control decisions. and you can say you're objective but you have collected so much especially from the financial sector. >> well, you can't -- >> you've been on that committee. that committee, and the consumer finance protection bureau, fargo. in wells you're questioning wells fargo. you received money from wells fargo. >> and i want from wells fargo. >> would you bring back glass-steagall? do you support more regulation? mr. sturgill: i would support efforts to regulate the banks and protect consumers from the fraud that's occurred at wells fargo. the executive -- the point is, the point is, is it regardless of all these issues, the point is the big money has been allowed to flow into our government. how do we fix that? >> i want to move to a point you brought up when you were talking your concern over who gets to be in the white house and the next supreme court justices. you have the second amendment, an issue you highlighted on your

page. your a-plus endorsement from the n.r.a. so far this year there have been more than 11,000 gun deaths in this contry. you said we shouldn't create laws that would burden law-abiding citizens. how are citizens burdened already? are there any more burdens that would be worth saving more lives from gun violence? mr. crapo: more gun control they federal level? >> you said we shouldn't be burdening law-abiding citizens. talking about gun control. mr. crapo: by restricting their second amendment rights further. let me indicate first of all do i believe we need to get back to the question of hillary clinton. look, i have been asked many times and i have said clearly where i stand with regard to both donald trump and hillary clinton. i'll answer the gun question. mr. crapo: obviously both candidates -- it's sad both candidates are flawed. and that they are so unpopular. but the fact is is that we, the

people, are angry about the way our government is -- i know from having run for office for six months, i know how hard this is. thank you for serving. but i know how hard this is. it's a process that drives people away. good people are driven away from government. i support hillary because she is the better alternate to donald trump. she has experience. she's shown that she is willing to serve in the causes that matter. children and families, etc. but at the same time i understand the anger that people feel that brought out support for donald trump. >> you said you support hillary clinton getting the conversation back to the senate amendment. do you support more gun regulation? mr. sturgill: look, people accuse the opposition of trying to take away guns.

i support the second amendment. i grew up in idaho. i hunted as a kid. frankly, i support the second amendment. we have plenty of gun laws on the books. but we've got to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. of people who are emotionally disturbed. >> how would you do that? mr. sturgill: and who are suspected of terrorists. >> how would you do that? mr. sturgill: i would certainly keep people on the terrorist watch list from being able to get guns. mr. crapo: i'll answer that and further answer the gun question as you ask it. i voted recently in the u.s. senate with regard to the no-fly list issue, to support an amendment that would allow the f.b.i. to focus specifically on those who are suspected of being terrorists on the no-fly list,

and not allow them to purchase a gun. i agree to that extent. but the no-fly list itself has hundreds and hundreds of thousands, potentially millions more people on it. even the ac lufment has said that they thought that the ability -- aclu has said that they thought that the ability of the president to put names on that list created a huge danger. their point was giving the president the ability to establish a list that then the president could put names on it is the wrong solution. to prove that, right now president obama is directing his agencies to look at ways to put people's names on the national instant criminal background checklist to get them away from purchasing guns. who is he looking at? veterans who have had head injuries. senior citizens who have difficulty doing their financing. >> what would you do to reduce gun violence? mr. crapo: what i voted for is on the gun issue is allow the f.b.i. to step in and stop the

gun purchases of known terrorist suspects. and i voted for that. actually voted for legislation to also allow law-abiding citizens to get their names off the list that the administration is creating. let me go further. the solution to gun violence in the united states focuses on things such as developing a much stronger economy for our country. a lot -- in my opinion a lot of people do feel abandoned by what's happening in america today. they feel left out. they feel like their shot at the american dream is being taken from them. and we need to strengthen our economy, improve jobs, and build the economy. we also need to recognize that some of our policies with regard to refugees could be allowing those who are not adequately vetted into the country. and finally, we need to address the question of mental illness. a lot -- you look back at some of the serious gun violence that has occurred in the united states in the past few years, it

has been in those individual cases the result of our failure to identify early and deal with those who are -- who have mental illness problems that causes them to then be haven't. so we need to look at the causes of violence. >> looking at the causes of violence, the majority of these firearm deaths aren't caused by refugees. and while mental illness does play a part in that, the economy and refugees, aren't those red herrings? mr. crapo: i started talking about the other health issues. we will not solve this problem by take the right to bear arms away from law-abiding citizens. >> one of the biggest issues waste facing the west right now is wildfires. the longer, hotter, dryer seasons. and to get to another issue that is on idahoans' minds, what would you do to reduce the fire season and make it more manageable for the state? mr. crapo: this is one of those bipartisan efforts i'm involved in.

senator ron wyden from oregon and i have worked together to put together what we believe is the right approach to the fire issue. the problem is that we have -- we have multiple fires every year across the nation. about 1% of the fires costs about 30% of the firefighting. and what we have learned is that it's these catastrophic fires that are the problem. and -- so our bill adresses that. we need to recognize that a catastrophic fire just like a hurricane or a tidal wave is a catastrophe, a natural disaster, and need to deal with it quickly and promptly out of the natural disaster fund that we have. let me say, the dynamic that we have to break here, the problem we have, the cycle we have to break is our federal managing agencies, the b.l.m. and the forest service don't have the ability to fight the fires quickly and efficiently without being able to have the support. so they stop their management of the lands. we have to break that cycle. >> mr. sturgill, i want you to

respond to that. how would you stop the fire issue? mr. sturgill: i certainly think it has to be solved at the federal level. i think transferring public lands to state or private control is absolutely the wrong approach. congratulations on this latest legislation. it seems like a lot trying to accomplish a lot that's very late in the cycle. we have already allowed the forest management by the forrest service to be underfunded -- forest service to be underfunded. we're trying to catch up to fund these important services in the first place. the point that i would like to make is that this is really -- is election is a choice like senator crapo says. it's a choice between the people who have been in government for going on a quarter of a century and other career politicians, and people who are newcomers. if donald trump, and i can agree

on one thing, it is it is time for change in our government. our government's broken. big money has been allowed to control our government. you have collected massive sums of money from special interests. you have collected more money from he -- special interests and banks than you have gathered from people in idaho. i would say you have been more of a senator for the special interest than you have been for idaho. and you can talk about the fact that you have made these decisions, but how can you explain the fact that you have received so much money and that you can be objective? >> i didn't hear a fire answer besides keeping it in federal hands. what would you to, very briefly, what would you do -- mr. sturgill: i agree we should spend money to manage our forests in a way that permit us to avoid firefighters --

wildfires in the future. >> last question, this is one we wanted to get to. you both talked about veterans' health care. you both talked about the importance of that. but we get veterans when we go to war. and looking at the current international climate that is a real possibility that congress might consider soon. what would you consider, if that vote comes across your desk? whether or not to go to war? mr. sturgill: i would certainly look to diplomatic solutions first. to war without exploring every possible diplomatic solution. we have put too many people at isk in unthoughtful ways and unfounded places. unfounded wars. we spent a lot of money. and that's happened while you have been there. we have fought wars in foreign places and spent a lot of money. if we have spent money and have

incurred national debt, a lot has to do with the fact we thought these ill-advised wars. is >> briefly, you voted on wars. mr. crapo: the vote on an individual decision has to be very specific as to what the circumstances that are presented at the time. but i agree. we should look at every other option than military intervention. and we should, frankly, not intervene militarily unless our national security requires it. and if our national security requires it, i believe we should take the necessary actions to allow our men and women in the armed services to defend our nation effectively. >> thanks so much. that's all the time we have. the pundits will weigh in at identified poe ptv.org. thanks again and have a good weekend. [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]

>> presentation of idaho reports on idaho public television is made possible through the generous support of the laura moore cunningham foundation, committed to fulfilling the moore legacy of building the great state of idaho. by the friends of idaho public television, and by the corporation for public roadcasting. >> our senate debate coverage continues tonight in pennsylvania. it's the incumbent republican senator pat toomey against democrat katie mcginty. live coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. now to house debate in florida, democratic congressman patrick murphy is running for the senate there. leaving his 18th district house sneet open. the candidates to replace him, republican brian mast, and democratic randy perkins, they debated last week in west palm beach. this is 45 minutes. >> we will now begin with our first round of general

questions. each candidate has 60 seconds to respond. then a 30-second rebuttal. mr. mast you will begin first in this round. miss rodriguez, go ahead with your question. >> do you support senator joe neglect ron's proposal to buy $1.2 billion land south of lake observe bachobee south to curb charges to the st. lucie river. if yes, how do you plan to push this in congress. if not, what's your solution? >> this is one of the issues where my opponent and i differ. i'm a big proponent for supporting the state senator's plan for buying 60,000 acres in order to convey water south from lake observing chobee toward the river of grass and the florida bay. now, the way i propose in getting funding for this program i have said often that i will vie to be a member of the committee of transportation and infrastructure. fess that committee that recently passed the water resources and development act. as the next member of congress

from this district i will go back to that committee and work to get the next set of resources we need to buy up that lapped south of lake ohka chobey. . it's one of the best ways we can do to find a way to convey that water south. we have to make sure that we're always keeping saltwater estuaries saltry and fresh water areas fresh. and keep swueage out of our waterways as well. >> mr. perkins, 60 seconds. mr. perkins: what i support is real solutions. with all due respect to the senator, he knows as well as i do that stands zero chance of passing in this next session. you have to have cooperation from all offer the state. what we need to do is utilize land we have. north of lake, tens of thousands of acres, stop the flow of water from the north into lake okeechobee. secondary runoff we need to

strengthen our levees. my opponent says he wants us to be on this committee. i understa this committee, fema, corps of engineers, we worked with these agencies for the last 25 years. he has to remember there are mup tipple democrats on this committee, too, his unwillingness to reach across the aisle will not solve anything. >> mr. mast, rebuttal. 30 seconds. mr. mast: i like to think i i know as well as anybody how to overcome challenges. i think if there's one thing i know it's this, whether you believe you can do something, whether you believe can't do something, you're probably going to be right. i believe that we're going to find a way to buy that land south of lake okeechobee, i'm going to work to do it. if you're a person that doesn't believe, that you're not going to have the passion that's needed to accomplish that mission. >> no applause, please. mr. perkins, your rebuttal is 30 seconds. mr. perkins: i do think there is peace of this solution requires -- piece of this solution

requires land selling. there are multiple components to this problem. we have to be able to bring everybody to the table. and that includes agriculture, in particular sugar, who now my opponent after taking their money and saying he gave it back but didn't, now wants to vilify them. here's what i can tell you, if you vilify anybody that needs to be part of the solution, the problem not getting solved. >> mr. bennett. your question for the candidates mr. bennett: social security, if nothing is done to social security the way it's set up right now, the board of trustees for social security estimates that it will no longer be able to pay full benefits beginning in 2034. what do you propose specifically to do to extend the life of social security? >> mr. perkins, 60 seconds. mr. perkins: first of all, we have to realize that first and foremost our seniors who have gone without an increase in their social security benefits for multiple years, i support

mandatory increase right now, 2 1/2%, 3% every single year to help them with the additional costs of milk, bread, and groceries. property taxes are going up. we have to look at sensible solutions. we have to work together because this issue is -- affects seniors and democrats all across this -- republicans and democrats across this contry. we might want to look at having raise it on the employer side and the employee side. maybe a half a%. maybe 1% total. we have to start looking at real solutions to find the money to make sure when the funding starts running low we're able to continue to fund this very important program that has kept millions of seniors out of poverty since its inception. >> mr. mast, 60 seconds. mr. mast: i know the question was asked for real solutions but i didn't hear any. i believe they very strongly in protecting social security. my father who is 86, he relies upon social security and medicare. i have been at the forefront of saying one of the things my opponent disagrees with.

