believe me. sec. clinton well, first of all, what he just said about the state department is not only untrue, it's been debunked numerous times. sec. clinton but i think it's really an important issue. he raised the 30 years of experience, so let me just talk briefly about that. you know, back in the 1970s, i worked for the children's defense fund. and i was taking on discrimination against african-american kids in schools. he was getting sued by the justice department for racial discrimination in his apartment buildings. in the 1980s, i was working to reform the schools in arkansas. he was borrowing $14 million from his father to start his businesses. in the 1990s, i went to beijing and i said women's rights are human rights. he insulted a former miss universe, alicia machado, called her an eating machine. mr. trump: give me a break. sec. clinton and on the day when i was in the situation room, monitoring the raid that brought osama bin laden to justice, he was hosting the "celebrity

apprentice." so i'm happy to compare my 30 years of experience, what i've done for this country, trying to help in every way i could, especially kids and families get ahead and stay ahead, with your 30 years, and i'll let the american people make that decision. mr. trump: well, i think i did a much better job. i built a massive company, a great company, some of the greatest assets anywhere in the world, worth many, many billions of dollars. i started with a $1 million loan. i agree with that. it's a $1 million loan. but i built a phenomenal company. and if we could run our country the way i've run my company, we would have a country that you would be so proud of. you would even be proud of it. and frankly, when you look at her real record, take a look at syria. take a look at the migration. take a look at libya. take a look at iraq. she gave us isis, because her and obama created this huge vacuum, and a small group came out of that huge vacuum because when -- we should never have

been in iraq, but once we were there, we should have never got out the way they wanted to get out. she gave us isis as sure as you are sitting there. and what happened is now isis is in 32 countries. and now i listen how she's going to get rid of isis. she's going to get rid of nobody. moderator: all right. we are going to get to foreign hot spots in a few moments, but the next segment is fitness to be president of the united states. mr. trump, at the last debate, you said your talk about grabbing women was just that, talk, and that you'd never actually done it. and since then, as we all know, nine women have come forward and have said that you either groped them or kissed them without their consent. why would so many different women from so many different circumstances over so many different years, why would they all in this last couple of weeks make up -- you deny this -- why would they all make up these stories?

since this is a question for both of you, secretary clinton, mr. trump says what your husband did and that you defended was even worse. mr. trump, you go first. mr. trump: well, first of all, those stories have been largely debunked. those people -- i don't know those people. i have a feeling how they came. i believe it was her campaign that did it. just like if you look at what came out today on the clips where i was wondering what happened with my rally in chicago and other rallies where we had such violence? she's the one and obama that caused the violence. they hired people -- they paid them $1,500, and they're on tape saying be violent, cause fights, do bad things. i would say the only way -- because those stories are all totally false, i have to say that. and i didn't even apologize to my wife, who's sitting right here, because i didn't do anything. i didn't know any of these -- i didn't see these women. these women -- the woman on the plane, the -- i think they want either fame or her campaign did

it. and i think it's her campaign. because what i saw what they did, which is a criminal act, by the way, where they're telling people to go out and start fist-fights and start violence. and i'll tell you what, in particular in chicago, people were hurt and people could have been killed in that riot. and that was now all on tape, started by her. i believe, chris, that she got these people to step forward. if it wasn't, they get their 10 minutes of fame. but they were all totally -- it was all fiction. it was lies, and it was fiction. sec. clinton well -- moderator: secretary clinton? sec. clinton at the last debate, we heard donald talking about what he did to women. and after that, a number of women have come forward saying that's exactly what he did to them. now, what was his response? well, he held a number of big rallies where he said that he could not possibly have done those things to those women

because they were not attractive enough for them to be assaulted. mr. trump: i did not say that. i did not say that. sec. clinton in fact, he went on to say -- moderator: her two minutes -- sir, her two minutes. her two minutes. mr. trump: i did not say that. moderator: it's her two minutes. sec. clinton he went on to say, "look at her. i don't think so." about another woman, he said, "that wouldn't be my first choice." he attacked the woman reporter writing the story, called her "disgusting," as he has called a number of women during this campaign. donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger. he goes after their dignity, their self-worth, and i don't think there is a woman anywhere who doesn't know what that feels like. so we now know what donald thinks and what he says and how he acts toward women. that's who donald is. i think it's really up to all of us to demonstrate who we are and who our country is, and to stand up and be very clear about what we expect from our next

president, how we want to bring our country together, where we don't want to have the kind of pitting of people one against the other, where instead we celebrate our diversity, we lift people up, and we make our country even greater. america is great, because america is good.

and it really is up to all of us to make that true, now and in the future, and particularly for our children and our grandchildren. moderator: mr. trump -- mr. trump: nobody has more respect for women than i do. [laughter] nobody has more respect -- moderator: please, everybody. mr. trump: and frankly, those stories have been largely debunked. and i really want to just talk about something slightly different. she mentions this, which is all fiction, all fictionalized, probably or possibly started by her and her very sleazy campaign. but i will tell you what isn't fictionalized are her e-mails, where she destroyed 33,000 e-mails criminally, criminally, after getting a subpoena from the united states congress. what happened to the fbi, i don't know. we have a great general, four-star general, today you read it in all of the papers, going to potentially serve five years in jail for lying to the fbi. one lie. she's lied hundreds of times to the people, to congress, and to the fbi.

he's going to probably go to jail. this is a four-star general. and she gets away with it, and she can run for the presidency of the united states? that's really what you should be talking about, not fiction, where somebody wants fame or where they come out of her crooked campaign. moderator: secretary clinton? sec. clinton well, every time donald is pushed on something which is obviously uncomfortable, like what these women are saying, he immediately goes to denying responsibility. and it's not just about women. he never apologizes or says he's sorry for anything. so we know what he has said and what he's done to women. but he also went after a disabled reporter, mocked and mimicked him on national television. mr. trump: wrong. sec. clinton he went after mr. and mrs. khan, the parents of a young man who died serving our country, a gold star family, because of their religion. he went after john mccain, a prisoner of war, said he prefers "people who aren't captured." he went after a federal judge, born in indiana, but who donald said couldn't be trusted to try the fraud and racketeering case against trump university because his parents were mexican. so it's not one thing. this is a pattern, a pattern of divisiveness, of a very dark and in many ways dangerous vision of our country, where he incites

violence, where he applauds people who are pushing and pulling and punching at his rallies. that is not who america is. and i hope that as we move in the last weeks of this campaign, more and more people will understand what's at stake in this election. it really does come down to what kind of country we are going to have. mr. trump: so sad when she talks about violence at my rallies, and she caused the violence. it's on tape. moderator: during the last -- mr. trump: the other things are false, but honestly, i'd love to talk about getting rid of isis, and i'd love to talk about other things -- moderator: ok. mr. trump: -- but those other charges, as she knows, are false. moderator: in this bucket about

fitness to be president, there's been a lot of developments over the last 10 days since the last debate. i'd like to ask you about them. these are questions that the american people have. secretary clinton, during your 2009 senate confirmation hearing, you promised to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest with your dealing with the clinton foundation while you were secretary of state, but e-mails show that donors got special access to you. those seeking grants for haiti relief were considered separately from non-donors, and some of those donors got contracts, government contracts, taxpayer money. can you really say that you kept your pledge to that senate committee? and why isn't what happened and what went on between you and the clinton foundation, why isn't it what mr. trump calls pay to play? sec. clinton well, everything i did as secretary of state was in furtherance of our country's interests and our values. the state department has said that. i think that's been proven. but i am happy, in fact i'm

