>> yes, sir >> what was done with the security after those tripwires were tricked? >> i was not here. i read that report and i'm aware that they were increasing physical security. they were engaged in building safe havens inside the facility. they had engaged in training with the guards. they had run drills with the annex. from what i've read, they were doing the type of things that a rso would do when he sees a situation beginning to deteriorate. ..

>> their job they are

responsible for and such. it was written does the collective response to benjamin threaten to make the foreign service less knowledgeable about the world and less effective on the ground and with the host country and the united states. that is a question ambassador stevens might have asked. i wonder if you can share your thoughts as we implement the suggestions of the panel. how do we make sure we are not preventeding people from doing their -- preventeding -- doing their job? this is a dangerous job as pointed out. we have been attacked several times and will be again.

can you share thoughts on are we striking the right balance or does the this effect the ability of people doing their work? >> you are going to the heart of risk management and how to implement it. we are made great strides in building safer facilities so an attack on a facility that could hurt everybody in one attack, we have done great things to protect that. if you look at the number of attacks and how few have been successful, most are security personal only carried off. we cannot lock people inside the embassy. the whole point of diplomacy is to get out. i think we need to understand and a lot of the processes we have been talking about are at

our highest risk and threat post we have the most security. in many cases, it will be restrictive for the foreign personal. we have to have the security to get them outside of the wall and that means protective security details, armored vehicles, working with the host country. and we take risks but every day we were judging what the risk was versus the need to get out and making sure we could balance the risks and were not running the motorcades or getting people out for not good reasons. they had to be important reasons. in lower threat level post, we are operating almost normally around the world. we have physical security at the post but people get out every

day. that is the work of diplomacy. talking to people, understanding the country, representing the united states and bringing the information back and you don't do that without talking to people. all of the things we use to recognize the high-risk post, doing risk management and making sure we are getting people out when we can but understanding if it is too dangerous we cannot operate or negligent or the threat is too high we will take them out. those are the things we need weigh every day and we do. i can understand the frustration of foreign officers at our highest threat level post. no, sir, they cannot just go to a coffee shop and live in the open economy. but in the highest threat locations, we are getting them to the meetings they need to get to.

>> i don't think that is the issue for them as much as they would like to be accompanied by spouses and go to local coffee shop. they have expressed to me that they can't undertake the meetings they want and the places they need to go to have the meetings and the contacts they need to be able to gather the information for the government to convoy the position to people -- convey -- they are defined by a hyperperspective view in washington. you get that feedback and are there any situations you feel the pressure has been such to be so risk-avoidant we are not allowing people to do our job? >> i think in the immediate aftermath there was a deep appreciation of that attack.

i think today with the risk management and the additional resources you are giving us i would not agree with that. i talked with deb jones in tripoli and other ambassadors about whether we are getting out enough and doing the things we need to do and they are saying, yes, we are and it is the right balance. >> let me ask a different question with my limited time. one of the problems was the willingness of the local militia to provide security. are there any places in the world where you think we are placing too much emphasis on the

local alliance >> we talked a lot about that. if you don't have the loan and capability, no amount you pay in the contract resolves that. if you don't have the capabilities locally you have to go bring them in yourself. i cannot speak to who has them and doesn't in the world but i think when you look at the reaction of the guard force, even leading up to those trip wires that were

you're have to follow the waiver process. >> what's your overall impression of the arb report? >> mr. so when i testified before the house oversight government reform committee. ambassador pickering referred to be arb is being fiercely independent and at that same hearing admiral mullen admitted to oversight and government reform that he was reporting on arb proceedings to senior staff of the state department outside of the precepts of the requirements of being a member of the arb. i don't think that fits anyone's definition of being fiercely dependent. >> you don't think so at all?

frankly when the secretary, when secretary clinton gets to a point that co-chairs of the board when the chair called him up and asked him to serve when either the secretary clinton or cheryl mills are interviewed who are interviewed to make it a draft report before goes public in essence they get to edit the report before the world gets to see it and as you point out when admiral mullen told the committee, told the committee think about this he's been on the job for a few days as the cochair of the supposedly independent arb. then on the job a few days. then charlene lamb and he discover charlene lamb two days later will become before the oversight committee he realizes she is not going to be a good witness. what does he do? just what you reverence mr. keil could he gets on the phonecalls achieve a step to the secretary of state and said hey charlene lamb is not going to be a good witness. she's not going to reflect well of the state department. she gives us the heads up to the person he's supposed to be investigating so cordial is independent. think about we asked mr. mueller

and why do you care? whether she's a good witness or a bad witness, to your job to get to the truth for the american people and the four members who lost their lives and not the hired to the state department. with anything independent but there was one good thing that came out of the a are b. in my judgment. at least one good thing. you and mr. sullivan's that on the panel and made a bunch of recommendations. how many recommendations? >> 40 recommendations. >> some of them are more important than others is that right? the most important one is which one? >> the creation of an undersecretary for diplomatic security and impact in our executive summary we sent one overarching recommendation is crucial to the sustainable implantation of all the recommendations in this report is the creation of an undersecretary. >> and that's the first recommendation in listing a report? its recommendation number one. most of the others hinge on the implementation of that

recommendation. it's designed to give accountability and responsibility to one particular person in the state department. is that correct? >> to identify those. >> something ms. brooks talked about in their opening questions designed to give accountability and responsibility to someone at the state department and is this the first time this recommendation has been put forward mr. keil the? >> no sir. our panel tuesday was surprised to uncover mmo from 15 years ago the secretary of state madeleine albright signed after the east african embassy bombings ordering the creation of an undersecretary for diplomatic security. >> so we have the overseas policy created after americans were killed in beirut so that was not followed. we had a recommendation from madeleine albright the lady you protected that says we need to create an undersecretary after americans were killed in the east african embassy bombing and that was not followed. the state department said they were going to enliven this at

all? >> this is one of the recommendations and they're not going to implement it. >> they're not going to implement it. my question is simple mr. chairman, what's it going to take? what's ing to take for the state department to put in place the practices that will save american lives? >> did listen to the guys on the ground. the pros who know what they are doing in a situation that anyone looks at and says wow we need more americans and the guys that put their lives on the line. they didn't follow their own standard that will develop in 1980. for the beirut embassy bombing. he didn't follow the waiver process to deviate from our standards and now they are not following the best practices panel number one recommendation. what's it going to take? the ranking member in his opening remarks said this is a transformational moment. somebody had better tell the state department that because think of his track record. i hope the members write, hope they get it.

mr. keil and mr. sullivan say the one thing we need, the one thing they need is this accountability the one main thing that everything else hinges on, i mean talk about the arrogance of the state department. hopefully one of the things the committee can do is at least convince them to follow these guidelines. mr. keil thank you for your service. it's amazing what you've done for our country and mr. sullivan u.s. well. >> why do you ask the question of the state department? >> you can ask that question. it's not the way this works? reclaiming my time, you are welcome to do it mr. chairman. i think you have spent a lot of time on mr. starr and i chose to focus on mr. keil who has 30 years of experience appointed by the obama administration 23 years in the state department. he was on the detail for

secretary of state warren christopher and madeleine albright. i use my 10 minutes on mr. keil in the minority can use their focus on anyone they want to. >> i think that someone from ohio and i recognize the gentlelady from california ms. sanchez. >> thank you mr. chairman think it'll are witnesses for joining us for what i hope will be a productive and a forward-looking hearing on what can be done and what is being currently done and what we have yet to do in terms of trying to prevent a tragedy from benghazi from happening again or at the least minimizing the potential for something like that happening again. i'm going to get my questions in the same realm of where the questioning left off. talking about the security accountability framework within the department of state. defense practices panel which was led by mr. sullivan determined quote a clearly

defined accountability and responsibility for security at every level is fundamental for effective security management within an organization. and the panel recommended the development of an accountability framework. is that correct mr. sullivan? >> yes maam. >> in response to that recommendation the department created a security accountability framework that the department explained clearly defined key actors of their roles and responsibilities and government mechanism. mr. starr i would like to begin with you. can you please describe the responsibility of each of the various leadership levels? >> i think the first leadership level starts with the secretary of state. the secretary acknowledges that he is ultimately responsible for the security of our personnel overseas. beneath that in the accountability framework the next person that has the direct

responsibility for security is made, assistant secretary for diplomatic security and i would have to say that we looked long and hard at the recommendation of whether it needed to be an undersecretary position or an assistant secretary position. it was a recommendation by the panel. the department looked at this very seriously. ultimately weighed all the points behind it and made the decision that what was probably more important is whether or not i in my position has direct access to the secretary that was necessary. and under both the accountability framework we have modified it so that i am directly reportable to the secretary for the security threat information and security threats against our people. i do still report to the undersecretary for management and we think that's key because isolated and alone diplomatic security would not have some of the capabilities that we have when we work closely with management bureau with overseas

operations with iran and others that i would just put that back in the record. whether things the accountability framework does his talks about the fact that all of us in the department of state are responsible for security but specifically decides the rules of the deputy secretaries and what they do. it defines roles that the undersecretary for political affairs in the undersecretary for management have. the most important thing that it does is define roles for these other assistant secretaries the people that i work side-by-side with every single day who run the regional bureaus. the nea bureau the wha bureau and its assigned security responsibilities to them and in fact their job descriptions have been changed to reflect security responsibilities. all of this is contained in the accountability framework and one final thing which i think is critical, we can do the security we need to do unless every individual foreign service officer understands that they