the system stay in place as it is for those that are receiving benefits right now. those that are anywhere close to receiving benefits. for somebody my age, i'm 36, not to give away my wife's age, she's 37, that we graduate the age, people our age, to start receiving some of these benefits so it can continue to last. we have to answer this question. at its peak there were 16 workers paying in for every one recipient of social security. today there are only three workers paying in. and what we have to figure out is how we get that ratio back up. that's one of the solutions that i just offered. the other thing i'll say is this. we're not going to be able to make these programs last. the way we want to without saving this economy, getting ourselves up from under the kind of failed policies that have resulted in less than 3% growth of this economy over the last eight years. >> mr. perkins, 30 seconds. mr. perkins: not sure what his answer was. we can look at raising the cap. raising the age, but raising the cap from $118,500 when 80%-plus

in this country don't make that to begin with. our small business it is you ask them to raise the cap to 250, they are going to pay them sest $115,000 and pay the rest in dividend distribution. we need to look at real solutions together on both sides of the aisle how we'll deal with this problem. just quick using talking points and not getting anywhere. our seniors are suffering today and we need to address that problem today. and we'll address generations to come in the future. >> time is up. mr. mast, 30 seconds for rebuttal. mr. mast: one of the things my opponent said over and over again we need to print more money. we need to print more. we need to print more. i don't think randy understands the economics of how dangerous it is to print more money when you consider one of the most dangerous things for seniors for retirees, for people on fixed incomes, is inflation. because the cost of their living will go up, but the price and dollars that they are getting in terms of benefits will not go up. that's one of the most dangerous things he's been saying in terms of benefits or our seniors.

>> your question for the candidates. >> it's been a very divisive time up in washington, d.c. with the presidential campaign nearing an end. who do you support for president and why or why not? >> mr. mast, 60 seconds. mr. mast: everybody has heard me say if the election were held today donald trump would still have my support. i'm not going to pretend to anybody that either of these candidates have not gone out there and said and done things that should never be excused. they both v for each of us it comes down to how those things they have said and done affect our lives personally. for me when i look at the two candidates i can tell you that hillary clinton has been party to leaving one of my personal friends, chris, people in a moment him as chris tonto, leaving him for dead in benghazi. when i think about her wearing the hat of commander in chief and all my friends still on the battlefield today, that's not something i can allow that to a beyond that i think that she's wrong in terms of iran.

wrong in terms of gtmo. wrong in terms of immigration. wrong in terms of so many other issues that are affecting the direction of this country. it's for that reason that donald trump will still have my support today. >> mr. perkins, 60 seconds. mr. perkins: i'm voting for hillary clinton. i believe she will be the best commander in chief. i believe she'll bring our jobs back. strengthen our economy. she will protect our national security interests. but i don't know how you could vote for a man who vilifies women, who promotes sexual assault on girls as young as 10 years old, who degrade women, who ranks them on a system of one to 10. to me it's about character, moral character. and have somebody like that sit in the white house, the most powerful person on this planet n. this world, who degrades women at every level, to me is just a nonstarter. i could never support that. hillary clinton's got my vote and support. >> mr. mast, 30 seconds for rebuttal. mr. mast: i will reiterate.

this is not an easy decision for everybody. this is not old 1980's movie where we can fill in the blank, none of the above. it will be donald trump or hillary clinton. as i said it's going to be personal for each of us. the fact she left one of my friends to die in benghazi means i could never support her as commander in chief. >> mr. perkins, 30 seconds for rebuttal. mr. perkins: again, again, i continue to honor brian for his service and sacrifices and every man and woman, particularly the man that he's talking about. but this is about character. this is about your moral compass. and again, to have a man sitting in the oval office who talks like he talks and degrades women, who wants to deny women as my opponent does, their fundamental right to make choices, wants to defend planned parenthood, who want detroit equality in this country and the human rights for everybody, i'm voir. could never get my support and should not be president. >> let's move on now to questions submitted via social

media. the first question is for mr. mast with a rebuttal by mr. perkins. we'll have two questions. this is from benjamin s., he wants to know if voters approve this year's medical marijuana amendment to the florida constitution, will you support federal legislation to make the federal standards the same? mr. mast, 90 seconds to answer. mr. mast: i tell people often if you're to classify me with a label would be conservativeian, i'm fiscally conservative but libertarian in my views. i don't want the federal government involved in places where they shouldn't be involved. article 1, section 8 of the constitution very specifically delineates the powers of the federal government and 10th amendment. everything else should belong to the states. marijuana is one of those issues not covered in the constitution. i would not like to see the federal government playing a role in decision whether it's something that should be allowed by each one of the states. in answer to your question i would support whatever the state of florida decides. beyond that, i think there has to be a divide between whether

we're talking about recreational use of marijuana and what the states decide for themselves and the medicinal use of marijuana and what the f.d.a. approvals. -- aprotches. >> mr. perkins, 45 seconds. mr. perkins: that's coming up to vote this year. the people of the state of florida vote to pass t. i support what the people do. brian and i don't differ from a federal standpoint on? particular policy and medical marijuana. i would leave it up to states in this particular case to make the decisions that the residents and people that vote in that state decide to make. >> the second question from social media is for mr. perkins with rebuttal by mr. mast. this was submitted by phil b., he asks, obamacare has enrolled millions of uninsured but done nothing to reduce the cost of insurance or medical procedures. what one significant change would you like to make to the affordable care act. mr. perkins, you have 90 seconds to respond.

mr. perkins: the things i do support clearly are the fact it's provide medical insurance, pre-existing conditions for families with loved ones in need and provided as you just said millions of americans with insurance that they didn't have before. but understand how to solve the problem with insurance to begin with. the insurance in our own company has gone up 32% in the last two years. i understand why insurance companies are leaving the exchange. and small businesses and companies like mine, the burden is being passed on them. however, speaker ryan said it's not being repealed. so we need to take the problems within it and solve t we also have to work with our insurance companies. we have to deal with the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. we have to deal with medical malpractice insurance. there is a reason insurance companies have to charge the premiums that they do. i want to work with all our businesses, in particular insurance companies say we have to continue to provide affordable insurance to every american. that is a right that they should v what do you need from congress? government regulation? our tax structures? tax reform? what do you need from congress so we can make it more friendly

environment four to conduct business so we can ask you as congress to provide the things we need you to provide, which is health insurance for everybody in this contry. >> mr. mast, 45 seconds for rebuttal. mr. mast: i think we can all agree that the affordable care act has left millions without coverage. left millions of people without the doctors that they wanted, without the plans that they wanted, left millions of people probably without jobs because of the people who couldn't go out there and hire because of the premium hikes that have gone on. in the state of florida we're seeing on average this year, 17% premium hikes. at its peak if you have humana health care, you are going to see 36% premium hike that. is something very serious to everybody out there. the question that was asked, what would we like to see changed? the number one thing i would like to see with the affordable care act is making sure that it's people that decide the plans that are best for them not the federal government determining what is best to be placed in an insurance plan. that is the biggest problem with this. >> let's move on to round two from our panelists with specific

questions from each candidate. miss rodriguez, you have a direct question for mr. perkins. >> mr. perkins, you said you can work across the aisle, but voters blasted you and mr. mast for his part after a heated newspapers editorial board meeting. how can you convince those voters that you can and will listen to your opposing parties' delegates and a civil discourse to reach a compromise? do you believe you owe mr. mast an apology? >> mr. perkins, 90 seconds to respond. mr. perkins: the second question if you could be more specific on that in a minute. i built a very successful business from a one person mowing lawns 32 years ago to one of the most successful disaster recovery management companies today. i know what it's like to write insurance and the tough decisions that have to be made by running a k i have done it and created thousands of jobs over the last 25 years. and i worked together with both

sides, republicans and democrats, at the local, state, and federal level to build the successful business that i'm very proud of today. but it's also about actually being able to work together. i'm a problem solver. i know how to find common ground and common bond with anybody to get dialogue moving, to get problems solved. the fact of the matter is, again, my opponent thinks that the democrats in congress are evil. he agrees with donald trump that they need to be exterminated. so i'm sure -- i can tell you this for sure, when i get, if leekted to the seat, i will be able to go to washington, d.c., and knock on doors of republicans on the first day and be invited in to start solving these problems we have in this contry. >> mr. mast, 45 seconds for rebuttal. mr. mast: some comments aren't even worth relying to. i'm a big boy. i don't need an apology from randy perkins. did he say some things that were very distasteful. to exspent b special thacts for his tax dollars playing for my v.a. care or making jokes saying

i'm not man enough to stand up to him. i don't think that's the kind of person that can work with other people. it's been my experience, my job to work with people from every single background. didn't matter how many pennies were in there pocket. gay, straight, or anything else. didn't matter. i worked with everybody under the most austere possible conditions. conditions that you could probably never imagine in your life. i still got the mission accomplished. >> mr. bennett, you have a direct question for mr. mast. >> sure. your opponent brought up briefly sugar contributions. i wonder if you could clear this up. you did accept some contributions from the sugar industry which you returned. i believe those total $11,000 or $12,000. but those people from the sugar industry also hosted fundraisers where you raised more money. in the primary and general election, your opponents have said you should return that money as well. you have chosen not to. can you explain why that is? mr. mast: i think it's a fair thing for somebody to skfment the reality of the situation

isdy not actually raise more money. when i instructed my team to go back there and return every dollar to the sugar industry that's what they d i have provided lists of all the other donors to both you and other people outlining my relationship with every one of those other donors. people i know from my time at harvard. pro-israel advocacy around the contry. people i know from my time speaking for their nonprofit organizations but people that had nothing to do with the sugar industry for political reasons my opponents are trying to say are somehow tied to the sugar industry. i will tell you this. i'm new to politics. i don't know every single player in the game. i don't know every single lobbyist out there. i make mistakes. and that's part of what you get out of somebody that's new into politics. but this is the other thing you get out of somebody new in politics. when i make a mistake, i'm not afraid to go out there and fix it. that's not something that we see across the board in washington, d.c. >> mr. perkins, 45 seconds for rebuttal. >> first of all the $5 million,