thrilled to talk about the clinton foundation, because it is a world-renowned charity and i am so proud of the work that it does. you know, i could talk for the rest of the debate -- i know i don't have the time to do that. but just briefly, the clinton foundation made it possible for 11 million people around the world with hiv-aids to afford treatment, and that's about half all the people in the world who are getting treatment. in partnership with the american health association -- moderator: secretary clinton -- sec. clinton -- we have made environments in schools healthier for kids, including healthier lunches -- moderator: secretary clinton, respectfully, this is -- this is an open discussion. sec. clinton well, it is an open discussion. and you -- moderator: and the specific question went to pay for play. do you want to talk about that? sec. clinton well, but there is no -- but there is no evidence -- but there is -- mr. trump: i think that it's been very well -- moderator: let's ask mr. trump. sec. clinton there is a lot of evidence about the very good work -- mr. trump: it's been very well studied. sec. clinton -- and the high rankings -- moderator: please let me mr. trump speak. mr. trump: -- and it's a criminal enterprise, and so many people know it. moderator: please let mr. trump speak. mr. trump: it's a criminal enterprise. saudi arabia giving $25 million, qatar, all of these countries. you talk about women and women's rights? so these are people that push

gays off business -- off buildings. these are people that kill women and treat women horribly. and yet you take their money. so i'd like to ask you right now, why don't you give back the money that you've taken from certain countries that treat certain groups of people so horribly? why don't you give back the money? i think it would be a great gesture. because she takes a tremendous amount of money. and you take a look at the people of haiti. i was at a little haiti the other day in florida. and i want to tell you, they hate the clintons, because what's happened in haiti with the clinton foundation is a disgrace. and you know it, and they know it, and everybody knows it. moderator: secretary clinton? sec. clinton well, very quickly, we at the clinton foundation spend 90 percent -- 90 percent of all the money that is donated on behalf of programs of people around the world and in our own country. i'm very proud of that. we have the highest rating from

from the watchdogs that follow foundations. and i'd be happy to compare what we do with the trump foundation, which took money from other people and bought a six- foot portrait of donald. i mean, who does that? it just was astonishing. but when it comes to haiti, haiti is the poorest country in our hemisphere. hurricanes have devastated haiti. bill and i have been involved in trying to help haiti for many years. the clinton foundation raised $30 million to help haiti after the catastrophic earthquake, and all of the terrible problems of people there had. we have done things to help small businesses, agriculture, and so much else, and we are going to keep working to help haiti, because it is an important part of the american -- mr. trump: i would like to mention one thing. the trump foundation, people contribute, i contribute, and the money goes 100%, 100% goes to different charities,

including a lot of military. i don't get anything. i don't buy boats, i don't buy planes. chris: wasn't some of the money used to sell your lawsuit? mr. trump: we've put up the american flag. that's it. we fought for the right in palm beach to put up the american flag. chris: there was a penalty imposed by palm beach county, paid out by your foundation. mr. trump: the money went to fisher house, where they build houses. the money you are talking about went to fisher house, where they don't houses for veterans and disabled -- mrs. clinton: of course, there is no way whether we can know if any of that is true, because he has not released his tax returns. he is the first candidate to ever run for president in the last 40 plus years who has not released his tax returns, so everything he says about charity or anything else, we can't prove it. you can look at our tax returns. we have done all out -- we have all them out there. what is really troubling, we learned in the last debate, he

has not paid a penny in federal income tax. we were talking about immigrants a few minutes ago, chris. , you know half of all immigrants, undocumented immigrants in our country actually pay federal income tax. immigrantsocumented in america who are paying more federal income tax than a billionaire. i find that astonishing. mr. trump: we are entitled because of the laws that people like her passed to take massive amounts of depreciation and other charges, and we do it. just about all of her donors, hundreds of millions of dollars on george soros, let me just explain, all of her donors, most of her donors -- you know what she should have done? you know what you should have done? you should have changed the law when you were a united states senator, because your donors, your special interests are doing the same thing as i do, except even more so. you should have changed the law, but you will not change the law,

because you take in so much money. i sat in my apartment today, on a very -- in a very beautiful hotel down the street. mrs. clinton: built with chinese steel. mr. trump: i sat there watching paid for by all your friends on wall street who spent so much money because they know you will protect them. if you don't like what i did, you should have changed the law. chris: i want to ask you about one last question in this topic. you have been warning at rallies recently that this election is clintonand that hillary is in the process of trying to steal it from you. your running mate, governor pence, pledged on sunday that he and you will, his words, absolutely accept the result of this election. today your daughter ivanka. said the same thing i want to ask you, do you make the same

commitment, sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of this election? mr. trump: i will look at it at the time. i'm not looking at anything now. i will look at it at the time. what i have seen is so bad. first of all, the media is so corrupt, and so the pile on is so amazing the "new york times" actually wrote an article about it. it is so dishonest, and the poison the minds of the voters. for them i think the voters will see through it. i think they will see through it. chris: but sir -- mr. trump: excuse me, chris. if you look at your voter rolls, you will see millions of people who are registered to vote, this is not coming from me, this is coming from other places, millions of people that are registered to vote that should not be registered to vote. so, let me just give you one other thing. i talk about the corrupt media. i talk about the millions of people. tell you one other thing.

she should not be allowed to run. it is crooked. she is guilty of a very, very serious crime. she should not be allowed to run, and just in that respect, i say it is rigged, because she should never, chris, she should never have been allowed to run for the presidency based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things. chris: fetzer, there is a trip -- but sir, there is a tradition in this country the peaceful transition of power, and the matter how hard fought a campaign is, at the end of the campaign, the loser concedes to the winner. not saying you are necessarily going to be the loser or the winter, but that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together, in part for the good of the country. are you are saying you are not prepared now -- mr. trump: what i am saying, i will tell you at the time. i will keep you in suspense. mrs. clinton: let me respond to that. because that is horrifying. every time donald thinks things are not going in his direction,

he claims whatever it is, it is rigged against him. the fbi conducted a year-long investigation into my e-mails that concluded there was no case. he said the fbi was rigged. he lost the iowa caucus, he lost the wisconsin primary, he said the republican primaries were rigged against him. then trump university get sued for fraud and racketeering. he claims the court system and the federal judge is rigged against him. there was even a time when he didn't get an emmy for his tv program three years in a row, and he started tweeting that the emmys were rigged mr. trump: i should have gotten it. [laughter] mrs. clinton: this is how donald trump thinks. it is funny, but it is also really troubling. this is not how our democracy works. we have been around for 240 years. we have had free and fair elections. we have accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them,

and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. president obama said the other day, when you are whining about -- before it is even finished, it just shows you are not up to doing the job. let's be clear about what he is saying and what that means. he is denigrating he is talking down our democracy, and i for 1 am appalled at somebody who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position. mr. trump: i think what the fbi did and what the department of justice state, including meeting with her husband, the attorney general, in the back of an airplane on the tarmac in arizona, i think that's disgraceful. i think it's a disgrace. i think we have never had a situation -- [applause] chris: hold on, folks. let's please continue the debate, and let's move on to the subject of foreign hotspots. the iraqi offensive to take back mosul has begun.

