invitation. [applause] >> you are watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors ever weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. .. >> host: and on "communicators" this week, we want to introduce you to jeremy grant who works

for a division of the national institutes of standards and technology. mr. grant, that's quite a mouthful, but what is nistic as it's known? >> guest: i should say every program in washington seems to get one. we've got one of the catchier ones. the national strategy for trust and identities in cyber stays is an initiative launched by president obama in springtime of 2011 that's focused to looking to raise the levels of trust online by driving improvements in security and privacy for all of us. the first is the passwords are fundamentally broken both from a security and usability perspective. on the security side, we know from studies that a whopping 76 president of network intrusions -- 76% of network intrusions last year were exploited, and use about side managing 25 or 30 different passwords, you're told to make each of them 12 characters, increasingly complex.

it's, unfortunately, the perfect combination of bad security and bad use about. beyond the password side of thing, nstic is looking to give people more options. there's a lot of times when it's great to be anonymous, but there's times you'd like to engage in downloading your electronic health records, being able to sign a mortgage or these types of transactions just aren't online because the on line service providers won't make them available. and the third thing that the strategy looks to do is do all this in a way that actually enhances privacy through the use of new privacy-enhancing technologies and architectures that are out there so we can actually give people more confidence in their transactions online and know that the data they're providing is only the data that must be provided and not additional information. >> host: what's the budget for nstic? >> guest: so i think three years running now the white house has

requested $24.5 million, and the hill has given us 16.5 of that. and with that, we have probably spent the bulk of it on pilot programs looking to test out different ideas, different technologies, different approaches to take the ideas that are in the strategy and test them out in the marketplace. but some of it also goes to research and supporting some other efforts as well. >> host: what's the work that you do with private organizations? >> guest: so the key with the strategy, you know, i talked a little bit about the goals and the problems we're trying to solve. what the strategy actually prescribes as a solution is what the president dubbed an identity ecosystem which is, essentially, a marketplace where all of us within a few years can choose from a variety of different identity solutions we can use online in lieu of passwords every place that we go online. a key tenet is this has to be driven by the private sector. a lot of countries have issued national #eud cards, that's

clearly something we don't want to do for a variety of reasons both political and, candidly, on the business side. they haven't worked particularly well in all but a handful of countries. so there was a recognition when the white house was putting this strategy together before it release in 2011 that if the administration actually tried to prescribe a particular solution or even set of technical solutions, the government would fail. this is not something that the government's particularly good at doing, is actually anticipating what the next great technology's going to be, what's going to work in the marketplace. and there was a recognition there's too many entrepreneurs and innovators coming up with great new ways to manage online identity and awe they wantedification. the worst thing we could do was to get in their way. the strategy calls for the private sector to work in partnership with the government to develop really a set of solutions so all of us within a few years can choose the marketplace for something we can use every place we go online. so in terms of actually working

with the private sector today, we've been really blessed to have wide support from this initiative really from across the spectrum. one of the initiatives that we've helped launch with support from our private sector partners has been the identity ecosystem steering group, another mouthful. [laughter] we are washington, after all. but it's essentially focused on creating a framework of standards and rules that would enable a credential that you got to be used, say, at your doctor's office and your bank and buying something online and perhaps logging into a government site. we don't have those foundations of rules to actually enable operability of different types of solutions you have to log in, so they're focused on creating it. the board of directors is really diverse, but the broader organization, you know, we've had in leadership positions since the organization to launched representatives from firms as diverse as citigroup, oracle, nieman marcus, lexus nexus as well as advocates like

the aarp, the frontier foundation, a bunch of other interested individuals as well. so it's been a really motley group of people coming together where we've been blessed is they all actually agree that the strategy the president signed is something worth engaging in. even though they all bring different perspectives, they're all looking to drive it forward. >> host: well, joining our discussion on privacy online is andrea peterson, a technology reporter with "the washington post." >> thanks so much for having me, peter. so you mentioned the strategy was launched back in 2011, and i don't need to tell you that three years is a really long time for tech. how have you seen the ecosystem change during that time period? >> guest: well, i'd say it's changed in a number of good ways, and for the most part, it's actually started to evolve to, frankly, align more with the strategy. one of the things i think that the white house did good as they were putting it together is they didn't just write it in a

vacuum, they put drafts out for comment to the public, through different entry industry sectors to try and get their feedback on where things were going. and what we've seen is really some pretty good progress so far in terms of the marketplace evolving to look more like what was envisioned in this white house document. certainly on the standards side, we've seen the emergence of open id connect and fido connections that are enabling stronger authentication in a way that also protects privacy in the marketplace. we've seen some firms like facebook who have had a log-in service for a long time start to evolve their solutions to give users more choice in terms of what data they share about themselves. two years ago it would by default transmit a whole bunch of information about you including photos, your friends' list. they announced in april in part because -- well, i would let them articulate more than i why they made the change, but they're actually starting to

allow either anonymous log-in or the ability to start choosing what particular attributes about yourself are shared. and we've seen a burst of free multifactor authentication solutions coming out from firms that a lot of us we do business online like google, microsoft, twitter, linkedin, yahoo!, the good news is there's information people can use to protect themselves. the bad news is i'm managing one-off from each of those companies -- i'm a bit of a geek at this company as you might imagine -- but consumers aren't going to manage 25 or 30 of them. we really need to get to a framework that enables strong interoperability that's easy for the consumer at the end of the day to protect themselves online. >> what do you think are the options for the average consumer? you mentioned it's sort of overwhelming to have these many passwords and even the sort of log-ins that you can use sort of

across the web will be used differently by different sites. what do you think the benefits are of moving towards one of these more consolidated log-ins, and what do you think the risks are? >> guest: i think the benefits are better security, better convenience and better privacy protection. you know, right now, it's funny, i have a lot of conversations with people, you know, who find out what i do, and everybody says the same thing which is can you kill that darn pass word? i have is so many of them, i can't manage them, my security's awful. if we can get away from the password which most people would agree is a pretty outdated technology when you look at how much computing has changed over the last 23 years, you know, that alone, moving people towards stronger means of authentication will help quite a bit. in terms of what the credential would look like, we're finding there's a lot of different ways you can figure out who somebody is online, and, again, a lot of the strategy is creating a marketplace where consumers have choice. the government's not looking to endorse any particular solution,

but rather u -- to adescribe at a high level what they should look like. they have to be secure, privacy-enhancing, easy to use and interoperable and let that be a guide post to industry to start developing solutions around it. so just looking at the pilots we have, we have some that are looking at smartphone-based apps which will basically be used in lieu of a password to log into different sites. others are testing different types of biometrics, fingerprint, face, voice recognition. again, not to say every one of these is going to be the solution or even the solution for everybody, but they're the kinds of things we're testing out. others are looking at something as simple as a one-time password that might be texted or called to your phone to make sure you really are the person, excuse me, who you claim to be as opposed to somebody who might be impersonating you because they happen to have stolen your password and are now on the other side of the world trying to log into one of the sites you

access most days. >> host: so, jeremy grant, when you look back at what happened to target last year, how would some of the solutions you've been talking about affect consumers in that case? >> guest: target's a good question. i don't have a whole lot of personal knowledge about what happened other than the press reports that suggested the way the attack was actually executed. the hacker was able to log in with only a password, and once that was stolen -- which wasn't particularly hard for hacker to do -- they were able to start doing a bunch of other things within that company's network. that's one area where if you had a second factor of authentication, i never want to use the word "hack-proof," but if you can start to raise the bar beyond just a password which is so easy to exploit and make it much harder for adversaries to get into systems, you do quite a bit to improve your cybersecurity posture. on the consumer side, it's a bit

of a different story. again, from the press accounts that we've seen, most of, you know, the fraud that happened really happened because they were able to inject malware into the point of sale terminals, and i don't know there's anything with the strategy we're working on in particular that would have addressed that particular issue. certainly, there's efforts going on right now within industry to try and move away from magnetic stripe cards to stronger smart cards. but, again, you know, that's something that's going to happen over time. i don't know if that would have addressed that particular issue that we saw last fall. >> host: andrea peterson. >> i'd actually like to go back to a point you touched oven about biometrics. do you think it's possible that passwords have some unique benefits over biometrics? one of the things i get concerned about is if your password gets breached, you can change it. it's flexible. whereas if somebody gets ahead of your specific biomarkers be that fingerprints or iris scans, that's really hard for you to change about yourself. >> guest: it's a great point.

