she wants to do on the remaining bill. i think we would do better if the senate was just working. after talking with her leadership, why are we going to waste your time on appropriations bills when the senate is not passing any appropriations bills. fortunately, we have both the chairman and the ranking member here. being ableample of to work together which they did last year and present us one. i very much hope we can do that in november and december. show that and the rest of congress to let them do their jobs, they can get it done. the failure to get it done is resting solely on the senate side. unless they can allow the bill to pass on the floor, they will impact our work adversely. it is hard to get these people to get a bill to the floor under

an open role and cast dozens of votes when they know there is not going to be a senate bill that is passed as well. >> as an example of what you just said about the senate, i am told there is one senator who is serving his first term. almost through with his first term. he has not voted a single amendment in his career. almost six years in the senate. what does that tell you?

i will yield to my friend. >> i want to be sure you understood -- i understood what you said. only seven went to the floor? >> that is correct. >> it doesn't count if it is not voted on the floor. >> at some point you stop bringing bills to the floor because you know there will not be any senate bill sobering in it down there does not make sense. there is only so much time on the floor. senate shows-- the repeatedly that it will not its their own bill, becomes very difficult to work with them. >> i do not think we can make any point here. it was a congress that did not get anything done. we didn't have time to pass it

which was our job. >> i am reclaiming my time again. it takes two to tango and we don't have a dance partner in the democratic senate and that is the reality. >> thank you. you finally got around to saying it. the democratic senate -- my colleagues agree with me when we refer to the senate that some of their very arcane rules that allow for the minority in the senate to receive a lot of consideration allows a certain measure cannot pass. that is not only the fault -- maybe not putting it on the floor by the democratic majority but also a number of things including incredibly the fact that we are -- we have a hold up on ambassadorial appointments, judicial appointments. and theay the senate

fact that they contribute to all of the dysfunction, i am talking about democrats and the republicans. i am curious as to what my colleague -- >> once again, my friend and i are from a different perspective. i would agree. their rules are an impediment to getting things done. that is their choice. we have nothing to say about that. but, i also think their attitude is too. we take a lot of bills to the floor with unlimited open amendments knowing they will be difficult. the senate has not chosen to do that. i do not think there has been an effort to keep them from the floor. i minority effort. the minorities invited them to the floor. you are going to end up just like we are in our body -- my friends have to cast difficult votes. i have to cast them, we all do. anybody can bring any amendment

down there and score a political point. we have been willing to risk that. our friends have not. that is the root. >> i think from at least my perspective, i made a speech over the weekend where i said most of the senators when they are awake in the morning and they look in the mirror, they are looking at the president of the united states. >> my friend has been here longer than me and very wise. who am i to dispute an observation like that? [laughter] i yield back. >> the gentleman from georgia. >> i don't know how many more times this year week can see this esteemed team. when we talk about things not getting done, i didn't want to miss an opportunity to brag about what you guys have done. sony freshman came up here in 2010, i think even though there was unified control of the house only tote in that year,

appropriation bills passed the house. only two. there has never been a time under the leadership of the gentleman of kentucky where we have done worse. every single year we have been here, we have done better . look at the two of you there and talking about -- if only the two of you were in control, what could have we done? i'm looking back and looking at what you guys put together. 320 one votes you all put on the board -- that is not partisan. that is of the will of the house with 321 votes. offensive bill -- but we're talking about today is 340 votes you put on the board for not a republican product or democratic part but a house part -- but a house product. 402 votes you all put on the floor back in may.

>> who actually carried that bill? [laughter] >> i would like to give due respect to the cardinal for doing that work. thevotes back in may in senate has given no consideration nor provided an alternative. votes on the00 an16 board. only one no vote in the entire u.s. house of representatives and you did that back in april. yet, our servicemen and veterans have been operating in a peri od of uncertainty because they can get no activity at all on the senate side. i am impressed. i do not want to be inappropriater. -- an appropriator. you all got it done. that, not just here in

the committee, but throughout the body and across the nation folks realize this is not political nonsense, this is serious legislating and if we had a partner we would be succeeding. >> we have an opening in the committee for a press secretary. are you available? [laughter] >> i yield back. the words the gentleman has spoken is what you deserve from the credit and hard work you have done. you're the most hard-working committee. thank you very much. i am going to stand up and be hard workers. dr. burgess. >> thank you. i will add my voice to what has been said. we talk a lot about the power of the purse.

it is very difficult to exercise that power if we do not have our regular appropriations bill. when you made statements in the beginning of the year to return to regular order, i rejoiced. i thought that was welcome. that would give it a house to work its will on every bill. we have certainly done that. i only regret we didn't have a chance to do every single one. i regret the senate did not take up a single one. mr. chairman, let me ask you a little bit on section 136. dealing with the department of health and human services. $58 am reading correctly, million from the public health and services emergency fund and an additional $30 million from the cdc global health fund, is

that correct? >> that is correct. >> is this money that is being repurposed from within existing moneys or are these new dollars that are coming to the ebola fight? >> these are new dollars for the ebola effort, but it is offset. >> offset from? >> from other accounts. >> mr. chairman, i want to offer the observation -- there was very deep within the recesses of the affordable care act something called prevention fund or the prevention of public health fund. it is basically a slush fund all goes to fund manner of things like pet sensation,smoking all things that may be good endeavors, but is there ever a place for prevention fund to be

used it is this fight against ebola. this is one of the more frightening things i have ever seen as far as the public health outbreak. -- >> that is a $1 billion fund. we allocate those funds in the regular bill. the $1 million fund from the department of health and human services? >> yes. >> i just point out to my friend on the appropriations committee that there is money very deep within the affordable care act that is money simply for the secretary to use a lever she sees fit. the prevention and public health fund. this is a self replenishing fund -- $2 billion every year.

>> [indiscernible] this would be the appropriate use for a public health and prevention fund when we're staring down an unprecedented epidemic in western africa that could with modern transportation end up in our backyard. >> if the gentleman would like, we can talk after the session with staff to help all of us understand what it is you are asking about. unless she wants to respond. wei was just going to say considered have these discussions, but as i understand bill is part of the allocating money to is a very good parts. you may think one is better than the other. we can have further discussions about it. as long as you turn the microphone over to me, i just wanted to say a word. are you complete?

>> i will yield back. >> the gentleman will reserve his time. i appreciate that. >> i was just going to thank all my good friends on the side of the aisle for all of the compliments. after it december 11 is enacted hopefully this week, we cannot punt our responsibilities of the next year and we can complete our work and not be here for christmas eve. we know we can do this by december 11. i look forward to presenting all of the bills to the house and making sure we have all the rules in order. thank you for all of your complements. it is a pleasure to work with my chair. >> same here.