$6 million that the republican party and outside groups are spending, first of all -- again they mischaracterize anything that i said against brian or veterans. i apologize to all veterans if the outside groups have painted me saying things i didn't say. the fact of the matter is, brian mast did take sugar money. he was at their homes. he knows what the rules are. he said on january 15 he gave the money back but returned it three days after the primary. facts are facts. fiction is fiction. he's also taken money from all aboard florida and the outside groups and company that represent all aboard florida on the train coming through our back yards. >> a direct question for mr. perkins. >> both of you talk about lowering taxes on the middle class and strengthening the middle class again but you have very different routes on which you believe you should get there. what do you believe should be the income threshold for increased taxes if you do choose to increase factions on the wealthier -- taxes on the

wealthier americans is? >> mr. perkins. mr. perkins: before we start making decisions and solve one problem we have to realize what the collateral effect might be on the other side. i think clearly we need tax reform in this country, but i want to get to washington, d.c., and sit down with an economist and other agencies, meet with other members of congress who have been here for a while dealing with these issues. to stand here and say today i'm going to do a, b, and c is not realistic. we have to deal with tax reform. we have to put more money in people's pockets. we have shown by raising taxes in this country the government is not efficient with the money we're bringing in as we continue to raise taxes. we need to deal with the fraud, waste, and abuse in our government and need to become an efficient government. i'm going to look and explore every way to do that. to sit here and say i'm going to raise taxes on the wealthy, i'm not prepared to do that. i'm a numbers guy. can i promise you that. i have been dealing with numbers since i was 19 and building businesses for the last 32

years. that's one thing i do understand. >> mr. mast, 45 seconds for rebuttal. >> painted by john f. kennedy as one of the most paradoxical points that lowering the tax rates increases the revenue. this has been crew treu with j.f.k., with ronald reagan, clinton, bush, and anybody else that lowers taxes to give you an example when ronald reagan lowered the top margal tax rate from 70 to 28%, the revenue went from roughly $500 billion to nearly $1 trillion. that's one of the examples why we shouldn't be looking to raise but lower the tax rate if we want to bring increased revenue into the commifment why? because we allow people to go out there and invest in their community because they keep more gloin in their pocket. >> round three now and our panelists have general questions for both of the candidates. each of them will have 60 seconds to respond. and then 30 seconds for rebuttal. mr. perkins will answer first on this first question.

miss rodriguez, your question. >> what should the federal government do about decreasing the number of police-involved shootings? or do you see this as a state issue? let me repeat it. what should the federal government do to decrease the number of police involved shootings, or do you see this as a state issue? mr. perkins: i think this is an issue that affects everybody. state and the federal government. here's what i can tell you. when i go to washington i'm going to sit down and work with our experts. not sit there from washington, d.c., and try to make decisions. i i'll come back my district and ask the police chiefs and sheriffs, what do you need from congress to improve community relations? training. what is the federal -- what does the federal government need to give you to keep our communities safe? this is a problem we have in this country that has to be addressed. but it's not going to get solved unless we understand that some things at the local level. this is one of those that belong at the local level.

work with our law enforcement. with our police chiefs and sheriffs. our rank-and-file members. not just the leadership in law enforcement. the rank and file. the patrol men on the street saying what do you need from us ethiopia you do your job and sheet theeth shootings taking place? >> mr. mast, 60 second. mr. mast: training, training, more training. that was the solution in the military to make sure we're profishent in our job and that's one of the things we need to make sure every law enforcement has access to be at the level of proficiency they need to conduct their job well. one of the things that's peripheral to this issue that many people talk about is the idea of body cameras out there. should law enforcement have those? that's something that should be decided by each state, locality, precincts for themselves. i tell you that i personally have spoken with many law enforcement officers. while they do see this as another piece of equipment that could be burdensome to them skearg out -- carrying out on patrol, they see it as a vital

piece of equipment to document what's going on as they are out there. i'm with many of those law enforcement officers in saying if these precincts decide they have the ability found these and that if they need the help from the federal government as they often get these d.h.s. grants for different law enforcement agencies, that we should be out there making sure they have funds to get what they need to make sure that these incidents are accounted for. >> mr. perkins, 30 seconds for rebuttal. >> earlier my opponent said i like to print money. bottom line is we have a tremendous shortfall in our budget right now. so i would print money for our seniors to solve the problems. the fact that most are fighting day-to-day, week-to-week. i would print money to solve this problem right here we're talking about. to provide the support and all the technology and the training as i said when i sfoke for law enforcement. some things if we print that money today, that dime we print today will return a dollar in investment in 10 years. it's not costing more.

we're fronting money to saving money down the road. it will improve the quality of life. it's going to save lives on top of it. sometimes you need to make tough decisions. fund those things now and return an investment in the near future. >> mr. mast. mr. mast: what you heard again is randy proposing we print more money, print more money, print more money. for our seniors, retirees, for anybody that's on a fixed income, to have somebody running for congress that thinks the solution is to go out there and print more money when it's going to make the cost for you to go pub lix -- publix, when the amount you're bringing in is not doubling, that's one of the biggest concerns you should have is they are going to be party town nation. i don't think my opponent understands the economics of this issue. >> mr. bennett, your question for the candidates. >> sure. question about immigration. do you support a pathway to citizenship or legal status for the estimated 11 million or 12 million people in the country

illegally? if not, what should be done about those people? >> mr. mast, 60 seconds. mr. mast: it's unfortunate number one the rule of law was not adhered to for all those that came into this country illegally, whether it was they simply crossed the border or overstayed their visa. i personally am not a proponent for a pathway for citizenship for those that have made their first endeavor into this country breaking our law. that's not to say i won't be opened to an idea for making a legal work status for those that are still in this country for finding a way for them to be here and contribute to this society. it is certainly a conversation that i'm open to. but if your first venture into this country is to not respect the laws of our land, then i find it very difficult to grant citizenship to you as an individual. >> mr. perkins, 60 seconds. mr. perkins: i'll answer that. part of what brian said. i understand what a budget s i have been dealing with budgets and tough decision force the last 30 years in my own company. i'm not looking to print money. you want to solve the problems that our seniors are having

today, you have to fund that today. to improve the quality of life. i will make the tough decision to do that. i do support a path to citizenship. but i understand we have to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws first and foremost. this motion that we might deport millions of people, it's never going to happen. it's fantasyland. i'd rather take those billions of dollars we're talking, billions upon billions of dollars and put them into jobs, schools, training, and infrastructure. water projects throughout this contry. i want to take the 12 million people here illegally now and bring them up. allow them to start paying taxes into the system. which will add to the money the federal government collects. it would allow them to buy their own health insurance. yes, citizenship has to be earned. whether it's seven, 10, or 12 years down the road. that's what i support. >> 30 seconds for rebuttal. >> i did tell somebody of hispanic dissent i am capable of looking at this issue and saying that's the beautiful thing about

immigration. it doesn't discriminate against anybody. it affects every person that wants to come into this country in the exact same way. i am not a proponent for finding that same pathway to citizenship for those who have entered our country illegally. we need to reenforcement way people are granted access to this country and reform what's going on with those here illegally and hopefully have another opportunity to address this more. my time is up now. >> mr. perkins, 30 seconds for rebuttal. >> again, we need to enforce immigration laws. and we need to strengthen our borders. absolutely without question. again, i support an earned path to citizenship, seven, 10, 12 years whatever that may be by working with other members of congress to make sensible decisions, hard decisions in this country. >> mr. eschback, your question for the candidates. >> president obama has said that recent talk about the muslim communities and muslim countries has damaged our standing on the

international stage. would you be mindful of how you speak and that it's representative of the area and how do we go out and build bridges again? >> mr. perkins, 60 seconds to answer. mr. perkins: anybody in this room, even this country, heart will go out for the little boy who was washed up on the beach and drowned. the little boy who was caught when the building was bombed. we have laws that exist in this country right now. and we need to rely on our f.b.i. and our other agencies. there is a process in this country right now. we have processes and laws on the books. if that's 2 1/2 years, but i'm willing to sit down with other members of congress. i'm going to sit down with the f.b.i. and other intelligence agencies because they have the data. we have entrusted them to protect this contry. and make smart decisions. educated decisions. i'll sit down with them and have a open conversation. is the 2 1/2 year time frame enough. do we need to increase that to 3? i also support any young child

around this country, whether syrian refugees or from any country that we should be willing to take in with our open hearts because we're a caring, loving nation. any child around this world and find a home for them with families in this country and provide safe and loving homes for them. >> mr. mast, 60 seconds. mr. mast: to answer your question. i try to be mindful of every single person that i'm speaking to. i try to be completely respectful to every single person that i'm spooking to regardless of their background. that should not indicate that we should have weakness or aversion to identifying problems that we see for what they are. we have a problem around the world and we have a problem in this country with the threat of radical slalic jihadist terrorists. -- islamic jihadist terrorists. if we're afraid to sutter those words, to mention, that if we're afraid to talk about that, then we're never going to be able to overcome that threat. because that is one of the pinnacle things you need to do with any problem that you face is be able to identify that

threat for what it is. so, yes, certainly, i will speak very respectfully to those that are in the muslim community. but i will not gloss over the issues that are related to radical islamic jihadist terrorism that are affecting the breadth of this entire world. >> mr. perkins, 30 seconds for rebuttal. mr. perkins: they are radical extreme terrorists. you and i agree on this. we speak the same words. however we're a passionate country and we have to address these things on a smart, sensible basis. we have the intelligence agents, we have the f.b.i. brian, i'll just as passionate and love this country as much as you do and i will do everything i can as you would with other members of congress to make the smart decisions and the tough decisions to keep this country safe and free from terrorism. not only here but with our friends around the world. >> mr. mast, 30 seconds for rebuttal. mr. mast: the fact is terrorism has been my life's work. as i mentioned in my opening comments with three federal agencies. i have a very unique perspective

on it that luckily most will never have. i don't wish it upon anybody. when we're talking about looking at terrorists entering this country. combating those terrorists overseas. making sure there is no pipeline for them to be trained overseas and find their way into our country. making sure they can't come through one of our porous borders. security professionals and roles because that is not always the case. and making sure we have commonsense vetting for those coming into our country. having programs like behave yorble protection used by our allies. >> take some questions now from social media that were submitted to us. rirk wants to know do you think global warming is real and it's happening right now? or do you think we need to study it more. mr. perkins, you have 90 seconds to respond. mr. perkins: absolutely. i do believe in climate change. i dive, i'm in the water. been doing it my whole life. i can seat effects when i'm diving and looking at coorlreef -- coral reef systems.

