecting the environment. i think that's critically important but the senator, what he has done is different. i senator not only owned and started his own bank, healed

that bank while sitting on the senate banking committee. while sitting on the banking committee he pushed a totally anti-consumer agenda and the senators own bank was engaged in such predatory behavior that it is illegal in 30+ states and the predatory fashion, foreclosing on his own constituents, foreclosing without notice.again, while the senator was making a tour that we had an anti-consumer set rules and regulations that help fraudulent bank practices like those his own bank was engaged in. >> it was amazing, this is that she was the first in her family to go to college all over again. any foreclosures on the part of our bank were foreclosures on corporate loans. that's the case that katie mcginty is talking about. what are the facts in this case?

the facts are that when she funneled money to a firm that had her husband on the payroll, the state ethics commission ruled unanimously that that conduct is a violation of pennsylvania ethics laws. he didn't like that outcome so they went to court and the supreme court ruled that yes, in fact it was a violation of state ethics laws so katie, you have repeatedly had this ethical problem. it came up again with the spanish company that she funneled taxpayer money to that i alluded to earlier. pennsylvania taxpayers lost their money, pennsylvania workers lost their jobs but katie is a multimillionaire now, it worked out nicely for her. >> the center is entitled to his rhetoric not to his own storyline. he's repeated this storyline throughout his campaign that has been so 100 percent negative and repeatedly has been chastised by news organizations for how false his claims and allegations are. the senator knows well the project he is talking about wasn't supported by me, it was started by former republican governor tom ridge and it's a project that's award-winning, done not by companies but by abipartisan , nonprofit, terrific

environmental group, the pennsylvania environmental council. >> moving on to the supreme court, republican controlled senate has refused to consider the nomination of merrick garland to thesupreme court. at the time of justice scalia's death in february, president obama had nearly a full year left in his term . miss mcginty, do you believe that when elected, voters expect the president get to nominate supreme court justices for the entire four-year term and expect the senate to take action? >> thank you for the question. the constitution doesn't have many enumerated responsibilities for the united states senator but one of them is that you advise and consent. you hold hearings when the president nominates someone to serve on the bench. editor to me has been part of a hyper- partisan cabal that for the first time in the history of our country has refused a hearing to a

nominee that the president has put forward. the president is not asking for a rubberstamp but a hearing, a full vetting of a person with qualifications. i would stand up to make sure any nominee got that hearing and it's not the first time the senator has done this. he single-handedly held up for 400 days a perfectly qualified judge and even right now, today the president has nominated someone who would be the first african-american woman to serve on the third circuit . right here from allegheny county and the senator won't even allow her a hearing, it's wrong . >> senator, your response because you certainly pledged

initially to keep that seat open until after the new term in january. do you believe that was in the best interest of boaters and their expectations? >> let's look at my record with respect to judges. in 2010 when i was a candidate for senate i wrote an op-ed explaining why i would have supported judge soto mayor to the supreme court justice. i knew i wouldn't agree with her on many things but i thought her record as a judge was solid. she had demonstrated admirable restraint in terms of limiting the limited role of a judge and i would have supported her. i worked with bob casey and senator casey and i have had 16 federal judges recruited, vetted and confirmed to the federal bench because we worked closely together and most of those were democratic judges because that's the nature of the arrangement we have with the democrat in the white house. i've worked with him and gotten that done. prior to justice scalia's

passing, we had a supreme court that was roughly balance. sometimes it may decisions conservative like like the heller decision on the second amendment. other times it was decisions the liberals like like upholding obamacare. with the passing of justice scalia, the question arises in this election year, will we have a balanced board and which way will it turn? the constitution is clear the power to seek a justice is a sacred power, shared between the president and the senate and in my view we to let the american people have a maximum say in this by virtue of you who may choose to elect president. i think that's the right way to move forward. >> miss mcginty. >> again, this country did speak and they elected barack obama as the president and it is the presidents not only opportunity but obligation to put candidates forward and the senator has acted in a totally partisan way in frustrating what the constitution directs the senator to do and that is to ensure that there are fair and thorough hearings of nominees. i thought it was interesting to hear the senator say that when he was running for office last time he wrote an op-ed that had bipartisan flavor. that's the first we've seen a bipartisanship from this

senator when it comes to judges. >> obviously that's completely untrue because i worked with senator casey to get more federal judges confirmed , 16 judges in my tenure, most of them democrats and that's more than any other state in the union other than california and new york which are much larger state. the fact ofthe hyper- partisan person that i'm concerned about how she would behave in the senate . is miss mcginty, when she was the chief of staff for tom wolfe, the budget negotiations were so acrimonious and she was so unreasonable and inflexible, the republican negotiators insisted they couldn't proceed if she was in the room and they had to conduct negotiations directly with governor walt or other staff members. that's the kind of atmosphere we can't afford to have in washington. >> moving on, senator toomey, is donald trump to be blamed for some trade deals, wreaking havoc in our economy? he says jobs will be returned

to this region and the manufacturing, thrives again or if trump as some critics allege peddling falsehood? >> i visited the assembly line at the local motor plant . i've been to meet with employees of westinghouse. i have met with folks who work making medical devices in southeastern and southwestern pennsylvania. every one of those areas depends on the ability to sell our products overseas. 96 percent of the world population lives where else and i've supported agreements that have been backed by the pennsylvania manufacturers association, pennsylvania farm bureau and when theyopen up or in markets for our good, i supported them . that helps sustain good, high-paying jobs and when there has been cheating as has happened in the us steelworkers and uss steel itself, brought this to my attention, i went to bat for

them to insist on tougher enforcement. that's been my approach, support trade agreements that expand opportunities and open up markets for our workers. stand up fair, and with respect to tpp, this is an agreement that's been flawed, i've been clear about that. >> let me direct you back to the question. do you agree, do you agree with donald trump that tells like every up and down the valley that have been decimated by the loss of jobs, that donald trump and new policies can bring those jobs back? >> i think those jobs can come back and the right policies can bring them back. we have a tremendous advantage over the entire rest of the world without energy. we have natural gas that's cheaper in pennsylvania than almost anywhere in the world. there are a lot of heavy manufacturing industries that are very energy intensive. you need a lot of gas, they need a lot of coal. the point is, if we take it vantage of the opportunities

we have, it will be different jobs, it will be different firms and it will be across the manufacturing spectrum but we can absolutely have a strong recovery. katie mcginty's policies will be cycling those energy forces that are so vital to recovering. >> we will come back to this but miss mcginty, what's your opinion of donald trump suggesting that there's hope for the steel industry to be reborn in western pennsylvania? >> first i want to address what the senator just said. i was proud as secretary of my protections to bring not a couple but to bring 3000 new jobs in the energy sector to pennsylvania, specifically manufacturing renewable energy equipment. the senator is familiar with this job because while i implore our energy resources, he had an issue with the fact that this is renewable energy instead of conventional energy and actually led the

charge to take away the tax incentive that helps to make those jobs here and grow in our own state. i guess he also has been rewarded well for taking this renewal energy jobs away because the senator happens to be one of the single largest recipients of this oil contribution in the united states senate. we have every opportunity to compete and win in manufacturing and here's why. the days of manufacturing, cheap labor are gone. it's about labor plus technology plus cheap markets and that's a recipe for our sweet spot where we can compete and win. >> let me distill this for you, yes, sir no, can better trade deals bring back the steel industry in western pennsylvania. >> we need fair trade deals. i have consistently opposed the tpp unlike the senator who led the charge to push it

through the united states senate and fast tracking it. the reason i opposed it is because the opponents say it would cost us 50,000 manufacturing jobs here so we can't afford that . senator flip-flopped on that recently but i think it's just like with donald trump, that the senator doesn't want to be straight about this. my view is the rules matter. we need a level, fair playing field and when the playing field is fair, nobody can outcompete the american worker. >> go and senator. >> first of all, the person who flip-flopped on trade agreements was katie mcginty. the clintons said she could be for nafta, and she did 180 degrees reversal. i never came out in favor of tpp. what i supported was a procedure that would allow the president to bring any trade agreement to congress for an up and down vote so let's go back to katie mcginty's claim that she