biometrics aren't secrets, and this is something our folks up at nist point out autotime. the password is still a secret, and if it's compromised, you can change it. biometrics are not. i think from our perspective using the biometric alone -- first of all, it depends on the application. i think one of the questions you have to ask anytime you talk about coming up with some sort of authentication mechanism is what are you trying to protect and what is the risk. and once you actually understand that, it's much easier to figure out what are the appropriate technologies to be used in a different transaction. biometrics, i think, a lot of from what we've seen, the devil's in the details of how you deploy it. if you are simply using it at one factor layered on top of another two or three factors but that might be, you know, the thing that's easiest for the consumer to use, they have some really good applications. on the other hand, because they are not secrets, there are times when you might not want to use a

biometric. and, again, a lot of what the strategy talks about is choice, what works best for consumers. we certainly find there is a, i think the technical term is the oogie factor where people just don't like the idea of using their face, iris, finger for something because there might be a stigma attached to it. and that's fine. we would expect that in that case people would not want a biometric solution and would use something else. conversely, there's a lot of people who would love the idea. we're already see anything the marketplace the latest versions of smartphones coming out with fingerprint centers build in and, again, what are you seeing? some people like it and are using it to log in, and others aren't. so i think, you know, in an identity ecosystem where there's a lot of choices where biometrics are just one of the technologies used, we think that's how we'll see the market moving forward. >> and going back to another point you made earlier about how you're primarily using pilot projects as a way to explore what may or may not work in the space, how do you see that sort

of evolving? what have you learned from various past pilot projects? >> guest: well, i think we have really learned a lot both from the pilots that have succeeded as well as those that have struggled. and, in fact, when we first launched the pilots, it was two years ago next month, there was a lot of questions we had about what do you hope to get out of these, and one of the comments actually had at the time was i think we'll learn from both the successes and the failures, and we do expect some will fail. i can't tell you which one, but it's the whole purpose of doing pilots. one of the big reasons we have put such an emphasis on pilot projects is the strategy for trust and identities in cyberspace is just that, it's an aspirational document that describes where we'd like to see the marketplace evolve over the next few years. the best place to gift from the strategy to a real marketplace is to start doing pilot projects that actually start throwing different ideas against the wall and seeing what works the best. so i think what we've seen first

off is that this is very hard. in fact, the whole reason that the government's involved in this in the first place is the market's been trying to soft this for years -- to solve this for years and hasn't succeeded. and most of them, barriers aren't technology related, they're much more focused around the business rules; how are things going to work. if peter issues you a credential and you use it to log in to my site and somebody compromises it and a lawsuit happens, who's liable? am i liable? peter? you? these are kinds of thing that is the steering group i talked about earlier are working on. so what we've seen is most of them have bundled together testing not only technologies, but also business rules that actually address some of the issues i just talked about. and also seeing, you know, frankly what do online retailers, what do consumers actually like. e think where we're seeing some good successes, you know, to talk about a couple, you know, one later this month, early next month, we'll see lenovo health

systems is largest health care network in northern virginia. they've got, i think, about two million patients under care. they'll be launching a pilot leveraging strong credentials to help virginians actually get access to their electronic medical records. they've been really interested for a while in making information available online, but passwords alone just don't cut it. if you don't know who somebody really is who they claim to be, you're not going to want to put that kind of sensitive information online. they launched a partnership actually working with the state of virginia enabling virginians who already have a virginia driver's license -- think about what you do when you go to get a driver's license, you have the first time to prove who you say you are in person -- they're basically allowing virginians to ask the virginia dmv to assert a few attributes about themselves so they can have better confidence when somebody's coming in electronically that that person really is who they claim to be. we have another company called

id me that was started by a couple of veterans recently returned from iraq, and they were focusing on a very simple use case for starters, how hard it is for veterans to get discounts different places. a lot of businesses want to offer veterans 10 or 20% off, they want to give different special offers to them, to thank them for their service, but when you separate from the military, you don't actually get a id card, you get a document that's several pages long and contains all sorts of personal information about you including blood type and other things you probably wouldn't want to have out there. and they found, jeez, if i'm going to, you know, a sporting goods store, i'm not going to want to carry this with me, and i certainly don't want to happened it to them. it was originally called troop id focused on validating a single data point which is that they're veterans, and they have some savvy ways they've been able to do so, and they've started signing up different commercial providers who are

interested in leveraging them to, basically, validate this one thing about somebody, that they're a veteran, to do different online specials. so fascinating company. the founders came to us a couple years ago, they brought in the strategy that the president signed and said this is a really great document. we think this is the outline of our business plan. and through a pilot, they have recently become certified as an identity provider for the federal government. which easiest way to describe what they did in the pilot is they took their existing solution and sort of heavied it up. so they built in stronger identification, stronger identity proofing, and what that means now is they're through this first phase of the pilot is a veteran can use the same credential to log in at an online retailer and get 10% off shopping and then go to buy -- this is actually something that just launched this summer -- kiss, the band, likes veterans, wanted to have a way to sell tickets to veterans a week before they went to the general public. they can log in and buy kiss tickets, and then they can log

in at the my healthy vet portal and get information about their health benefits. these are the kinds of solutions we're starting to take hold in the marketplace, and it's one reason why the pilots have really been so important to the success of the program. they're proving that these concepts that are actually outlined by the president not only can work, but they're viable in the marketplace and will start to grow on their own beyond the pilot phase. >> host: how does the paypal model fit into what you're discussing? >> guest: paypal had an executive who was the first chairman of our steering group's management councils. they've been very interested, as are a lot of other companies, from the start. you know, paypal, obviously, has done quite a bit in payments, and, you know, i don't want to spend too much time talking about one particular company other than to say that like a lot of online commerce companies, 34r5rly those involved in payments, figuring out who people are can be quite important. and so i think if there's an analogy that i might draw from

them, as much as paypal has made it easy to pay online at a lot of different sites you ubiquito, i think a lot of what we're looking for within the identity ecosystem are the creation of firms like that you can also use for log-in. so a company, though, like paypal, it has to have high security because they're protecting a lot of valuable information. what's the need for a national strategy for trusted identities in cyberspacesome. >> guest: well, i'd probably say you should ask paypal why they've been participating. many other companies have actually been involved in the steering group, but i think the reaction we've gotten almost unanimously from industry is this is something no one company can solve on their own. they certainly try to, and each of these companies do. they've got different identity products they may have out there, but there's no framework. so whether it's paypal or one of, you know, any of a dozen other companies we could throw out there, if every company is

trying to sort this out on their own, and more importantly if they're throwing their consumers, their customers through a very burdensome process each time to figure out if they really are the person who they claim to be, that drives consumers away. we've seen from surveys that commercial firms have done that well over half of customers will basically abandon the site if they're asked to create another password. most people have said 25 or 30 is enough, thank you. i'm not doing business you if you're going to require me to do this again. how do you reduce friction in online commerce, make it easier for people to do the things they want to do online without having to go through this whole challenge every time of who are you? i don't trust you. can you prove to me that you are who you really claim to be? consumers hate it. it doesn't help the firms mump, and i think most -- much, and i think most customers will tell you they spend a lot on it and they don't do it very well. so one thing we continually have heard from companies across the board is there's real value in

this for us if customers can come to our site, log in without any hassle, shop in a way that they feel their security and privacy is actually being enhanced, this is where there's great value for us to play in this e can do some. >> host: andrea peterson. >> earlier this summer there was some interesting stuff that came out of some microsoft researchers who suggested that users should actually reuse pass words on low value sites but -- because it frees up sort of some mental space for them to remember longer, more complex passwords for more important or vital services. what do you think about that? >> guest: i think, i saw that paper that microsoft researcher put out, and i think in lieu of having this vibrant marketplace which we're working to create -- and, by the way, it's not going to be here next month or even by december, this is going to take off over time -- i thought it was decent advice in that if you're managing 25 or 30 passwords, you might only have five or ten that are actually protecting valuable assets, and

the rest might be throwaway accounts. the concern i have is password reuse where customers are use the same strong password at a site that isn't particularly well protected, and, you know, this is why when you read stories of 1.2 billion passwords being stolen by a gang of hackers overseas, there's a reason they're going after them. there's value in them, and they can actually use them at different accounts to to try and log in until they can actually get into something. no, certainly, i would say for consumers out there in lieu of having a better solution, it's good to figure out which of your accounts are really the most valuable and make sure those are secured with a unique password. but all of these things are really band-aids over a bigger problem, and i'd argue at a time that, you know, when we see studies that show more than three-quarters of all network intrusionings are tied to exploded passwords, you know, band-aiding over a gaping wound isn't necessarily the approach

that's going to get us too far. so this is why we're quite focused on trying to drive the marketplace forward with things that can replace the password altogether. what i will say if anybody's feeling helpless is there are solutions out there you can use to protect yourselves today. a lot of the big firms we do go online with, facebook, twitter, yahoo!, linkedin are offering applicationings. google has an app you can download for free onto your smartphone that gives you a second layer of authentication when you're logging in from a new computer to make sure if somebody overseas has somehow grabbed your account information and they're trying to log in from, oh, say romania, a flag will come up and this is a machine that's never been logged into with these initials. it's a great way to start to protect yourself without hassle, and it's available for free today. >> host: so all of those companies you just listed, at

least to a certain extent, make their money off of data collection and targeting and advertising. >> guest: yes. >> what would you say to people who are more concerned with the privacy aspects of the data mining industry who might not be as comfortable using those services was that's their business? >> guest: it's the state of the market today, and a lot of what we're trying to do is drive to something better. one of our guiding principles to all these solutions must be privacy enhancing. we don't want to simply be enabling the creation of a new set of identity solutions that will enable firms to be vacuuming up more data about people than they're able to do today. from building in privacy from the start putting in a specific set of rules and actually trying to code those rules actually into the technology, we think we can really start to move the ball forward. but what we're finding is in the marketplace outside of what we're seeing in some of our pilots like the ones i talked about, there aren't a lot of great solutions out there that offer both security and privacy. so i think consumers have to do the same thing they do every place else they go online which

is look at the trade-offs. so from my perspective, i value the fact that there's free tools that are out there that go beyond passwords, but again, this is about choice and looking at where people are comfortable. i think we'll get there in a few years. in the meantime, you have to look at what's out there. >> i'd like to go back to a point you made maybe a question or two ago, the 3.2 billion -- 1.2 billion passwords. there was a report about russian cyber thieves, and i was really interested to see you actually brought that up on your nstic notes blog with a dr. evil quote from austin powers. can you talk about how whether or not that approach where you're sort of trying to do news hooks and bring in pop culture has been effective in engaging the public in this particular space? >> guest: well, i think we use our blog to try and explain what we're trying to do, and i think as viewers are probably finding from this long conversation, kind of complicated.

