what we are hoping for is trying to get some feedback. what has been your experience? what has been the strengths, what has been the weaknesses? where does it need clarification, expansion? we know one of the areas that was less well developed was how you measure employment. we still need more. development in that area. thingse of the kinds of we're hoping we get out of that workshop. a lot of experiences with how the framework works. >> hi. federal times. just to follow up. i was wondering if you could talk about about what you're saying in terms of adoption of the framework, how you are measuring that, especially when

it comes to government agencies? >> so, there are a couple of different aspects to your question. certainly, from our perspective, we've gotten a lot of feedback of sources, bunch including the sector coordinating council's, our different agencies that have connections with different industries, treasury with the financial services industry, the energy department with the energy providers. and our own connections with the tech sector. in general, the feedback has been very positive for the framework. sven companies that oftentime they will tell us, we are not going to completely come out publicly and embrace the framework, but we are using it internally. we're using it even if we are not officially using it, we ar to measure

ourselves against. in general, we are seeing more and more different uses for the framework. you are seeing different sectors come up with their own overlays for the framework. view success is one measure would be that when people start using it for things we never anticipated. that would be a good sign of adoption. gottentionally, we have a lot of good feedback from other governments, that they are looking at how to use the framework in their own domestic context, which we think is really important. you also raise the federal government itself. in the recent guidance that came out from the office of management and budget on the federal information security act implementation tying it ever closer to the framework. cio's arethink

getting tired of me coming and talking to them about how they need to use the framework, but that is clearly the direction we are moving in. we're bringing those principles in to how we manage the federal government's cybersecurity. we are developing an overlay for the federal government that's related to the framework. >> so, if say, for instance, jpmorgan, had you been following the framework, could the breach happened? >> maybe, maybe not. but because the framework is not a particular cookbook for a set of security controls. having more of the detailed knowledge, it is difficult for me to say. what then say is framework enables you to do is to start to think about how you manage your cybersecurity from a risk perspective. and so, what it enables an organization to do is really have a way o confrontingp what is sometimes other seen as an

intractablef problem. >> i think we have got time for one more question. the gentleman there in the white blazer. >> university of washington. >> you flew all the way in from washington. >> courtesy of the tech policy lab. we talk about, the jpmorgan breach, the target breach, and so on and so forth, and these are just reputational hits they keep on slowing in the media. but the reality for cybersecurity is you assume you have been breached, and you do something. there is a distance between them betterfeel like maybe not inform the general public. what are your views on how to bridge that gap. >> i take it back to the framework. when you look at the framework, the very first thing the framework actually talks about has nothing to do it seems with security at all, which is

identifying. what it's really saying is you have got to figure out what information you have that you care about and why. what edo you want to protect it from? is it exposure? or do you want to protect it from?regulation -- from manipulation? that starts to define how you protect it. then goes on to say you have to be able to detect when the bad gotten past your defenses. what are you doing to recover and respond to them quickly and then recover from that? i think the part of the way you have to address that is as an organization, you need to be clear about your holistic approach to handling breaches. all the way from the beginning -- this is how we have identified the information we care about. here is why. here is what we are trying to protect it from. if something happens, here is our response. here is our metrics for how we

are going to respond and how we are going to recover. organizations have to learn how to treat that whole process from beginning to end as part of the cybersecurity problem, not just which isct part, the part that is easy to get focused on. i would argue that one of the things we have been working on in the federal context is those back end pieces, the response and recovery part of starting to build the machinery inside the government to not just do the protection but also the response and recovery mission. >> there has also been talk rogers about mike developing offensive measures in cyber security. a lot of what we're talking about are defensive measures, preparing ourselves to go out and confront these issues where they arise. any thoughts on that aspect of this? >> so, there are a couple of

different aspects to that issue. one of which is i think that the re are many tools you have to think about in that context, one of which is -- there a couple of different ways a think about it. cyber issue isa going to necessitate a cyber response. the proper response might be a diplomatic response might be a law enforcement response. it might be one that occurs in cyberspace, or one that we do through law enforcement authority. it is nevertheless true that cyber operations are going to become a much greater part of statecraft. they have become that over the last 20 years. and that trend is going to continue. so, i think that as a

government, one of our challenges is to begin to figure out how we talk about that policy development and how we talk about what the rules of theroad are in international environment. we want to start talking about how we establish what the norms of behavior are in cyberspace. things like you do not target critical info structure in peacetime. you don't harm critical infrastructure in peacetime. you don't steal intellectual property for the benefit of your message companies. like that you treat certs hospitals, that they are off limits so that they can continue to do their functions. so those are the kind of norms we want to promote. so i think it is another area that is going to involve a lot of policy work and development. >> clearly, we could spend the

whole day just talking about that. we have time for one more question if there something else. yes? >> i'm an attorney at steptoe and johnson. truman did a lot of work looking for the passage of cyber legislation. it appears that the president them apped forward couple of executive orders. it seems like there is a limit how far the government can go in implementing the needed reform for the private sector without some sort of carrot or stick. wondering, looking at certain things, what to think the prospects are in the coming passage ofr comprehensive legislation and what are the ramifications of it does not pass? >> i've bee n in washington a while, and i've learned that there are two things you do not bet one. one is the weather and the other is congress.

i think it is very difficult project on that score. i know there are a lot of people chairman hill, like the call on the house side. on the senate side, you have a number of senator whitehouse and carper and others that have b een involved in the cyber issues. is senator rockefeller on the commerce committee. so there is a lot of interest in cybersecurity legislation. i think from the administration's standpoint, one ourg that has evolved in picking is that i do think that it will be easier for us to get smaller pieces of cyber legislation rather than one, giant comprehensive bill. so a lot of our efforts are involved that getting whatever longn past in what ever -- on as the policy and the legislation itself is acceptable. so i think that is one thing that i would say we are trying

as a different way to go about it. continue toill press forward with doing everything we can, and there is a lot we can do under existing authorities. we do need to eventually get to legislation, and it -- we'll eventually have to get there. but i think we will eventually. and we will continue pressing forward with what policies we can under the authorities we have. >> great. thanks very much for coming in taking the time to talk with us. >> thank you very much for having me. i really enjoyed it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we ready? much.thank you very and now we're actually at the best part of the day. so i'm glad all of the state here. bates, president at the center for national policy.

welcome to the home of the truman project. we have a great panel. we have heard the view from 1600 pennsylvania avenue, but we also wanted to provide you with the take from the private sector and from some of the leading thinkers in cybersecurity and cyberspace this nation has to offer. we handle the emerging threats we see in cyberspace? can we increase our economic competitiveness, national security while keeping privacy protections and bein innovative leadersg? if so, what are the trade-offs that must take place? these are tough questions. fortunately, we have with us three people that are well- qualified to take them on. i've known our first guest for over a decade. how about that? frank was present at the creation of the homeland security architecture of this response toarose in

the attacks of september 11. during that time, he was appointed by president george w. lysh to serve in the new created office of homeland security. he served as a principal advisor for the first secretary of homeland security, tom ridge, and directed the president homeland security advisory council. government, he joined george washington university where he established the homeland security policy institute. and frank is an associate vice president at gw. co-director of gw's cyber center for national security and directs the university why strategic effort along with dhsael chertoff, the former secretary. peter singer to my right is an author of multiple award-winning books. i have a few in my office. work.ay have read his

he is a leading expert on what we would call 21st century national security challenges. ehe soaring institution -- th smithsonian institution lists 100 leadingf the innovators in the nation. he is listed by defense news as one of the 100 leading anchors and defense policy and by foreign policy magazine as one of the 100 global thinkers who are most advanced on all these issues. "s most recent book is cybersecurity and cyber war." are you able to say the title of your next book? >> no. >> stay tuned. his last book was named to the reading list for the u.s. army and navy. his faking is present in the armed forces today. he's contribute editor at