however we have to do it in a smart, sensible way. we have to prepro-text our american businesses and our american companies. we have to pass smart regulation, environmental rules, as we're trying to deal with climate change and global warming. but we cannot do it in a way that is hurting our own businesses in the country and keeping them from being able to be as competitive as they need to be. we have to stop asking our companies to take the full burden of the rest of the world. we have to make sure the other -- rest of the world and china and some other nations to enforce the environmental rules and regulations on them before we start forcing rules and regulations, continuing to enforce rules and regulations on our american business that is are costing us jobs and the competitiveness that we have in this contry. yes, i care about the environment, but i also care about our companies and care about jobs that we're losing and livable wages that provide insurance and pensions and

quality of life for all americans in this contry. >> mr. mast, 45 seconds for rebuttal. mr. mast: i do believe in climate change. it's something i think very passionately about. i studied the environment as a student at the harvard university. i can tell you much of the research is still not completely conclusive, which is something that i think allot of people question what is going on with climate change. beyond that i can tell you i think there are a number of important responsibilities thaffle us need to pay attention to in this world. we need to make sure we understand that we have an economic responsibility and we have a social responsibility and we have an environmental responsibility as well. we need to look at all of those equally when we're looking at the legislation that we're going to put forward for this country so that people can still live and we can still have a prosperous nation. >> another question from social media. dustin writes, i am a small business other working seven days a week. how will you help small business owners with taxation as well as

being able to actually afford health insurance for self and employees? mr. mast, you have 90 seconds. mr. mast: these are probably. so biggest issues that face every small business owner. making sure that we get the federal government out of their way whether in terms of the amount they have to pay into for taxes or whether it's what they have to pay into in order to cover people with health care with programs like the affordable care act. i already mentioned as one of the statistics to say that on average floridian also see a 17% premium hike in terms of the cost of the affordable care act. this is one of those hurdles to those individuals that have small businesses having that ability to have more dollars in their pocket and go out there and invest in their business. invest in the product that they want to go out there and product. invest in their infrastructure so they can be more productive. one of the other important issues is making sure we don't have a federal minimum wage. my opponent is one of those individuals that wants to see $15 an hour minimum wage. i think it's one of the interesting points that on this

very stage george bennett asked this question, two years ago, to the candidates, when he said at that time when they were talking about $10 minimum wage, that the congressional budget office said at that time just raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour would cost as many as half a million jobs. right now he wants to talk about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. that's something that would take every single small business there north palm beach to fort pierce and make it practically impossible for them to run their businesses across federal highway and everywhere else. >> mr. perkins, 45 seconds. mr. perkins: it's interesting to hear my opponent talk about small business when he hasn't created a job in his life. i understand you have to wear hats as human resource, the attorney, you're the accountant, and everything else in between. i understand what banks used to banks when they took risks on their linets. it was a much more conducive environment for success 30 years

ago. we have to deal with the regulations. however, my opponent talks about health insurance. clearly we pay 100% of the health insurance for employees and their families. he also wants to put it back out there. the reason we had to go with the obamacare to twin with is millions of people didn't have insurance. if you put it back out there without commonsense approach insurance companies are going to drive up the wait. for the people who had insurance can't afford t they will be insured again. >> you're out of time. mr. perkins: i know what i'm talking about. >> get to our fourth and final round from our panelists. these are specific questions that are directed at each candidate. miss rose, you have a question for mr. mast. >> mr. mast, you touched on terrorism earlier and i'd like you to expand on your comments. do you support putting more boots on the ground in syria? and how can we stop attacks on u.s. soil by u.s. citizens? and also, do you support banning

the sale of guns to those on the no-fly list? mr. mast: i hope that's a 90 second question. you have to remind me. number one, do i support boots on the ground in syria? i have friend on the ground there as we speak. i think very cautiously about any of the lives of any of my friends are in danger i think about that. it's very, very personal to me. as i mentioned already, we need to make sure there is not a pipeline overseas for foreign fighters to be trained and come into the united states of america and commit attacks. those terrorist that is are being inspired here in the united states of america and elsewhere around the world, they are being inspired by what is going on in syria and iraq and that's where it becomes so important that we go out there and we eliminate the threat in those countries. and i can tell that you this is something that, unfortunately, due to the failed policies of this administration, that we have a much bigger problem than what we should have had. when this administration called isis the j.v. team, at a time of the arab spring when we could have defeated them with nothing but a cusm special operations forces and now we have to send

in a large military group in order to defeat them, that is a major problem. beyond that, addressing terrorism here in the united states of america, i have given you a few solutions to that. number one, we need to make sure that we know the individuals that want come into this country, that we're vetting them. we're using behave yorble detection on the people coming into this where we asked them questions like those i have been asked when i was being granted our highest level security cleern clearances. have you ever considered committing an act of terrorism. i had to answer that question. we should be asking other people those questions as well. we need to be smart about the people that we're letting into this country because we have to remember above all all it is the right of the american citizens to be protected by those people that are in office. that's what i fight fomplet >> mr. perkins, 45 seconds. mr. perkins: it when it comes to protecting this country from terrorism here or anywhere around the world, my opponent and i do not differ. not disagree on anything. however, unlike my opponent, i'm going to go to d.c. and i'm going to sit down with my friend, john mccain, who i have

known for 15 years who has been at my home and i supported his candidacies, sit down with people like that in congress and sit down and say i have to make tough votes on national security interest not only in this country and keeping this country safe, the decisions we have to make to send our men and women and putting boots on the ground again. i need your help with it. i'll sit down with the security agencies and intelligence officials and tell them what do they need from us. putting more boots on the ground? i'll listen to the experts because it's going to take just more than me or my opponent to make those tough decisions. it should. >> mr. bennett, you have a question for mr. perkins. >> you mentioned a couple times tonight that you are pro-choice on abortion bhafment is your position on the hyde amendment since the 1970's has prohibited use of federal money to pay for most abortions? hillary clinton and i think this year's democratic party platform advocate getting rid of that.

what's your position on that? >> first of all i'm 100% pro-choice. i want to thank mona for the time she took, she knows what i'm talking about, at her clinic the other day. not only was i 1,000 percent pro-choice and will never waiver on allowing a woman's right to choose. we do not need to send mother man, any man to congress who is going to try to tell the women what decision she should make with her health care issues or any other decision that a woman has the right to make for herself. we have an amendment in place. if we want to bring that back in front of congress and discuss and removing that amendment, will i have a vote. -- i will have a vote when that time comes and exercise my vote along with 435 other members of congress when it comes to that issue. >> mr. mast, 45 seconds. mr. mast: my opponent has called me radical and extremist

numerous times on this stage without any provocation. i think without any reason to do so. i would like to see him answer this question because i think it falls among the most radical view that is coaxist out there. he said he is 100% pro-choice individual. so does that mean you are for partial-birth abortion? you're a proponent for third trimidwester abortions. you believe the unborn have no rights? if that is your opinion i believe you are probably ranking among the most extreme people on this stage. >> please, no applause. please. we're a little short on time. you have a question for mr. mast, reduce the answer time. so we have time for closing. >> we have seen a lot of turnover in this office in the last 15 years that i have been here. will you commit yourself to this area? i know you both just moved here. will you commit yourself to this area and to this office so when you gain traction on issues we don't lose them in two years? >> mr. mast, 60 seconds.

mr. mast: i commit myself 100% to this ira. it was the honor of my life serving this country. i'm honored many of you are considering me to represent you. as much as there are very large issues we have spoken about this evening, whether tax reform or social security, a number of other things, i understand that as one person i'm not going to go up there to washington, d.c., and affect these issues solely. i have to work with 400-plus other members of congress out there and another side in the senate and the president of the united states of america to get things passed. the one thing that i can guarantee when i speak to constituents of this area. if you have a problem, if you have an issue, if your small business has a problem, if you need me to be a loud mouthpiece for you, to go out there and represent you against some federal agency who is harassing you, i will be the loudest possible voice that i can be for your issues. and that is how i will fight for every single one of you across this district. >> 30 seconds for rebuttal. mr. perkins: the prior question, brian wants to make that -- what

he said about abortion. it's not about abortion. it's about a woman's fundamental right to choose the decisions best for her, period. with no exceptions. however, unlike my opponent, and i say this very humbly, i do not need a job. i have been provided tremendous opportunity in my life that the only interest, the only special interest outside of sugar anti-all aboard florida money he's taken, the only special interest i have will be the people of district 18 that i represent. those are my interests. yes, i will be dedicated -- >> that's all we have time for. we have time for closing statements. mr. perkins, you will go first. you have 90 seconds for the closing statement. >> on august 30 i was voting and i saw my name, randy perkins, for congress on the ballot. how a kid from a small town in miami who grew up in a working class family, to potentially have the honor to represent this district in congress was very

humbling. however when you talk about our seniors and prescription drug, and mental issues, children, anxiety, opioid edmonton destroying the fabric of this contry. our seniors are more dependent than ever on the food stamp program. for $125 more a month, i'm sure our seniors when they worked hard their entire life did not expect to go into retirement depending on food stamm tops get by on a day-to-day basis. criminal justice reform. issues that are unique to this district. our single mothers. our veterans. our first responders. all the challenges that we have in this district throughout this contry. my opponent is extreme. he's radical. when you want to go to congress to make your first mission to defund planned parenthood 100%. when you want to deny a woman's right to choose, to strip the lgbt community from equality, human rights that they should be -- they should have just fike every other american.