>> i will offer that december is a lovely time to be in the nations capital. yield back my time. questionsre any other for this distinguished panel? a want to thank both of you for taking the time to be here and to provide a not only the information of your report, but also continuing to work together. that is a part that the american and i appreciate a lot. >> let me thank you and your staff and the committee members for this hearing. a want to thank all of you for your nice complements -- i want to thank all of you for all your complements. >> we appreciate it. i think the bottom line is, mr. chairman, when you come up here you bring us a product that is

well vetted that we can continue to work through. we have a lot of things on our plate but thank you for taking the time to be here. i know it is a little late but we appreciate it. collects thank you -- >> thank you. >> we would like to welcome the mac thornberry, vice chairman of the house of armed services. he is from clarington, texas and a regular visitor not only to our committee, but also a wise content. mr. thornberry, i want to thank you for being here today. the substance of your discussion amendment.ccain secretary ofes the defense in coordination with the secretary of state the train,

equip and that elements of the syrian opposition. that is why you are here. you have already heard there has been some ideas that this committee has about this process and we are delighted you are here. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to be with you this evening to discuss the proposed amendment to the congressional -- the continuing resolution. the chairman, because of his time change, had a family commitment that was difficult to break so he asked me to be here. he has a short opening statement that i might briefly read and be delighted to respond to any questions. thank you for meeting to consider my amendment to house joint resolution 124, the continuing appropriation resolution for 2015.

isil is a clear and present threat. in this time of crisis, the president has asked for the authority to train and equip syrians to attack isil. themendment would provide president with this authority. this authority is necessary because none of the existing department of defense authorities fit the commitments for the president to train and equip nongovernment entities fighting in non-us-led operations. the presidents requested not specify the amount of funding that would be required and contained few oversight requirements. therefore, my amendment would strengthen the congressional oversight by requiring detailed reports, including progress reports, on the plan, the vetting process, and the procedures for monitoring unauthorized use of provided

training and equipment. it would require the president report on how this authority fits within a larger regional strategy. this amendment does not authorize additional funds. however, it would allow the department of defense to submit request to congress should the president require funds. it permit the secretary of defense to accept foreign contributions. nothing in this bill would constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of the united states armed forces into hostilities. there may be a time when we may need to have that debate but this is not it. my amendment is narrowly focused on training and equipping syrian fighters to counter isil. this language drafted in collaboration with the chairs of the national security committee. the language for this authority has been reviewed by the department of defense.

let me emphasize this training and equip authority is a necessary part but it is only one part of what should be a larger strategy. it must be part of a larger effort in syria, iraq and across the region. let us remember it will be the men and women in uniform that will be conducting this training. we continue to ask more and more of our military yet their funding continues to be cut. this is not sustainable and must be addressed. thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening. i respectfully request it be rolled into order. -- ruled in order. >> thank you very much. the question i have is simply to ensure that i have the same idea that i believe you will. i had a pre-meeting with several members of the rules committee. we had a discussion about the amendment. i think it is important that all members have a chance to not only hear what the chairman

said, but also the discussions that take place among large members and a small number of members. it is my understanding that this authorization -- and this cr.dment deals with the the president asked for this approval in the cr> . it is through december 11 -- is that your understanding? >> yes. the women also offers if the defense act is enacted earlier with a more permanent authority that will obviously supersede. earlier, is enacted that would be the length of this particular authorization. >> that is my same understanding. thank you very much. is there any republican member that has a question for the gentleman?

any member of the minority that has a question? >> i just wanted to be absolutely sure. via peripheral event at section which is very thorough -- would we be actually certain this does not arise armed forces into hostilities? >> yes, ma'am. it specifically has a provision. 6t is subsection i on page that says nothing in this section shall be construed to constitute a specific authorization for the introduction of the united states armed forces into hostilities or into situations where hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances. >> i have read that and very pleased to see that because it would be harder to vote. thank you very much. >> thank you.

thank you for being here. generally, when we refer to a unit being appropriately vetted, we are not referencing whether they are members of extremist group but whether they have committed human rights abuses or not. can you tell me is the training and arming of these forces subject to the leahy law? >> it would be my assumption that it would be subject to all existing federal laws. guilty of aho is human rights violation would not be able to be trained or to be armed or equipped? >> i would not be qualified tonight to give you the exact characterization of the leahy law and what those criteria are. that while to say you have the other federal laws, at a minimum, the vetting would

include in this circumstance whether or not these individuals or groups had these affiliations with terrorists, the assad regime, or affiliated with iran. that is why the language says at a minimum, the appropriate vetting includes these things which may not be president and other federal laws. >> i appreciate that. there are individuals who may be guilty of human rights abuses, who may want to see isil destroyed or maybe with us. i am just trying to figure out who are -- whether or not it is an absolute disqualification for anybody who is guilty of the , whetherhts violation there is an ability anyone like that would be trained or equipped. that is all i am trying to get.

i get we don't want anybody who is associated with iran or al qaeda, but there are instances when people love committed human rights violation to say they like us. i don't think it is appropriate for us to be arming and equipping them. >> again, we were not trying to be comprehensive in the language of this amendment. they just said that is the minimum. amendment,six of the it says nothing should be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of u.s. armed forces into hostilities or into situations where hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances. for those who might not be aware, that language comes from the war powers resolution. -- i don'tquestion know if you can answer this -- do you anticipate the house taking up an authorization

regarding u.s. military operations in iraq and syria when congress returns in november? is the leadership of the committee or the house believe that that is an appropriate action for congress to take? >> i certainly cannot speak for the house leadership or the leadership of the house foreign affairs committee which is the committee with the jurisdiction for authorizations of this sort. our job on armed services will see from a military standpoint the national security interest of the united states are being protected. i understand there are a number of members who of opinions on that. fact that wete the are going to have the opportunity to speak on this" yes o and vote. i think it is really difficult for people to be able to make judgments without knowing what

we are going to authorize alternately -- ultimately and what we are not. when people say, we already have boots on the ground -- well over 1000 troops that i know of. i don't know what the latest count is. they're doing more than just protecting personnel of the embassy. we have americans that our flying these planes, that are bombing iraq and syria, but we are not authorizing this. the bombing of syria will happen without a role in that. i'm trying to understand whether the committee or the foreign affairs committee -- is anybody here committing to a vote when we come back from recess? on a -- whether or not we will approve the military operations