"popular science." he's a consultant to the u.s. military and fbi. he was at brookings and is now at the new america foundation. friendmy right is my new jeff moss. glad you could make it. he is one of the most sought-after courses in information security. he has spent the last 17 years as founder and director of black of the moston, two important security conferences in the world. jeff has the ability to bridge the gap between the underground researcher community and law enforcement, which is not easy. he also bridges the gap between pure research and responsible application in information systems. appointed to the homeland security advisory council. chief security officer. he has been a keynote speaker

all over the world. wasprior to black hat, jeff a director at secure computing corporation where he established professional services departments there. thanks for being with us. the way we will do this is i will ask a couple of questions. we were just in my office. i wish we had a hidden camera there, because it was a fantastic conversation. not to put the pressure on. you can interrupt each other, whatever you want to say. the we'll go to you, audience, pour your thoughts and your questions. we look forward to that. andor questions thoughts. i was watching a movie from 1996, in the lead character had to stop at payphones. figure about how the world has changed. it seems hackneyed, but this is a unique moment in human history where we are able to access the power of information, individuals empowered to a

degree they have never been ever. and what does this mean for national power? it would follow that the nation that is best able to use these technologies and adapt to them is going to have the edge in securing its national security and prosperity. so i suppose my broad question is how are we doing on that? and where are our biggest failings? in particular about the workforce. preparing tonow in education and training american workers and those who need to serve in government to understand information networks and cyber? jump ball.that you can focus on government, and peter on society. jeff, you will get to interrupt. the disruptor. all right. theee, your example was

payphone. nowadays, there is no anonymity like you had the pay phone. at least that guy could not be tracked. >> i try to tell my eight numeral son about prank calls and what a loss it has been to society that we have lost anonymity. >> the first hackers were phone freakeres. thank you, scott. it is a privilege to join you here today and thanks for your leadership on all these issues. at the getere there go after 9/11. very briefly in terms of the workforce, needs, gaps, deficits and also looking forward, stem issue.'s aa s we need more computer scientists, engineers, more technical skills that can address some of these problems, including design and

engineering we can start baking security into the design of systems, components, parts and the like. i see my friend mike who's doing good work at northrop grumman. we have a paper coming out of those issues. but in addition to the technical need, which i think everyone more or less recognizes and understands, there is also the need to get cyber into every other discipline. so we need to look at it from across multi- and interdisciplinary perspectives. in addition to having the cyber needs, there is al component of international affairs andaw -- and law and public health where you have health and i.t. which brings about new vulnerabilities in systems. so one of the things we're trying to do at the university is how do you integrate all of these pieces? how to get diplomats who are cyber savvy that are technicals --

i talcall it -- one community that understands policy and the other that understands technology. what you have not seen is that integration. and i think that is the greatest deficit in terms of workforce needs going forward. more stem. women in particular, i would like to see more women involved in stem research, which can get to cybersecurity jobs. not as a footnote. i might note that i think that the navy does this best, where all midshipmen are required to take a cybersecurity course. all our services can learn from that and universities can learn from that. it's not an either/or. if you think about strategically, it's its own domain, but it also touches every other domain -- air, land, sea, space. we need to start thinking from an education perspective the same way. we need cybersecurity experts,

but we also need others, boards of directors me to start asking with tim had an op ed plenty on what question should board members be asking management to fulfill their oversight responsibilities. it's a workforce issue. and the government, i think it's a recruitment problem as it is a retention issue. if you want to play with the cool stuff, you go to the nsa. >> is it that the personalities that are drawn to this work to not fit into the bureaucratic structures of government, or is that too simplistic? >> promotion pats are still fuzzy because we do not have a clear discipline, but i think the bigger part of that is once they get good, they can get 2 1/2 times their salary in the private sector. >> thanks very much. he seemed like he wanted to say something. >> oh, nothing. >> peter? we need more hackers.

>> i was going to see the problem on this panel is we're going to agree a lot. maybe we'll see. this topic is too often framed as a technology issue, and we fo issue.at it is a human it is a human issue whether you are trying to understand the threat that is coming after you. it is a human issue if you are trying to understand your response to the threat. it's definitely now a human capital issue. you can think of it as a human capital issue in a number of ways. we can frame what frank was saying. there is both the cyber workforce issue, and then there is the broader aspect. the workforce issue is best illustrated by the fact that in of homelandpartment security had roughly 40 people working full time on cybersecurity issues.

that number has been multiplied by over 50 since then. and of course, they are not stopping. they are not saying, we met th e e need. ate that and repaeat it every government agency. government.el add it on the private sector side. out atme gap is played both large technology companies, carmakers, two small furniture companies. you see that we have a classic supply and demand issue playing out when it comes to talent. meetey here -- how do we the talent? it is a good time to be somebody with the skills. it is a bad time to be competing. it is a story of retention. it will be an interesting

retention problem for the u.s. military, because at the same time you are forcing up captain so-and-so who was the best company commander in afghanistan we have ever seen, you are going to be doing bonuses for the e gghead who is really good at cyber. i wanted the other part that frank said. across everything the field, you will be dealing with cyber is sues, yet there is a training gap. mba program teaches it as part of your management responsibilities. >> you got a cyber mba? >> there's a cyber mba. i am talking about the person who goes into human resources and goes into operation and goes into legal, the person who becomes a board member. not in cyber. it is the same that plays out

and how we train our lawyers, are journalists who are dealing with cyber issues both on the cyber beat, but by the way, on all the other beats. if you are a sports reporter in houston, one of the sports team d and you had to cover that story. we have this human capital gap. don't just take about it as training the stem folks. it is for all of us. i would add -- the need to teach our kids basic cyber hygiene. >> jeff. >> well, that is a lot of follow-up on. i want to declare victory hopefully in 10 years when we stopped speaking cyber in front of everything. because really we need to get to that point where it's baked in. cyber is just risk management. when you tell board members that, they go ok. what are my risk-reward trade-offs? a lot of times we treat it like voodoo. >> only the guy in the back

can understand. a couplewas an op-ed days ago sid said, why cant the this? -- solve it to root of it, none of me seems like rocket science. there is bad code being written. let's go to the root cause. how do we get better code written? you start looking into it and there are no good textbooks that teach people how to program securely. there are plenty of textbooks to teach how to program. they are full of programming errors that introduce security bugs. from junior high, high school, college, all of the examples -- everyone is learning how to use -- full of security problems. a fundamental level.

these go to google and you want to learn how to write a sort algorithm. the examples of pop up are full of security threats. the search engines are full of bad code. how about somebody gets publishing text books with good examples? there are steps we can take. yet, instead, we will pontificate about super advanced google insider out rhythms. let's teach people how to program before we get to the moon. it gets frustrating. >> can i pick up on that point? there is the, what is the role of the government and what is the role of the private sector and the individual? it is a shared responsibility. we need cyber hygiene. washing your hands saves more lives in surgery then actual surgery. in some countries. but obviously, that is not going to help with surgery. what we need is a tiered

approach. let's get to the baseline. in an ideal world, we want to get to that 80% solution where government can then focus its resources on the high-end threat after. the government should be focusing on, because what is new about cyber is companies, even the biggest of companies, did not expect there are in the business of defending against foreign intelligence. nor should they. but they should be able to focus on the high-end threat actor and anything below that, so they are thingsting involved in that honestly private sector is better positioned socially, from a partisan standpoint, and technically to be able to address. then if you get this citizenry, the equivalent of cyber hygiene, you can get to a point where you can actually prioritize limited resources and deal with it. noise lowering the threshold.

>> where they are best positioned. >> you are mentioning threat. let's go there before we throw it out to audience for questions. let's say you are advising the president. so, we'll see that on c-span later. what is the largest threat in the cyber domain or for american prosperity and security, knowing that you have limited resources to handle these threats? of intellectual property? or is it some kind of malicious attacks from state actors? where should we be putting our resources right now? >> you want to start? >> i'll kick it off, because i think i have been a little bit outspoken on this. i think that there is far too much discussion and focus on the

of cyberarrative terrorism -- >> pearl harbor. >> cyber 9/11. cyber pearl harbor are terms that have been used in government documents. >> we have got to quit attacking pearl harbor. >> cyber terrorism, there have been over 31,000 magazine newspaper and academic journal articles on the phenomena of cyber terrorism. there have been zero incidences of cyber terrorism according to the fbi definition. i'm not saying there is not a risk of it. we have shown via our own weaponry that you can do damaging things. we kn that there is a potentialow here, but there is a difference between putting out warnings of the cyber califate, but yet adding in fine print

that says, they do not have any capability. >> "coming soon." >> compare that. that is a real threat. you mentioned the other, which i do not think we do enough on, which is something that is real and bigger which is the massive campaign of intellectual property theft that we are the victims of the largest theft i n all human history, when you bundle together everything from joint strikes -- the most expensive weapons project. to oil company negotiating strategy issues. small furniture makers to pretty much everything -- every think tank and university in town. that has both definite economic security consequences and economic security is national security, but also, i would argue it might have real consequence on the future battlefield 10 to 20 years from now. i do not think we do enough on that compared to the easier discourse on cyber 9/11.