created 3000 jobs. this is the problem with it is this extreme version of how he approaches economics. it takes massive subsidies to create any of these jobs. taxpayers have to subsidize and in this case a spanish company to come in here and it still didn't work. the business still failed. we were forced to pay higher electric rates because katie mcginty supports a policy that forces electric companies to buy an efficient, inexpensive electricity and the only person who wins is a multimillionaire named katie mcginty got rewarded on the board of the company that she took the money to. >> i do want to follow up on the subject of energy and specifically fossil fuels if i may because we know many folks in western pennsylvania are employed in the fossil fuel industry and fossil fuels are use to heat and power our homes and factories . miss mcginty, are you engaged in a war on coal believing as many environmentalists do that we need to release reliance on fossil fuels like

coal and if so, what do you say to employees in this region and through the state and the fossil fuel industry who might think that their jobs are at stake if you get elected senator? >> i appreciate the question john and let me say hats off to two of my six brothers who have made their living as coal miners. i actually started my career as a chemist working with argo chemical company inventing coal dust suppression. i am all about the full use of our energy resources. we have to tackle climate change but here's how i go about doing that. in a pro-jobs agenda. and in terms of our coal-fired power plants, some of those are 30, 35 percent efficient. i put people to work improving the efficiency of those plans through combined heat and power for example. we can own that technology. we can manufacture that technology and we can put our people to work. i show this when i was secretary of environmental

protection where i was on the toughest environmental problems including climate change , growing jobs as a solution. we look at the clean water problem of michigan and here in pennsylvania, that's an opportunity to put people to work ripping out old pipes. we can't be like the senator is, we got to be honest about real problems and challenges but let's create jobs and tackle them. >> i'll give you a chance to respond directly to miss mcginty in the second but let me ask you, as you know there are many super packs that are putting fossil fuels that have engaged in campaign ads against your opponent in this race. you reject the science behind the global warming and if reelected, do you oppose efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels? >> i'm on record on this and i've been very clear. any honest objective look at the record shows the surface temperature of the planet has risen over the last hundred years and common sense

suggests human activity has contributed to that fact that we don't know exactly how much human activity has contributed and the cost that mcginty and others advocate is unbelievable. in the trillions of dollars. while china and india will do nothing about it and the benefits if any are completely negligible. the fact is the president of the united states, barack obama admits there's a war on coal, katie mcginty on a minute but he supports all policies that have put our coworkers on out of work and i've met with these guys, i've looked in their eyes and they say why is my own government destroyed my job, career, my likelihood. coal is a low-cost, reliable domestic source of energy and unafraid natural gas is next on their list. katie wants the epa to have a regulatory power over an industry that is regulated by

the dep. >> toomey: no one has been better rewarded than katie mcginty getting rewarded out of companies to which she files pennsylvania tax dollars. this is what's wrong with this kind of corporate crony capitalism where politicians think they are to allocate

resources. out to pick winners and losers. it is bad for the economy. it is counterproductive for economic growth. it drives up our energy bills. we all pay our electric rates that would otherwise would because of for middle-class tax increase in the form of more expensive energy. this isn't the way we should go speak i want to take a look at community police relationships. in many cities the relationship between police and communities are strained at best. hillary clinton said part of the problem is implicit bias. developing an attitude or stereotype cannot affect action or decision and an unconscious manner. senator toomey, the believe implicit bias israel and that it is at the root of police community relationships? toomey: let me say i've seen as we've all seen some very disturbing videos come young african-american men being shot under circumstances that it certainly click something was wrong. i have said any time anybody

does something wrong whether it's the police or from any other profession, and needs to be an investigation and some have to be held accountable. what i object to is this completely dishonest notion that the police are some a bunch of rogue racists causing violence. in fact, they protect us from the violence. but has matured as an are good and honest decent hard-working men and women who protect us every day. i have stood up against this false narrative that has maligned the police. katie mcginty has propagated that nearly. i'm going to continue to stand up for the people who protect us and maybe that's what i've been endorsed by every police organization that makes endorsements in pennsylvania including the philadelphia police on which wars katie mcginty's father served. >> ms. mcginty, i'll keep you just respond that senator toomey, am i hearing you say you don't believe this implicit bias is real? toomey: i'm sure it occurs.

i'm sure sure that agrippa don't think it's fair to characterize police general as racist because i know too many police to believe that. >> moderator: ms. mcginty, a conference was held, there introduced a new method of training that's designed to deescalate and take a tactical pause before responding. yet there's been a lot of resistance from the fob to this constitute you believe retraining is a proper way to address this issue of bias? mcginty: i want to start my response if i can on a personal note. the senator has run on a campaign not only of his country adds but adds i find it offensive. and my nine brothers and sisters would as well. only one of us on this stage who kissed her dad goodbye in the morning, not knowing after he walked his beat for 35 years, 25

as a philadelphia police officer, whether dad was coming home for dinner. and he has suggested that i go any of my family would do anything other than revered our law enforcement officers. it's unacceptable but let me get to the substance. here's what we need to do. we need resources in our communities. we need to make sure with cops on the be. my data literally walked the beach. that's why i have proposed doubling the c.o.p.s. program, that's community policing where the police and the neighbors build bonds of trust and relationship. and yes de-escalation techniques are an important part of that. senator toomey has pushed legislation aptly called punishing the police where he is tried to end or severely defund the c.o.p.s. program, and has pushed, voted in the program gives law enforcement critical equipment.

that's wrong. that endangers our safety and endangers good public servants like my dad, not rest his soul. toomey:spent it sounds like a ke was in the first of the family to a college. the fact of the matter is the police across pennsylvania pay very careful attention to the records of the members of the senate and house. they look at my record. they have met with me and every single police organization that makes an endorsement, the philadelphia police, the pittsburgh police, the statewide f.o.b., the state troopers, even the corrections officers union, they have all endorsed me in this race. none of them have endorsed katie mcginty. mcginty: that's not true. i've been endorsed by law enforcement organizations. i think it would be well, senator com, for you to supportr police officers by making sure that they've got the resources not to be unsafe on our streets.

toomey: and i supported by grants programs to enable them to buy protective equipment. i've introduced the legislation to forbid -- from denying them the surplus military equipment, and everyone of them has endorsed me and you haven't been able to name anyone that is endorsed you. mcginty: senator, you only entities that when you're running for reelection. your record as a member of our united states congress was to eliminate the programs. and i will say that the senator also knows well crony capitalism as he is referred to. just recently the senator sitting on the senate banking committee, 80,000 of some constituents ripped off by wells fargo, the senator come to bat? he went to bat for the bank china i'm afraid it's off-topic and we need to foster quick break and so we'll do that now, continue with more of this just senate debate with that to me and katie mcginty right after

this. spiff welcome back between our candidates from pennsylvania, senator toomey and katie mcginty. moving on, the next question i have is for ms. mcginty first. both of you supported at one time or another new gun laws. so what in your being is the most effective way to protect americans from mass shootings and of the gunfire lives without infringing on the rights guaranteed by the second amendment? and something with a real legitimate chance of passing at the inactive. mcginty: look, i think we're the chance to achieve bipartisan consensus around some commonsense measures that some 90% of pennsylvanians including sportsmen and gun owners support. commonsense like close those background check loopholes. commonsense like do not allow

terrorists to buy the weapons of war in our country. i come from a family where my brothers were hunters. we had guns, and hunting guns in the house. i don't think this is an either or thing at all. unfortunately, senator toomey did a photo op about one piece of legislation, but when it came to closing the loophole that allows terrorists to buy guns in our country, he voted no not once but twice. what i would do is bring people to the table and stay at the table, respectfully, different points of views and i think we can achieve consensus around those kinds of common ground commonsense measures can how about what initiative you think is realistic chance of passing. you know the history, pb1 realistic. mcginty: closing the background check loopholes for criminals and the mentally infirm. it only lost by some five votes,

and get senator toomey, the sender has spoken, let's move on. i stick with that just like as an urgent priority i most certainly would work to close that loophole again that allows terrorists to buy guns and senator toomey? toomey: i think the most painful meeting that i ever had probably in my life, serving in my six years on the senate, was with the parents of the victims of the sandy hook massacre, parents whose six year old children were mowed down. it was excruciating. one of the things i respect and admire so much about the spirit is when they came to me, they were not asking to have guns confiscated from law-abiding citizens. they were not asking to ban whole categories of popular and commonly owned firearms as katie mcginty has abdicated. they said can we improve our background system? i knew that would go over like a lead balloon with my party and it did.

