tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 18, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
pluralism so great because there is nothing more profound in a person's life and being able to follow their articles of faith, and to do it in a country with so much religious diversity is challenging. i think we have the boldest and most successful experiment liberty of conscience the world has ever seen, but i also think think there is risk in many ways if we don't remember to take conscience seriously. : :
contemplate what they're saying and try to understand. speak i feel hope and -- the hope like many people is working at the more local level on specific concrete problems, you can work with people, you may disagree with on a lot of different things but you can find ways to work together. if you make it more concrete and try to work out solutions at a
more local level. there's a lot of hope and a lot going on already at the national level. i am concerned and i've had a chance to ask us questions about how can one of the problems we face we haven't really fully confront is that the geographic separatism of people ideology has terrible effect on our party. most of our representatives are safe from the party. what matters is their primary opponent, that creates a move towards the extreme and our constitutional system is not meant for the kinds of parties we have which makes it increasing hard for us to govern ourselves. i see that getting worse rather than ever. my party in this last election showed moves towards a way young people voted in that party suggest we may have a democratic party that's as ideologicideologic al as the republican party and that's a good work in our constitutional
system. at the national level 20 or so i am deeply concerned. >> this is a tough question because it's hard for me to tell you, there was a that making suggestions for the future. i would say this much, that what has happened at least at the abstract level and policy flushed out is we have to start having conversations and thinking of realism and advocating in encouraging ways of talk about pluralism that goes to this idea of boundaries. so much of what is discussed pluralism is about police. go beyond boundaries, pretty much jump the fence and start thinking of the goals. so it has to be about trying to encourage in a more better understand of the common good
but to do so by advocating for human flourishing. one of the research ago forward, by leaving the borders and leaving the boundaries, just are asking for encouraging, fighting for ideas of pretty much flourishing, actually looking, taking almost -- [inaudible] rather than just leave us alone. one way that works i think is a new york take the train, imagine it going to like louis armstrong hall and you get off in any land in this phenomenally marvelous neighborhood, sometimes called other chinatown, flourishing, amazing culinary delight. let's walk away from the maddening street. you are seeing bangladeshis and
indians and pakistanis and singaporeans, chinese and the jamaican, food exploration. there are people who are even better who sometimes are funded organizations back home are at each other's throats but some of the people of this. but walking and recognizing in unbound streets in the name for this person would become a symbol for religious freedom, something called -- [inaudible] in a hindu temple in a mosque with the synagogues, in a baptist church, and nine in the service in spanish fall by 10 a.m. service in mandarin followed by an english service. they're adding another language.
remarkable said that really coexisting but there actually fighting for each flourishing i so when asked a couple years ago not to build a mosque at the site of 9/11 because of course muslims were involved in the bombing and the towers. of course, all muslims have to be terrorists, is so disrespectful. bloomberg into. of the same document -- [inaudible] who sit in new york it wasn't nearly enough that we tolerate each other but we have to fight for different opinions because we thrive on having opinions unlike others. so that was the way of thinking, more than police and boundaries. deeper held belief that we actually want opinions. we disagree with because --
>> i know that trained very well, the number seven and i think that's a great image to end on is the pluralism of trinket i recommend anyone who come to new york, take the pluralism train. that's the trend we've been on this morning. is a been really a wonderful substantive panel of the difficult issues. i want to thank the federalist society, the religious freedom center at the newseum and john inazu for the thoughts from his book come and help you have enjoyed the panel. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
>> the federalist society forum on religious freedom will be available later today in our video library at c-span.org. this done the supreme court taking up related cases. and the three churches challenge to be denied state funding for playground resurfacing and losses from merchants refused to participate in same-sex marriages. president obama and italian prime minister holding a news conference right now after meeting at the white house this morning. live coverage on c-span. >> will you continue with the reform? one last thing this evening, will you bring some wine to the dinner with the president? this is an italian custom. >> i agree with the prime minister. your italian accent of course.
>> you seem to be integrated that there is a need to sort of ahead with the policy you have pursued on being, you know, more flexible on the fiscal side. >> preparations being made at the white house for tonight's state of with italian prime minister who president officially welcome earlier. state dinner coverage starts at 6:30 p.m. with guest arrivals. the official grand staircase photo with president obama and the first lady and the prime minister and his wife, and later dinner toasts all live on c-span.
>> [inaudible conversations] >> live coverage at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. here's more about tonight's dinner. >> host: robin givhan, described michelle obama's style. >> guest: her state dinner style? >> host: yes. >> guest: i think one, mrs. obama dresses for these grants to occasions from the thing that really distinguishes her sensibility from that of the first ways that come before is that i feel like it's much more rooted in a very contemporary hollywood idea of what is glamorous.
by that i mean she's not wearing anything that is particularly revealing a high slips or anything like that, but there is a certain kind of modern edge to it that really taps into what we used to think when going down the red carpet. it's less regal and more glamorous. >> host: hasn't changed over the past eight years, approach to the state dinners? >> guest: i think her look as gotten to be come in some ways a little more relaxed, if that makes sense, so that what's in that framework of glamour. i think, when i think back to the state dinner, the dress was gorgeous. is a nice contrast and her hair was up and she had the whole shebang and she looked wonderful ear but then i think to some of the later dinners when she wore a dress by carolina herrera. and was just even though it was still quite a grand address,
there was a think and informality we. it felt more like cameras -- glamorous sportswear as opposed to a full sort of head to toe look. >> host: what you think the impact has been effort choices for the state dinners on the role of first lady but also on some of call them dramatic art on diplomacy? >> guest: you know, i think the first thing is we all want to be proud of the people who are in the white house. had been that way we want to be proud of the hospitality. we want to be, wanting to put their best foot forward. in that way i think in a very simply, she's presented herself in a way that i think may make you feel like yeah, you can stand up on the world stage alongside of folks from france and italy where the notion of fashion is really something that
is embedded into their culture. the other part of it is that, you know, these are really momentous moments that the photographs are going to go into the history books. and for any design house, that is enormous. it not only puts them into the public vernacular in a way that red carpets don't, but it also puts them in the history books. so what brings a certain i think gravity to what they do. it lends a certain gravity to the idea that the american fashion industry is just as important of an industry as the food, the auto industry, all the things, other things that go into creating that state dinner. >> host: how did she go about choosing her dress and choosing the designer? >> guest: well, when we paint each other's fingernails and brushed each other's hair, she tells me -- i'm kidding.
my sense is that the first thing is that she wears what she loves it and she wears when she feels comfortable in. that said, i do think there's some attention paid to the country that is being honored, i decided to acknowledge that either directly i'm working with the designer who perhaps has that sort of ethnicity in the background, and sometimes it's just a matter of hanging tribute to a particular color or flower or something that is important to the country. >> host: last fall, you wrote when you were covering a stake in it for the chinese premier that she chose a vera wang dress. you said i choosing that it wasn't an apology. it was a mea culpa but it was a diplomatic clarification. can you explain? >> guest: now i'm trying to remember what the dress looked like. >> host: black dress that she
wore, the black mermaid style dress, as opposed to the one that she chose for the first chinese state dinner. >> guest: right. the first chinese dig in it was a beautiful dress, it was red and it'd been designed by sarah burton from alexander mcqueen, which was a british fashion house. and vera wang is a very well known chinese-american designer, and the first go round mrs. obama had gotten criticism from particularly the american fashion industry, particularly oscar delaram to who felt that this was one of those occasions when she had the opportunity to elevate american design and to wear a dress by an american designer. and many in the fashion industry felt that she had missed an opportunity. and i think in many ways they were hurt she look outside of
seven out of for the occasion. this is a bit of a do over, everything there was a little bit of an acknowledged then that perhaps the first time was a misstep host the do you have a favorite dress them these past eight years, state dinners? >> guest: i thought the caroline herrera dress was particularly elegant. in many ways it was rather traditional, but i'm also really fond of the last one that she wore by brandon maxwell and in part that's simply because it was such a surprise. i think one of the things that she does quite well and one of the reasons why people are sort of eager to see what she's going to wear is because she doesn't just go with design houses that have been around for decades. she doesn't go with sort of a tried and true, embedded designers. brandon maxwell hasn't even been in business really for more than a year.