that some people are contemplating now body authorization or not? is -- the would make 1.i would make i -- the one point i would make is the president did not ask for that, he asked for this particular authority. he came in last thursday and said he needed it right now. we are moving this on annexed the dated timeframe and yet we did not want to try to jam something through last week. that is the reason why we are off to this week. this is what the president asked for for the strategy. that is what we have before you. >> i appreciate that but in the end of july, the vote 3 70-40, we all voted if there is going to be sustained military operations in iraq, we should vote whether to authorize it or not. we recessed and we saw the

and clearly wee have sustained combat operations in iraq and possibly syria. we are much deeper into this now than we were when we had that vote. i appreciate the fact the president has formally asked congress for authorization but he didn't really have to. that is our constitutional responsibility. he notifies us of what he is doing, it is up to us whether we want to play a role. my hope is the vote we had taken would have meant that we were not going -- concur with what you are saying. the president has notified us in regards to attacking isil in iraq. he did not utilize a umf. he did it under war powers, a

notification to congress. i think that needs to be a discussion we need to have because there was reference today in the media about attacking syria with air power. i think we should have some way in on all this. i do not think that most of us agree. iraqare talking about which does not cover this because isil it is killing al qaeda. they are not an associate, they are attacking it. i agree with you a read need to havea discussion in regards to where this goes as it relates to the war powers act because i think we have a constitutional responsibility to be part of that. i am happy to see the leadership is allowing the six hours of

debate on this particular issue. conferencingere saying we needed to have a separate vote and debate on this. members had an opportunity to bring forward their ideas in regards to where we are going here. the armed services, i worry that we are on a slippery slope. 300 and somewith troops sent to iraq and now i think we will be close to 1600 troops. the more troops on the ground, they are not wearing ballet shoes, they're wearing boots. they are at risk every time you put one of our guys into an unstable situation. i hope that we do have that debate. like mr. thornberry was saying, that is not what we're here for tonight. the president wanted this in the cr.

i think we are accommodating him with that. he can move forward with the strategy while some of us may agree or not. i appreciate that. what i understand, the administration believes they do have the authority to do all this other stuff based on afghanistan and iraq. not with regard to what we are talking about today on the training and equipping of these syrian soldiers. he bring into war powers act and notification of congress as a relates the bombing of isil it he was actually using the aumf. he would not do that. >> maybe i misunderstood the administration. i believe they do have the authority to do the bombing in iraq and syria based on the previous -- i think that is

their position. they believe they have the authority to do that. they do not believe they have the authority to get this please we are talking about today. correct they do not believe they have the authority to train and equip. leasterstanding is at some parts of the administration have decided the 2001 aumf, 2002, and the article to powers of the commander-in-chief are justifications for taking military action. personally, i am very sympathetic with the position you lay out. i think it is important for congress to exercise its constitutional responsibilities. as i mentioned, as far as this expedited cr to try to get it done for the training and equipping, that is what this amendment is about. >> thank you very much.

i want to associate myself with what you have to say what my good friend before that had to say. i have actually raised this issue. i do believe we should have a straight a vote on authorization. with all due respect to the administration of either party will always claim it has the authority to do whatever it decides it wants to do. that is not a partisan issue. this is an issue of constitutional propriety and legislative-executive balance of power. i would very much -- i do not read the authorization of 2001 and 2002 that was passed about a very different place in a very enemy and time largely with members who are not in his body today as being something that is an appropriate vehicle to launch into another country. i think you will find you will have a lot of people on our side of the aisle that took the

amendment that you offered very seriously. i think that was the appropriate thing to do. that overwhelming bipartisan support. what is even more troublesome is syria to me. i look forward to working with my friends. i sympathize with my friends. they are trying to to respond to the commander-in-chief's request and a time of crisis and i think we have tried to do it in the way limited circumscribed they can possibly do so they can leave these kinds of issues rusted discuss. i am with my friend from massachusetts. i would rather do that sooner than later. i look forward to working with my friend to make sure it comes before us. at thebe we can relook 2001 and 2002 and see if they can be repealed. we can be moving in a much more decided way. >> i think some members in your leadership do not want it

repealed. this is the only opportunity we have -- i think i would feel a lot better about the process if we had a commitment from the speaker that when we come back, we will have a vote. i have no idea how long we will be back. of thequires 15 days session to ripen. >> just for purposes of information, the speaker told us that when he met with the president and the other leadership, he advised the president and the collective leadership and he thought the best thing to do was a new authorization -- he thought that was best for the institution, country, for the president in terms of being able to build why partisan support. i don't think this is something that the administration or the

speaker was willing to do. there are people on both sides that do not want to bring it and i think that is a shame because i think we feel the responsibility to talk about it. >> i think you are probably right. i am in the house of representatives. the person who controls the schedule and decided what is scheduled is the speaker and the majority leader. i think of all of us were feeling the same thing that authorizatione an and wider military operations in i think syria -- we a we have a firm commitment there will be a vote -- we have -- this operation has progressed a long way from the end of july to how we came back. we are going to be gone until after the election. i assume this will continue to expand. we will be gone again until the new session.

it is a lot more difficult to debate when weer are all into something and we are dealing with a situation that is more congregated. -- complicated. crther the amendment nor the specifically funds for training and equipping of syrian armed opposition forces? presidento -- the said he wanted $500 million to train and equip 5000 soldiers. where do you see these funds coming from? twohere are basically funding provisions. one is allowing reprogramming from the oco funds and allowing foreign donations. those would be the two funding sources. the normal reprogramming processes would have to be followed.

>> i thank you for indulging my question. i really do think, this is not a partisan or political statement, i think our constituents on both parties are looking at how we are handling this. i think people are are really nervous we might just, you know, duck this one. that would be a shame. i hope we do not. thank you. >> further discussion? the gentleman from florida. do you seek time? >> i don't want to put mr. thornberry on the spot. i am not trying to play any -- i echo the sentiments of my colleague and good friend from massachusetts. i want to be on record saying that when much of this began, i wrote to the speaker of the

house and to the president requesting that when we're were away that we be reconvened for purposes of discussing and approving or disapproving of authorization. the president did say in his wednesday night remarks that he would welcome an authorization from congress. certainly, that is not asking for it. i heard mr. thorne very and clear and i believe all of us request thatat the came from the president were parts of what we are seeing here. i do have a concern about one word that is new to me. i think i know what it means but in the initial section at line

four is the word sustainment that follows to provide assistance, training, supplies and sustainment to appropriately vetted anelements. what is that about? i just don't understand. a i think that would be fairly broad category of supplies. for example, ammunition once they are on the field, intelligence, tactical intelligence, information. the kinds of things that a force out in the field would need to keep going. >> all right. inwonder if my colleague thing about this -- those of us that are old enough and willing to admit it, remember that a portion of getting us in wars