we look for ways to make it simpler in how we actually relate it to consumers. one of the points we were making with our blog in referencing dr. evil is 1.2 million? 1.2 billion. now i'm doing the same thing -- [laughter] it's a really big number. it's a stunningly large number. and, you know, the blog, i think, provided an effective mechanism to help drive home the point that when you're seeing numbers of passwords that are being stolen and is compromised at this level, it should drive home the point that we have a problem. you know, it also, i this i, a big point we tried to make is we talk about band-aids to the solution, you know, a few months ago the news came out about the heartbleed bug, and everybody was told change all your passwords. tumbler had a blog saying you should call in sick today and stay home and change your passwords. and three months later the news comes out there was this big treasure trover of passwords from hackers overseas, and

everybody's being given the same advice. this gets back to my point earlier about passwords being the perfect combination of horrible security and usability. we need to drive the market to get something better. people aren't going to call in sick and change their pass words, and we can't be expecting people every three months to do the same thing. we need to start getting away from this solution. i wouldn't say passwords aren't the solution and get to something better. that's where we're focused. >> so whether or not passwords are the solution, which, i mean, i think there's a general agreement that they're probably not, what would you say about people who are concerned that by moving towards these more centralized ids we're sort of putting all of our eggs in one basket? what happens if primary one is compromised? >> guest: so it's a great question, and a couple of things i want to emphasize. there's nothing about the strategy that's trying to push people to a single id. it's all about choice.

so much as, i've got five different e-mail accounts. i use one for most communication with friends, a second one for online sales because i just don't want those going to my primary account, a third one to communicate with neighbors or a neighborhood list serve. people could have several deare den cials. there's -- credentials. the credential you use for something that's work related may not be what you want to do in your personal life, just as there's things i don't do on facebook that i do on linkedin and vice versa. so there would be nothing that would preclude people from getting three, five, ten credentials from different providers or none at all. if you don't want to participate in this ecosystem, don't. we do think the benefits will be compelling, particularly by making it more privacy enhancing so you shouldn't actually have some of these issues. in terms of there being a vulnerability if one's compromised, i'd argue it's a real threat. it's also the same issue we have today. right now i talked a bit about some of the password problems and why it is that hackers

actually want to steal billions of them. the reason is with password reuse, something we're seeing more often than not, when you talk to a lot of the firms out there that provide free mail is that when people go to, oh, say a little dog collar.com to pie a collar for their pooch, they put their e-mail password, and when that site's hacked, that's when they have problems. >> host: jeremy grant is with the national strategy for trusted identities in cyberspace. andrea peterson, washington post tech reporter. thank you both. >> thank you. ..

you on c-span2. >> c-span's 2015 studentcam competition is underway. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a five to submit a document on the topic the three branches and you. videos need to include see them programming include see them programming, sheltering points of view and must be cemented by chandra 20th, 2015. code to studentcam and get started today. >> a debate among the candidates

for california's 52nd congressional district. produce been in this debate is democratic congressman scott peters and san diego councilman carl demaio. the district is located in the southern region of california and includes the central and coastal regions of san diego. according to a poll conducted by survey u.s.a., voters are split 47% for representative peters, 46% republican challenger carl demaio. roll call rates the race as it's also. this is just under one hour. >> moderator: and now an nbc news special, a conversation with the candidates. >> good evening among catherine garcia. >> i mark mullen along with gene cubbison from our colleagues. it's 6:00. and that we're hosting an in depth conversation with the two candidates with the most hotly contested race in the november ballot, the congressional seat

getting national attention because of close race between a democrat and republican. >> we want to welcome the candidates, scott peters along with carl demaio. we want to do something different with this debate rather than a typical debate what each candidate is given a set amount of time to answer our set questions we want is to be more of a conversation with the candidates so hopefully in the end benefit you the viewers. >> before we get started let us that the political scene in california's 52nd congressional district. give you idea why the race has nationwide importance. >> the 52nd congressional district stretches from coronado up the coast to la jolla and up to rancho bernardo. registered voters in the district are split, 34% republican, 32% democrat, 29% independent. >> most braces in congress are highly partisan and highly split between it republican or democrat. this is one of the few non-state

seats in the country. >> which is why this race matters. voters could potentially give the gop another seat in the republican-controlled house. what messages you can get scott peters and carl demaio need to convey? >> peters has to convince the middle that dimaio is not one of them, and he is. convinced the middle that he is too extreme which is why jerky parties coming out of peters not everybody can with respect to dimaio. and sort of hold on and hope the republican surge would probably see nationwide is not going to extend the san diego. >> voters off me with candidates. both agree on most social issues like the environment, same-sex marriage. both are pro-choice. up to now the candidates have focused on local things familiar in san diego. tamayo has hammered peters over the pension issue taking credit for his role in pension reform. >> the challenge is how to try and take that track record and

those extremes that carl had his local level, translate them into a national race. >> what about issues they will tackle in congress, immigration, only to go to defense spending? >> dumb ios that interested in national security, not interested in talking about foreign policy. he wants to focus the race on business issues and budget issues and that's what he thinks he can make inroads. >> the national chamber of commerce endorsed peters, setting off a national reaction ending with this ugly tweet from the chamber. demaio campaign imploding. taken down to voter turnout. that includes a critical block of several thousand students at ucsd. >> we think of student debt, post-graduation process, what the economy is going to look like for us five, 10 years down the line. >> so with all of that in mind at our colleague artie ojeda one of a lot of issues we want to

start with what is the big story of the day and it's an issue that congress will be dealing with for some time. the u.s. began airstrikes against isis targets in syria last night. this action is pretty much received bipartisan support. what i'm curious about the is this issue of ground troops. a lot of military experts have said that without adequate ground troop support on the ground we will not be able to bring an end to isis. they don't think some of the local troops, the kurds, iraqis agree forces are up to the job. my question is at what point if ever which you support u.s. ground troops in iraq or syria to fight isis? demaio: san diego is a military town. if you're going to ask a service member to leave their spouse complete their children, put their lives on the line, you best satisfy tiki test. first, make sure it's a national security crisis or issue that is

a direct impact to the american national security position. i think in a case of the isis that clearly has been established. this is a terrorist group. it has already killed several americans and continues to threaten americans. if not checked we will see this continued to spiral out of control. the second test is equally important and that is we have a thoughtful commonsense strategy to win. when we intervene we should have a strategy to actually successfully win, mobilize or any. in this case i don't believe the president has laid out an adequate strategy. i've talked to some of my own military advisors. these are flag officers, who are advising me, service members who are currently serving our veterans. they all have expressed concerns that the president seems deploying more of a political game of talking about just airstrikes and a little bit of technical guys on the ground. i think we will find in the next several weeks that that's probably going to be inadequate. if we have to build a case for

an expansion, pass be something the american people will support. that's where the administration and congress should not treat this as a democrat issue or republican issue. this would be an american issue and we need more members of congress to approach it that way. >> it sounds like you're saying not enough information for ground troops. mr. peters, what about you, how do you feel about the case the president has laid out to this point and when would you support u.s. ground troops in these regions? peters: my important job is to keep you and your family safe from harm, and we know around the world not just in the middle east there are people in dark rooms and even case planning to hurt our country, our families, and we hav had to go to those ps and stop them. isis is a tremendously dangerous force. these terrorists are much more better equipped, much better funded, much more tactical than al-qaeda which attacked us in 2001. and we hav have to take this ve, very streusel. i support the plan that congress, the president and our commanders most important, agree

to which is going to build a multi-shoji plan for dealing with isis. part of it is airstrikes which would degrade the enemy but as a much bigger plan. part of it is developing a political system in iraq that everyone can rely on that is going to provide stability so these people will be motivated and equipped to fight for themselves. part of is what we saw yesterday which is allies in the area, people who are interested in their security, they have to be part of the fight as well. part of is getting international support. france has indicated their interest because they know before terrorism gets to the united states it's going to get europe first. they are concerned. their part of it is the equipment and training of some syrians who be carefully vetted on the ground. >> both of you all are expressing a good measure of support for going in and trying to eradicate isis. i think for a lot of your would be constituents, where's the

line in the sand for both of you? at what point would you say, i'm no longer going to support an effort? where is the line. demaio: it get gets to the two graduate of the gets to the to graduate i laid out and do not migrate to. they were articulated first by former defense secretary cap weinberger who serve in the reagan administration. he said if you're going to put men and women in our armed services in harm's way, that we have to satisfy first that the issue is a direct national street threat to our country. second, we have to have a well-thought-out plan. i believe we have gotten into conflicts around the globe where the first criteria has not been adhered to, where we allowed mission creep. we've gone into nationbuilding, policing of the country, imposing governments, running public health systems in certain cases. roles that don't relate to our national security interest. they may be humanitarian but they're not a direct link to a national secret interests. i think a lot of americans are upset by the mission creep we

saw in afghanistan and in iraq. second, we have to ensure that when we do use force that is part of a sensible, strategic approach to winning. that should not be a democrat or republican issue. i should be something where congress asks tough questions and isn't afraid to challenge perhaps their own party when they're not getting those sorts of interest. because you are asking men and women to leave their families and put their lives on the line. they need to know it's not only an important issue that they should be involved in that relates to our national security, but we have supported them by giving them the right sort of intervention and approach. >> congressman, at what point would you say no? peters: we've seen the limitations of our ability to effect afghanistan and iraq with ground troops. and so i think we better resist that. at this point i don't think the case has been made to the ground troops in and, frankly, no one is proposing a.