jason wu, who she worked twice for an auto downs, had not been in business very long when she first reached out to them. -- inaugural gowns. that's nice to see because she really is supporting the small businesses in the true sense of the word. >> host: thank you for your time. >> guest: my pleasure. >> incumbent democrat oregon governor kate brown and republican bud pierce debate retirement savings programs come human trafficking prevention, refugee settlement and the 2016 residential election. >> moderator: good evening. we are joined tonight by two candidates competing to be oregon's next governor, republican bud pierce and incumbent governor kate brown. tonight we'll debate the issue of the day in stupid doesn't oregon's only debate this fall begins right now. >> life in the studios of nbc
five and oregon gubernatorial debate featuring democratic incumbent kate brown and republican challenger doctor bud pierce. tonight's debate is brought to you by aarp, the oregon association of realtors and broken into college. now you host and moderator for tonight's debate, nbc five news director craig smullin. >> i'm news director i will be a moderate for the sydney. less than four weeks or convertible decide which of these two candidates will govern organ for the next two years. the path goes through these studios tonight and don't have a ball of our viewers i want to thank you for joining us. [applause] >> moderator: before we begin let's meet our candidate. >> dr. bud pierce is a cancer doctor can small business on a marine better. his father died when he was only 15 and he didn't want to get an
mp, ph.d, served military and treat over 15,000 patients intent of the disease while growing a 75 employee business. as president of the oregon medical association he successfully negotiated historic medical liability reform legislation now what's this or by taking his leadership abilities to salem to make our state government work better. governor kate brown has dedicated her career to being a voice for the voiceless from her work as a child advocate stand up for working oregonians as a juvenile and family law attorney to serve as a legislator, secretary of state and now governor. governor brown is proud to focus on issues that matter most. since becoming governor in 2015 she's raised the statesman which, guaranteed sickly, in creased education funding by neighbors and make voting easier than ever. we have three panelists asking questions tonight. to my right we have the anchor and reporter at kobi-tv. next panelist is patsy smullin,
and to my left is art barron, anchor and producer kobi-tv. we are joined tonight by a studio audience. they've been asked to stay there applause for the end. the roles of former have been agreed to by both candidates. when i panelist begin asking questions each will receive 60 seconds to respond. as to to early by going to governor brown will take the first question. the candidates will take turns from that point on. it's important to note that candidate first answers the question will not be given chance to respond to the post about the once answered, they can redress any particular topic in their 60-second. they can choose to regress topics in the closing statements. at the conclusion, each candidate will be provided a 60-second causing state of the that was predetermined by going to. governor brown will be going first in closing statements. with all that cover will begin today.
>> let's begin with ballot measure number 90 subject a controversial tax measure before oregon voters. governor benjamin dorset is measured and dr. pierce your urging voters to reject it. please summarize the reason for this dance is your taking turns out i'm delighted to be back in jackson county and appreciate your taking your time out of your busy schedule to join us. i'm supporting ballot measure 97 because oregon needs adequate and stable revenue for keep basic services like schools, like making sure hundreds of thousands of oregonians have access to health care, and senior to i will tell you that every business person i've talked to agrees we need additional revenue on the table and ballot measure 97 provides that. in addition it's time corporations, out of state corporations pay their fair share. for me i would ask each of you, do you think oregon's school year is long enough? do you think that our class sizes are small enough?
i don't. do you think it's okay to take off hundreds of thousands of oregonians off the health plan? i don't. i think it's vital the important we provide our senior services with the assistance they need to stay in their own homes. pierce: you ought to be by allowing me to participate in this debate today and thank you very much. this measure will cost 38,000 private sector jobs going forward to 2022, and caused the average oregon family $600 more in cost-of-living. those two issues make the ballot measure unacceptable to me. this measure also would increase government spending by 40% over a single biennium, $6 billion out of -- if it were to pass, december the governor wants and we get about $2 billion more from the improvement in the economy. i prepared a budget that takes a 10% generous increase and fund schools at a better level cuts taxes for low income people and
begins to do things like reform. i believe the government needs to live within its means and a 10% increase is sufficient for the government to live within its means and we will not sacrifice private sector jobs or increase the cost of living. >> moderator: next question from patsy smullin to dr. pier dr. pierce. >> if the measure passes what we do to ensure that the reverend it creates will be used as promised as if the measure does not ask what will you do to ensure our schools and health and human services receive adequate funding? pierce: if it does not pass i prepared a budget. i work with an economist at a portland. we feel this budget is adequate to address the needs of increased school funding and taking care of our neediest including filling to 5% match on the medicaid expansion program. if the measure were to pass would be a huge negotiation with the legislature. it's clear that many people in the legislative interest in not having since the $600 more a year in cost-of-living
especially low and moderate incomes. it's clear certain businesses are disproportional effected. i think they need help and i believe that the heart and spirit of the measure will be taken for by the legislative but again we have to minimize the damage if this measure were to pass. the major damage is in cost-of-living. it's in loss of private sector jobs and it is in disproportional negative effect on certain businesses that have high sales. brown: if the measure does pass, i will make sure that my budget reflects the priorities of oregonians as they vote for ballot measure 97, that is investing in education, particularly childhood education, early childhood education, reducing our class sizes and lengthening our school year. in addition we will make sure that seniors have access to key programs they need to stay in their own homes and make sure
over the last couple of years we've added almost 400,000 oregonians to the oregon health plan. i believe strongly that these oregonians must have access to health care. if it does not, and we will work with the legislature to ensure that its implement it. the ball will be in the legislators court, and the legislature has with ballot measures like this past, implement ballot measures in a way that reflect the will of the voters. transcend art barron has the next question for governor bro brown. >> it's a pleasure to see you here down in southern oregon tonight and writer at nbc five news. another looming issue facing the governor and the legislature in january is the public of the retirement system which is now facing as you know at $22 billion deficit. can each provide some specific, specific recommendations on how to fix pers before goes bankrupt if the bankrupt our schools, counties, cities?
brown: yes. following the decision, the oregon supreme court said that we must keep our promises to oregon retirees. and if it's all of us would agree that we must keep those promises. i cast my legal team was reviewing the statutes and talking with on both sides of the aisle to see if there were proposals that would meet my two criteria. one, that is legally viable. and number two, that a result in significant financial savings. there is no clear path that meets both of those criteria. that's what i'm working with the oregon investment council to make sure that they have the tools that they need. they oversee our pers investments. that they can maximize our return on investment and stabilize the system. republicans have a number of proposals. when i get those, i hear lawsuit, lawsuit, lawsuit back on the hamster wheel litigation.
pierce: through the years there've been a number of pers reforms that have passed muster invested to judicial review. i do believe mild criticism as i'm supporting them by the pastor feel. in terms of what we were told that we can do is we can smooth out some of the payments for the people still in the system, whose retirement is safe, everything that could of been a safe. things like i've years instead of three years for final calculation of the base pay, things like on the money match for now, that's the way to pay out where you take, buy an annuity which is changing and lump sum into cash flow. you can charge market rates and not inflated seven or 8%. you can cut down on the spiking of vacations and sick pay into the final calculation for wages. and, finally, in the average state in the union when a pers bill is due, 70% is due to the employer and 22% to the current employers. we need to move towards payment
by the current employees. >> josephine county first to of conduct tax increases several times the would i pay for resources at the sheriff department. osb handles many of the cases. elected what specifically do to keep counties like adjusting safe? pierce: when counting on a poor but luckily, this is a breakdown in all types of social services. another one answer is to get an economy going in josephine county. i'm interested in the argument, these of the logging, the ability of counties to give maximum valley out of the state for us. that will go a long way. we need massive stimulation of the economy by that another measures such as tax credits, enterprise zones. once people make enough money to tended to be willing to pay for the services. i would be committed to legislatively ensuring that basic services are maintained and if you have a level of
prosperity and people don't want to pay for that, discredited disagreement and a negotiation about it. brown: dr. pierce is budget fails to reflect reality, and that is it fails to take into need to oregon has an increasing population and decreasing federal dollars. my budget will accurately reflect the population demographics and the dollars that we face in terms of federal dollar changes. ..