have a role in their own security as well and that goes to defining that. >> so those expectations have been communicated them on down the security framework. is that correct? >> yes. >> the state department employees have a clear understanding of what the chain of command is for security decisions and security decision-making? >> oversees it was always clear and ran from from the rso in the teeth of missions in that letter of responsibilities that the chief of mission it was always clear overseas. it was a less clear within the department had the responsibilities and this document goes a long ways taking information that was already in the famine putting it together into a clearer framework. >> if i can go back for just a second to the number one about creating a different position that would be in charge of security, explains some of the thought making process that went into the ultimate decision to

not accept that recommendation and essentially make you responsible for security. >> first and foremost i think it has to be the knowledge that i am responsible whether in the assistant secretary or the deputy. i'm not necessarily an undersecretary position. the department looked at this and had to wait different things. an undersecretary typically has additional responsibilities than one to focus on. so if you look at other undersecretaries in the range of things that they do one of the things the department made sure of was that this position, my position a had the access we need for the undersecretary and other leadership in second i wasn't being diverted from the just pure security role by other duties. undersecretary positions in many cases work carrying out other duties. my predecessor was the assistant secretary for diplomatic

security and the chief of oversees foreign missions, the office of oversees foreign missions. one of the things we did in the aftermath of benghazi was to separate those two functions and now there's an ambassador in charge of oversees foreign missions. i'm not distracted by that role. i focus exclusively on security. >> i have two other questions i'd like to ask and i would like to get to them. mr. sullivan do you think the new framework at the department of state has adopted clearly defined accountability and responsibility for security? >> congresswoman we haven't been fully briefed on that. from what i heard just now and i think that's a great start but it really does have to be accountability and people have to know who's in charge of security and also to the point that was made earlier how all the employees get around the world. i think leadership is important to let them know that they are valued, that they are supported and those people that are making

decisions are going to be made accountable and every employee will be made accountable to those decisions they're making. >> thank you. you hit on the issue very quickly and i have limited time as a temporary -- several investigations into the attacks of benghazi found the temporary security officers was what contributed to poor security at the facility. the bipartisan senate homeland security and governmental reform committee found and i'm quoting from that report for example ds agents stationed in benghazi were on temporary duty assignment remaining there for sure period ruffin no longer than a month. the independent accountability review board included the utilization of temporarily assigned agency in benghazi was problematic and recording from their findings the short-term transitory nation -- nature of benghazi staffing to be a primary driver. staffing was at times woefully insufficient considering the

post-security posture and high-risk high threat environment. the end result was a lack of institutional knowledge and mission capacity which could not be overcome by talent and hard work alone although the board found ample evidence of both in those who serve there. so based on one of the arb recommendation the department has set up a policy for one-year minimum tours at high threat posed and a minimum of 120 days for temporary duty assignment. mr. starr you have held the number of positions at your tenure at the department including that of a regional security officer. why is it valuable for security officers to spend longer durations at the post and what's the benefit to developing an understanding of the local environment? >> it is critical and in your first 30 days on the ground in the place you are just trying to figure out where you are, how things are operating, where the threats are. we absolutely concur with that recommendation of taking steps

to ensure that the personnel we put on the ground are there for longer periods of time. >> has the department able to achieve those requirements in its actual practice? >> yes, it has. the fact is we don't have any temporary facilities at the moment. i can give you an example though. we just reinjured bangui. we have mobile security teams of agents on the ground with u.s. marines that are there. those agents are going to stay for a much longer period of time, probably up to 90 days until we are sure that we have the proper security that we can then start replacing them with a permanent personnel that we are going to have on the ground. the 30-day rotations is the arb pointed out were not conducive to the security operation. >> and are there any other incentives the department can provide or think of to provide for personnel to undertake those longer assignments?

>> i don't think it's a question of necessary or additional incentives. i think it's a question that we needed to understand that we are constantly rotating my dad was not in our best interest. i think my agents clearly understand that. and i think it really isn't about additional incentives. it's about just knowing that is not the proper procedure. >> thank you for your forthright answers and i yield back to the chairman. ..

>> we don't have any at the moment. i cannotman n we would or i would approve it. >> let's turn to the marine security guard. were they deployed to the benghazi compound? >> we have established by multiple questions it was a temporary facility and marine

security guards are never deployed to temporary facilities. correct? >> not in my experience. >> so the increase in marine security guard detachment as a result of the arb recommendation 11 therefore would not have helped in benghazi, correct? if it is a temporary facility and they cannot be deployed it will not help. >> i just want to make the point i am not saying additional personal on the ground would not have helped, but yes, you are correct. in my experience, we would not have put a marine security guard detachment into a temporary facility. >> and we have established there are 30 post that are considered high-risk/high-threat. house education and workforce committee have benefited of the 30 from the marine security guard personal? >> i would have to get back to

you with the exact number. i think about 20. we have opened four marine detachments since benghazi at our high-risk post. there are some that don't have marine security guard detachments and there are a variety of reasons why they don't. >> it is your intent to get to the place that have these detachments at all of the high-risk post? >> i would to have marine security detachments at every high-risk post for the impediments that can not be overcome. >> how exactly does the department plan to augment security at the high-risk/high-threat places that don't have the security

knarr guards yet? >> some cases we made up with it with diplomatic agents and others is agents and other elements we have. in some cases we made risk management decisions and taken personal out and lowered our presence. families are not there or lower the number of employees to minimum numbers. in many cases we make representation with the most government and argue whether they have the capability and the will to provide the necessary level of protections. if we find we don't have the protections or think the risks are too high we will not be there. >> if an ambassador at a high-risk/high-threat post picks up the phone and calls the seventh floor of the state department asking for addition security, physical or personal,

who ultimately makes the decision to joint or deny the request, mr. starr? >> it would probably be to me on the sixth floor or through the personal but i can tell you that today i have available mobile security teams to deploy. we work closely -- >> i am asking who makes that decision ultimately? >> it can be approved at lower levels. >> what is the lowest level it can be approved? >> i think the lowest is the regional director of diplomatic security. >> if an ambassador sends a cable is that the same? >> exactly the same. >> would the decision making process change if it were not a high-risk/high-threat post? >> no, it would not. >> was benghazi considered

high-risk/high-threat or critical threat? >> pardon me. i actually don't know what the rating was of benghazi. we did not have the 30 identified high-threat/high-risk post at that point. >> who denied the additional security personal requested in benghazi by those working and living there in and tripoli. >> i will have to refer you to the results of the arb. i came back five months after the attack. >> the same person responsible for ensuring the physical security, is that the same person invested with that responsibility today? >> i think the board showed lapses of judgment on the director and the director for international programs >> the ds agent at the post back to head quarters, requesting security upgrades or increase n.

>> my answer is yes. that is what i have been spending my time on. making sure we have the resources and the programs and the capabilities to respond quickly and effective to any cry of help. and also trying to better place ourselves before those come in and make sure we are ready for those things. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the

scathing of the department and its report, and i want to go to that report. i just want to follow-up a little bit on what my colleague and a gentle lady from alabama her line of questioning about the security guard details. so if it doesn't have a detailed because they are not at a temporary facility for example, can you talk about other details that can be there, are there other military options that can be a sign to those temporary because you talk about the mobile security teams, the augmentation units. are there other options if the marines can be assigned

full-time? >> yes there are other options. we currently are trying to expand 35 more detachments. we have only 173 marine detachments. we have never had enough marines nor will we ever to cover every single post. asleep at the marine security guard detachment then we have foreign service officers of some of these places so we carefully look at where we need to use the scarce resource we have had excellent cooperation from the marine corps in terms of augmenting the different units and getting more detachments as i said we have opened it 17 more detachments and additionally the marines have created something

called marine security augmentation units to put additional marines under the rubric of the marine security guard program that helps us where you have different situations. but we have different capabilities. we have a lot of security agents that are in high risk training and the highest level operators are mobile security operators. we have the ability to request the department of defense and they've never let us down and for things like fast teams to come in and protect our embassies and consulates when we needed that. we have a robust program where we have security contractors. in many cases they are americans in some cases a third country contractors, but we have used contractors for many years. there are downsides to that. some countries won't allow them, and we've learned a very painful lessons over the years of

contractors, that we have to have incredible amount of oversight to make sure we are using them properly, but it's still a tool. we have local guard forces into protective elements that we hire directly from the country that we are in, and i will tell you that some of these units and places around the world even unarmed have done amazing acts of heroism protecting our people. and ultimately they now evaluate if they have the capability to protect us or the will to protect us and those cases where they may not have the best capability or think they were challenged, one of the things the additional funding congress has given us is the ability to start a program we can train those host country forces whether it be police or national guard directly around the embassies and increase their capabilities. so we have a number of different possibilities. >> you have said that the state department has always engaged in the process of risk management and is well experienced at it. i have to say, i was

disappointed with the risk management process that was undertaken leading up to the benghazi attacks, and i would hope that that risk assessment and mitigation process has become more robust. i want to speak specifically to the interagency cooperation between the dod and the department of state. you said that dod has never let you down. on that night, the arv -- arb stated there's no way that the f-16s or the u.s. military forces could have made it there in time to save americans lives. what have we done to make sure that in the future they can be present in time to save american lives. the anniversary as you hear more chatter that was going on and there might be the potential for greater risk of tripwires are in

