as free-flowing as we can, but we want to give equal time to each candidate. we are asking them to keep their answers at about 60 seconds. when we ask you to move on, please do so. >> in addition, we reserve the right to ask follow-up questions. we'll give you a chance to directly respond if you're criticized by your opponent. mr. ashford, we start the debate with questions about the presidential race and your party's two nominees. as a member of the house armed services committee, you received classified briefings in right of clinton's controversial e-mail system, how can you handle your party's nominee to handle materials in the white house? ashford: first of all, thank you for putting this together. it's an exceptional opportunity for us, for both of us, and we appreciate it, and thanks. you're right, i received classified briefings on the armed services committee on the emerging threats subcommittee and also on the strategic forces subcommittee on a pretty much

weekly basis. and we are told about the classified information that we're getting, and it is part of how i make my judgments on the floor and in the votes that we take in the committee. i -- there's no excuse for secretary clinton's use of a private server, and i've said that over and over again. however, i do believe that secretary clinton does, has the experience and certainly the relationships in the congress to move our country forward. she knows the world leaders, she knows the leaders in the congress both in the house and in the senate, and that's a critical part as we move forward, to have those kinds of relationships. >> moderator: thank you, mr. ashford. you have 30 seconds, mr. bacon. bacon: the e-mails she had on were 2,000 classified e-mails. some were top secret, some had information about agents that were serving our country abroad. it undermined the national security of our country, and then she lied to the american

people for 16 months, and she's still lying about the fact that some of the information was not stamped classified, but they were. i think she was wrong, she undermined our nation's security. >> moderator: mr. bacon, this next question is for you, and you have 60 seconds. you have not ruled out the possibility of voting for donald trump, a although you want him to step down. given your military background, do you believe he is fit to serve as commander in chief? bacon: well, i served five times as a commander in the united states air force, 8,000 folks in one command, 7,000 on down. if i would have said the things that he said, i would have been relieved of duty. they were embarrassing, they were wrong, inappropriate, unacceptable comments. however, if i would have done what hillary clinton did, i would have got court-martialed and sent to jail for having secrets at home and compromising our security. i'll just share with you, i did take a hard stance friday and saturday, and i still do. i think family members who have been -- i've had family members

who have been sexually assaulted, and i see the scars. in the end, he said something wrong, she's done something wrong. >> mr. ashford? ashford: you know, don, you really can't have it both ways. first of all, i believe you said that you were very supportive of donald trump throughout the many statements that he's made up until the weekend. then you suggested that he, quite frankly, should not be -- he should step down, and hen you said but you would vote for him, and you said again you would vote for him. he called the generals rubble. he called the generals rubble. those kinds of statements are reflective of his character, and i don't think he is competent or qualified to be president of the united states. bacon: if i may, my candidate or nominee, i didn't support him during the primary, wasn't my first or second choice, but brad has been on the leadership team of hillary clinton since last december and has supported her. he said things that were inappropriate and indefensible,

but she did things that undermined the nation's security and lied to our country. so i'm going to have to vote for someone that i have reservations about. but in the end, i'll support him over her because, in the end, we cannot afford to have her leading our country, spending more, taxing more and undermining our nation's security. >> moderator: we're going to talk national security now, and we're going to start with mr. ashford. which nation do you think poses the greatest long-term threat to the united states and why, mr. ashford? ashford: russia poses the greatest long-term threat. and as i mentioned earlier, i sit on the armed services emerging threat subcommittee. i receive classified briefings every week on the russian threat. there's absolutely no question to me, there's no question that, for me, russia represents a threat that will be with us for a long time to come. and be they've exhibited that threat in syria, in crimea, throughout the baltic. i've had the opportunity to visit our leaders throughout the middle east and in the baltic, and it's clear to me that russia

is pushing and pushing. we have made some decisions in the last year or so to aggressively defend against that, but the cyber issue is critical, and is we need to stand up our cyber command as we are doing to address this. but russia clearly is, in my view, the threat. >> moderator: you have 60 seconds to answer the question. bacon: cyber command's stood up for a couple years now. i've been to russia. i've been an intelligence officer for roughly 30 years, i've also been involved with cyber as well as a 30-year air force, you know, veteran. i do think russia is the largest existential threat. they have intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers, submarines. putin has seen weakness in this president, and he's trying to push, you know, out will to see how far he can go. we need to be strong and have a strong deterrence. but i think the more volatile threat is iran in ten years. they have sworn the destruction of israel.

they're going to have a nuclear capability that's recognized rams in a -- perhaps in a decade, and that's what scares me most about ten years out. >> moderator: mr. bacon, how would you rate president obama's strategy of fighting islamic state militants in iraq and syria and what, if anything, would you do differently? bacon: i've been deployed four times in the middle east. i did one year in baghdad with general petraeus, and i commanded a squadron during the invasion of iraq. i've spent the last ten years roughly studying the islamic terrorism threat. i think president obama did too little, too late when it came to going after isis. the bombing campaign was like six to seven strikes a day. those are pinpricks when you look at the size of the territory that isis controlled. we have stepped up the air campaign, and we need to do more. frankly, we have to have a holistic strategy to defeat these folks. we have to go after their finances, we have to degrade the cyber recruiting that they do over the internet, and then we

have to also have a conversation about what motivates these folks to join so we can undermine them working with the sunni friends of more moderate nations. >> moderator: mr. ashford be, 60 seconds on president obama's strategy of fighting the islamic state. ashford: first of all, we need a no-fly zone in syria, and we need a safe zone in syria, unquestionably. and we should have done that before, and i criticize the president for not making that decision earlier. we are up to 20 strikes a day, we have killed 45,000 isis fighters, but the fight will go on, it needs to go on. in iraq we have, we have been able to push back isis and have been able to get 45% of the territory back that was a taken by isis and 20% in syria. we need an authorization for use of force. i have called for that since the day i came into congress, an authorization for use of force which will set the mission. when i was in the middle east, i had three trips to the middle east, our commanders said we need this, we need it now.

we need to make sure we do not cut the budget for the military any more and that we add to it. we've done that. we need an authorization for use of force, a no-fly zone and a safe zone, and then we have to have some sort of way of moving forward, and that needs to be part of the aumf. >> moderator: next question, gentlemen -- bacon: if i may? i do think we need an authorizationing for force. i would agree there. but i would tell you that isis is growing every day even though there's been some success in baghdad. they recruit every day over internet. and roughly 30 people a day are recruited. and we've got to go after the recruiting of isis which is worldwide, some of which stay in their home countries and self-radicalize. >> moderator: next question, gentlemen. russian hacking, there are claims it's trying to influence the election.

you start, mr. ashford. ashford: first of all, we've had a cyber command, but we haven't had a cyber force that we're standing up now. by 2018 we will have approximately 6200 new cyber warriors under the cyber command force. i think we need, cyber command needs to be a separate combatant command. we also ought to enlarge our opportunity for working with the private sector and bring expertise from silicon valley and, quite frankly, from right here in omaha to help with the cyber fight. i had an opportunity to talk to the ceo of mutual of omaha a year ago or so, and we came up with this idea of lend-lease of private sector technology people that we could bring into the military to help with the cyber fight. it's an all hands on on deck, private sector, military to get -- to not only defend, but have an offensive strategy against cyber. and i, there's much more to be done.

we've had a good start, but we need to do more. >> moderator: you have 60 seconds to answer the question. bacon: i was there during the start up of all the teams that we're building. russia does pose the largest threat to our cyber. china is very active, though, trying to take our intellectual secrets. we have other countries involved as well. i've been part of the cyber stand-up, and we need to continue investing in cyber and growing the teams. i will tell you that we've made a lot of headway with russia and china, but we need to do more with the counterterrorism part of our cyber to understand how the sunni insurgents are using the internet, so we have to grow that capability as well. >> moderator: mr. bacon, a similar topic. you have 60 seconds. we've already discussed russia, but let's further the conversation. how would you handle russian president vladimir putin? should we treat him as a trend or foe? why or why not? bacon: he's become an adversary. we don't want him to be an

enemy, but he is surely working against our interests, and he respects strength. what i fear what happened in georgia where he took away sections of their land as well as ukraine with the crimea area, if we don't stand firm in the baltics with lithuania, estonia and latvia -- by the way, i've traveled there and have worked with those countries, they're great allies. we have to have a firm hand and a presence to serve as a deterrence. and by the way, i think nato does perform a very valuable funk here, and we need to continue working with them, but we do need to make sure those countries contribute at the right level. nato and our baltic states need our presence as a deterrence. >> moderator: mr. ashford, how would you handle vladimir putin? ashford: he is our adversary, and we need to handle him aggressively. we're doing some of that now. we're rotating troops in and out of poland, we have our base in romania, efforts in the baltic states.