if they are successful in pushing isis out of that city and out of all of iraq, the question then becomes, what happens the day after? and that is something which whichever, whoever of view ends up as president will have to confront. will you put u.s. troops into that vacuum to make sure that isis doesn't come back or is not replaced by something even worse? secretary clinton, you go first. you have two minutes. mrs. clinton: well, i am encouraged that there is an effort led by the iraq he army, supported by -- iraqi army, supported by kurdish forces, and also, given the help and advice from the number of special forces and other americans on the ground, but i will not support putting american soldiers into iraq as an occupying force. i don't think that is in our interest, and i don't think that would be smart to do. in fact, chris, i think that would be a big red flag waving

for isis to reconstitute itself. the goal here is to take back mosul. it will be a hard fight. i have no illusions about that. and then continued to press into syria, to begin to take back and move on raqqa, which is the isis headquarters. i am hopeful that the hard work that american military advisers have done will pay off, and that we will see a really successful military operation. but we know we have lots of work to do. syria will remain a hotbed of terrorism as long as the civil war, aided and abetted by the iranians and russians, continues. i have said, we need to keep our on isis -- eye on isis. that's why i want to have an intelligence surge at home. why we have to go after them on the ground, in the air, online. why we don't want to let

terrorists by weapons. if you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. i will continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within syria, not only to help protect the syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to frankly gain leverage on both the syrian government and the russians so that perhaps we can have the kind of serious negotiation necessary to bring the conflict to an end and go forward on a political track. chris: mr. trump, same question. if we are able to push isis out wouldul and out of iraq, you be willing to put u.s. troops in there to prevent their return, or something else? mr. trump: let me tell you, mosul is so sad. we had mosul, but when she left, when she took everybody out, we lost mosul and now we're fighting again for mosul. they wanted to get the leaders of isis, who they felt were in mosul. three months ago, i started reading they want to get the

leaders, and they are going to attack mosul. whatever happened to the element of surprise, ok? we announce we are going after mosul. i have been reading about going after mosul for three months. these people have all left. the element of surprise, douglas macarthur, george patton, spinning in their graves when they see the stupidity of our country. so we are now fighting for mosul . all she had to do was stay there . now we are going again. you know who the big winner in mosul will be? the only reason they did it is because she's running for the office of president and they want to look tough. they want to look good. he violated the red line in the sand, and he made so many mistakes, made all the mistakes. that's why we have the great migration. but she wanted to look good for the election, so they are going in. we will take mosul eventually. by the way, if you look at

what's happening, much tougher than they thought, much more dangerous, going to be more deaths than they thought. but the leaders we wanted to get are all gone. because they are smart. so mosul is going to be a wonderful thing, andiran -- and iran should write us a letter of thank you, just like the deal, the stupidest deal of all time, that will give iran absolutely nuclear weapons. iran should write another letter saying thank you very much, because iran, as i said many years ago, iran is taking over iraq, something they have wanted to do forever, but we have made it so easy for them. we are going to take mosul, and you know who will be the beneficiary? iran. they are outsmarting -- you are not there, you might be involved in that decision, but you were there when you took everybody out of mosul and out of iraq. we should not have been in iraq -- but you did vote for it --

but once we were in iraq, you never should have left. the point is, the winners going to be iran. mrs. clinton: you know, once again donald is implying that he didn't support the invasion of iraq. i said it was a mistake. i said that years ago. he has consistently denied -- mr. trump: ron. mrs. clinton: what is a clear fact that before the invasion he supported it. i want everybody to google it, google "donald trump iraq," and you will see the dozens of sources which verify that he was for the invasion of iraq. mr. trump: wrong. mrs. clinton: and you can actually hear the audio of him saying that. why does that matter? it matters because he has not told the truth about that position. i guess he believes it makes him look better now to contrast with me, because i did vote for it. but what is really important here is to understand all the interplay. mosul is a sunni city. mosul is on the border of syria.

yes we do need to go after baghdadi, just like we went after bin laden while you were doing "celebrity apprentice" and we brought him to justice. we need to go after the leadership, but we need to get rid of them, get rid of their fighters, their estimated several thousand fighters in mosul, who have been digging underground, who have been prepared. it is going to be tough fighting, but i think we can take back mosul and then move into syria and take back raqqa. this is what we have to do. i'm just amazed that he seems to think that the iraqi government and our allies and everybody else launched the attack on mosul to help me in this election. but that's how donald thinks. he's always looking for something. mr. trump: we don't gain anything. iran is taking over iraq. chris: secretary clinton -- secretary clinton, it is an open discussion, but --

i'm sorry, please let mr. trump speak. mrs. clinton: he proves it every time he talks. mr. trump: wikileaks action just came out. john podesta said some horrible things about you, and boy was he right. he said some beauties. you know, bernie sanders said you have bad judgment. you do. and if you think that going into mosul after we let the world know we are going in, and all the people we really wanted, the leaders, they are all gone, if you think that was good, then you do. john podesta it said you had terrible instincts. bernie sanders said you had bad judgment. i agree with both. mrs. clinton: you should ask bernie sanders who he is supporting for president, who has campaigned for me around the country. you are the most dangerous person to ever run for president in the modern history of america. i think he is right. chris: let's turn to aleppo. mr. trump, in the last debate you were both asked about the

situation in the syrian city of aleppo. i want to follow up on that, because you said several things in that debate which were not true, sir. you said that aleppo has basically fallen. in fact, there are -- mr. trump: it is a catastrophe. have you seen it? have you seen at? have you seen what's happened to aleppo? chris: if i might finish my question. mr. trump: so it hasn't fallen. take a look at it. chris: there's a quarter of a million people still living there and being slaughtered. mr. trump: they are being slaughtered, because of bad decisions. chris: if i may just finish here. you said isis, syria, and russia are busy fighting isis. in fact, they have been the ones bombing and shelling eastern aleppo, and they just announced a humanitarian pause, admitting they have been bombing and shelling aleppo. would you like to clear that up? mr. trump: aleppo is a disaster. it is a humanitarian nightmare. but it has fallen, from any

standpoint. what do you need, a signed document? take a look at aleppo. it is so sad when you see what has happened. and a lot of this is because of hillary clinton. because what has happened, by fighting assad, who turned out to be a lot tougher than she --ught, and now she will say he's just much tougher and much smarter than her and obama. and everyone thought he was gone two years ago, three years ago. he aligned with russia. he now also aligned with iran, who we made very powerful. gave them $150 billion back. we give them $1.7 billion in cash, i mean cash, bundles of cash as big as this stage. we give them $1.7 billion. now he has aligned with russia and with iran. they don't want isis. but they have other things. because we are backing, we are backing rebels.

we don't know who the rebels are. we are giving them lots of money, lots of everything. we don't know who the rebels are. notwhen and if, and it's going to happen because you have russia and iran, but if they ever did overthrow assad, you might end up with as bad as assad, but you may very well and up with worse than assad. if she did nothing, we would be in much better shape. and this is what has caused the great migration, where she's taking in tens of thousands of syrian refugees, who probably, in many cases, not probably, who definitely in many cases are isis-aligned, and we now have them in our country. wait until you see -- this will be the great trojan horse. wait until you see what happens in the coming years. lots of luck, hillary. thanks a lot for doing a great job. chris: secretary clinton, you have talked about, in the last debate and again today, you would impose a no-fly zone to

try to protect the people of aleppo and stop the killing there. president obama has refused to do that, because he fears it will draw us deeper into the conflict. general joseph dunford, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, says that if you impose a no-fly zone, chances are you will get into a war with syria and russia. so the question i have, if you impose a no-fly zone, how do you respond to their concerns. a no-fly if you impose zone and a russian plane violates that, does president putin should that plane down? mrs. clinton: first of all, i think a no-fly zone can save lives and hastened the end of the conflict. i am well aware of the really legitimate concerns you have expressed from both the president and the general. this would not be done just on the first day. this would take a lot of negotiation. it would also take making it clear to the russians and the syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe stones on the ground.