pending litigation? >> i would say we are striking a balance and we seem that on our work on the elliott state forest. we have been working hard to increase harvest off the elliott to make sure we can pay for basic expense, put people back to work and pay for school. we struggled to do that because of environmental lawsuits. in terms of organs for us, we are working hard to maintain a
balance of protecting our forest for future generations as well as generating adequate dollars to make sure we have dollars going back to the county. >> the governor needs to produce a budget so we can debate whether my budget is better than her budget so that would be her first challenge. when we look at the elliott force, it's interesting to note, we can't harvest as loggers. we have four dozen bidders on the forrester were not taking the maximum bid. if i'm selling a house of the assessed value is $250,000 someone will pay me $500,000, i will be happy to take it. we need to move and aggressive negotiations with the counties. i would bring in the environmentalists of the timber companies and i would look for common ground to resolve this to our satisfaction so we get value
out of the forest and protect the forest but we make a lawsuit go away by fruitful negotiation. >> switching gears right now, and that's question is human trafficking is not just a big city crime, it stretches through the eye five corridor and continues to grow in organ. primarily, young men and women are the targets. what you propose to remedy this terrible situation. >> it's terrible how people are being abused, obviously we need aggressive law-enforcement action that can involved and mitigate the problems with the people being abused sexually and physically. we need to have a program that reach out in prevention so when you identify those that are vulnerable that we are
aggressive in preventing that. finally, when people need to have an easy way to call out and be identified and get the help they need to they can be pulled away from their abuser i no longer suffer the indignity. combination law-enforcement, prevention and allow the victims to cry out for help and get the help they needed. >> i worked in 2007 to tackle this problem. we created a task force and started laying the groundwork. it is a huge problem throughout organ in the entire west coast. i would treat this similarly to the other domestic violence and sexual assault that we face in organ. over 1 million girls and women in the state have been impacted. i believe we need to work in a safety net investment and services for survivors, help them lead but we also need to help them have adequate shelters
available and that's a huge issue because we are turning away four out of five of every survivor. it's critical the state play a role. i have had leadership experience tackling these issues over the past 20 years and i look forward to working with oregon to make sure we keep our young men and women safe and provide a safety net for domestic violence survivors. >> the next question is for governor brown. >> children in elementary between the ages of five and 11 say suicide is a major concern in their school. your reaction to the. >> it is clear our children in our schools are facing lots of drama. we know in organ public schools, 20000 children are homeless during the school year. i find that absolutely deplorable. i also find it challenging that
we don't have adequate mental health and nurse providers in each of our schools across the state of oregon. we have been taking strides to provide counseling in our schools. one of the key things that we are developing is a comprehensive early childhood education system and weaving healthcare including mental health care in that system. i think that will help identify the children who need assistance and get them the resources on the treatment they need. i also think we need more resources in our schools, particularly in in the elementary school to tackle this problem. >> it's scary to think this is happening to us in organ and all throughout america. there is the issue of mental health and no matter what the economic background, certainly the pressure of homelessness and
families that suffer and drug abuse in their own mental health issues make that burden even greater. i calls for rethinking in society how we should be thinking about this. we need to work with them to get them out of the stress and provide shelter and resources and get people on the road to the dignity of work which is a great anchor for a family, increase that family stable structure so life is better. >> our next question is for dr. pierce. >> we hear from our viewers they see are federally elected officials are more than our statewide officials. u.s. senators to a town hall in oregon in every county every year. if elected, would you commit to
doing an annual town hall meeting in each county in oregon. >> apsley. this is my eighth visit and i have committed to spending three months in every year in the role immunity, living a week at a time. i think that's key so you can be the governor of all of oregon. i think you'll make government, life. so yes, a town hall but i want to to go beyond that. people have confidence in our government again, government officials have to get out of their hiding places and engage the citizens in their place of life and work and i think that will lead to a great new confidence in government and governance. >> as governor i will continue to reach out to all the communities. i have been down in the rogue valley a number of times touring
different facilities. we had the wonderful opportunity as governor and secretary of state to be at world manor into town halls there. as chair of the sustainability board, we came down twice, one of the meetings was held at the fabulous cheese factory creamery and we were able to go there and tour the chocolates next door in case of byproducts they are making there. i will continue to work to fight to make oregon a place where everyone can thrive. >> if elected would you commit to doing an annual town hall meeting in each county in oregon. >> i would love to make that commitment, i just know, having been serving as governor in the last two years that crises and challenges. for example, when the horrible
horrible tragedy at uc c, the shooting happened, i was down at that campus within a handful of hours working to console the community, provide support for the family and working to provide resources for that particular community. it was imperative at that point in time that i devote my time and energy to providing the resources for that community to heal. that's exactly what i did and i continue to do to make sure they had mental health professionals for a year following the tragedy and make sure they had the financial resources to rebuild the community college. >> our next question is for governor brown. >> president obama recently announced plans to increase the number of refugees accepted in this country. should organ except these refugees and if so, what precautions precautions should
be taken. >> yes we should. or america, oregon, we are a land of immigrants that we should welcome these families that have seen horrific tragedies and suffered terribly. the refugees that come have been in refugee camps for at least two years when they go through a two-year setting process. i am confident seeing the families of the little children and the faces of the parents that came here that we will be safe and we should welcome them. >> what precautions should be taken? >> the federal authorities do the vetting entirely. >> my heart goes out to refugees and people who come from crisis. i'm very concerned about our own people that are suffering and resource strapped. that's what worries me greatly,
are we doing enough for the people who are here. that's where i would put my resources as a priority. if private individuals want to sponsor refugees, i think that's great a great way to go. at the end of the day if the president says we want to support refugees in oregon i won't block that we will trust our federal vetting and leave it at that, but i am concerned greatly about the resources being put forth to our veterans elected how will you address the
government officials to get the information available and protect children. >> we have a campaign happening to make sure minors are not using marijuana but those efforts need to continue. i will liken it to when i was in high school, i know students drove and didn't use their seatbelt and drove while drinking and mothers against drunk drivers change the conversation in this country about the acceptability of drinking and driving and drinking before driving. i think we need a major social effort in our educational centers working together to make sure minors are not using marijuana in the state. >> the dropout rate for organ public schools are amongst the worst in the country. what are your plans to fix this. >> it's absolutely unacceptable to have one out of four students
in oregon not complete high school. this is a very personal issue for me. my stepson dropped out of high school two years in and we were fortunate as a family, we have the tools and the resources to make sure he got his ged, but not every family does. that's why i brought on our new education innovation officer. his goal is to work with schools and school districts, come up with strategic chant plans and make sure we have the tools they need to ensure every child complete high school with a plan for the future. secondly, we are working to create a seamless education from cradle told career. we ensure childhood education is seamless and children in kindergarten are ready to learn.