i've traveled to the baltic states and to sweden and to our troops in england, and there's absolutely no question that russia buzzing our 55th -- and don knows probably better than anybody about the 55th and the buzzing of the russian, by the russian planes. but we need, we need to enforce our boundaries in eastern europe. we need to be clear, very clear in syria with the no-fly zone that if assad continues to go after the civilian population in aleppo and other areas that we are not -- we are going to resist that with a no-fly zone. we need to make sure that the russians understand that and that we understand that we are going to act aggressively if necessary. bacon: i'd like to make one commentary on that. to do a no-fly zone with the russians already there, it's a recipe for conflict with the russians. so i do not think it's a wise move to do the no-fly zone now. now, we do need the safe havens. general petraeus has proposed

that. we need to put refugees in these areas to help recollect them and feed them -- protect them and feed them closer to home. but a no-fly area with the russians is a recipe for conflict unless we coordinate with them. the no-fly zone was the thing to do before they got there, it's not right now unless we coordinate. ashford: i think we do need the no-fly zones and we need to make it clear that we're going to aggressively enforce that against assad. against assad. and i think diplomatic efforts in geneva have stalled. i think we have to make it very clear to the russians that we are going to protect civilians in safe zones but also by enforcing a no-fly zone so that as -- assad's air force is not out in the field going after our sunni partners, but also the civilian population. and, obviously, the 250,000 people who have died and the tragedies of aleppo need to be, in my view, need to be stopped.

bacon: we're going to have to coordinate with the russians on that one. it's a recipe for conflict. it should have been done before the russians got there. our president was too weak and didn't stand up in time to get this done. we do need the safe havens for the refugees. ashford: yeah. i just think we aggressively need to do the no-fly zone. assad needs to go. eventually, assad needs to go. isis needs to be destroyed first, but assad needs to go. and we are coordinating with the russians now, and i've been in the bases, and i know don, of course, has where those conversations go on between the russians and our people. and there is some coordination going on. but we need to be very firm and clear. and petraeus is right. we've met with general petraeus on several cases in the armed services committee. his plan for a safe zone is appropriate, and i would support it. >> moderator: we're going to move on to health care now. mr. ashford, the first question goes to you to start off. one of the more popular features of the health care law is a provision that bars insurance companies from denying coverage

based on pre-existing condition. the most unpopular part is the mandate. experts say the two go hand in hand. without the mandate, people would get insurance once they've had a heart attack. do you agree, can we have one without the other? starting with you, mr. ashford. ashford: first of all, in the congress there have been over 60, close to 70 now efforts to repeal the aca without a replacement plan. and so we've wasted from 2010 til now, we've wasted time when we could be trying to reform it. and i do think we need to reform it. you're going to have to require -- in order to cover for pre-existing conditions for 26-year-olds and their family and for caps, lifetime caps, individuals are going to have to buy insurance. but we need to make insurance more affordable, we need to work with insurance companies to do that. we need to work with small businesses to remove some of the mandates on them, because i don't think they are necessary. employers already do provide insurance to their employees across the country.

so i do think the mandates for individuals having insurance are important, but we have to get the costs done. we have to get the costs down by reforming obamacare, and that means working across the aisle to do it. i've signed onto ten bills to try to do it. >> moderator: 60 seconds, previous conditions along with the mandate. bacon: we have to cover pre-existing conditions, but we don't need to do that with obamacare. obamacare is one of the worst things that's been done to our economy. i go around to small businesses all the time, it's always number one or the number two problems they talk about. the average family's paying more than $3700 in premiums now. deductibles have skyrocketed. obamacare has been a fall your. it's been a failure for the middle class, to small businesses. i would repeal and replace obamacare. there are good proposals right now in congress to put out there, and we could fix this by putting it down at the state

level. we do not want federal bureaucrats in charge. brad has voted for it twice, but it's a failure. >> moderator: do you believe the mandate has to go? bacon: i would take away all of obamacare to include the mandate. we do need pre-existing coverages. we can insure that folks are covered, 26-year-olds and below with their family. we don't knee washington, d.c. and bureaucrats. we need patient-centered health care where people can take their insurance policy and go from job to job. these are some of the proposals that are now in congress that we can enact. obamacare's a failure, and he should have opposed it. he stood with nancy pelosi -- [laughter] and supported her in this effort. ashford: that's not true. don, let's get the facts straight. when i ran, i said i would not have voted for obamacare because it was not a bipartisan effort. what needs to be done in washington is we need to address all of these problems in a bipartisan way. your party has proposed the repeal of obamacare 11 or 12

times since i've been there and about 55 or 60 times before i got there without any replacement. so what do you tell the 20 million people now that do have insurance? what do you tell those who have pre-existing conditions that are now being dealt with, that they have insurance? what do you tell the people with mental illness? we have to reform it, but that means working across the aisle. i want to see the plan that you're talking about. what is the plan you're talking about? i would be more than happy to support changes, and i've got ten bills i'm cosponsor of -- >> moderator: let's just specify one of the things that you brought up in there, mr. ashford. for those who say get rid of obamacare, i think you threw out the figure 20 million, it's anywhere between 16.5 and 20 million -- ashford: i think it's 20 overall, 9 on the exchangeses -- [inaudible] in that range. [inaudible conversations]

what would you do in terms of getting rid of obamacare? would you support stripping people of their coverage? and what would you do with people who signed up, got the coverage and now here in 2016 it appears the rules might change? bacon: there's multiple, great proposals right now in congress. dr. price, he's a congressman from georgia, he was just here in town this week briefing people on these proposals. what we need to do is get the regulatory authority out of washington, d.c., out of the hands of d.c. bureaucrats, get it back at the state level. what we want to do is insure that patients, when they -- you get your own coverage. you can go from job to job and take that coverage with you. we want more competition to help drive down costs. obamacare has let the costs skyrocket. we need more competition to get that done. we can cover, folks, and provide pre-existing coverage and also help out 26-year-olds and below with their family and still have the health care run at the state level and get it out of washington d.c. ashford: yeah, i'm just --

that's not a proposal, don. i've been there for, on the floor for 19 months, taken several votes on the issue not to repeal, but to find a way to fix it. and i, i know dr. price. i know that people talk about this sort of mysterious plan out there. i have never seen it. i've never seen one single suggestion in legislative form. i would be happy to look at a reform of obamacare if someone would bring it forward in a legislative package. it is legislative negligence, in my view, to taking what is purely a political position to repeal something because it's called obamacare and the president proposed it and it passed in a partisan manner, which i don't agree with. but that isn't fixing it. we have to fix it. we have to make sure that those 20 million continue to have coverage. we do need more competition. we need to give insurance companies the ability to do that. we need to deregulate physicians. they've been overly regular

alated. regulated. all those things we need to do, but we need to do it with a plan. i have not seen a plan. if you have a plan, i'd be happy to look at it. >> moderator: mr. ashford, if you have a divided house and senate -- well, the republicans control the house and they control the senate now. if the democrats were to take back the senate but the republicans control the house, what you just said about fixing it and improving it, aren't we just going to see a stalemate? ashford: no, i think we're on way to fixing it. first of all, i think the cadillac tax is gone. if you talk to small businesses or medium and large-sized businesses and their human resources department, the one area that we could do right away -- and i think we might do it in the lame duck -- is to get rid of the cadillac tax. for the first time in the history of health care insurance, we're taxing health care insurance. we've never done that before. one of reasons why employers bought into health insurance after the war was because it was a benefit that was not taxed. we need to get rid of the cadillac tax. there was an employer i was with the other day that talked about

large employer, 40% of -- there'd be a 40% increase in the premium costs if we don't get rid of the cadillac tax. i think we need to make sure that we get rid of the mandate that businesses over 30 employees have to buy insurance. that's a crippler for small business. we need to look at the taxes small businesses are being required to pay. so we need -- i would vote for all those things, don. but -- and i'd vote for giving the states more flexibility on products that insurance companies offer. >> moderator: all right. we've tackled national security and health care. at this point we will let the candidates catch their breath a bit. when we come back, they will ask is each other a question. stay with us, you're watching the ashford/bacon congressional debate right here on kmtv. ♪ ♪ >> moderator: we are back, and we are at the point in the debate where each candidate will

be given a chance to ask his opponent a question. based upon drawing of cards, mr. ashford goes first. ashford: don, i have only three democrats have voted more times than me with republicans. the congressional quarterly has, has said that i am the six sixth most bipartisan member of the united states congress. they're an objective observer of the hill. i have voted to buck my party on many, many occasions. i voted to keep gitmo open, against the iran deal, and be i voted for full accountability at the veterans administration. would you pick three republican initiatives or issues where you would buck your party? and tell me what those are. bacon: well, first of all be, depending on who wins the presidency here, i will support nato, because i think nato deserves support. so if president trump comes in and he makes that one of his initiatives, i'll be -- i'll stand and insure that i'm a

strong voice for nato. i also will be careful about the use of force -- [inaudible] i think -- i've seen combat firsthand, and i want to be careful about the use of force. and so i'll be a voice to insure that we don't overreach and put ourselves in a bad situation. >> moderator: okay. two of them there. mr. ashford, nato and syria, that mr. bacon just noted. you have 30 seconds. ashford: i don't think those -- the republicans in the armed services committee support nato wholeheartedly. so i don't think that's a republican position you'd be bucking. as far as syria, certainly, there are republicans who support a no-fly zone and those who don't. i would ask are there any issues where you would differ with the republican position. not the trump position -- because i don't think the trump position and the republican positions are necessarily the same. bacon: another thing i would point out because i got only two points there. a third one is i would be