we have had millions of people leave syria, and those millions of people inside syria have been dislocated. so i think we could strike a deal and make it very clear to the russians and the syrians that this was something that we believed was in the best interest of the people on the ground in syria. it would help us with our fight against isis. but i want to respond to what donald said about refugees. he has made these claims repeatedly. i am not going to let anyone into this country who is not vetted, who we do not have confidence in. but i am not going to slam the door on women and children. the picture of that little four-year-old boy in aleppo with the blood coming down his face while he sat in an ambulance, it is haunting. so we are going to do very careful thorough vetting. that does not solve our internal challenges with isis, and our need to stop radicalization, to work with american muslim communities who are on the front lines to identify and prevent attacks. killer of the

dozens of people at the nightclub in orlando, the pulse nightclub, was born in queens, the same place donald was born. so let's be clear about what the threat is, and how we are best going to be able to meet it. and yes, some of that threat emanates from over in syria and iraq, and we have got to keep fighting, and i will defeat isis. and some of it is we have to up our game and be much smarter here. chris: i want to get into our final segment. mr. trump: i just have to -- it is so ridiculous. she will defeat isis. we should have never let isis happen in the first place, and right now they are in 32 countries. one second. they had a cease-fire three weeks ago. a cease-fire, united states, russia, and syria. during the cease-fire, russia ches ofer vast swat land and then said, we don't

want the cease-fire anymore. we are so at played. they are out playing. she wasn't there, so i assume she had nothing to do with it, but our country is so outplaye assad and and iran. nobody can believe how stupid are leadership is. chris: we need to move on to our final segment. that is the national debt, which has not been discussed until tonight. our national debt as a share of the economy, our gdp, is now 77%. that is the highest since just after world war ii. the nonpartisan committee for a responsible federal budget says secretary clinton, under your plan, debt would rise to 86% of gdp over the next 10 years. mr. trump, under your plan they say it would rise to 105% of gdp over the next 10 years. question is, why are both of you ignoring this problem? mr. trump, you go first. mr. trump: i would say they are wrong, because i'm going to

create tremendous jobs. we are bringing gdp from really 1%, which is what it is now, and if she got and it will be less than zero, we are bringing it from 1% up to 4%, and i actually think we can go higher than 4%. i think you can go to 5% or 6%. if we do, you don't have to bother asking your question, because we have a tremendous machine. we will have created a tremendous economic machine once again. to do that, we are taking back jobs. we are not going to let our companies be raided by other countries will release all our jobs. it is very sad. but i'm going to create the kind of the country that we were from the standpoint of industry. we used to be there. we have given it up. we have become very, very sloppy. we have people who are political hacks making the biggest deals in the world, bigger than companies. you take these big companies. these trade deals are far bigger than these companies.

yet we don't use our great leaders, many of whom back me, and many of whom back hillary, but we don't use these people. these are the greatest negotiators in the world. we have the greatest business people in the world. we have to use them to negotiate our trade deals. we use political hacks. we use people that got a position because they made a campaign contribution, and they are dealing with china and people who are very much smarter than they are. so we have to use our great people. but that being said, we will create an economic machine the likes of which we haven't seen in many decades, and people, chris, will again go back to work, and they will make a lot of money and we will have companies that will grow, and expand, and start from new. chris: secretary clinton? mrs. clinton: first, when i hear donald talk like that and know that his slogan is "make america great again," i wonder when he thought america was great. and before he rushes and says,

before you and president obama were there, i think it's important to recognize that he has been criticizing our government for decades. you know, back in 1987, he took out a $100,000 ad in the "new york times" during the time when president reagan was president and basically said exactly what he just said now, that we were the laughing stock of the world. he was criticizing president reagan. this is the way donald thinks about himself, puts himself into the middle and says, you know, i alone can fix it, as he said on the convention stage. but if you look at the debt, which is the issue you asked about, chris, i pay for everything i am proposing. i do not add a penny to the national debt. i take that very seriously, because i do think it's one of the issues we have got to come to grips with. so when i talk about how we are

going to pay for education, how we are going to invest in infrastructure, how we are going to get the cost of production drugs down, and a lot of the other issues people talk about all the time, i have made it very clear. we are going where the money is. we are going to ask the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share, and there is no evidence whatsoever that that will slow down or diminish our growth. in fact, i think just the opposite. we will have what economists call middle-outgrowth. we have got to get back to rebuilding the middle class. the family of america, that's where growth will come from. that's why i want to invest in you. i want to invest in your family. and i think that's the smartest way to grow the economy, to make the economy fairer, and we just have a big disagreement about this. it may be because of our experiences. he started out with his dad as a millionaire. i started out with my dad as a small businessman. it is a difference that affects

how we see the world and how we see the economy. mr. trump: but i just respond? chris: mr. trump: could i just respond? that, weree with him on should be much tougher. frankly, now we're going to do it right. the one last area i want to get into in this debate is entitlement, 60% of all federal spending. the committee for responsible looked at dget has both of your plans and say neither of you has a serious plan that is going to solve the medicare is going to run out of money in the 2020s. social -- the effect i want to ask you in this regard, mr. trump, would

mr. trump make a deal to save medicare and social security included both tax increases entitlements. mr. trump: we're going to grow rate.onomy on a record one thing we have to do, repeal and replace the disaster known obamacare. it's destroying our country. it's destroying our businesses, ur small business and our big businesses. we have to repeal and replace obamacare. look at the kind of numbers that that will cost us 17.he year it is a disaster. if we don't repeal and replace. of probably going to die its own weight, but obamacare has to go. 60, remiums are going up 70, 80%. next year, they're going to go over 100%, and i'm really glad that the premiums have started. t least the people see what's happening because she wants to keep obamacare, and she wants to make it even worse, and it can't

worse. bad healthcare at the most expensive price. e have to repeal and replace obamacare. chris: secretary clinton, same question, because at this point, and medicare are going to run out. the trust funds are going to run out of money. will you as president entertain -- will you consider a rand bargain, a deal that includes both tax increases and cuts to try to save both programs? mrs. clinton: well, chris, i am on record as saying that we need social ore money in the security trust fund. that's part of my commitment to taxes on the wealthy. my social security payroll up as will will go donald's -- assuming he can't figure out how to get out of it. but what we want to do is replenish the social security making sure that we have sufficient resources, and that will come from either cap and/or finding other ways to get more money into it.

benefits.t cut i want to enhance benefits for womencome workers and for who have been disadvantaged by the current social security system. what donald is proposing with these massive tax cuts will a $20 trillion additional national debt. consequencese dire for social security and medicare. and i'll tell you something about the affordable care act, wants to repeal. the affordable care act extended medicare cy of the trust fund, so if he repeals it, medicare problem gets worse. what we need are long-term healthcare drivers. get costs down, increase value, emphasize wellness. for doing that and i believe we will get entitlement spending under resources and re smarter decisions. tois: this is the final time your delight probably that in ll both be on the stage

this campaign. i would like to end it on a positive note. closing ot agreed to statements but it might make it more interesting because you aven't prepared closing statements. so we're going to put up a as the final clock question and the final debate to tell the american people why they should elect you to be the president. this is another new minisegment. secretary clinton, it's your go first. mrs. clinton: i would like to say to everyone watching tonight that i'm reaching out to all democrats, republicans and independents, because we need everybody to country what it should be, to grow the economy, o make it fairer, to make it work for everyone. we need your talents, your commitment, your energy, your ambition. i have been privileged to see and i sidency up close, know the awesome responsibility of protecting our country and he incredible opportunity of working to try to make life better for all of you.

the cause of children and families really my life's work. what my mission will be in the presidency. i will stand up for families powerful interests, against corporations. i will do everything that i can make sure that you have good jobs with rising incomes, that good educations from preschool through college. i hope you will give me a chance as your president. chris: secretary clinton, thank you. mr. trump. mr. trump: she's raising money from the people she wants to control. doesn't work that way. started this campaign, i started it very make ly, it's called america great again. we're going to make america great. we have a depleted military. helped and fixed. we have the greatest people on earth in our military. care of our veterans and illegal immigrants, people that come into the country illegally better than vets. that can't happen. our policemen and women are

disrespected. we need law and order but we need justice too. our inner cities are a disaster. you get shot walking to the store. they have no education. they have no jobs. do more for african-americans and latinos in 10 lifetimes. all she's done is talked to the african-americans and latinos, the vote and come back and say, we'll see you in four years. we are going to make america again, and we are going to make america great again, and it has to start now. take four more years of barack obama, and that's what get her.hen you chris: thank you, both. --retary clinton [applause] chris: hold on just a moment, folks. i want to thank you both for of icipating in all three these debates. that brings an end to this sponsored by the presidential convention on debates. thank the university of las vegas for having us.

now it's up to you. november 8 is just 20 days away. one thing everyone here can gree on, we hope you will go vote. it is one of the honors and obligations of living in this great country. thank you, and good night. applause]

[crowd speaking indistinctly]

[indistinct chatter]

. ndistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter]

>> we have a car coming. we can wait. so whatever you think.