but i worked with joe manchin anyway because it was the right thing to do. he introduced the legislation that came closer than anything else has come innocent. i'm a big believer in the second amendment. i think it's a personal individual right antenna portal at that. i just don't think it's a conflict between the second amendment at the three-minute background check. senator manchin edified introduced and we have passed vote three times the when we had a debate about keeping terrorists from buying firearms, i supported three different version of that you try to find common ground including working with susan collins, the only bipartisan approach. gabby giffords, democratic congresswoman, she's endorsed me in this campaign because she's recognized for leadership and the fact that it has to be bipartisan. katie's record of being hyper partisan will not get us to the common ground. mcginty: it was the right thing to do for joe manchin to lead the charge an offender to lend his name to that legislation that caused background check loopholes.

that's why it was such a shame that when it only failed by a couple of votes, the senator said, the senate has spoken of let's move on. even if horrible tragedies in san bernardino and orlando, the senator refused to reproduce this bill saying infamously, but democrats lead. this is one of those things where we have to respect the second amendment and we have to respect grieving parents, including those of a pennsylvania 18 year old young lady who was mowed down in orlando. we can act on this and there will. toomey: as i said, cady takes an extreme partisan few others just like the reason she was excluded from niger negotiations in harrisburg. she's going to be able to reach a common, a place where there's common ground. senator manchin and i worked hard to try to bring as many people together as we could. we introduce the legislation repeatedly. we have had three votes on it, and when i saw an opportunity to

have a background check on people on the no-fly list, i crafted the legislation to do. when the democrats refuse to i work with susan collins to get that done. i'm going to continue to defend the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens but i'm going to continue to try to get guns out of the hands of violent criminals, dangerously mentally ill people and people who are on a no-fly list spewing candidates, obamacare means different things to different people. it has delivered health insurance to over 15 million uninsured through private insurance plans and expanded medicaid. it has also raised calls. it is into gender discrimination, outlawed exclusions for pre-existing conditions like cancer and it is give young people on the parents insurance until age 26. if you review obamacare, you do everything. the good and the bad. senator toomey, get specific, what do you like, what do you not like and what would you change in obamacare if elected

to another term? toomey: let's remove all false promises made about obamacare. we were told if you like your insurance you could keep your insurance. we were told that while they were systematically disqualifying whole categories of insurance plans. we were told if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. we were told that when they knew the replacement insurance plans would exclude all kinds of doctors. and we were told that we would save $2500 per family on average. all completely untrue. costs have gone through the roof, options have collapsed, deductibles have gone up. this is been a disaster i was afraid it would be. the reason is because we tried to centralize control of one-seventh of our economy enhance the washington bureaucrats. health care is too personal. individuals can make and women sitting around the kitchen table should be making decisions about their families health care, not bureaucrats in washington. and all the tax increases, the medical device tax, the tax on insurance plan, another

middle-class tax increase at the katie mcginty supports. we need to go into direction and out of the transition for people who are currently in obamacare, transition to really competitive multi-insurance marketplace across state lines. we need to encourage things like portability and for nobility so people don't get caught with preexisting conditions and we need to ring out some excess cost like the excessive litigation. >> is there any part you like? toomey: yeah, there are some features that are encouraging. for one, there has been some encouragement that we move health care in a direction generally speaking where care is treated conference of it and not individual treatment for services. that's a very, very small part of obamacare. generally speaking it's a disaster and it can't be fixed because it's flawed at its core. core. >> this weekend, what do you like, not like? mcginty: we have to bring the

cost of health care down and i will be hardcharging to do something that senator boehner to do something the senator voted to add that is take on the prescription drug companies, the cost of prescription drugs has gone through the roof. under the law we are not elected negotiate that cost down. that's wrong. no other country in the world does that. we need transparency in cost so that consumers now before they have a procedure what is going to cost. you would almost think the senator was only planning to go to washington. he spent in washington for 18 years with a republican bogota. he's gotten nothing done on this critical issue, edited disagree. i don't think we should put the insurance companies back in charge so that they can charge women more than men, so they can take you offer insurance if you've got a preexisting condition or if you're a child, god forbid, has a very serious illness and hits a lifelong cap in terms of coverage. that's wrong.

i would work to get the cost down in a commonsense way. that's the agenda to make sure we have a portal -- >> you like everything about obamacare? mcginty: i do not like the fact we are precluded from negotiating the costs and the price of prescription drugs. that is absolutely wrong. and i think we need to make sure that it is affordability and choice in health care. but what i know for sure is that the senator again has been there for 18 years, and have we seen take on the insurance companies? companies? now. had we simply can't a prescription drug companies? know. i will. >> senator toomey. toomey: what you just heard is katie mcginty advocating that we have even more government control, and it's of the government that has disappeared these of the people who couldn't go ou out of website. it was a disaster. everything about this has been pretty much a disaster about 40% of all pennsylvanians have a grand total of one choice in the

individual exchange market or what kind of choice is that? what kind of competition is that? this is a fairly. we need to go in a completely different direction. what katie mcginty wants to do is expand government control, have a single-payer system, have the government dictate prices and then will have worse health care. >> you get the last word. mcginty: i was proud to expand medicaid in pennsylvania. we not 620,000 people covered, it was a great deal for our taxpayers. saving $500 million a year. here's what would be a disaster. let's take one piece of what we are talking about. i come from a family where we know what the heartbreak of addiction looks like. under this law the senator toomey would reveal, we finally had parity. if you have a mental behavior health problem, that that would be covered. in pennsylvania alone just with that medicaid expansion at the

senator would take away, 66,000 pennsylvanians with mental behavioral health challenges now have health care. i think that's the right thing to do. we don't just take it away, i guess i will stand up to the companies to take down the cost. >> i want to continue our conversation about cost ottawa to look at the cost of this campaign. this senate race is the most expensive race in the country. last week the amount already spent exceeded $60 million by political action campaign, super pacs and nonprofits. senator toomey has already said he does not believe in spending limits. so ms. mcginty i would like to ask you what you propose is the best way to take money out of politics because i appreciate the question. i think it's actually urgent i'm proud to be endorsed in this race by and workstation called into citizens united. that's an organization that is 100% dedicated to getting that

money out of politics, overturning citizens united that has led this flood of dark secret money into our politics. antidemocracy there's no room for secret checks and secret money. i would help lead the charge to overturn citizens united, and also go further i think it's time for us to make it easier for people to be engaged in their political system and to vote. with early voting or same-day voting and registration. restoring the voting rights act, for example. senator toomey had a chance but he voted against overturning citizens united, has voted for allowing all of this dark money like the koch brothers money, and talk about partisan. senator has 100% voting record with the unaccountable koch brothers. that's not democracy in action. that's crony capitalism.

toomey: there's been an unbelievable amount of negative campaign, no question. i am staggered by cannot abide that's been been spent industries already and we all know it's not over yet. it's getting hard to watch tv. this is part of the reason why i suggested that katie mcginty and i have five debates. five debates across pennsylvania so we would have a chance to go a little deeper into the issues than these 30-second sound bites. katie refused to chin since it we have no more than two. wouldn't do the other three across the state that i wanted to do. i've always preferred more transparency in the system and a simple way to do this is have all this money go to candidates and let the candidates be responsible and accountable and require disclosure. that's what i think would be a much better approach. the people i katie mcginty who want to overturn citizens united, let's be clear about what this case is about. citizens united was a not-for-profit corporation that wanted to allow people to buy a documentary video about hillary clinton during the last campaign. the governments position which

katie holds is about the government should be able to ban that, forbid it. disallow it. in fact, the governments argument was they should even be able to ban books if they are about politics or politicians. and the democratic senators that katie agrees with how to vote on the senate floor to amend the first amendment, to rewrite the first amendment like a tacit service adequately for 24 years to give politicians the power to control political speech. is a terrible idea. >> we will give ms. mcginty an opportunity to respond. mcginty: the senator had an opportunity to vote in favor of getting the dark unaccountable secret money out of our politics, and he voted no. i'm not only will vote yes, but i will help lead this effort so that we genuinely bring people's voices act to the center of our politics and our democracy. >> thank you can i think we have a final rebuttal. >> do you want that?