careful, too, how we talk about immigration and securing our borders. we do need to secure our borders. we have 30-400,000 folks coming here illegally, but once we do that, employer enforcement and some other measures, i would have a more moderate approach to how to handle the 12 million -- i don't think a one-size-fits-all approach works. some people are good neighbors, doing good in their community. we ought to provide a pathway for legalization. so i think i have a little more moderate approach. i'm not a blank check for either party or, for that matter, either president. i want to do what's right for this district, and i want to be a defender of our constitution. >> moderator: mr. bacon, it's now your turn to ask mr. ashford a question. bacon: okay. i want to talk about isis and terror. do you know which cities in nebraska are on the isis kill list, and what would you do after, say 48 hours after major attack if one occurred in nebraska? ashford: i don't know what

cities are on the kill list. i've never been briefed on that, that i know of. if if you do, tell me. bacon: i will. okay, finish. ashford: what's your next question? bacon: what would you do if there was a major attack in nebraska from isis? what would be your response? ashford: well, my first response would be to bring together the, our local law enforcement people, our homeland security people, our fbi and to, number one, to, first of all, is to aggressively resist the take, obviously. and our local law enforcement people need to have the -- and that's why i voted to make sure local law enforcement has the equipment they need if such an attack were to occur. ask i voted with the republican majority to do that. i would then make sure that prior to any attack -- hopefully -- is that we've had an integrated response to any kind of attack and future attack. and i would have that, those individuals, those groups --

fbi, homeland security, the counterintelligence groups -- to come together. and i would a also, i would also make certain that we have access to the technology so that we can find out what sort of additional attacks are occurring. get into their cell phones, get into their technology to make sure that something else doesn't happen. but number one, local law enforcement has to have the equipment and the ability to respond. and then we would bring in the national team, the fbi and whoever's on that team to enforce that. bacon: a lot of these actions would be done by the governor and presidential decision, but there's onety on the isis kill list, and that's bellevue because of its association with offat air force base, and i think that's important to know because they've listed the cities they want to attack. someone on the armed services committee should likely know that, i think. the real reason i brought this up is i have a close relationship with the mayor of bellevue who supports me. i've known her when she was a

soccer mom, our kids were playing soccer in the '90s together, and i would talk to her and make sure i knew what she needed, how i could help her out with congress or any kind of congressional actions. the commander of the 55th wing right now is someone i've served with three times. i would call him. both county sheriffs, by the way, in this district support he me. i would talk to them. the county attorney who's also a supporter of mine. i have a lot of great relationships that i could leverage. and i would make sure i know how we could support them through my actions in congress. >> moderator: and a final word on this? ashford: yeah. i like all the people that support you, by the way, don. [laughter] i certainly like the mayor of bellevue. she has a lot of enthusiasm. she's a runner, like you and i are -- >> moderator: we're talking about rita sanders. ashford: we're talking about rita. she does a great job in bellevue. one of the proudest things i've been able to do with my colleagues working across the aisle is to get that runway done. when you were there and sister

years before that -- for years before that, the runway could not get done. we were able to get the air force to go along with that runway which is going to help protect the 55th's presence there and national security. >> moderator: we're going to move on now to racial injustice. in the past year, there's been increased talk about racial injustice in this election. do you believe the black lives matter movement has a valid complaint about racial injustice and the way police sometimes interact with african-americans? mr. ashford, you're first. ashford: we've dealt with these issues all the time. i worked with the empowerment network since it was formed in north omaha. we have in nebraska some legal responses to some of these problems, and i've talked to many of my members, many of my friends who are members from the cities that had these issues. one of the things we do here is we have a grand jury automatically impaneled whenever there is a death in the custody of a police officer, when a

police officer's involved. that provides transparency, it provides the ability for the public to know that there's, that this particular incident has had an immediate look-see. we also, when i was on the judiciary committee, we made sure that the crime commission collected information on all traffic stops in the community. we know -- and anybody can look at where those traffic stops occurred. and that gives us the kind of data that we need. i've also worked to try to promote programs on the state level and on the federal level to prevent violence, many of those. >> moderator: mr. ashford, the question though is do you believe the black lives matter has a valid complaint? ashford: sure. sure, and that's why we have to have -- you know, abdullah, amir abdullah, i thought, had a great response to what happened at northwestern. i would not have knelt, obviously, when the national anthem was played, but those young peopled had a point, and

they have the right to protest. amir abdullah in detroit who plays for the lions had a great idea, bring law enforcement together. this is an opportunity to have a collaboration and a discussion. >> moderator: mr. be bacon? 60 seconds. bacon: i would say, yes, because there have been some situations that were wrong. the gentleman in the carolinas who was pulled over, he ran, shot in the back because he was behind on child support payments. that was wrong. i think black lives matter also has a higher meaning though when you look at unemployment ratings that are three and four and five times higher in those urban areas. we've got to fix that. we can't -- that's unacceptable. we've got to work on that. or we look at the victimization rates in the same areas. i really believe in the dream of this country that we're all created equal, and we're endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, and we've got to work hard to make sure we get there. we also need to defend our law enforcement.

hay put their lives on the line every day, and we're only talking exceptions of this. most of them are the best of our american citizens, and it would be -- it's wrong to throw the entire law enforcement under the bus as sometimes some people have done. i had a shooting at the base when i was the commander, and one of the things that we did is we brought in someone from the county to investigate it so folks would know that there was honesty and transparency, no cover-up. we need to have that philosophy, i believe, when these situations occur. >> moderator: let me ask you this. ashford: could i just respond? we actually have a bill in congress, david scott from georgia has a bill that targets, i think it's a very important bill, that targets 18-year-old to 35-year-old black males. 41% of them are unemployed in this country, and what this bill does is in any large public project that's financed partially publicly or whatever, that the department of labor meet with community-based groups

in the area where the project is, develop a plan to directly employ black youth, males between 18 and 35. that's the problem don's talking about. he's right, it needs to be addressed, and this is a bill that can do that in a bipartisan way. >> moderator: let me ask you this, mr. bacon, you said we've got to fix this. you cited an example be at offat, and mr. ashford had just mentioned a bill in washington. what is congress' role in addressing racial disparity in the country? we've seen local level efforts, but can the federal government actually play a role in addressing the issue of racism this country and its institutions, the federal government? bacon: we do have a role at the federal government level, but also partnering with the city and the state and the county. it's a team effort. i had a meeting today in north omaha working with community leaders, so i can learn more about how to support these issues. so one of the things we talked about was to insure that the agencies in washington will be, find out where to spend money

and get it to the right spots that's working. i wasn't sure from the community what programs were actually working so we can invest more there and reduce spending in other areas hard not working. i think writ large we've got to do more to support our business community. regulations are making it very hard for small businesses to open and grow. the it's worst -- it's the worst economic growth since 1949 coming out of a recession. the regulatory environment, big government, and we've got to do better. and we need some outsiders in washington that can push this, because the insiders and the career politicians aren't getting this done. >> moderator: mr. ashford, is this a federal issue? a state issue? a local issue? ashford: it's all of the above, and i think all hands need to be on deck as we address these issues. i think we both acknowledge that they're out there. community policing is an incredibly important asset in every community, and i've said -- i've worked with every police chief since the mid 1980s, and we have had a remarkable number of exceptional

police chiefs and members of the force. i mean, we've got a bill in the congress now which gives special status equal to military more the spouse of a law enforcement -- for the spouse of a law enforcement person who's been killed in action. we need to -- the federal government has two roles. it needs to make sure that cops funding, a federal program from the justice d., is robust. and that goes into helping support community police. you talk to any chief here and some of those mentioned by don that are supporting him, they need that cops funding. secondarily, i think we can provide federal guidelines for training on how we deal with violence and how we interact with police and community leaders and people in the community. but, so the decisions have to be made on the community level. i think there is a funding opportunity as long as it's efficient and earmarked to the right purposes. bacon: i think expanded federal oversight would be a mistake. we want to insure that our local police have the authority with the mayors and down at the local level. there's more and more proposals

about getting the long arm of the federal government to micromanage and do training. there's even talk about federalization of the police force. that's big government, and i would oppose that. ashford: and i absolutely oppose be it too. i've had a lifetime of work with the omaha police division and all the police forces around both as judiciary chair and running the housing authority and other community projects i've worked on. it shouldn't be a federal program. what i'm saying is, is that a money there for copse, and the -- the cops funding program, and it should be row to bust and expanded to address the concerns that you've raised and that it lanes cities like ours. and it shouldn't go to every city necessarily in the same proportion, because it should go to cities like ours that have done the job of enhancing community policing. >> moderator: we have to move on to immigration now, gentlemen. you both agreed the nation's borders need to be strengthened, but this deals solely with the estimated 11 million immigrantsly anything this country illegally. do you side with donald trump

who's vowed to deport them all? we start with you, mr. ashford. ashford: well, we're not going to deport 11 million people. i don't support -- i support a path and always have are, i believe it makes sense both economically and on a humanitarian basis that we provide a way for individuals who are here. about 50% of those who are here have overstayed their visas and 50% have not of the 11 million. we need to find a way to, for those individuals to earn their pathway to citizenship. whether it's they have to pay their taxes, they have not -- they could not have violated the law. they have to adhere to the rules that are, that apply to everybody else. and then i think they should have to apply. and congress needs, congress doesn't debate this issue. they talk about securing the borders which i absolutely support. i don't support a wall, but they've always -- what politicians say, first of all, secure the wall, then we'll talk