[indistinct chatter]

>> a tweet about donald trump's most recent remarks about what he has been calling a rigged election. he was at a rally in ohio today. mr. trump: i will like to

promise and pledged to my voters and supporters and to all of the people in the united states that i will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election if i win. [cheers and applause] a little bit more here from reuters, saying trump says he will accept clear in election results but also reserves the right to file a legal challenge. a look here from the minority leader of the house, nancy pelosi, saying the silence from the gop leadership on donald trump is undermining the electoral process, and that is complicity -- evasion is unacceptable. >> every four years, the

presidential candidates turn from politics to humor at the al smith memorial foundation dinner to raise money for catholic charities at waldorf-astoria hotel. >> i have traveled the benefit circuit for many years and never quite understood the logistics of dinners like this, and now the absence of one individual can cause three of us not to have seats. you herelad to see tonight and you have said many times in this campaign that you want to get america back to the little guys. mr. vice president, i am that man. [laughter] an honor to share this with al smith spirit your great-grandfather was my favorite kind of governor. [laughter] >> the kind who ran for president and lost. right, a campaign

can require a lot of wardrobe changes. blue jeans in the morning, perhaps. for lunch fundraiser. sport coat for dinner. but it is nice to finally relax wearhere what ann an id i around the house. >> tonight and 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org, and listen and 9:00 pm eastern with the c-span radio app. today, the candidates in ohio's u.s. senate race will meet for another debate. senator portman and democrat ted strickland. we will take you there live at 7:00 eastern tonight here on c-span. a look at a tweet -- reaffirming russian hacking after mr. trump said he doubts it. mr. clapper made those remarks today before the intelligence

and national security alliance gathering at the u.s. capitol, where he spoke for about 45 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. i am president of the intelligence and national security alliance. we will get started. i think we have 30 or 40 people working their way through security outside. we think the director of national intelligence is close, so we want to make sure that he will be here by the time we get through these preliminary therks and can talk about things we came here to hear about. so on behalf of nsef and our cohost, executives from national security, i am pleased to welcome you to the congressional

auditorium of the capital business center. i would also like to welcome, in the audience, joining us virtually via tv, we appreciate c-span and other media outlets airing what we will think -- on what we think will be a ,hought-provoking discussion steps our public and private sectors can do to protect the nation. complexvigating a environment, how greater collaboration can disrupt a centralized terrorist threat that we are pleased to have director of national intelligence jim clapper with us to deliver the opening keynote. and i hope your, will pass on we are saying nice things here, thank you for being here and for your almost five decades of service to our nation. i do not think many people fully appreciate all that you have done to protect our nation and

.ow precious time is we are deeply touched by your generosity in being here this morning to discuss the extraordinarily important and complex topic of gathering and developing the intelligence to protect our nation at home. been an outstanding champion of intelligence integration and information sharing during your time at dui, particularly with regard to protecting the homeland. we cannot have a better, more credible speaker to help set the stage for today's discussion, which will touch upon the evolving threats to domestic security and the importance of continuing to strengthen intelligence sharing and cooperation between federal agencies, state, local, tribal, and territorial partners, and ofvate sector operators critical infrastructure. thank you, director clapper, and we look forward to your remarks. the complex evolving threat environment and related topics discussed today will not only

wore a detention for the next administration but also the next congress, which makes being here so appropriate. we thank the home and security committee chairman and his staff for helping us secure this wonderful venue tiered although he cannot be with us today, i wanted to express our appreciation to chairman mccall for his leadership on the committee and homeland security issues tiered i would like to ate, former deputy assistant to the president. he will be moderating our panel discussion following director clapper's remarks, moderating the discussion with domestic security leaders from the public and private sector a bit later on to it so pleased to have you. we are pleased to have you leading this important discussion. a greattogether such lineup of topics and speakers is a team effort, and i cannot say

enough about our teammate in today's event. it has been a pleasure to work with the general and his team on the development of this event. they have been working with partners, and i thank them for their dedication and professionalism. public-private organizations, we share a similar vision, that a close partnership between the private sector and government can greatly enhance our national security through the application of private sector access, and expertise. as like-minded as we are on so many topics, we have not had a chance to collaborate previously, but i speak for our chairman and all of us when i say i hope we work together again in the future. with that, it is my pleasure to welcome to the podium former chief of staff of the army, general schwartz, president and

ceo, to introduce director clapper. [applause] >> i will make one modest correction. it was the air force, by the way. [laughter] parochial and that, of course. check, thank you so much. all, anding to you thank you so much for attending .oday's program before i begin, i would like also to thank the house committee on homeland security for opening this event this morning, and chairman mccall and ranking member thompson for their very significant hospitality. for those of you who may not ,now, i am nor do schwartz president and ceo of a nonpartisan organization called

business executives for national security. for nearly four decades, it has been one of the premier conduits with which senior private sector leaders can lend their inerience and expertise support of government partners and the challenges that they face here to the committed work of our members, it is established as a trusted partner that works through the unique public-private interaction to apply best business practices to some of the nation's most pressing national security challenges. we are honored to partner and convene such an esteemed lineup of law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence practitioners to discuss the timely and ever important subject as our nation's security. today, america is confronted

with a complex threat environment, and as the terrorist threat to our nation continues to evolve, physical attacks to our communities have become an unfortunate reality. as security is also increasingly important component of the nation's security. cyber adversaries can compromise our critical infrastructure. they can steal intellectual property, and as we all know and has been recently reported, cyber vulnerabilities in our election systems can be a security risk, as well. confronting, ladies and gentlemen, with this array of challenges, our public and private sector leaders must work together to continuously improve the ability to navigate this complex threat environment. continuous improvement is a core private sector best practice. it is founded on the notion that

improvement is not a fixed point in time or even a state of being. to crossno finish line to achieve improvement. rather, improvement must be pursued as a continuous and sustained effort. it is a dynamic learning process that requires effective leadership and a committed workforce, and threats to our nation will continue to change. the measure of our success will be our ability to the tenuously improve in light of this fact and get ahead of these threats. an extensionam is of our focus on how the private sector can contribute to our nation's security. to the in response devastation from hurricane katrina, our numbers set out to examine how the considerable resources and capabilities of the private sector could be better integrated into government disaster preparation

and response efforts. by building more responsive public-private partnerships, our government can leverage the private sector's supply chains to deliver goods and services to areas affected by natural disasters in a quicker and more efficient manner. there, we shifted focus to the organization's ability to remain agile in the face of an evolving terrorist threats. four business leaders, four of our members from new york city, were deeply affected by the horrific events of 9/11. they were committed to doing their part to help in ensuring our nation is best positioned to defend against the ever-changing domestic terrorist threat. our work focused on how to improve coordination, management, and information-sharing between security agencies at all levels of government. and building upon these past