as a member of the armed service committee, we listen very hard to the briefings about what our build is to influence it and what our real a build is were on security, for our own families transported with isis can be defeated without ground troops, without u.s. ground troops? peters: i think they can be declared in the sense we're -- but i would say it doesn't have to be american ground troops. one of the advantages of the strategy we try to employ is we like the people i in the area to be fighting for their own freedoms, iraqis, kurds, syrians who we would like to equip and train. >> the problem is people are saying those forces are not going to be equipped to accomplish it on the ground and that is maybe the concern among the american people we are being told something that them down the line is not going to be what was pitched. peters: we share that concern. you can guarantee this is going to be successful but i have a lot of faith in our military commanders and the strategy that laid out. they may come back and as for more but one thing we insist on in congress is any further

authorization had come back to congress. the one thing i would say is i've been critical of the president for not being as close a partner with congress as he could be. in this case we worked very close with the president and whether commanders to take it with the best is at this point in time. >> can i follow-up with this, and this may be a very early hypothetical but let's say best case scenario, the airstrikes are successful or whatever surges make him afterwards and isis is reduced, let's say, to a manageable problem, maybe even eliminate. what moves them should allies make in order to fill what could be a power vacuum that is going to attract other terrorist groups that rise up, the taliban and more into al-qaeda and now we've got isis. what might be next? peters: one of the main problems we have is an iraqi government that wasn't politically sufficient to carry the weight of bringing peace to the region. amalekite government was only concerned -- a maliki government

was only concerned with one set. we have to have an inclusive government that reaches across the sectarian lines. that's their first party. we've seen the change in the government. we've seen promising signs that the next government will be more inclusive. we can be the government of iraq. we have to use diplomacy and we have to ally with other countries in the region to create a political system that's more sustainable. demaio: look, this is again i think a situation where politicians from both sides of the aisle are trying to sugarcoat it. i think we have to have a more focused view on our national security interests, and we have to do more limited use of force reflects our national interest. clearly defined missions are important, and my concern you that the mission is not clearly defined. as kevin pointed out i think the concern that most sandy aid instead of and many americans have is that we wake up one day and find what was sold to us by

the politicians is not actually the case and that we've seen mission creep we saw that in afghanistan poussaint in iraq and members of congress need to be willing to take on their own party, the on the administration to make we have clarity and limitation focus on whatever we're putting people's lives on the line in the u.s. military. >> moderator: moving on to issues with still international in scope but it's a big domestic issue. you represent a member of congress right now but i've heard it said that immigration reform is a lot like the weather. everybody talks about but nobody does anything about it. do you have any specific policy ideas, initiatives that would break the gridlock your? peters: is not the case, jean come in this case. the senate last summer voted with 69 votes on a bipartisan immigration bill, a compromise, not perfect the idol of everything in it but i would like to see put the compromise

on house floor. it would pass with tremendous economic benefit both for economic growth, 514% over the next 20 years, almost $1 trillion in deficit reduction, help stabilize social security, increase border security, allow in the amount of workers to earn a path to citizenship by paying a fine, anger taxes but allow the workers we need in the tech sector. talk to qualcomm, it's important to be. in biotechnology we're sending people who we educate teacher diseases and start johnson of the countries instead of keeping them here. righthanded farmworkers who would've had been a farmworkers. we are letting crops rot in the fields. my opponent says he wouldn't vote for that. we could do it tomorrow. demaio: what the problem is this what washington is broken. you get all the special interest to load up this big bill, thousands of pages long, and we crowd of the issues that people agree on.

here's an issue i think everybody agrees on. we need to secure the border. we need to secure the border first. we need to put the resources and the attention and the accountability kind securing our nation's border. not only so we can prevent an immigration system where people get to run to the front of the line, but also for national security issues. who knows who's able to cross into our border in terms of terrorist groups that may want to harm the american people? border security is a critical prerequisite. instead of focusing on something that democrats, republicans and independents, and look at the polling, latinos support a secure border. democrats support a secure border. independents and republicans, but members of congress want to put poison pills in these bills have become thousands of pages long and they sit there and point fingers at each other. i think we ought to focus on issues where we see great unity in this country, securing the border first should be a single subject ago, and i think that it

would get bipartisan support if we focus on those areas of agreement. peters: this is the magic of mr. demaio trying to confuse the issue. is no disagreement in the senate. we had a bipartisan approach. part of it is between the border. they are want to build a fence all across the border. they want to virtually double the size of the border patrol. what republicans and democrats agree on is compromise. we can get a vote because the speaker of the house mr. boehner who is supporting mr. demaio, won't put up to a vote. this up in which everyone agrees. u.s. chamber of commerce and the labor committee, the farmers and farmworkers, the faith community at the tech committee all the greed and we also know that business analysts, the harvard business school says this is a one of the most important things we could do is to get job gratian going, get the economy moving at how important would that be to san diego. all we need is the speaker to put this before the house and we would have immigration reform the next day. demaio: color me surprised,

scott peters because you had an opportunity when the bill came before the house a very targeted bill on border security, funding for border security, and much of the money would've ended up here in sandy go to do with some of our challenges, and you voted no on a scaled back version. so when you sit there and say if we could just have a vote, scott, when you a chance to actually be part of a solution, to actually be part of a modest step forward to provide the resources necessary to secure our border to you voted no. qubit do you own party's pressure. nancy pelosi and the democrat leadership twisted arms to say we want to make sure no democrat votes are part of this compromise package but you voted no. that bill did go to the house floor. peters: i voted no because border security isn't the only element of immigration reform that we need. what we need, we need to do with these labor supply issues. >> let's talk about that -- i thought i would like to say one thing about ms. pelosi. i think the councilman knows that i was raided last year the

fourth most independent democrat because a moment to take votes against my party. and i do right by country first, but you should second and my party third. i would not have gotten that ranking it was voting lockstep with my party. that's also the reason i got the endorsement of the trendy chain of commerce under 250 candidates that they endorse, five are democrats. what they're concerned that if they want democrats that they can work with to solve problems. they have seen it in my history. history. what to do what is tea party extremist or the kind of the push of the government down at threaten our nation's credit rating. facing mr. demaio as part of that camp. demaio: stop. let's stop right here. you want to continue to apply labels to me because you can't defend your own record. you can call me names all you want. i haven't sat there and called you names. i had issues that i disagree with you on and there are differences in our record in the wave in which we approach issues but to sit there and say i'm just going to call my opponent a

tea party right wing nut job extremist, scott, it's dishonest. it's divisive and it's what's wrong with politics today. let's talk about -- spin talk about the party thing first because we knew this was going to come. we've seen in a lot of commercials on television and it's a label that your opponent is trying to have it stick transit nonstop. >> let's bring up the quote that have been attributed to you where you basically said he would go to the tea party to explain to me . demaio: no. this is important. scott peters took a video and displaced. i did a speech across india go to many groups including labor unions who of course politically don't support me. they are on the far left. the uphold that we have in common but i stood before in a group that could listen to our plan on pension reform. in this speech i was a talk about social issues that it is with a tea party on on the right wing approaches social issue.

i stood before them and i said, let's focus on a positive agenda here quickly deposited in san diego? we can reform the out of control pension system at city hall. we can replace those fatcat pensions that the politicians have voted themselves, including mr. peters, and put in place a system that's not only sustainable that allows us to save money and restore services. i imported them just like i implored the labor unions to come to the table and be part of the solution to move san diego forward. i will continue to reach out to groups that disagree with me -- spent here's the thing though. the quote that's a tribute to you is i will owe you and our collective movement everything. this is what they are saying is demaio: did you see the question mr. peters sliced out? the question was who is backing your opponent? and i said look, and the mayor's race at downtown inside and the government unions, i'm not the candidate. i'm proud of that. who do i owe?

i of the people. i owe the people everything. that is exactly how i've always approached every she. for mr. peters to try to d.c. voters is just an example of desperation because he can't defend his own record of putting the city of san diego on the brink of bankruptcy. >> let's let him talk about these issues. peters: i am more than happy to defend my record spent wasn't taken out of context? peters: the whole video is on my website. the quote is a tea party is the conscience of the accountable government movement. if i win i will owe you and our collective movement everything. later in the video you see mr. demaio sneer at people who would sit down around the table and work out solutions. that's one thing. it's his own words. the second is his supporters. there were three republicans in the primary running in this race. a tea party come every tea party member, every tea party pack

chose mr. demaio as the candidate because they know that when he gets there he can join up with them. demaio: that is actually not true. peters: third it is his own record at the city where 102 times he was the one no vote on the city council. he voted against all for mayors and council by person budgets because they weren't extreme in a. he voted against $700 health care reform that they work out of the table with the labor union. when he lost the mayors race, the you cheap which was a great supporter of his editorialize the next morning to be a legacy of divisiveness. and when you want to be mayor after they resigned, they had a big meeting of the republican leadership in la jolla and the upshot says they said we want kevin to be the mayor candidate. carl, you're too divisive, you belong in congress and that's what's wrong with congress. we have enough of that. and sending a tea party

extremist to fix the problem with tea party extremism is not the way to move forward. >> are you . demaio: the tea party did not support me. they put in a right wing candidate and the fact that right wing candidate to the hilt. because i had a record of taking on my own political party and challenging them to change. i'm take on the right wing on social issues. i don't believe that social issue should be part of congress' agenda. i think we should allow people to make decisions on social issues and the context of their own faith, own family, own personal beliefs, first. second, when you talk about the accomplishments we had at city hall, everyone in san diego saw that when mr. peters left the city council in 2008, the city was on the brink of bankruptcy. billions of dollars in debt, hundreds of millions of dollars in shortfalls in the budget. the city was paying out lavish pensions to government employees and we could not afford. mr. peters talks about an