when you stand behind a man like donald trump who said rebullsive -- repulsive, very vulgar things against women, i'm sure that puts you in the extreme radical part of your party. i'm a problem solver. i have been doing it my whole ly. i know how to work with people. i'll find common ground and i will solve the problems that this district has in district 18 for everybody. >> thank you. mr. perkins: every republican, independent, democrat i represent. >> mr. mast. mr. mast: i think my opponent has proven he's depply committed to saying things that are simply false. i can tell you aim not going to predict to you who is going to win this race. i can till the one thing that i won't lose ever is my integrity. people ask me often what made me get into this race? the most frequent question i get. i can till i don't remember the exact day but i do remember the moment. as i was laying in a bed in walter reed, looking across the room as my wife who was holding our then six month old son, much

more emotional time in my life because i didn't know what my future held, and i looked at her right then and told her i'm not going to let the best defense i give my country and the best example i ever set for our children be something that's behind me or in my past. that's my commitment to you this evening. i will fight for you every single day with every single thing i have inside of me. the same waydy on the battlefield. to fight for you without any regard for personal gain or personal sacrifice and to do everything that i can to fight for the issues that are important to you every single day as your representative, as your member of congress. that's what i think that you are owed and that's the way i'll fight. >> yes, thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] >> incumbent pat toomey, the republican is seeking a second term. he'll debate tonight against his democratic opponent. katie mcginty, who friday was endorsed by "the new york times." the debate tonight happening at

the temple university performing arts center in philadelphia. and hosted by wpvi-tv. live coverage tonight of the pennsylvania senate debate here on c-span. >> this is vote 2016, the pennsylvania senatorial debate. the final matchup before election day. the candidates are republican pat toomey and democrat katie mcginty. today's debate is brought to you by 6abc in philadelphia and the league of women voters of pennsylvania. and now, live from the temple performing arts center in philadelphia, york moderator, -- your moderator, 6abc anchor jim gardner. jim: good evening and welcome to the final debate between republican and democratic

candidates for the senate seat. they will be answering questions posed by me as well as questions sent from social media and from some members of our audience. speaking of the audience, we have asked everybody here to refrain from applause or any other interruptions, except for right now, as we welcome republican pat toomey and democrat katie mcginty. applause]d jim: we are so glad that you are here. we look forward to a terrific debate here tonight. before we begin, a quick note on

some of the ground rules. each candidate will have one minute to answer the question posed to them, followed by a one minute response or rebuttal. to the candidates, a personal message from me, i hope to cover a lot of ground here tonight. so, i hope you won't think that i'm disrespectful if i really try to hold you to your time limits. i will need your help and would appreciate your help with that. the candidates will also have 90 seconds at the end of the debate for a closing statement. by random draw, the first question tonight goes to katie mcginty. aroundinty, few issues pennsylvania stir passions on both sides more than the issues of guns and gun violence and the second amendment. do you support background checks and assault weapons bans, a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, and a no-fly, no-guns

list? yet one of the country passed most visible -- conuntry's advocate of gun control has endorsed your opponent. if she was in this room, what would you say to her? senator toomey: thank you all -- ms. mcginty: thank you all for being here. the first thing i would say to gabby giffords would be to thank her for her service and her courage. the issue of gun violence is critical. 00 people -- 300,0 killed through the last decade by gun violence. i'm proud to be part of organizations like cease-fire pennsylvania, because i think there is common ground to be had on this issue. i come from a family where my brothers were hunters, sportsmen. i don't think that's the issue. coming together on common sense issues like not letting terrorists by guns in this country, i think we can get it did -- done.

to get it done, you have to stick with it. haves the difference i with senator toomey. he lent his name to a bill. when the bill failed by a couple of votes, the senate has spoken. let's move on. let democrats take the lead. i'm ready to take the lead on this critical issue. jim: mr. toomey? mr. toomey: i'm glad you are doing well. thanks to temple for hosting this. andnt to thank my family friends who came down from the lehigh valley and greater philadelphia to be here. i approach this issue as somebody who is a strong believer in the second amendment. i think that is a very important on a personal right that we have, and it's properly enshrined in the constitution. it just never occurred to me that a three-minute background check to try to prevent somebody who has no legal right to a firearm -- that that in any way infringes on second amendment rights. so i got together with joe manchin after what was probably the most painful meeting i ever

had, when i sat down with the families of sandy hook, the parents whose little babies were just massacred. those families -- they weren't asking us to ban all categories of guns or do anything unreasonable. they said can't we make progress on a background check. joe manchin and i put together a bill. i still support that and i intend to reintroduce that, because we ought to be able to keep firearms out of the people who had no legal right to it. is to themcginty point of politicizing everything and hyper politics. that drives people apart and prevents us from finding common ground. jim: mr. toomey, perhaps because a woman is running for president , has a long-standing issue became -- equal pay for women. pennsylvania is now the fourth worst state in the country when it comes to gender pay equity in the world -- and the world economic forum places the united states 28 in the world.

there is something called the paycheck fairness act. it would require businesses to explain why wage gaps exist between their male and female employees and impose tougher penalties against employers for wage discrimination. five times you have voted to fairnesse paycheck act. are we to think that accurately were flex how you feel about a woman's right to make as much money as a man? ms. mcginty: i've been blessed -- mr. toomey: i've been blessed to grow up and have a strong -- a family full of strong women, my mother, my sisters, my wife, who had a wonderful career before we got married, and i have a 16-year-old daughter. you better believe i want her to have every opportunity and to be compensated as well as my sons might be someday. the fact is though, the legislation you alluded to was ruled by even the washington post editorial age, no conservative page, as a

boondoggle for trial lawyers, not as something that would actually make progress. i have supported legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. i voted for legislation that makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers who share information about their pay. and i feel very strongly that women ought to get every opportunity and the same level of compensation as men. but i will tell you also -- jim: thank you. we are going to move on. i'm sorry. ms. mcginty. ms. mcginty: thanks. i believe this country was founded on a basic bargain -- you work hard, you get ahead. the truth is that families, women and families are working as hard as they know how, two jobs, three jobs, but they aren't keeping up with the cost of childcare, the cost of college, and just basic needs that every family has. i believe we need to honor hard work and, yes, i'm for increasing the minimum wage and enabling families to provide for themselves. and i'm for ensuring that a

woman doing the same job as a man is able to bring home that in paycheck -- that same paycheck. these are critical issues, and i do disagree with senator toomey. it's not enough to have platitudes or say that i think highly of women. families need income so that they can support themselves, and the senator has voted against equal pay. he's voted against increasing the minimum wage. he agrees with donald trump that the problem in this country's people are making too much. that's not what i see out there. he's voted many times against college affordability as well. this is about family needs, and i will fight for those families. jim: ms. mcginty, your opponents claim that you were handpicked to run for the senate by the democratic machine in washington and will be a rubber stamp for the democratic leadership and hillary, should she be elected president. voters we all agree that like an independent voice. can you tell us about one issue where you disagree with your

party or your potential president? ms. mcginty: thanks, jim. i do stand with secretary clinton, because she is focused on standing up for families and rebuilding the middle class. i think it would be helpful at this late date in the election if senator toomey would similarly let voters know whether he is voting for donald trump or not. jim: we will get to that, ms. mcginty, but i'm asking you about an issue that you disagree. ms. mcginty: i have one litmus test in serving the people of this commonwealth, any issue, any idea, does it serve our and the as a state families working hard in this state? there are some issues that i disagree with secretary clinton on. for example, i agree that it was wrong to set up guantanamo bay. we know that has been a tool that has been used against us by terrorists, as general betray us and others have said. but i cannot today say we should close guantanamo bay because i'm concerned we would have those

who would return to the battlefield against us. i know that secretary clinton will fight for working families and that's what i'm going to do as well,. jim: mr. toomey, you've been taking a little heat for refusing to say if you will vote for donald trump for president. i know you have been waiting for this debate. [laughter] jim: i know you've been waiting for this moment to say whether or not you will vote for the nominee of your party. so, is it yet ornate -- it is y ea or nay? mr. toomey: i am not a hyper partisan, reflexive ideologue. katie mcginty does that. i don't. there are a lot of things that concern me a great deal about donald trump, and i've been very public about it. i have criticized him repeatedly, publicly, because i think he has said some terrible things. i think he has taken some badly thought positions. and i had knowledge the nominee of my party is flawed. katie mcginty -- and i

acknowledge the nominee of my party is flawed. katie mcginty is blindly supportive of the most badly flawed candidate in decades. whatannot even acknowledge we see on a regular basis, maybe because katie mcginty began a campaign with a lie about her background, coming she was the first in her family to go to college, when she knew her older brother had gone to college and come back to temple for a graduate degree before she ever graduated from high school. maybe it's katie mcginty's problem with the truth that allows her to overlook hillary clinton's chronic lies. jim: so, i guess that means you have not been waiting for this debate. [laughter] mr. toomey: tat's -- that's right. ms. mcginty: i'd like to follow-up if i might. jim: senator toomey, you know there are detractors of yours who will say that you are not completely disavowing trump because you need his supporters to win this election. what do you say to that

accusation? mr. toomey: i have refused to endorse donald trump. katie mcginty says that was supporting donald trump. that doesn't make any sense. look, the dilemma is this, jim, donald trump is a badly flawed candidate, as i said. but if he were president, he would probably sign a bill repealing obamacare, which we badly need. he would probably sign a bill that would restore sanctions on iran, which we badly need. so there is this dilemma. if hillary clinton is the president, we will have a doubling down on all the failed policies that have endangered us around the world, that have weakened our economy and that katie mcginty supports. like a lot of pennsylvanians i know, because i talk to them on a regular basis, who feel stuck, who feel that, i can't believe in a country of 300 million people, we've got these two choices, and katie mcginty can't acknowledge a single flaw in the nominee of her party. jim: i'm not going to badger you to say something that you are not going to say. don't you think your constituents, the people of