about the issue of citizenship. that has to be done in parallel. we need more border security people, we need technology on the border. we don't need a wall, but we need a pathway to citizenship with clear rules set forth so that individuals know what the rules are and get there. >> moderator: mr. bacon? bacon: we have a failed policy right now with our immigration. this last seven years with executive orders circumventing around congress, it's been wrong. president obama's been wrong with executive orders supported by nancy pelosi who brad ashford wants as speaker again this next term, which would be bad. what we have to do with the 11 or 12 million folks who are here, it has to be connected with securing the border. you're not going to be able to come up with a compromise unless folks in our country know that we have secured the border. and i think it's going to involve employer enforcement. but once you do that, then i think people would be more

willing to discuss how do we handle appropriately and with compassion the 11 or 12 million people that are here. i oppose pathway to citizenship for those who come here illegally, because people have been waiting for ten years to do it right. but i think there's a pathway for legalized status nor those working and are good community neighbors and good neighbors in general. but those who are bad or have had crimes or who are not supporting themselves, we need to ask them to go back home. >> moderator: do you want to respond? ashford: yeah, someone's committed a crime, they have to go back home. and president obama has issued executive orders because congress has failed to act. and the excuse given by those who oppose immigration reform -- and i don't think you can saw say to a young dreamer who came here two or three years old that's gone to school here, has lived a good life, has played sports, is a constructive part of the school and of the community, you can't say that they can't earn citizenship? why, why on earth can that young person not have an opportunity

to earn citizenship? we've deported more people than we've ever deported before because congress has failed to act. bush had a bill that i supported and to support now something like it. it passed the senate and the congress wouldn't even take it up. speaker boehner wouldn't even take it up. bacon: we're not deporting more people than ever. we're actually releasing folks. it's catch and release. that's a mistake. we were letting people out of jail that were arrested who have gone on to commit crimes. it's wrong. and it was because of president obama's executive orders of which brad ashford helped fund those executive orders. we should have taken a harder line with our homeland security funding when this came up. in the end, we have between 300-400,000 people coming here illegally or overstaying their visas. that's more than the united states air force. we've got to do better. we've got to secure our border, and then we can do the compassionate, right thing with the folks who are here.

and it won't be a one-size-fits-all approach. ashford be: i need to respond to that. i voted to maintain and keep the homeland security office open. what the vote was, was in fact to not, not to support the executive order. i voted against my party on that because i would never vote to shut down homeland security. that was the vote. it was cynical, it was a gotcha vote, but i would never vote to shut them down, and i also -- just a second. also, david young and i, as you know, have the sarah root bill. david young from iowa, the republican, we have a bipartisan bill which says if you've committed a violent crime, i.c.e. must take custody of that problem so what happened to sarah root can never happen again. we are responding. >> moderator: we have to let mr. bacon. bacon: initially voted against it, then he voted for it. it's the standard brad ashford flip-flop on. ashford: come on, don. bacon: when an executive order

comes out that breaks the law, the congress has to take a hard line because the separation of powers demands it. and brad caved on this to the president. and we've been working in a very dysfunctional immigration environment, and brad is part of the problem. [inaudible conversations] >> moderator: let's do this. let's continue the discussion on immigration. each have 30 seconds on this particular, specific question. we've seen the images of syrian refugees including children fleeing that war-torn country. about 50 of those syrian refugees have resettled in omaha since may. donald trump and others want to ban all syrian refugees from coming to this country. would you support such ban, and what would you do with the syrian refugees that have settled in nebraska? 30 seconds. we'll start with you. bacon: right now we have 10,000 people arriving here, there's a proposal for 50,000 more. i i think we need to do very good vetting, because the role of the government is to protect our citizens and defend our constitutional rights and to allow in the 10,000 without hard

vetting, you know isis is trying. they've already announced that they're trying to infiltrate through those refugees. so i think we've got to carefully vet and be very careful. we're better off trying to protect refugees closer to home with the safe havens. >> moderator: mr. ashford, 30 seconds. ashford: first of all, there are about 6,000 refugees here. there are four million that -- refugees from syria. there's six million displaced persons in syria. we have taken 6,000. congressman charlie dent from pennsylvania and congressman hudson from north carolina, both republicans, came to me and asked if i would be the democrat cosponsor on a refugee bill that would provide for more robust vetting. i was and i am, and homeland security and fbi have changed the rules to that when a refugee comes here after 18-24 months of vetting by the u.n., fbi and homeland security, they come here, and they're vetted for the first year that they're here. and then at the end of the first year -- which is a change, and it was in response to the bill

that we introduced, they have to go through another background check. so i think we should allow the refugees to come in. they should comply with the procedures that have been impresented. implemented. and as far as i i know, no incident certainly in nebraska involving a refugee where there's been a terrorist act that i know of. >> moderator: >> moderator: we're going to have to leave it there. let's get to the tv and radio ads that so many of our listeners, viewers and readers have seep. both of you seem like honest guys, but both your respective political parties are running fear-mongering ads on television and radio. many ashford, the democratic national campaign committee is running an ad suggesting your opponent wants to immediately raise the retirement age for social security for everybody even though he has said he would not change the retirement age for anyone nearing retirement. do you support these ads, and what would you say here tonight about social security? ashford: i just don't support raising the retirement age. i don't think you need to do

that at all ever whether it's going back to 40 years old or 30 years old or 20 years old. i think there's another plan to make social security sustainable for 75 years. i think that's a reduction in benefits. so so that's my position -- >> moderator: what about the ad? ashford: what does the ad say? >> the ad has a couple sitting on the couch, and pretty much they say they've learned that mr. bacon wants to raise social security. they've worked long and hard in their lives, and they just found out that they may have to work longer ask harder. they can't trust mr. bacon, don't want to -- ashford: i think -- that's not our ad, we have no control over those. the point that's being made that raising the retirement age is not good policy. i don't think don called it scare-mongering, but i don't think that's what it's trying to do. it's trying to graphically show that raising the retirement age is not a good policy. >> moderator: would you like to respond? bacon: i would love to. first of all, i would not raise

the retirement age for those in retirement or nearing retirement. we have to make that clear. the ads for nancy pelosi, and she's trying her best to reelect brad, she's working her best to do that, but it's a lie. i have said those were younger, under 30, that we should consider because we used to have 42 people paying in for every one taken out, now it's three, and soon it's going to be two to one. leaders step up and provide solutions to fix a problem. politicians want to demagogue and politicize it. i, frankly, have not heard a good proposal from brad. ashford: i'll give you one. [laughter] bike babe he's been quiet. ashford: the nancy pelosi stuff, don, is fine, and be i know it's good politics, and you keep talking about me as a career politician. the week after i got elected, you decided to run for office, and you know what you said? we need a change. i didn't even unpack my luggage in washington -- bacon: and you voted for nancy pelosi already.

ashford: sure, i voted for nancy pelosi, but i voted against her on almost every major initiative. bacon: not true. ashford: it is true. you know what those votes are? those are, for the most part, what happens in congress. and this stuff you need to study. bacon: i'm not a clear legislator like you are. ashford: well, you're a good military guy, and you are, and i commend you for that. and but i have -- and your service is commendable, without question. but i've had 18 years of being a legislator, and it does,s it is complicated, it is different. and, no, what those votes -- >> moderator: we're going to have to to go to break. ashford: those are procedural votes. bacon: half the time he votes with nancy pelosi. he's only a moderate in california or new york. not in nebraska. >> moderator: it's time for our second and final commercial break. when we come back, closing statements from each candidate. you are watching the ashford/bacon congressional debate on kmtv in tandem with the omaha world herald.

>> moderator: welcome back. before we get to the closing statements, one final question, and you only have 30 seconds to answer this one. do you believe the second amendment allows for any types of restrictions on any type of firearms, and or should we ban assault weapons? mr. ashford. ashford: no. i don't think we should ban them, but i do think we should have background checks. the no-fly list and terrorist watch list, there should be background checks done. between 2004 and 2014, 91% of the people on the no- on the terrorist watch lists were able to purchase firearms. that's a public safety issue. the vast majority of americans support that. >> moderator: thank you, mr. ashford. mr. bacon? bacon: no, i defend the second amendment. one thing i'd point out about the no-fly list, ted kennedy was on it. so we need a due process so if one's on that no-fly list wrongfully, they have a way to

get out of it. that's important more our rights. the fifth amendment should be protected with this no-fly list. >> moderator: all right. it's time now i for closing statements. each candidate has 90 seconds. mr. ashford, you're first. ashford be: thank you. and thank you again, both of you, and thank you to the world herald and the kmtv. everyone needs to get out and vote, and this is going to help us do that. you know, i've had a life and my family's had a a life of public service dating back in nebraska to 1856 when my father's family came from ireland, my mother's family came from sweden in the 1870s. public service is in my dna, and it's in the dna of all nebraska cans. i had the opportunity to serve in the nebraska legislature for 16 years. that was, in my mind, public service. during that time i owned a business, i ran a law firm, i raised a family. that, the nebraska legislature taught me many things. the one thing it really taught me was nebraskans have a unique