extreme budget committee voted to eliminate day care programs for needy families. he voted to cut library hours by 42%. he voted to undermine polic pold fire services. he eliminated the only fire rescue helicopter three months before a major catastrophic fire. my budget plan has always been how to make government work again, how do we restore services and, scott, the very clear fact base is that all citizens know is that in four years of time i cleaned up the mess be created over eight years and we do that by bringing people together to bipartisan vote after bipartisan vote on the city council. and, of course, the ultimate bipartisan vote in the city, the pension reform initiative in 2012 that brought democrats, independents and republicans together from around the city. it carried every single council district, every social economic group. why? because we built a solution oriented agenda to fix her city. mr. peters opposed the reforms every step of the way. i would consider that pretty

extreme. >> let me ask you . peters: i think i need to address that. the city of san diego had a couple of decades of bad financial practices before i got on there, and i wasn't on the city council that started pension or funding or but i was on the city council that ended it. we work for many years on reforms before mr. demaio got there and mayors enters called me his partner in meaningful pension reform. at the end of our work the sec which enforces the security laws said sandy was a model for other cities to follow. even mr. demaio we negotiated a new pension system in 2008 that would save the city about $22 million a year in pension payments, mr. demaio came to a press conference to congratulate us on the work. so to say that nothing was done when he was there is really disingenuous. i also say, we did come we have a lot of issues on the internet

and went to deal with a lot of tough budget issues. we did it as a boy partisan group. we worked with the mayor, with the republican mayor, with democrats on the council. came up with budgets every year that i supported. they weren't always great. summit tough choices but i was proud to be part of the solution oriented, consensus building group which is a problem-solving approach when did in congress. mr. demaio was voting against every single budget and then taking credit for what was in them. demaio: mr. peters head off in 2008 a city that was on the break of bankruptcy. all the media got at the time confirmed that. the city's roads are falling apart. the city's services were at historically low levels in terms of library hours and police and fire coverage. mr. peters after cutting all the services gave politicians a 42% salary hike in the middle of one of our worst budget crises. he took $16,000 in auto allowances for his new bmw. this is the sort of leadership

that he gave us on city council. in four years of time what did we do? we balanced the budget. we did it without accounting can expect we reform the pension system. we put them into the six-figure pension fails. we're able to make san diego a model that aside around the country through my pension reform program. more important anything else, this is what i'm passionate about, we started restoring the services that mr. peters cut. library hours, road repairs, getting a city moving again in ways we haven't seen in nearly a decade. ..

right after this. well come back to a special edition of nbc 7 news. i'm mark mullen and catherine garcia and gene cubbison. the two candidates facing off in the november election. are uncouple bent carl peters and former congressman. carl demaio. >> we'll give you a look at both rest mace. scott peters earned undergraduate degree from duke university. he weighs environmental lawyer before going into politics. peter served on the san diego city coins foil 2000 to 2008. he became the first council

president after swim to strong mayor form of government. he lost his bid to the city attorney's office in. in 2009 he became a commissioner off the san diego unified port district. in 2012 he successfully republican brian bilbray for the 52ed in congressional district. he lives with his wife in la jolla. they have a son and daughter. >> carl demaio attended georgetown university where he earned a degree anyone international business and politics. he started the performance institute a for-profit think tank that provides training for government officials. later found the american strategic management institute which offered financial and management training to corporations. both companies he later sold for millions. demaio moved to san diego in 2002 where he bespeaking publicly and backing efforts aimed at city government reform. in 2008 he ran and won a seat on san diego city council a

representing district 5 as openly gay man and government watching to. he backed proposition b, which aimed drastically retooling city retirement benefits along with changing cost to taxpayers. after one council term, carl demaio ran for mayor, advancing to the runoff before losing to bob filner. his partner is jonathan hail, owner after san diego based marketing firm, targeting the lgbt community. >> one thing both candidates have in common they think we left off at break in conversation with couple loose ends they wanted to clear up. we'll give them 20 seconds to wrap up that. we want to move to talk about couple more things. mr. peters. peters: car allowance, everyone got the same car allowance. part of the same compensation package when i came into the council. i was first council man to turn it back. everyone got the same amount. only person taking a car allowance in the 52ed in district is the laurie sap who

supported mr. demaio. i don't know that i had asked her to stop taking it. or made every effort to get it out of the compensation package. mr. demaio made millions of dollars himself off government contracts. boasted once he was man of means that drove a bmw. by his logic the taxpayers bought him a bmw. >> that is 20 seconds. >> nothing to do with creating a job, educating kids or growing the economy. >> mr. demaio demaio: cutting politicians perks is never ridiculous. you ought to lead by example. you are worth $100 million but took $69,000 worth of auto allahance payments from taxpayers. this is years while you're cutting services to our kids and in terms of after-school programs. in terms of the issue i wanted to respond to the mr. peters no

amount of distortion can change that. peters: let me ask you this, this was kind of interesting. i was struck by your remarks on day you announced for congress last september. you had some very harsh statements about the republican party. won of your quotes was tarnished brand. but, now it seems they're touting you as someone who can remake the image of the party and you at one point touted yourself someone in the mold of senator ted cruz. so, how is that all going to shake out. demaio: that also is not true, that is what mr. peters claimed. that is not true at all. what i have said, people can make a difference even one person. that can be a good difference or a destructive difference.

that was the context of speech mr. peters once again took completely out of context and the full video is on the internet. let me -- >> destructive difference would be senator cruz. you're attributing -- demaio: you have if you have individuals stand out in public square and light their hair on fire and not actually move the ball forward i don't see how that moves the needle and actually service problem. i'm willing to take on establishment republicans who think there is nothing wrong with wasteful spending and nothing wrong with corporate welfare and certainly nothing wrong with politicians including themselves perks. i'm also willing to take on tea party republicans who have a social agenda i don't believe fits the future of our country. who also would rather stand there and say we have to get everything done overnight or everyone else is somehow suspect. i think we ought to have a focus what i talked about that day, gene, what i talked about entire campaign. my life work is offering

positive solutions and trying to build consensus. i don't care whether it is a democrat, republican or independent. >> if you are so busy taking on everybody and speaking truth to power, i think a lot of constituents, a lot of voters would want to know whether you're going to go to washington if elected and fight with everybody or if you can really get things done. demaio: i would point to the four years i was on city council where we took on idea of a sales tax that mr. peters backed and some members of the republican party. san diegans, overwhelmingly stood with me to reject the tax increase in the middle after recession. we took on the pension system where government unions and several republicans tried saying we don't need pension reform. i took them on. i'm pointing to record of helping save the city from bankruptcy. that means you need members congress members of the city council who are not worried about pleasing special interests but worried about making sure we provide quality services to taxpayers. >> hear from a member congress.

peters: your question hit the nail on the head. the fact is the tea party, the frustrated establishment republicans are frustrated with the tea party. the tea party talks back to the republicans too. it says shut down the government. it says don't pay our debt. says get the credit downgraded because they don't have any duty to come together to reach agreement. that is the mold that mr. demaio followed both in his own words, by who supports him and also in his history after the city. you're right, he fought with everybody. no one would not say that mr. demaio is not a fighter, even people that like him. we have too much of that in washington, d.c. today. we need people willing to have the courage to go to the center of the room to shake hands. i was proud to be unanimously elected as city council president. it was a sign that my colleagues trusted me, republican and democrat. mr. demaio is only member of the city council, the only member, who wasn't trusted by his colleagues with even a

committee chairmanship. because they didn't see him as someone who con work with other people. we have to avoid in congress. we can't stop the divisiveness and sending another tea party extremist. demaio: look at problems we did in san diego. balanced budget. restored services mr. peters cut. eliminated politician pensions and perks they were giving themselves. we stopped the downtown redevelopment shell game. demaio: taking our money from the general fund and putting it in pockets of developers. we stopped the largest tax increase in the history of san diego mr. peters was backing. look at list of accomplishments we were able to get done in four years. that is a positive record. san diegans today benefit from the fact that we fixed the financial crisis. i'm proud of that work. it took democrats and republicans. >> mr. demaio, i will respectfully cut you off there, people care what you both did in the city, they care what you will do for us in congress. one of the things you said quite often in the discussion, you

think you should leave social issues out of our politics. that being said you will have to deal with a lot of social issues if you're elected to congress. you're both telling us you're moderate on a lot of issues. where do you disagree voters know if you do on social issues? can we write that off, yep, they both agree? demaio: gets back to gene's question when i announced for congress. this is how i dealt with issues on my time on city council. we ought to trust individuals to make decisions for themselves. >> we'll trust you to make decisions if you represent us. demaio: that means going to washington and standing up to some more right-wing members of the party saying look, i respect your faith beliefs, even if i don't necessarily agree with them. this is not the place, government and congress will not be the place to impose your moral views on rest of us. i will oppose any attempts to put social issues and social agenda at forefront of congress's priorities. >> i'm proud to be endorsed by

pro-choice america, by planned parenthood, and i have a long standing track record of standing up for women's reproductive freedom and their economic security. the thing about mr. demaio, you're right, you didn't get an answer to your question. he won't fill out form that planned parenthood to put out where he is really is on these issues. planned parenthood endorsed republicans like jerry sanders, greg cox, ron roberts who filled out the questionnaire. they made it public. you're welcome to see mine. i have 100% record on standing up for women's reproductive freedom. i have been advocate of equal pay for equal work. we didn't hear mr. demaio take stand on any women's work place equity issues until a press conference two weeks ago. he didn't mention the paycheck fairness act which i've been championing almost two years i got into congress. he could ask mr. boehner who is raising money and supporting him to let us have a vote on that.