pennsylvania deserve to know if you are going to support the nominee of your party? mr. toomey: i don't think my constituents care that much how one person is going to vote. they are going to make their own decision all across the commonwealth about whom they're going to support and whom they are not going to support. i think they care much more about whether i've got policies that are going to help grow this economy, help keep us safe. that's the contrast on which they will make their decision. jim: you wanted to say something? ms. mcginty: i do. the senator is on -- in a class of his own on this issue. he's the only person running for senate in the entire country who has not leveled with his constituents. withs what i want to share people here. in philadelphia, the senator will say he has differences and disagreements with donald trump, but in other parts of the state, what we hear from the senator is how excited he will be to confirm president trump's supreme court nominees. in other parts of the state, we hear the senator saying that he thinks donald trump has put forward incredibly constructive

ideas. senator, in politics, the definition of courage and character is doing what's right even if it costs you votes. you have failed that test. mr. toomey: this is televised statewide, katie. i'm sorry if you didn't know that. jim: let's move on. americany, the first has been killed in the campaign to recapture mosul from isis. last february, you appeared to object to president obama's guarantee that the war against isis would never require american boots on the ground beyond our current advisory role. you said this, quote, "we have to recognize that the u.s. military has capabilities that no one else on the planet has and, if we're going to be successful in this, it's going to take american presence." in your estimation, sir, will it be necessary to send ground forces to fight isis? if a vote in the senate were to come up to that effect, would

you vote yes? mr. toomey: i don't it's going to take and i don't think it would be a good idea to launch a large-scale and visionary force. -- large-scale invasionary force. i think we have capabilities the iraqis don't have here they should have never been pulled out of iraq, then we might not be in this situation. we need people who can help with logistics, air traffic control, medical it at tuition, technology the iraqis simply don't have. we must if you isis. an even bigger medium-term flat -- threat for us is the rise of iran, the hegemony of iran and the middle east, which is a direct result of president obama's very mistaken policy. this iran nuclear deal, which endangers all of us unbelievably and that katie mcginty fully supports -- what iran poses now is a very serious, nuclear armed, ballistic missile capable, regional threat that runs from afghanistan to the mediterranean. jim: we will talk about that. mr. toomey: i hope we will. jim: what i want to know is, do

you believe that americans should be deployed to the front lines to fight isis at some point in time? mr. toomey: as i said, i think it is the american contribution on the ground should be that of iecial ops, sophisticated -- think its leadership. i think the bulk of the ground forces need to come from the kurdish fighters, sunni arab states that will be absolutely necessary to secure the peace afterwards. american can -- america can provide leadership and technologically sophisticated capabilities that others don't have. ms. mcginty: it's imperative that we defeat and destroy isis. i believe that means our airstrikes supporting local troops, not our combat troops. i think it means, second, that we have to cut off the financial lifeblood of isis, including their access to oil assets. third, we have to take them on in cyberspace as well. what's very troubling to me about senator toomey's record is that he hasn't shown up for many

of the key hearings and meetings. the senator has missed some 90% of the key committee hearings and meetings on our critical national security issues. and when the senator has shown up, his votes have been in the direction that takes down our security instead of enhances our security. for example, the senator voting movedt legislation that forward in closing some loopholes in our visa waiver program, critical legislation. the senator boasted -- voted against not once, but twice the decision that would close a loophole that allows terrorists to buy guns in our country. jim: a question for you on the economy. there is a frightening prospect for something called "a new normal" in the economy. a federal reserve economist just a week ago said that the long-term economic growth in this country could actually settle at 1.5% for years to come.

a new normal. that would mean slower economic growth, fewer jobs, workers' wages and living standards would increase more slowly or even fall in absolute terms. should you be elected, what would your specific blueprint be for fighting the new normal? ms. mcginty: i think we need to ensure that people have training and -- job-training and apprenticeship programs, skills development, so we can put people back to work in jobs like rebuilding our infrastructure. it's part of the reason, though, that we do need to pay people a decent wage and enable people to fully and engage in the workforce by helping them with the cost of childcare. that's why senator toomey's proposal to hold back economic growth -- small businesses are the engine of economic growth and job creation. that's why learning that senator toomey had launched a bank, his bank has foreclosed in such a

predatory behavior against small businesses right here in pennsylvania, killing jobs, hurting those businesses, that senator toomey's own bank's practices are literally considered illegal and predatory and 30-plus states. the's a track record of senator is working for himself and his own profitability, but he has certainly hurt those small businesses that were creating good jobs. jim: mr. toomey? mr. toomey: i want to talk about the small business background that i have with my family and how we get this economy going, but i can't let pass -- she just raise this, jim, and said something of shocking hypocrisy. she was referring to a legal device called a confession of judgment. she has scripted ads that have gone on tv, attacking me because of a bank using this. those ads were taken down today because they are so blatantly dishonest. they are off the air across the state because of the lies. but it's worse.

it's worse because, the fact is, when katie mcginty was the secretary of the dep, she, through the dep, used the exact same device on their own credit extension. she has the nerve to attack me for what a bank did, a bank that i was an investor in, when she was using the exact same device herself. this is what people are disgusted about with politics, when people like katie mcginty will be so hypocritical and just what tell the truth -- just won't tell the truth. let me get back to the economic issue. jim: you've run out of time now, sir. [applause] be anlly there will opportunity later in the debate. mr. toomey: maybe katie will respond. jim: here's the problem. i want to ask a question about your role as a member of the banking committee and your equity in the bank, and i wanted to ask a question about your experience with nrc energy, and

some of the charges that have been leveled against you. you have taken time away from an opportunity to answer that question, and now you don't have time to answer the question about the economy. maybe you will figure out a way to put that in later in the debate. mr. toomey, in june of this year, the pennsylvania house approved a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy instead of the current 24. opponents of the bill say it is necessary to prevent fetuses from feeling pain during a portion. opponents say -- durin gag abortion. opponents say it is an effort by an 82% legislative body to limit a woman's right to abortion. what do you say? mr. toomey: here's what i say, this is a really tough issue, and there are good people on both sides of this issue, good people that i'm very close to on both sides of this issue. the reason it's tough? competing pits two

values. on the one hand, there is the value of personal autonomy. that's very important all of us. the other hand, there's the importance of the sanctity of an innocent human life. when those two clash, for me, i come down on the side of life, so i am pro-life. i accept that, under particularly its reshooting circumstances like rape, incensed, or life of the mother, i would accept exceptions in those cases because they are so tough. but i think what we ought to do as a society is see where we can find common ground on a really tough issue. there has long been a consensus on a couple things. one, you don't perform an abortion on a baby that's about to be delivered. someone that's very far along, a seven pound baby girl, taking in her mother's womb, but katie mcginty is fine with that. there's no point at which abortion should be unacceptable for her. we've agreed for decades that we don't use taxpayer funding to pay for these abortions because of the difficulty of this issue,

but again, katie mcginty disagrees with that. jim: your response? ms. mcginty: i do stand for the right of women to make incredibly difficult incisions that are medically -- decisions that are medically complex privately, with her family, with her doctor, in conversation with her god. but you know, the senator king's gruesome pictures. -- the senator paints gruesome pictures. i got a call couple weeks ago from a gentleman from southwestern pennsylvania. that gentleman shared a story that just underscores for me this is a decision for parents, for families, not for politicians. the room was painted. the baby furniture was purchased. the teddy bears were purchased. and it was very late in his wife's pregnancy, when a terrible condition with the baby was understood, and they had to make an excruciating decision to terminate that pregnancy. so, this should not be about

politics. your position on this has been decidedly out of the mainstream, joining with donald trump in saying that women are -- women and doctors should have to be jailed for making these excruciating decisions. that's not right. jim: thank you very much. we are going to take a one minute break. we will be back, live from temple university, in 60 seconds. announcer: c-span brings you more debates this week from key races. 7:00 p.m., live coverage on c-span, the indiana governors debate between the republican lieutenant governor, democrat john greg, and libertarian rex bell. wednesday at seven at lock on c-span, chris van hollen -- at 7:00 on c-span, chris van hollen and kathy szeliga.

at 10:00, a debate between republican senator marco rubio and democratic congressman patrick murphy. thursday night at 8:00 eastern, senator kelly ayotte and governor maggie hassan debate for the new hampshire senate seat. now until election day, watch key debates from house, senate, and governors races on the c-span networks, c-span.org, and listen on the c-span radio app. c-span -- where history unfolds daily. jim: it is the debate. i don't know if you heard any of that. we are back live at temple university, the debate between toomey and mcginty, one of the

highest profile senate races in the country. we have invited our candidates to come off the podium for this segment. one has, and one has decided ash -- decided -- mr. toomey: i'm going to join you. jim: thank you, sir. we are going to start with a question that was sent to us on twitter. we can start with ms. mcginty. this is from -- it should be on the screen here. here we go. "how will you proceed with the future still made overfilling the supreme court seat -- ove stalemate over filling the supreme court seat?" ms. mcginty: the constitution says clearly it is the job of united states senators to consider, advise, and consent on judicial nominees. unfortunately, senator toomey has joined the cabal that now has made a historical milestone that is not a proud one -- the extent extend of time --

of time that a nominee has been hanging out without an appropriate hearing. and it's not the first time that senator toomey has been harshly and determinedly partisan about a position that needs to be above politics. not long ago, he single-handedly days judge some 400 lewis restrict the -- judge louis restrepo and recently put obama on notice about another nominee, rebecca heywood, from allegheny county, that the senator won't even meet with her, won't even allow her to proceed toward hearing. i would do my job. let's get to work. the hearing and review of these nominees that we are supposed to do. jim: mr. toomey? mr. toomey: this is another one of those "she was the first in her family to go to college" stories. i supported judge restrepo. the supreme court, prior to the

passing of justice scalia, was roughly balanced. there were decisions that conservatives like. there were decisions that liberals like katie mcginty like. with his passing, the question arises, will the court be in balance or will it swing to the left or the right? and in the heat of an election, with a new president coming in in just a few months, this is an opportunity to let the next president decide. that's my judgment. that's exactly what we should do. i will take a backseat to no one for the work that i've done in confirming judges for the federal bench. senator casey and i, working together in the six years i've been in the senate, we have confirmed 16 federal judges. 16. those are mostly democrats, because that's the nature of the arrangement when there is a democrat in the white house. but i worked with senator casey to confirm 16 federal judges to the bench, more than any other state in the union except california and new york. jim: we have some questions from

students at temple university. they are video questions. the first one is from morgan. mr. toomey, you will answer it first. let's look at the screen. >> college that is a very huge concern of mine. thewould you plan to reduce student debt for all students? mr. toomey: so, college debt is a big problem. i grew up in a blue-collar, working-class women -- family. we couldn't afford the tuition for college, so, what we did was what a lot of families do, it was a combination of pell grants, student loans, and working my way through school. that's how my brothers, and sisters, and i were able to go through college. i think that combination makes sense. i've supported pogrund -- pell grant and increasing pell grants and i voted for legislation that puts a cap on student loans. the student needs to bear some of the burden for the education that will help them to earn more over the course of their life.

