quorum call:

mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: if we're in a quorum call, i ask that it bees dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: i ask seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president.

last week, the house of representatives voted for the 53rd time to repeal or undermine all or aspects of the affordable care act. this is beginning to be a broken record. i was in the house of representatives for a period of time, so i got the privilege on voting on 30 or 40 of those different pieces of legislation. republicans, of course, shut down the government a year ago because of their pique over the health care law. there are those that still have a desire to shut down the government again. one of our colleagues said the other day that they were hopeful that amongst republican priorities, should they increase their numbers in the senate this fall, would be once again to repeal the health care bill. it's a story we've heard over

and over again, despite an absolutely overwhelming array of data points that tell us only one story, and that is that the affordable care act is working. i don't deny that my colleagues can come down to the floor of the senate or the house and tell stories of people who have had poor interactions with the health care system, in fact, people who have had poor interactions with the affordable care act but those are stories, data and information tells us something fundamentally different. now, the very least, i'm glad that our republican colleagues say that they're still focused on this very vague idea of repeal and replace, but here's the problem -- we've had 53 votes in the house of representatives to repeal the law and not a single vote to replace it with anything of any substance. so it's one thing to say that

you want to replace the health care law, it's another thing to actually put together a plan to do it. credit to three of our republican colleagues here in the senate. they're the only ones that have outlined any alternative. it's only an eight-page summary, but it's important for people to know what it would do. it would allow insurance companies to go back to their old ways of imposing annual limits on coverage, to charge women more than men, provides little coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions and effectively charges millions more by capping the top exclusion for health care benefits. it's just an eight-page summary but not pointing the way to a much better reality for thousands of americans. and, frankly, republicans aren't listening to what the american people are telling us about this. over and over again, polls tell us that the american people don't want this law repealed. they want changes and so do democrats, and republicans, but they don't want it repealed

and a recent poll from bloomburg which i think is the most recent on it found that two-thirds, two-thirds of americans, want the new law either to be left alone entirely or given the chance to work with small improvements. that's the reality of where people are in this country. and why is there growing support for the law, why is there diminishing support for repeal? because 10.3 million americans as outlined by "the new england journal of medicine" now have insurance that didn't have insurance prior to this law. the uninsurance rate amongst 18-64-year-olds which is our target audience, fell from 21% in september, 2013, to 16% in april of 2014. i want to say that again. in a six-month period of time, a six-month period of time, the uninsures rate in this country

dropped by 5 percentage points. that is an absolutely stunning achievement, and there is only one reason for it, the affordable care act. the people that have this insurance are using it. according to the commonwealth fund, nearly two in three newly covered consumers who went to the doctor or filled a prescription said they would not have been able to afford or access those services if it weren't for the new coverage. i'll talk for a moment in a minute or so about what's happening when it comes to rate and health care expenditures. but the theory of the case was this -- that if you get people insurance that they're going to use it for preventive coverage rather than wait until their illness is so serious they go to the emergency room, requiring much more expensive interventions. bad for them but bad for the

taxpayers and ratepayers as well. we're seeing record low rates of increase in health care spending, premiums for the first time in probably my lifetime are stable from year to year. that's because the theory of the case is actually working out in practice, people are getting insurance, they're using preventative coverage, they're not getting as sick, health care is costing less. the kaiser family foundation says that in 16 major cities they surveyed, families will pay less on average to enroll in the health care exchange in 2013 they -- 2015 than they did in 2014. i'm not going to say they're going to pay a low rate of increase from 2015 to 2014, they're actually going to cost less. the cost are going to be real in real dollars than they were in 2014. these -- i'll talk about connecticut in a second but we are an example of that trend

line. it's not just the exchange that's stabilize. employer-sponsored coverage has stabilize as well. i get it, there are outliers here, there are examples where employers are still passing -- health care insurers are still passing along big increases to employers. so the information i'm giving you is the average across the country but there are always outliers on the high side but also on the low side but here's what kaiser says as well. their study says the average premium for family coverage through employer-sponsored coverage -- care increased by 3% in 2014. tying 2010 for the slowest rate of increase on record. the history of recordkeeping for employer sponsored premiums. that's the reality of what's happening. more people have coverage, and

spending, health care spending, is at historic low. medicare's 2019 budget is about $95 billion less than it was projected to be four years ago. $100 billion a year we're saving on just medicare alone. put that on top of all the money that's being saved through relatively low rates of increase on exchanges. that $100 billion just to give you some perspective, because i know it's hard to get your head wrapped around what it means to save a hundred dollars, a hundred dollars is greater than the total amount of money that we spend as a country on unemployment insurance, welfare programs, and amtrak combined. it's a lot of money to save. as a government. and quality is getting better, too. because that's what this is really about, is delivering better quality of life, longer

life expectancy to consumers. hospital readmissions, you go no in for a surgery, go back home and got to come back in, dropping like a stone. hospital-acquired infections, one of the leading causes of death in this country, dropping precipitously. costs are getting lower, more people have insurance, quality is getting better. here is the connecticut story. so we've dropped the overall insurance rate in the country by 25%. connecticut has doubled that. we cut our insurance rate in half, 250,000 people in connecticut -- we are a small state. we're only a handful of people. connecticut has taken 250,000 people and put them into the ex-quhaings. a lot of my friends on the other side say, that's great.

those numbers are illusory because over time people aren't going to pay those premiums. they're just going to drop off the plans. here is connecticut's experience. 80,000 people signed up for private plans on the health care exchanges. 78,000 of them are still paying their premiums, about four or six months in. everybody is still paying their premiums. you know why? because it is largely affordable because people really need that health care. people love the exchange and their interaction with the new plan in connecticut. tomorrow the connecticut exchange will release data showing that about 83% of people who went through the exchange to buy private health care were satisfied with their experience. of those that went through the program to get medicaid expansion, over 90% were satisfied as well. and we're saving money. medicaid in kwo in connecticut,% lower than it was last year. we've cut our insurance rate by half.

we're spending less as a government. people are satisfied with it. and rates are stable. here's the three plans in connecticut who submitted rate increases on the exchange and at least for our biggest insurer they are also going to be the rates of increase outside the exchange. our biggest insurer, anthem, our blue cross, blue shield, rates are going down by an average of .1%. connecticut care is raising their rated by 3.1%. and heltdand healthy connecticus reducing their rates by 8.5%. the republicans have sort of moved the ball. they now say the way you judge is that health care rates are going down from year to year, not that you're controlling the rate of increase. but the affordable care act isn't succeeding unless rates are going down.

i heard my colleague from wyoming make this chamber about connecticut few weeks ago in which i was talking about rates go up by 1%. people have been used to 10%, 15%, 30% increases in premiums in connecticut. they are pretty happen with a 3.1% increase. that's because of the affordable care act. so there's all the data. i mean, there it is. that's just the tip of the iceberg. costs going down. more people have insurance. quality getting better. it seems like you open the paper every week and there's some new piece of good information. i get it. this thing needs to be better. this thing needs to be perfected. the law still has warts, and the senator sitting in the presiding officer's chair is leading the fight to make this law work even better for people. and i look forward to being

involved in that conversation. but that's where the conversation should be perfection, not repeal. and we're reminded again that if we're republicans were to win control of this body, at the top of their agenda would be this same, old fight, 53 different votes in the house of representatives over the past several years to repeal the law without any real tangible plan to improve it. this morning i met with a good friend of mine, wh who i've tald about on this floor before. but because she's in town, i want to talk about her one more time, and that's be bettyberger. betty is arguing for a lot of this inks to happen here, research funding at the top of the list. but she's also here to make a case to protect the affordable care act. years ago betty's family was

faced with a terrible choice when her son was diagnosed with cancer. in the one-week period of time that her family didn't have health insurance, her husband had a job, he switched jobs. in the one-week period of time between when he went from the first job to the second job, the diagnosis of cancer came down. it became a preexisting condition, not covered by the new employer. and betty's family was left to pay for their son's cancer treatments on their own. they eventually lost their home, they lost their savings, and they had to declare bankruptcy. unfortunately, betty's story is pretty familiar. half of all bankruptcy in this country are due to stories very similar to betty's, a mistimed illness at a point when the family didn't have insurance

results in them losing everything. the reality is that the affordable care act makes sure that betty'ty's story never haso be told again, that no family ever has to make the choice between declaring bankruptcy, protecting their savings, or choosing to care for a loved one. let's talk about making this bill better, but let's recognize that the data, the numbers tell only one story: that's that the affordable care act is working. i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor today, as republicans have come to the floor week after week, ever since the president's health care law was passed. now, i have many concerns about the way this health care law is impacting families in my home state of wyoming as well as families all across the country. in one state after another, people are feeling the devastating side effects -- side

effects -- of the health care law. president obama says democrats who voted for the health care law should, as he said -- quote -- "forcefully defend and be proud of the law." madam president, i heard earlier today that the kaiser family foundation -- and they are report being quoted. what they said is that premiums have gone up on average $3,500 from 2009 for family workplace coverage, plus the deductibles are higher. so premiums are up $3,500 since 2009 for family workplace coverage and the deductibles are higher, higher money paid out of pocket. the president of the united states said they would go down by $2,500 per family. nancy pelosi said they would go down for everyone. she was speaker of the house.