>> let me interject because frank, i am hearing shades of what we faced after 9/11 when we started up the homeland architecture, which was it was all guards, gates, and guns. we take out a yellow pad and list every potential threat. it was not a lot of risk analysis. so, we're saying we need to apply that more rigorously. ch, of course, i fundamentally agree with. it is an issue of secure coding. that and other things. let me, i agree with much of what peter said, but let me do a shade of difference. not all hackers are the same. not all capabilities are the same. computer networks avoid -- exploit the theft of data and the theft of individuals' information. of the list. top anyone who has an attack capability has to have an

exploit capability. if they can exploit and they have the attempt to do so -- and they have the intent to do so, they can attack. you have to start getting to a point where you have to start peeling back what the threat is. at the top of the list are peer nations with the united states. russia, china. they have capabilities, they are investing, they are engaged in computer networks exploit. engagingincreasingly in computer network attack. after the russias and chinas, you have got countries that are, what they lack in capability they more than make up for in intent. this is iran, north korea. given the size of their gnp's, they are investing heavily in computer network attack capabilities. do not under estimate that. i think that any form of future conflicts will have a cyber component, either from a collection standpoint down to an attack perspective. so when you are looking at who

is most likely to an attack, probably iran and north korea because they are less a turbo been russia and china. underneath that, you have got criminal enterprises, notably eurasian, russian speaking criminal enterprises that now have the capabilities that used to be in the domain of countries alone. so they can do the equivalent of a cyber drive-by shooting that can have major economic consequences as well as kinetic consequence. haveunderneath that, you got terrorist organizations. for the most part, they are in the business of propaganda. their look at isis, propaganda machine is sophisticated. but it is not kids with iphones as everyone thinks. they took over tv stations. they have the same production capabilities that major networks have. so they may turn to computer network attack, but they do not have that capability yet. but they are increasingly

building that out. and then you have got hackiviti sts. we have got to get more clear and concise when we start talking about what that threat is. ngt i don't disagree that comi soon, it tends to be the issue. i think we want a mirror image. we know what our own capabilities are and expect that it is not five years out in terms of r&d. it is not nuclear capabilities that takes billions of dollars. >> jeff, your thoughts? >> i will just say, i agree. it is intellectual property theft. that has got the big dollar tag. me, too, plus one. thumbs up. like. me, for also say, for more of a nonmilitary nongovernmental perspective, it is really that we have entered to medium where small

businesses are defenseless. you are screwed. if you look at the economics, security is a sick economics. if you have got skills, you want to get -- who's paying better -- google, microsoft and apple. the best talent feet uphi -- f biggestill to the companies. that leaves the small to medium businesses with the b and c teams. a situation where the company is in the middle are defenseless. g store-bought solutions because they do not have custom integration. they are buying whatever the last guy in that job said to buy. we are moving into a situation where i really worry a lot about of service attacks because they are well understood.

there have been press practices around how to defend against them f-- best practices around how to defend against them for years, but they do not do them. they don't mandate them. allar all the stories about of these great technologies we're going to deploy, and i'm thinking to myself, we cannot deploy well-understood, low-cost denial of service prevention for 20 years. what makes us think that we are going to go solve this next generation and take this challenge head-on? we cannot even cover our bases. so that has led me to this -- if you look at our trajectory, its complexity from here all the way down. and complexity is only going to accelerate with the internet of things and all these other technologies. so we are never going to puasaue or go back and fix things. we seem to run faster and faster, leaving this trail of vulnerability behind us. doom don't like predicting

and gloom, but everybody always -- you always sit around have a beer, and say when is it going to end?it is going to take a big cyber event, and then we will fix everything. we all have plans on the shelf, and the minute something gets cyberized we get funding. tohink it's really up to us protect it, but we also have to realize that we are overreaching, i believe, thinking we are going to solve these complicated problems when it is a lot of basic stuff we cannot even tackle. the confiscated discussions, but at the end of the day, i always go back to if you cannot defend against denial of service attacks -- like the iranians attacking wall street. that's wall street. they have got a lot of money. and even they are having problems defending against 0--- you see the capacity that some organized crime groups have. it is frightening. my doomsday scenario in this area is a couple of small to medium businesses get bumped off

denial of service attack. they get put out of business. another small to medium businesses that go out of business because of this, what government is going to let their sme's go out of business? the government is going to do something to save the day. now they are in their regulating, because the industry has not handled i t, because the technology providers have not handled it. we've only had 20 years. at some point, the government is going to say enough is enough. i cannot have my companies going out of business. that is going to be the forcing function where they're going to say you have had your chance. that is the friday scenario to be in. >> within this doing gloom, there is some positive news that is playing out from the bad things that happened in the last year. you mentioned in the article that you are working on. so, the target breach was bad for target in many, many ways, billion-dollar bad.

but because there was punishment in terms of the marketplace, punishment in terms of people losing jobs, punishment in terms of the board being threatened with a recall, it sent shockwaves throughout numbers of other boards and bringing attention to this. we are seeing action happen. what i am getting at is that there is, in this aura of cyber insecurity that surrounds us, we are seeing a lot of the needed actions that have been put off for a long time moving forward. we are seeing the building of the awareness that we have called for, seeing the education. it is not fast enough. it is not good enough, but -- a better place than we were three years ago. i hope we can change from the mentality from thinking that we have to defend against everything to instead become resilient. power our way through.

is way i joke about it squirrels have taken down more power grids than hackers. you add the wall street scenario. squirrels have taken down wall street trading three times. hackers have done it zero times. you will never defeat or deter squirrels, but we have figured out how to be resilient against rockey and bullwinkle. we will never defeat or deter all threats, but we can become more resilient. >> a sustainable war on squirrels. we can do that. >> and groundhogs. >> i promised that we would engage with their questions. so please, anyone who has a thought or question you would like to share. yes, in the back? [inaudible] hartnett.

the center for naval analysis and the defense counsel member at truman. topic brought up earlier was the idea of establishing -- you'll do ipr threat. heft. is there a way to get china to the table to talk constructively inut this issue, when reality, it supports their main drive of the communist party which is economic development. how do you go about doing that without using coercive means. naming and shaming is not working for the most part. thank you. >> i will take it. i mean, that is a great question. the way to think about it is we talk to turn in the various threats. you deter actors. you don't deter cyber.

you build up capabilities, make more secure design, but when you are starting -- when you are really looking at intellectual property theft, and when you're looking at the role that china is playing right now. they have it the best of both ways. the luxuries of being an emerging economy, and they have gotten none of the responsibilities of being a power. they are a power. the reality is is it is very mercantilist. why spend view, billions of dollars in r&d if you can steal it and put that money into market share? an flip side is they have overheating economy. i am not sure it is very easy for them to stop or to be able to address in a full, transparent kind of way. though,e optimistic, that at some point they have got as much to lose because they have got investments spread out, including in the united states and in our debt.

at some point, it hits that tipping point. i do not think it has hit that tipping point just yet. i think naming and shaming a significant. the fact that the mandian report can get down to individuals was significant. this is not smokescreen discussion. they were able to show specifically who is behind that keyboard doing what. the department of justice indictment was also a powerful statement. that's not going to be the end state solution. once you start looking at how security into trade discussions, you're starting to see -- let's go from the nouns to the verbs. i think the real place you can have greatest traction is going to be more three economic leverage and discussion. >> i would build on that. it's classic cost benefit.

right now they are saying extreme benefit almost no cost. that mandian report was powerful, except that unit -- i think it was 90 days until then they started up again. hyou got -- you got 90 days of rest. part of how to get to this is not only making it harder on the attacker. it should not be just picking ripe fruit. we've talked a little bit about that. but the other aspect is take it to venues that they care about. so, a pennsylvania courtroom is a wonderful place for a lot of reasons, but it is not going to be visited by those five chinese --dividuals who indicted who were indicted. it was a warning shot that may have been a partial statement, but it had no impact, except on some of the american businesses that lost business because of it.