>> absenteeism is a target for all schoolchildren, you can find out at a very early age that people don't show up for school won't be in the classroom to graduate. we need to have that education pathway in which students have another way other than university preparation. but the governor and i are on course to support the measure 98 which will take new funding to education and helping some children who would otherwise dropout stay in education. these are about identifying at risk students who are not attending class and getting them on the right track. again, being there is critical we need to make sure they are in the classroom to give them a chance to graduate. >> as you know, small business
is vital to our economy. specifically, i underline specifically, what would you do to support oregon small business. >> think we need to look at how to help them improve their tax abatement and when people start a new business they want entrepreneurs to go out and take the risk and we give them tax credit on any earned income for the first several years. a lot of times they don't make income in the first years but i know oregon have a plan when a business isn't solid enough to make capital, we want to put more hands in money in the hands of the entrepreneurs. we want to reward building up your business and holding the tax rate down and give you loan guarantees and a tangible reward when you take a risk of starting
which a small business. >> i have been working with small businesses are a number of years. at secretary of state i created the office of small business assistance and that has been very useful for small business around the state to tackle agency and regulatory redtape. as governor i created a small business board because i know businesses are created when they grow and thrive. our cabinet is focused on three areas, access to capital, making sure they have the resources they need to be successful, secondly, making sure small businesses have access to technical assistance and mentorship and third, making sure we have the right regulatory climate to ensure small businesses thrive. over 90% of oregon jobs are created by small businesses.
i will make sure these grow and thrive in every single corner of the state. >> in a recent national survey, we ranked second in the use of nonmedical pain relievers. as governor, what steps would you take to ensure healthcare providers aren't over prescribing opioids. >> we have a task force working on the issue. i find it unacceptable. i think there are couple ways to tackle the problem. one is to make sure we have adequate drug and alcohol treatment available throughout the state. as we are implementing fully behavioral health in our care organizations, that will move us in the right direction. one of the reason i'm supporting ballot measure 97 as i would make sure we are moving forward in terms of healthcare for all, particularly mental health and drug treatment i find it
intolerable that we kickoff people off the oregon health plan and deny them access to healthcare. we are working with medical providers to make sure we have additional tools available to reduce overuse prescription use. >> the government weighed in and got us in trouble in the past, i remember taking a mandatory eight hour pain class where they set a people arm pain, give them pain medicine until her pain is gone. that was the gist of the argument. clearly that got us into a lot of trouble their vigorous programs a medicine to encourage non- narcotic management of pain. from a provider perspective, what you want is to be a place to send people easily when you know they need to be off narcotic and we will help you
because when you're a physician and you have a patient whose pain is intense and they want the drugs, you need that help. we also need better programs in terms of helping people with the drug addiction, how to help them get off her transition to something that allows them to function better. >> safety is an issue that worries many parents. should all schools have this protection? >> i believe we have to look at school safety in a holistic way. are we looking at building safety, lead, radon, the physical environment of the school is in pennies to be safe for children. then you have the issue of violence within the school and bullying and other parts of safety. then you have the risk of the
horrible terror of someone coming in with a gun and causing harm. i think what we want is a holistic solution and to come up with best practices to address all the safety issues. if a group that felt for that school that arm guards were needed for part of the time or a period of time the mets what they need. would let the people at the community level decide. >> we have had a school safety workgroup working to pass legislation to provide additional tools for schools k-12, but i find it absolutely unaccepted that kindergartners are required to go through lockdown drills. i find it unacceptable and we must do everything we can. we must create a hotline tip in
our k-12 schools. we've created the campus safety working group that's coming forward with recommendations in october, but we are going to have to invest in additional protections at our k-12 schools and our college campuses across the state. the heart of this problem, when we have kindergartners being trained to go through lockdown drills, it's taking forward strides on gun safety measures and we will do that. >> should all schools have that sort of protection? >> no. >> as we witness the most contentious and combative elections in history, please give a grade of a through f and ask lane your grade -- explain
your grade. >> i would give a grade see. i think this has been one of the worst in united states history. i think my candidate, hillary clinton has worked very hard to raise the level of discussion but i think more can be done. my opponent stood by his endorsement of donald trump. i'm appalled that he endorsed him in the first place. he is racist, sexist, bigoted statements have been clear for years, months and for my opponent to recently disavow his endorsements max at political opportunism. >> i would give a grade f to the top of our ticket. clearly minutes citizens in the
republican party are clearly unhappy with standard politicians and their empty promises and the frustration with their lives that are not good enough so they chose donald trump and i respected that. i respected the view of the voters when they nominated him as our candidate. then what you do as you go along with your gubernatorial campaign and you're focused on that but you are hearing what's going on and you are watching what's going on and you get to a point where the republican, as republicans, we have strong negative connotations about hillary clinton as a person, as a political leader so were not going anywhere near there. we do not like that candidate. we are going to hold on as long as it can hoping we have a candidate we can believe in and get behind. >> colin kaepernick won't stand for the national anthem because of what he sees as systemic
racism is in american society. this brought on a national debate. what are you thoughts on him not standing for the anthem and his fallout. >> after the events in missouri, i joined the naacp because i was so does their that we haven't come far enough in terms of racial harmony. we have gotten rid of legal racism. we need to increase opportunities for people of color, but we've done nothing to end, in my mind, racial hatred. i weighed. i waited as best i can to participate in that. clearly when you have highly paid athletes who are enjoying all the fruits of society and all the benefits and celebrity is him and players like colin kaepernick who have that negativity about how they're treated in the status of race in america, we have a a problem. we need to pull together and realize that we need to work together, we are one human race
oregon and we need to make sure we diversify our leadership and make sure we look like the diverse communities of oregon and under my strong leadership, we will continue to do that. thank you. >> our next question is for governor brown. effective july 117, the organ retirement program is set to launch. many don't have access to a retirement savings at work. what is your plan to ensure the success of the program and how do you envision it in improving financial security for all in oregon. >> i think it's critical. not enough save for the retirement and with this proposal that i signed into law, it provides provides a clear pathway, an opportunity to make it easy for every day people to
save for their retirement. i think the second piece as we work to implement the legislation, it's making sure our students in middle school and high school have access to financial information. there were just having a conversation last night with the young man, telling him about saving and how critical it is at the age of 25. if he starts putting away $10 a month right now, the benefits that he will reap from that when he is substantially older, but at 25, it's too late. we have to start in middle school and high school and i look forward to working with the state treasurer to implement these programs. >> the issues are due people have enough money to put away for retirement and in oregon we
have low wages and high cost of living. we have enough money to put aside and not live paycheck to paycheck. in terms of retirement plan, i would would favor using a private plan, but mandatory enrollment so when you go to work you are mandatorily enrolled in a planned part i would not be opposed to that mechanism. the other thing you have to pay attention to is a lot of times when they leave their job, they take their money out and they want to spend it even with penalty. i think you need to get them to be more prosperous and have more money to put aside. and then whatever the state or program mandatory in roman's, that means people can stay and appeared make it very difficult to take the money out until you really are retired so if you change jobs you don't pull out the money and have to start all over again. >> they denied the pipeline, jackson county board of commissioners is against it.
where do you stand on the project and why? >> with any major projects, i think we need to come to more rapid decision-making and respect local control. when you look at society that work better than hours, they tend to let the local people carry the program forward. if they say no it's over or they say yes it goes on to the state level. it's usually done within one year. during the second year they weigh in with environment and legal concern. that way you would don't invest years and three or $4 million. if local people don't want to project it should not go forward. if they wanted to go in forward then you carry it out that way. i think we get away from five, ten, 15 or 20 year approval processes where they have bought
into it and they can't let go. people can propose a project and get out and go do something else. i think that's the real answer. >> how would we determine. >> either the representatives are you hold a local election. >> i think it's about fairness in making sure that proponents and opponents can come together and make sure that organ statutes are being followed, regulations regulations are being complied with and oregonians have an opportunity to have their voices heard. that decision is now in front of the regulatory commission and it would encourage oregonians to contact their federal delegation >> no opinion on the matter? >> i think it's important that they feel they are getting a fair process and so as governor i would remain neutral on that
particular sighting of that facility because i want to make sure that everybody feels like they're getting a fair shake and statutes are being followed and voices are being heard. >> our next question. >> plans are moving forward to decommission hydroelectric transfer. should they give the project the green light? why or why not. >> yes, we are moving forward on dm removal, i think it's the right thing to do. there there are two other pieces that need to happen in order to complete the entire work. that is making sure that farmers and ranchers on the base and have access to the water that they need to continue their farming and ranching, and secondly, they have access to land restoration and water. both of those two actions can
only happen at the congress. we are working hard to make sure that happens. >> i'm excited of the possibility of having a river become wild and having salmon at the head of the river and again there have been a lot of promises made through the people by the years of government, there have been promises made to the ranchers and farmers and to the environmental communities, there's been promises made that there would be water to the tribes and a lot of promises so there will be a lot of working together, the goal of decommissioning dams and allowing a river to to be wild again is something that we should rally around and make it work. >> our next question. >> what is your most motive idiosyncrasy as told to you by
your friends and family. >> my most noted noted idiosyncrasy is that i talked to my staff and the more wound up i get, it goes quicker and quicker so this is the only thing i've probably spoken at the right speed tonight. >> actually i agree with that. when i speak in public, i get very excited and very nervous and i liken it to the high divers from the olympics when they do 333 and half's a half's off the 10-meter platform and they over rotate and for me, i get so excited and i have so much energy and enthusiasm through my body that i have a hard time slowing down and talking in a voice that everyone
understands. >> if you could fix one thing, just one thing, what would it be? >> i am committed to creating a seamless system of education from cradle to career. no state has been able to accomplish this goal. when i mean seamless, i mean mean truly seamless. our children who have now been in the preschool promise program, showing up at kindergarten ready to learn, meeting all of their milestones, investing in career and technical science technology, engineering and math programming so our students can have a hands-on learning opportunity. then be able to flow directly into community college through the community organ promise program or to university or a tech program of their choice, but it has to be seamless and affordable and assessable. i've got more work to do.