she was the one who said, first you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it. americans have found out what's in it, and they don't like it. people do not like what they see with the president's health care law. it continues to be very unpopular. so i ask, is the president really proud that families all across the country are suffering because of his health care law? and the many dangerous side effects that they're now having to live with? let's look around the country a little bit and see what the new headlines are bringing -- and there are new headlines every day. in virginia, a television station in charlottesville, wvir reported on what's happening there. last wednesday they had a report that said nearly a quarter million virginians will have to change their insurance plans this fall. the president said, if you like what you have, you can keep it. not in virginia. a quarter of a million virginians will have to change

their insurance plans this fall. it's because the plans don't include all of a very long list of things that washington mandates say have to be offered. so, even if people have an insurance plan that worked well for their family, that met their needs, the president and democrats in this body say, sorry ... you can't keep it. the president said, if you like your plan, you can keep it. what happened there? at least 27 democrats stood on the floor of the united states senate and said, if you like what you have, you can keep it. if you like your plan, they said, you can keep your plan. what happened? was this intentionally too deceive the american people? why are nearly a quarter of a million virginians then losing their insurance plan? the head of the virginia association of health plans says it's simple. he told the tv station, he said, "we're not allowed to offer those plans anymore."

the president said they could. now these people are told by the law they're not even allowed to offer the plans to people who want to buy it. it works for them. are the democrats in the senate willing to forcefully defend the fact that 250,000 people in virginia will have to buy new plans that they don't want, don't need, many can't afford? with all of these additional things that washington says have to be included. madam president, to me, that's a very expensive and unnecessary side effect of the president's health care law. but i.tit's not just your healte plan. people are concerned about keeping their plans, their hospitals that they go to in their own communityses. let's take a look at what happened in connecticut in a report that came out, "obamacare side effects." "hartford cure rant. five connecticut hospitals could leave anthem's network on october 1."

what about the people that go to those hospitals a this get their health care coverage that way? what are those people supposed to do? the president said, if you like your plan, you can keep yier plan. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. if you like your hospital, you can keep your hospital. what about those people who may be losing their hospital come october 1? here's another side effect of the law that's hitting middle-class americans in their wallet. it is the part of the law that sates workweek is no longer 40 hours. now it's just 30 hours. that's what the law says. people who are working part-time, have had their hours cut to below 30 hours, and they are a getting lower take-home pavement i hear about this in wyoming, hair about it from school district workers, from folks who have had their hours cut, who are having to get by with less pay because if they have their hours cut, their take-home pay goes down. another side effect of this health care law.

it's happening all around the country. in louisiana last week there was a report by knoe tel televisionn monroe. it said, 400 employees within lincoln parish schools -- people working within the school system are getting their hours cut in half. 400 workers, one school district, louisiana, half the hours, half the way. -- half the pavement the school board -- where did they put the blame? directly on the president's health care law. they said they can't afford the washington-mandated health insurance for all of their workers so they're cutting back on the hours for substitute teachers, cutting the hours for cafeteria workers, cutting the hours for custodians, for power professionals who work with the kids. is that what the president envisioned? envision is that when the president meant? is that the president's solution for health care making it harder for kids to get an education,

making it harder for teachers to teach one custodian told the station that it's depressing knowing his pay is about to be cut. he said, it's rough the way it is. why make it harder to survive? that's my question to the president of the united states and to senators who come on the floor to talk about the health care law. why make it harder to surjive? why, mr. president? you said that people should forcefully defend and be proud of this law? are you proud of that, mr. president? that's what i need to know. that's what the american public needs to know. is the president proud that these people are getting their hours cut in half because of his law and school districts are pointing to that as the cause? is the president proud he's making it harder for americans to survive? now, some people aren't just getting their hours cut. they can't get hired in the first place because of the health care law enforcement that's what one business owner said in an op-ed to "the charlotte observer" newspaper in

charlotte, north carolina. the op-ed was entitled "how obamacare jams a stick in my company's wheels." rodney pits who runs the southern h elevator company says he wants to hire more elevator mechanics for his business but he hasn't been able to hire anyone this year. why? well, he sthaits main reason is because of the costs associated with the health care law and all of the requirements of the health care law. he says, quote, "thousands of businesses in charlotte and in north carolina are in the same holding pattern. so people all across the country who want to work, won't get that opportunity because business us can't afford to take on all the extra costs of the president's health care law." that's an extremely destructive side effect of the law. it's hurting american families. this health care law is hurting our economy. every democrat in the senate

voted for this health care law. every one. where are the democrats willing to forcefully defend these alarming side effects of this health care law? is the president ready to go to north carolina and talk to this business owner? is the president going to say that he's proud that his health care law is keeping the businesses from hiring more people in north carolina and all across the country? this isn't the kind of health care reform the american people needed. it's not the kind of health care reform the american people wanted. people didn't want a law that forced them to get rid of the insurance they had and liked and worked for them and for their families. they didn't want a law that forced their local schools to cut the hours of custodians and part-time teachers, cafeteria workers, people who look after their children. that's not how you help people in a community. these are the tragic side effects of the president's

health care law. republicans are going to continue to talk about patient-centered reforms, reforms that get patients and people all across the country the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. we're going to talk about restoring people's freedom. freedom to buy health insurance that works for them, for their families, because they know what works best for them. not president obama. we're going to talk about giving people choices, not washington mandates. republicans are going to keep offering real solutions for better health care without all of these intrusive and intolerable side effects. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold your request. under the previous order, the under the previous order, the

later this week members expected to take up short term government spending bill and authorization for the president's isis plan. both of those are in the u.s. house. coming up later today a hearing on ebola outbreak and u.s. international response. med of allergy and infectious diseases testifies along with health workers that treated people infected with the virus. live coverage at the joint senate health committee will begin at 2:30 eastern. this from the "washington post." president obama will announce today that the u.s. military will take the lead overseeing what is called a chaotic and widely criticized response to the worst ebola outbreak in history, dispatching up to 3,000 military personnel to west africa in an effort that could cost up to

$750 million over the next six months according to senior administration officials. by the end of the week a general sent by u.s. african command will be in place in monorovia, liberia, the transmission rates are increasing exponentially to lead the operation called united assistance. >> this weekend on the c-span networks our campaign 2014 debate coverage continues friday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. live coverage of the arkansas governors debate with former u.s. house member, democrat mike ross, debating former administrator of the dea and former u.s. congressman, republican asa hutchinson. saturday night at 8:00, live coverage of the iowa republican governors debate with governor terry brand stat and iowa state senator jack hatch. sunday evening, general any beth martin, president and cofounder of tea party patriots is on "q&a" at 8:00. on c-span2, saturday night at