way of being. there's no other place like it. there are no parties. people don't sit one side or the other, people don't even get voted on based on the partisan designation that they may have. it's the nebraska way. when i ran for congress, i said i would go to washington and i would take the nebraska way to washington. i've worked with republicans on incredibly important pieces of legislation. only three democrats have voted with republicans more than i have in the time in the 114th congress. i am the -- have been ranked the sixth most bipartisan member of the united states congress. those aren't just, those aren't just things that i'm throwing out there, those are a factual. and i will continue to go back to washington if i'm elected, and i would appreciate your vote and and do exactly the same thing. >> moderator: mr. bacon, you have 90 seconds for your closing argument. bacon: i want to thank craig and michael for doing and this thanks, brad, for being here as well. i love our country, and i want to continue to defend it. i think i bring in very useful

experience. our country right now is struggling. we have $19.5 trillion debt, we have a regulatory environment that's crushing the small business community. we have a broken tax code. and we have a national security strategy that's broke. and i want tock -- to be a leader that comes to washington and moves the ball down the field on all of these core issues. career politicians are not getting it done. i also want to bring useful experience there. four deployments to the middle east, 30 years in nato, my time in the military will be very useful as the second most senior veteran in congress. bipartisanship, brad keeps mentioning it. it was a bipartisan, quote, democrat who gave us the deciding vote that gave us obamacare. another bipartisan democrat that went against a balanced budget amendment. we know when the chips are down, brad's going to be marching right behind nancy pelosi, and we can do better. bipartisanship for me is working

across the aisle on those core issues facing our country. i look forward to serving you, and i'm going to work hard for your vote, and i would ask for your vote. thank you. >> moderator: thank you very much, mr. bacon. that'll have to be the last word for the night. thank both of our candidates for participating and your willingness to run for office. >> moderator: also a special thanks to our viewers, listeners and readers. to rewatch the debate, go to kmtv.com or omaha.com. we encourage you all to vote in the election. don't forget, it's tuesday, november 8th. thank you for joining us. good night. ♪ ♪ >> our campaign 2016 coverage continues on c-span with live debates for u.s. house and senate races. today at 7 p.m., republican senator richard burr and democrat deborah ross debate for the north carolina u.s. senate. on friday night at 8 eastern, the wisconsin u.s. senate debate

between republican senator ron johnson and former democrat senator russ feingold. and that's followed at 10 with republican congressman joe heck debating for the nevada senate. and listen on the c-span radio app. >> 25 days left until election day. donald trump and hillary clinton recently released on lewin videos on their -- online videos on their campaign web sites. here's a look. >> donald trump reeling from criticism by his own party's leadership. he tweeted this: it is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and i can fight for america the way i want to. ♪ >> i have never been so a shamed of this country. >> donald trump appears to be in total meltdown. ♪ it's the final meltdown. >> the that shackles are off, aw

i can really do what i want. are you going to be more outspoken? ♪ the final meltdown. >> i don't think i'm that outspoken. i was so surprised to see him sign on with the devil. >> he threatened to jail his opponent. that is something i think is a new low in american democracy. >> lock her up, is right. >> you're behind with women -- >> i'm not sure i believe it. >> in a daylong twitter tirade, trump tore into house speaker paul ryan. >> i wouldn't want to be in a foxhole with a lot of these people. >> you attacked john mccain -- >> this was locker room talk. john mccain, who has probably the dirtiest mouth in all the senate -- >> i don't know what good it does to trash people. >> you released a new campaign tv ad that revisits the topic of hillary clinton's health. >> morning in america, it's not. >> donald trump is now out of control in a way that even we have not seen. this is a nuclear bomb. we are watching an unhinged candidate.

>> look, i'll compare my iq with anybody, okay? ♪ it's the final meltdown. >> ambassador stevens -- >> the question is -- >> wait a minute. you said a lot of things -- >> i mean, i think we can -- >> no, mr. trump we're going to -- >> she has been a disaster as a senator. a disaster. >> mr. trump, we're going to move on. >> oh, you didn't delete 'em? >> allow her to respond -- >> what do you think will happen if aleppo falls? >> i think it's a disaster humanitarian -- >> what do you think it will happen if it falls? >> how stupid is our country? >> there are sometimes reasons the military does that. psychological or warfare -- >> i can't think of any. getting the subpoena from the united states congress -- >> we have to move on. secretary clinton, you can respond -- >> we want to give the audience -- >> you should be put in jail. let alone after getting a subpoena -- >> secretary clinton, you can respond, but we have to move on to -- >> mr. trump, mr. trump -- >> on this --

>> i just -- just one thing? first of all, hillary, everything's broke been about it. >> please allow her to respond. >> we brought up the e-mails. >> no, it hasn't. it hasn't been finished at all. >> ken has a question. >> nice to -- one on three. ♪ ♪ >> the time magazine cover story out today, total meltdown, and a caricature of donald trump co-written by philip elliot, washington or correspondent for time magazine. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> guest: of course. >> host: so much to talk about, but let's begin with your piece in which you mentioned donald trump is, quote, consumed by petty grudges, angry over leaked recordings and now free of the republican party's shackles. what has been going on? >> guest: wow, it has been nothing short of an epic meltdown inside trump tower. we've talked at length with several people trying to advise mr. trump off his ledge to get him back into a more traditional mode.

he is just not going there. he is going to leave everything on the field, to use a tortured sports analogy, and just use this in the remaining days of his campaign to settle scores and to, basically, relitigate every wrong that he feels he has been suffering. this is a candidate who has, as we quote one official, just taken the party and has forced them to the darkest places possible. nurturing the worst instincts of some of the conservative members of his party and torturing -- and that is not an exaggeration -- torturing the establishment-minded republicans who have devoted their entire lives to building up a conservative party in this country that can debate ideas and talk about its history. and this is about as far from

the party of george h.w. bush as you can imagine. >> host: so where does that put house speaker paul ryan, the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell and the so-called mainstream republicans as they try to maintain control of the senate and figure out where the gop is going next? >> guest: paul ryan is an interesting character here. he, he always had an uncomfortable and uneasy marriage with mr. trump that, okay, this is the guy who is the nominee of the party. it behooves the republican brand to not lose a third consecutive presidential race. it would be good for down-ballot candidates if mr. trump's supporters decided to show up and vote for republican candidates for senate and house. that is no longer the mindset inside speaker ryan's orbit or leader mcconnell's. they see mr. trump as a toxic

figure inside the party that is, that could very much drag down candidates like kelly ayotte in new hampshire, one of perhaps the most endangered republican senators facing re-election. democrats only need to capture four more seats and the vice presidency to flip, to capture the majority for the first time since -- and it's a very real thing. republicans are defending 24 seats on the map. that's a very large vulnerability for them. paul ryan over the weekend said that enough had been enough. he uninvited mr. trump to appear in mr. ryan's own congressional district. instead invited mike pence, the running mate, to fill the spot. mike pence said, no, i'm good. just take -- he took the weekend off the trail to figure out where this race goes, appearing with mr. trump has now become,

it will become a liability for republican candidates because they will be forced to defend the indefensible that mr. trump has said about women and the accusations he is facing on a nearly daily basis of past wrong action, not just words. >> host: and yet donald trump is turning his attention to the media, "the new york times", saying that based on these wikileaks, the clinton campaign in collusion with the mainstream media. how effective do you think that strategy has been or will be for donald trump? .. every hour he spends trying to fight with reporters and

journalists, and anyone in that orbit is a minute he is not litigating his case, the clinton campaign says if mister trump won the next three weeks talking about the media, focusing on what the media is reporting about him which are damning stories about mister trump's previous actions and words. >> this is going to force the republican party to rethink its own identity for the first time since the 1960s in the height of the civil rights movement. based on that why are some republicans including the chairman of the party rights priebus still with donald trump in light of everything that has happened over the last week and a half? >> it is survival at this point where paul ryan says this is a bridge too far, rights priebus is in a difficult position that this is a party he has overseen,

long serving chairman relatively in a job that is not known for durability. this is a party he has shepherded to where it is and at no point did they step in and say donald trump is not reflective of what it means to be a republican and that is a true statement. rights priebus, no one in his party stepped in and said no to mister trump. they allowed this to happen, they have to own it. there is no remaking the republican party in the little time left, there is only a managed collapse of mister trump in the hopes he does not take down everyone else. >> it is worth remembering a lot of americans don't like hillary clinton and can't bring themselves to vote for her. they might find mister trump's

behavior abhorrent but they still hate hillary clinton, a decades long indoctrination of conservatives to hate, hate is the right word here, hate hillary clinton and everything she stands for. that, the polling shows mister trump is heading towards a loss, there is a part of the country that will never bring themselves to vote for that woman in particular. >> the cover story, what we talked about in august, the cover story of time magazine, explain your approach. >> in august it was a moment trump was coming out of the convention having a bad stretch, attacking muslim american parents, veterans, things were going off the rails at that point. this moment is more damaging for

mister trump, he is approaching a point of no return and he will not just take down his own campaign, he may take down the entire republican party. >> time magazine cover story on newsstands today and available online at time.com, philip elliott, washington correspondent, thank you for being with us. watch c-span live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump wednesday night, live debate preview from the university of nevada las vegas starting at 7:30 eastern, it is at 8:30 eastern at -- the debate is at 9:00 eastern. follow the debate with viewer reaction including your calls, twos and facebook photos and watch the debate live or on demand using desktop, phone or tablet at c-span.org, listen to live coverage with the c-span radio apps, download from the