>> we need people to be able to work and have those opportunities. that will require us to treat the mentally ill and the homeless, to fix any demons, to get appropriate training so people can enter the workforce. it means changing the social safety net so work is always in courage for the able bodied. means getting the right training and education. it has to do with stimulating the economy. that includes pushing forward and bring it back modern manufacturing, and the ability to get our infrastructure built out. that dignity of work for citizens is so important. >> next question.
>> job creation is the driving force of our economy. many people can only find minimum-wage jobs, jobs with no benefit or part-time jobs. what is your vision on how we fix this? >> i kind of answered that, it is work preparation to have people with a variety of opportunities based on their unique skill set. get away with any demons in their life that make them unemployable, have the safety net in encouragement rather than in detriment. again, i think we need a great public-private cooperation. government needs to have necessary regulations and apparatus but they need to be careful that it doesn't smother the growth and development of new business. you turn on small business and entrepreneurship, you help medium and large businesses expand by listening to business and they say if you do this it will help us and it makes sense
and you can do it and then you have to implement it. a great partnership between the government and private sector with the goal of always making the private sector as successful as it can be because great companies take care their people. >> i think it's easy with someone with multiple homes to say just get a job. i think it's really challenging in practice. i talked about creating a seamless system of education from cradle to career and we do that because we want to improve educational outcome for all of our students. when i talk to employers, the the things they tell me they need are a qualified educated workforce and we can do that by sustaining our investments in a seamless system from cradle to career of education. secondly, infrastructure. organ can lead in terms of investing in infrastructure. we are working on developing a transportation package, investing in roads and bridges and mass transit. another valley has already taken a leadership role and it's absolutely critical that we make these investments in our roads and bridges to make sure people can get to work safely and products can get to market
effectively and efficiently. in addition, the side benefit is creating jobs. we must also invest in fitting our infrastructure. i saw underneath, i saw the challenges it faces. >> unfortunately, that's our last question. that does conclude the debate portion of our program. >> i got into public service because i wanted to be a voice for the voiceless and i went to law school because i wanted the tools to achieve justice and equality in this world. my first experience in the capital were fighting to pass a bill that enabled parents to stay home with their sick children without fear of losing their job. when governor robert sign that bill into law, organ became one of the first states in the
nation to recognize family medical leave. i recognized i could fight and make oregon a better place for all of our family stirred under my leadership, we have done that. we have passed the nation's first coal to clean. we increased minimum wage so working families can have more money in their pockets and we passed the nation's first automatic voter registration system because in oregon, we believe your vote is your voice and every single voice matters. i look forward to working with you to build on the progress that we have made so far. we must make sure that we make oregon our home, a place where everyone can thrive. >> two very different people on stage. one a 25 year politician who wants to increase government spending by $8 billion dollars which is a 40% increase which will potentially cost us thousands of private sector jobs, hundreds of thousands of dollars to organ families and i brought forward a commonsense budget that takes care and
expands services and funding of education. i challenge this governor to bring forward a budget so we can talk about it. >> my final point is i aim to be the governor of all in organic be the governor that unifies us. we need to stop thinking about different races and religions and genders. it's one people, one human race and if we pull together, we will create the great future that we want us all to have, and i look forward to your support. >> that concludes our debate. on behalf of everyone here as well as our viewers, i would like to thank the candidates for participating in think our viewers at home for watching. please do not forget to vote in the old november 8 election. good night. [applause] >> you have been watching the
gubernatorial debate featuring kate brown and dr. bud pierce. tonight's debate was brought to you by aarp. the community college and the oregon community of realtors. >> join us today at 6:30 p.m. eastern for the white house state dinner where italian prime minister and his wife are dinner guests. the grants their case official photo and the dinner toast offered by president obama, social secretary will join us to talk about food, decor, decor, entertainment and protocol about the state visit. we will also revisit previous state dinners under the obama administration.
will talk to the italian ambassador to the u.s. in washington post fashion critic will review first lady michelle obama sleek dinner fashion over the years. the white house state dinner with italian prime minister airs today at 6:30 p.m. on c-span and c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> in the sylvania u.s. senate race, republican and democrat debated the trade policies and climate change. this is their first debate on the campaign. >> welcome to debate in the race for the u.s. senate from downtown pittsburgh. >> hello and welcome to our debate between candidate for u.s. senate from pennsylvania.
i will be serving as the moderator. let's welcome the candidates. republican pat toomey the incumbent and katie mcginty of chester county. i'll be joined in questioning the candidates by my colleagues. here are the rules for the debate. the candidates will have one minute to answer each question. then 30 seconds for rebuttal. they might jump in from time to time with follow-up questions. we will make sure the response times are equal. finally each will have two minutes for closing statements. so let's begin. up first, a two-part question. as a leader in your party, yes or no, do you support, as in will you vote for and encourage others to vote for your party's presidential nominee, and what if any, are specific issues on which you disagree with your party's nominee.
>> thank you and thanks to all of you for tuning in. i do support hillary clinton for president because she is going to work for working families. the same reason i am in this campaign. there will be issues that i disagree with secretary clinton about. we might talk about closing guantánamo bay. i don't think we can afford to do that. what i do think is objectionable is that the senator has refused to answer this question, won't tell the voters that he still, why he is still standing with donald trump and we will hear the senator say he has disagreements with donald trump and we will hear him say he is still waiting to be persuaded. disagreements don't cut it with a guy who has invited russia to invade our allies, a guy who has confessed or bragged about sexual assault, and i will tell you, waiting to be persuaded is political speak for waiting for the next poll. for senator, the the only person running for senate in the united
states of america who has not told his constituents how he is going to vote i think it's past time. >> thank you can, because katie is so extremely partisan, she, she can't grasp the idea that somebody might have trouble with the candidate in their own party. i do. i've been very public about my many disagreements with donald trump and i have been willing to criticize him because i think he's a flawed candidate. i also know if you are president he would probably sign legislation that would be constructed like repealing obamacare and restoring sanctions on iran. what i can't believe is katie mcginty can't criticize anything about hillary clinton including all of her lies. maybe that's because katie started her campaign with a big fat lie herself. she went around the state saying she was the first and her family to graduate from college when she knew full well for older brother had always be gone to college and gone back for graduate to degree before she got out of high school. maybe that explains why katie is willing to overlook the serial
lies of a very badly flawed candidate on the other side. >> i will repeat the question, yes or no, are you voting for your party candidate. >> i have not reached a point where i can endorse donald trump because i have so many concerns about his candidacy. i do also acknowledge that he would sign some legislation that would be constructive so i feel like i'm the same position as a lot of pennsylvanians. we have to badly flawed candidate sprint i can't believe in a country of 300 million this is what we got. katie mcginty can't even bring herself to acknowledge the incredible flaws of the candidate of her party. >> well again, i think it's a simple and straightforward question that you have asked. i have answered that question p to will work with the secretary clinton and a president clinton to bring good jobs back to pennsylvania and grow incomes.