the most important thing we can do is make sure that a graduating student has great job opportunity. katie mcginty is doubling down on the failed policies of the obama administration that don't create the kind of opportunities that allow students to have the income to pay off student that is an: interesting story from senator toomey, but the record is different. there are many things we can do to bring down the cost of college. we have low interest rates. let's let families refinance outstanding debt. senator toomey said no. i'm glad you benefited from pell grants. unfortunately, you voted to cut of that program. even though 300,000 of your constituents depend on the program. middle-class families are struggling out there. bipartisan legislation that enabled an extended middle-class tax cut, so that families could and senator, you

voted against that critical legislation. college is an important piece of enabling families have the skills and opportunities they need. we can get this done. i was proud working with governor wolf to restore funding for public colleges and universities, and we made a deal with the presidents of those universities to get more state money. then you have to put a lid on the cost of college. jim: thank you. our next question from eagleville, pennsylvania. we are talking about a freshman majoring in bioengineering. you will be the first answer, ms. mcginty. >> my question for the candidate is the big question we had been the selection, how will we make sure that hard-working americans, who do their hard work and their fair share, will have a job in the future, and how it -- can we make sure our economy is doing well and will continue to do well for future generations? ms. mcginty: thank you for that

question. i think we had huge opportunities out there. i meet with ceos of small businesses and big businesses. they say they need skilled workers today. but we have gotten away from things like drug training and -- job training and apprenticeship programs. i would support that. and i proudly stand with secretary clinton and saying that community college ought to be part of the high school, and extended certification and job training experience.i support making community college available . it's another way kids and families can afford college. we have those skills -- when i was secretary of environmental protection, i was proud to put the skills to work. we brought 3000 jobs in renewable energy manufacturing here to pennsylvania. unfortunately, senator toomey, if it is not fossil fuel dirty energy, he's not for it. credited to kill the tax to cut those 3000 jobs here.

one of the single biggest recipients of big oil money in the u.s. congress. jim: mr. toomey. sen. toomey: yes, follow the money, the 3000 jobs she talks about came because she funneled your money to a foreign company to come here, set up a subsidiary. they rewarded her very handsomely. she became a multimillionaire by serving on the board of this company, rewarding her for your money going to them.then they folded up shop . every worker lost their job. pennsylvania taxpayers lost their money. but it worked ok for katie mcginty, she became a multimillionaire. that is not how you grow an economy. the other way you don't grow an economy is raising money on the middle class. she has raised taxes on the middle class on every job she had in government. when she was chief of staff for tom wolfe, they proposed a massive tax increase. she was the biggest tax increase since the creation of the income tax. the fact is, we need lower

taxes. that is what i have been working on since i got into public life. we need to push back on the crazy overregulation holding the economy back. i will help us create jobs and get prosperity we've been waiting for. jim: john harris is a freshman here at temple, majoring in secondary education. he has this question. mr. toomey, you will be first to answer. >> what are you going to do to bring green energy to the state of pennsylvania, rather than focusing mainly on fossil fuel energies? my view on energy is whatever makes economic sense is what we ought to have. if it makes economic sense at windmills, and in some parts of the country it does, then that is what we ought to do. katie mcginty strategy is to use massive taxpayer subsidies to subsidize inefficient sources of energy that make no economic sense. that makes us poor at the country. even on the upfront cash isn't enough to keep them going.

she wants you to have to continue an ongoing subsidy to these companies. it is called the wind production tax credit that forces you are dollars to go to people who cannot produce energy efficiently. taxpayers lose, the economy's lose.- everyone has a higher electric ,ill thanks to katie mcginty because she force companies to buy inefficient and expensive sources. it doesn't make sense. advances, we will have the ability to generate more electricity from the sun, the wind, and as that happens, it will be available and we will buy it. jim: thank you, sir. sen. toomey: in the meantime, we should stick with our energy. ms. mcginty: i think it's interesting the senator should say that the energy companies need to make it on their own, but he's one of the biggest offenders of billions of dollars every year of tax breaks to big oil. i don't know about you, but i think exxon mobil can afford to pay if you bucks in texas. let's talk about taxes.

his whole campaign is based on things that independent fact checkers have repeatedly chastised, because his ads have been untrue, false, misleading. here is real tax record for senator toomey . so far out of the mainstream, senator toomey has said repeatedly that his view is that the answer is we eliminate all corporate taxes. a $473 billion a year giveaway to his buddies in big business. they rewarded him handsomely, as he's one of the single largest recipients of cash from them. but who pays the bills? the senator bills would increase taxes on middle-class families by $3000 a year. jim: thank you, ms. mcginty. sen. toomey: he voted for taxes for middle-class families for college. jim: we will have the opportunity to talk about taxes when we come back. we also want to thank our students who have supplied their questions, and also on social

media. we will take a quick break and we will be back. ♪ c-span brings you more debates this week from key u.s. senate and governor races. tuesday evening at 7:00 eastern, live coverage on c-span, the indiana governors, debate between republican lieutenant governor eric holcomb democrat john greg, and libertarian rexdale. wednesday at 7:00 live on c-span, democratic congressman chris van hollen, and republican kathy shirley got debate for the maryland senate seat. then, a debate for the florida senate between republican senator marco rubio, and democratic congressman patrick murphy. thursday night at 8:00 eastern, republican senator kelly ayotte and democratic governor maggie hassan debate for the new hampshire senate seat.

now until election day, watch key debates from house, senate, and governors races on the c-span network, c-span.org, and listen on the c-span radio app. c-span, where history unfolds daily. ♪ jim: we are back live on the campus of temple university. we are having a good discussion, i think. we hope that you feel that as well. as for the candidates, has this been good for you so far? ms. mcginty: i wouldn't have missed it for the world. [laughter] jim: i want to ask a quick question of both of you. i'm just looking for quick impressions. you don't have to take the full minute. close to $100 million has been raised for this campaign. most of that money has gone to television ads across the state. it seems most of those ads have been harsh, bitter attacks

against your opponent. question. when voters here this bad stuff about each of you for months, on end, every time they turn on the television, doesn't that contribute to the general sense in and distaste for politics and government that we have been hearing so much about recently? mr. toomey, you first. sen. toomey: there's no question, there's been a staggering amount of money spent, and a staggering amount of ads. katie mcginty will decry citizens united, but she is the big beneficiary of it. they have spent far more on her behalf than the have against me. i suggested as a way to fight back against this, that we have five debates across the commonwealth. five debates so we can get into more in-depth discussions rather 30 second sound bites. she refused. i don't think it is there to paint everybody with the same broad. campaigne's only one

that their ads had to be taken down because they were flagrantly dishonest. that is katie mcginty. that makes a difference. frankly, she tends to deny many of the things she has done. go to my website. you can see, we have documented the fact that the dep under her leadership used confession of judgment. she scripted the ad that had to be taken down. we have documented the dishonesty that has really been a problem in this campaign. ms. mcginty: what is dishonest is what the senator has just said. this actually only one candidate on this stage who had to take his act down, and that was senator toomey. my campaign has had to take no ads down. there's only one person standing on this stage, who repeatedly, independent fact checkers have and, his ads are false misleading. no wonder the senator doesn't want us to look at his record. -- record of money at bank

owning a bank and for closing on constituents. i am proud to have the endorsement of an endorsed -- an organization called and citizens united.it is dedicated to getting dark , secret money out of politics. senator toomey had a chance to vote on that and voted against overturning citizens united. no wonder. moneyr toomey has more coming in from organizations like the koch brothers, then just about any candidate in the country. 100% voting record doing the bidding of organizations like the koch brothers. sen. toomey: thank you. jim: i'm not sure your respective answers had anything to eliminate distress. [laughter] did aashington post" study of all police involved shootings in 2015, and found that black men, who represent 6% of the population, accounted for