has been training. and vietnam would be the classic example of how it all began with somebody that was going there to train. am not clear when it isn't that we have trained sufficiently to enter into combat. i am not even going to talk about green on blue -- we have seen enough of that in afghanistan to understand. periodically, we will see when they turn around and kill american soldiers. it is going to be virtually in asible in my view to be training position and not recognize there are other countries that have allowed and agreed that some of the training can take place in their locales. they too are not immune from

attack. at some point, if something goes wrong and a significant number of our soldiers get killed, then we are fast moving down the slippery slope. another thing that i consider when you are talking about all of this and i know we are not here about the abstracts. the president has said he has the authority to do that but he that theand us equipment breaks while people fly. the best example will be over the last weekend. we see it all the time in ourning accidents when youngsters get thrown out of airplanes. let that happen once to an american airman who gets his head cut off by isil and we are right back down the slippery

slope and a great harry -- in a great hurry. one of the things you said which interest me greatly. itle we are well into iraq, would've been my third visit when i was there -- a second visit. i was with the chairman of the rules committee. thoughtack with the that it didn't seem right that we were building schools and hospitals and water treatment because i had spent a considerable amount of time trying to get a water treatment plant in the western portion of long beach county. when i saw this water treatment plant with all the copper wire stripped out, everything else identicalcause the amount of money that i was requesting over the course of years. it troubled me so i came back

and drafted legislation that requested that the iraqi who by the time i had my third visit with them speaker pelosi, they had a $38 billion surplus. i thought it wouldn't be unworthy to ask them not for loss of life, not for warmer material, but just for instruction alone to reimburse us. i drafted the data legislation and i was told i could not -- i drafted the legislation and i was told i could not ask for and governments. now i hear the flipside. i hear you say that we can accept from this particular measure money for equipping and training from foreign

governments. what i want to know is how that process -- how is that process going to work? is that the defense department that will receive the funds? is that a part of the overall process of training? i am just not clear as to how that works. portion of the amendment to allow us to receive donations from other countries, donations was part of the most complex of this to get right, to make sure it complies with u.s. law. see some references there to various other laws. with the appropriations

committee helping draft of that language to make sure that he it getsdited -- credited but it did not carry a cost, according to the congressional budget office. all of the transactions that come -- >> you and i have worked together on a lot of matters. i have great respect for you. sayyou satisfied when you it is complex and difficult to get right or are you satisfied that nothing is perfect? that we are as near right as we can get under the circumstances? >> i do, but in addition to that, you have the ability of the president to ask for reprogramming so that if something happens and the expected funds do not come in, contributions do not come in from other countries and the president wants to, he can reprogram funds.

i think the two together make sure the funding will be there. at least us know that i feel -- i don't speak for any other democrats and any other republicans -- i feel that when identify, and i thought it would be easy until i went to turkey and spoke, i thought it would be easy to warm the rebels and that we should at that time. we did not. i remember being with senator cardin. we were talking with rebels in turkey. there were six of them. it was 8:00 in the morning and all six of them were from a different rebel. you know what i am saying? literallye

complexities beyond ordinary. with all the firefighters and people compromised. when will we know that we have 5000 people that it and how long will it take to frame them -- train them? is the $500 million the president requesting sufficient in order to get to that endpoint? >> i do not know. the president says he does not believe he needed additional funds. so, there are no additional funds, although there is the programming. i think you are exactly right. this is an enormously complex situation with so many actors on all different sides. specificn, this was authority the president asked

for and drafted this way. i think it meets that need. the only other thought i would have is the armed services committee has given tremendous attention to this issue of the in afghanistan that you mentioned. if you look at the number of incidents where we had green on blue incidents, it has gone down precipitously. united states government is much wiser about this vetting process than it was before. this is a different and even more complex situation. i do think we are generally better at vetting now than we had been at the past. >> i agree with you. i have serious reservations. one final question. not havingat by us the debate that i believe we should have and that is the

authorization of this matter, that what we are going to wind up with -- i don't know how we are defining this thing -- and sometimes i hear words counterterrorism and then i hear all sorts of things avoiding the use of the term war. we don't have boots on the ground. occursd seem to me if it that any american soldier or any collective number of american soldiers are killed than this training operation -- my question is do they have the same rights as soldiers who die there is ahen declared war for their families and for everyone else? are the rights going to be the same?

>> i understand. i would want to double check. the only point i make is we have trained and equipped security forces in like 40 different countries. we do do this all over the world. it is true something can happen in one of those situations. combat all of the exact benefits attach, i do not know, but i will certainly ask our experts. yes, sir. absolutely. the only other thought is back to your question about the requires a progress report every 90 days, including how many people have been trained, what is happening to the equipment we gave them. that with the reprogramming authority gives us the best opportunity to have a pulse on how this is going and whether it is meeting the objectives.

i know what happens with the requests for reports. thank you. >> is there anyone else that seeks time? >> i want to thank you. you have come up here and faced members of congress that have a lot of ideas. i would like to put into context from a republican leadership perspective that we believe what we are trying to do is to satisfy the needs of the president with a growing threat that is aimed at our allies and the united states. it is up to the president of the and thisates ia administration, the state department to find more quickly and carefully that which they see and bring that to congress. i believe that is what attempting to be done. we also have our own problems.

we are getting ready to take a break, a break that was naturally understood. we did not want to leave without allowing the president of the united states as commander-in-chief the latitude to effectively, operationally understand the threat against the united states and against our allies and likewise to be able to make sure the president could pivot appropriately when congress is gone. you have notike, said anything that i consider to be wrong at all, but i would not like for anyone to think that moving agreement, i wink and a nod to the president because we recognize that we need to hear. that is what we have tried to

do, but we also did not want to arm the president as he goes and talks to our allies and other nations around the world of engaging in this. process.ery careful i do not think that what we have done, nor should it be construed , is this through the lifecycle about december 11. this member and i believe the leadership team of the republican party is looking at making sure that we provided the president what the president has asked for. ask back what the plan is in given the president the opportunity during this time between now and december 11 to do what needs to be done. can i come back and promise you that we will be asking for

specifically what we are after? i do not know. what i would say as chairman recognize said, they they need to do in armed services bill. we have to agree with something. certainly, this would be on the table. the president would have some limits because of the money alone. don't want you to walk out and say you didn't get answers. you are. short time frame, december 11, you know that. december 11. asking the president for a detailed plan but we are not trying to harm the president in any way. i appreciatean, the fact we are coming here to deal with this little piece. what i was referring to before

was we are bombing. that bombing will expand. we have troops -- that are in harms way. we should have a role in that. that is going on as we speak. >> a year, at least. >> i think congress ought to off the rise -- off the rise -- authorize. not to make this larger than us trying to work together and move forward. i am trying to ignore k acknowledge the request of the president. paste heard that in the and you have heard us genuinely

egg knowledge that -- acknowledge that. i can give you what i perceive to be the circumstances surrounding that. the gentleman from florida. >> just one point that relates to the cr. does this evaporate when the cr does? it is not necessarily true. mba comes back and goes to congress, if he comes back with something in it that we do be that doescould happen. i want to make sure that everybody knows that that is a problem for most of us if that comes back and away -- in a way

that authorizes us not to have a debate on it. i hope we don't get put into that. we have to pass it. that notd say to you just duly noted because i have the same thoughts and ideas. what i would say is we are trying to engage the administration with a thoughtful plan that will allow us to know what we agree or disagree with. i think we are trying to do the right thing here right now. just to say iion, think we are doing the best we can. further discussion. seeing none. a want to thank the young chairman of the armed services committee. i hope you will tell sally i said hi.