10:00 on booktv's after words, columbia university director of as very biologygy talks about life on earth and current debates how it began. sunday, mortgage tan storm, his experiences as member al qaeda and later his life as a double agent. on american history tv on c-span3, we'll mark the 50th anniversary of the warren commission, set up to investigate the assassination of president kennedy. on saturday at noon, council and staff members to the warren commission describe their participation on the warren commission. then on real america, 1964, two-hour special report detailing the warren commission's findings with anchors walter cronkite and dan rather. find the television schedule at c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us. email us at comments @c-span.org or send us a

tweet,@c-span with the hashtag comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> coming up next, sunday's nebraska senate debate. four candidates vying for seat of republican mike johanns is retiring. ben sasse are the republican and democratic candidates. recent "new york times" gives mr. sasse a 25-point lead. the debate took place in north platte nebraska. ♪ >> moderator: welcome to the final 2014 u.s. nebraska senate debate. presented by nbc news in cooperation with the nebraska broadcasting association. i'm bill kelly, with net news the moderator for tonight's

deflate. we're live at north platte high school with the four candidates on ballot for general election. democrat dave domina. non-partisan candidate jim jenkins, republican jim sasse, and independent non-partisan candidate todd watson. joining me is a panel of distinguished broadcast journalists from across nebraska. mike tobias from net news. jackie harms of knop-tv of north platte and connie williams. tonight's format is a little different than traditional candidate debates. there are no opening statements. the candidates had opportunity to record those earlier. find those on the net news facebook page. check it out. we'll have in depth discussions on four topics at times question each area, discussion will continue without timed answers and ordered questions. candidates will not be allowed to question each other or directly address their opponents. this format hopefully will cover

maybe not every issue for the voters but we hope it will provide more depth and substance on a handful of important subjects. get started our first area is u.s. involvement in foreign countries. first question is mike tobias from net news. >> thank you, bill. last two decades have seen u.s. military forces involved in different ways an coin flicks throughout the world. what is your criteria for the use of u.s. military resources in foreign countries and note an example where you would not have supported u.s. involvement? i believe first question goes to mr. dom that? dom anyone that. domina: thank you very much, mike. the wednesday to that question, recalls why we have the united states military. the purpose of the military is to identify and eliminate conflict away from our shores, at its lowest level of activity as early as possible. when the military is successful at that mission we don't hear about it.

when something breaks out that goes beyond that level, the objective is to contain it before it reaches our shores and heaven forbid if it were to happen, to repel it within our boundaries if it reaches the united states. so that is what our military is for. that is how it should be used. it should be used principles of war permit i had to be deployed intelligently and objectively. when we identify objective attainable and achievable and do it with the most economy, both of human resources and financial resources. you asked me to identify a time when i would not have favored involvement, and the answer to that is very difficult to identify. i think our involvement was premature when we elected to go to albania and bosnia. i think it was premature in the sense that we didn't assess the vacuum that would follow. we weren't sure what happened after that occurred. fortunately it worked out better than it might have, but i don't have any confidence that our entry was timely.

>> mr. jenkins. >> thank you, and thanks to the host and viewers for looking at this debate and viewing this debate. this is important question. clearly if you look over the past several decade, three or four decades, many times our political leaders have gotten it wrong. for example, i believe that we should not have gone into iraq. i think that was an instance where we did not have a compelling economic threat, a compelling security threat and it took our attention away from afghanistan where the true threat was at that time. i believe that the united states is the indispensable leader of the world. we have to be fully engaged. we have to be focused now specifically on this war on terrorism, which is morphing around the world but i think that it is important that congress and the president develop more of a bipartisan approach to these issues.

for example, right now, you will notice that congress has sort of standing on the sidelines, waiting for the president to make a move. the president should make a move but i think it is important that congress get involved. so this is my suggestion. we need to make sure that as we engage, that we don't engage without coalitions, without working with other countries and we need to build coalitions like we did in the gulf war and we need to make sure there is a direct, imminent security and economic threat to our country. >> moderator: mr. sasse. sasse: thank you for the question and thank you to net news and to the nebraska broadcasters association for hosting us tonight. the first duty of the federal government is to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. as you travel the state and talk to nebraskans, they know war is horrible thing. we need to be clearly resistant going to war whenever possible but at those times where the use of military force is required, they want much more clarity

about moral leadership around the world, about why the u.s. engages. so to part of your question about the criteria, there has to be definable u.s. national security interest at play. so a good example of a place where we didn't need to make military action would be bosnia or take a more current one, we made the right choice thus far to not be engaged in the ukraine but should talk about why putin is on the march. putin is on the march because the u.s. doesn't have any clarity around the world about where we act to support our allies. our allies need to trust us and our enemies must fear us in ways that putin and russia no longer do. this goes back to the vacuum over the course of recent years where we made promises to poland at czech republic we would deploy abm missile systems to get ukraine and other countries after the fall of the wall and the end of the soviet union to have nuclear materials returned back to moscow. we didn't keep the commitments to deploy the abm systems.

nato was weakened because of this and putin has been able to march. this is not a problem you can fix after the fact. we should have been clear to keep our commitments to the allies at the frond end where u.s. national security interests were implicated. >> i think we need to go back to look at the constitution and in the preamble it outlines the five basic needs of government and, we're called to insure that the domestic tranquilty, and i think military has a part to play in that aspect. and the third job of government is to provide for the common defense. we have gotten away into too many offensive wars. this is caused a lot of harm to our country. i think we need to go back to look at the constitution and understand when those two things are brought under the microscope, that should dictate how we act. furthermore in the constitution, we were not to raise money for armies for more than two years at a time. we forgotten that rule as well. so we are in continual offensive

engagements. and yes, we must look at our national interests but the oath we take is not to defend us from threats foreign and domestic. it is to defend the constitution from threats foreign and domestic. and that is requires a look at five main functions of government. so yes, we need to look at our national interests. we need to care about the well-being of our citizens but we must look back to our constitution and examine, does this meet the criteria for the defense of this nation? obviously with the current threats at play, with actual threats on our people, yeah that would probably qualify. but we must look at the constitution for general framework and guidance first. >> moderator: quick follow up i heard this from the other three. give me an example when you would not have sported u.s. involvement in a foreign country. wastson. iraq. we were misguided engaging in

that war. >> moderator: gentlemen, any concerns with the previously engagements? >> i will mention one if i may. we all have concerns about our previous engagement in iraq. the question is, as i understood it, required that we put ourselves in a digs-making position at time of entry into the conflict. at time of entry into the conflict in iraq we all thought we had a solid reason to go into iraq because the president of the united states told us we did. we only learned later that wasn't true and we went, and we learned it wasn't true, we all learned entry into iraq was a questionable mission. i would also say this. our past involvements that are characterized as offensive wars, are intelligent wars. as a veteran i can say we don't want to fight defensive wars. we want to be on offense. so we're never on defense.

>> moderator: i believe our next question for mr. jenkins comes from jackie harms. jenkins. >> as violence continues in the gaza strip what is policy with israel? jenkins. i would add kurds is list of people for these countries of the kurds could not have their own country but we need to find nations and make sure that we're working with nations that will support us, given how tumultuous the middle east is? and so, i believe that the our policy needs to be support i have of israel? on the other hand i think it is very important to understand we had decades of involvement in the middle east, constant peace missions, trying to resolve the issues between palestine and hamas and the plo and israel.

and no one has had very much success. so, my view again is that we support israel but we need to go very carefully in terms of entertaining link ourselves in the -- entertaining gelling ourselves in the middle east and israel. >> moderator: mr. sasse? sasse: we should stand on the side of israel. there is mo moral equivalency of hamas and israel. they hide their missile launch sites behind women and children in schools and hospitals. israel is our closest ally in the region. they believe in the rule of law. thee believe protecting rights of religious minorities and stands ultimately for peace and freedom in the region. as prime minister netanyahu said we all know if hamas would lay down their weapons there would be no war and if israel lays down its weapons there would be no israel. right now we have a moral vacuum in our national conversation that this administration is leading and we act as if there

is moral equivalency between two sides. nebraskans don't believe that and americans don't believe that. we should be supporting israel clearly in terms of an international community that regularly wants to prevend counting bodies on each side somehow so some sort of a moral argument. we should stand with the nation that believes in rule of law and defense of its minorities. >> moderator: mr. watson. >> we should stand 100% with israel unequivocally. they're our best ally in the middle east. it is disturbing the lack of foreign policy leadership we're seeing right now. i think u.n. resolution for israel went neutral with putin who they are looking to for leadership on the international scene and that is quite disturbing. with regards to hamas, i think the plo and hamas, they do not pet along. i think the plo is working offensively getting that group under control but hamas is unique in the fact that the alternative option to hamas

isn't there. it's a poor secular government where everyone struggles and the only alternative option is hamas. if we can find an alternative secular option that comes to power i would think it would be in everyone's best interests to allow some economic development or thriving of the people there. and once people start doing well they will embrace the secular leadership. but again, we don't have a good alternative option in that area next to hamas. >> moderator: mr. domina. domina: without question we should stand firmly which is rail. it is the only functioning democracy in the middle east. it is our most reliable partner and votes in the united nations and has been since its creation. it is our most steadfast ally. we have never been asked to go to war to defend israel since 194. it has done that itself. it saves us billions of dollars by being in a place where we could have to have a dramatic