toomey: this comes down to one that you think politicians should be able to control political speech. that's what the senate democrats voted for that' that cushy spori think that's outrageous. if the first amendment is for anything it's to get people the freedom to criticize their politicians. they elected officials that represented the that's what the first and is about, personal freedom and the freedom to express your opinion whether you like them or not. the idea would give congress the power to control political speech is a terrible idea and i'm not for it. >> moderator: another quick break. more of this kdka-tv debate in just a moment. >> welcome back to u.s. senate debate, getting right back to the question. as you know donald trump has expressed concern that is election is going to be rigged or just a quote we will watch pennsylvania, go down to certain areas watch and study and make sure other people don't come in and vote five times. do you share this concern, and disobey so what evidence? toomey: let me be very, very

clear about this. this is a really important mission, may be one of the most important questions of the evening, in my opinion. we have for 240 years, without the most successful most vibrant republic in history of the world. it depends to a very large degree on the american people having confidence in the outcome of our elections. out elections may not always be completely perfect but they are legitimate. they have integrity and everyone needs to respect the outcome. i don't know how this race, my race, the president's race or any other race will turn out that we all need to respect the outcome. that's going to be necessary to pull us all together on november the ninth, the day after the election. mcginty: i think it's a very dangerous and reckless allegations and suggestion that donald trump has been making. we have seen this movie before here in pennsylvania. not long ago we saw the republican leadership in

harrisburg push a voter id law, spent millions of our dollars, spent efforts to intimidate voters. and here's what we found been. court proceedings following that legislation after millions spent, and the court asking, show us one example, one example of voter fraud. and not a single example was identified. not one. look, the good people of pennsylvania take their democracy, take their commonwealth and the country very, very seriously. and i know in this election season and others people want their voices heard if they wish will respectfully of the process. but i do think this is another one of those reasons why it is important for senator toomey to say donald trump is unfit to be president of the united states. toomey: i think i covered the point. that is our elections are a

fundamental aspect of our democratic process. one of the most important defining features. they work. they have worked for a very long time and only to respect the outcomes. mcginty: i think it is vital that we respected institutions of our democracy. is one of the reasons why i am happy to say i don't support the donald trump to be president of the united states. and i would invite the center to consider sharing his views with his constituents. it's also the reason why i will be a voice to get the money out of politics, to vote to make sure the dark secret money gets out of politics that the senator voted against, and keeping that one in our democracy tonight it is time now for the candidates to make their closing statements. the order was determined earlier by coin toss. ms. mcginty, you go first. mcginty: thank you and thanks to all of you for turning in.

i'm katie mcginty running for united states senate and ask for the honor of your consideration and your vote. i come from a hard-working family. my mom and my dad both working every day held -- told all 1 10f us gets to pick a chase and realize our dreams. that if you are willing to work hard, this is the place where it's about your perseverance, your grip, not about your pedigree, not about you zip code. it's about an american dream that says put in your 40 hours and you will be able to provide for yourself and your kids. if i had the honor of serving as george united states senator, i'm going to go to bat for hard-working families. hard-working families have gotten the short end of the stick. frankly, by her own senator who started his career on wall street and in many ways never left, still goes to bat for those banks. i'm going to go to bat for you

because i know when we did a good people of this commonwealth and this country a fair, honest shot, nobody in the world can compete with us, and our best and our greatest days are ahead. thank you very much. toomey: thanks to tune in tonight. i really appreciate this. it's been an extraordinary honor to serve as your senator for these last six years. i am really focus on three things. i'm a fiscal conservative so i've been fighting washington wasteful spending. i've always been working to lower middle-class tax burdens. a second they think i've worked on is making sure i'm looking after pennsylvania to whether that's saving the oil refinery jobs in suburban philadelphia are fighting this crazy washington war on energy, jobs in western pennsylvania or the opioid crisis all across our state, these things that kept me very busy. i've also been an independent voice willing to work across the aisle with chuck schumer on a

jobs bill that helped encourage more job creation and joe manchin on background checks. katie mcginty is not going to be that kind of person with any independence. she was handpicked by the washington power brokers to be a rubberstamp for hillary clinton. she enriched herself when she was running money that originated with taxpayer dollars. should support all kinds of middle-class tax increases, regulations that are holding back our economy and dangers security issues like her support for sanctuary cities. ..

on behalf of everyone here at kdta-tv. thanks to the candidates for u.s. senate. remember election day is november 8th. i'm ken wright. see you on the news. good night. ♪ e. ♪ >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday evening just before 7:00 eastern, ohio state university's michael benedict talks about the 1866 supreme

court case, ex-party milligan, where the court ruled unconstitutional to try civilians in military courts while civilian court are operating. >> the milligan trial was part of this debate, designed to prove to the public, that the danger was real and therefore the military trials were justified. , and as we know, it worked. lincoln won the election of 1864. >> @ite, george washington university professor chad heath on the origins of the gay rights movement. >> gay liberation frond is playing on and building on all the lessons the whole other array of social and cultural movements from this period are developing. antiwar movement, the civil rights and black power movement,

women's liberation movement. they're taking the best aspects of those and building upon them. >> sunday evening at 6:00 on american artifacts we take a tour of the woodrow wilson house in washington, d.c., with the executive director, robert enholm where the 28th president retired and died eight years later. >> the armenian people were very grateful. group of armenian women touring united states raising money for armenian charities, was here in 1911, just after we declared war, presented this painting to president wilson. >> and at 8:00 -- ♪ you like ike ♪ >> neil oxman, president of the campaign group incorporated, talking about the beginning of

presidential ads beginning with eisenhower's tv jingles. for our rest of our campaign coverage, go to c-span.org. signature feature of booktv on c-span2, the coverage of book festivals around the country. saturday we're live at the wisconsin book festival in madison, beginning at 11:30 eastern. this is wisconsin's premier literary event of the, giving the public off student to meet favorite authors, discover new books and have them signed. featured authors are, author of nothing ever dies, vietnam and the memory of war. jeff chang, with we going to be all right. notes on race and segregation. catherine cramer, author of, politics of resentment, rise of scott walker. ben ehrenreich, the weight of spring, life and death in palestine. for more information on the wisconsin books festival and

upcoming events, go to booktv. org. >> well we've been planning to bring you live coverage of a intelligence national security conference this morning with opening remarks from national intelligence director james clapper. we are having some technical issues with the signal from that conference. we're working on it. we hope to have it corrected. we plan to bring that to you as soon as it is fixed. meantime more of our coverage of campaign 2016 in the ohio senate race. incumbent republican rob portman and former democratic governor ted strickland, debated u.s. trade, economy, gun control, opioid abuse and party's nominees. >> tonight, two candidates, one position as u.s. senator. rob portman and ted strickland debate issues important to you. this is face the state, the senatorialal debate. special presentation from wbns-tv and columbus dispatch.

live from the wbns-10 tv in columbus. here is your moderator. >> moderator: thank you for joining us for face the state, senatorial debate in columbus. voters go to the polls on november 8th to elect ohio's next u.s. senator. this evening you will hear from the leading candidates in the race. let's meet them now. senator rob portman, republican incumbent for ohio. he was elected in 2010. senator portman was born and raised in cincinnati. ted strickland is the democratic candidate for senate. he served as ohio's governor from 2007, to 11. governor strickland was raised in rural siota county. take a moment to introduce our panelists for this evening. scott light, political anchor for wbns-10 tv. tracy townsend, news ainge or at wbns-10 tv. darrell roland, public affairs

editor at the columbus dispatch. joining news studio with questions from viewers throughout the even something 10-tv news anchor kristin hartman. each campaign agreed on rules and regulations set up for the debate. we begin this evening with two-minute opening statement. candidates have 90 seconds to answer questions posed by panelists. the opposing candidate has 90 seconds for a response. then the questioned candidate will have 30 seconds for a rebuttal. questions alternate between senator portman and governor strickland. toward the end of the hour each candidate will be permitted two minute closing statement. coin toss determined order for this debate. senator portman will go first. it is time to begin with opening statements. senator >> great to be in columbus after a great ohio state opening weekend victory.

i have an an independent voice for ohio, making a difference for ohio families and ohio workers. 45 of my bills that i wrote passed signed into law by the president including issues incredibly important to ohio. one the is epidemic of heroin and prescription drugs. unfortunately it is tearing families apart in our state. devastating communities including columbus. my legislation, the comprehensive addiction and recovery act is making a difference already. it will make a bigger difference in the future to turn the tide. i'm running for andrea who he met at a treatment center outside of columbus. andrea likes our legislation because she is recovering addict. she likes what it does for treatment recovery and want to save lives in the future. as a child she had to watch her mom die of a heroin over dose. i'm running for theresa flores who is here in the audience, a victim of human trafficking and now activist who helped me write four different bills to protect victims of human trafficking and

to increase sentencing for those who traffic them. i have taken the lead on jobs, changing worker retraining system so it works better for ohio workers, insuring which get our infrastructure projects going without too many federal permits and cracking down on unfair imports from countries like china. level the playing field act that sherrod brown and i helped write together is helping paperworksers and steelworkers all over the state. i'm running for them too. i'm proud of our record. but the status quo is not acceptable. there is much more to do. middle class squeeze is very real. ohio families are working harder, longer hours, wages are flat, particularly health care because of obamacare. tonight you will hear our positive agenda to deal with the issues. you will hear from my opponent his approach. you will hear a lot of partisan false attacks. he didn't want to talk about his record. he doesn't want to talk about his vision because it doesn't have a positive one. >> moderator: thank you, senator. governor strict land your turn for opening statement. >> thank you.