again, the senator is the only person in the united states of america who has not leveled with his constituents on this simple question, are you voting for donald trump. i will yield the balance of my time back to the senator so he can now answer that question. >> thank you. katie started her campaign with a lie that was called pants on fire live by the third-party observers who saw how egregious it was peardon of the i have a hard time understanding is how the obvious corruption of hillary clinton is okay. it's unbelievable. we learn more and more about her sharing engine e-mail. >> at some point i probably will but there's more we need to talk about on ethics. >> let's move on. next question. >> candidates in your tv attack ads and your supporters, each of you are referred to as millionaires.
with one accusation after another following. let's give you a chance to respond if we could. your financial reports to confirm that you are millionaires. how did you become rich? senator to me, did you enrich yourself on wall street and then while serving on the banking committee : a bank that foreclosed on people's home and approve laws that help the very banks like yours? is that how you got rich. >> absolute not. i worked in new york and the finance in the 1980s. i left when i was about 29 years old and launched a small business with my brothers. i'm proud of the hundreds of people that we employ in the success of our business. what katie mcginty did it she funneled tax dollars to a foreign company to set up shop in pennsylvania and then they rewarded her with a look at lucrative seat and they folded in every worker lost their job,
taxpayers lost their money but katie did quite well. now she is a multimillionaire who enriched herself with this corporate revolving door. it's part of what people are really disgusted about in american politics. >> you did not get rich on wall street, you did not. >> i worked as hard as i could when i worked in new york in finance and i certainly made some money but i was a kid in my 20s. i started at the very bottom and when i left at 29 i wasn't too much higher than that. >> did you grant millions of dollars as secretary of environmental protection to groups paying your husband husband as a consultant and then joined the revolving door that you regulated when you were in government? is that how you got rich. >> john, as every independent fact checker has said, the ads and allegations along the lines you articulated are false. they are leading and untrue. i am proud of the work that i have done both in the private
sector and in business. that is to create jobs to protecting the environment i think that is critically important. the senator, what he has done is different. our senator not only owned and started his own bank, he owned that bank while sitting on the senate banking committee. he closed on his own constituents. again while the senator was making sure that we had an anti- consumer set of regulations that help fraudulent bank practices like those, his own bank was and got engaged in. >> this is amazing, this is like she was the first in her family to go to college all over again.
any foreclosures on the part of our bank were foreclosures on corporate loans. that's the case that katie mcginty is talking about. what are the facts? the facts are when she funneled money to affirm that her husband on the payroll, the state ethics board ruled that that is violation of the ethics law. she didn't like that outcome and the supreme court ruled that yes in fact it was a violation of state ethics laws. katie, you have repeatedly had this ethical problem. it came up again with a spanish company that she funneled taxpayer money to that i alluded to earlier. pennsylvania taxpayers lost their money and their jobs but katie is a multimillionaire now. it worked out nicely for her. >> will again come the senator is entitled to his rhetoric, but not to his own storylines. he has repeated the storyline throughout his campaign that has been so 100% negative and repeatedly been chastised by news organizations for how false
his claims and allegations are. the senator knows well, the project that he's talking about wasn't started by me. it was started by former republican governor tom ridge and it's a project that has been award-winning by a bipartisan nonprofit terrific environmental group, the pennsylvania in bar mental consul. let's move to the supreme court. the republicans controlled senate has refused to consider the nomination of judge garland to the court. at the time of justice scalia's death in february, president obama had nearly a full your left in his term. do you believe when elected voters expect the president to get to nominate supreme court justices for the entire four-year term and expect the senate to take action. >> yes, thank you for the question.
look, look, the constitution doesn't have many enumerated responsibilities for united states senator but one of them is that you advise and consent, you hold hearings when a president nominates someone to serve on the bench. senator toomey has been part of a hyper- partisan, that in the first time of the history of our country has refused a hearing to a nominee that the president has put forward. the president is not asking for a rubberstamp, but a hearing, a full vetting of a person's qualifications. i would stand up and make sure any nominee thought that hearing and it's not the first time that the senator has done this but he single-handedly held up, for 400400 days, a perfectly qualified judge and even right now today he has nominated someone who would be the first african-american woman to serve on the third circuit. right here from this county in
the senator won't allow her a hearing. it's wrong. >> senator, your response because you certainly pledged initially to keep that seat open until after the new term in january. you believe that's what's in the best interest of voters and their expectation. >> let's look at my record with respect to judges. when i was a candidate for the united states, i wrote an op-ed say wyatt would support judge soto more your. i knew i would agree with her on many things. i thought her record was solid and she mistreated restraint in terms of the limited role of a judge and i would have supported her. i've worked with bob casey and we have had 16 federal judges confirm to the federal bench because we worked closely together and most of those are democratic judges because that's the nature of the arrangement we have with the democrat in the
white house. prior to justice scalia passing, we had a supreme court that was balance. sometimes it made decisions that democrats like and other the republicans like. with the passing of justice scalia, the question arises, will he have balance support. constitution is very clear, the power is a shared power. its share between the president and the senate. in my view, we ought to let the american people have the maximum say in this. they will have that say by virtue of whom they choose to elect president of the united states to think that is the right way to move forward with the court. >> again, the people of this country did speak and they elected barack obama as their president and it is the president opportunity and obligation to put candidates forward, and the senator has acted in a totally partisan way, frustrating what the
constitution directs with the senator to do and that it's make sure there is a fair and thorough hearing of nominee. i thought it was interesting to hear that senator said when he was running for office last time, he wrote an op-ed that had five partisan flavor. that's the first and last we've seen of bipartisanship from the senator when it comes to judges. >> well obviously, that's completely completely untrue because i worked with senator casey to get more federal judges confirmed, 16 judges in my time, most of them democrats and that's more than any other state in the union other than california, and new york which are much larger states. the fact of the hyper- partisan person that i strive. :
when they opened up foreign markets for our goods, i've supported them because that helps sustain good, high-paying jobs and when there's been cheating when u.s. steel, i went to bat for them to insist on tougher enforcement. so that's been my approach, support trade agreements that expand opportunities and open up markets for our workers, stand up when it's unfair. with respect to tpp, this is an agreement that's flawed. >> hold on. let me direct you back to the question and i'm going to follow up quickly on that. once again, do you agree with donald trump that towns like up and down lamond valley that donald trump and new policies can bring those towns back? >> well, i think those towns can come back and the right policies can bring them back. i will give you one example. we have a tremendous advantage
over the entire rest of the world with energy. we have natural gas cheaper in pennsylvania than almost anywhere in the world. there's heavy manufacturing industries that are energy intensive. they need a lot of gas and coal. so the point is if we take advantage of the opportunities we have we can -- it'll be different jobs, different firms and across the manufacturing spectrum but we can absolutely have a strong recovery. katie's policies will be stifle lg sources in manufacturing. >> what's your opinion of steel industry to be reborn in pennsylvania? >> first do i want to address what the senator just said. i was proud as secretary of environmental protection to bring not a couple, but to lead the charge to bring 3,000 new jobs in the energy sector to
pennsylvania specifically manufacturing renewable energy equipment. the senator is well familiar with those jobs because i am for the full spectrum of energy resources, he had an issue with the fact that this was renewable energy instead of just conventional energy and actually led the charge to take away incentives. he has been rewarded well because he happens to be one of the single largest recipients of big oil contribution in the united states senate. we have every opportunity to compete and win in manufacturing and here is why. the days of manufacturing just being about cheap labor really are gone. it's about skilled labor, plus technology, plus speed to market and that's a recipe for our sweet spot where we can compete
and win. >> let me steal this for you, yes or no can better trade deals bring back the steel industry in pennsylvania? >> we need trade deals. i have opposed consistently the tpp unlike the senator who led the charge to try to push it through the united states senate in fast-tracking it. the reason i opposed it is because even the proponents say it would cost us 50,000 good manufacturing jobs a year so we can't afford that. the senator has flip-flopped on that recently but i think really it's just like with donald trump, the senator doesn't want to be straight about this. my view is the rules matter, we need a level, player -- fair playing field. >> first off the person who
flip-flopped it was katie. i never came out in favor of tpp. what i supported was a procedure that would allow a president to bring any trade agreement to congress for an up or down vote. let's go back to katie's claim that she created 3,000 jobs. this is problem with this extreme, extreme version of how she approaches economics. it takes massive subsidies to create jobs. taxpayers have to subsidize n this case, a spanish company to come in here and the bill still failed, we are force today pay higher electric rates because katie supports the policy that forces companies to buy inexpensive electricity and the only who wins is katie who got rewarded on the board that she kicked the money to. >> i do want to follow up on the subject of knowledge and specifically fossil fuels if i may because we know that many folks in western pennsylvania
are employed in fossil fuel industries and they are used to heat and power our homes and factories. are you engaged on a war on coal believing many environmentalists do that we need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like coal and if so, what do you say to employees on this region and throughout the state in the fossil fuel industry who might think that their jobs at at stake if you get elected senator? >> i appreciate the question, john, let me say hats off to two of my six brother who is have made money as cold minors. i started my career as a quemist. we have to tackle climate change. here is how i go about doing that? in a projob's agenda.