military presence without that ally. beyond that, i think we need to understand the geography that drives much of this conflict which is much, much a land and a land possession-driven conflict. palestine exists in three distinct, disparate, not contiguous, bodies of land. those three separate bodies of land have very different natural resources, very different assets, very different liables. -- liabilities. the golan heights has the water for most of the region including most of israel. we have to accommodate that to make sure israel and palestine can exist together. the only ultimate solution is a two-state solution. we must diplomatically support it. we must encourage israel to engage in peace talks bit. we must recognize that hamas will not participate effectively

in that conversation because it doesn't favor a two-state solution. it favors dominance. >> mr. jenkins, would you press the president to do more with israel? >> no, i wouldn't. i think right now that the more we do or seem to do, the worst things get. we seem to constantly interject ourselves into battles that, or conflict that we, that really is not resolvable. at some point, and i agree with dave, it's a two-state solution. and those two states at the end of the day, whatever the united states does, is not going to matter much if israel and hamas do not come to terms and lay down their weapons and or, not lay down their weapons but come to agreed upon cease-fire and some two-state solution. that is the solution. >> moderator: mr. sasse, you indicated that not enough is being done in support of israel. should the president be doing more unilaterally, even without the support of congress? sasse: no. the congress wants to act.

there is bipartisan support for bob menendez, the democratic senator from new jersey has a resolution to make clear to the world that u.s. foreign policy will never allow iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. the most pressing issue in the middle east, besides isis the iranian nuclear quest. bob menendez from new jersey, wants to bring a resolution to a vote in the senate that would get 80 votes. president obama and harry reid will not bring it to a vote. we don't need more unilateralism in this congress and we need congress to exercise its authority. harry reid will not allow it to come to a vote. it is a broad bipartisan issue. mod mr. sasse, next question from miss williams. >> do you support president obama's strategy to go after isis in iraq and syria and includes increased airstrikes and more military advisors in

iraq? if not, what do you suggest? sasse: first of all we need to take actions against isis and should have begun at least a month ago. i applaud the president for speaking to the nation on wednesday and outlining that but we don't need to speak with as nearly a muddled a voice as weir doing right now to the world. nebraskans know that war is horrible thing. we should be incredibly reticent to go but when military action is required we should be announcing to the world we'll do whatever it takes to win. we should not have long, parsed sentences ultimately did domestic political constituencies and qualify statements leaving our enemies wondering if we have the resolution we should have. isis a blood-thirsty terrorist organization that kills innocent women and children. isis must be eradicated and u.s. is obviously going to have to be the leader of that international coalition. we should bring along as many middle eastern allies into that quest as we can. >> moderator: mr. watson. >> i agree. i support increased airstrikes

on isis. they are very radical group that needs to be contained. i do think we need to start having the conversation on an endgame. i personally do not believe the political structure is sound in iraq. i do not look for it to hold between the three warring tribes. i think ultimately it will settle into three different states of the so i think we is to be thinking in the long term, okay, we can eradicate them but then what? are we up for having a long-term presence in the area of substantial force? and this is a debate that we need to have as citizens. furthermore, you know, we haven't declared war since '42. that is congresses job. we need congress to step up and start declaring war instead of looking to the president for leadership. the president's job to wage it. it is congress's job to declare it. so again, i think we need to have conversations. we're mad right now. we're reacting just like we did in iraq and we need to be thinking three, four steps ahead as you would in chess. that is what everyone else is

doing around the world. we bounce back and forth between policy and policy and achieve no long-term results. that is the question i challenge to the american people. what kind of long-term presence are you willing to commit, have boots on the ground in the area? because i think that is the end game if we succeed in this war. >> moderator: mr. domina. domina: well i would encourage us to carefully assess and consider the entire region and recall how recently we heard of isis or isil. isis or isil is a splinter group off from call died. both al qaeda and isil are religious factions. they are extreme religious factions. they are not representative of the billion plus people who practice the religion they profess but don't practice. we should recognize they are a threat to their own people. they are already a splinter group. anybody who has studied war at all knows that one sign of

victory is division, dividing leads to conquering. they have already divided themselves. so we should act with clear objectives. i think that has been defined well by the president. we should act with speed and with surprise, and with decision. we should do it with as much economy of force as we can. that means send air force as much as we can and not people. we should test and strengthen the resolve of those who must minute taken the peace when our work is done. so the next time we are out of the region, which should be soon, the people who remain have the wherewithal, both by virtue of their commitment to their own nothing identity and their religious identity to provide for their own defense. those are essential things. i do not think this is a time for the united states to be engaged in any kind of petty criticism. i don't think it is the time for us to attack the president. i don't think that was

appropriate with the last president when it happened. when we're dealing with a threat to our national security, we act together, we accomplish the task together, and we succeed together, and we learn together. that keeps us together. >> moderator: mr. jenkins. >> well, certainly i support the president, the airstrikes. in fact, i think foreign policy is the one area that we all ought to understand how important it is as a nation that we come together. that partisanship stops at waters edge but unfortunately as we moved into this hyper partisan atmosphere, now it is more about simply critis seeing the president, no matter which president it is, and, taking positions that quite frankly are political and have nothing to do with the self-interests of our country. and so what would i suggest over in terms of going forward, i mentioned earlier how important

the kurds are to us. they have 115,000-person fighting force. those, that fighting force is one of the most effective in the middle east if equipped properly. i'm grateful we're now equiping them. i'm grateful france decided also to equip then. we ought to go work with the kurds because they have a stable economy, they have oil and they have a real desire to, keep isis from building a caliphate anywhere in the middle east. i also think we need to ask saudi arabia and pakistan, to stop funding the sunni terrorists which they have been. that has to be front and center. they have to come to heel on that. and finally, i think we have to all over the world ask our european allies and other allies, to step up and fortunately as we go forward we continue to allow our allies to stand on the sidelines. finally what i would say is that

you can not have a great foreign policy unless you have some sort of a team work between the president and congress and it is disappointing to me to see both republicans and democrats in congress standing on the sideline waiting for the president to act so that they can then during this election season, go in and criticize him. they need to step up and help take a position, help us develop the positions that are so critical in fighting the war on terror throughout the united states. >> moderator: thank you. we're going to move on. we want to remind our audience both on radio and on television, you're listening to nebraska's u.s. senate debate presented by net news in cooperation with the nebraska broadcasters association. we'll move on to the second topic, the global economy. that question is going to come from jackie harms of knop-tv, to start our discussion. jackie? >> mr. jenkins, i believe you're first in this category.

every nebraskan turns on internet we're purchasing things from great britain, we're buying things from china, we're wondering is your data safe. what do we do to protect the american entrepreneurs, our consumers, people on internet every day from hackers and security breaches? >> it's a complicated issue but clearly as we moved into this, as we have led the world in developing and the internet technology, avoid right now, for example, you take the top 20 out of the top 25 computer companies, technology companies in the world, the united states is leading. it is the one great example of our entrepeneural society really leveraging our resources and that includes government research. it includes all the private technology, the investment banking capital that has gone into that. so it is very critical that we as a, both a government and private companies step forward and do everything that we can to

make sure that this very important economic system, this internet and technology system, is protected. and, once again, i hate to keep bringing this point up, but if you look at congress, congress has not made this a priority. congress literally, over the last two or three years, four years, has not come up with a comprehensive program for, working with private companies to insure internet technology safety and it is again a great example of what gridlock, and dysfunction in congress, the two parties, unwilling to prioritize, are undermining our economic situation here in the united states. . .

we know that we have great challenges from chinese privacy hacking and international property violations and we need to have u.s. leadership in those conversations. it does require bipartisan participation but it also requires understanding that the future of the world of big data needs to be led in diverse and pluralized by silicon valley in the high-tech centers that will rise up across the nation

including nebraska, rather than being centered in washington, d.c.. washington won't be able to lead this change. we need the u.s. economy as we have over the last two and a quarter centuries. at the same time, as the u.s. does try to provide a framework in these conversations, we need to be sure that we are celebrating the fourth amendment. for the american citizens rights to privacy in and guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures require a lot more diligent and oversight in the congress than we've seen in many issues of the nsa spying on the american people including the most recent yahoo! data over the last three days. so there's a lot of work to be done but it has to be centered on american civil society and ingenuity of 310 million writers creative people to be led by bureaucracies in washington in a letter we. >> but two distinct areas that one, we need to stay out of the market will fix the problem.