place and what processes are in place to call the dod and say maybe you need to help us and reposition forces so that if we do have another benghazi they can be there in time in the future so that we don't lose american lives. what's process is happening between the dod and the department of state at this point? >> the department has put together what they essentially referred to as the new normal. we have looked closely at what capabilities the dod can bring for the defense of use of american embassies and consulates overseas. there has to be the realization that we don't have the basis everywhere in the world. in many cases where we would like to be up to say the department of defense could respond to any of the embassies in four hours, physical distances, just the amount of distance between where are the military station and the diplomatic facilities make it impossible. and then even if they could

respond in a certain amount of time, this idea that we are magically going to get a pair of troopers coming out of the back of planes and they are going to land on the embassy isn't realistic. we have to go through airports indicates permission from host countries to get personnel and transport them from the airport to the embassy somehow, and in the midst of a crisis this isn't realistic about what is going to happen. if we worked with the dod on is making sure that we are better compared to predict what's going to happen, looking at instability. and as the dod has often said we would rather be on the ground in advance of something happened than to try to react after something happens. now it doesn't been in the certain cases that they haven't been on a very closely showed us. i can give you an example in tripoli recently where we had in many cases special forces, helicopters and marine on the less than one hour of notice to respond to the embassy. and how a critical threat

situations -- those are the type of things we are working with the dod on to make sure they have close at hand response capabilities. i can tell you with 275 locations around the world, we can't do that often, we can't do that every place. dod is seeking the options to highly recommend where they are going in terms of the basic closure and more closely to the u.s. embassies and for the puppies. they have excellent plans and working closely with the state department on this. ultimately, we've got to do a better job of making sure that we have the right preparations on the ground in advance. in those situations that are absolutely critical, we will have the dod very close to us and they've worked tremendously in places with us. so, i just have to tell you i have the utmost respect for the way that the department of defense u.s. marine corps and

army and air force and navy have responded to our needs. >> in the last minute i have left can you talk about what level the state department requests the dod to take place for example in the case of tripoli recently you said you had been on a one-hour leash to respond. does that come from you or does it come from the ambassador if they determined through the risk analysis assessment with diplomatic security teams that stare that he needs this, how far does he have to go before you can have something like a fast team that's ready to come in or something along those lines? how high up through the state department records he does he have to go? >> in an emergency, they are going to call the nearest combat and commander and they need all the time. they talk with each other. and in an emergency situation he can pull the string immediately. in a less than emergency situation in the way that we are looking at it to try to pre- positioned herself, he would state something or make a request or we might make the request to say you need this.

we would work for the office of the executive secretary sent back and forth. i can instigate it, the ambassador can instigate it, the regional bureau can instigate it. in most cases, it's collaborative effort. we are talking with each other, we are having sit in for phone conversations i'm a bit come of it in the most extreme conversations, the ambassador can go straight to the combatant commander closest to him and request support and then even notify us afterwards. >> i yield back mr. chairman. >> the chair leedy will now recognize the gentleman from illinois. >> i think the panelists for the testimony today. what is a special mission compound? >> i would like to clarify one point. i wasn't making any subjective judgments. i was simply stating the facts the precepts of the regulation that you cannot discuss the proceedings outside of the arv.

the admiral admitted that he did that. it's a statement of fact. in legal terms that is called ex parte communication. sorry, sir. >> was the special mission compound? >> i don't know. but to be honest, in the review under secretary kennedy in authorizing that made up the term in order to avoid the ost security standards. >> the interesting thing yesterday in the office we did a nexus lexis search of special compound, not benghazi. there may be other ways to search and to look out over the landscape, but the result of looking for the term yielded nothing. throughout all of those data files all across the plain come absolutely nothing. so, what does it mean if something is simply then redefined? what does that mean if something is said well, we are just going to declare this something other than that which is to be regulated? that means you have to know

regulations, isn't that right? >> correct sir. >> mr. sullivan, you mentioned in your opening statement, one of the regrets that you have as a member of the panel is that the the state didn't adopt your recommendation as it relates to waivers. what is your recommendation as it relates to waivers? >> we think -- we believe readers are needed for me and we want to see those waivers because when you have a waiver, without will do is set in motion standards, and people all recognized once you have those standards you have to meet those standards. what we saw in this particular instance is since there were no standards standards there really were no standards set and i think somebody products of fact before that there were a lot of people coming in. there were some hard working people. however it is with people these were people that were extremely inexperienced and they were

coming in for 30 day periods and they would come in for 30 days and they would identify vulnerabilities. they would take care of the affordability and event the next person would come in and the process would continue. >> so you're saying you need an orderly process by which things are waived and not a declaration from the department of state is always, right? >> it goes back to what we talked about before in the risk management. risk management is all about identifying the the threat and vulnerability and then coming up with the mitigation for the threat. >> we didn't see that starting. >> you said in answer to the congressman smith that in benghazi they didn't get the threat information. i understand the threat information may be a term of art but to the point earlier, certainly the bomb blowing up in the side of the wall, the whole litany of events that took place

beginning march 18, 2012 until the first time there was a communication from ambassador cd because defense isn't that enough information? you're not saying that nobody was aware of the nature of the threat. it's a term of art? >> there is no specific threat information that had been developed by the intelligence community. >> they are coming over the hilltop at this moment. we don't normally get that. i think people were aware of the overall stability. >> here's my point in the senate intelligence committee report, they reported on june 62012 ambassador stevens recommended the team and so forth they were never created in benghazi

despite the recommendation. there were other events subsequent to that and then ambassador stevens reaches out again and send the cable to the state department headquarters requesting a minimum of 13 temporary personnel and the state department never fulfilled his request in headquarters that are responded to that request with the cable and then they follow up on august 16 of 2012 a month before these events. again the cable to the state headquarters he raised additional concerns etc., etc.. now go to the arb. the arb says one thing to times about ambassador stevens and it's worth noting. they said this about him. his status as the leading u.s. government advocate on media policy and his expertise on benghazi in particular caused washington to give unusual deference to his judgment.

they said on page six of the report they cut and paste it and they would like to put it on page 34 of the report. yet ignoring the ambassador who buy their own admission by their own admission is the expert in the area and ignoring his request for support that's not giving unusual deference to his judgment, is it mr. secretary? >> it's very straightforward various >> i don't think it is. i think it's a difficult question that mr. stevens was a tremendous ambassador -- >> there is no question that he was tremendous and that he was a hero. the specific request of the department, the department and the arb said this person is uniquely qualified, mr. secretary, and he was ignored. >> and i think that this is why the arb recommendations are what they are. >> this is why the arb recommendations in the panel say

you can't have this kind of authority. when asked the question are there any plans for temporary facilities in the future, you were pretty clever in how you responded. you said we don't have any plans for it and i'm not likely and i'm paraphrasing now i'm not likely to approve it. and you know what that tells me? that tells me you can do it all again. that tells me that you can take the special mission compound and you can call it something else. you can call it a temporary consular facility. you can take two adjectives and put it in front of a noun and call it some other thing and do it all again. here's the question. if madeleine albright signed off on certain recommendations, if the best practice panel makes certain recommendations, why is it that the state department is clinging onto the legacy of power that has failed blacks why

are you grasping on it so much, why not walk away from from it, and nobody here is criticizing a very tough job. to mr. cummings point, this needs to be the transformational moment. and why not see the transformational moment to say we are not going to choose to redefine things if you're going to we are going to visit how we redo these waivers and we are going to do everything we can in cooperation with congress to honor the legacy, to honor the legacy of those that suffered and you served with and you know that why cling onto this old thing that isn't just working but you're the only one that doesn't see it. >> i have a distinct view of having served in the state department for the united nations of back again. and the recommendations of the review board i think in

accepting 38 out of 40 regulations made by the best practices panel i think the department has made tremendous progress and efforts in the time that i've been back -- every recommendation is gold. every recommendation needs to be looked up from the recommendation standpoint than from the organization as well. >> a couple of minutes ago you made this point as it relates to the responsibility of a foreign service officer that they have a responsibility to be mindful of their own security. the ambassador stevens played on cable number one, cable number two and cable number three. it wasn't absorbed or reflected in the state department and

you're not offering anything as it relates to fundamental change because based on what the rules are right now mr. secretary, you have the authority, you have the capacity, and you've got the flexibility to do the benghazi structure at, and i'm wrong? >> the rules have been changed. who is responsible is clearly defined. they are trying to open a facility in southern turkey. they have the operations, humanitarian operations. we need a facility. we are in the process of leasing a facility. we know where it's going to be. at the request came to me for people on the ground saying can

we use it in advance of the security upgrades being done and being accomplished? by answer, no. in another seizing someone is going to succeed you and in the new season when someone with your judgment if deference doesn't have that level of capacity and they don't have your kind of background, they will be under tremendous pressure and they are going to say yes. i yield back. >> the chair thanks the general man from illinois and recognizes himself. it strikes me that there are at least two issues, number one is the efficacy of the arb process itself. whether or not it is in our best interest to allow any entity to essentially grade its own papers. we don't do that and any other

category. we don't get to sentence ourselves when we are." we don't get to grade our own papers in the classroom. the other aspect of the efficacy are who they interviewed, who they didn't interview, whether they have to accept rick rick and additions or don't have to accept recommendations. that is a separate issue to me as to whether or not the arb process works, whether it has shortcomings. the second issue let's assume in our innuendo that the arb process works. let's make that assumption. i want to read something with you. we are disturbed at the inadequacy of resources to provide security against terrorist attacks. we are disturbed that the relative low priority of the security concerns and we praise the ambassador for seeking security enhancements long before the attack. do you know what that comes from? but i just read blacks

>> at the part of the report. >> from 1999. >> that was the -- >> in nairobi, correct? >> that was from 1999. >> and you couldn't play it almost perfectly over what happened in benghazi. the 1999 arb made it clear they went out of their way to make it clear what came after the bombings in beirut for not being implemented in the commission. so, the 99 arb criticizes existing state department employees for not following about him and commission from 14 years apart. that is a quarter century's worth of recommendations. yet here we sit.

so, what i wanted to because honestly i commend you this is a wonderful idea and i think each of you for coming. but giving the inescapable connectivity between recommendations made after beirut and eastern africa and now after benghazi we are going to look at some of those past recommendations and i will give you one. for the diplomatic buildings abroad. the upgrade should be made immediately. i'm going to read you another one. this goes to mr. cummings point which i thought was wonderful. diplomatic positions should be made to all governments we have relations to remind them of their obligation to provide security for our embassy. who in libya were we to call?

in the arb they made the recommendation makes with the host country is aware of its obligations. who did the call in libya? >> that is the indication that i'm waiting on you to answer but i will make it more clear in the future. i think this is the heart of the question. there are times for the national interest of the united states br going to have to have diplomats, humanitarian programs, rule of law programs and other things in place where the host country doesn't have a government. >> in those cases we must take the lessons -- >> was very government for us to contact? >> not at that time.