i put people to work improving the efficiency of those plans through combined heat and power, for example, we can own that technology, we can manufacture that technology and we can put our people to work. i showed this when i was secretary of environmental protection where i was taking on the toughest environmental problems including climate change but growing jobs as the solution, you know, we look at the clean water problems in flint, michigan and pennsylvania, that's an opportunity to put people to work ripping out old pipe. we can't be a climate denier like the senator is. we have to be honest about real problems and real challenges. let's create jobs and tackling them. >> i will get you a chance to respond in just a second. let me just ask you, as you know there are many super pacs that are supporting fossil fuels that have engaged in lots of campaign ads against your opponent in this race.
do you reject the science behind global warming and if reelected, will you oppose efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. >> john, i'm on record on this and been clear any honest objective look at the record show that is the surface temperature has risen and common sense suggest that human activity has contributed to that and the costs that katie mcginty that others advocate is unbelievable, trillions of dollars while china and india will do nothing about it and the benefits are negligeable. now the fact is that the president of the united states, barack obama, admits there's a war on coal but katie won't admit it. i have met with these guys. i have seen them, i have looked into their eye and saying, why is my own government destroying
my career, livelihood, it's not right because coal is allow-cost domestic source of energy and i'm afraid energy is next. >> ms. mcginty. >> this is the old saw we have heard for decades. if you're proenvironments you're antijobs and time and time again i had the opportunity to work, to prove that not to be true. i think it's an excuse for the senator who is well rewarded by big oil for his opposition to putting people to work diversifying our energy resources. that's what we should do and listen, as it relates to our natural gas assets, i've been a person who says, look, let's regulate it, let's zone it and by the way exxon mobile should pay fair taxes here.
>> nobody has been better rewarded for green energy programs than katie mcginty. this is what's wrong with this kind of corporate crony capitalism where politicians think they ought to allocate resources. they ought to pick winners and losers. it is bad for the economy, it is counterproductive for economic growth and drives up energy bills, we a pay higher electric rates because of katie's middle-class tax increase of more expensive energy. this isn't the way we should go. >> lynn. >> i want to shift gears and take a look at community police relationships. in many cities the relationship between police and communities are strain at best. hillary clinton says part of the problem is implicit bias, developing an attitude or stereotype that can affect understanding actions or decisions in an unconscious manner.
senator, do you believe that implicit bias is real and that it is at the root of police community relationships? >> well, let me just say, you know, i've seen as we have all seen some very disturbing videos, young african-american men being shot under circumstances that it certainly looks like something was wrong and i have said any time anybody does anything wrong whether it's a police or any other profession, there needs to be an investigation and someone has to be held accountable. what i object to is this completely dishonest notion that the police or somehow are bunch of racists causing violence. in fact, they protect us from that violence and the vast majority of them are good and honest, decent men and women who protect us every day. i'm going to continue to stand up for the people that protects us and maybe that's why identify
been endorsed by every police organization that makes endorsements in pennsylvania including the philadelphia police on which force ms. mcginty's father served. >> you don't believe it's real? >> i'm sure that implicit bias occurs. i'm sure that occurs but i don't think it's fair to characterize police generally as racists because i know too many police to believe that. >> ms. mcginty, the conference and were introduced to a method to deescalate and take tactical response and there's been resistance from the fop to this concept, do you believe that retraining is a proper way to address this issue of bias? >> well, thanks, lynne, i do want to start my response to you if i can on a personal note,
senator has run on a campaign not only of his untrue ads but ads that i find deeply offensive . my nine brothers and sisters as well. there's only one of them on the stage that kissed her dad good-bye in the morning, 25 as a philadelphia police officer whether dad was coming home for dinner and he has suggested that i or any of my family would do anything other than revere our law enforcement officers. it's really unacceptable but let me get to the substance, here is what we need to do, we need resources in the communities, we need to make sure that we have cops on the beat. my dad literally walked the beats, that's why i have proposed doubling the cops program, community policing, where the police and the neighbors build bonds of trust and relationship and, yes,
deescalation techniques are an important part of that. senator has pushed legislation punish the police where he has tried to end or severely defund the cops' program and has fiduciaried, voted to end the program that give law enforcement critical equipment. that's wrong. that endangerous our safety and it endangerous good public servants like my dad, god rest his soul. >> police across america pay attention to the record of the united states senate and house. they looked at my record and met with me in every single police organization that makes an endorsement, the philadelphia police, the pittsburgh police, the statewide fop. the state troopers even the corrections officers union, they've all endorsed me in this race, none of them have endorsed katie. >> that's not true.