we have leading financial institutions that have a big vested interest in the security of these issues. i don't see why we need to get the government involved in the protection of the economy and security of money. they've been doing this quite well for some time. if you're talking on the issues of government security as well as the areas we need to address the most of the security of the data from an intelligence perspective, we continue to throw money. but having the leading edge is imperative on the military sector so our government needs to be involved in that specific area. but it is foolish to say let's have the government on the monetary security in the private sector since the beginning of time business owners have made sure they held on for the government to step into that arena is foolish and i would concur on the fourth amendment as well that we talked about google and the wiretapping they

didn't know why the government indicated and told their security systems to a new level as well as other it data services. so, we are leading in this category because we learned from actual experience. so the private sector is quite well. >> with all due respect i don't think the question has been addressed by any of the three previous speakers. when money moves in a transaction on the entrance between entrepreneurs and moves between private sources, one bank to another bank. it doesn't move on the federal reserve wire. it moves on the internet system owned principally by mastercard and visa. the reason we have insecurity is that we don't have government standards that require those banks to establish the thresholds they must meet for which they are monitored. we have some bank examination for safety in that area that we but we don't have a standard

that regulates mastercard and visa and we have allowed all of those transactions to go off the federal reserve wire. here's what i think we could do to get attention focused on this problem. first and foremost, protect american lunch at american lunch at the numbers by allowing transactions on the internet to be taxed. that will get a government involved. second, establish a set of standards and third provided that the banking system of the united states of america the federal reserve system is the path for moving money. that introduces a whole array of new crimes that are not now prosecutable under the existing system. forthcoming expand the existing crimes and violations that occur in the fifth remember we are never going to move entirely to the knowledge economy. food and water will always be the most important products including the food produced in nebraska, and it's foolish to think or say otherwise.

>> let me give you an opportunity to respond when we are talking about enforcement of even existing walls are you saying that federal law is sufficient to deal with cyber crimes especially those that are coming from the foreign countries? that no additional legislation needs to be passed? stomach there are clear and evil thing categories of exposure both from commercial transactions and for cyber terrorism. we are fortunate to have it in our state and there's a lot of investments the u.s. needs to be making to combat cyber war and cyber terrorism and surely there is additional categories needed at the level of trying to figure out how the federal government will come in and set standards for every aspect of these transactions i would point your viewers to the study that came out of the inspector general to weeks ago the federal government has now spent in the course of the last five years $26 billion

of american taxpayer money to try to promote health information technology, something that is needed and if the federal government tried to to delete from the center it turns out that their standards don't work and the different systems that we subsidize with u.s. tax dollars are actually not interoperable. >> is the federal law sufficient? >> i think we need to change the attitude in government. yes i think that primarily it is this attitude of the government. it's the wrong approach. we need partnerships and months not to treat people in the private sector as if they are already criminals messing up. we need a partnership format and that is one thing that works well in the state by and large the regulators work with the business to get better. i think on the federal level is accusing that you already do not know what you're doing and it is the type of attitude so we need more of a partnership to help

move us forward. >> the next witness is going to be from pauline williams. >> expansion of free trade. some say we should have open trade with everyone in the world, globalization is good. nafta, the wto should be expanded and made less restricted while others would say americans should buy from other americans and the government should restrict trade with any country that costs the u.s. jobs were created trade deficit. where do you stand? >> i am in favor of free trade out of poverty and almost any other single variable over the last two millennia for the free trade benefits under are free and fair rules and obviously we know many countries do not play fair. we could have multiple examples by south korea and china and other nations on the u.s. in ways that harm nebraska.

they are doing wonderful things in that community and we suffer because of dumping that happens. the u.s. needs to act with a steady hand in support of the international organizations that try to investigate and prosecute those that would perpetrate attacks on free trade regimes but overall it is the right choice for the people of the world, for the u.s. and in particular for the poor in the middle class and it's important to recognize that nebraska as we are living in the most productive geographic area in the world where agriculture is the most productive time in the history of agriculture benefits greatly from the foreign markets for the agricultural exports so we should continue to celebrate and promote those regimes. >> you see every country doing quantitative easing to increase exports around the world and quantitative easing is hurting the population.

the value of the dollar we are not able to buy what we used to buy that's why i'm not a fan of the federal reserve is command private banking institution and on the backs of the people. we have a fundamental -- we have a lot of people struggling in the country to make ends meet. it's to get the manufacturing base going. in the damage that happened in that country there are lots of supremacy is because they lost their manufacturing base. again i'm strongly against the minimum wage because that isn't the way to do it on the demand of labor and get them through the market up to that level of support themselves a equal to be

and 80 was b. and c. and d. pushes closing the borders so there is a demand for labor. >> the objective should be that the trade balance is neutral. we trade as much in as we do out. this is the 40th consecutive year of the u.s. trade deficit so that's the first thing. all of the trade rules should be reciprocal but includes environmental rules, labor, safety standards, inspection rules and all that go into compliance with come strutting the united states. if the playing field isn't level it is unfair. there should be no currency manipulation. the largest foreign trading partners are regularly underpricing their currency so they can buy u.s. dollars cheap.

we should have a prohibition against that and every trade agreement and we should recognize it's hurt the united states because it doesn't contain the guarantees that i've just mentioned. free trade has cost jobs, driven down the standard of living, drag up the taxes and put pressures on the national budget. it would have to have fair trade before it can be free and it hasn't been. those are essential things. >> first of all i would just say that the trade environment that they spoke about his into possible. if you made everything perfectly equal, there would be no trading done. we live in a messy world. i would like to see fair trade and make sure there isn't anti-dumping. i would like to see that there

isn't currently manipulation. but the fact of the matter is if you were going to get anything done in business or in the world, you're going to have to come to some compromises and continue to negotiate through those compromises. the fact of the matter is when you look at the countries that have the poorest economies in the world, it is the countries that are not trading. they do not have to trade with the united states or north america. the fact of the matter is nafta has strengthened canada, mexico. i in for the free trade i'm involved in agriculture. if you look at 1998 we had 2% of the cattle going out of the country and now we are a perhaps 13 or 14%. we now have record cattle prices. without that trade in corn and soybeans in ethanol everything is treating this economy.

so i understand that we do need to work for fair trade to the best we can but there is no such thing as a perfect solution that dave is mentioning. shouldn't allow us to get into way of continuing to negotiate free trade agreements over the world. >> we are going to go to the next question. this will be from mike. >> before the debate we did ask the audience for suggestions on a few questions and this comes from john. according to amr enzi forecast china is investing in research development at a much faster pace than the nation that means china's investment in medical research can research on defense, energy and other national priorities will surpass the united states in just eight years. what if anything will you do about this if you are elected and what can the senate to do? thank you. it's a good question and it really addresses fundamentally what kind of a country we want to have. if we are committed to being

entrepreneurial, if we are committed to being innovative, then we have to commit resources to the united states of america, the funds of the public to research and development that isn't purely a private-sector function. the land grant universities were built on the premise that all research would be conducted at will be conducted at those institutions. we virtually have abandoned back in favor of people chasing land grant institutions. the second thing we have to do is encourage research. we live now at the time corporate merger after merger reduces the level of competitors in the marketplace to improve, and update. it's more pressure on research and development budget and it has emphasized the right-hand

side of the balance sheet and not not to the left hand side where the assets and income are and that is all a function only functional for a pickup or federal tax and the commitment to the value of knowledge. we need to return to that kind of commitment and recall for a few moments what we got out of what looked like a pointless venture to circulate a man in orbit around the earth. we need to be recommitted to re- committed to that kind of scientific experimentation. we have a two and a half trillion dollar shortfall in infrastructure. this whole state was built on infrastructure. the land grant university, the highway system nebraska public power communication systems, huge amounts of government research on agriculture. we have a trade group that helps us export one of the safest supplies in the world because of the infrastructure we put into

food safety. it's absolutely critical yet right now it is dissipating because you have people like my republican opponent and a staff who sign off on a pledge not to raise any taxes even though this nation has experienced over the last 12 or 15 years $6 trillion worth of deficit that was bipartisan and associated with spending on the war and it was a deficit going through one of the worst recessions in history and death because of mr. sasse being locked into one position he isn't willing to ask the american taxpayer to actually pay for some of that deficit, to pay for -- to put something towards that. he is willing to ask the american people to go out and sacrifice, but not sacrifice so that we can improve the deficit