apps store or google play. >> mia love is the first black republican woman in congress, she was elected two years ago in utah's fourth district, this year she is challenged i democrat doug owens, at salt lake community college. >> from the campus of salt lake community college in salt lake city the utah debate commission welcomes you to the fourth congressional district candidates debate. [applause] >> welcome to the campus of

public community college, one of the most significant exchanges during the 2016 election season, a debate between candidates in the fourth congressional district and this is a rematch of an exchange that took place two years ago, we will hear from republican candidate incumbents representative mia love and democratic candidate doug owens. each candidate received 90 seconds opportunity for an opening statement and prior to airtime will determine doug owens will have the first opportunity. owens: good evening. i want to thank the debate commission for organizing this event. congresswoman mia love, thank you for being here. i thank salt lake community college, this should educate 6000 young people and giving them a lunch into life. i will tell you why i am running. my dad came from a town in southern utah, the youngest of 9

children born in a 1-bedroom house, my grandfather lost his farm in the depression and my dad did not have a toothbrush until he was 15 but believed in the american dream, and in salt lake city he got a job at kentucky fried chicken. he was able to put himself through the university of utah. you students at salt lake community college are not able to do that, taking on heavy student loans. i am running because we need to keep college affordable and any pathway people follow getting into a living wage job, they raise their family on. that is college, job training, making sure everyone is at work in middle age and an opportunity to get into a living wage job, i am running to fight for you and appreciate the chance for being here.

>> 90 seconds to mia love. love: thank you to all the students that are here today and all those watching from home today. it is easy to take in the doom and gloom, but i have confidence in our nation. i have worked with the fourth district, works with extraordinary people. gordon was injured in combat while serving in iraq, thank you, we owe you a great deal of gratitude. people believe we can't solve our problems because we are too divided as a nation. i disagree quite often with my colleagues on the other side. i have hosted several of them here to ow them what we do to elevate people striving for a better life.

we face so much progress. people like david scott, democrat in the united states house who endorsed this campaign, and david scott knows the issues we face, left or right with american family issues. it is time to elevate the conversation past politics to a solution to help our utah family. >> the utah debate commission allows each candidate 90 seconds for replying to a question. the utah debate commission website and other questions come from the audience including students from salt lake community college. each candidate will have rebuttal time to speak to the views of their opponent on each question so let's begin. how can we ignore this? the last five days represented a

new level of intensity and spirited debate for the qualifications of candidates serving as the next president of the united states. throughout the nation people are beginning political conversations with i could never vote for, then fill in the blank. what are the values you are looking for the next president and who best represents those values in 2016? >> as being the only woman in the delegation it is difficult to deal with the environment in a male-dominated conference but i am from utah. comments and different things like that role off my back but the last weekend has given us an insight as to what is at stake in washington. let me give you an example. for too long members of congress have given their power away. people in utah and around the

nation looking to washington for the answer. now is the time we need to look within. i stood firm and have not endorsed donald trump or hillary clinton, now is the time to make sure we have balance of power to the administration, time to make sure nancy pelosi isn't speaker of the house, and the check and balance in washington, time to restore utah's voice. >> i don't mean to be naïve but you have injected none of the above. does the candidate represent your values in 2016? >> hillary clinton doesn't represent my values, donald trump doesn't represent my values. i have been looking at other

candidates. there is still some time left but i am open. >> you clarified, your response. >> looking at home, i know many people struggled with this issue. there has been too much focus. i ran for congress not to play in the presidential race but to do what i do for utah. six generations of my family call this place home 7 if you count my kids, i'm in this to do what i can for you to. i am voting for my party's nominee but i have not endorsed any candidate, and i don't look for values, people like firefighters endorse my candidacy, those guys run the problem. in congress, if we could roll up our sleeves and get the job done

that is the value, and my mother was a teacher, put her heart and soul into the job and her own salary paid for the materials in her classroom. and educating our children is where i look for values and the things i want to take to washington. looking at the presidential race all the more important to pick the person who can watch and do what is right for us. >> i missed the distribution with a 10 foot pole because i have never been with two candidates in a debate where neither candidate publicly endorse their national ticket in the presidential election year. what are we hearing about the american fate of politics that you feel you cannot endorse your own ticket?

>> i said i wouldn't endorse and i'm not going -- when we say we are going to vote for somebody, there are people looking to you, you become that example so i find it interesting my opponent says he is supporting and voting for hillary clinton, this is a person who has lied to the american people, took their email server, the person who left soldiers in benghazi and did nothing. i am sticky with my district and sticking to the issues my district is supporting and not looking to washington as an example. >> moderator: you have 45 seconds to respond. owens: more important is how i will vote when i get to washington. the president of either party if they are doing what is right for our state i hold them

accountable, that is why i am in this race, has nothing to do with national party politics. people back in washington are too stuck on party labels and the kind of nonsense, race to the bottom, one guy over the weekend said it was like him nightmare he couldn't wake up from. it is all the more important as you get focused on this race. >> moderator: a series of national surveys revealed deep-seated concerns in hearts and minds of average americans on two general topics, the economy and national security, they will pepper you with questions on the economy but please turn your attention to national security because of domestic terrorism, americans are expressing concerns for their own safety in their home state and home community. short of declaring a police state, how do we fight terrorism

on our own shores without trampling the principles of justice? you have the first opportunity. owens: the highest priority is keeping americans safe at home. that is top priority. i think it is incumbent on congress to give the military, the fbi, immigration authority all the resources they need to make sure people who come to this country are safe and we are safe at home, that is top priority for me. when you look around the world and see an expansionist russia, and all the more important congress go to work to make sure we do, giving our military and police resources they need to combat terror. if you look at those last incidents of domestic tab are all three of those come up on

law-enforcement radar, law enforcement's have not gone after them. it is incumbent on us to make sure the police and every authority i mentioned has the resources they need to keep us safe. that is congress's job be change your response on the subject of keeping americans safe from acts of terror? >> there is no question we have a serious problem in our country, a poll that was published last year, 47% of americans are fearful that they will be the victim or a loved one will be the victim of terrorist activity. the administration has been vetting our military. i believe we are a beacon of strength and when you are getting the military and the administration has for the past seven years made it difficult for the united states to be a

beacon of strength we have to make sure we are providing resources for our military. when it comes to boots on the ground there are certain values and things that have to happen before i agree to put boots on the ground. it can't be a decision by unilateral, congress has to be involved. we have to have a clear mission as to what we are going to do and how people will come out, and we have to make sure there is a threat to american lives, not just american interests and we have to have a way out. i would add another one. to make sure men and women in uniform have all the tools they need to combat, reach their mission. those are the things i would view before we have boots on the ground. frank micciche>> moderator: you made broad statements but let me ask specifically, you are the

best person to represent the fourth district when it comes to making the nation safer from acts of terror. dirksen senate office building 7 owens: every time i think about a decision those of the most serious decisions whether to apply american forces, i would never lose sight of the fact those are our sons and daughters, never use the expression boots on the ground, those are your brothers and sisters, your friend then children going into harm's way. i have seen that assistance to make sure they are taken care of when they come home. and wait those decisions, never losing sight of the fact that these are our sons and daughters. love: i made sure i support every bill that comes. not only do we keep promises to veterans when they come home.

i have voted to increase funding for our military and men and women in uniform have the tools they need. i voted every time against the president when he wanted to get the military. there isn't a vet out there in utah that understands the work we have done that doesn't understand we have been pro-military. >> moderator: i promised we would have student representation and turn our attention to the economy, to those students with personal reactions. let's go into the audience with salt lake community college and turned to gabe marino. >> caller: 12% of utah lives in poverty. and how do you reduce income any quality, the federal minimum wage, expanding child nutrition

programs and boosting snap benefits? love: we have worked across the aisle. i'm the only republican member of the congressional black caucus and i have been able to host members on the other side of the aisle so we could talk about what we have done in utah to elevate those striving for better lives and live in poverty. the way washington does it has hurt the most vulnerable among us. there is a difference between intergenerational poverty and situational poverty and sometimes solutions for one pack away the other. it is important to make sure we give our local agencies tools they need to take care of poverty. they are dealing with the issues over and over again and they know these individuals and a lot of people making sure we -- in terms of minimum wage and apartment of labor has been doing in terms of the overtime

rule a knee-jerk reaction to regulators is to create more regulation and they hurt those -- when you raise the minimum wage, you artificially raise the wage, very difficult for an employer who says i have a set amount of money, what am i going to do about it and often someone gets fired, people lose their jobs. we should do what we do in this state, making sure we are innovative and bring down the unemployment rate that we naturally bring up. >> moderator: your opportunity to address key issues. owens: i have seen too many families, parents working two or three or four jobs to put food on the table. for those people running for

office the jobs lost in the recession paid on average 22% more than the jobs since the recession. more hours, more jobs and they are not doing as well. this is why i am running for congress because i want to make sure there is an opportunity to make the right choices, i have a job that i introduced that i hope to get a chance to work on in congress working on education, deregulation, that we have got the tax rate, no one should have an incentive to ship jobs overseas, rebuilding infrastructure, so much congress can do on this issue. this is why i am running. we need to figure out which of those work across the party line. will we get hung up on national issues or can we roll up our