>> so let's move to one that perhaps we were able to do. this is also a recommendation from the 1999 and it is presented as a panacea. that is the evolution of what happens there is an attack in a blue ribbon panel we are going to make recommendations and this is never going to happen again. so the secretary of state should personally reviewed the security situation of diplomatic facilities closing those which are highly vulnerable and threatened. why do you think it went out of its way to use the word personally? >> no comment, sir. >> is the answer privileged? that a recommendation from the 1999 arb, the secretary of state should personally review. and i'm asking you with all due

respect -- we are not going to get to the word review but we have to get past the word that modifies review personally why did they think it was important that the secretary of state himself or herself personally review? >> writing alternate lead a secretary who bears the responsibility for the security has to be brought the information that is necessary for him to make decisions. that is my job. i've gone to the secretary of state on different occasions and we have talked specifically about the security of different places. the trouble he was one of them in specific since i've been back but we've also looked at some on and cobble and the other locations as well. where i have concerns that the safety and security of the personnel and if i believe that we are not doing the things that we need to do and it's my responsibility to bring it to the secretary -- >> i appreciate that. was it done on september 10 or

prior because this recommendation has resisted it could resisted for more than ten years. >> your answer mirrors with the 1999 further set which is first and foremost the secretary of state should take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring the security of u.s. diplomatic personal now is that being done now and was it being done prior to your tenure? >> in the time i was here previously and i served under multiple secretaries of state i have heard every secretary talked about the importance of security. i have heard every secretary of state that security is their function and that goes from madeleine albright and through secretary clinton, secretary

rice and secretary kerry who has made those statements that the safety and security of the personnel is one of the highest priorities. >> words have consequences and they have meetings and most people use words intentionally. in the 1999 arb intentionally used the words personally and active. back to me doesn't mean talking about something. a personal review is not simply talking about it. it's the personal review ongoing. is that arb recommendation still accepted i guess is my question. does the state department still accept these recommendations from the 1999 arb and easy to being done? >> yes. the best example i can give you today is a new process that we have put into place, the vital presence of validation process

where again we look at what are the vital national interests and why should we be in these high threat locations quick sweep the process that and it goes all the way to the secretary. >> and that leaves very nicely to the next point i was going to make or ask you about what is it about that a recommendation that is so countless thomas maddock that it couldn't have been made prior to the attack in benghazi? >> of the department has practiced risk management. >> being the benefits of being somewhere we know the risk of being in benghazi. can you tell us what the policy was it overcame those risks? in other words, why were we there? >> these questions have been for over 30 years. it's the reason why he and many places we have evacuated or shut down operations were taking our

families out or we've gone down to essential personnel only were asked for greens to come in and support us while we are there. >> none of that was done in benghazi. we know the risk. my colleagues and you and others have done a wonderful job of highlighting some of the tripwires they think is the diplomatic term. what policy were we pursuing that was so great that it overcame all of the tripwires and all of the risk i do be leaving my time at the united nations that many of us understood that if we lost the eastern half of libya, but if we lost the confidence of the people after the revolution in libya that we were going to pay a terrible price. and i don't want to put words in chris stevens now.

i think that it was clear in his mind why he needed to go to benghazi and what he was trying to accomplish. i think that today we have a more formalized process to make sure the decisions are documented and that makes us go through a process that i don't think was there prior to benghazi. i think the results of the accountability review board and best practices panel and recommendations that we have accepted an sure that as we go forward, we have a clearer, more precise, more mandated process for risk management. that is what the national security parities were and it is a fundamental tenet that you were finding everybody in the department agrees with. >> i appreciate you bringing the hearing to the conclusion back to chris stevens.

but he was clear that he needed help. the situation was getting worse in benghazi. he was clear in asking the people that sent him there to represent us to provide adequate security and none was forthcoming. with that i would recognize the ranking member for his closing remarks. >> i want to thank you all for being here today. >> all of you. anybody trying to do the best they can to protect our people. there are a lot of lessons to be

learned. the question is not only have we learned them, but then also how do we address them. when you look back on things a lot of times you realize the things you could have done differently that probably would have made things better. but we cannot bring back the past. but i think that we can make a difference right now. >> art diplomats are in very dangerous situations and i think that we all agree on that so now

we have got to figure out how we go about protecting them even more than we have in the past. and so, that's why, secretary starr, i asked you about coming back to us and letting us know exactly what you're working on and of those things that you still have to do and reporting that. it is so important because when all the dust settles, the question is what do we accomplish? i've been here for 17 years and i've seen a lot of arguments back and forth. but i think that we must

concentrate on being effective and efficient and getting something done. the arguments that have been made and the frustration that you hear on both sides, trying to figure out what happened, and iv leave that everybody is acting in a normal way with great intentions but i want you to understand we are trying to figure out what happens so that we make sure that if there were things that went wrong what could have been better and that it does not happen again. that is what it is all about. so, mr. chairman again i want to thank you for this hearing and i want to ask you to do something for me. i want to bring mr. starr back in december or january. he's already told us that in 45 days or less he can tell us about the timetable but i want

them to come back and tell us what has been achieved. and that is very important for me and the whole committee. and mr. chairman, if you will, that is your goal. but i think that it would be unfortunate if when the committee ends that we have not addressed these recommendations and address them in a way that would make -- that would please the families of the deceased. that brings me back to the four great americans that lost their lives. and i think that we all made a commitment in one way or another to them that we could do

everything would do everything in our power to find out what happened. at the same time, to make sure that we did the best we could to protect our folks overseas to tighten up security if that's appropriate, and we have got to do that. with that i want to thank you. >> i want to thank the gentleman from maryland for all of his help in getting us ready for this hearing into the cooperative nature and the cooperative nature with which he's always worked with me and i think it's an excellent idea. we will work with the secretary and i want to pick a date that is convenient with his schedule. i would rather do it sooner rather than later but we will work with the secretary and i will work with you on the nature of whether that would be the hearing with all the power coffee and whether that would be just you and me. we will work all of that out but it will be done in december if

it suits his schedule and also, i want to just say we were given to different tasks and i say we, the house voted for us to be in existence. find out everything that happened before, during and after the attack in benghazi and the speaker has been very clear in my conversations with them about the state of everything that you can to make sure that it never happens again. part of that is taking the recommendations that have been made in the past and asking whether or not they've been implemented. the other part of that frankly is anticipating things that might possibly happen. we do not have to wait on a tragedy to make recommendations. i noted that during the secretary's opening statement i'm not minimizing this at all. if it comes across as minimizing it, i'm not great but they mentioned that they were partnering with the new york fire department. that is a great idea but it

leads some of us to conclude why he could not have been done previously? five year has been around a long time it's time but then he went in for a long time. that isn't fair for me to ask him which is why i didn't ask him, but the notion that we have to wait on something bad to happen before we can act to do something that all 12 of us agree off to be done. as of again i think all of my colleagues and i want to thank mr. shift again for giving me this idea. i hope that he will share some others with me. and as we adjourn i went to adjourn in memory of chris stevens, sean smith and glenn nordby delete code 40 and pledge a process that was worthy of their memory and one of our fellow citizens can respect regardless of their political ideations. with that, we are adjourned.