i have been endorsed by law enforcement organizations as well. >> what police force? >> i have been endorsed as well and -- and i have supported the grants program to enable them to buy protective equipment, i have introduced the legislation to forbid -- >> you cut that program. >> denying the surplice military equipment and every one of them has endorsed me and you haven't been able to name anyone that's endorsed you. >> senator -- >> final word on this, please. >> you only introduced that when you were running for election. your record as a might be of our united states congress was to eliminate the programs -- >> so you know better than the senate. >> the senator also knows well crony capitalism as he has referred to. just recently the senator sitting on the senate banking
committee when 80,000 of own constituents were stiffed by wells fargo -- >> we will continue with the debate right after this. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> welcome back from pennsylvania. pat toomey and katie mcginty. both of you have supported at one time or another new gun laws, what in your opinion is the most effective way to protect americans from mass shootings and other gun violons without infringing on the rights guarantied by the second amendment and something with a real legitimate chance of passing and being enacted,
ms. mcginty. >> we have the chance to achieving bipartisan consensus including sportsmen and gun owners support. common sense like close those background check loopholes. common sense like do not allow terrorists to buy the weapons of war in our country. you know, i come from a family where my brothers were hunters. we had guns and hunting guns in the house. i don't think it is an either -- or thing at all. unfortunate senator toomy did a photo op about one piece of legislation but when it came to closing loophole that allows terrorist to buy guns in the country he noted no not once but twice. what i would do is bring people to the table and stay at the table respectfully of different points of view and i think we can achieve consensus around
those kinds of common ground commence measures. >> how about one initiative after sandy hook, it's gone no where, give me one realistic. >> really two. closing the background check loopholes for terrorist and mentally, it only lost by about 5 votes and senator toomy said let's move on. i stick with that just like as an urgent priority. i most certainly would work to close ha loophole again that allows terrorists to buy guns. >> okay. thank you. senator toomy. >> i think the most painful meeting that i ever had probably in my life certainly in six years in senate was with the parents of the victims of the sandy hook massacre. victims who the 6-year-old children were mowed down. one of the things i respect and admire so much about the parents is when they came to meet with
me they weren't asking to have guns confiscated and they weren't asking to ban commonly owned firearms as katie mcginty advocated. i knew that was going to go over like a led-balloon in my party and it did. he and i introduced legislation that came closer than anything else has come in the senate. see, i'm a big believer in the second amendment. i think it's a personal individual right and an important one at that. i just don't think there's a conflict between the second amendment and a 3-minute background check. senator have introduced that and when we had a debate this summer about keeping terrorists from buying firearms, i supported three different versions of that to try to find common ground including working with susan colins, the only bipartisan approach. so here is the thing, gabi democratic congresswoman, she's
endorsed me in this campaign because she's recognized my leadership and the fact that it has to be bipartisan. >> time is up. >> katie's record won't get us to common ground. >> well, it was the right thing to do for joe to lead the charge and senator to lend his name that closed background check loopholes. that's why it was such a shame that when it failed by only a couple of votes the senator said, the senate has spoken, let's move on and even at the grizzly horrible tragedies in san bernardino and orlando, the senator refused to reintroduce his bill saying infamously let's democrats lead. this is one of the things that we have to respect the second amendment and we have to respect grieving parents including those of a pennsylvania 18-year-old young lady who was mowed down in orlando, we can't act on this and i will. >> thank you. >> as i said, katie takes an
extreme partisan view on this just like the reason she was excluded from budget negotiations in harrisburg and she's not going to be able to reach a place where there's common ground on this. senator worked hard to try to bring many people together as we could. we introduced the legislation repeatedly. we've had three votes on it and when i saw an opportunity to have a background check on people on the no-fly list. i crafted the legislation to do that when the democrats refuse today help, i worked with susan colins to get that done. i'm going to continue to defend the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens but i'm going to also continue to try to get guns out of the hands of violent criminals, dangerously mentally-ill people and people on the no-fly list. >> candidates, obamacare means different things to different people. it has delivered health insurance to over 15 million uninsured through private insurance plans and expanded medicare but it has raised cost
and eliminated gender discrimination and kept young people on their parents insurance until age 26. if you repeal obamacare you repeal everything, the good and the bad, so senator toomy, get very specific, what do you like, what do you not like and what would you change in obamacare if elected to another term? >> so let's remember all the false promise that is were made about obamacare, remember? we were told if you like your insurance you could keep your insurance. we were told that while they were systemically disqualifying. we were told if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. we were told that when they knew replacement insurance would exclude all kinds of doctors. now, we were told that we would save $2,500 per family on average, all completely untrue. cost have gone through the roof, options have collapsed, deductibles have gone up, this has been the disaster that i was afraid it would be and the reason is because we try today
centralize control of one seventh of our economy. health care is too personal. men and women sitting around the kitchen table should be making decisions about their family's health care not bureaucrats in washington and all the tax increases embedded in it, medical device tax, tax on insurance plan, another whole raft of middle class tax increases that katie supports and this is not the right direction. we need to go in the direction and i would have a transition for people who are currently in obamacare, transition to a competitive multiinsurance marketplace across state lines, we need to encourage things like portability and renewability of insurance plan so people don't get caught with preexisting conditions an we need to ripping out some of the excess costs like the excessive litigation. >> senators, any part of obamacare that you like? >> yeah, there are some features that are encouraging. for one encouragement that we move health care in a direction
generally speaking where care is treated comprehensively and not treatment for services. that's a very small part of obamacare. generally speaking it's a disaster and it can't be fixed because it's flawed at its core. >> same question, what do you like or not like and how would you change obamacare? >> we have to bring the cost of health care down. i would take on prescription drug companies. the cost of prescription drugs have gone through the roof. under the law we are not allowed to negotiate that cost down. that's wrong. no other country in the world does that. we need transparency so consumers know before they have a procedure what it's going to cost. but you know you almost think that the senator was planning to go to washington. he's been in washington for 18 years with the republican majority and he has nothing done on this critical issue and i do disagree, i don't think we should put the insurance
companies back in charge so that why they can charge women more than men, so that why, they can kick you off your insurance if you've got a preexisting condition or if your child god forbid has a very serious illness and hits a life-long cap in terms of coverage, that's wrong. i would work to get the costs down in a common sense way. that's the agenda to make sure we have -- >> so you like everything about obamacare? >> i do not like the fact that we are precluded from negotiationing the costs and the price of prescription drugs, that is absolutely wrong. i think we need to make sure that there's affordability and choice in health care. what i know that the senator has been there for 18 years and have we seen him take on the insurance companies, no. have we seen him take on the prescription drug companies? no, i will.
>> what you just heard that we have more government control and it's the government that messed this up. these are the people who couldn't roll out a website. they couldn't. it was a disaster. 40% of pennsylvanians have one choice. what kind of choice is that what kind of competition is that? this is a failure. we need to go in a different direction. what katie wants to do is expand government's control, have the government dictate prices. then we are going to have even worse health care. >> you get the last word on this one. >> well, i was proud to help expand medicaid in pennsylvania. we now have 625,000 more people covered and it was a great deal for taxpayers. saving $500 million a year. here is what would be a disaster, let's just take one piece of what we are talking about here.
you know, i come from a family where we have seen, we know what the hard-break of addiction looks like. you know, under this law that senator toomy would repeal we finally had if you have a mental or behavioral health problem, that that would be covered. in pennsylvania alone just without medicaid expansion that the senator would take away 66,000 pennsylvanians with mental, behavioral health challenges now have health care. i think that's the right thing to do. we don't just take it away but, yes, i will stand up to the companies to take it down the costs. >> thank you. lynne. >> i want to continue our conversation about costs but i want to look at the cost of this campaign. this senate race is the most expensive race in the country. last week the amount already spent exceeded $60 million by political acts and campaigns, super pacs and nonprofits. senator toomy has said he does
not believe in spending limit, so ms. mcginty, what do you propose is the best way to take money out of politics in. >> i think it's urgent and i'm proud to be endorsed by an organization end citizens united. that's an organization that is 100% dedicated to getting that money out of politics, over turning citizens united, that has led this flood of dark, secret money into our politics. in a democracy, there's no room for secret checks and secret money. i would help lead the charge to overturn citizens united and i would also go further, i think it's time for us to make it easier for people to be engaged in their political system and to vote with early voting or same-day voting and registration, restores the rights act. senator toomy had a chance but he worked against overturning
citizens united, has voted for allowing all of this dark money like the koch brothers money and talk about partisan. senator has a 100% voting record with the unaccountable cock brothers. that's not democracy in action, that's crony capitalism. >> senator toomy. >> there's been unbelievable negative campaign and there's no question about it. i'm staggered by the amount of race that's been spent and it's not over yet. it's getting hard to watch tv. this is part of the reason why i suggested that katie mcginty have five debates so we have a chance to go a little deeper into the issues than the 30-second sound bites. katie refused. she insisted that we wouldn't have more than two. look, i've always preferred more transparency in the system and the simple way to do this is have all this money go to candidates and let the candidates be responsible and
accountable for it and require disclosure. that's what i think would be a better approach. the people like katie who want to overturn citizens united. let's be clear what this case is about. it was a not for property corporation that we wanted to allow people to buy a documentary video of hillary clinton during the last campaign and the government's position which katie holds is that the government should be able to ban that, forbid it, disallow it. the government's argument was that they should even be able to ban books if they're about politics or politicians and the democratic senators that katie agrees with, they had a vote on the senate floor to amend the first amendment, to rewrite the first amendment like it hasn't served us adequately for 240 years to give politician it is power to control political speech. that's a terrible idea. >> senator, we are going to give ms. mcginty an opportunity to respond. >> thank you, the senator had an opportunity to vote in favor of getting the dark unaccountable