we don't know that he has done that. we don't know whether he from his own mouth would support the paycheck fairness act. i like him saying he is moderate. more than labels. you have to say what you're willing to do for people and women. demaio: this is what is wrong with our political women. >> would you say you would support equal pay? demaio: absolutely. i said that clearly months ago. this is what is wrong with the political system. democrats want to use social issues and keep them alive, and far right republicans want to use social issues to keep them alive to constantly battle on issues that should are nothing to do what happens in congress. we should allow individuals to decide these issues. we should err on side of personal freedom. pro-choice -- >> look to the government for some sort of help. demaio: i absolutely believe civil rights laws ought to defend full equality for all individuals. we should treat everyone with respect. i'm a change agent in the republican party. gene, you said we're getting a lot of attention in my candidacy, as perhaps someone

who can break the polled of an old, this is quote, ut editorial, someone who can challenge the intolerance, inflexible views of the republican party and say look, this is the twenty-first century. let's trust people. if we're willing to trust people with their tax dollars through lower taxes, willing to trust the free market to solve problems faster than government mandates, can we trust people to love who they want to love? can we trust people to make decisions for their health? these are issues we should settle on the score of equality, respect and non-discrimination. i will be a voice in republican party to change those issues nationally to have great impact. >> mr. peters weigh in. peters: unfortunately when he had a chance to be a voice on this issue. i sported marriage equality. we used to call it same-sex marriage in 2000 when i first ran for office. mr. demaio was elected in 2008 in june because he won the primary. next thing up was proposition 8. they asked him, which was to ban marriage equality.

they asked him please as republican, be a change agent. won't you stand up say this is the wrong thing to do. he told his own community no, he won't do it. that is why, when at the pride parade mr. demaio got booed. he won't go anymore because he can't stand the treatment. he feels like the, community feels that he turned their back on them. he didn't stand up. so i think these words are hollow. i think what we see is someone running for-offs and says what is now popular buts that no history of being change agent he purports to be today. >> are you being ambiguous? demaio: i think i've always been clear about my orientation if that is what you're referring to. on issues i've been a believer in personal freedom. i have not reserved any sort of support for those issues. i have a 100% lgbt voting record on city council. my voting record is same as tom gloria's on social issues on city council.

i led the charge to get the city on record "don't ask, don't tell." to allow gay servicemembers openly with dignity without fear of retaliation. i also supported the equal benefits ordinance said we should treat people whether married or domestic qualities. mr. peters wants to use and misrepresent positions. he wants to divide us. that is what is wrong with washington. they look at social issues as issues to excite the base. you know what it distracts us from? getting people back to work. creating middle class jobs. balances budget, dealing with the national debt and holding government accountable for like veterans programs. we have to get off divisive social issues. i'm willing to do my job, scott, challenging republican party to change. you're showing in this debate you're willing to deceived isance and distort my record and there is that is shame. peters: there is no distortion in the record. it has been quite clear. i would be happy to move on to some better issues. >> talk about health care just a

moment. we should probably address though. with national health care, with the so-called obama care, same question for both of you all. repeal it, replace it. or fix it? >> i'm fix it guy. i wasn't in congress when they passed the affordable care act but we can't go back to where we were before. people getting their health care from emergency rooms, which costs us money. people not having enough money to pay medical bills. largest cause of personal bankruptcies. costs spiraling out of control. insurance companies able to deny you coverage with a preexisting condition. we had to move beyond. that i think this has been progress. now, i would say that there is a lot left to do. one of the areas where i distinguished myself as independent i've been willing to take votes, frankly with the other party to fix this law. i voted to let you keep your plan if you like it. i voted to give individual the same extension of compliance

time as businesses got. we saw the rollout, that was kind of botched, that was a good vote. i shown again and again i'm willing to work on it to make it better. i don't support to repealing it. we can't go back. we have to move forward. >> mr. demaio. demaio: health care was in crisis state before obamacare. obamacare i think is the wrong direction. i think it adds to the problem. neither party offered solution to accessible, quality, affordable health care where people get decisions with their doctors, not health care insurance company getting in the way, not some government bureaucrat telling us what is good for us. i support a different approach to the health care reform debate. i hope we get past labels of obamacare and republican and democrat. can we support common sense health care reforms that bend the cost curve to make health care more affordable. some things i would keep about obamacare. i would keep elimination of

preexisting condition penalty. i never understood why that was in place. i think it's a very punitive policy that health insurance companies use to limit access to care. second. i would allow children, in college, to continue on their parents insurance if they so chose to. i would also keep health care exchanges. but i would not have government manage a website or manage the exchanges. i would allow the market to handle that because the health care exchanges allow us to diversify the risk pool, allow us to get bulk purchasing power. i will go even further. would i allow people to redeem their employer health plan on the exchange to get a better plan or plan that allows them to keep their doctor. i would allow competition across state lines. i would also reverse $700 billion in cuts that mr. peters supported as part of obamacare to medicare and that threatens the health care security of seniors. and most importantly, above everything else, just to lead by example, i would strip members

congress from of those special health care subsidies they put in the obama health care law. you know what? if a law is good enough for you and i to comply with, why in the world shouldn't members of the congress be expected to live under the same law. >> mr. pete years i think the implication mr. demaio would vote to repeal it but i didn't hear that. the $700 million was attack last campaign had against me. i wasn't even here when obamacare, the affordable care act was adopted. so, i think that is attack is misplace say this about health care because he raised issue of perks. i led by example. i turned down my congressional pension. i turned down the congressional health care. when the tea party sequester went into effect and 8% across-the-board cuts, i led by example, cut my own pay, 8% and donated back to charity. when the tea party shut down the government because they wanted

to repeal the aca, affordable care act i turned my whole salary over to charities here in san diego for veterans and seniors who are affected by those cuts. what i don't want to hear that i'm not, i'm not attuned to what these perks are. the other thing i would say, just that mr. demaio will tell you that i take a city pension. about $20,000 a year. what he won't tell you, i have given every dime of it back to city libraries and proud to do so. demaio: let's talk about perks. this is important issue. about leading by example. will our elected officials put themselves under same rules as rest of us. >> let me ask you a overarching issue here which is actually pretty crucial here in the western states, especially california. we've got a drought going on. what specific plans, ideas, legislative initiatives, do you, or congressman, do you have, for dealing wees specially since there are concerns about whether san diego is going to get another waiver trot clean water

act to keep discharging sewage in the ocean it is treated to the extent we've done it for number of years? what about funding for san diego's pure water program? do you see a linkage there? is there anything that you have that you think you can get through congress and the white house? demaio: i would be happy to talk about water because this is important. mr. peters sat here, worth $100 million. nothing wrong with that, scott. congratulations. 8th richest mon in congress. while on city council, voted to increase salary and auto allahance. this is very important. voted in congress to protect perks of members of congress, allowed them to get paid even though they shut down the government. i need to correct the record before we move to water. as it relates to water. i think it is also an lead by example issue. >> do it quickly please. we have other stuff.

>> i would like a response. >> do you have something do immediate here. demaio: the water issue in san diego is about investing in infrastructure, in making sure we have water rate structure here in san diego that allows us to save money. mr. peters had a federal law, called the clean water act. he voted to not follow the clean water act in setting water rates in san diego on residents so they could subsidize businesses. we won't change water until we change the water rates. >> mr. peters. we're on the clock. peters: i would like a little time to address what i think is one of fundamental issues, localities, state and federal government have to be in partnership on. we are very fortunate san diego has taken the lead to taking care of its own water supply. when i was on council, we did a deal with farmers from imperial county, so we weren't only dependent on water from the north. we invested at storage on local level. i supported desalination which was controversial thing both at city council and coastal commission.

we have to diversify our water supply. the other thing we supported locally was the pure water thing. people demonized this toilet to tap. we need to recycle our water. mr. demaio was consistent opponent to. that we can't be sending what is treatable water, outfall four miles into the ocean. we have to take care of that resource right here. what i will dot in federal government, what you said. we've gone from being behind the curve in san diego. also always for permission to discharge waste not treated to level of other places. we also made a scientific justification for it. we didn't want to impose cost on rate-payers. today, using pure water system, water recycling we can be the leader in the nation. we can show how to do recycle recycleing, take care of our own resource. that needs to have permission of federal government. federal government has to be partner in infrastructure and we need to support the state water bond which is critical aspect of

this as well. >> maybe speak to more big picture having this job in congress. representative jackie spear of california asked a house oversight committee to hold a hearing on the ray rice domestic abuse stint into how the nfl handled it. three democratic senators introduced a measure to eliminate the nfl's tax protection if it continues to support the washington team name, the redskins. i wonder if you, you as congressman in congress would you supporting are a hearing like this? would you support that sort of legislation? >> well i think the rice case is disdeplorable. women should not be treated that way. we have role models. we should hold them to higher standard. so my hope is that the nfl can clean up its mess. >> would you hold hearings on it? demaio: i think hearings are important. it is part of raising consciousness and this issue. if they aren't satisfied with dealing with these issues,

congress has number of levers use to push the issues along if you will. at this point i want to see what the nfl does. i think message has been sent loud and clear as it relates to redskins name. i don't support that name. i think it is offensive to many of our native americans. we have in san diego county 19 tribes. >> you would support the legislation? demaio: i think my hope that the team ownership will see this not good economic decision for them. but if necessary i think that the congress can take action on this. >> mr. peters. peters: i would just say, you know, we should recognize that domestic violence is a problem that extend far beyond the nfl. the interest congress has in it beyond whether it is in the football league. we've been dealing with this, jackie spears has been a leader in the military. we play a very important role in congress facilitating national conversation about these things. we have to shine light on this in congress. so the idea of having hearings, i don't want you to think we're