>> and coming up live on c-span2 former acting solicitor general in a panel of supreme court scholars previewed the upcoming supreme court term which starts october 6. the cases include the racial gerrymandering of congressional districts, whistleblower protections and liberty of prisoners. that is at 5 p.m. eastern. later a pennsylvania governor debate between governor tom wolfe in the cook political know report has the w race as one tht leans democrat. 3 for more on the race into race and tonight the date we spoke to a philadelphia inquirer fitzgerd reporter. phadelphia >> let's put let's put ainquiry philadelphia governor's race and host with tom fitzgerald of the: ho philadelphia inquirer. which mr. fitzgerald, good morning. cn >> guest: good morning. far >> host: can you set up the debate where the candidates

stand as far as the race is concerned? >> the first debate tomorrow finds the incumbent governor corbett meeting to really have something happen to reset this race. he's been the underdog almost from the beginning which is a huge surprise in the states that almost historically has reelected its incumbent governors overwhelmingly. basically, it's been a stable race. the politics average have democrat tom wolfe up by 17 percentage points a little over a fraction over and there's the new poll this morning from college and the morning call newspaper account of leading 52% among the unlikely voters.

it also found that it's not necessarily pro- wolf. half of the respondents said that they were motivated by dissatisfaction with corbett. >> if there were specific incidences where they seeing the low numbers? >> it is somewhat of a mystery but substantively it probably goes back to the number one issue of education and when he took over in 2011 after being elected because the stimulus ran out there were cuts to education funding and the governor cut some state money and of course the stimulus wasn't fair and then he went ahead with business tax cuts that his predecessor

had frozen and that they had frozen them and the schools increased class sizes and other workers and increased property taxes. so that started the negativity toward him among the voters and across the state and even among his own party's. then there were a variety of things he did that very conservative republicans don't feel that he really stick up for their issues. for instance, he has pushed through the voter id law and the appeals courts abandoned and accepted the ruling that it was unconstitutional. >> was there any balance as far

as the expansion of medicare in the state? >> it doesn't seem like he has gotten much from that. it's not expanding medicare and then when he finally did, it is an innovative program that might well work. i think people focused on this focus on this if they thought about the issue at all they focus on the fact that a year had gone by and we missed a billion dollars of the federal funding because there were negotiations between the administration about pennsylvania's alternative for the expansion. >> as far as the challenger how is he casting himself in what is the strategy? >> tom wolfe's strategy has been

to do no harm. he is being very cautious. he has limited public appearances and doesn't take many questions. he's trying to avoid a mistake. that is his pitch and his major policy pitch is that he wants to put a separate tax on natural gas production which is blooming in pennsylvania of 5% and then use that money to increase spending in education and a couple other things coming into the governor has declined to put a tax on natural gas. >> that is tom fitzgerald who covers politics for the paper. mr. fitzgerald, thanks. >> my pleasure.

>> a nebraska senate debate between the candidates to replace the retiring senator. this is about 90 minutes. ♪ >> welcome to the final 2014 nebraska u.s. senate debate resented in cooperation with the nebraska broadcasters association. i'm bill kelly, the moderator for tonight's debate. we are live at north platte high school with the candidates on the ballot for the general election. democrat dave, nonpartisan candidate jim jenkins, republican ben schaff and independent nonpartisan candidate todd watson. joining me as a panel of

distinguished broadcast journalists from across nebraska, mike tobias from the net news and north platte and colleen williams of carney. the format is a little different than traditional candidate debates. first, there are no opening statements. the candidates at the opportunity to record those earlier. you can find those on the net news facebook page. also we will have in-depth discussions on the four topics after a times question in each area of discussion will continue without tying dancers and ordered questions. candidates will be allowed to won't be allowed to question each other or directly address their opponents. the format hopefully will cover maybe not every issue for the voters, but we hope that it will provide more depth and substance on a handful of important subjects. let's get started with the first area u.s. involvement in foreign countries and ask the first question, mike tobias from net news.

.. before it reaches our shores and heaven forbid if it were to happen to retell 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. it should be his for the principles that were permitted to be deployed intelligently and

effectively when we can identify an objective attainable and achievable and do it within the most economy posted human resources and financial resources. you asked me to identify a time when i would not have favored the 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 were sure what would happen after that occurred. fortunately it worked out that are that it might have, but i don't have any confidence. moderator: at mr. jenkins. jenkins: thank you. thank you for the viewers viewing this debate. this is an important question. clearly over the past several decades, three or four decades, many times political leaders have gotten abroad. for example, i believe we should

have not have gone into iraq. that was an instance where we did not have the compelling economic threat, compelling security threat and it took our attention away from afghanistan were the true threat was at that time. i believe that the united states is indispensable leader of the world and we have to be fully engaged. we have to be focused now specifically on this war on terrorism, which is moving around the world. and i think it is important that congress and the president developed more of a bipartisan approach to these issues. right now you will notice that congress has sort of standing on the sideline, waiting for the president to make a move. the president should make a move, but i think it's important congress get involved. so this is my suggestion. we need to make sure as we engage that we don't engage without coalition, 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 in minute security economic threat to our country. moderator: thank you for the question and that ms. and the broadcasters association for hosting us tonight. the first duty of the federal government is to protect from enemies foreign and domestic. as you travel the state impacted nebraskans, they know more a horrible thing that we need to be clearly resistant to going to wear whenever possible. but at those times were the use of military force is required they want much more clarity about moral leadership around the world, by the u.s. engages. for the part of your question about the criteria has to be a definable u.s. national security interests at play. a good example of a place where we didn't need to take military action would be for me a board to take a more current one. we made the right choice thus far to not be engaged in

ukraine, but we 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 way that putin and russia no longer do. this goes back over the course of recent years where we make promises to poland and the czech republic that we would deploy abm missile systems to get ukraine and other countries after the fall of the wall at the end of the soviet union to have nuclear materials returned back to moscow. we didn't keep our commitments and deploying of abm systems. putin has been able to march. this is the kind of problem you can't take after-the-fact. we should have been clear about keeping our commitments to allies of the fragment for u.s. national security interests were implicated. >> i think we need to go back and look at the constitution. in the preamble is outlined the five basic needs of government and we are called to ensure that

domestic, tranquility and i think military as a part to play in that aspect. the third job of government is to provide for the common defense. we have got no plan to too many offensive wars and this has caused a lot of harm to our country. we need to go back and look at the constitution and understand when those two things are brought under the microscope, that should dictate how we should act. furthermore the constitution, we were not to raise money for armies for more than two years at a time. we forgotten not rule us well. so we are in continual offensive engagement and yes we must look at our national interest. at the oath we take us not to defend us from threats foreign and domestic. it is to defend the constitution from threats foreign and domestic. and that requires a look at five main functions of government.

so yes, we yes, when he took our national interests. we need to care about the well-being of resistance but my wife looked back to our constitution and examined at this meet the criteria for the defense of this nation and obviously with the current threat to play with actual threats and our people, yeah, that would qualify. we must look at the constitution for general framework of guidance first. >> a quick follow-up because i heard this from the other three. give me an example of when he would've not supported u.s. involvement. >> yeah, good question. barak the second time we went there. i think we were misguided into engaging in that war. >> moderator: gentlemen come any concerns you have with their previous engagement quiet >> i will mention one if i may. of course we all have a think concerns about our previous engagement in iraq. the question as i understood it required that we put ourselves in a decision-making position at the time of entry into the conflict and at the time to

venture 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 when we went when we learned it wasn't true, we all learned the entry into iraq was a questionable mission. i would also say this, that our past involvement, 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 are never on defense. >> moderator: i believe our next question is for mr. jenkins. >> as violence continues in the gaza strip, what extent should the policy be toward israel? jenkins: israel is the one major ally we have over there. i would add actually the current list of people that we need --

the list of countries, i know the kurds do not have their own country. but to find nation to make sure we are working with nations that will support given how tumultuous the middle east days. and so, i believe that our policy needs to continue to be supportive of israel. on the other hand, it is important to understand that we have had decades now but involvement in the middle east, constant peace missions trying to resolve the issues between how a sign and hamas and the plo and israel and no one has had very much success. so my view again as we support israel, but we need to go carefully in terms of the angling ourselves in the middle east and particularly in israel. >> moderator: mr. sasse.

sasse: there is no equivalent c. between hamas and israel. it is a terrorist organization that hides its missile launch sites behind innocent women and children in schools and hospitals. israel is our closest ally in the region, a nation that loosened the rules law and collecting the rights of religious minorities and stands ultimately for peace and freedom in the region. as prime minister netanyahu recently sat, we all know with hamas would lay down its weapons they would be no war and be no more end of israel to bypass weapons there would be no israel. right now we have a moral vacuum in our national conversation that this administration is leaving a trail leading to react as if there's more privacy. nebraskans to believe that americans still believe that we should be supporting israel clearly in terms of an international community that regularly wants to pretend that counting bodies on each side is somehow some sort of a moral argument. we should be standing at the

nation that believes in the role of law and the defense of minorities. >> moderator: mr. watson. watson: we should stand 100% with israel unequivocally. they are the best ally in the middle east. it is disturbing the lack of leadership we are seeing right now. i think the u.n. resolution for israel went neutral with putin shows today are starting to look to for leadership now on the international scene and that is quite disturbing. with regard to hamas, i think the plo and hamas do not get along. the plo was working offensively into getting that group under control. but hamas is unique in the fact that the alternative option that hamas isn't there. it's a poor sect of the government workers struggles in the only alternative option is hamas. so if we can find an alternative secular option that comes to power, it would eat another one's best interest to allow some economic development for the people they are. once people start doing well,

they won't risk secular leadership. again, we don't have a good alternative option in that area next to a mosque. >> moderator: mr. domina. domina: without question we should stand with israel. it is the most reliable part or 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 1948. it has done not itself. it saves us billions of dollars by being in a place where we would have to have a dramatic military presence without that ally. beyond that, we need to understand the geography that drives much of this conflict, which is much, much land in a land possession driven conflict. palestine exists in three distinct disparate noncontiguous

bodies of land. those three separate bodies of land have very different ashur resources, very different nonsense, very different liabilities. the goal line height as 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 supported. we must encourage israel to engage in these talks about it. we must recognize that hamas will not participate effect to fully and that conversation because it doesn't favor a two state solution. it favors dominance. >> moderator: mr. jenkins, would you press the presidents to do more with israel? jenkins: no, i wouldn't. the more we do or this thing we do, the worst weekend. we can't interject ourselves