i would argue a better venue is figure out venues they care a bout. and not merely.bilateral trade talks . but the wto, which has been crucial to their economic rise. and it offers you a setting to play on these issues that they would start up a little bit more attention to. but again, the key is don't think of this as purely a space for talk. to have got to move action. the other part of it is recognized that some of it is never going to stop. this is the game that nations play. my british friends find it very funny that we talk about intellectual property theft, given that we, our economic rise was based on some intellectual property theft in what britain was doing in steam engines.

war, we wereld able to come to tacit agreements with the kgb. like the other stealing information, but we were able to accept the moscow rules between this is the kind can do,theft you but these are the kinds of actions that move us into conflict. so this behavior we do not like it, but it is acceptable. versus this is a behavior that could cause the shooting war. to give an example, it may greatly disturbed me that your stealing from a defense contractor. i do not like it. i am going to do everything possible to stop it. on the other hand, when you start mucking around in particular networks or power grids, wow. you are doing something that is raising a different kind of alarm for me. >> gerareat. jeff? the civilgo for

society side of this which is, i think we sue everybody. because if you look in these discussions, what is missing is a lot of lawsuits. how many american companies? is google suing anyone in china? they are probably going to lose. if you do not try, you do not set precendentdent. then the whole world could watch their court system play monkey games. then the whole world could say wow. or whichever country it is. to microsoft and sometimes facebook. microsoft is suing botnet organizers. why is it just microsoft? why is there not a huge association? i can donate money to doctors

without borders. where do i donate my $10 to sue cyber thieves? there is no outlet for me as a civil society person to say, go get them. all our conversations orbit around what can government do? i want civil society to sue people. >> i think we have just created a new nonprofit. >> i have found lawyers that have lined up and said, i am first. i find the conversation two-dimensional. >> i get it. >> go for it. wrapped in asbestos.ersecurity i want a free market driven. >> it is not working. >> you have got to the point. there is a difference between like safety systems and critical infrastructure where even what

would be defined as less than root cause is a serious set of issues that should ring bells. but what i think you want to be able to get to is where does the market fall short from their? -- from there? house we bridge that gap? that is where you have got the mix of carrots and sticks. it becomes the president, and then it becomes check the box. i can go back to business as usual. norm?t's the cyber there are no civil society norms because they are not engaging. >> thank you. let's go for another question from the audience. yes, please, with a lanyard there. >> the notion that things are getting better as far as corporations approving cybersecurity. i'm wondering if there is one

way to incentivize that moving faster because yes, target took some hits, but some boardrooms might've gotten nervous, but home depot did not get nervous enough to take action. u and proof that process because some of the worst case is that were talking about four years ago are happening now? >> thank you. a criminal justice major. and criminal justice majors, we love data. so you can make an informed decision. there is not good data on any of this. 8 different breach notification laws. every state has got something different. if you are target, you're going to spend the next nine months figuring out you have to expose what to and when, as opposed to taking that energy and resources and fixing the problem. i'm an advocate of a national law. it is going to have all kinds of problems with special interests, but at least we get uniform sets of data that we can start

finding trends. we talk about -- i was a big believer that the market was solve thi i cans look at.speeches from 15 years ago where i was like, the market is going to save the day. people by product based on features. , you can say this is got twice as many features. but probably twice as many bugs. people buy on more features. so the market has definitely failed us. then we were thinking the insurance companies would save the day, just like it forces up to build better automobiles. insurance companies will give a lower rate to microsoft or something. becauset build tables there is no good data. so then the next thing -- the where we are now -- the only thing we have left is regulation. and that is a really scary proposition. i really wish the market did it. it.sh insurance did

we are running out of options. >> this actually connects back to the last -- there have been some great things the executive branch has done, but it can only go so far. laws.not write and pass we get have an argument, but roughly we have not had major cybersecurity legislation since the iphone 1 came out. fan ofs -- i'm a creating standards. job -- argue a very good good job of reaching out to private industry, but at the end of the day, standards are something that the best companies will surpass. the average company will meet, and the bad company or unable company will not meet.

i look at this room right now. there are these things that are pink exit signs over all the doorways. and they are they are not because the builder here was exceptionally nice. it was because at the end of the day, there was law here. this is not just in terms of notification. but you mentioned in the question, you made the parallel between target and home depot was recently hit. there is a fascinating illustration of the power of the law, which is how you are affected by the home depot hit depended on your nationality. so same company, same breach, your experience depended on whether you shopped at the home depot in buffalo, new york, or the home depot in toronto. because in canada, they have got chips. in pretty much none of the canadian customers were affected. whereas the american customers

were affected. there is only so much that the marketplace can do on its own. at some point, government, legislation, has to play a role. it's been absent. >> when the biggest gap in legislation, multiple bills out there -- is to facilitate the sharing of information. so you have got public-public to ensure that information be shared across and between all our 9/11 issues. public-private, private-private. i mean more in the role of more active defense, where companies can take a little more proactive steps, not taken down servers in beijing or wherever else, but at least to be able to collect forensic information that can be shared. right now that is the big impediment. so once you get to the facilitation of information sharing. once you get to some of the -iability exemption -

only if they're doing what they need to be doing. they need to meet that. because the framework -- i am a big supporter of, but it really is a plan to plan. eisenhower said in preparation for battle, i found plans to be useless but it can be indispensable. it is important, but it is not going to be the end state. if you do get to that point, then you can have other lovers that i think ultimately get us to the point we are getting at leverscan have other that i think ultimately can get us to the point we are getting at. >> does anyone have a question that can be answered in two minutes? and thise, which is, is maybe in a lightning round. 32nd response. >> go! >> they do not even know what we are talking about. here it is. in the lame-duck session coming up, is there opportunity for some kind of cybersecurity security legislation? what have you been hearing?

you think that might happen? failing that, how does it look next year? >> i'm just happy that finally the executive branch gave otherity to dhs to scan executive government facilities for vulnerability. dhs is going to have authority for dot-gov, and they cannot even scan. they're learning more about what is going on in the government for reading private sector researchers. there is such a big disconnect authorities and capabilities. so i am happy that we do not need legislation for that. federalt dhs and agencies taking care of their own business, and they do not need external legislation for that. i think you can can still make lots of progress. like the continued diagnostic monitoring. i am a big fan, because that is going to force changes down the road. i do not think we have to sit

back and say, without legislation -- >> i'm putting back on my government hat. >> three things. one, because it has been delayed so long, it has become a logjam. encond, you have got snowd how issues relating to that are connecting over. and that i believe, unless that'll slow it down. third, well i wish it was the other way, it is always a safe bet to bet against congressional action and energy. >> fair point. an optimistst is with experience. i am somewhat optimistic. i would not hold my breath because we have all been around this road a number of times, but at least you have bicamerally similar bills. dianne feinstein, chambliss, gillibrand.

the are not trying to boil ocean an cover everything. they do have discrete bills on the house side. the feinstein bill aligns with the rogers bils. ls. got the houseave homeland committee bill which also is not a separate bill altogether. staff and members actually working across yurisdictions that rarel happens. i always say there are three parties. republicans, democrats, and appropriators. now you are starting to see them work across chambers and across parties. so what i bet on it? absolutely not. i am not a gambler, but at least there is momentum. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank all of you for attending this conference today and talking about one of the most challenging policy areas facing our nation.

essential to our security and prosperity in the 21st century. and i am optimistic. after hearing what i have heard today that we are moving in the right direction. i would like to also thank our partner, " christian science monitor" for making this possible. please join me in thanking this fantastic panel. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] c-span,g up on political debates from illinois. in the states 17th the district 20 12.ematch from

then illinois governor pat quinn up for reelection running against republican businessman. we have that later. in a debate for oklahoma's open senate seat. senator tom coburn is retiring. 0 on the next "washington journal," discussing the boat a response to the outbreak of ebola in west africa. the o'neill institute for national and global health law at georgetown will join us. then stephen cook from the council on foreign relations on the role of turkey in the fight against the militant group isis. later, a look at the problem of domestic violence in the u.s. we will talk to michael plenty from the bureau of justice statistics and a polyp more from the national network to end domestic violence. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. we will take your calls.

live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. bustos narrowly won by 19,000 votes. the district is located in the northwestern part of the state including fulton and part of rockford cos.. this debate comes to us courtesy of time warner cable news. >> it's the big midwest rematch! >> it will be a very, very fiery campaign. >> i'll make a promise that we'll continue to fight for jobs. >> congresswoman cheri bustos and the man she beat in 2012, former congressman, bobby schilling. >> it did allow for me to step back. i call it my two-year break. >> we're ready to get going. i want to make things happen now.