so much about regulating nfl. we have a have a discussion about domestic violence in it country. i think it is important for congress to participate that and play a role. >> we're just about out of time. we love to give both of you one minute to give final thought or 30 seconds. we're that short on time. you first please? >> well this campaign you will see a lot of nasty attack ads. san diego anns deserve better. four years i was on the city council we were able to save the city from bankruptcy. the measure i use not just balancing a budget but restoring important services to our community. in washington we have to tackle a fiscal crisis. we have to get the middle class jobs back in this country so the american dream is restored. we have to hold government accountable to get results in key areas like veterans and benefits and border. i'm a proven reformer. no amount of name-calling by mr. peters -- >> we're out of time, sir. peters: i would say when i was elected in 2012 i promised to

bring a problem solving approach to congress to get beyond the tea party congress divisiveness. first budget in congress in three years. darrell issa says we have a group of five people finally who like each other and can work together. we need to continue to extend that ethic throughout congress. if the 52nd district voters are willing to do so i would be happy to go back to willing to fight to make it better. >> like a good place to end it. our special thanks to the two candidates sharing their views in time. republican carl demaio, and democratic congressman scott peters. the 52nd district is an important district, not only us to the entire country. entire nation watching which one of these two men will represent so many of you in congress. >> we hope tonight you are able to get a better sense what they are and what they stand for and how they would work for our community. so don't forget the election is november 4th. a lot will be voting by mail before then. we hope you were able to help

get some information to help you make a choice. thanks for watching. we'll see you for the news tonight at 11:00. >> have a good night. ♪ >> today the heritage foundation is hosting a discussion on the visa waiver program which allows citizens of other countries to travel to the u.s. for up to 90 days without a visa. former homeland security secretary michael chertoff will be part of a panel looking at security concerns raised by the program. and how it affects intelligence gathering efforts. that's live today at noon eastern here on c-span2. >> tonight on "the communicators," jeremy grant, whose agency promotes more internet security, talks about ways to increase data protection with alternative to password and basic security. >> the government is not looking to endorse any particular solution but rather to ascribe at a high level attributes what

the solutions should look like, they have to be secure and have to be privacy enhancing and have to be easy to use and inneroperable and be industry guidepost to solve issues around it. looking at pilots we have. we have some looking at smartphone-based apps which will be basically used in lieu of a password to log into different sites. others are testing on different types of biometrics, fingerprint, face, voice recognition. everyone of these is going to be solution or even solution for everybody. but kind of things we're testing out. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. every weekend, booktv for 15 years. . .

moderate. the production of this event is a combined effort of the league of women voters of oklahoma and oklahoma state university. republican governor mary fallin and state representative joe

dorman. ' make each candidate will be asked a series of questions by journalists. the questions were selected by the journalists and journalists alone. the panel members are rachel hubbard, the associate director of ksu radio. managing director of the oeta tv and rick green of capital bureau chief of the oklahoma news o.k.. we need to go over the ground rules that were agreed upon by both candidates. each candidate will have two minutes for an opening statement as well as closing remarks. questions from the journalist panel will be directed to both candidates read each candidate will have 90 seconds to answer each of the questions and that's time can also be used to respond to comments made on the prior question.

we ask for the candidates vying to the limits into the panel will also ask the candidates questions submitted by osu students from the audience. student ushers are circulating pieces of paper to write down their questions and we ask the students to write their name and year on their question and students will -- their questions will be handed into a review board made up by a representative of the college republicans, college democrats and the league of women voters. the top three questions will be asked by the journalist panel to the candidates. for people in social media using the hash tag #okvote14. hold your applause until the end of the debate and with that it's time to start. determined by the coin toss, representative doorman will be first with his opening remarks. dorman: it is a pleasure to be here tonight. i want to to thank the panelists into the governor for agreeing

to this debate and osu, the league of women voters and oeta for conducting this for them and also the viewers like you watching on television tonight and in participating this important part of our democracy. i grew up in a small town called rush springs out in western oklahoma and had many great opportunities. my dad was disabled in a truck accident when i was 4-years-old and my mom worked hard to make sure we had opportunities and is here with us tonight. she made sure that i studied hard and had every opportunity. that allowed me to come to college right here at oklahoma state and i worked hard through schooling and my first job was working in the mailroom of the house of representatives. so, yes i am that person that started in the mailroom and has worked my way up to here. i also had the opportunity to run 12 years ago and served my home district and i've been proud to work with them over the

past 12 years. during that period of time washington leaders into participating in the discussion at the y. so real leaders working trying to shape policies that would benefit oklahomans that would make their lives better and unfortunately i don't feel that we've seen that over the last four years. we have seen problems with our education system where the teachers haven't received a pay raise and students have had a trauma placed on them in the high street test. the greeting system and cuts in education to the tune of $400 million for the common education and 100 million for higher education we simply must invest in the future and we need real leadership that will work across the aisle to do that. thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you. governor you have two minutes. fallin: is a great it's a great pleasure to be here tonight on the campus at osu.

i grew up in oklahoma and it was always a lot of fun to go to school here and i appreciate the panelists, the league of women voters in all of the students here tonight for hosting this debate. thank you representative doorman for being here also. we are proud of the state graduates. it's great to be here. i want to remind our family where we were four years ago when i ran for governor. four years ago i came into office during a tough time we've gone through a national recession. oklahoma had a 7% unemployment rate and the state was nearly broke. we we have to dollars and three we had two colors and descends into a bank account or savings account and we had tens of thousands that were unemployed and out of work. we had a budget deficit of $500 million in our state budget. so i told the voters of oklahoma that i was going to deliver on the conservative commonsense principles of low taxes, fair

rules and regulations and fiscal responsibility and budgeting and focus on creating a high school educated workforce for the state. we prioritized and closed the gap and taxes. paradise spending on education and infrastructure and health human services and d.. then i also promised the voters i was going to stand up to washington, d.c. and federal bureaucrats whenever they step on the states rights or do things that would create bad policy upon our state. and we did those things. so the result has been that now we have the four fastest growing economies in the nation and created over 103,000 new jobs in the state and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.7% and we have a half a billion dollars in the state savings account which meant that i was able to put more money towards education and higher education during my four years as the governor in the state of oklahoma. so i challenge moving ahead as they continued momentum of oklahoma and i ask you for your

vote. >> thank you governor. now we transition to the journalist question that will come from rachel hubbard from ksu and is directed to representative dorman. >> moderator: representative and governor fallin as we talk about the debate many people have complained about public education everything from teacher salaries to standards. governor henry bowman led the charge in 1990 master plan for the education system in 17. since the plan ended in 1998 more than 80 new laws have been an active all without such a master plan. the think the state should have a master plan for education and if so what can we hold you accountable for your leadership in developing one blacks dorman: that is the most important issue in the campaign. the students in the classrooms right now over the past four years we've seen policies passed such as the direct greeting that

unfairly grade school for some and we've seen poor school districts that have been penalized because of the lack of funding and lack of increase in the allocations. we've seen over $200 million cut out of the allocations over the last four years. with a little bump this year into politics. that is unfortunate. we've also seen the schools implement third grade high-stakes test that could trauma on these students. we should instead be putting these funds into the remediation and tutoring to help them keep up with their classmates and learn. we must provide these students the opportunity to learn. we must provide the resources for teachers and see 900 teacher positions filled during the certification this year because we do not see enough teachers going into the field. we have not invested in the future and when we do not provide that investment we will

not see the opportunities for the future. we add a lot about the great economy that but that will not continue if we do not have the proper resources and provide for the future generation. >> thank you. governor fallin you have 90 seconds. fallin: there is nothing more important in creating a highly skilled educated workforce and education is critical of oklahoma's future prosperity. but the first thing we have to do when we took office is to bring prosperity back into oklahoma. as i mentioned, we had a 500 million-dollar budget shortfall. we've gone through a national recession. we were broke and i promise i was going to create jobs so we could fund education. i've been proud over the last four years that we've been able to increase funding to the tune of 150 million new dollars for k-12 education plus also adding the new money for higher education and career technical in the state. along with this, you must also

have high academic standards and also have accountability. you must expect what you inspect and the standards are one of the top three are used in a top of your stomach sure the schools are accomplishing the goal and that is to make sure that children are getting a high-quality education. that's why we did find ending the social promotion in oklahoma making sure the children can read at the grade appropriate level and we also make sure that their parents in the communities know how the schools are performing and if they are falling down the job to be to help them to do better because they deserve nothing less than a quality education in oklahoma. the next question will come from the deputy director managing editor and his question will be directed to governor fallin. >> moderator: oklahoma ranks seventh among the reliance. more than 43 cents of every

dollar the state spends tons from the federal government. which federal dollars to using our permissible to accept and which ones are not? please explain the rationale. fallin: of course oklahoma taxpayers pay the taxes that go into the federal government. that's the way that democracy and the united states was set up but there were times that we receive federal funds that might actually hurt oklahoma or set us back. i will give you a couple ideas and examples of that. one of the things we work hard on and i had the chance to serve on the transportation committee was to make sure that oklahoma got a fair share of funding on the gas tax sent to washington so we could build better roads and bridges and we've been able to reduce the purges by 34%

because we've been able to get more of the funding back for the state. certainly medicaid dollars and medicare dollars are always important to the state of oklahoma, social security dollars come education dollars begin sure we have control over the education standards and policies. >> thank you very much. we have seen quite a bit on this on selecting certain federal funds which are good but good at but then demonizing other programs. money that has been paid by oklahoma through the taxpayer dollars going to washington, d.c. bureaucrats that money should come back to use. when we talk about transportation funding we need to work hard to make sure the money comes back because we've seen the quality of the road and the problems we are facing with purges the governor indicated medicaid. why not look at the expansion? why not look at the fund that would address 180,000?