and actually begin spending on some of those very important issues like infrastructure on our economy. >> mr. sasse? >> i'm not sure what i was about or would it have to do with the question. but here's the fact we underinvest in infrastructure and basic scientific research. one of the fundamental duties of the federal government is to invest in infrastructure investment and basic research for the interstate commerce and one of the main reasons that isn't happening right now is because washington has a bipartisan agreement about not telling the truth about the entitlement promising. it's true, guilty as charged i don't think the problem is that we tax too little. not in favor of the increases if i'm the only candidate in the race that believes the so be it. we do have problems that do not add up and we have 16 workers for retiree and we have 2.8. we need to do everything we can

to make sure the seniors that we are going to protect those currently on social security are near the retirement age but we should be telling the truth that people my age and younger 42 about the fact we need to be calibrate. >> on china and the research development. >> we have too little so that we don't have to reform the anti-hamas programs on the infrastructure. >> thank you very much. >> we need to look back to the constitution yet again and promote the general welfare in the constitution specifically called to invest in arts and sciences and we have again mismanaged our budget and we do not prioritize appropriately if science is kicked down the road but science of science is an important element of investing in the constitution so we can to promote the corporate welfare

and we have the direct handouts to companies and we need to work with our universities to find solutions so i think how we do play that money needs to change. i would've further we say we have a crisis in the stem education and they are statistically low in students in these categories and we have to look back and say we can invest more but we have the students available to take advantage of those investments? we have to work backwards and i don't believe education is a federal issue is a local issue but as a public figure we need to encourage our parents and individuals to really work with the schools and make sure there is a focus and make sure we have the personnel to create the new technologies that we need to

advance the societies. >> looking to our people it is we the people in the constitution to address the system. >> i want to remind the viewers and listeners that you're watching the nebraska u.s. senate debate presented by net news with the nebraska broadcasters association. i'm bill kelly and want to reintroduce the panel. joining our journalists of net news, jackie, and colleen williams. we are talking with the four candidates for u.s. senate on the general election ballot including democrats dave, jim jenkins, republican dan sasse and independent candidate watson. we are going to move forward on the third topic immigration. colleen williams of net starts to question that's going to go to mr. sasse. >> everyone keeps saying we

should secure our borders. what additional action can the senate take if you think this is a parody what you take it to secure the borders? >> thank you for the questions. obviously because the first duty of the government is to protect enemies foreign and domestic we don't have secure borders. there are 19 sectors across the gulf coast and the canadian border and because it doesn't have clarity about standard operating procedures and standard metrics they don't have the kind of parity that any corporation has about its operating divisions and with the progress looks like to be reducing the border crossings we have a crisis at our borders and we should also acknowledge that the particular crisis that's been on the mind of nebraskans over the course of the last three or four months is about the 55 to 65,000 unaccompanied minors and when they deal with that issue or see that they don't start with partisanship, they start as parents.

i'm the father of three little kids and worried about these kids want the problem to be solved. but it requires the president to state clearly the amnesty which is what ultimately creates the vacuum that is pulling so many to the border. so we needed the president on the fact that the borders are meant to be closed mouth open and the congress should be writing the immigration law cannot be unilateral action and we should have the customs border patrol agency that has sufficient congressional oversight so there's clarity about the metrics and procedures so it isn't a political button to turn texas into a blue or purple states that it's trying to be sure that the u.s. has the good of 310 million u.s. citizens. >> let's just start off we had a solution to secure the border in 1986. we failed to secure the border for the last 28 years with both

parties under control. the third of all to defend the constitution from those foreign and domestic is the common defense. we are talking about all these international engagements at the first priority is to secure the border. that's the biggest and closest definition to defense. furthermore, we have a crisis in this country for a lack of debate. i am very hard on harry reid. but you should be aware that the house will not debate 744 which is a very thorough bill and i doubt very many people have read or reviewed that bill but it should be debated. we need more of debate to find solutions and both sides are contributing to the problem. so i would say look at that and start debating it. i think reagan both the right framework to secure the border. it just was not executed. so we need to make sure as this

is one of the the core responsibilities in the appropriate funds and appropriate personnel allocated to the border to make sure it's secure so we can conduct the first order of business outlined in the constitution. >> i think we should recall we share interesting borders with two nations and we don't have much trouble on the canadian border so what is it about the mexican border that causes us to focus on this problem and talk about things that have never worked in the history of the human experience like building walls. walls don't work. it looks to me like the problem is that there is an enormous civil war going on in mexico driven by the drug cartel which is chasing the drug demand in the united states with the currency of the united states and with weaponry largely produced in the united states. one of the things we can do to help the mexican government is

to help dry up the demand for illegal drugs by recognizing that the demand that drives much of the controversy is within the united states. the second thing we can do to help secure the border is to recognize that when people are less desperate, they don't crash borders. they used lawful processes to apply for new opportunities. they go places peacefully to try to integrate the way many of our parents immigrated peacefully. but process has to be affordable and understandable and it has to be prompt. they come to the united states because they love our opportunities and committed no crime where they came from and have tried to live here without documents. it to do anything except for

focus on the voter security on the worker visa program which is outdated and antiquated and living out the solution for what to do with the 11 or 12 million illegal workers now in the country. all of them are connected. what mr. sasse doesn't appear to know is that 40% of all of the illegal immigration in the country is a result of people's overstating the visa program. so you cannot deal with the situation just by focusing on the border only. to secure the borders you have to get a compromise for democrats and republicans in the senate and the house and quite frankly we have a compromise in the senate and enough votes in the house to pass immigration reform. john boehner won't bring it up

to vote. the fact is that congress continues to delay and gridlock and the dysfunctional about this. george w. bush had an immigration program and the name of the republican party is supporting mr. sasse. so by not doing anything we do something and what mr. sasse approach is to not do anything by advocating only closing the border and not doing anything else on the other aspect. >> next question from ike. >> i believe mr. domina answered the question related to border security. on the pathway to citizenship in the united united states is legally if so what does this include antibody and if not what other action would you take and why. >> i like this definition called registered professional immigrants and it is a class

that can be defined and limited to what benefits we provide. we tend to have this no middle ground resident of some sort so we need another intermediary step and i think that's been involved in the wall right now so it can limit the benefits and no one has the right tomorrow. you're in this first stage before you get to the second stage so that is a good evolution of why the different class we need to work with the benefits that are much less so not everybody is instantaneously eligible tomorrow. once you sure you have five years of a good rack or etc.. so i think this two-step process may be a pathway to find a compromise between the two parties is that you can look at the benefits and the first step. >> i think i'm the only candidate running in 93 county

campaign working hard on the ground in all campaigns right now and the great news is what you hear across nebraska isn't a lot of division. you don't hear the same thing they do to repeat it could divide the people and so they begin their answers time after time. what you hear in the 93 counties in nebraska are people who believe that what we need to do is to be sure that the u.s. government is fulfilling its responsibilities first and responsibility first and then they want to move on to a whole host of other issues. knowledge economy and intellectual it workers from across the globe, certain kinds of conversations about the industrial programs into conversations about a pathway to legal status is what most nebraskans will tell you. we are a nation of immigrants and walls and we don't believe that you give people privileging jump the line but the conversation about the pathway to legal status as a conversation that nebraskans want to have been just don't

want the conversation until this clarity that washington has been first things first and that's what i've been advocating as well. there are many aspects that need to be tackled but you need border security before you can proceed. but then the conversation about the pathway is a conversation that nebraskans are open to but not citizenship and voting when you didn't come through the orderly process. >> first of all nebraska is impacted hugely by the inability to address this issue and the fact is that mr. sasse is not in compliance with the position that is being advocated for over 50 organizations around the state of nebraska. these are business organizations, faith-based organizations that covered the full range of the spectrum so when he says he's listening to people in 93 counties he is not listening to those folks that want comprehensive immigration