into battles are conflict that really is not resolvable. i agree with david is a two state solution. 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 then lay down their weapons -- not lead down their weapons, the come to an agreed-upon cease-fire in some two state solution. that is the solution. >> moderator: you indicated not enough is being done in support of israel. should the president be doing more unilaterally even without the support of congress? sasse: know, the congress wants to act. there is bipartisan support, bob menendez has a resolution to make clear to the world that u.s. foreign policy will never allow iran to require a new weapon. it is the most pressing issue in the middle east after isis and there is broad bipartisan support. again, the leader of this is the

democrats, bob menendez wants to bring the resolution that would probably get 80 votes. but obama and harry reid will not forget to vote. we do not need more unilateralism. but if the congress to exercise some authority and harry reid won't allow it to come to it though. it is a broad bipartisan issue to support israel and oppose the reigning nuclear chase. >> moderator: mr. sasse, next question from colleen williams. >> to support the most recent strategy to go after isis anorak interior which includes increased airstrikes in additional u.s. military advisers in iraq? if not, what do you suggest? sasse: first of all, when you take action against substandard. we should've started a month ago. i applaud the president was speaking to the nation on wednesday in outlining not. but we don't need to speak with a little bit worried as we are doing right now to the world your nebraskans know war is a horrible thing. we should be incredibly reticent to go. the military action is required,

we should announce to the world we will do whatever it takes to win. we should not be having longer sentences ultimately about domestic political constituencies and how you can call this statement to leave our enemies wondering if we have the resolution that we should have. isis is a blood thirsty terrorist organization that kills innocent women and children. isis must be eradicated in the u.s. is obviously going to have to be the leader of the international coalition. we should bring along as many middle eastern allies into that as we can. >> moderator: mr. y thing. watson: they are radical group that needs to be contained. i think we need to start having a conversation on an endgame. i personally do not believe the political structure is found in iraq. i do not look for the hole between the three warring tribes. ultimately they will settle into three different states. i think we have to be taken in

the long-term term we can eradicate them, but then what? are we up for a long-term presence in the area substantial force? this is a debate we need to have a citizen. furthermore, we haven't declared war since 42. and a congress to set up instead of looking to the president for leadership. it is the congress' job to declare it. we need to have conversations. we are not right now. we are reacting like we did in iraq, but we need to take three, four steps ahead. that is what everyone else is doing around the world. we go back and forth between policy and achieve the long-term results. that is the question i challenge to the american people. what long-term presence are you willing to commit a booth on the ground in the area because that is the endgame if we succeed in this war. >> moderator: mr. domina.

domina: i would ask us to recall how recently we heard a isis. isis or iso is the group off of al qaeda. 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 that don't practice. we should recognize they are a threat to their own people. they are already a splinter group and anybody who has studied for a dog knows that one sign of victory is division, dividing these two concrete. they are indeed divided themselves. so we should act with clear objectives. i think that is then defined well by the president. we should act with speed and surprise and decision. we should do it as much economy and force as we can.

that means and air force as much as we can and not people. we should past and strengthened the resolve of those who must maintain 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 national identity and the religious identity to provide for the 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 a time for us to attack a precedent. i don't think that was appropriate was the last president were to happen. when we are dealing with a threat to national security, we act together. we accomplished the task together. we succeed together and we learn together. that keeps us together.

sasse: certainly i support the president in the airstrikes. foreign policy is the one area we all understand how important is that the nation that we come together. the partisanship stops at water's edge. but unfortunately, as we moved into this hyper partisan atmosphere, nowadays more about simply criticizing the president no matter which president is in taking positions that quite frankly our political and have nothing to do with the self-interest of our country. and so, what i would suggest in terms of going forward, i mentioned earlier how important the kurds are to us. they have 115,000 person fighting force. that fighting force is one of the most effective in the middle east is equipped properly. i'm grateful we are now up with the man. i'm grateful france has decided also to equip them. we have to work with the kurds because they have a stable economy. they have a real desire to keep

isis from building a caliphate anywhere in the middle east. we also 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 heal him. finally, we have to ball over the world ask our european allies and other allies to step out. unfortunately, as we go forward, we continue to allow our allies to stand on the sideline. finally, what i would die is you cannot have a great foreign policy unless you have some sort of a keyboard between the president and congress than it is disappointing to me to see republicans and democrats in congress standing on the sideline, waiting for the president to act with election season go and criticize them.

they need to step up and help take a position, help us develop the positions that are so critical in fighting the war and terror throughout the united states. >> moderator: thank you. we are going to move on. we want to remind our audience on radio and television that you're listening to nebraska's u.s. senate debate presented by netnews in cooperation to the nebraska broadcasters association. we are going to move onto a second topic, the global economy. that question will come from jackie harms. to start our discussion. >> mr. jenkins, you're first in this category. every nebraska turns on the internet purchasing to great britain, china. we are wondering if our data safe. what do we do to protect our american notch pretorius, consumers, people on the internet every day from hackers and security breaches quiet jenkins: it's a complicated issue, but clearly as we have

wiped the world and develop eating the internet technology, for example 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 entrepreneurial society really leveraging our resources. that includes government research. it includes all the private technology companies investment banking capital that's gone into that. so it is very critical that we asked the government and private companies step forward and do everything we can to make sure that this very important economic system, this internet technology system is protected. once again, i hate to keep bringing this points 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 ensure that internet technology safety and it is again a great example of what gridlock in the function in congress the two parties unwilling to prioritize are undermining our economic situation here in the united states. >> moderator: mr. sasse. sasse: we are going from a structural transition around extraction and manufacturing jobs to mostly knowledge economy and i.t. jobs of the future. one recent demographic study shows the 2008 economic downturn in majority of americans who are in the workforce are today employed by firms they were deployed by 2008 and a majority of people have turned over their jobs in the course of the last six years. the world has ever known an obviously the knowledge economy

and job creating capital of the world. we have to do that with greater clarity about the cyberthreats we face. we know we have great challenges from chinese piracy, hacking and international property -- intellectual property violation. when he took u.s. leadership in those conversations. it does require bipartisan participation, but also understanding that the future of the world of big data needs to be invited diverse and far away as by silicon valley and new high-tech centers that rise across the nation including across to brassica rather than being centered in washington d.c. washington d.c. mobile to lead this change. we need to celebrate dynamism and onto the guerrillas on as we have over the last two and a quarter centuries. at the same time come as the u.s. does provide a framework in these conversations, we need to be sure we are celebrating the fourth amendment. the american citizen right to

privacy and guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures require more intelligent and robust oversight from congress than we've seen in many issues on the american people, including the most recent yahoo! data over the last three days. there's a lot of work to be done, but it has to be centered on american civil society and ingenuity of 310 million diverse and creative american people that won't be led by bureaucracies in washington unilaterally. >> there are two distinct areas that we need to just stay out of. the market will fix the problem. we have leading financial institutions are neither very big vested interest in the security of these issues. i don't see why we need to get government involved in protection of the economy for the security of money. they've been doing this quite well for some time. if you talk on the issues of government security, is one of the areas we need to address the most, the security of data from

an intelligence perspective. we throw money on large-scale machines come out better. having the leading-edge and i.t. is imperative on the military sector and so our government is to be involved in that specific area. that it is foolish to say okay, let's have the government solve our monetary security in the private sector. since the beginning of time ,-com,-com ma business owners have made sure they held onto the goal. for the government to step into that arena is foolish and i would concur on the fourth amendment as well. we talked about google. we saw the wiretapping they did not know about by the government. the above their security systems to a new level as well as other i.t. data services. we are leading in this category because we learn from actual experience. i think the private sector will handle that quite well. >> moderator: mr. domina. domina: with all due respect to nothing the question is been

addressed by any of the three previous speakers. when my name is that the transaction between notch pretorius, it moves between private sources. one bank to another bank. it doesn't move by the federal reserve wire. it moves on the internet system that is principally by mastercard in the senate. the reason we have been security as we don't have government standards that require those things to establish thresholds and must meet and for which they are monitored to assure compliance. we have some bank examination for safety in that area, but we don't have a standard that regulates mastercard in these and we have allowed all of those transactions to go off the federal reserve wire. here was what i think we could do to get attention focused on this problem. first and foremost, protect american entrepreneurs by allowing transitions on the internet to be taxed. that'll get government involved. second, establish a set of

standards. third, provide the banking system of the united states of america, the federal reserve system is the path for moving money. that introduces a whole a brave new crimes that are not now prosecutable under the existing system. fourth, expand the existing crimes to violations that occur on the net. instead, remember we are not ever going to move entirely to a knowledge economy. food and water will always be the most products, including the food produced in nebraska. it is foolish to think or say otherwise. >> thank you. mr. sasse, i want to give you an opportunity to respond. when we talk about existing laws, are you saying that federal law currently is sufficient to deal with cybercrimes, specially those that are coming from foreign countries? no additional legislation needs

to be passed? tradeport no, not at all. clearly there are categories of exposure from commercial transactions and cyberterrorism. we are fortunate to have struck him in our and a lot of investment the u.s. needs to be making to combat cyberwar, cyberterrorism and also cybercrime. certainly additional categories are needed. to figure out how the government will set standards for every aspect of these transactions, i would point your viewers to the study that came out of the office of inspector general and hhs health and human services 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, said they definitely needed and the federal government tried to do it from the center come it turns those standards don't work in the different systems are subsidized with u.s. tax dollars are not interoperable. >> moderator: is federal off

the table quite >> i think we need to change in attitude and government. guess primarily it is. this attitude of government preaching to the private sector in what to do and how to do it is the wrong approach. we need partnerships. we need not to treat the people of the private sector as if they're criminals messing up. we need more of a partnership format. that is one thing that works in the state. via much regulators of private business to get better. on the federal level, it is accusing that you already know what you're doing and that type of attitude. we need more of a partnership to move us forward. >> moderator: thank you very much. our next question is for mr. sasse. >> expansion of free trade aired some say we should have open trade with every country in the world. globalization is good. nafta, did eto should be expanded and made less restrictive while others would say americans should buy from other americans and the government should restrict trade with any country that cost u.s.