>> tonight they return to the same studio they were in two years ago, for the only debate in the 2014 election. >> your voice. your vote. the illinois 17th congressional district debate, brought to you by wqad-tv and the dispatch. >> and good evening. i'm your moderator for tonight's 30-minute discussion of issues concerning the 17th congressional district in illinois. 17th congressional district in illinois. welcome the two candidates running for this western illinois district. bustos.mbent is cheri she was elected in november of 2012. prior to her term in congress, worked as a newspaper reporter, in the health care industry and served on the city council. cheri bustos is married and the mother of three sons. and the challenger is bobby schilling. from 2011in congress to january 2013. schilling is best known as the quad city pizza business. he had worked in the insurance fields and in a container company before that. he is married and the father of

children. tonight's debate can be seen on qconline.com. it's also being run on public and on public radio. expect full coverage in the dispatch. now, you can follow along #17debate at hashtag and be part of the conversation. each candidate agreed to ground rules. topic of our questions and most of the questions themselves news 8 viewers, the readers of the dispatch. a minuteidate will get to answer the question, with the opponent then getting one minute to give their views. that, i can ask a follow-up question to help clarify an issue. candidate will also get a 90-second opportunity for a ofsing statement at the end tonight's program. moments before we had a coin toss. the coin toss is bobby schilling. mr. schilling, pick to have the last closing statement.

that means cheri bustos has the first question tonight. the issue of jobs. we got this question from donna, in hanoverbert shaw just announced they are moving their jobs to mexico. the townevastating for and also for the county. what will you do to keep jobs in the u.s., and more specifically, in northwest illinois? >> from day 1, since the began to since i serve, jobs and the economy have been my number 1 priority. fact'm very proud of the that we've had success in actually bringing jobs to this area. decade of than a waiting, we've been able to open the thompson prison. we have 300 jobs on the way, next year. this is after a decade of waiting, when previous folks role couldn'ts get that done. what you're talking about as far as these jobs being shipped over has been devastating. it's a reflection of bad policy. tax breaks supports

for corporations that actually send jobs overseas. been devastating not only to hanover but to knox county, when the maytag jobs were sent over to mexico. i will work every day to make sure i'm looking after the class families of this district. >> bobby schilling, your response? >> i think the key thing here to at truly,ake a look what is the cause as to why people want to leave the united states of america? because of the overtaxation, the overregulation epa, osha, so on and so forth. the thing i find interesting, given an opportunity when i was in congress, to rein in the epa, regulationsonsible to good american companies so we didn't ship them overseas, i did exactly that. my opponent, on the other hand, when she had an opportunity to epa, was unwilling rein them in.

to be very clear, it is not true. they have determined that the tax breaks for american overseas to ship jobs is up on their website, saying that is not true. that is no loophole incentivizes american companies to do that. i think the key is to make sure good representation that is going to actually try to draw jobs into the united states and not scare them out through taxes and regulations. >> do you have a 30-second response? >> there are indeed tax breaks my opponent supported that actually give companies ship those jobs overseas. they get a tax benefit for doing that. people.ese i met people who had worked there for 30, 40 years. had tothe woman who scrape the tape off the floor after she trained the chinese who were taking her job, to get that plant ready for closure. know these people who have been impacted by bad policy. thoseonent has supported

very policies i'm referring to. >> our second question gets to matter.t of the like it or not, your candidacies by yourg defined opponents. mr. schilling, you're being back onof turning your union workers losing their jobs. we start with you, mr. schilling. chance to give you a address these allegations. >> first and foremost, when i when i ran in 2010, i kept every single one of was toises, whether it reject the congressional pension, whether it was to congressional health care. you know, we were the first that since the korean war actually spent less money than the previous congress before us. 11.4% out of our budgets, do.h was the right thing to the fact of the matter is that voted for actually $6 billion cut to veterans. that's a fact. or no.a yes

did you vote to cut those? our ads are all factual and they're based on facts, where more of the straw man, where you can pick whoever you want throughout the say, xstates san -- and candidate decided they were going to ship jobs overseas, is completely false. >> it really is a shame how thesecampaigns are run days. i feel for the people who have to watch these commercials time after time. refuses to in fact, watch the lower channels anymore -- no offense -- and hes up to the channels where can watch gilligan's island, avoid these ads. there's an outside party called factcheck.org. they check the truthfulness of ads all over the country. my opponent'sed ads, against me, shamefully misleading. they have nothing to do with a democrat or republican but they do have to do with fair messaging to voters.

they've called it shamefully misleading. i'm proud of the fact that we've had a lot that we've accomplished. we're trying to spread the word about that. that will continue to be our campaign, our accomplishments, jobs, the economy, seniors and veterans. you haven't exactly answered the questions. i'm going to give you 30 seconds with you, mr. schilling. you're being accused of turning the union workers. what do you say specifically to that? a farm bureau meeting where i was receiving an award. some folksed was that weren't even from the represented came in and took over a meeting. but at no point did i ever turn my back. what happened is ms. bustos's friends took a video and cut it. we actually have the full video out there. i tried to have several meetings with these people. i actually even wrote a letter the president of the company. this was all made -- this 2010,on was made back in

before i was even elected to office. >> and mrs. bustos, the 10% of giving back of your wages, how do you respond to that? misspoke.y you >> i made a mistake when i appeared before the chicago tribune editorial board and i've acknowledged that. what i do support is the same -- it's the exact policy my opponent also supports. pay cutollective 10% for congress. in addition to that, i support something called no budget, no pay. congress's number 1 job is the to make sure we pass a budget. the no budget, no pay act hanging over us, saying angress, if you don't pass budget, you don't get paid, we passed a bipartisan budget for years.st time in many >> can i get a 30-second rebuttal? >> you both have had it. right there. i do want to move on. we're going to start with mrs. bustos. healthto do with a concern that a lot of americans are having worldwide.

ebola. the centers for disease control -- has repeatedly warned us. they've toldime, us not to panic. now homeland security will start arypts.g at are you -- at airports. are you confident the government spread of thee virus in the united states and are you worried they might civil liberties in the process? >> it's a health threat that's very frightening to a lot of people. a lot of time talking to a lot of people. i would ask people, just in worriedtion, are you about this? we have moms of little kids who worry about the ebola threat. we have to respond to this with a sense of urgency. we are part of the the ice is part of the -- is part of the world health organization. i worked in health care. the previous ten years of my career were in health care, for congress. when we talk about isolation the centersw how

for disease control and prevention alert hobts about -- that.als about we have to take the proper measures to make sure this is isolated and doesn't spread any further. >> mr. schilling, are you confident the cdc is doing what are you worried about civil liberties of americans that can be affected? whatthink they are doing they can. i find it interesting that just three weeks ago the administration came out and it, this is never going to make it to the united states of america. this is a major threat to this country, where we can't afford to minimize it. we've got folks traveling, you across the country, across the world. we've got to make darn sure we to makething possible sure this does not become a major epidemic across the united states of america. one thing, we've got to proceed with caution to make screening people. i think they're taking the right steps at the airports. the othert all countries do. i don't believe they're going to violate our rights whatsoever. i think that it's a good thing

that they are screening and doing everything they can to protect. that's the number 1 job of the government, is to protect its people. >> any response? >> just a short one. the level of threat from ebola calls out for us to take a flight these restrictions. i'm in favor of that, if this is something that will keep this it out ofted, keep our country. i also think this is one of those areas where we absolutely need any finger pointing. we don't need any politics attached to it. wejust need to make sure come together, that those who are leaders in the health field come together and try to tide the spread of this disease. >> we have young people that are onching this as well or twitter, all the other social media. mr. schilling, we're going to start with you. a question from john. according to the latest numbers, the average illinois college owes more than $28,000 in student loan debt. what do you think needs to be a college education more affordable and do you think this is a major threat for the