reform. he is to the far right on this issue and by being at the far right, mr. sasse is taking the position that will undermine the economy and undermine the forward progress on immigration. he will continue to advocate for gridlock which is where mr. watson pointed out the last two and a half decades. >> addressing the opponents the next question is going to go to mr. domina and that will be for jackie. >> children who crossed the united states of mexico unattended are now in nebraska. do you think these children should be allowed to cross the border and stay in the united states or should they be sent home? spinnaker they should be allowed to cross the border until there was illegal and adjudication about whether they are as they appear to be and claimed to be refugees. refugees not an immigrant and

that is a matter of settled law area they have treaties in the countries which the children have come into central america. we have signed the united nations and by divide the international law to which it subscribed into which it legislates. and for which we have voted. there is a definition of refugees. there is a legal procedure we agreed to administer we've agreed to administer as a recipient nation about how to deal with refugees and the children are entitled to the protection of the united states and welcomed the citizens of the united states at the two process of law before anything else on the discussion that happens. it was so bad after their mothers into their fathers were willing to and trust them to criminal elements to get out of their own neighborhoods. if that doesn't care at the heart of every american into the breast can and fight us to

engage in the womb of law and due process of the law we are a nation that has lost its soul. >> mr. sasse, your response? stomach at the southern border right now we can result the issues surrounding 55 to 65,000 currently unaccompanied minors. it would be a different circumstance if we had 1 million or 1.5 or 2 million unaccompanied minors at the border. the height of the central american violence appears to be 2011 and the height of the refugees into the certain categories of other unaccompanied minors are rising at the border is much more recent and according to the u.s. intelligence data center out of el paso, 94% of those kids dean interviewed at the border say that the primary reason is because they be be leaved as automatic amnesty and subsequently family unification. this is a tragedy they don't begin as republicans or democrats but people that love their neighbors and are worried about these unaccompanied kids

at the border. parents are sending this money to pay coyotes to transport their kids are doing something dangerous and we need the the president of the united states to go and speak unequivocally to central america and clarify that the u.s. does not have a policy of automatic amnesty and to stop. then we can deal with the problems and challenges of the 55 to 65,000 kids. >> i know god loves the kids very much. they like to talk about them in large groups, 55 to 60,000. these are individuals in the eyes of god and they all have different stories. the reason they create and ordain the family as a primary institution if we can get them back to a state and loving family or extended family and uncle, grandfather, grandmother, etc. i would say we need to get that reunified back at home with their family. if that situation is this situation is a violent situation or dangerous situation, i think

the president is to let the kids come to me and we need to find a solution to make sure that those kids have a good chance at life that are not endangered when we send them home. i wish we could have a blanket statement to treat 60,000 people, but we are all individuals and that's the way god made us and we need to care for his creation. >> we are ready to move on to the next segment and want to remind the viewers and listeners who are watching and listening to the senate debate here on net in cooperation with the nebraska broadcasters association. we move now to domestic issues and mike price of net starts the discussion. >> according to the latest poll, just 14% of americans have proven how congress is handling the job. this is lower among those that consider themselves people that pay close attention to national politics. you talked about this all of you in some way or another, you talk about this regularly on the

campaign, but i would like to hear specific examples of how you would conduct yourself and business as a u.s. senator to rebuild public confidence and what's happening in washington. >> again it's about treating each other as humans. i enjoyed the conversation that we have backstage. we were just talking. we talked about how our lives were doing. it's how you treat people and in building people up we demonize again, god's creation for political gain and selfishness, it's greed and ultimately it just serves the citizens of this country. they are our there are principles we need to stand strong on but i would argue 80, 85% of the issues we can work on do not violate the constitution and in my specific case they do not violate a moral code but i think 85% of those we can find agreement on and you're never going to win on everything if you get 65, 75% of what you're

looking for that's why it's being caught a pragmatic conservative i believe in moving pragmatic. we are not going to get there overnight. there's lines in the sand to get everything you want doesn't work as we've seen that ultimately i want to start with your original .85% are frustrated. the challenge is on the voter. why are we not changing facts why are we still listening to the money clicks why are we still listening to the propaganda? who is biting that? it is not you. it doesn't represent you. so i'm happy to be a conservative but i'm a populist conservative. i don't take the money or listen to the money because i care and we are going to move forward together. >> i think the answer to this is in part an attitude but it is in part identifying where the new united states senator can agree

with people in the opposing party and disagree with people on his own and do so intelligently and it's a matter of identifying problems of common interest and concern with our neighbors. south dakota and iowa will have new united states senators this year. we have enormous problems in the river affecting those three states. they will cost enormous amounts of money if we don't address a simple matter of the fact that it is -- that's something we can work on. we are trying to clean up from the 2011 flooded. that's something that you need a good new united states senators can work together on day number one and should. from there you go out to another issue and is subject and be careful to speak only when there's something to say.

it's to be thoughtful, informed informed, interested in all points of view willing to accommodate them and to express themselves on behalf of the people of nebraska. extremism can be easily detected in the campaign process. it can be seen by looking at the sources of funds and who comes on behalf of the candidates and we have seen extremism in the campaign already. in the gridlock and the dysfunction of congress it is a broken system. we need a fresh new perspectives and that's why i've decided to run as a non- partisan candidate. i'm the only candidate on the stage whose pledge drive from the beginning that i would not caucus with either the democrats or the republicans but instead work to find common ground that both republicans and democrats on all of the issues that republicans and democrats have

kicked down the road. neither house or senate will produce a budget on time this year. we are not addressing the deficit and we walked away from both parties from the commission four years ago to address. you won't hear the other candidates talk about some simpson bowles. it's very difficult to enter into these negotiations on a tax reform. we heard the debate on immigration. it's kick the can down the road the entire time. i've called for by campaign aides a partisan leadership commission or committee similar to what we have in the nebraska legislature, which asked congress to pick the top ten issues every single here on the bipartisan basis to address those issues in a two year period. we need to advocate and demanded that a political leader stops

the aggressive partisanship and comes to the middle where all the solutions inevitably happen. >> my family and i have been incredibly encouraged over the last year as we've been living on a campaign bus boost the time. we put 4,200 miles on the bus by the time we blew the transmission and had to take a few days days off but we are spending time in all 93 counties and what you find across the state is street is that people were very pessimistic about washington, about the vacuum of leadership and about the kind of people but he said that really bb that washington can solve all of the problems with more taxes and regulations and mandates. they don't believe that. but there is still optimistic about the nation. and what we have received from our parents integrated parents and grand kids and they want to pass onto their kids but they want they want in washington that is humble and politics that is humble but tries to do fewer things at the more important things more urgently and transparently and with less that

starts by telling the truth about a fiscal house that is not in order. the admiral the admiral and the joint chiefs of staff believed the greatest military threat we face is the reading so it isn't a good enough to take it by -- we need to look at the budgets that don't add up. i'm glad to have been supported in the primary by a 92 of 93 counties and i'm proud to now have 11 times as many nebraska donors as the other candidates on the stage come by it because we are actually spending time talking at every county and baby leave deeply in america they want a more humble washington. >> i agree. >> i believe the answer is going to go to mr. domina. >> mr. domina come it is the job of agencies like the irs and the

epa to enforce the law that is written by some senators. so what needs to happen to make sure that these agencies may be don't overstepped their bounds and create their own policy. >> the most important things the congress can do is define the rulemaking authority. no agency has rulemaking authority unless it is given by congress and it has to be given by express. congress can occupy a significant part of the field by definition or it can pass a generalized blue in the regular process to the agency. that is a choice that is made bill by bill. the former choice is usually the better. it hasn't been done very often recently and the reason is that we have had too much partisan gridlock. we haven't been able to get together enough definition for agencies and that creates an enormous problem. the problem is dramatically

attenuated by dark money in politics. the dark money in politics creates a revolving door between the private sector and the agency, the congress and the private sector and the agency ended encourages the agencies to deal with those that are supposed to regulate in a way that isn't objective and isn't a distant and it holds out then for people that seek nothing more than to get elected in the holy grail of money for the campaign finance. the states in the federal government for decades and in some instances the centuries were not conflicted with regulatory deals. it all happened when the industry took over the regulation and the congress congress that it happened to finance elections and that is the problem. >> mr. jenkins? >> i spent a week in washington, d.c. and i was sad to hear from the congressional delegations members told me over 50% of

candidates are spent raising money from special interest groups. they've truly hijacked the system. i am not against lobbying. it's necessary that the various groups have influence and i certainly lobby the congress but the fact of the matter is when you can have him bring millions of dollars on the organizations like the senate freedom foundation and use that first million dollars indoor use that money then to bring the campaign up to speed -- >> we are agreeing not to address things directly. >> pointing out we have a different position. the fact is i'm on the receiving end of a $2.7 billion campaign so when some candidates talk about all the support of the