i grew up in a family that knew a lot of struggle but we survived because we loved and cared for each other. my family lost the first home when it was destroyed by a flood. our second we lost to hard times. when i was about five years of age, our third home burned to the ground. my dad was a hard-working steelworker. my mom raised nine kids. i was very first to be able to go to college. i learned at an early age what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck. and how just one bad break can cause real hardship.

the rob portman story is different. it is about power, wealth and privilege. he goes to washington and does something else. perhaps the most egregious things you've done in washington, senator, are attacks you leveled against women. like donald trump, rob portman wants to overturn roe v. wade. he has voted to defund planned parenthood. he has pushed legislation to allow a boss to tell a female employee that she should not have access to birth control. and he has voted five times against pay equity for women. senator, i think people of ohio, the women of ohio deserve an apology from you because you have disrespected them, even standing with donald trump, after he bragged about assaulting women. now tonight you will see differences between the two of us. i'm for working people. senator portman is going to do what he has always done, look out for the wealthy, the

well-connected, washington insiders and wall street bankers. thank you. >> moderator: time now to begin the question portion of this debate. first question from scott light from 10-tv. governor strickland will answer first. >> first couple questions from tracy and from me are dealing with subject of character of our presidential nominees. governor strickland, to you first, hillary clinton called trump supporters "deplorables." she wasn't honest about her email server. she has reversed herself on some big issues like immigration and trade. and she also said this, you need both a public and a private position when talking about how to get politics done. the media and you have asked senator portman about his support for donald trump. so how do you support hillary clinton when clear majorities of americans believe that she is dishonest and that she is untrustworthy? strickland: well i support hillary clinton. i think she ought to be

president. i think is only one of the two qualified to be president. she has been subjected to political attacks over 30 years of her involvement in political life. i know her well. i have known her for a long time. i know how she cares about children and families. i know the work she has done with the childrens defense fund. i know work she did as first lady to try to get this country to have a comprehensive health care system. and i believe she is a honest person. doesn't mean she hasn't made mistakes and she admitted some of those mistakes. she said using a private server was a mistake and it was. i don't believe that there is any evidence that she's actually lied to the american people as some would suggest. but you compare hillary clinton to donald trump. a man who has called women pigs and worse. a man who has encouraged the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. a man who has actually mocked a

person with a physical disability. a man who has bragged openly about assaulting women sexually. a man who is totally unfit to be president. so this election provides us with a choice. the choice between hillary clinton and donald trump. and for year-and-a-half senator portman said he disagreed with certain things that donald trump said but it wasn't until he made a political calculation that nearly the a the last minute that he actually withdrew his support from donald trump. >> moderator: senator portman, your response. portman: scott, you raised a very good point which is the fact that hillary clinton has said and done a lot of things you would think ted strickland stood up to and he has not. talked about the fact that donald trump said things i disagreed i did stand up. when she called half of trum voters deplorable and irredeemable and racists, that is about a million ohio voters or so.

he said nothing, to this day he refuses, refuses to condemn those remarks. you know what, this race is not between donald trump and hillary clinton. i think ted strickland would like to have it that way. he should have run for president maybe. this is between ted strickland and me. it is comparison of our records and our public policy plans going forward. and difference couldn't be anymore stark. my record is one of getting stuff done. as i said working across the aisle, making a difference in the lives of ohioans. his as congressman ineffective. talked about 45 bills signed into law five 1/2 years, dozens more when i was in the house. for ted strickland, zero bills signed into law. not one when he was in united states congress for 12 years. you talked about words and words mattering, words do matter and ted strickland in this complain, in this campaign, has said things that offend all ohioans. celebrated the death of antonin

scalia for political purposes. at the republican convention he brought out fortune cookies which offended asian-americans all over ohio. used it for a political gimmick. he is the one who used very recently the word rape in an offensive way, somehow to connect rape and charter schools. >> moderator: thank you senator. portman: words do matter. this race is between senator strickland and me. >> moderator: governor strickland, your rebuttal. strickland: the race is between ted strickland and rob portman. rob portman is a man consistently takes credit for things he hasn't done. before the omnibus bill passed he sent out 14 press releases, week 1/2 before the bill was voted on, money on lake erie to keep the plant open. 14 claims, money for drug addiction and he voted against the bill and then he traveled across ohio taking credit for something, things that he actually voted against. >> moderator: thank you. second question comes from 10-tv

news anchor tracy townsend for senator portman. >> senator portman, regarding donald trump, we have 20 to 30 years worth of inflammatory statements from him, yet you waited until a month from the election with what is really perceived as a comfortable lead in the polls to renounce your support. why didn't you follow governor john kasich's lead or lead yourself in holding back your support from the beginning? portman: he was republican nominee, still is. he won it fair and square. i'm a republican. i made an extraordinary decision not to support my own party's nominee because i found his words that came out about a week or so ago to be sew offensive and so wrong. i did support john kasich as you know in the primary. when john kasich lost the primary and donald trump won i wanted to respect views of voters. his words were offensive and wrong and demeaning and degrading to women, and for me that was the final straw, tracy but i didn't mike make the decision lightly.

i respect voters who take is it different position on this. he did win the nomination of our party. i'm planning to support mike pence. mike pence was also elected by those delegates at the republican convention. but again, this election isn't about hillary clinton and donald trump. it is about ted strickland and rob portman and voters of ohio as you said have given me what looks like a comfortable lead in a lot of polling because they have look at our records. the reason the teamsters and united mine workers and international union of operating engineers and fraternal order of police who used to support ted strickland are supporting me, they have looked at our records, they looked at what our plans are to help ohio move forward into the future and it is again a big distinction. we hear more about this tonight i hope. i hope we won't have a lot of partisan attacks as we heard earlier from my opponent to talk about issues and talk about what we've done or not done in the case of governor strickland. >> moderator: governor strickland, your response. strickland: the truth can hurt.

let's talk about women. during his tenure in the senate this senator has attempted to overturn roe v. wade. that is what he wants to do. he wants to take a way a woman's right to choose, to control her own health care choices. he has voted to defund planned parenthood as i said. he stood by as donald trump called women pigs and worse. and he said well, i disagree with that but i still think he ought to be president. when he mocked a disabled person, he said i disagree with that but i still think he ought to be president. when he said that john mccain was not a hero because he had been captured, he said i disagreed with that, i still think he ought to be president, for months he disagreed with him but didn't have the courage to break with him. i think he chose party over country. governor kasich did the honorable thing. he said he could not support this man. and i think, you know, i have applauded him for that but not senator portman.

you know, it wasn't until the last hour, as he was ahead in the polls, that he summoned the courage to say i can not vote for him. i'm going to write in mike pence. mike pence is the most anti-gay political leader in the united states of america. so i don't think mike pence is a good second choice. i think the senator ought to consider hillary clinton. >> moderator: senator portman, your rebuttal. portman: ted strickland is wishes he was running against donald trump. during the entire debate that is all he talks about. everything he comes up with in terms of attacks and partisanship is to distract from his own record. again very ineffective record as member of congress. not a single bill to his name. as governor the loss of 350,000 jobs, taking ohio to 4th in the country, 47 other governors figured it out better than he did.

by the way after 350,000 jobs left ohio, he left ohio. he went to washington, d.c., to cash in as lobbiest. >> moderator: third question from darrell roland from columbus dispatch. it is for governor strickland. >> you talk about issues, let's talk about the perhaps the one that separates you two the most in this campaign. trade. governor strickland you opposed just about every trade bill in the last 20 plus years. senator portman, you have actually written some of those trade bills as u.s. trade representative under president george w. bush. rather than get all clogged up in each bill, each agreement, talk about one, where ohioans came in on this, nafta. gentlemen, talk to me about whether the north american free-trade agreement has helped ohio or hurt ohio. strickland: thank you for that question, i will answer it, i want to respond to something the senator said about ohio having lost jobs during recession. it was a national recession, senator.