sleeves and go to work. i have an opponent who voted 98% of the time with the parties. i will tell you know party is 98% of the time. we need to roll up our sleeves and work across the aisle and solve these problems i hope you give me the chance to put it in perspective. >> moderator: i want you to respond to a question. one of the concerns with your petition on raising the federal minimum wage. you talked about it in principle. the direct question, do you support an increase to the federal minimum wage? why or why not? love: i answered the question. i believe artificially raising the minimum wage on the federal side is the wrong thing to do. the way we create jobs is by innovation, the way we create jobs is invite free market

principles by deregulating with my opponent agrees on deregulating because i am part of the article one project that is deregulating progress. we know free markets have taken more people out of poverty than other economic systems in the history of the world and we have to make sure we are bringing down the unemployment rate so naturally people can bring up the wages and allow people to fries. >> moderator: i will give you an opportunity as well. >> the muscle of the american system is the private sector. i have been in the private sector my whole life. i have been in the real world helping business create jobs. i have been a business attorney for 25 years. sometimes the government needs to get out of the way. other things the government can do to level the playing field. i mentioned those job opportunities congress can bring about. the minimum wage is a tough issue because i have seen the

business perspective where business is unduly impacted by government regulation but it is a two edged sword that make it harder to hire but increases the demand in the economy. a lot of evidence to the effect that backup what mitt romney said that it is time to consider raising the minimum wage and that is what i want to do. >> back to our student body, this is -- your question on the economy. >> tuition costs have dramatically increased two or three times the rate of inflation, yet education is the best hope for many low income americans to improve their lives and those of their families with what would you do to increase year-round national awards?

>> moderator: you have the opportunity. owens: let me speak about education. i do think of my father and mother when it comes to education. i mentioned my dad coming out, he was really poor, had a very loving family but they had no ability to help him get on in life. it was teachers who did something special and invested in him and helped him get on his way in life. i believe in public education, the pathway, the number one pathway to help people and this is something to invest in, grow the economy and enable them to take care of their families, this is the most critical issue in terms of job growth and building our economy and the most critical issue in terms of getting congress working again. also my mother was a fifth-grade teacher who put her heart and soul into that job and used her

own salary for classroom supplies, many teachers are doing that, she took a fifth-grade class to washington for a field trip is that is how much she cared. we have a huge teacher retention problem, we lose teachers, every federal dollar i can in our education system. that is the number one pathway to get out of poverty. full-fledged participants in private enterprise, that is our great strength. we make people -- in the economy. that is my number one goal. >> moderator: your opportunity. love: i want you to know i thought about this and this is a concern of mine. i understand what students are going through. when i went to school college tuition was $20,000. at the age of 35 i paid back my

student loans so think about this. at the same will college education is $44,000 a year. how long will it take a student graduating today to pay back those student loans? the problem with these unlimited flow of federal dollars going into higher education is causing the rate of higher education to rise faster than the rate of inflation and difficult for middle income families in the poorest families to go to school. i know that education is a great equalizer and family is a great stabilizer. and we have to put money in the hands of families and put free market principles into our college education so the school can compete for funding. what i have done is introduce three goals, the college, the know before you go act which allows schools to give us the

matrix of how much it costs, how many have been able to graduate in their area of study and if there have been jobs waiting for them. we also introduced college afford ability act and the hero act to bring down the cost of higher education that you are not spending all your life paying back to the federal government. >> moderator: let's turn to rebuttal time. you have the first 30 seconds. owens: thank you for that question, very important one. there are more things that can be done to bring down the cost of higher education. we have enough money and capital markets to lend to banks at 0%, two loans should be made at 0%, people investing in themselves, we ought to do that. we have to go after predatory private tools that load up the debt and don't have an opportunity to pay that off. and awesome idea came out of

taylorsville where her senior year of high school the first year of community college at no expense to students, there are great ideas, no shortage of good ideas, there is lack of goodwill, and i am tired of sending people to washington looking out for themselves and not getting work done. >> moderator: timing devices do indicate the allotment of time and the fact that it expired so i will give you 45 seconds to respond on the subject of education. love: a clear difference between my opponent and i and that is okay, this is your choice. there is a monopoly with the federal government and they are the only ones providing love. we should be able to open up the market and colleges to compete

for title 4 funding and the institutions, college institutions should be held accountable. they need skin in the game to make sure students that are graduating are able to get a job when they graduate. it is important to realize four your college is not the only option out there. we have skills training, there is online training, accreditation, we want to open the office and give people what they want as possible. >> you have the first response, do you think there is conclusive scientific evidence human activity contributes to climate change, help us understand your reasoning on this subject, what you believe is the appropriate role for the federal government and congress on environmental issues. love: the first town hall meeting i held as a member of congress was in west jordan in the number one issue, we had

residents from oliver residents from south salt lake, millcreek and climate change was one of the biggest dishes so much so we decided we were going to do a town hall based on that issue alone. we got a lot of our local roots involved. instead of bantering back and forth we focused on solutions, had four guests the talked about innovative technology to make sure we are taking vehicles off the roads emitting pollutants, talked about educating on the climate. i will tell you a lot of my colleagues on my side of the isle refuse to recognize there may be a problem and anytime you look at salt lake, you can tell there is a problem with air quality and we need to focus on the solution. i don't think we should do it at the expense of coal or our other energy producers, this is a

false choice, the solution can be found in the fourth district. if we can get all the players involved, find a solution and it is important to be good stewards of the land we live on. their path has endorsed me. i support clean energy, all of the above and we need to do what we can to make sure we are getting people involved and talking about this issue. >> moderator: your next. owens: appreciate your warning about those red, yellow and green lights. reminds me of driving with my kids, not just a polite warning. i will try to be more observant. climate change, there is evidence the climate is changing, strong evidence humans are contributing to it. the tougher issue is what do we do about it? i look around the world and see a need to make sure whatever is done is done on an international

basis. i have no desire, i would fight any effort to handicap our economy to curb co2 emissions when china or some other country is growing at such a rapid rate they will erase those gains immediately. it has got to be done on an international basis, cooperatively. it is a tough issue. we talked about jobs. my number one issue, make sure families don't have to have three or four jobs to keep the lights on. i see a great opportunity here to match up our two problems, the climate change issue and job issue. we can put those together and make an opportunity to invest in a clean energy system we can export all over the world. let's use our resources as a people to invest in education and an industry developing clean energy technology and create good jobs, there are more

reasons to do it and if you put together your problems, you have an opportunity. >> we are passing the midpoint of our time. live debate between candidates and congressional districts. robert milliken from salt lake community college thanked the community for joining us tonight. this is the second election cycle served by the commissioner. and voter information with media joining together with a citizen-based initiative to provide debate coverage of federal and state what offices. these are drawn from those of the debate commission at the website, the utah debate commission.org, we encourage you to visit the site to learn more about the commission, with the collaboration. we invite you on collection

efforts. back to our exchange. >> the joint economic committee of the u.s. congress of the united states is not predicted to close the gender pay gap for 43 years. i will be 63 by then and how will you work to close that gap? >> an initial response, i will ask you to be gentle with people in their 60s. you have the first opportunity. >> i was blessed with a strong mother, had a strong mother in law, strong headed daughter and wife, i strongly believe in making sure we respect women as people, they be equal participants, that anybody does. 20 odd years ago when i was practicing law for a few years,

looking at circumstances, we realize training is a pediatrician, and stay home with my kids. we have three little boys, ages 5, 3 and one, take two years off from my law practice to stay home, it was a life altering experience, it changed my world and the way i look at it. i told you about these parents working three or four jobs between them not saving for their retirement or their kids education, this is why i want to go to work, and the idea that i strongly feel women ought to have every opportunity and i will clear the pay gap and on any other issue. >> moderator: your 90-second opportunity on narrowing that gender gap. love: thank you for that

question. it is incredibly -- i have insight into this because i am a female and a male dominated area and there are times it is important to know we have a voice out there. women are a big part of running the economy even though i am a member of congress i am a mother and my first job is to make sure i provide for my older and and teaching them not be victims but make sure they are getting skilled and education they need. quite a few different ideas when people are seeing what the gauge was. if a woman chooses to go into the workforce, should be paid the same amount of money a male gets paid for the same amount of work.

there should be opportunities for women to become managers, to become ceos and provide great innovative products that we haven't seen before. and we have joined the caucus with career technical education process, stem education. my daughter wants to be a rocket scientist and me of the congresswoman it is my job to provide all the opportunities. >> moderator: do we leave it to the good graces of market forces that will close this gap most efficiently in the private sector or is there a strict mandate from the federal government ensuring there is no pay gap? owens: the law should require and does require there be equal pay for equal work and that should get enforced and i believe in that and have tried

to say i put my money where my mouth is in supporting my own wife and my family so i hope people will see me personally invested in that. >> moderator: is a further regulation or something for the market? love: i did not hear answers from my opponent so hard to understand where i stand on the issue. and the same thing always happens. quality goes down, they heard those algebra texts. the issue is creating more allowing for people to be innovative. and all the technology, to compete in this world. >> when recurring theme is a widespread distrust of the

federal government in general. and the -- tied into not on partisan intransigence, more important, stay loyal to party rather than engage in problem solving. and an antidote to this toxic situation, first 90 seconds. love: i mentioned in my opening argument it is important to bring people to come along with us was when i ran for this office i promise to bring people along with us. david scott, a democrat in the united states house of representatives has endorsed our campaign. we have been able to go heaven knows how long but we reached across party lines and said forget what the party says, let's work on these issues and we have been able to do that. more important to stay loyal to

a party, i have been pretty independent making sure i stuck with my district especially when i didn't just go along with my party nominee to get along. it is important to make sure we are doing absolutely everything we can to bring people along. talk about utah values, what we are doing great in this state to get people that really care about their communities we have been able to do that. there was another question, i wanted to make sure i got the other part of it. >> party loyalty, rather than shared problem-solving, reserving that time should you expand it. your opportunity to respond in 90 seconds, toxic partisanship blocking shared problem-solving.