fact that it's running out of the county is different than wanting out of washington, d.c.. the irs to answer the question of regulation it is one of the most burdensome regulation that we face for all of us. it's 100% consent that we need to modernize the irs but you will see that over the last 25 years, neither party has taken any steps to simplify the tax code and make it easier for the citizens despite it being one of those bipartisan issues all of us understand that need to be addressed. >> the candidate to the right has 20 donors in nebraska and 3,200 supporters so i don't know

what all this stuff is making up the charges about this and the other thing and the other nebraska supporters the people have a couple dozen. speaking to the question that was actually asked i'm proud to be supportive of the farm bureau which is the largest grassroots organization in the state. they've indoor speed for a reason because they say we need a fighter against the overreaching of washington, d.c.. the epa are trying to do things on the ranch is that makes sense. the epa is estimated by one recent study to how statutory authority for about one third is where they are currently writing the rules. if the congress won't pass the law i wish they would pass that they pay i have a pen and a phone and ignore the constitution and unilaterally write laws. we need bipartisan opposition to that and a broad defense of the constitutional system where the first branch of government at the congress which is accountable to the people every

two years in the house and every six years in the senate have to come home and explain why they are doing the things they are doing. right now the epa is trying to do things such as the u.s. ruled that are asinine. people that have never been on the farm trying to write rules to micromanage these details. we need to use the power of the purse to get to the congress and we need a much more robust oversight process to be sure that washington is more humble and that the rules actually flew from the statutory authority. >> mr. watson waxed >> i am proud to have the least amount of money. [laughter] >> it seems i can represent you directly. i don't have all of these interests to answer to so i say it with pride based on who's going to win or lose. never announce it until you have half of it because they don't think you'll be able to build it and when. most of you didn't know about me until a few months ago.

now you can get behind the campaign. the irs i want the citizens to look at the federal reserve. it's unconstitutional. once part of the federal reserve or wall street money they have a role to play and not about redistribution but that is a constitutional how we do capitalism the last 100 years. how we do capitalism the first 100 is works with all people and rises the tide for everybody and by the way i bring that up because the irs was created and income tax was created the year was passed and that is related to sue you didn't even have to have an income tax before the federal reserve. but again reforming the tax code we won't have the needed we get to the right type of code. the epa is a different story. a lot of it responds to the president. she has that authority. but again they epa is acting out of control. i agree a lot or said that u.s.

are just atrocious and the massive overreach but referencing the earlier point on the debate we need regulators to work with the private sector, not to be the against and fighting them out of business. if the partner we can build a better country. >> we are getting close to the time limit. we have a couple more questions. we may not get to everybody. the next question will go to: ian williams and mr. specie -- sasse. as >> nearly 81% of nebraska homicides were caused by firearms. do you think the nra does compromise stance on even the most minimal regulation like no background checks at gun shows is what is best for the safety of everybody? >> first i'm happy to be the nra

and worst candidate in the race and i believe strongly in the second amendment. founders understood the government doesn't give us rights god gives us rights and we come together to secure those rights. government is shared to defend the rights and is into the source or author of them and buying rights as a dad and a husband to defend my family and property predates government so i'm happy to be a defender of the second amendment. you raise issues around a policy i don't actually know much about so one of the things about being a nonpolitician due to the process is i'm comfortable admitting when i don't know. i don't know the issue at this point but we need more robust defense of the gun laws in america. most of the crimes committed in this country have a whole bunch of prosecutorial neglect or passing and we need to be sure that we are robustly defending. >> doorknobs confused with the gun show loophole?

>> you named another one. >> the no compromise stance clicks >> yeah and if at the gun show loophole is a category to be called a loophole to begin with but it's often called the gun show loophole regularly about family to family transactions and i don't be leave the government needs to regulate the sale of guns between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers but there are a bunch of technical issues we can impact. >> i think that the position is over the top. i think that what works works works that cover was works at private gun shows and there should be universal background checks and there should be no exceptions. it's also clear while it may have been been indoors to buy the nra if he doesn't know about the gun show loophole and he doesn't know about the changes in the current regulation position the organization that has endorsed him he isn't worthy of the endorsement. it's also altogether clear that

the american people have had enough. the nra is over-the-top s. stands for the idea that we should make no change of any kind of the interest of the people of the united states. where the states because of the absence of the federal action have taken some steps in that direction. the number of women killed for his year is down 38% state-by-state. i'm in favor of the regulations. nobody on the panel has enjoyed shooting more presidents than i have in my lifetime. i love owning a gun. i'm happy to have anybody that i know over it and anybody that wants to buy it to be checked before they can buy it for them from me. >> this is something you want to address as well but we have to move on to the closing statements. we one time for each candidate.

the question is very basic. why should you be nebraska's next u.s. senator each candidate will have 90 seconds to answer. we begin with dave domina. >> i've lived here all of my life, born and raised and educated. didn't take a position in the administration in washington, didn't come back to the purpose of grooming myself to run for the united states senate. i'm here because i'm a nebraskan. i want to serve the people of nebraska. i understand the agriculture. i was born and bred in it. i had to stand our commerce. i understand our business needs. i'm a businessman. i started the businesses. i understand our markets. i represented the cattlemen across the united states and nebraska as they sought and fought for the fair markets.

i understand the water problems. i also understand that there is an attempt made sometimes to subvert our attention with a phrase like humble politics. it is end humble to accept seven-figure amounts of money from organizations outside of the state committed to never adopting a farm bill. it isn't humble to want to take the social security system away from its present safe method of administration and give it to the bankers who brought it in 2008. it isn't humble to dismantle the medicare system works reach faith with our veterans. those are things that raskin's don't stand for and anybody on this stage purporting to represent a political party either that stand for the proposition's best represents the party. >> the next closing statement comes from candidate jim

jenkins. >> thank you to my fellow candidates and all of you that are viewing this debate. it's been great. some of my family members that may have second thoughts but overall it's been a great time. we are facing an important decision here. as in asia and we have to decide whether we are going to incentivize partisanship, incentivize by big money, by forcing highly partisan primaries were the most partisan and that winning. there is no secret why congress isn't getting a loan and has a low approval rating. it's because we continue to elect the most partisan people and if they do not adhere to the ideological position of their party they get primary door they lose their funding or they lose their committee assignments. my background is diverse. i spent the last 18 years coming back to nebraska building jobs

and companies and they've been on the receiving end of the government regulation and despite having the farm the farm bill indoors and i am the one candidate who has come to this office the last 30 years that has extensive e-echo cultural food and alternative energy experience. i have a diverse resume and i am well known throughout well-known throughout nebraska and i've had the confidence of two governors appointed me to the statewide commission and i'm looking for nebraskans to rally around to support his common sense approach to paula tics that we so badly need in washington. >> statement comes from mr. sasse. >> i am a bad and i care that my kids and nebraska kids and inheriting an opportunity filled nation we were blessed to inherit from our parents and grandparents. i don't think washington is the center of life and i'm running because i think we need more

people involved in politics who believe the center of life is north platte and fremont. i'm a fifth-generation nebraskan and we are raising our kids about a mile from where i grew up in it's a wonderful blessing. i'm also proud to be the republican nominee since it's come up so many times i would like to speak to it for a second. i'm proud to be in the party of mike johansson and dave heinemann and to have all of their support but i'm not a republican for reasons often caricatured in the national media. i don't care much about the marginal tax rates of the richest 1% of americans. i believe robustly in limited government and defined constitutional freedoms because i believe the center of life is in our communities. family churches and societies and institutions and the way they help one another and i am happily a proponent of the humble politics where washington tries to do a more limited number of things but the more important things more urgently

and with less shouting and i've been blessed to spend this year across the 93 counties to have support him just from republicans but democrats and independents across the counties it has been a great time and i would ask for your vote. >> god gave me skills and gave you skills and i fundamentally cared about the nebraska people. it's that simple i love you i really do but you asked me to take an oath of office and i will take that oath with pride. i have to defend the constitution from threats both foreign and domestic at the constitution says five things. establish justice. i will not create inequality under the law for donors for elected officials. it's about justice. i will ensure the domestic tranquility. i will be a peacemaker between the two parts.