>> thank you. >> this ends the hearing portion of j-124. >> mr. chairman, i move the , thettee for sj-124 continuing appropriations resolution. ehe role provides -- rul provides controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on appropriations. it avoids all ports of order through short resolution. inprovides the amendment part a of the rules committee be enforced and shall be considered and adopted. and the short resolution shall be considered. the joint resolution is amendment. only the further amendment is sponsored by the representative beginn -- it shall be

considered an separately debatable dividing control by the representative of california and the representative of washington. it provides one motion to recommit with or without instruction. house resolution 567 with the clarifying that paragraphs f1 -f12 of clause 4 should be considered to be written rules adopted by the select committee of benghazi. >> you have now heard the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina. further discussion on the amendment? -- about theart special select meeting on

benghazi. staff tells me that what this means is that there is a provision exempting the benghazi select committee that are adopt written rules. we could construe the they do not want media to cover the meanings. -- the meetings. >> thank you very much. rulest, there are no related to that at all and we are simply allowing them to have the rules that they would -- >> other committees do have rules for the meetings. for media access. for some reason, the benghazi select meeting is being exempted from that. >> nothing specific.

>> it is specific. they don't have to -- the committee shall have a rule on media. >> get the exact words. get the exact words. we are concerned about the open meetings law. provisions of paragraph 4, shall beause considered to be written rules and adopted by the select committee pursuant to such clause. that does not say they will not. it incorporates them into the select committee of the rules of

the house. >> they are exempt. we don't understand why the select committee is given a special exemption. >> there was nothing previously stated. you are asking a good question and i am trying to give a good answer. we are going to enumerate that they have the rules of the house as it relates to media. that tomorrow. >> if you want to talk about it further, we will be glad to. tonight. >> i will be very open to that. >> further discussion for amendment. the vote will be on the motion

from the gentlewoman from north carolina. the german will be leading -- the german will be leading this for -- the gentleman will be leading this for republicans. we plan to have a 3:00 meeting tomorrow for the rule on the energy and jobs package. we are through with our work for tonight. thank you to all of the members and staff. thank you three much. -- thank you very much. >> the continuing relations edition -- relation -- the house will debate and vote on an

amendment for the measure to fund the training of some syrian rebel groups to fight isis. it is expected to be debated on the floor tuesday and wednesday. live coverage here on c-span. coming up next, the debate between the candidates for nebraska's seat in the u.s. senate. that is followed by remarks from general philip breedlove. on the next washington journal, a discussion on the president strategy to combat isis. we hear from representative peter welch of vermont. he is followed by the congressman from georgia. our guest is ray cross, president of the university of wisconsin. washington journal is live every

morning at 7:00 eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> tuesday, the senate armed services committee examines the president's plan to combat isis. and general martin dempsey will testify starting at c-spanm. eastern live on 3. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. here are just a few of the comments we have recently received from our viewers. >> are really did not expect spending the day watching tv, but i can't the end of the key west -- caught the end of the key west program and started checking what was coming. i could not turn it off. i hope it is ok that i recorded it. so much information.

i like the opportunity to see parts of it again. i don't have a computer. it was a wonderful program. >> iwatch c-span's coverage last night of the irs hearings. it was a three-hour editorial piece. i was stunned by the moments that were picked out over all of the hours of interviews and committee meetings and investigations and hearings. i was stunned to see that all of the moments that were picked for when the democrats were attacking the republicans, accusing them of which hunting and hatred and bigotry and stupidity. whatever. that was three hours of c-span propping up the democrats and protecting barack obama. i always knew you had a bias.

i've always known there was a liberal bias. last night was absolutely stunning. , the three-hour debacle i listen to last night. see since -- c-span supports democrats, the unions, irs, and barack obama. shame on you. c-span 2ogramming on and c-span 3 is everything that somebody with some brains could ever want. with all the junk on tv, that stuff is fantastic. i also enjoy regular c-span in the mornings. you are doing a hell of a job. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a

tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> a debate between nebraska's four candidates for the u.s. senate. dave domina, ben sasse, jim jenkins and todd watson are vying for the seat being vacated by mike johanns. according to a cbs new york times poll, ben sasse leads dave domina by 26 points. this is 90 minutes. ♪ >> welcome to the final 2014 nebraska u.s. senate debate.

kelly, the moderator for tonight's debate. we are live at northwest high school with the four candidates on the ballot. jenkins, benjim watson.nd todd joining me if the panel of distinguished broadcast journalists from across nebraska. tonight's format is a little different. first, there are no opening statements. the candidates have the opportunity to record those earlier. you can find those on our facebook page. we will lodge in depth discussions -- we will have in-depth discussions.

will not be allowed to question each other or directly address their opponents. not format will cover maybe every issue, but we hope it will provide more depth and substance. let's get started. our first area is u.s. involvement in foreign countries. last two decades have seen u.s. military forces involved in different ways and conflicts throughout the world. what is your criteria for the use of u.s. military resources in foreign countries? note an example where you would not have supported u.s. involvement. >> thank you very much. the answer to that question requires that we recall why we have united states military. the purpose of the military is to identify and eliminate conflict away from our shores at its lowest level of activity as early as possible.

when the military is successful at that mission, we do not even hear about it. when something breaks out that goes beyond that level, the objective is to contain it before it reaches our shores. heaven forbid, if it were to happen, to repel it within our boundaries. that is what our military is for. it should be used when the principles of war permitted to be deployed intelligently and effectively, when we can identify an objective that is achievable and we can do it with -- resources. you asked me to identify a time when i would not have favored involvement. i think our involvement was premature when we elected to go to albania and bosnia. i think it was premature in the sense that we did not assess the vacuum that would follow. we were not sure what would

happen after that occurred. fortunately, it worked out better than i might have. -- that it might have. viewers.you to the question. important if you look over the past several decades, many times, our political leaders have gotten it wrong. for example, i believe we should not have gone into iraq. that was an instance where we did not have a compelling economic threat, compelling security threat. it took our attention away from afghanistan, where the true threat was. i believe the united states is indispensable leader of the world and we have to be fully engaged. we have to be focused on this war on terrorism, which is morphing around the world.