efforts, we are proud to continue our focus on public and partnerships partnerships. such an approach could be organized around strong partnerships between public and private stakeholders, from the down to thel on state and local communities. d the state and local communities. and as we all know, strong partnerships can divide greater visibility into each partners information needs, improve the tolity of stakeholders coordinate their activities ensure rapid locally directed responses to w to coordinat perceived threats. as our nation strives for continuous improvement against the changing threat landscape, today's event is not the finish line. today is a continuation of our efforts of a national conversation on these important .ssues to further this conversation, it

is my distinct pleasure to introduce our keynote speaker today, the director of national intelligence, james clapper. i have a strong sense of pride when given the opportunity to work with individuals who are committed to public service and embody what it means, what it means to be a public servant. director clapper and i go back a few years. he is among the handful who represent the best our nation has to offer, and we should all feel fortunate that he chose to use his talents to protect and serve our nation throughout his illustrious career. while it may never be a career of fame and fortune, the amount of success he has achieved over the years is indeed legend. over 50 years of experience in the defense and intelligence community, it provides valuable expertise and

insight. as the fourth director of national intelligence, he has led the intelligence community since 2010 as the principal intelligence advisor to the president. since his unanimous confirmation by the senate as dni, he is provided in credible stability to the role in leadership throughout the intelligence community. as the top intelligence officer of our nation, we look forward of the threatent environment today. so without further delay, please welcome, join me in welcoming our honored guest, director jim clapper. [applause] director clapper: well, thanks, norty, for the gracious and generous introduction.

i almost feel like i should quit while i am ahead here. while i am at it, i want to acknowledge your continued distinguished service after a very illustrious career in the air force, a great run in ch -- as chief of staff, and the current condition, continuing to serve this nation and its citizens. over the past few years, certainly during my tenure as a very public conversation about our work, the work of the intelligence community, and how we should conducted. i believe a lot of what has -- and how we should conduct it. i believe a lot of what has been lost 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 giving that some thought myself, and i we conducte end intelligence at its most basic level to reduce uncertainty for decision-makers. it would be great if we could even emanate that uncertainty or at least reduce the amount of uncertainty that decision-makers have. those can be the president in the oval office or a war fighter, if i can stretch the metaphor, in an oval foxhole. we cannot eliminate uncertainty for any decision-makers over time, but we can provide insight and analysis to help their understanding. and to make uncertainty at least manageable. so that our national security decision-makers can make educated choices with an

understanding of the risks involved and how to gauge it. we and our friends and allies operate on a shared understanding of the facts and the situation. that is why, starting after the party conventions and the official nominations, we 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 -- he or she will have as good an understanding of our complex and uncertain world as we can provide. and hopefully we will 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 this year, i have been taken aback by the intense interest in this campaign. people everywhere paying on

every word from the candidates, nd some try to do more than just listen in. hs secretaryo, d jeh johnson and i released a joint statement saying the recent compromise of e-mails as directed by the russian government, e-mails released on sites like wikileaks and other online is on the, -- persona, are consistent with 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 8. it will bee way, difficult for anyone to alter election results from a cyber particularly because

voting machines are not connected to the internet. then on january 20, 92 days, but who is counting, we will have a new president. and the u.s. intelligence immunity will be heavily involved in making sure that person is informed about our world and hopefully is ready to make decisions as we can help with. 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 i canr current president, absolutely attest that is all true. knowing what is right is the president's hardest task. that decision cannot be made for him. we would not want to. 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 openly decide what is right. so our work means a great deal to the person we call intelligence customer number one, because at the end of the day, and i have been told his analogy is a little hokey but it rings true to me -- it is up to the president, congress, and other leaders to decide which way to shift, how fast to go, how many chairs to set up, and how to arrange it. we will be down in the engine room trying to keep the ship running. so this morning, i planned to come in and tell the war stories, reminisce with norty of it, and then get off stage. but then the scene shifted a bit too talking about how we can do things a little differently maybe. so i want to talk about the stories of the intelligence community, and talk a bit about how change happens in this great city.

you all, washington, as know, is a particularly interesting place these days, a place where friends come and go but enemies accumulate, a place where if you want a friend, buy a dog. washington is a place where people think differently, where we find it hard to learn from our mistakes. you know, ancient tribal wisdom a deadhen you are riding horse, the best strategy is to dismount. well, here in washington, we often try other strategies that are somewhat less successful, such as we buy a stronger whip for the dead horse, change riders, say things i do this we have always ridden the horse, appoint a committee to study the horse, appoint a target team, hir outside -- hire outside

attemptors to ride it, to mount multiple dead horses in hopes that one of the most bring to life, provide additional funding and training to improve the dead horse's performance, do a productivity study to see how the performance will be improved, propose it does not have to be fed, is less costly, carries lower overhead, therefore contributes more to the mission and live horses. last but not least, my favorite, we will promote the dead horse to a supervisory commission. [laughter] director clapper: all said, we appreciate outside perspectives from those who recognize that dead horses don't go anywhere. i have been using that bit for going on six years. it is intended humorously but there is actually a lot of truth to it. sometimes it looks like we are doing nothing but riding dead

horses and getting nowhere with intelligence reform when, really, we are making progress. but lots of times, it feels like we're dragging this multiple dead horses behind us. i can look back on 53 years or so in this business and to the day when i first started, and there was not such a thing as an intelligence community. most people here probably whenber back before 9/11 the "intelligence community" was a phrase you uttered time in cheek. 9/11ne 2004, the commission released its report on the terrorist attacks, and all 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 a terror cell getting on a plane in portland, maine.

it tells what happened that day and how we responded and analyzes the missed opportunities we had to perhaps keep the terror attacks from happening. commissioners graphically described in the summer before the attacks with the phrase -- the system was blinking red. i will read a passage i think nails the problem we had within intelligence. it was written -- the agencies cooperated some of the time, but even such cooperation as there jointt is not the same as action. when agencies cooperate, one seekss the following and help it when the act jointly, actions are defined differently from the start. individuals from different backgrounds come together and analyze the case and plan how to manage it. intelligence denigration, which has been my shtick, my mantra for the past six years that i have been dni, is a prerequisite

to reaching the 9/11 commission's goal that we act jointly. of 2004,mmer and fall the 9/11 commission report weighed heavily on discussions of the state of the u.s. intelligence community. along with the fact that nearly a year and a half after the fall of baghdad, people were asking why we still had not found any weapons of mass destruction in iraq, which we were sure were there. so with that backdrop, congress, working with the white house and the executive departments, began to sort through which statutory changes the ic needed. in december 2004, much to the great credit of senators lieberman and collins, congress passed the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act, any president signed it into law on december 17, 2004. irtpa, and no one knows this better than i, like

all major legislations, is seriously flawed. actually, it over achieves a big flaw. but codified intelligence reforms, the office of the dni, 'sich stood up in april 2005, over the past decade or so, the ic has charted the course of integration with the 9/11 commission report as the compass youirtpa as the map, if will. i think we have come a long way since then, meeting almost all the recommendations of the 9/11 wemission, at least what could within the authorities granted under that law. time, has taken us some and this is an evolving process, always seeking to improve along the lines of what norty said, so we're still shaking, still

molding what intelligence integration is all about. 12 years ago, as congress was debating irtpa, there was a lot of handwringing that a dni would first make a big land grab and try to make all the agencies look just the same. but the dni's job, at least as i thinkve it, and i really in some ways this is more important than my job as the senior intelligence advisor -- by the way, not the exclusive advisor -- or my job as the national intelligence program manager, is to get each of the agencies to know what their strengths are and what the great strengths of the other agencies are so we can take advantage of each of those combo mentally strengths and will destroy them -- of those complementary strengths and orchestrate them. have kind of stuck