you were george bush's trade representative and budget director leading up to the national economic collapse. you had a lot more to do with job loss in ohio and across america than i did. in terms of nafta, we were both there when nafta was passed. i voted no. he voted yes. your newspaper, "the columbus dispatch," has written rob portman never met a free trade deal he did not like. he was george bush's trade representative at a time when our trade imbalance with china exploded, 20 1% i believe. when he was george bush's trade representative, he did not take on china for currency manipulation. he said it would be counterproductive. there was a recommendation from the international trade commission that china was punished for sending steel into this country below cost. and he recommended against taking action against china. i'm proud of my record of fighting for working men and women, and senator portman, i

think is the best best senator that china has ever had. >> moderator: senator portman, your response. portman: well, darrell, again we've heard a whole string of false partisan attacks. all those are inaccurate with regard to what he just said but here is what's important. governor strickland has never stood up to china. in fact when he was in the house of representatives, he voted twice for what he criticizes me for, most-favored nation. then twice he voted not to hold china accountable. >> we'll leave this debate here. should know the two candidates for ohio senate will be meeting debate again tonight live on c-span starting 7:00 eastern. live to remarks from national intelligence director james clapper. >> jim's over 50 years of experience in the defense and intelligence community provides invaluable expertise and insight, and as the forth director of national intelligence he led the

intelligence community since 2010 as the principle intelligence advisor to the president. since his unanimous confirmation by the senate as dni, he has provided incredible stability to the role and the leadership throughout the intelligence community. and as the top intelligence officer of our nation, we look forward to his assessment of the threat environment today. so without further delay, please welcome, join me in welcoming, our honored guest, director jim clapper. [applause] >> well, thanks, for the very gracious and generous introduction. almost feel like maybe i should quit while i'm ahead here, you

know. and while i'm at it, i want to acknowledge your continued distinguished service after very illustrious career in the air force, culminating a great run as chief of staff and in his current position with bens he continues to serve this nation and it's citizens. over the past few years, certainly during my tenure as dni, we had a very public conversation about our work, the work of the intelligence community and how we should conduct it and i believe a lot of what has been lost in the public debate about how we conduct intelligence is why we even do it in the first place. why does any nation-state conduct intelligence? i spent a little time and giving

that some thought myself and i think in the end we conduct intelligence at its most basic level to reduce uncertainty for our decisionmakers. would be great if we eliminate the uncertainty. rarely able to do that. at least reduce the amount of uncertainty that decisionmakers have. those can be a president in the oval office or can be a war fighter, if i can stretch the metaphor, in an old foxhole. we can't eliminate uncertainty for any decisionmaker, certainly not all the time, but we certainly can provide insight and analysis to help their understanding. and to make uncertainty at least manageable. so that our national security decisionmakers can make educated choices with an understanding of the risk involved and how to

gain it. so the way we and our friends and allies operate on a shared understanding of the facts and the situation. that's why starting after the party conventions an the official nominations we have briefed each of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates to help reduce uncertainty for our next president. so that when he or she steps into the oval, she will, he or she will have as good a understanding of our complex and uncertain world as we can provide. hopefully we'll wake up in 20 days knowing who our next president will be. and when i say we, i mean the world in my travels overseas in the world i've been taken aback by the intense interest in this campaign. people everywhere hang on every word of the candidates and, by

the way, some try to do more than just listen in. two weeks ago dhs secretary jeh johnson and i released a couldn't statement saying recent compromise of emails directed by russian government and emails released on sites like d.c. leaks.com and wicksky leaks and "gucifer" 2 online persona are consistent with motivations of russian-directed efforts. going after u.s. political organizations is a new aggressive spin on the political cycle. regardless, this election will happen on november 8th. also by the way, we assess that it would be very difficult, someone, anyone to alter actual ballot counts or election results with cyber intrusion since voter machines are not connected to the internet.

then on january 20th, 92 days but who is counting, we'll have a new president. and the u.s. intelligence community will be heavily involved making sure that that person is informed about our world and hopefully is ready to make decisions as we can help with. you know president johnson once said, a president's hardest task is not to do what is right but to know what is right. having closely worked with and for our current president i can absolutely attest that's still true. knowing what is right is the president's hardest task. the ic can not make that decision for him. we wouldn't want to. and when it comes to national security it is our job to give him the intelligence he needs as objectively as we possibly can to enable him to manage that risk and then ultimately to decide what's right.

so our work means a great deal to the person we call intelligence customer number one because at the end of the day i know the analogy is a little hokey but rings true to me, it is up to the president, congress, other leaders to decide which way to steer the ship, how fast to go, how many deck chairs to set out and how to arrange them. it will be done in the engine room shoveling intelligence coal and trying to keep the ship running. this morning i planned to come in and tell war stories, reminisce with nordy a bit and get offstage but today's theme shift ad bit talking about how we should do things differently, maybe. instead of telling my story, i want to talk about the story of the intelligence community and talk about how change happens in this great city. you know, washington as you all

know is particularly interesting place these days. it is a place where friends come and go but enemies a accumulate. where harry truman said you want a friend, buy a dog. washington is a place where we think differently and we find it hard to learn from our mistakes. ancient tribal wisdom says when you're riding a dead horse the best strategy is to dismount. well, here in washington we often try other strategies that are somewhat less successful. such as, we'll buy a stronger whip for the dead horse. we'll change riders. we'll say things like, this is the way we've always ridden this horse. we'll appoint a committee to study the horse. we'll lower standards so more dead horses can be included. we'll appoint a tiger team to revive a dead horse. we'll hire outside contractors to ride the dead horse. we harness several dead horses together to increase speed. we attempt to mount multiple

dead horses in hopes one of them will spring to life. we provide additional funding and training to increase the dead horse's performance. we'll do productivity study to sigh if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance. we declare since a dead horse doesn't have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes more to the mission than live horses. and last but not least, my favorite, we'll promote the dead horse to supervisory position. [laughter] all to say, we appreciate outside perspectives for people that have the intellectual integrity and courage to recognize dead horses don't go anywhere. now i've been using that bit for going on six years and there are, it is intended humorously but a lot of truth to it. it is also deceptive. because sometimes looks like we're doing nothing but flogging dead horses and getting nowhere with intelligence reform when

really we're making progress. although lots of times, it feels like we're dragging those multiple dead horses behind us. i can look back on 53 years or so in this business and to the day and era when i first started there wasn't such a thing as an intelligence community. most people here probably remember back before 9/11 when intelligence community, air quotes, was a phrase you only uttered with tongue-in-cheek. in june of 2004 the 9/11 commission released its report on the terrorist attacks. and i know most everyone here has read the 9/11 commission report but it is worth reading again when you get a chance. it opens with people going to work in new york and arlington and with mohammed atta and his terrorist cell getting on a plane in portland, maine. tells what happened that day and how we responded and analyzes

the missed opportunities that we had to perhaps keep the terrorist attacks from happening. the commissioners graphically describe the summer before the attack with the phrase, the system was blinking red. i will read a passage i think nails the problem we had with intelligence. commissioners wrote, the agency's cooperated some of the time but even such cooperation as there was is not the same as joint action. when agencies cooperate, one defines the problem and seeks help with it. when they act jointly the problem and options for actions are defined differently from the start. individuals from different backgrounds come together and analyze a case and planning how to manage it. of course, intelligence integration, which has been my schtick, my mantra for the past six years i've been dni, is a prerequisite reaching the 9/11

commission's goal we act jointly. in summer and fall of 2004 the 9/11 commission report weighed heavily on discussions on the state of the u.s. intelligence community and along with the fact that nearly year-and-a-half after the fall of baghdad, people were ask why we still hadn't found any weapons of mass destruction, which we were sure were there. so with that backdrop, congress working with the white house and the executive departments began to sort through what statutory changes the ic needed. so on december 2004 much to the great credit of senators lieber man and collins, congress passed intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act and president signed it into law on 17th of december, 2004. now, to be sure irtpa, no one knows this better than i, like all major legislation is seriously flawed.

actually it overachieves at being flawed. but it codified intelligence reforms and established in statute the office of the dni which stood up in april 2005. so for the past decade or so the ic has chartered the course of integration with a 9/11 commission report as the compass and irtpa as the map if you will. and i think we've come a long way since then, meeting almost all the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. at least what we could within the authorities that are granted under that law. now it has taken us some time. this is evolving process. always seeking i think to improve along lines of what nordy said, so we're still shaping, still, what integration is all about.