it is important that congress and the president develop more of a bipartisan approach. right now, you will notice that congress is standing on the sidelines of waiting for the president to make room -- make a move. this is my suggestion. we need to make sure that as we engage, that we don't engage without coalitions, without working with other countries, and we need to old coalitions -- we need to build coalitions and to make sure there is an economic threat to our country. >> thank you for hosting us tonight. the first duty of the federal government is to protect us from enemies, foreign and domestic. nebraskans know that war is a horrible thing and we need to be resistant to going to war

whenever possible. at those times when the use of force is required, they want much more clarity about why the u.s. engaged. there has to be a definable u.s. national security interest outplay. a good example -- at play. a good example of where we did not need to take action was bosnia. we should talk about why vladimir putin is on the march. the u.s. does not have any clarity around the world about where we act to support our allies. our allies need to trust us and our enemies need to fear us. this goes back to the vacuum where we made promises to poland and the czech republic that we would deployed missile systems to get ukraine and other countries after the fall of the wall. materials -- we did

not keep our commitments. this is the kind of problem you cannot fix after-the-fact. >> i think we need to go back and look at the constitution. in the preamble, it outlines five basic needs of government. we are called to ensure domestic tranquility and military has a part to play in that. the third job of government is to provide for the common defense. we have gotten into too many offensive wars and this has caused harm to our country. when he to look at the constitution -- we need to look at the constitution. it should dictate how we act. in the constitution, we were not

to raise money for armies for more than two years at a time. we have forgotten that rule as well. we must look at our national interest, but the ohs we take is not to defend -- both we take is not to defend the threats. it is to defend the constitution from threats, foreign and domestic. we need to look at our national interest. we need to care about the well-being of our citizens. we must look back to our constitution. does this meet the criteria to the defense of this nation? we must look at the constitution for the dinner full -- general framework and guidance. >> give me an example of when you would not have supported u.s. involvement. >> the rock the second -- iraq,

the second time. we were misguided into engaging in that war. >> any concerns you have with their previous engagements? >> i will mention one, if i may. of course, we all have concerns about her previous engagements in iraq. the question required that we put ourselves in a decision-making position at the time of injury. at the time of entry into the conflict, we all thought we had a solid reason to go into iraq because the president told us we did. we only learned later that it was not true. i would also say this -- our past involvements that are characterized as offensive wars are intelligent wars. as a veteran, we do not want to

fight defense of wars. we want to be on offense so we are never on defense. continues in the gaza strip, to what extent should congressional policy support israel? >> israel is the one major ally we have over there. kurds to thate list. they do not have their own country, but we need to find nations and make sure we are working with nations that will support us, given how tumultuous the middle east is. i believe our policy needs to continue to be supportive of israel. it is important to understand that we have had decades of involvement in the middle east,

constant peace missions trying to resolve the issues between palestine and the mosque bank and the plo -- hamas and the plo and israel. no one has had very much success. we support israel, but we need to be careful in entangling ourselves in the middle east. stand on the side of israel. no moral equivalency between israel and mosque bank. -- hamas. hamas is a terrorist organization. israel is our closest ally in the nation. freedomnd for peace and in the region. as the prime minister recently set, if hamas would lay down its weapons, there would be no more war. if israel lays down its weapons

-- its weapons, there would be no more israel. nebraskans don't believe that anne is -- and americans don't believe that and we should be supporting israel. we should be standing with the nation that believes in the rule of law and the defense of its minorities. >> we should stand 100% with israel. they are best ally in the middle east. it is disturbing the lack of foreign-policy leadership that we are seeing right now. -- within leadership regards to hamas, the plo and hamas, they do not get along.

the plo is working to get that group under control. the alternative option is that hamas is not there. your only alternative is hamas. if we can find an alternative secular option that comes to power, it would be in everyone's best to allow some economic development for thriving of the people there. not have a good alternative option in that area. question, we should stand firmly with israel. it is the only functioning democracy in the middle east. it is our most reliable partner. it is our most steadfast ally. we have never been asked to go to war to defend israel since 1948.

it saves us billions of dollars by being in a place where we would have to have a dramatic military presence without that ally. i think we need to understand the geography that drives this conflict, which is much a land possession driven conflict. palestine exists in three disparate bodies of land. ofse three separate bodies land have very different natural resources, very different liabilities. --golan -- heights golan heights has much of the water. the only ultimate solution is a two state solution. we must diplomatically supported.

hamast recognize that will not participate in that conversation because it does not favor a two state solution. >> would you press the president to do more? do, thenk the more we worse things get. we seem to constantly interject ourselves into battles or conflicts that is not resolvable. it is a two state solution. at the end of the day, whatever the united states does, it is not going to matter much if israel and mosque bank do not come to terms -- hamas do not terms or an agreed-upon cease-fire. >> you indicated that not enough

is being done in support of israel. should the president be doing more unilaterally? >> congress wants to act. the democratic senator from new resolution. it is the most pressing issue in the middle east after isis. the iranian nuclear plot. it has broad bipartisan support. it would probably get 80 votes. president obama and harry reid will not bring it to a vote. we need congress to exercise some of their authority. >> do you support president obama's recently announced strategy to go after isis in iraq and syria, which includes

increased airstrikes and additional advisers in iraq? if not, what do you suggest? >> we need to take action against isis and we should have begun at least a month ago. we don't need to speak with nearly as modeled the voice. -- muddled voice. nebraskans know that when military action is required, we should be announcing to the world that we will do whatever it takes to win. isis is a bloodthirsty terrorist organization that kills innocent women and children. isis must be eradicated. manyould bring along as middle eastern allies into that

quest as we can. >> i agree. i support increased airstrikes on isis. they are a very radical group that needs to be contained. we need to start having a conversation on an endgame. i do not believe the political structure is sound in iraq. i think it will settle into three different states. we have to be thinking in the long term. are we up for having a long-term presence in the area of substantial force? this is a debate we need to have as citizens. we have not declared war since 42. up.eed congress to step the president job is to wage it. it is congress's job to declare it. we are reacting, dislike we