that fund would address those individuals who are working. earning the minimum wage jobs it is important to make sure that the money that goes into washington, d.c. comes back. we also lost the flexibility with education because the governor's regions refused to make the no child left behind behind waiver by addressing those as workforce ready. and at and then the board members that the governor appoints to the state department of education also refused to certify those as workforce ready. that hurt the public schools. the policies that we've seen in the fallin administration have damaged and we need to turn that around. >> thank you. the next capitol bureau chief of the oklahoma news okay and his question will be directed to representative dorman. >> moderator: oklahoma there

is poorly on a number of measures of public health including preventable hospitalizations, drug overdose, death, obesity, violent crime and children in poverty. hundreds of thousands of people lack medical coverage. what will you do to help with these problems? >> as i pointed out i think we must maximize the opportunity to bring the federal funds. oklahoma paid into washington, d.c. we must bring those back for oklahoma. the hospital association has shown numbers that say between 12 to 36 hospitals across the state of oklahoma will either either shut down or reduce the service significantly. that means people could travel up to 40 or 45 miles or for some emergency situation. we must work to keep those hospitals open. i'm tired of oklahoma being at the bottom of the list and often we've heard mississippi.

we moved to make it up the charts and must improve on the equality of life. we must make sure they have access to healthcare and expand opportunities through telemedicine to make sure that it's opportunity comes in those areas so that they will have access to the best quality of care. we must work to make sure that they are located all over the state and we must provide opportunities for the students to become doctors. david summed it up perfectly when he became the president of the university of oklahoma we had a scene about 50% of the state funds going to education through covering the cost for students to be in school. when it became the president was up 33%. today it is in the teens teens and a specialty program is 7%. that is unacceptable. >> on a number of measures of public health including the

preventable hospitalizations, drug overdose death, obesity, violent crime in the children in poverty hundreds of thousands of people lack medical coverage. what would you do to help with this? >> that is a very good question. first of all health is very important to the future because if we do not have a healthy workforce when we don't have healthy families that hurt oklahoma. there hurts our prosperity as a state. launch the comprehensive statewide health improvement plan and i'm happy to report oklahoma is in perfect health rankings in many different areas we reduced the amount of stock they could smoking and reduced children that have died, child mortality. we also worked very hard to focus on obesity. you might have seen just last week the most valuable player in the finder team was able to join the launching a statewide

program to talk to the schoolchildren in the state of oklahoma about how to manage the exercise and interest in which we think is very important. as far as medicaid expansion in the state, we certainly are very concerned about those that don't have health care services or access to health care system to me very concerned about the premium cost. but we also know that if we were to expand obamacare in the state of oklahoma and medicaid, it would cost the state over the billion dollars which would take away from education infrastructure and the corrections were other topics like that. we have seen the obama administration and affordable health care plan removes a huge amount of money from medicare which goes directly to the overall hospitals. i by the way the time clock stopped there. >> moderator: we are working to make sure that works but you hit your time mark perfectly. thank you. the next question is from rachel hubbard and that will be once again tactics to governor

fallin. >> moderator: oklahoma income tax brings in three out of every $8 of revenue that we have seen incremental cuts over the last ten years and more specialized tax credits. at the same time the fee for public services such as drivers and licenses have increased close to $200 million. some it is a politically unpopular issue but what would you do to reform oklahoma's tax code? one of the things we should do in oklahoma is to have one session dedicated to the state budget and have the next session dedicated to the legislative policy. what i find is that there are a lot of people who are new to the legislature that don't quite understand all the different finances in the state. it's complicated and difficult to deal with and it would help us all be able to focus on the finances of the state. one of the things i've advocated is that we continue to lower the income tax and the state of

oklahoma, something that representative dorman said it's meaningless, but i do feel even letting people keep more of their hard-earned money. it helps the economy and hope the family and helps us be able to balance between being able to apply for the state government, yet also generate strong vibrant economies that create jobs. as far as the fees and the different taxes and different things i asked the legislature to look at the different exemptions. they don't create wealth or jobs or stimulate economic growth in the state then we can look at possibly removing some of those and i propose that a couple of years ago we had a bout of exemptions and great incentives that create jobs but we also have some that we need to look at to make sure they are doing what they are intended to do. >> i'm glad she followed my

leadership and as i called for the session several years ago to do the budget session one year and then the switchover to doing a policy session because not only do we need to put the time into the budget but we also must be thoughtful on the policy. legislators rushed through policies we often have to create new bills to fix the problem. that is something we require more thought and insight from the legislators. we must look at the tax structure. oklahoma's tax structure is antiquated. we look at the municipalities. schools operate on property taxes. the state operates on the income tax as you say we must look at the structure and make sure that it's fair. we have seen what happens and we are writing the beneficiary of the wonderful time in oklahoma that allows the four individuals to reap those from the energy production but with every boom there will be a bust and we must work to prepare for that. we've made sure that the state

savings account and rainy day fund is solidified right now. that's been through the action to make sure that we've been responsible but i want to point out some of the tax policies championed by my opponent. she promoted a property tax increase to help build storm shelters and schools against the views. she also promoted in the income tax change. we must be thoughtful and spend time to review those. >> moderator: the next question will be directed to representative dorman. >> moderator: most state agencies received a cut in their appropriation this year. for many of us the latest in a series of cuts over the last several years. since 27 the percentage of the total tax collections that go to the the state's main operating account, the general revenue fund had jumped from 55% to 48%. what do you say to people that

have seen services that they and their families need eliminated or reduced or jobs cut while the state is spending increasing amounts of tax dollars on dedicated spending including tax credits and incentives? dorman: we have seen a growth of output into effect of the largest budget in state history with $7.2 billion but we also also pasted my hundred $80 million shortfall that was a problem because we have to find a way to cut those services. the department of corrections right now is operating at 53% staff levels. the council said those employees are fine. that is incorrect they are in danger every single day when they go to work because the staffing levels are dangerously low grade we've seen the problem by not providing a pay raise and giving them the opportunity to earn a decent living. we must go through and make sure that these agencies have the proper resources.

i think we should go through and save the fund is in the agencies not in the commission under the department of tourism as was provided by my opponent on the first day of the session. we must make sure the resources are in place and responsible for the tax payer dollars. that is how we will get more money into the education system. we must provide those resources to make sure that teachers have the resources in the classroom, to make sure the employees were safe whatever their job might be and make sure we have the best roads possible to drive on in oklahoma. >> thank you governor have 90 seconds. fallin: we certainly did see a difference in the revenue that we thought would be coming this here because so many have been taken off the top through legislation that the but the legislature has passed and it is through we'll make it $46 to be

able to reorganize the spending on things like education, transportation, correction, health and public safety and that's one of the things i've been talking to voters those which are about and pushing them to change. we need to do a thorough review of all of these exemptions into the money off the top so that we can prioritize that money and put it back into the things that make a difference in oklahoma to grow the economy and improve education and the quality of life. governor dorman did vote against and one of the things i promised as i was granted a government more efficient and effective and find ways to eliminate government waste. we do to consolidate the different commissions out of 600. yes we did that. so we could put it back into education and by the way i did

put 150 million where he proposed only putting in the franchise tax which would put 35 million into education so twice the amount of what he proposed. we also did an audit of the department of corrections and we have added new money to the department. spec i apologize we are having difficulties with our time clocks. if we can bear with it. fallin: at least it's rad. i appreciate that. >> moderator: week at the time mark. the next question will be coming from rick and will be directed to governor fallin. >> moderator: oklahoma incarcerates more than most states in the country at the crime rate remains high. oklahoma began the justice reform initiative that didn't fund it largely or adhere to the findings. do you have a plan for reducing the high incarceration rates? fallin: absolutely and if you

would read you would know that. one of the things i did is bring on a harvard fellow that spent a lot of time i think over 500 hours looking at a reinvestment act in the present system along with the audit's i asked the auditor to do. one of the things that i've always been consistent would with have to be smart on crime and tough on crime and we have seen some conditions that reinforce why we want to be tough on time time for but the justice reinvestment act gives us a way to help step down people coming out of the correctional system and also help with being able to buy it knows what the issue is. that's why you put me that $17 million into the substance-abuse service in the state and why you've also seen a

push on the direct quote so that we can hope could hope for is that of the substance-abuse issue to once again get the prisoners and the prison system versus those that may have a substance abuse problem or maybe have a mental health issue we can steer them to the mental health department said those are the things we've been working on as far as defending itself. we did a million dollars into corrections and we are working on the reimbursement act. >> moderator: you have 90 seconds. dorman: thank you very much. my opponent's memory is a little hazy because the reinvestment initiative was passed by a republican from her home area originally and that is the promise that we would reinvest the dollars in the public sector to make sure that what was wasted and corrections would be turned around to public safety. that was passed that after a

less than a year many of the reforms were appealed by the new speaker speaker and that was unacceptable. i want to thank my brother-in-law used to be the head of the prison ministries for the southern baptist convention and we have had many discussions on this. we spend too much money locking up people that we are mad at and not the people who are truly the criminals that we are afraid of. we must work to do a better job and provide opportunities for rehabilitation. we've gotten away from the term corrections because we are not correcting behavior. the third highest rate of incarceration for oklahoma are basically for anyone in the nation the number one incarceration rate for women these numbers are unacceptable. we don't have the worst people in the country. although if this goes back to

education. we must provide the funding for education. when we invest early we won't have to agree about the corrections. it's a crime we spend twice as much on convicts than allocations in the schools. >> moderator: the next question will be asked by rachel hubbard and it will be directed to representative dorman. >> moderator: in the past few years will also issues ranging from tax credits to abortion to the repeal of common core have had the constitutionality challenged. some argue it could be spent on other things. what is the role of the governor in the constitutionality of the laws that you sign. >> certainly any bills that come across my desk the number one thing i will look at is the constitutionality of the language and make sure that the dollars are spent wisely. we can't continue to waste on