40% of the unarmed men shot to death by police. i think we all agree that the vast majority of police officers are extraordinarily brave and noble men and women, but do you think these numbers show that there is institutional bias in america's police department? ms. mcginty: we've made a lot of progress as a country in terms of taking on racism and discrimination, but we by no means have fully succeeded in eradicating racism and discrimination from our society. i am happy to say, black lives matter. from where i stand, when we recognize the dignity of all people, we are all lifted up. when any person is denied dignity, we are taken down. i say that also has the daughter of a policeman, who revered the work of law enforcement. our family would say goodbye to dad in the morning, and we did not know after he walked his home.which he come back

that is why i have moved forward to say, let's give the police force the equipment they need, double the community policing programs, and make sure they have equipment and resources to be active in the community senator toomey has pushed a. punish the police bill that would strip law enforcement of critical resources. i know that works from a tea party point of view, take any government program away. but it hurts our safety, security and community. jim: do you think there is institutional bias? ms. mcginty: i think that we still have work to do. i agree with your assessment. we have good men and women. but we have to look into our own hearts. we have not eradicated racism, discrimination, sexism. we have worked to deal with. jim: thank you. mr. toomey. sen. toomey: there's no question there are bad apples in any walk of life. any profession has some. videos of young black

men being shut under circumstances that are very, very disturbing. i immediately called for a thorough investigation and holding people accountable for any wrongdoing. but i'm absolutely convinced majority ofolute police men and women across the commonwealth and the country are not racist. they are trying to do the very best they can to protect us. the problem with the black lives matter movement and katie mcginty propagating this, is the phrase itself is meant to impugn the integrity of the police by implying they don't think black lives do matter. and it, is my view all lives matter, and i think police get that. i think police get that. [applause] jim: ladies and gentlemen, please. sen. toomey: i will simply finish by observing that i respect and honor the years that katie mcginty's father spent on the philadelphia police force,

but the philadelphia police have endorsed me in this campaign, as police foundation in the commonwealth. [applause] jim: come on guys, please you have been great until now. iratens of americans are that their premiums and adaptable's have gone up under the affordable care act. proponents explain that much of to theh premiums are due fact that insurance companies can no longer deny americans with pre-existing conditions, and cannot charge higher rates waste on health status or gender -- based on health status or gender. do you dispute that, and do you bring costs down, while still ensuring americans that are high-risk? sen. toomey: first of all, that's not causing the problem with obama care. the problem is it is

fundamentally flawed. we were told if you wanted to keep your insurance, you could keep it, when they knew they were systematically forbidding whole categories. we were told, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. you can't. the new insurance plans were designed to exclude doctors people were satisfied with. we were told the average family would pay $2500. it is the opposite. costs have gone through the roof. today, it is in a death spiral. it is collapsing. 40% of pennsylvania's have only -- pennsylvanians have only one choice. you can't fix it, because it is based on a wrong design that control,government in that should be determined by mom and dad around the kitchen table, not a federal bureaucracy. i think what we ought to do is repeal obamacare completely. we will need a transition for people receiving subsidies. we need to move in a direction where individuals can control their health care.

ms. mcginty: my question is, where has the senator been? he's been in washington for 18 years. this is obviously a critically important issue. sure to bringe down the cost of prescription drugs. where is your legislation to make sure people have their choice? i would take action. i think it is important that people not lose their health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. i think it is important we not kick people off of health insurance because they have a chronic disease, and they hit the cap. we have to the cost down. there are things we can do, i will do that the senator won't. ,first, we have to take on big companies.cal we do only country in the world where federal law prohibits us from negotiating down the cost with theiption drugs, consequence that we pay sometimes 10 times as much for the very same drug. i will take that on, but the

senator is a little too close to big pharma and big insurance. he will complain, but has done nothing to fix the problem. jim: let's talk about iran. you have expressed your complete support for the nuclear deal. since that was signed, they have fired for nuclear capable of themc missiles, to with the words israel must be wiped out written in he met -- hebrew. has also held 10 american sailors hostage at gunpoint. has any of this ever given you pause that may be the iran nuclear deal wasn't such a good idea? ms. mcginty: i think this underscores the fact that iran is not a friend of the united states. that is why it was absolutely unacceptable that iran would be allowed to gain nuclear culpability. in my analysis, yes, the

agreement on the table was the best way to ensure that iran would not have needed -- nuclear capabilities. however, i've been very clear that we cannot tolerate any violation of either the nuclear deal itself, or other u.n. resolutions, including with respect to ballistic missile tests. on theen very public administration for tough sanctions. what we can do is what senator toomey has done. committee90% of key meetings and hearings on the issue. number two, when he did show up, he voted in directions that make us less safe, voting against closing loopholes in the visa waiver program, voting against closing loopholes that allow terrorists to buy guns in the country. jim: thank you. we appreciate your response. mr. toomey. sen. toomey: unfortunately, we know katie mcginty was dishonest about her family story, she was

dishonest, blatantly so about the ads, and now she's being dishonest about my record in congress. it was a terrible failure of government to give 150 billion dollars to the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism. as we gather here this evening, the iranian parliament has not ratified the agreement. no iranian government official has signed the agreement. they don't consider themselves bound by the agreement. at katie mcginty thinks it is fine. it is not fine. they are launching ballistic missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. ask yourself, if their intention was to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons, why would they spend millions of dollars developing the ability to deliver nuclear weapons? as i said before, this is part of a disturbing pattern by the administration to essentially -- they will have nuclear weapons soon. that will probably trigger a

nuclear arms race with a sunni arab country. this was a bad agreement. jim: i need a response of about 35 or 40 seconds. we are coming to the end. mr. toomey, i watched and interview you did in cnbc, when you called for the elimination of all corporate taxes. you said, let's not tax corporations. let them compete most aggressively on the global economy. if you had your druthers, would you get rid of corporate income tax? sen. toomey: i wouldn't. that was an in artful way to convey a simple message. the message is this. you can raise taxes on business if you like, but who pays that? if you raise taxes, it ends up being paid by the customers of the business, who buy the products at higher prices. my point is, we should have a simpler tax code. this is terribly unfair. it is loaded with corporate life so the kind katie she can reward her preferred industries. i hate corporate welfare.

so much of it runs through the tax code. what we certainly shouldn't do is all a middle-class tax increases that katie mcginty has advocated, including income -- jim: that leads to my next question. ms. mcginty, you called for raising the ceiling on income for social security taxes from 118,000, two $250,000. you also support and build that calls for a .2% payroll tax increase to fund personal and family leave. you said you would not support any middle-class increase -- tax increase. aren't they just that? ms. mcginty: no, i've been clear i don't support any increase in middle-class taxes. in fact, my whole campaign has been about putting forward tax cuts for middle class families. jim: but aren't they increases? ms. mcginty: let me accurately describe my proposal for social

security. i disagree with senator toomey, who wants to hand social security over to wall street. that would be $1 trillion in fees for wall street, but ruining sarah -- seniors social security. i say millionaires should pay their fair share.the senator just tried to change history on his own record. he's on record repeatedly saying he would eliminate all corporate taxes. he's on record pushing legislation that would cut taxes for millionaires by $300,000, while increasing taxes on middle-class families by $3000. and the corporate welfare does not end there. that is all the time we have right now for questions and answers. the candidates will each have 90 seconds for closing statements. i think they have some things they want to say. by random draw, katie mcginty goes first. ms. mcginty: thanks to you and

everyone for joining us and tuning in. this country was based on a basic idea. if you work hard, you can get ahead. that was the story in the mcginty family. a no complaint zone. you pick yourself up by your own kidstraps, all 10 of us but when we were bring. -- being raised, if you worked hard, you could pursue your dreams. now what i see out there in every part of the commonwealth is that people are giving us their all, with pride and dignity and trying their best. but the bills are tough to pay. you have heard spirited debate here. i will go to bat for working families and the middle class. frankly, it is those very same families that senator toomey has left behind, foreclosing on them in a predatory fashion, while he made money on his own banks. tried to take away hard-earned social security, and handing that over to wall street.

refusing to stand up to china, when china doesn't play by the rules, and takes our manufacturing jobs away. know. we have a very bright future to give people the tools to succeed, no handouts. college that is affordable, job training and apprenticeship programs. when we do that, no one can compete with the american worker. we will compete and win. i'm katie mcginty, thank you for having me here tonight. i ask you for the honor of your vote and support in this election. jim: pat toomey. [applause] sen. toomey: thank you. it has beene say, an extraordinary honor to have the privilege to be the u.s. senator from pennsylvania for these last six years. you have heard tonight that substantial differences. if you want someone who will be a better stamp for the hillary clinton administration, katie mcginty is your candidate. if you want someone who will be

independent, and will criticize the president when he's wrong from whatever party, i will be that candidate. we differ on security issues. you heard her defend the iran nuclear deal, which i'm certain is a bad deal for the u.s. she's also a supporter of sanctuary cities, which i think endanger us in our communities. are probably as stark as anything on economics. i met with families all across the commonwealth. i met with people who wonder why this economy isn't working for them. why is it that some people are doing fine with multimillions like 80 -- katie? but hard-working families across the commonwealth has been falling behind. it is because of failed policies in washington. overspending,, massive deficits, and way too much regulation. is it any wonder we are not getting the prosperity we need? katie mcginty with double down

on the failed policies. i want to move in a different direction that frees up our economy to create jobs and elevating the standard of living we've been waiting for.i would be grateful for your vote on november 8. [applause] concludes tonight's debate. we would like to thank the candidates for appearing tonight. we would also like to thank our host, temple university. we would like to thank you for watching tonight. news.m gardner for action we leave you with these final words from the league of women voters. >> i'm susan, president of the league of women voters of pennsylvania. on behalf of our league members and the voters of pennsylvania, i extend our sincere thank you to the candidates, and to the moderator jim gardner, for providing this opportunity for pennsylvania voters to see the candidates for u.s. senate, and to hear their stance on the most important issues facing our commonwealth and our country. now, it is your turn for your

voice to be heard. election day is tuesday, november 8. make sure you go to the polls and void -- vote. it is your right and civic duty. ♪ [applause] ♪ c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and you.y issues that impact this week, we are focusing on presidential battleground states leading up to election day. coming up tuesday morning, it is iowa. chief political reporter for the des moines register will talk about why iowa is a battleground state. then, iowa democratic party first vice chair danny hellman will discuss the political layout of iowa and hillary clinton's chances of winning the state. conservative talk radio host

steve deace talks about donald trump's chances of winning. at 7 "washington journal," a.m. eastern. join the discussion. >> c-span brings you more debates this week from key u.s. senate and governor races. tuesday evening at 7:00 eastern, live coverage on c-span. the indiana governors debate between the republican lieutenant governor, democrat rex greg, and libertarian bell. wednesday at 7:00, democratic congressman chris van hollen, debate forcan kathy the seat. then, the debate for the republican florida seat between marco rubio and patrick murphy. thursday night at 8:00 eastern, republican senator kelly ayotte and democratic governor maggie hassan to be for the new seat.ire senate

now until election day, watch key debates from house, senate, and governors races on the c-span network, c-span.org, and listen on the c-span radio at. c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> in our road to the white house can -- covers continuing with hillary clinton in massachusetts senator elizabeth warren campaigning in manchester, new hampshire. then, donald trump holding a campaign rally in tampa, florida. that will be followed by a look of north carolina's role as a battleground state in the 2016 elections. from ohio, senator rob portman running for reelection. portmanrts that senator hasn't just withdrawn his endorsement of republican presidential nominee donald but his latest round of radio ads highlights his work with democratic president barack obama. the senator began radio ads airing today in cleveland, cincinnati, and columbus