next generation, the amount of college debt they're facing? of ten children, this is a huge threat. the bigger threat is also that kids are coming out of college can't find a job. what we have to do is we've got and focus ink hard on creating more competition for the colleges. inre seeing right here illinois, millions of dollars being completely wasted that should have been spent a little appropriately. what i believe we have to do is we've got to focus a little more in college orkids in high school to where they can actually look and try to find a they might want to go into. not all children are going to go to college. peoples okay to have that might be plumbers and pipe fitters and things like that. you've gotow, when kids and they're going to 60,000 and it's $50,000, per year, i think it's ridiculous. i think the competition, whether it's online or through the the country, will definitely help to draw down those prices. >> the student loan debt is a

crisis. and it exceeds more than $1 debt.on in it exceeded what people have on their credit cards. so it absolutely needs to be dealt with. i have threed sons. all three, very different circumstances. oldest son is a graduate of a four-year public university. to a four-year liberal arts school. youngest son, a community graduate and gainfully employed as a welder. so we've got all the way up from a engineering major to welder. then my middle son is getting his mba. to mentionwant me the amount of his debt but it is see -- high-- let's five figures. it is a large debt. can understand it firsthand. i have supported legislation that allows students to refinance their student loans at a lower level. sponsor of a lead legislation that expands pell whots so those students

can't go to school so they can't afford it, it gives them an opportunity to do that. >> mr. schilling? >> i think the key thing is a lot of this all focuses in on the economy. go to college, you know, they're not -- they're very concerned about, you know, payments are going to be when they get out. but the bigger threat they have a downturn economy and no jobs out there for them to pay those payments. turn to the world scening right now. yesterday a pentagon spokesperson said air strikes won't be enough to stop isis from moving in. think sending american ground troops is inevitable to stop isis? the last votes i cast before we came home to illinois foractually to allow funding for the syrian rebels to be trained and ready to fight ground.the on top of that, simultaneously we've been doing these air strikes. my hope and the way i look at any kind of foreign issue,

is thatpolicy issue, number 1, we start with diplomacy. if we can't be successful with that, that we look for sanctions. if we can't be successful on take a look ats what we might have to do militarily. i just brought in the secretary thehe army, right here in quad cities, and sat down with him in an intimate setting so i could be briefed on what's going on with isis. i sat down in classified briefings, so i know what's going on in isis. before i would approve anything, i will turn to those generals who are on the ground for their advice. >> we're talking about the possibility of ground troops to fight isis, american ground troops. mr. schilling, what do you think? >> i think that what's happened last fewcourse of the months is that there have been thatals that have talked, have said that we need to go after isis. monthsrecall, just a few back, we were told that isis was -- that they were nothing to worry about. now what we're doing is lobbing bombs every once in a while and

on a video showing an empty building getting blown up, but the fact of the matter still moving forward. they are still capturing different towns in iraq. as the father of a young man that served -- that serves in the united states army, i believe you have to expire every possible to make sure we don't put boots on the ground, try to do whatever we can to that. but the experts are all saying inevitably we will have to have boots on the ground. is the fact that when i go and look at something like that, and having skin in thatame, having a son could be boots on the ground, we're going to really take a beforeard look at that we send our son or other sons and daughters into war. country.a war-weary we've been in afghanistan, iraq for more than ten years. fact thatroud of the on our staff, our chief of staff ground combatthe veteran. she served two tours in iraq. ourave a wounded warrior on

staff who handles our veterans issues, legislatively. overseesthe person who all of our illinois offices served 14 years in the national guard. these questions very seriously. again, i would turn to those who know this best before i would kind of decision on what we're talking about here. >> interesting question. it only because it is kind of an area of terrorism that isn't given much thought. mr. schilling, this is coming from steven, who says an electromagnetic pulse, an emp our entireld destroy national electric grid, banking,tion, internet all depend on electricity. congress acted to combat this? >> this is one of the major threats that we had on committee, this is a major ofeat to the united states america. you know, what happens is, when you go in and you start talking

all overferent threats the board, you know, you have too many people that don't that this is factual. this is factual. it is real. we need to make darn sure we do everything. some people worry about spending money on things like this, but this is the right make darn sure that we're defending and protecting our areas. stuff thats is major could cause people to not have water or not be able to get the grocery store. this could be very detrimental to the united states of america and we have to make sure we have people in congress that are moving forward to make sure these are very, very well protected. >> mrs. bustos? >> we do have experts looking at this. i would approach this no than what we've been talking about, whether it be a ebola,ealth threat, with or the threat that isis presents, what you do is you talk to the people who are best this. it is indeed -- it possibly could be a threat. rely on those who are best at this to make sure they handle it. profession, you

mentioned a little bit in the opener here, but i was an reporter --sive investigator reporter. reporter for a number of years. i approached my job is very similar to how i approach my job now. i do the best i can to learn the most i can from the best experts. and i have a full understanding that there's not one side of a story or two sides of a story but multiple sides of the story. and in a case like this, i'm certainly no expert at the grid. certainly go to the right people before i would cast a vote on deciding what we need to do. want toing else you add? >> this is just something where we can talk and look and think we've want. but the fact of the matter is , just likeo move on u the veterans bill. instead of just talking about it talking to experts, i actually put a bill together that would allow veterans to go to any doctor across america. enough of the talk.

got to defend freedom, united states of america. we can talk to all the experts got to getbut we've something done about this. >> let's talk to congress. we're starting with you, cheri bustos. congress is to face more fiscal cliffs. increase inrt an the debt limit and should permanent?on cuts be >> my very first act in congress, very first bill i introduced, it attacked and abuse.waste and not in a small way. $200 billion in wasteful government spending. i think that's the place we need before we do anything. my opponent voted not once but twice to end the medicare guarantee. so that's looking at balancing the budget on the box of seniors, in -- on the backs of itiors, in my opinion, where would cost seniors $6,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.

voted fort sequestration. here's why. that impacted this economy, $100 here in this area, by million. we had workers who had to take were lesshome that than they're used to taking their take-home pay was worse. they had to take forced time out. vote he cast for our number 1 employer in this area. >> mr. schilling? find this very interesting, because the congresswoman went to washington, d.c., said she end the gridlock, the dysfunction. and the very first opportunity on all, she voted no fixed budgets. when you go to congress, you've able to compromise. our congress never had a government shutdown. thing is there's a big difference between the two of us. when i made promises to the i keptof the district, every single one of them. the incumbent congresswoman had forego her pay during the government shutdown. we did some research and found

that.e didn't do the key thing, what we have to costs, is to try to avoid sequestration. there is so much waste out there go and capture. we don't need to go in and start cutting our military back so far that we can't defend our freedom in the united states of america. misleading but let me address the budget. first of all, i voted in favor first bipartisan budget agreement in many years. it was democrats, it was paul patty murray, democrat and republican coming together with this budget. that's the budget i voted for. it's the one that looked after a much better way than any of the budgets i voted no on. something likert sequestration where it impacted our community right here, and people who work right over at that island, to the tune of $100 million, that's an vote, in my opinion. >> that is the end of our questions and believe it or not, of our time that we're

able to talk to you. but we do have 90 seconds for closingyou to make a statement. we start with you, mrs. bustos. >> thank you very much, jim. this very -- handled this very honorably, and i appreciate that. to our viewers at home not only for tuning in but being engaged. question ofn is a priorities. i want to continue to fight for the middle class families that so deserve someone there to fight for them. my opponent, on the other hand, allies support tax breaks that ship our jobs when we need time to be fighting for middle class families. they're mixed-up priorities. make surecontinue to i fight for those on medicare and social security, including my mom. fight for the right priorities, for this district. and i will continue to do that. sure, we have to make sure that we address the budget deficit. very first act in congress that i've talked about before was to attack government waste and abuse.