as congress was debating irtpa there was a lot of hand-wringing that dni would make a big land grab and second, try to make all agencies look the same but the dni's job, at least as i perceive it, and i think this is some ways more important than the president's senior intelligence advisor, not exclusive advisor, or my job as manager of the national intelligence program, is to get each of the agencies to know what their strengths are and great strengths of other agencies are so we take advantage of each of those complimentary strengths and orchestrate them. work together to meet our incredibly hard and incredibly important national security mission. so that is why i have kind ever stuck, you know, a theme. that is my story, i'm sticking

to it, with intelligence integration for the past six plus years. and it is my hope that integration would become so ingrained in the culture of the ic that when my successor comes on he or she won't have to talk about integration. it will be the automatic default. that has been kind of the ic story over the past 15 years or so. intelligence reform has happened bit by bit, enabled by changes to the law and driven by amazing intelligence professionals who got up on the morning of september 12th and went to work to figure out what went wrong and how to keep it from ever happening again. and of course by patriotic men and women who joined us since then. occurred to me recently we have ic employees who are six or seven years ol' when we were attacked on 9/11.

there are people working for us today who only have vague memory of that day. that brings me to some of the topics on the table for discussion here later today. changes we might think about going forward, particularly relating to cyber and to the domestic terrorism threat. taking it all together, there is incredibly complex array of threats out there, particularly in the cyber domain. criminals, hacktivists, collectives like anonymous are all thrown in with aggressors like north korea and iran and with the russians and chinese who are, are more sophisticated and could do real damage if they were so inclined. and with terrorist groups who continue to experiment with hacking. each of these actors has different capabilities and differ objectives when they

conduct operations in cyberspace and all of them operate on the very same internet. sometimes all this makes me long for the halcyon days of the cold war, when the world essentially had two large mutually exclusive telecommunications networks. one essentially dominated by the united states and the other and our allies and the other of course dominated by the soviet union and their allies. so we could be reasonably sure that if we were listening to someone on the soviet-dominated network, that person was probably not going to be a u.s. citizen. today of course that is not the case and makes our work exponentially harder, when it comes to groups like isis, daesh, the real problem is not their cyber hacking capability but how the internet enables them to recruit and inspire people all over the world.

we can monitor and infiltrate terrorist groups but difficult to expunge the internet of ideology and toxic ideas. that wasn't a consideration as the internet grew up and became functional. knowing what is going on inside of the heads of people who read extremist propaganda would require frankly talents beyond that of our great intelligence analysts. and it is more like clairvoyance. when it comes to protecting a nation, we also need to factor in protecting civil liberties and privacy of americans. i have witnessed a lot of teeth gnashing about people committing acts of terror when the fbi previously investigated and cleared. i think the fbi director, jim comey, precisely described the problem with his analagy, that we aren't expected to just find a needle in a haystack.

but are also held to account for guessing which pieces of hay may later become needles, and we can not continuously monitor americans who have done no wrong. that is not who we are. so domestic security, particularly in the ct realm is a difficult problem. better integration of our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security communities is critical to our national security and that too is a work in progress. that too will continue to improve long past when i'm fully ensconced in assisted living. i think it is also important to recognize that we're doing hard, grinding work in this space. that doesn't necessarily show itself in dramatic flourishes but rather in real, gradual incremental progress. as trusted relationships are grown, as systems and processes improve and integration takes over the culture.

that's one of the things we've done, as an example of this, is to create the domestic dni representative program which initially was run as a year-and-a-half pilot in four cities, modeled after the dni representatives overseas which cia chiefs of station have a second hat from me as my representative to coordinate, integrate, intelligence in each country where they're posted. this pilot had a positive impact on intelligence sharing with state and local officials. so we designated fbi senior field executives in 12 locations around the united states, and those domestic dni representatives made great improvements by leading efforts to integrate and coordinate ic teams throughout each one of their respective 12 aors to use a military term. the program isn't perfect and it is continuing to mature but it

is doing good things. and it shows how we're shifting focus on to domestic intelligence coordination, particularly with the counterterrorism mission. and this is something we'll need to continue to get better at because terrorism problem isn't going to go away and it is going to continue to morph and transform and we need to stay up with it or stay ahead of it if we can. it has metastasized with isil and aq affiliates and the global trends are driving the threat to be even more diverse and diffuse. and one megatrend making this worse is what i've called in congress and at the white house, unpredictable instability. about 2/3 of the nation's around the world are at some risk of instability right now. that is, they exhibit some characteristic of instability. and we can't predict which specific government will

collapse next or when that will happen. that's why it is unpredictable. and it is something the whole world is dealing with right now. from my world travels just in the past six months or so, i observed many, many nations are starting that growth curve, intelligence integration we've been working at for the past decade 1/2. and they are, many of them are far behind where we are and they realize that. and i see professionals get up every morning, go to work and we get better but there are limits to what we can do, bound by realities of our authorities and bound by realities of the resources that we're allocated. a lot of the obvious solutions ignore and underestimate the necessarily the complex legal and political landscape that we live and work in. we live in a federal system of government. the states have a lot of

autonomy and they should. each state has a bewildering array of local structures, priorities and sensitivities. and across the nation there are more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies and departments. the dni and the ic operate within carefully-defined and limited authorities particularly within the domestic sphere and we visually limit how our national intelligence agencies operate inside the united states and i think there's a footnote of history that sums up that balance. 9/11 commission actually recommended that the national intelligence leaders which became the dni, have statutory domestic authority. that recommendation did not make its way into irtpa. so for the dni or the ic, to take a more authoritative role in domestic security or create an intelligence structure or organization with that focus i believe would require new

legislation or certainly authorization specifically assigning that authority. which would by necessity come from a national referendum and overwhelming public support. and i will tell you, particularly over the last three years or so, i haven't seen a single press article and i haven't gotten any fan letter that says james clapper should be given more authority and more capability to monitor what's happening inside of the united states. and even if someone did suggest it, i don't think i'd support it. i've been in this business over half a century and i've seen what it's like in nations where intelligence agencies do have a domestic component. and that's not us. that is not who we are. we're not iran, we're not north korea and we're not the soviet union. we're the greatest free nation on this earth and in a way that face unpredictable instability

the way to face the domestic terrorist threat, the way to face extremist, self-radicalized individuals determined to lash out to do us harm isn't to be afraid to give in and let our values and principles that make our nation great be compromised. we get better by valuing our differences, if that means getting 18,000 law enforcement agencies to respect what each is best at to bring strengths to the table, we will certainly help do that. i want to leave you with one other thought before i think we're going to have a old dialogue here and that is of course with the upcoming presidential transition which is on nobody's mind and an election cycle that certainly for us has been sportier than typical and seems to be getting sportier every day. a lot of people are nervous what will happen and understandably so. so the message as i have been

speaking out about, certainly did it at the summit earlier this summer is that i think it will be okay because, in contrast to any uncertainty surrounding an election and transition to the next administration, one constant in national security are the people of the intelligence community. because of our mission and our professionalism, today's ic represents a pillar of stability during such a transition, and it will be okay because of our partnerships with defense, law enforcement, homeland security, and with the private sector. and those of you from the private sector, bring unique perspectives on our threats, our equities, the ways we work together to do better. so thanks to all of you for being here. thanks for your interest. so i think i will stop talking at you and, nordy, we'll i guess

take our seats out here. thanks. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, we have -- there we go. we have about ten minutes or so, a little bit less before the director needs to move on. and so i think i will ask, exercise a point of privilege, sir, ask you a question and happy to take questions from the audience, one or two. sir, you mentioned your conviction that partnerships are the name of the game and that's one of those things that offers hope, if you will, clearly that's the case. i wonder if you might elaborate a little bit on how you see, how we might advance public and private partnerships in particular with regard to the intelligence mission and with regard, both in terms of

tactics, techniques and procedures, perhaps, but more importantly to take advantage of the eyes and ears of others. >> well, i think in just speaking in the, you know in the confines of the united states, i have seen just in my time a great improvement in certainly the relationship we have with homeland security and law enforcement communities. local officials, local police chiefs, and i have, i continue to be very impressed with the sophistication that are exhibited by particularly the police.

very sophisticated approaches to analysis. very enlightened approach to the ct problem. that's a local level. and, i find that just about everyone i have ever encountered would fit right in with a meeting of the national intelligence board. and they have imported analystic tactics and techniques and procedures we employ in the national community are being employed locally. there are many forum that we try to use, one of which is this one, to reach out to the private sector. that is a daunting task, frankly, because the private sector is as big as all-out doors. i mentioned numerous police jurisdictions there are in this

country. i think we made a lot of headway in the flow of information both, when i say integration, by the way, i think conventional mean something horizontally across the national components. integration has also a -- dimension, integrating with the state, local, tribal and private sector. and this is a work in progress. it is not as mat tour, frankly -- mature, frankly as foreign intelligence business which we've been at a lot longer but i've seen huge improvements since 9/11. i started as, nga director two days after 9/11 and been in some capacity ever since for 15 years and i've seen great improvement. not to say we achieved nirvana, absolutely not. this is a work in progress and

we'll continue to work it. seeing frank taylor in the audience from dhs, i just want to single frank out for the tremendous work that he's done in dhs and in fostering this relationship with the state and local and tribal sector and what frank has done to rationalize and synthesize intelligence within dhs, building on the work, the legacy left by karen wagner, someone else in the audience today. so, yeah, we're working it hard. it ain't perfect. we'll keep at it for, frank and i certainly will, for our remaining 92 days. who is counting, and whoever succeeds us will continue to do the same. >> thank you, sir. question from the audience, please?