heme witht intelligence integration with the past six plus years. it is my hope that integration will become so ingrained in the culture of the ic that when my successor comes on, he or she will not have to talk about integration, it will just 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 you enabled by changes to law, driven by the amazing intelligence professionals who got up on the morning of september 12 and went to work to figure out what went wrong and how to keep it from ever happening again. and of course, the patriotic men and women who joined us since then. it occurred to me recently that we have ic employees who were

six or seven years old when we were attacked on 9/11. so there are people working for us today who only have a vague memory of that day. so that brings me to some of the topics on the table for discussion here later today. changes we might think about going forward, particularly related to cyber and the domestic terrorism threat. taken altogether, there is an incredibly complex array of threats out there, particularly in the cyber domain. ,riminals, hacktivist collectives like anonymous all thrown in together with aggressors. chinese aggressives that could do real damage if they were so inclined. terrorists continue to experiment with hacking. each of these actors has different capabilities and

different objectives when they conduct operations in cyberspace. all operate on the very same internet. sometimes all this makes me long for the days of the cold war, where the world essentially had two large mutually exclusive telecommunications networks, one essentially dominated by the united states and the other 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 it makes our work exponentially harder. when it comes to groups like isis, the real problem is not their cyber hacking capability, it is how the internet enables them to recruit and inspire table all over the world.

we can monitor and maybe even infiltrate terrorist groups but it is tough to expunge the internet of their ideology and toxic ideas. preventing the spread of dangerous ideas wasn't just a consideration as the internet grew up and became functional. knowing what is going on inside the heads of people who read extremist propaganda would require, frankly, talents beyond that of our great intelligence analysts. it is more like clairvoyance. when it comes to protecting the nation we also need to factor in protecting civil liberties and privacy of americans. i've witnessed a lot of teeth gnashing about people committing acts of terror when the fbi had previously investigated and cleared. i think the fbi director jim co

mey precisely described the problem with his analogy 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 later become needles. we cannot continuously monitor americans who have done no wrong. that is not who we are domestic security, particularly in the ct realm, is a difficult problem. intelligenceon of and homeland security committees is critical to national security and that, too, is a work in progress, that will improve long past when i'm ensconced in assisted living. it is also important to recognize that we are doing hard , grinding work in this space that is not necessarily show itself in dramatic flourishes but in incremental progress. as relationships have grown and

systems and processes improve from integration takes over the culture. that is one of the things we have done as an example of this, to create the domestic dni program, which was initially run as a year and a half pilot in 4 cities modeled after dni reps overseas worksheets of station have a second-half for me to coordinate intelligence in each country where they are posted. this pilot had a positive impact on intelligence sharing with state and local officials. senior designated fbi field executives in 12 locations around the united states. have made improvements by making efforts to integrate and coordinate 's, to use ah aor

military term. the program isn't perfect and his continuing to mature but it's doing good things. it shows how we are shifting focus onto domestic intelligence coordination, particularly with the counterterrorism mission. this is something we will need to continue to get better at. problemorism isn't going to go away and will continue to morph and transforming me to stay up with it, or stay ahead of it if we can. isils metastasized with and aq affiliates. global trends are driving the threat to be even more diverse and a fuse. one trend is making this worst from what i have called at congress and the white house unpredictable instability. two thirds of the nations around the world are at some risk of instability right now. they exhibit some characteristic of instability.

we cannot predict which specific government will collapse next or when that will happen. that is why it is unpredictable. it is something the whole world is dealing with right now. from my world travels just in the past six months or so i observe that many, many nations are just now starting the growth curve intelligence integration. -- intelligence integration with working at the last decade and a half and many of them are far behind where we are and they realize that. professionals get up every morning and go to work and we get better. but there are limits to what we can do bound by the realities of our authorities and the realities of the resources we are allocated. a lot of the obvious solutions ignore or underestimate the necessarily public legal and political landscape that we live and work in.

we live in a federal system of government. states have a lot of autonomy, and they should. each state has a bewildering a way of local structures and priorities and sensitivities. across the nation there are more apartments bid dni and ic work with limited authorities particularly within the domestic sphere and we limit how intelligence agencies operate within the united states. there is a footnote in history that sums up that balance. the 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. ic dni or i see to take --

to take a more authoritative role i believe would require new legislation or certainly , specifically assigning that authority. which would by necessity come from a national referendum and overwhelming public support. 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 is happening inside the united states. commented suggested, i don't think i would support it. i've been in this business have a century and i've seen what it wheree in nations intelligence agencies do have a domestic component, and that is not us. that is not who we are good we are not iran, we are not north korea, we are not the soviet union.

we are the greatest free nation on this earth and the way to face unpredictable instability, the way to face the domestic terrorist threat, the way to face extremists and radicalized individuals determined to do us harm isn't to be afraid, to give in, and let our values and principles that make our nation great be compromise. by valuing our differences, and if that means getting 18,000 law enforcement agencies to respect what each is best that and bring their strengths to the table, we will certainly help do that. i want to leave you with one other thought before we have a little dialogue here. that is with the upcoming , whichntial transition is on nobody's mind to, and an election cycle that has been for us sportier than typical and seems to be getting sportier every day, a lot of people are

nervous with what will happen, and understandably so. the message that i've been speaking out about -- certainly did at the summit earlier this summer -- is that i think it will be ok, 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 professionalism, today's ic represents a pillar of stability during such a transition. it will be ok because of our partnerships -- defense, law enforcement, homeland security, and the private sector. those of you from the private sector bring unique perspectives on our threats and equities in the ways we can work together to do better. so thank all of you for being here, thanks for your interest. i think i will stop talking and

and take our seats out here. thanks. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen -- there we go -- we have about 10 minutes or so, little bit less, before the director needs to move on. so i think i will ask -- exercise a point of privilege and ask you a question and then we are happy to take questions from the audience, one or two. sir, you mentioned your conviction that partnerships are the name of the game, and it is one of those things that offers hope. clearly that is 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 just speaking within the confines of the united states, i've seen just in my time a great improvement in certainly the relationship we have with homeland security and law .nforcement communities as i've cobbled around, i repited all the domestic dni-t cities at least once and always engaged with local officials and i continue to be very impressed with the sophistication of --

that are exhibited by particularly the police. very sophisticated approaches to analysis, very enlightened approach to the ct problem at the local level. just about everyone i've ever encountered would fit right in with a meeting of the national intelligence board. they have imported many analytic techniques and techniques and procedures that we employ in the locally.community ra we try tony fo use, one of which is this one, to try to reach out to the private sector. that is a daunting task, frankly, because the private sector is because all outdoors. -- is big as all outdoors.

i mention the numerous police jurisdictions there are in this country. i think we have made a lot of headway in the flow of information, both -- when i say integration, by the way, i think the conventional meaning is horizontally across the national components. there is also a vertical dimension. integrating with the state and local, tribal, and private sector. this is a work in progress. is not as mature, frankie, as foreign intelligence business, which have been added a lot longer. but i see huge improvements since 9/11. nga director two days after 9/11 and have in some capacity for years and i've seen great improvement. not to say we have achieved

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

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 immunity that this is related to a state-sponsored actor. can you, without giving way important tactics, techniques and procedures, or other app29,e, tell me app28, cozy pair, fancy bare -- what you know about them? do you have specific and visuals -- individuals in mind? how strong is her confidence that it is related to state activity? >> that is a number of questions wrapped up into one, sir, so please come over to. mr. clapper: well, if you read

the statement that we issued, i think you agree it is pretty unusual. we wouldn't have made it unless we were very confident. i will not discuss the underlying evidentiary basis for it. but when we say we are confident , i think it speaks for itself. that is one of the reasons we waited for as long as we did to make the statement, was to ensure that we had sufficient evidence both forensic and otherwise, to lead us to the conclusions we reached as articulated in the statement. 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 audience of practitioners, we would like to acknowledge that jim clapper has been a practitioner for over 50 years for the united states of america. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> and president obama will be in miami today to talk about health care in the united states , policy, quality, and cost. this is miami-dade college and we will be here as soon as the president arrives. while we wait, we will look at the comments that the president of the philippines says his country will be turning away from an alliance with the united states and more towards china.