i also know that the right priorities include what i've fight for, for this district, and have been able to deliver for this district. i think this is a matter of solutions, finding commonsense solutions and getting results. why i worked with democrats and republicans to make sure that we passed a to give ourrm bill family farmers certainty. it's why i worked as hard as i off veryfight blatantly partisan attempts to opening of the thompson prison. whereoud of our office we've worked with countless veterans to work through the red tape. and i'm askings you to stand with me and to vote for me, because illinois is worth fighting for. >> thank you, mrs. bustos. mr. schilling? >> first, i just want to thank viewers out there tonight. a question i have for each of you, how many of you out there watching tonight believe that had it better than your parents? this.arier question is

how many of you believe your kids or grandkids are going to have it better than you? born and raised in rock island. my dad worked two jobs. he was a bartender. but he told us, if we worked hard, played by the rules, we america.ceed here in christie and i run a pizza store. single penny we spend. and we're raising our ten children in the middle class. american dream. and what i want to be able to do is pass that on to future generations. on right nowssing is not working. i want to give hope to the that aren'there looking for career politicians or somebody that's been appointed or anointed in. want people that are going to be statesmen, not career politicians. the one thing that dad taught us as kids is work hard, play by gonna getand you're ahead. if you look rat -- at our went to, when i congress, i cut my own budget. -- $110,000 to the

tax pair. pair -- taxpayer. i believe our greatest days are ahead. we all work together. not having democrat, republican fighting but coming together as do the right things so future generations can also live the american dream us. was handed on to thank you. >> we'd like to thank cheri bustos and her campaign and campaignilling and his for helping us out and agreeing to tonight's debate. all voters in the 17th congressional district to cast their ballots. behalf of wqad-tv, thank you us for tonight's discussion, an -- and have a good night. >> in kentucky, senator mitch

mcconnell is in a tight race against allison lundergan grimes. here are some of the political ads running in the state. you or mitch -- after 30 years who's doing better? he has enjoyed 200,000 dollars worth of perks and travel and raised himself over $70 million. income is down 9% and kentucky has fallen to 44th in jobs. it sure seems mitch has washington working for him and not us. the democratic senatorial campaign committee is responsible for this advertisement. allison grimes says this election is not about her support for barack obama and his failed policies. >> i'm not barack obama. >> obama says a vote for allison

is a vote for his policies. >> i'm not on the ballot but make no mistakes, these policies are on the ballot, every single one of them. >> obama needs grimes and kentucky needs mitch mcconnell. rimesm allison lundergan g and i approve this message. 0 he skipped hundreds of meetings. where was he? he did not vote but he found time for a lobbyist fundraiser and two tv shows. he did not meet for role jobs but went to the chinese vice president for great achievement. the rest of the time, creating gridlock. 30 years is long enough. ads falseia calls her and misleading but she keeps attacking. now on attendance. thats must not understand he can appoint committee members

making sure kentucky's voice is heard. it's a power she won't have. as for his attendance? 99%. allison grimes, no experience, >> false and misleading attacks. i mitch mcconnell and i approve this message. >> live coverage of the kentucky monday at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. illinois governor pat quinn faces republican challenger bruce rauner. governor quinn was elected in 2010 with just over 46% of the vote. mr. rauner is a private businessman. the cook to lyrical report and others list this as a tossup. this debate is courtesy of wtvp in curiel, illinois.

>> live from the studios on the pure real, illinois, riverfront, this is the downstate abate. this program is produced in partnership with the public broadcasters of illinois and the league of women voters. that evening. good evening. i will be the moderator tonight. candidates are an incumbent democratic governor pat flynn of chicago seeking his second full term as chief executive and republican bruce rauner, a businessman from when it could. and the businessman. part in thet taking debate. minimum required participation. our candidates will be questioned by a trio of

journalists. they are jamie done. we are going to start with a one minute opening statement from each of the candidates. let's start with mr. quinn. what makes you the best candidate for the job? >> when i took office it was a tough time for illinois. we had one in jail and another going for -- going to jail. the recession caused great harm to many people who lost their jobs. we had a huge deficit. i asked the people for their prayers. we are able to cut our budget and remove unnecessary spending

by $5 million. we also made reforms that made our state that there. i have to suspend legislative paychecks, but we got the job done. right now our state has unemployment at the lowest level in six years. jobs are up. unemployment is down. it is important -- important we work together, investing in education. tohink the best way to go is stay in this direction and do the right thing. >> thank you to the panelists. thank you to the people. thank you to the viewers at home. i would love to go to work for you. i love illinois. i have been blessed in my career with terrific results, first working with teachers and police officers. then by giving back to our community, donating to our schools, our red cross, better

and services. we have driven results, and i want to do the same to turn our government around. the state has lost its way. machinegroup of politicians got control of our government in springfield, and they have led us down a bad path. crime, we have lost our way at the state. we need to turn around. i am the one who can bring big change. i cannot be bought, bribed, or intimidated. i am going to dedicate my work to restoring prosperity to the families of illinois and bringing back the american dream to every family in having the best schools in america. >> the candidates will each get a minute to answer the questions. to be an this is going easy question.

in these days of hyper partnership -- partisanship, compromise is often seen as a dirty word. which member of the opposite party do you most admire or until you can best work with? >> that is interesting. , i havethe process taken time to get to know members of the general assembly. i spent a lot of time getting to know the democrats. i worked closely to solve problems on a bipartisan basis. i worked with hutchinson. i look forward to working with and othercation issues. i have a history of working with people from all backgrounds to get things done. i was asked by the mayor of chicago to take over the changes

, to make sure we are for convention business. then the mayor asked me to take over the tourism bureau and put staff.w board, a new chicago is one of the fastest growing tourist destinations. we will solve problems together. >> i get along with everybody. i believe in civility. someone from my hometown is going to be part of the transportation authority. my mom worked at a junior high school. we don't always agree on every single issue, but we have worked on bipartisan reforms. pension reform was bipartisan. we had democrats and republicans working together. i think it is important to do so. the best thing is to do what we have done.

we passed a bipartisan bill for jobs in illinois, for construction jobs. we build roads. we did that in a bipartisan way. i worked with the leaders of both parties. a the senator is no longer senator? >> he is still a member of the party. worked withleader us. i enjoy working with him. >> do you care to add to that? >> there are many members and the general assembly i have gotten to know. onill work closely with them a personal basis. >> the website was open to questions from the public. the number one topic they submitted by far was about jobs. from aurora to

decatur. the company has delayed the announcement. did governor,ike what would you do to make sure manufacturing creates job growth in illinois? enough.acturing has we have so many auto supply jobs in illinois as well as companies like christ there. governor chrysler had 200 jobs. they now have 2500. the same thing with four. now they have three shifts around the clock. i have worked with each of the companies.

there is a reason why so many mall business is have begun and grown in illinois and the last five years. we emphasize education and working with these companies. i think that's the best way to make it grow. >> illinois has lost over 40,000 jobs. imanufacturing was able to risk the a personal endorsement from caterpillar. he has been an outspoken critic of the business by met. cannot really grow our economy as long as this is true and cannot solve the many problems facing us in illinois. manufacturing jobs have 64,000 .obs

is critical. i will work closely with manufacturing firms to make sure they stay here in peoria. i want to make sure caterpillar invests here by making sure the business climate is driving. bym honored to be endorsed the illinois chamber of commerce. we need to make illinois pro-business and pro-growth to be able to fund our schools and turn our state around. >> states would play a large role in rules to cut carbon emissions. do you believe climate change is happening, and what is your take on the obama administration's plan to cut carbon? they allowe broad-based options. i do not believe betting too much on any one sector is prudent. we need energy independence.

see that alsoo for illinois. i believe we can have renewable resources here. we should have further development of renewable energy. i also believe we can be prudent for energy development for more resources. hydraulic fracturing. it can be a massive tax revenue generator if we have broad options. i will push every capability in that regard. >> we have to reduce emissions and take on climate change. the winter we just had an terrible tornadoes in washington and other places, i think they are a signal to all of us severe weather is something we have to pay attention to. reducing emissions is part of the job. since i have read and governor

of the state has erected many wind turbines across illinois. many have been on the roof of the shedd aquarium in chicago, where they have solar collectors that are world-class. we have to believe in energy efficiency. our state is the only state not on the coast it is in the top 10 of energy efficiency in the country. we have been able to do that in my time as governor. one of the best way to reduce emissions and help grow jobs. clean energy jobs that create good paying jobs for people by reducing the need for energy wherever possible. i think the state of illinois can be a leader in this area. areave good workers who well-trained. >> we have a question for governor quinn. >> too many incumbents are more concerned with reelections and than voters.ns

in 1994 when you are campaigning to bring term limits to illinois. now you are running for office to complete 10 years as governor in 16 years in the executive branch. what has changed? you often brag about your lack of government experience. when was the last time you hired a novice to work as a ceo? >> i led the effort for term limits in 1994. i believe having term limits for each office is a good thing for illinois. i think i demonstrated early on my support for term limits have never wavered. the issues we used was the importance of term limits for each and every office. pass abeen able to recall in illinois as well as reducing the size of the legislature. those are things i got past.