jobs were created to trade deficit. where do you stand? sasse: i am in favor of free trade. free trade has done more to let people out of poverty upon the globe than any other single variable you can point to over the last two millennia. free trade and defense both sides when there are free and their roles. obviously we know many countries do not play fair and we can have multiple examples of south korea, china, other nations on the u.s. in ways that harm nebraskans. nucor and north slope is an exciting employer during underfoot things in that community we suffer because of what happens. the u.s. seems to have seems to have clearly and with a steady hand and our support of international organizations that try to investigainvestiga te and prosecute those that would perpetrate attacks on free trade regimes. but overall, free trade is the right choice for the people of

the world, for the people at the u.s. and in particular for the poor in the middle class. it's also important to recognize nebraska as we are living on the most productive geographic area in the world for agriculture at the most productive time in the history of agriculture benefits greatly from foreign markets for agriculture exports and we should continue to celebrate and promote regimes. >> mr. watson. watson: if you look at the world you see every country doing quantitative easing to include exports. quantitative easing is hurting our population here the value of the dollar we are not able to buy what we used to buy. again, that's why not a big fan of the federal reserve. it's controlled by the banking institutions and we bailed out bad on the backs of the people. we have a lot of people struggling trying to make ends meet and i think you need a flexible policy that we've had in our history. restart protection to get the manufacturing is going.

we've seen the manufacturing base go elsewhere and i tell people to look at england post-world war ii damage that happened to that country and the of supremacy as they lost their manufacturing base. i think we need to look at policies and rested the type of all individuals do we have have stimulating tumbles welfare, so we have people above the poverty line. again, strongly against the minimum wage because that is not the way to do it. we need to rise to the demand of labor and get the naturally through the market to a level where they can support themselves. it is usually a equals b., but we need an all encompassing policy to get to be closing the borders and rising tide of all people so there's an event for labor. >> moderator: tree into first of all, our objective should be the traitor john is neutral. we traded trade as much in as betrayed as much out.

this is the 40th consecutive year of the u.s. trade deficit. so that is the first inning. the second thing is all of the trade rules should be reciprocal. that includes environmental rules, labor rules, safety standard rules, and all of the rules that go into compliance with constructing a product in the united states. if the playing field isn't level, the trade is that they are. there should be no currency manipulation. our largest foreign trading partners regularly underprice currencies or they can buy u.s. dollars cheap. we should have a prohibition against that in every trade agreement. we should recognize that the north american free trade agreement, the most successful of all of them has hurt the united states because they didn't contain guarantees i just mentioned. free trade has cost jobs, driven down standard of living, reduced

average compensation, dried-up receipt of federal taxes and put pressures on our national budget. we have to have fair trade before it can be free and it hasn't been. those are essential things. >> moderator: mr. jenkins. jenkins: first of all, the trade environment jade just spoke about is impossible. the fact of the matter is to make everything perfectly equal there would be no trading done. we live in a messy world. i would like to see fair trade. i would like to make sure there is not anti-dumping. would like to see that there is not currency manipulation. but the fact that the matter is that they're going to get anything done in business for the world, you have to come to some messy compromises and continue to negotiate through the messy 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 if the

united states or north america has. the fact of the matter is nafta has strengthened the north american continent. his strength and canada. it is strength in mexico. i am for free trade principally because i'm involved in agriculture. if you look at the fact in 1998 we had 2% of our cattle shipments going out of this country. now we are up around 13% or 14%. we now have record cattle prices. we have without that trade in corn and cattle in ethanol, everything we trade enhances the economy. i'm strongly supporting. i understand we need to work for fair trade to the best we can, but there's no such thing the perfect solution that dave is mentioning. it should not allow us to get in the way of continuing to negotiate free-trade agreements over the world. >> moderator: thank you, mr. jenkins. next question for dave domina.

>> before the debate we did ask for suggestions for a few questions in this one comes from john in lincoln. according to a according to rafe at according to rafe at our new forecast, china is investing in development and a much faster pace than our nation. that means china's investment in medical research, defense energy and priorities will suppress the united states in just eight years. what if anything we do about this if you're elected and what can the senate due? >> thank you. it's a good question and it addresses fundamentally what kind of a country want to have. if we are committed to be an arch for new rail, if we are committed to being innovative, and we have to commit resources in the united states of america, the funds of the public research and development. that is not purely private-sector function. are land-grant universities were built on the premise that federal research would be conduct that does institutions. we have virtually abandoned that

in favor of people chasing up and grant institutions up your money from the air. that is the first thing. the second thing we have to do is reinvigorate markets to encourage research. we live now to time in corporate merger after merger after merger reduces the will of competitors in the marketplace to improve and innovate and develop new products. that has hurt innovation. it has reduced and put more pressure on research and development budget. it has emphasized the right-hand side of the balance sheet expenses, not the left-hand side rather than in a bar and that is the function of for federal tax policy commitment to the value of knowledge. we need to return to that commitment. we call for a few moments obey god out of what the blake a pointless venture to circulate a man in orbit around the years.

we need to be recommitted for that kind of scientific experiment. domina: we have a $2.2 trillion shortfall in infrastructure. this whole state was built on infrastructure. the land grant university that dave spoke about, the highway system, nebraska public power, irrigation systems, huge amounts of government research going into in helping our universities do research on agriculture. we have an export trade group that helps us exporter. we have one of the safest food supplies in the world because of the infrastructure we put into food safety. it is absolutely critical in right now it is dissipating. one reason is that you have people like my republican opponent, then sasse who assigned on a no pledge not to raise any taxes too high paid washington named grover norquist even though this nation has

experienced over the last 12 or 14 years $6 trillion worth of dataset that was bipartisan. it was deficit associated with spending on the wars and adapt to sit through one of the worst recessions in history and yet being locked into one position companies not willing to ask the american taxpayers to pay for some of the dataset, to put something towards that. he's willing to ask the american young people to go out and sacrifice, but not sacrifice to improve our deficit and actually begin spending on the important issues like infrastructure on our economy. >> moderator: mr. sasse. sasse: to be honest i'm not sure what that was about or what it has to do with the last question. we underinvest in infrastructure and basic scientific research. one of the fundamental duties of the federal government is to

invest in infrastructure investment in basic research for commerce and one of the main reasons that is not happening right now is because washington has a bipartisan agreement about not telling the truth about entitlement overpromising. it is true. guilty as charged. i don't think the problem washington as we taxed too little. if i'm the only candidate who believes that, so be it. i don't think we have an insufficient number taxes in washington. we do have promises of entitlement that don't matter. we have 16 workers per retiree. today we are too pointy. we need to do everything we can to make there to seniors who will protect those on social security or near the retirement age but we should be telling the truth people my age and younger. i'm 42, but the fact we need to recalibrate. >> moderator: focus on the question on china and r&d. >> i am for rad. we have too little. the reason is we have a

washington trying to pretend we don't need to reform our entitlement programs. ever greater investment in r&d and infrastructure. >> moderator: thank you very much. jenkins: we need to promote the general welfare and the constitution specifically calls for a bridge to invest in arts and sciences. again, we must manage a budget. we do not prioritize appropriately dubbed the vote. science is an important element of investing by the constitution. again, we can't promote corporate welfare. primarily how would try to get things going to strike handouts to companies like when the company says that this will create better technology. we need to work with universities. these individuals that investigate sites to find solutions. so how we deploy the money needs to change. i further say we have a crisis

in stem education. we are statistically low and students in these categories i went back to look at and say we can invest more, but do we have the personnel are students available to take advantage of those investments. we've got to work outdoors. i believe it 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 on stand and make sure we have the personnel that deployed the money to create new technologies we need to advance society. to look at the constitution, it is we the people in the constitution to address the school system. >> moderator: we are at the halfway point in our debate. i want to remind viewers and listeners on radio they were watching the nebraska u.s. senate debate presented by annette news with the nebraska. i am bill kelley.

i want to introduce our panel. joining us is mike tobias. jacque harms and calling williams. we are talking with the four candidates on the general election ballot. including democrat dave domina, nonpartisan candidate, then sasse and tom watson. we will move forward on our third topic now. immigration. calling williams of mtv starts her discussion that goes to mr. sasse. >> went blank, i would keep saying we should secure our borders. what additional action can the u.s. senate take if you think this is a priority, would you take to secure our borders? sasse: yes, thank you for the question. obviously the first duty is to protect enemies foreign and domestic. we need secure borders. there are 19 different actors across the gulf coast, mexican border and canadian border.