one of the topics of today's state department briefing. couple things of the top -- [indiscernible] first screening of their film, ":titled "before the flood.

i think you know it is about the effort to, climate change could following the film, the secretary will participate in a discussion with mr. dicaprio as all as the dignity director of nasa -- deputy director of the science russian directorate of not -- science exploration directorate nasa. so there is that. i also just want to -- i'm imagining it is going to be foremost on somebody's mind -- the commons that we have heard coming out of the philippines, in this case that president duterte made in beijing. i just want to say that, obviously, we are aware of this letter, of course -- rhetoric, of course, and we hold that it is inexplicably at odds with very close relationship we have with the filipino people as well

as the government and their, on many different levels, not just from a security perspective. we are going to be seeking an excellent nation of -- explanation of what exactly the president meant when he talked about separation from the u.s. not clear to us exactly what in all its ramifications. going to be seeking ramification that clarification on that. secretary mustache going to be seeking -- going to be seeking clarification on that. it is something he has been planning for months but it does give us the opportunity in the context of these comments to get a better explanation of what was meant by separation and where that is going. the last thing i will say -- well, two more things. it is just the united states who is baffled -- it is not just the

united states who is baffled by this rhetoric. we have heard from many of our friends and partners in the region who are likewise confused about where this is going, and also, we believe, are trying to learn more on their own about what it portends. and then finally, as i said before, i will say again today, we remain rocksolid in our commitment in the mutual defense treaty we have with the philippines. that hasn't changed. there has been, for all the rhetoric we have heard, no tangible application of intent behind, or at least stated intent behind some the things made. we will continue to move forward and have every interest in seeing this seven-year alliance continue to throw -- 70-year alliance grow and deepen pit that is our commitment. we have a close relationship not only with the government by the people of the philippines and it

is our hope and a vacation that will continue. i wanted to lay that out there. i figured that would be undermines and i wanted to put that out there. reporter: you may have a close relationship with the government and people of the philippines but you don't seem to have a close relationship with the president, the head of the government. i'm just wondering, how could this possibly come as a surprise increasingly his nasty rhetoric over the course , note last several months aft r just directed at the alliance or military relationship, but also directed at your ambassador, first, the president of the united states. you surprisedare now that he would say something like this? secondly, he was semi-specific in what he meant by separation. he talked about economic and military ties.

i think, if i'm not mistaken, he said perhaps not the cultural side or -- point., that is just the some he specific or not, i don't want to -- semi-specific or not to my don't want to quibble over percentages here, but we certainly believe there is room for -- well, we have an interest in trying to gain a little bit more clarity on what he meant. even in your question you hit on exactly why we would seek greater clarity on this. secondly, i don't think i said it at the outset, and if i did, i am mistaken. it wasn't time to say we were surprised by these comments. reporter: taken unaware -- >> no, i said we were aware of the report. reporter: no, i know that, but not something you expected. it came as a surprise to you when he said this --

>> did we know that was coming? no, we do not know that was coming. but it is another string of pretty strong rhetoric that we think, we believe is at odds with the kind of relationship we have had and continues to have with the filipino people. reporter: do you have reason to believe that anyone in the government below the president has similar feelings or intent? >> that is difficult to know. i don't know that we have particular insight into people below his level and what they hist -- how they might view comments. what i will say, though, is we have in the past, in recent weeks, seen some of the bombastic rhetoric clarified or walked back after the fact. all of that gives us reason to think there is a purpose in trying to get a better

explanation on this. reporter: lasting, very quickly -- other than assistant secretary russell, is anyone approaching the philippine government in the immediate -- well, our ms are obviously has been in touch with officials there, of course -- our ambassador obsolete has been in touch with officials there, of course well. i'm not aware of any other communication. our ambassador has, as you would expect, stay in close touch with his counterparts in manila, and i expect that will continue. there are conversations about this going on. but i can't confirm that as we stand here today. it wouldn't surprise me at all, though. the ambassador was having those kinds of conversations. as i said, is this an secretary russell heading over in a few days -- assistant secretary russell heading over in a few days and he expects to have those conversations as well --

reporter: all right, i know -- i promise this is the last one. i know my no come i know. all right. >> go ahead, i'm kidding. reporter: more broadly, in terms asia, whole rebalance to it seems as though instead of gaining or increasing your influence, you are losing it. i'm sure you would disagree. why would you disagree with that? >> yes, of course we would disagree with that. look, the rebalance -- a couple aspects to it. it is advancing. we are seriously committed to it. you can see it across, again, many different sectors of government and even nongovernment activity. the second thing i would say is that relationships in that part of the world or any part of the world are not zero-sum games and we are not looking at it like

that. we would welcome a closer relationships between the philippines and china. this doesn't have to be binary and it is not zero-sum. for our part, the rebalance was never about one country in the region. it was about putting more of our efforts as a government come as an administration, in the pacific theater because so much of the future is going to be tied up there -- economically, security perspective, politically, socially. and so that commitment, our commitment to the rebalance, continues and will continue. as i say, more specifically on the philippines, we still have a mutual defense treaty that we take very seriously, our commitment to that, and that hasn't changed. we still have a strong military to military relationship that hasn't changed. in many aspects, aside from the rhetoric, the relationship with the philippines remains very, very strong. reporter: when exactly do you expect assistant secretary

russell to be there? >> i believe he gets there on sunday. bureauhave the eap confirm that for you. i talked to him a little bit ago and he told me he would be there sunday and monday, i think? reporter: second, do you think the philippine president duterte hopes to have his cake and eat it, too? assert closer, to ties with china, to assert separation from the united to -- because, as you have repeatedly said, you have not had any formal notification or change in the underlying relationships, but to maintain the existing ties with the united states, his rhetoric notwithstanding? me, and iifficult for would be a fool to try to get into the head of another leader

in the world. i wouldn't do that. so i can't -- i couldn't speculate about what might be behind some of the rhetoric and where the president is taking it, or where he wants to take his administration. i think that is to him to speak to. i would like to just. what i said a few minutes ago, tstomp what't -- foo i said a few minutes ago, that we don't believe relationships in that part of the world need to be zero-sum, binary choices. 70-some-year alliance. we fully intend to continue that. we also welcome to improve relations between -- welcome improve relations between china and the philippines. if that isn't what -- if that is what president duterte is seeking, we don't see that as a threat, we don't see that as unwelcome, we don't see it as counter productive.

in fact, quite the opposite. relations between him and his neighbors, china and other countries, all to the good come off for the stability of the region. reporter: for many years a dramatically produced military relationship with the philippines, even though the alliance continues. a simple question why is it, from your point of view, so vital to maintain cooperation, in particular given production --rd projection in japan, south korea, guam? why is it so essential to have a better military or maintain the existing cooperation with the philippines? >> one, there is the issue of the treaty itself, which binds

us to a security relationship with the philippines -- meanter: but that doesn't you necessarily have to have the rotating deployments. >> no, no, i'm just trying to frame it. the first foundational reason is we have a treaty we are obligated to meet the requirements of, and we do. every defense treaty is different, every one in executing the obligations under a defense treaty, as you meet those commitments at on the based foundational components of the treaty and the needs of both parties. how wet an expert on meet every obligation, my pentagon colleagues could help you out with that but it does involve routine and advising and this listing. .