>> patrick tucker with defense one. you talked a little bit in your discussion about the recent attribution of hacking attempts against u.s. political organizations. we in the press, get a lot of questions about how confident are people in the intelligence community this is related to a state sponsored actor. can you without giving away important tactics, procedures or evidence, ap 28, ap 29, cozy bear, fancy bear, do you have specific individuals without revealing identities in mind? do you have specific buildings? how strong is your confidence that it's related to state-backed activity and, i would, that is. >> that is number of questions wrapped up into one, sir, please over to you. >> well, if you read the statement we issued i think you agree is pretty unusual, we

wouldn't have made it unless we were very confident. i am not going to discuss the underlying evidentiary basis for it but when we say we're confident, you know, that i think speaks for itself. that is one of the reasons we waited for as long as we did to make the statement, was to insure that we had sufficient evidence of both forensic and otherwise to lead us to conclusions we reached as articulated in the statement. and i don't think i will say anything more about it other than the fact that the statement speaks for itself. it was mainly addressed to the american electorate, not to any foreign nation-state. >> ladies and gentlemen, the director needs to move on. again, sir, thank you so much for joining us this morning.

and for this, for this audience of practitioners, we like to acknowledge that jim clap hears been a practitioner for over 50 years for the united states of america. thank you. [applause] >> while we're getting our panel in place here, director clapper, general schwartz, that was a terrific conversation. i think you helped frame our panel discussion perfectly, and have given our panelist as lot to discuss. for our panel discussion of domestic steps and public and private sectors take to protect the homeland, we are pleased to

have him moderate a very distinguished panel, who he will introduce momentarily. as deputy assistant to the president, deputy security advisor combating terrorism from 2005 to 2009, juan was responsible for developing and implementing all aspects of the u.s. government's counterterrorism strategy including countering violent extremism. previously he was first ever assistant secretary of treasury for terrorist financing and financial crimes, leading domestic and international efforts with public and private sector partners to counter terrorist financing. juan is currently senior advisor at center for strategic international studies and frequent contributor to a variety of news shows where he is consistently balanced and reason voice on some of our most vexing national security challenges. and i believe he is ready to moderate this esteemed panel. so, juan, over to you. >> chuck, thank you very much.

it is honor to be here. thank you for the kind duck shun. fair and balanced i don't know what that means anymore these days. general schwartz, thank you so much for inviting me to be here. karen, always a pleasure to see you again. it has been a while. frankly a great honor to be with all of you today, especially this panel. frankly as i was reviewing bios before this panel we're reviewing for the event yesterday i couldn't think of a better group of individuals to talk about the public, private, challenges that we have moving forward, given the complexity of the threats that we heard about from director clapper and obviously many of us have experienced. in addition, these are four gentleman i would love to be in a foxhole with, certainly would love to go to battle with, and i've been able to learn quite a bit from everyone on the stage. so i'm excited for this panel and this discussion. let me say first, something

about bense and insa, these two organizations in their own ways tried to push the envelope and drive debate what the role of private sector should be in national security. core mission of bens itself, as you've been driving, what insa is talking about doing from intelligence perspective. we're in the stage of our national security with diversity of the threats. . . a this report he just put out is the challenge of thinking about

how we not only recognize that but also deal with the structures and the coordination that has to come from that recognition. the private sector is at the center of the storm in terms of attacks. the private sector civil society, state and local authorities are sources of great information and awareness. and, frankly, in terms of consequence management, first responders and resilient as a nation the private sector plays a critical role. and so with that as th as a bacp and with the great comments from director clapper i'd like to open the discussion up. what we will do is have a discussion for about 40 minutes and then we'll open it up for about 15 minutes for the audience for some questions. so think through some questions that you may have. the bios are with you so not going to belabor this but this is an esteemed panel. frank taylor is the undersecretary for homeland security for intelligence and

analysis. ease the general, ambassador, a gentleman as well. and i know that secretary johnson has relied on frank not just with intelligence will but at one point i think frank had three different roles for dhs at a critical time for the department. frank, great to see. brad, many of you know a special from the puerile community is that the direct of office of private sector for the fbi, a critical a special as the fbi has though but it's national exposure and its interactions especially when you look at things like cve and consequence management. for those who don't know brad also comes from the private sector. he was with target, target has had to deal with numerous challenges in this space. next to brad is steve mcgraw, a longtime veteran of the fbi now taking too many of you in this space. after retiring from the fbi,

steve joined the state and local community, now director of the texas department of public safety. and is incredibly knowledgeable not only with respect to the fbi but what happens on the ground and certainly between state and local authorities. finally, bob was not a strange to any of you in the tech domain, bob made a career of leading organizations, selling companies and being on the cutting edge technologies that relate to national security. he is now the general manager of the ibm safer planet project and division which has enormous responsibility, thinking about safe cities and communities. with that let's turn to the experts. frank, let me start with you first. i think there's some critical dimensions to what we need to talk about. the first is how you and the department of homeland security and the government think about the threat ethic about the threat as it impacts the private sector. and what that means for your

mission of how the department does its work. >> certainly we look at the threat not only against the private sector but against the government sector, all sectors of our society, and that the response -- copperheads across all of those sectors, and we can't treat the public sector different than we treat the private sector because those threats and risks manifest themselves in all those environments. our approach has been to work with the fusion centers to ensure intelligence is shared consistent with our fusion centers, and our fusion centers, the 18,000 law enforcement agencies across this country, to work with all our private sector security seminars across the country, bringing together private sector security in our intelligence professionals to discussions about the threat and sharing of information, and get feedback from those organizations.

and third, to invite -- private sector analysts and others into the inner sanctum to share directly the intelligence that is being selected -- collected, so that they can incorporate that into their day-to-day activities. >> want from your vantage point, how fast the relationship with the private sector changed? we've been talking about for years the imports of public-private partnerships. much of that has been centered around the idea of information sharing. we talk about the vertical horizon, the horizontal horizon. how is social public-private partnerships shifted from your vantage point? and where are we headed with respect to those partnerships? >> thank you. let me provide a context related to the fbi.

i did leave before the breach. i think director comey came on board and wanted -- private sector engagement so we created this office about two years ago. i'm not sure if this -- >> can you hear? >> is this better? spill let's see if we can get you a hand mic. >> testing. >> director comey -- about two years ago, specifically to --

the private sector and the puerile engagement with them, and partly because of the evolving threat environment i think -- it's in the ben paper -- private sector is becoming part of the battlefield now across many lines, both cyber, ci, ct. director comey's vision for the fbi right now is to be ahead of the threat -- leadership, agility and integration. and by that to be ahead of the threat is to sort bu that out te same mindset that happened post-9/11 when the public side begin to change the way they worked together. so federal connected better with state and local. now the push is how do we do it better with the private sector. so our role has been to -- current effort to look at what the future might hold.

and if they could -- four points that we can discuss more. we have taken a number of initiatives to understand what is. we've done of the customer exercise. we have worked with the presidential innovation fellows from the white house do some study for us. and four points have emerged, and we're looking at as we change our engagement strategy and iterate it was the private sector. first, it goes back in time and actually probably started back with the book the art of war where one of the principles is know your enemy and know yourself. one of the things that came out is we know our enemy well. we know the threat environment. we know ourselves as it pertains to the federal side and the state side but what became apparent was we really didn't understand the private sector well. in fact, we served many of the