-- just like we did in iraq. we need to be thinking in three or four steps ahead just like chess. that is the question i challenge to the american people. presence of long-term are you willing to commit? that is the endgame. >> i would encourage us to carefully assess and consider the entire region and recall how recently we heard of -- just lid in iraq. we need to be thinking in three or four isis. isis is a splinter group from al qaeda. religious factions. they are extreme religious factions. they are not representatives of practiceon plus who the religion.

anybody who has studied war at all knows it one sign of victory is division, dividing leads to conquering. they have already divided themselves. we should act with a clear objective. we should act with speed and was surprised and with decision. we should do with as much economy and force as we can. send air force is much as we can and not people. we should test and strengthen the resolve of those who must maintain the peace when our work is done so the next time we are region, the people remain have the wherewithal by virtue of their commitment to their own national identity and their religious identity to provide for their own defense. those are essential remain havel

by virtue of their things. i do not think this is the time for the united states to be engaging in any kind of petty criticism. it is not time for us to attack the president. i do not think that was appropriate with the last president when it happened. we accomplish the task together and we succeed together and we learn together. that keeps us together. president, thee airstrikes. foreign policy is the one area we all ought to understand how important it is as a nation that we come together. partisanship stops at the water's edge. unfortunately, it is more about criticizing the president, no matter which president. taking positions that are political and have nothing to do with the self-interest of our country.

-- kurds have 100 15,000 115,000 people fighting force. i am grateful that we are equipping them. who haveeful to france decided to equip them. they have a stable economy, they have oil, and they have a desire to keep isis from building anywhere in the middle east. we need to ask saudi arabia and pakistan to stop funding the sunni terrorists. that has to be front and center.

one need to ask our allies to step up. our allies toask step up. we cannot have a great foreign policy unless you have some sort -- it is disappointing to see republicans and democrats in congress standing on the sidelines waiting for the president to act so they can go in and criticize. they need to step up and help take a position and help us develop the positions that are so critical in fighting the war on terror. >> we will move on. we want to remind our audience, you're listening to nebraska's u.s. senate debate. our seconde on to topic, the global economy.

>> mr. jenkins, i believe your first. we are buying things from great britain, we are buying things from china. is our data safe? what can we do to protect our entrepreneurs from hackers? this we have moved into developing of technology, take the top 20 computer companies in theworld, united states is one great example over entrepreneurial society really leveraging our resources. that includes government research, private technology, investment banking.

it is very critical that we as a government and private companies step forward and do everything we can to make sure this very important economic system is protected. i hate to keep bringing this point up, but if you look at congress, congress has not made this a priority. not come up with a comprehensive program in working with private companies to ensure internet technology safety and it is a great example of gridlock and dysfunction in congress. the two parties unwilling to prioritize and are undermining our economic situation in the united states. .> we do face great challenges

we are going through a structural economy -- transition in the economy. one recent demographic study showed sense the 2008 downturn, a majority of americans in the workforce are employed by firms they were not employed by by 2008. this is the pace of change that the world has never known. we want to celebrate the u.s. as the job creating capital of the world. we have to do that with some greater clarity about the cyber threats that we face. we know that we face great intellectualm property violations. it does require bipartisan participation and it requires understanding of the future of the world of big data needs to be led and diverse ways by silicon valley and new high-tech

centers. washington, d.c., will not be able to leave this change. as the u.s. does try to provide a framework any's conversations, we need to be sure that we are celebrating the fourth amendment. diligentes a lot more and robust oversight from the congress. there is a lot of work to be done. it has to be centered on the ingenuity of the creative american people. it will not be able to be led by bureaucracies. areasre are two distinct

that we need to stay out of. the market will fix the problem. we have leading financial institutions that have a vested interest in the security of these issues. i do not see why we need to have government involved. if you are talking on the issues of government security, one of the areas we need to address the most, the security of our data from intelligence perspective. we continue to throw money at large still machines, but having the leading-edge and i.t. is imperative on the military sector. our government needs to be involved in that specific area. it is foolishness to say let's have the government control are monetary security in the private sector. for the government to step into that is foolish. i would concur on the fourth amendment as well.

we talked about google. they evolved their security systems to a new level. we are leading in this category because we learn from actual experience. the private sector will handle it quite well. >> with all due respect, i don't think the question has been addressed by any of the three speakers. when money moves in a transaction on the internet, it it moves between private sources, one bank to another bank. it does not move on the federal reserve wire. securityn we haven't is that we don't have government standards that require those banks to establish thresholds they must meet and for which they are monitored to assure compliance. examination,bank

but we don't have a standard that regulates mastercard and visa. we have allowed those transactions to go off the federal reserve wire. foremost, protect american entrepreneurs by allowing transactions on the internet to be taxed. establish a set of standards. provide that the banking system of the united states, the federal reserve system, is the path for moving money. that introduces a whole array of crimes that are not now prosecutable under the existing system. expand the existing crimes. remember that we are not ever going to move entirely to a knowledge economy. food and water will always be the most important products,

including the food produced in nebraska. >> i want to give you an opportunity to respond. when we talk about the enforcement of existing laws, are you saying federal law is sufficient to deal with cyber crimes, especially those coming from foreign countries? >> not at all. there are evolving categories of exposure. we are fortunate enough to have com in our strat state. at the level of trying to figure out how the federal government will set standards for every transactions, i would point your viewers to the study that came off -- came out from hhs.

the federal government has spent $26 billion of american taxpayer money to promote information technology. it turns out there standards don't work. and the different systems that we subsidize are not interoperable. >> is federal law sufficient? >> we need to change in attitude in government. this attitude of government preaching to the private sector is the wrong approach. we need partnerships. when you not to treat the people in that ivan sector as though they are already -- in the private sector as though they are already criminals. the regulators work with private business to get better.

we need more of a partnership to move us forward. trade.ansion of free some say we should have open trade with every country in the world. globalization is good. wto should be expanded. others would say americans should buy from other americans and the government should restrict trade with any country that costs u.s. jobs or creates a trade deficit. where do you stand? trade. for free benefits both sides when there are free and fair rules. many countries do not play fair and we can have multiple examples.

the u.s. needs to act clearly and with a steady hand and are supportive international organizations that try to investigate and prosecute those that would perpetrate attacks on free trade regimes. overall, free trade is the right choice. it is important to recognize that nebraska, as we are living in the most productive geographic area in the world for greatlyure, benefits from foreign markets. we should continue to celebrate that. >> if you look at the world, you see every country doing quantitative easing to increase

exports around the world. it is really hurting our population. the dollar -- the value of the dollar, we are not able to buy what we used to buy. i am not a fan of the federal reserve. we have a lot of people struggling in this country trying to make ends meet. -- you need policy a flexible policy. we stuck protections to get the manufacturing base going. used to have protections to get the manufacturing base going. soneed to look at policies that we are not stimulating in less welfare -- endless welfare. i am strongly against the minimum wage because that is not the way to do it.