>> the defining problem of our time. we have got a broken system, a system that will not work on any problems, will not fix immigration or give us energy policy or go to work on the president using armed forces around the world, congress won't even debate. we have ample trouble, problems that need solving. i put out and important ethics program i hope will give me a chance to go to work on. it requires congress to work 5 days a week, they work 21/2 days a week. they should be in washington 5 days a week working together to solve these problems, we should do away with automatic pay raises and luxury travel and self-promotional use of taxpayer dollars to fund mass mailers. there's a lot to get congress working again. i hope i get a chance to do it

because it is the defining problem of our time. i have seen a better way, times when people got elected to congress and realized the election endeded and they got to work to solve problems. this is how you work with your family. you don't steamroll other people a roadblock other people, you work together. this is how you are in the workplace, this is how we need to run the government, we need to get back to work solving problems. >> moderator: do you want to extend your contract? love: absolutely. a couple things i want to talk about, important to bring this up. i think some people believe the most important work done in washington, the most important work i do is in the district from sitting across with other families that have issues working through whether it is a va problem or getting their benefits, social security or working through being able to

get their citizenship legally. those of the people i represent, the most important work i do is right there and it is important for me to come home every weekend remember who it is i represent and that is utah not be in washington and stay there and forget who i represent but right here. the other thing i want to mention, the whole idea of self-promoting mail is dishonest. both agreed it was dishonest and they rarely agree. this is a benefit mister owens is using for his own purpose. he does understand this -- this is my time. >> moderator: you are into your time. love: i want to bring up the fact he didn't mention this is part of a big budget that we save $110,000 in the budget, we are up on communication, he decided to stay low on our

employees to make sure we are spending time communicating and as a new member of congress it is important to let people know where we are, how to reach us. that is how we help mister johnson with the benefits he received, important to bring that up, he is being dishonest. >> moderator: in the context of time management, you get one minute to respond. owens: congress has plenty of time to be in the district, they take every fourth week off, get multiple recess, they should be in washington doing business and figuring out problems in the country that are not getting solved. they should work five days a week again and i would do away with those mailers. no paper said it is incorrect, $300,000 in taxpayer dollars, that is almost three times as much as every member of congress from utah put together.

my son sam got his first full-time job, he comes to me with his pay gloves and said what are his deductions taking my paycheck and you know the disappointment, i have seen it myself, i have -- tax dollars are sacred and that is a deplorable waste of money and i will stop it when i get to washington. >> the next question is coming from conor holt who is interested in what comes after the college education. >> when i graduate with a degree in business i want to work a full-time job but many young americans are underemployed or stuck in a part-time job. what is your plan to help? >> moderator: you have the first 90-second opportunity. owens: i told you how important that is, i strongly believe education is the number one pathway forward. we have to invest in our people. i have been in the private

sector my whole life, i have seen how business creates jobs that government needs to get out of the way, things to do to level the playing field. it doesn't matter me, kids flipping burgers not earning what the ceo of the company is but what does bother me and it bothered everybody in this room is that kid never has a shot at that job. let's invest in people, make sure they get every pathway, some people say the american dream is you get a shot at getting wealthy, that is not what it is i got nothing against anybody getting wealthy but the american dream is how all of us, and every day person can get a house in a safe neighborhood, i could go to a good school and look forward to retirement, this is number one priority, education the biggest part, i mentioned rebuilding infrastructure and deregulation, lowering the corporate tax rate and doing away with loopholes, no one has incentive to ship

jobs overseas, fair trade agreement something to work on but this is job one and i will get to work on it. love: back to one thing and i will answer the question quickly. where you are being dishonest is the house scrutinizing every piece of mail we send out and signed by a republican and democrat to make sure it is not a little in nature and also mention he didn't have a problem communicating more than the rest of the delegation, he did that very well. i am proud of the fact the budget to communicate as opposed to using the budget to have a massive amount of staff members and continue to behave fiscally responsible by returning money to the treasury. to your answer, it is clear what we need to do when it comes to

job creation. there are four pillars, people talk about three dollars but there are four pillars that need to happen, job creation, innovation, removing regulation that is stifling small businesses. it is harder for us to open a small business than it has ever been in our history. we have to make sure we are producing energy. we have to be competitive on the global market. we have to make sure we simplify the tax code. the tax code makes it easier for people, bigger businesses to be able to get results and more difficult for smaller businesses and we have to create liquidity and make sure people have access to credit whether it is buying a car, a house, starting a business, you do those four, you will be able to grow the economy and the united states of america will be competitive on the global market. >> moderator: back to you for rebuttal time, a good solution

dealt with the privilege, you have the opportunity to respond. owens: there is no issue with sending a mailer to a town meeting, that is not what they are about. self-promotional campaign pieces paid for by the taxpayers was my opponent tried to excuse that, republicans and democrats, that is one of the problems out there. i would never do something just because everybody does it. those are a waste of money and i would do away with it. >> moderator: you have an additional 30 seconds. love: he is using this to his benefit because he has nothing else himself. i understand he has a problem. >> moderator: how do you respond to this question? weekly headlines are saying you technically cannot because she waved her rebuttal time.

i regret that. your time will be coming. weekly our headlines are seeing reports of mass shootings, in big cities, small towns, community college campuses. in 2015, 10,000 americans were shot, 25,000 wounded, those figures do not include firearms, apart from going on social media, praying for victims and families what is the role of congress in addressing this issue? you have the first 90 seconds. love: important to recognize there are people in their communities that feel they don't have a shot and people do feel they are being targeted and important to recognize that the it is important to believe the role of any leader would be to unify, not divide our country.

we are more racially divided today than we have been in seven years and it is lack of leadership on the administration's side and lack of leadership in washington. as a mayor what i did when we realized people were having an adverse relationship with our police officers we decided we would have our own police officers in our own community. these are the same people whose children are going to the same school at the same parks in the same church and create an environment where that person is not an enforcer but a community police officer going to help you in your neighborhood. it is incredibly important to do everything we can to make sure we are not trying to fix the problem at the end. we have to make sure kids on the

street in salt lake have an education so they can become police officers in their own community and be able to be the role models of their community. >> moderator: we have time for your response to this, mister owens but no further time. you have your 90-seconds. owens: i want to address one other issue. it is important to talk about what a sitting member of congress has been doing, perfectly fair to point out taxpayer money, i would do that any day, i certainly haven't been abusing the privilege, taxpayer dollars using that way. it is appropriate to use the ethics reform if i get back to congress to get congress working again and do away with those luxury travel, to make sure congress works again.

that is the bedrock to move the country forward because we can't make progress on how it operates. the issue of policing in law enforcement. make sure every law enforcement officer goes home safely and get the resources to do their job, given the resources to have the training to stop conduct we have seen too often. if we work together i am all about solutions and trying to bring people together rather than saying us versus them, we can solve our problems. this is the united states and that is how we will go forward. it is just like your workplace, take account of other people, work out your problems, i have done that as a lawyer and will do that in washington. >> moderator: i had plans to redirect that question but we

have reached the end of rebuttal time. let's move to one minute closing statements, prior to airtime it was determined representative mia love would have the first 60-second opportunity. love: thank you for being here. i had the opportunity to represent the wonderful diverse people of the district for the last year and a half and it has been my honor and privilege to do that. i have gotten to know you, gotten to know your families and it is not just a job to me. you have become my neighbors and friends. i believe we live in the greatest country on earth, certainly worth fighting for and saving and we should never let anyone tell us any different. we are going to be able to have an opportunity to make sure nancy pelosi does not become the speaker of the house,

opportunity to hold onto a republican congress so we could give checks and balances to whoever is the president, opportunity to live within instead of living without and it is important for us to vote. i need all of you to get out and vote. i ask for your vote, please join me in making sure we provide the country with great opportunities. >> moderator: our final opportunity. owens: thank you for coming tonight. i want to give special thanks to my family, most of the members of which are here tonight to make this run possible, i appreciate that. i want to thank the voters of the fourth congressional district which i have been out and about, i know you have seen better times and they are coming back. every time i have gone into a voting booth i got tears in my eyes, every single time because i think about all the people in

the history of the world who lived without that right. that is such a basic right and i think of all the people who shed their blood to bring us that right. you will all get ballots in the mail and i hope you will watch your mailbox this weekend get those ballots back and remember those people who haven't had that right, thank you very much. .. to inform the voting process. we whether you intend to vote by mail or in person election day is tuesday november 8. if you have questions please

contact your county clerk's office. in salt lake city, good evening. [applause] ♪