i don't think anyone should be an office for too long. i think it is important to have reasonable term limits for each office, and i work hard on that. they did notnted help me when we were petitioning for term limits. he had an opportunity to join us. he refused to do it now. all of a sudden he is a born-again term limits advocate. i look forward to getting it passed. it took years to get the recall done, but we got it done. >> we need term limits. up on thisr give issue. pat quinn had a chance to drive the bill on term limits. i will drive term limits with the general assembly to get it on the ballot and let voters decide. that is one of the most important reforms we can make. that can really transform the culture.

you asked a question earlier about experience. been a ceo for decades. i have let one of the most companies in the world. i have driven great results in many other organizations in the not for profit world as well. i have worked on pension reform, good government in many regards. i have proven ability to solve problems and get things done, and i will work on a bipartisan basis to do it. >> have you ever hired anyone with that little experience to work in one of your companies? >> i think we can look at rick snyder who became governor, won his first election, and is turning michigan around as well. we can look at rick scott who won his first election in florida i and is turning that

state around. we can look at michael bloomberg who did dramatic reforms in new york. business leaders can solve problems and get things done. it's all about executive leadership, teambuilding. >> you have 30 seconds to wrap that up. what is your response? >> my opponent talks about successful results. he has been involved in 12 different bankruptcies involving different companies. there have been six of his executives indicted and sent to jail. two are under indictment now. and $1ve 150 lawsuits billion worth of claims for wrongful death in those nursing homes lodged against his company. it seems to me those are not terrific results.

>> let's turn to education. statewide advisory collection number three. as the school district should receive additional revenue from an additional 3% tax on income greater than $1 million. do you support the proposal? how would you ensure the money would go to schools? if you do not submit the proposal, from what source would you seek additional money for education? >> the politicians in illinois have said every time they want to raise taxes it is for schools. we put the money in illinois. it is for schools. the money doesn't end up in schools. our current governor raise their income tax. then he cut half $1 billion from school funding. politicians use schools an excuse to raise taxes. i am opposed to putting further income tax on illinois.

i would rather like to see income taxes roll back to where they were in 2010. beingggest reform becoming a pro growth state generates tax revenues. i am a strong believer we need to increase education funding. other spending can be cut, but education must be increased in its support. i will make that a top priority as governor. >> funding -- when it comes to education funding my opponent makes things up. we have increased spending by five and a half million dollars. independent fact checkers have proven that. i have paid the pensions and increased funding and education. i think we need to do more. there is a referendum i put on the ballot asking whether or not the lien errs should pay higher income taxes.

we go to the school districts and classes of illinois. i think that is a good idea. my opponent who is a billion or doesn't want to raise his income tax, but he wants to cut funding for schools across illinois. his budget plan would slash our layation budget. it would off teachers and cause great to teachers. he wants a million dollar tax cut for himself and education across illinois. i think it is important to send a message to millionaires and billionaires that they ought to pay more. illinois school districts cannot make it on state aid a loan because their property tax bases are so low they cannot provide the minimal amount of spending needed per pupil. a minimum proposal would redistribute more state dollars

to districts based on their ability to pay. do you support the plan, or is there a better way of ensuring local districts have the funding they need to ensure that their spending for each student -- better spending for each student ? >> one is the referendum we just talked about. another is the budget. it would put more money in classroom education than anytime in history. it would also put money in early childhood education as well as scholarships. ith respect to the proposal, think it needs a lot of oversight and review. debate. more i do not favor reducing funding in a particular school district. to gok a much better way is increasing funding for all district. i think that should be done

first and foremost. >> i haven't studied the details. i probably would not support that particular bill, although i believe we should come up with a new state education funding formula. we are 48 out of 50 states for funding for education. that is not right. we should increase our state support for schools. i wife and i believe education is the most important they we do as a community. there is nothing more important. when you look at the challenges we face as a state and the nation, unemployment, low wages, high crime, poverty. education is not the soulful-ish in, but it is a major part of the solution. my wife and i have dedicated to improving education for decades. in thisery active issue. governor quinn has been in government for decades. he has been zero on education, completely lacking in any

regard, except he has increased income taxes and cut education funding. we need an education governor, and i will lead in that process. >> the next is from amanda. claim the state cannot afford the current level of retirement benefits. do you think the framers made a mistake by including the pension protection clause that says retirement benefits shall not be diminished, and should illinois and amend the constitution now to remove that amendment? don't think that language is a mistake at all. are ak pensions contractural obligation. it should be honored by all parties. i was opposed to pension changes pat quinn put through last november because i believe they were unconstitutional. i don't believe it is right to change the payment to a retiree

after they were already retired. that is what governor quinn did in that pension reform will. i don't think that is the right thing to do. i think the fair thing to do and the constitutional thing to do is to freeze the pensions where they are today. do not change anything. pay those benefits, but starting tomorrow we should create a second pension plan that is more affordable. of moneyt save a lot in the short term. it saves billions in the long run. >> my opponent wants to privatize pensions in illinois. arisky 401(k) plan that has $100 billion haul. i don't think that's the right way to go. i think the provisions protecting pensions is a good one. it is now going to be for the

supreme court, and they will make a decision regarding our constitution. myant to go to one thing opponent persists on misstating. we have raised funding for classroom education by almost $500 million. amountspaid the pension every year. me have notfore done this. i have complied with the law. that is the best way to go. did signnsion law you he finds unconstitutional because of that clause. should it be removed from the constitution? >> my dad told me, don't take an aspirin unless you get a headache. i don't think it's wise to take something both the legislature and i feel our constitutional

provisions before the court acts. if the court acts in a way that is contrary, we will take is a serious steps, but we have to deal with liability problems i inherited. problem,create this but i am solving this problem by putting the proper amount into pensions. wilson has a question. >> state advisory question number one on the ballot asks if minimum wage should be raised to $10 per hour by january first. the congressional budget office says the minimum wage of $10 10 cents per hour would cost the nation to lose a minimum of 500,000 jobs. you have described yourself as a jobs governor. how does that square with that position? if the ballot measure is approved, would you seek such a change? why or why not? >> that study they speculated

there would be a job loss. there have been other studies the indicate raising minimum wage is the best way to our create jobs and help economy. 70% of the economy is consumer spending. i favored raising the minimum wage. i got it done in 2003. in 2007 we are going to do it again. there is a referendum i signed into law to give people a chance to vote for $10 an hour minimum wage. my opponent said, a lemonade minimum wage. a person taking in $53 million a year running around illinois wage,, eliminate minimum is adamantly against minimum wage. i am adamantly for raising minimum wage. it is the best way to help thousands of people living from paycheck to paycheck. let's give them a raise. that is the best way to have social justice.

>> pat quinn has been governor for six years, and he has had a super majority of his party in the general assembly and has not increased minimum wage in that time. if he was serious he could have gotten it done. he is playing political football with peoples lives and with our economy. here is the way to deal with minimum wage. illinois today is not competitive. we need to go -- to grow our economy. been a failure on jobs. we have become the lowest date on job growth in the midwest. we are failing on jobs. there are two ways to be competitive and raise minimum wage. one is to increase national minimum wage. today ours is higher than the national. the other is to raise it as high as $10 but do it with reforms so

our small business owners can afford to pay higher minimum wage, our competitiveness is there, and that would help all families. >> i have a two-parter as well. to point to successes in other states, but sam brownback cut income taxes in an moret to make the state business friendly, and now it lags behind the rest of the country and has to cut funding. explain how your plan to lower taxes would have different incomes -- outcomes in illinois. senator, you have rejected the plan to expand sales tax on services, even though it could avoid being regressive. why do you oppose what many see isn't needed change to make it stable in the future? >> governor quinn today