the customs and border control does not standard operating procedures. they don't have clarity you're the kind of clarity than any corporation has about its operating divisions, but what euro for your progress looks like to be reducing border crossings. we have a crisis that our borders and we should also acknowledge that the particular crisis that has been so undermined the nebraskans over the course of the last performance of these 55,000 to 65,000 unaccompanied minors. when they see that, they don't start with partisanship about republican or democrat. they start his parents. i am a father of three little kids and they are worried about kids and they want that to be solved. it's a soluble problem, but it requires the president to state clearly we are not headed towards an unilateral mass amnesty, which is what ultimately creates the back and pulling so many to the border. who first made moral clarity about the fact that our borders are meant to be closed, not open in the congress should be writing an immigration law.

not the president by unilateral action. we should have a customs and border patrol agency that has sufficient congressional oversight with this clarity about the tricks and procedures so it is a political hotbed to turn texas into a blue or purple state, but actually trying to be sure the u.s. decides for the good of 310 million u.s. citizens who should be coming and going. >> moderator: mr. watson. watson: let's just start off the way to solution to secure the border 1986. we failed to secure the border for the last 28 years with both parties under control. the third will to defend the constitution from threats foreign and domestic is to provide for the common defense. we talk about international engagements. our first priority should be to secure the border because that is the biggest and closest definition to defense. furthermore, with a crisis in this country for lack of debate. i am very hard on harry reid if

you are a conservative, but you should be aware the house will not debate at 744, which is a very thorough bill and i doubt very many people have read a review that bill, but it should be debated. we need more debate to find solutions in those sites are contributing to the problem. so i was a lecture that bill, start debating it. i stayed consistent from the start. reagan built the right framework to secure the border. it just was not executed. we need to make sure as this is one of our core responsibilities at the appropriate funds, the appropriate personnel are allocated to the border to make sure it is secure that we could that we can not our first order of business, which is outlined in the constitution. >> moderator: mr. domina. domina: i think we should recall which are long and interesting borders of two nations we don't have much trouble on the canadian border.

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 dolby walls. walls don't work. well, it looks to me like a problem if there is an enormous of the work going on in mexico driven by the drug cartel, which is chasing the drug demand in the united states, doing it with the currency of the united states and with weaponry largely produced in the united states. one of the things we could 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 when people are less desperate, a dull crash borders. these lawful processes to apply for new opportunities.

they go places peacefully to try to integrate the way so many of our parents immigrated peacefully. that process has to be affordable. it has to be understandable and it has to be prompt. we should give people who come to the united states because they love our opportunities committed no crimes where they came from and i've tried to live here without document is prompt pathway to complete citizenship and welcomed him. >> moderator: mr. jenkins. jenkins: at the last debate, mr. sass said congress was too dysfunctional to do anything except focus on border security, leaving out the needs of reform of the worker visa program which is badly outdated, antiquated and leaving out a solution for what to do with the 11 or 12 million illegal workers out of the country. the fact is all of them are connected. what mr. sasse does not appear

to know is 40% of all legal immigration in this country as a result of overseeing the visa program. so you cannot deal with this situation by folksiness he wants to on the border only. also what he has to understand and understand in order to secure the border, you have to give a compromise. very democrats and republicans in the senate and house and quite frankly we have a compromise in the senate and we have enough votes in the house right now to pass immigration reform. john boehner won't bring it up to vote. the fact is congress continues to delay, to gridlock, to be dysfunctional about this. george w. bush had the immigration program and the of the republican party supporting mr. sasse actually torpedoed it. by not doing anything can we do something. what mr. sasse approaches to not do anything by advocating only

closing the border and not doing anything else on the other aspects. >> moderator: next question from mike tobias. >> moderator: to believe this is answered and border security. i want to hear what the other three of you have to say about the pathway to citizenship. what would this include and why? if not, what specific action would you take and why am let's start with the strong watson. watson: yeah, i like this new evolving definition called register provisional immigrated. it is a class that can be defined and limited to what benefits we provide. it is kind of a first step. we tend to have this no middle ground straight to legal residents of some sort. we demand another intermediary step. that is involved in love right now that have potential to limit the benefits. no one has rights tomorrow. you read this first stage before

you get to the second stage. so i think that is a good evolution of a indifferent class we need to work on the benefits that are much less a much less about everybody's students deviously eligible tomorrow and then you can move to a vehicle status at some future point in time once you've shown me that the first five years is a good record, good work, et cetera. i think this two-step process may be a pathway to find compromise between the two parties this as you can limit the benefits in the first to. >> you know, i think i'm the only candidate who's running the 93 county campaign. we're working hard on the ground right now. the great is what you hear across nebraska is in a lot of division. you don't have the same things reporters due to divide the people seeking office and they begin their answers time after time. what you hear the 93 counties in nebraska are people who believe what we need to do is be sure

the u.s. government is to fill in its first responsibilities first and then they want to move on to a whole host of other issues. knowledge, economy and intellectual i.t. workers term across the globe. certain conversations but agricultural guestworker programs. conversations about a pathway to legal status is what most will tell you. we're a nation of immigrants, but also a nation of laws and we don't believe you give people privilege to jump the line. the conversation about a pathway to legal status as a conversation of restaurants want to have. they just don't want have the conversation until there's clarity to washington as some first things first amount i've been advocating as well. many aspects need to be tackled at any border security before you can proceed a conversation about a pathway as a conversation abreast of their open to, but not to citizenship and voting money didn't come through the orderly process. >> moderator: mr. jenkins, your thoughts on pathway to

citizenship. watson: versed off, nebraska is impacted hugely by the inability to tackle this issue. the fact is mr. sasse is not in compliance with the position that is dean advocated with over 50 organizations around the state of nebraska. these are not left or right. these are business organizations. they are faith-based organizations. they cover the full range of the spectrum. so when he says he's listening to people in 93 counties, he is apparently 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 a position that will undermine our economy and undermine any forward progress on immigration. he will continue to advocate for gridlock, which is where we have been as mr. watson pointed out for the last two and a half

decades. >> moderator: reminder to our participants to avoid directly addressing your opponents. our next question is going to go to mr. domina. if that will be from jacque harms. >> mr. domina, undocumented immigrants are now in nebraska. you think the children should be allowed to cross the border and stay in the united states or should they be sent home? domina: they should be allowed to cross the border and stay in the united states until there is a legal adjudication about whether they are as they appear to be in claim to be refugees. a refugee is not an immigrant. and that is a matter of settled law. the united states has treaties with the countries from which these children have come in central america. we assigned the united nations charter. we abide by the international laws to which it subscribes in which it legislates and for which we have voted. there is a definition of refugee. there is a legal procedure we

have agreed to administer as a recipient nation about how to do with refugees. those children are entitled to protection of the united states, the welcome of the distance of the united states and due process of law before anything else about the discussion happens. they are here. they are here because of horrible circumstances at home so bad that their mothers and their fathers were willing to entrust them to criminal elements to get them out of their own neighborhoods. if that doesn't care at the heart of every american and every nebraskan and invite us to engage in the rule of law and the new process of law ,-com,-com ma we are a nation that has lost its soul. >> moderator: mr. sasse, your response. trained or it is a tragedy of the southern border right now and we can resolve the issues with the currently unaccompanied minors. would you do for the circumstance of being a 30 million or a million and a half or 2 million unaccompanied

minors at the border. the height of central america and violets appears within about 2011 and yet the height of these refugees in certain categories of other unaccompanied minors arriving at the border is much more recent. according to the u.s. intelligence data center out of el paso 94% of teenage kids been interviewed at the border say the primary reason they are here is because they believe there's automatic amnesty in favor of reification. this is a tragedy in the nebraskans don't begin as republicans or democrats. they begin his neighbors worried about kids at the border. aaron spending this money to pay coyotes to transport their kids are doing something dangerous and we need the president of the united is to go was because equivocally to central america and clarify the u.s. does not have a policy of automatic amnesty and stop the bleeding. then we can do with the problems and challenges of the 55,000 to 65,000 kids.

>> moderator: mr. watson. your thoughts. watson: i know god loves the children. the last to talk about them in large groups. these are individuals in the eyes of god and they all have different stories. we need to know god created entertains the family as the primary institution. if we can get them back to a safe and loving family for loving family, aunt, uncle, grandfather, grandmother, and that are, we need to get kids reunified back at home with her family. if this situation is a violent situation in a dangerous situation, the precedent should let the kids come to me and we need to find a solution to make sure that those kids have a good chance with eyes that are endangered when we send them home. i wish it was easy. we can have one blanket statement to treat 65,000 people, but we are all individuals the way god made us a way to care for his creation. >> moderator: thank you. we are ready to go to the next

segment. we want to remind our viewers and listeners on radio veteran washington listening to the u.s. senate debate here on net in cooperation with the nebraska broadcasters association. we move on to domestic issues. >> thank you. according to the latest gallup poll, 14% of americans approve of how congress is handling its job. this is feasible were among those who consider themselves people of pay close attention to national politics. you've talked about this all of you in some way tonight. all the talk about this regularly in campaign. i would like to your specific examples of how you conduct yourself and conduct business as a u.s. senator to build public confidence in what is happening in washington. mr. watson first. ..

>> and you're never going to win on everything. if you get 65, 75, 70% of what you're looking for, that's a win. that's why i've been called a pragmatic conservative. i believe in moving pragmatically forward. we're not going to get there overnight. these lines in the sand to get everything you want do not work, as we have seen. but ultimately, i want to start with your original point. 85% are frustrated. the challenge is on the voter. why are we not changing? why are we still listeng