it is usually a=b. >> first of all, our objectives should be that our trade balance is neutral. we trade as much in as we trade as much out. this is the 40th consecutive year of a u.s. trade deficit. the second thing is all of the trade rules should be reciprocal. labornmental rules, rules, safety standards rules, inspection roles, and all of the rules that go into compliance with constructing of products in united states. if the playing field is not level, the trading is not fair. there should be no currency manipulation.

we should have a prohibition against that in every trade agreement. we should recognize the north american free-trade agreement has hurt the united states because it did not contain the guarantees i've just mentioned. free trade has cost jobs, driven down the standard of living, reduced average compensation, dried up receipt of federal taxes, and the pressures on our national budget. we have to have fair trade before it can be free. those are essential things. environment is not possible. if you made everything perfectly equal, there would be no trading done. we live in a messy world. i would like to see free-trade.

that theree to see is no currency manipulation. if you are going to get anything done in business, you will have to come to some messy compromises and continue to negotiate. countriesook at the that have the poorest economies in the world, it is the countries that are not trading. strengthened the north american continent. it strengthened canada. it strengthened mexico. i am involved in agriculture. cattle, we had 2% of our shipments going out of this country. now we are up around 13 or 14%. everythingt trade, that we trade is enhancing this

economy. i am supportive of it. we do need to work for fair trade. but there is no such thing as a perfect solution. get in the way of continuing to negotiate free trade agreements. >> we will go to our next question for dave domina. >> we did our ask -- we did ask .ur audience 48 few questions -- for a few questions. investing in research and development at a faster pace. it will surpass the united states in eight years. what will you do about this? what can the senate do about this? >> this addresses what kind of a

country we want to have. if we are committed to being entrepreneurial, if we are committed to being innovative, dimly have to commit resources -- and we had to commit resources to research and development. universities were built on the premise that federal research would be conducted at those institutions. thatve virtually abandoned in favor of people chasing after money from the private sector. the second thing we have to do is reinvigorate our markets to encourage research. we live at a time when corporate merger after merger after merger reduces competitors in the marketplace to develop new projects. and hasurt innovation put more pressure on research

and development budgets. it is emphasized the right-hand side of the balance sheet, not the left-hand side. that is a function of poor federal tax policy. we need to return to that kind of commitment. recall what we got out of what looked like a pointless venture to circulate a man in orbit around the earth. we need to be recommitted to that kind of scientific experimentation. a $2.5 trillion shortfall in infrastructure. this whole state was built on infrastructure. the highway system, nebraska public power, irrigation systems. huge amounts of government research on agriculture. we have a lead export trade group. one of the safest food supplies

in the world because of the infrastructure we put into food safety. it is absolutely critical, or right now, it is dissipating. you have people like ben sasse who has signed off on a pledge eveno raise any taxes though this nation has trillion dollars worth of deficit that was bipartisan. spending on the wars, one of the history, andons in he is not willing to ask the american taxpayer to pay for some of that deficit. to put something towards that. he is willing to ask the you --

ask the american young people to sacrifice. >> i am not sure what all of that was about. we under invest in infrastructure and in basic scientific research. one of the fundamental duties of the federal government is to invest in infrastructure and basic research. one of the reasons that is not happening is because washington has a bipartisan agreement about not telling the truth. i do not think the problem in washington is that we tax too little.

we should be telling the truth to people my age and younger. i am 42. focus on the question on china's and research and development, if you could. >> the reason we have too little is because we have a washington trying to pretend that we do not need to reform our entitlement programs. >> we need to promote the general welfare. the constitution calls for our branch to invest in arts and sciences. we mismanage our budget. we do not prioritize appropriately.

we cannot promote the corporate welfare. we're supposed to promote the general welfare. how we deploy that money needs to change. we have a crisis in stem education. we are statistically low in students in these categories. personnel to even take advantage of the investments? we have to work backwards. i do not believe education is a federal issue. as a public figure, we need to encourage our parents and individuals to work with the school and make sure there is a focus on stem and make sure we

have the personnel to create the new technologies. >> we are at the halfway point. you are watching the nebraska u.s. senate debate. i am bill kelly, your moderator. broadcast are journalists. we are talking with the four candidates for u.s. senate on the general election ballot. democrats dave domina, and dependent jim jenkins, republican ben sasse, an independent nonpartisan candidate todd watson. we move forward to our third topic, immigration. colleen williams starts our

discussion. ask everyone keeps saying we should secure our borders. what additional actions can the u.s. senate take? what would you take to secure our borders? duty of the federal government is to protect us from enemies, foreign and domestic. we need secure borders. the customs and border patrol does not have clarity about standard operating procedures and they don't have clarity about standard metrics. we have a crisis at our borders and we should also acknowledge the particular crisis that is bent on the minds of nebraskans is about these unaccompanied minors. when they see that they don't start with partisanship, they

start as parents. i am the father of three little kids. this is a solvable problem, but it requires the president to state clearly that we are not headed toward some mass amnesty. we need more clarity from the president about the fact that our borders are meant to be closed and not open. have borderso patrol agent see that has sufficient congressional oversight. that is not a political hot button. trying to be sure the u.s. decides for the good of its citizens who should be coming and going. >> we had a solution to secure the border in 1986. we failed to secure the border

for the last 28 years with both parties under control. we are talking about all of these international engagement. our first priority is to secure the border. countrya crisis in this for lack of debate. i am very hard on harry reid. a veryse will not debate thorough bill. i doubt many people have read or reviewed the bill, but it should be debated. we need more debate to find solutions in both sides are contributing to the problem. i stayed consistent from the start. i think reagan built the right framework. it was not executed.

we need to make sure that the appropriate funds, personnel are allocated to the border to make sure it is secure so we conduct our first order of business which is outlined in the constitution. >> we share a long and interesting borders with two nations and we do not have too much trouble on the canadian border. what is it about the mexican border that causes us to focus on this problem and talk about things that have never worked in the history of the human experience? wall stonework. -- walls don't work. there is an enormous civil war going on in mexico driven by the drug cartel which is chasing the drug demand into the united states. things we can do to

help the mexican government is doing all dry up the demand for illegal drugs by recognizing that the demand that drives much of the controversy is within the united states. the second thing we can do to help secure the border is to recognize that when people are less desperate, they don't crash borders. they go places peacefully to emigrate. that process has to be affordable, it has to be understandable, and it has to be prompt. we should give people who come to the united states because they love our opportunities, committed no crimes, and of tried to live here without documents a pathway to complete