the meetings i have attended, they are a clear threat. >> ok, thank you. the next question goes to mr. terror. the war in afghanistan has gone on for 13 years. it has cost the lives of more than 2200 servicemen and women can and do you think a long-running ground-floor in afghanistan was the right tactic? and andmove the taliban the al qaeda that was stationed and working out of afghanistan, absolutely, it was necessary. it has been a long process, but i think we need to stay. when he to work until afghanistan can stay on their own two legs to defend themselves. >> you are not for the withdrawal? >> i wanted to occur as they are

able to take care of themselves. i do not want to do what we did in iraq. when you pull out too fast, it you create a vacuum, the vacuum is going to be filled and that vacuum in iraq was filled by isil and that could happen again in afghanistan. what is amazing to me is the effectiveness of our military in the middle east. maintain ourould presence in afghanistan until we -- we have made some progress on the new government that is just bill that did in afghanistan -- that has just been elected in afghanistan. we had to act when we acted. terrorism occurred.

i agree we need to stay a little longer. the way we approached afghanistan did create the vacuum. click some critics have blamed president obama for the current upheaval in iraq saying he should've kept american soldiers on the ground in that country. do you agree? >> hindsight is 2020. borderseft troops on with syria, we could have maintained some training mission and some support mission on the border with syria. station.n has left the

i don't see us coming back into force nowthat kind of or in the future. >> i agree that hindsight is 20/20. the laissez-faire foreign policy -- they wereent not trained when the government started punishing segments of their society. all of that, we should have been much more involved in that too prevent that from happening. -- iwant to say that as support the president on his strikes. i think that is the right thing to do. we have to make sure that this government and the military, they are the ones -- the kurds

should be armed as well. i think the boots on the ground in iraq should remain iraqi boots. armingdid vote against the syrian rebels. >> i was the only one in our entire delegation that voted against that. that was to arm the free syrian army and trading them. i have seen too many incidences where we trade a group of people and as we are training them, they turned their weapons on us. syria is one of those places. >> here is what i think about this.

it is impossible me to know about the vote because i was not briefed, i don't know about the intricacies of that congressional decision. i don't understand how congress could have left w after four days of coming back from summer v had a vote moderateng syrian rebels without a thorough discussion and debate. those questions need to be asked the authority needs to be debated. were only four days of congressional meeting after that summer recess. it should have been thoroughly debated over the weekend.

there were several days of discussion. the president asked for congress to make the authority. he said he wanted in the continuing resolution and we had a deadline. that is the answer. >> the american public deserves what thetand fully further appropriations that will be required. that could have been debated on some basis. >> i think we will move on if that is ok. we will talk a little bit about jobs and the economy. ago, america emerged from the recession, but wages continue to stagnate. what would you propose congress do to boost family income?

>> we have to continue to expand our economy and there are a lot of things we should be doing to make sure our economy is growing jobs. i see wages in our metropolitan area going up. manufacturing jobs right now that are $20 an hour. in order to expand our economy, we have to reform our tax code and use the energy resources that we have so we don't have to spend the money to bring it in from foreign countries that don't like us. we need to teach the skills necessary. the best way to get people high-paying jobs to get them the skills necessary. our veterans coming back have some skills, but they need other skills. there is a bill that brad ashford could have pushed, but he would not allow it out of the committee. job-trainingd

bills in the legislature. i pushed the vocational education. training forted veterans, especially disabled veterans. we passed a bill in 2014 to do that. the bill that congressman kerry is talking about talked about -- congressman terry is talking about is giving direct resources to employers. i think we need to unleash our economy. not had corporate tax reform in 14 years. trilliono bring the $2 that is located outside the united states, bring it back to

america, get our country moving again. >> do want to comment on the corporate tax reform? >> it has to be reformed and that is been one of my goals in congress. the rest of the world has gone this way. we have an old code for a different time that has to be modernized and we need our president and the senate to get engaged. >> i think we will move on to the next question. do you think the growing income inequality is a problem? so, what should the federal government do about it? years, the gdp14

has increased by about 40 for sent and the median family income has increased less than a percent. there is a gap. we need to push equal pay for equal work for women. the minimum wage is important because since the 1930's when the minimum wage was $.25, congress has always worked together to incrementally increase the minimum wage so those of the lower end of the pay scale can received a better wage. congress needs to work together to get the things past. it has been five years since the minimum wage was passed. infrastructure is important. b84 funded roads and bridges in our state. we cannot get a roads built out of congress -- bill out of

congress. on the ballot this fall will be a minimum wage question. will you vote for it? >> yes. >> do you think there is a problem with the growing income inequality in the station? >> we have too many lower income people. more and more middle-class has taken a harder hit in this economy. many of them had good paying jobs. he had to go to an underemployment situation. the cause of the president health-care bill, full timers are being put into a position where they are now part-timers. we do have to strengthen our economy. the way that people are going to get a 20-20 five dollar in our job is to have the skill set necessary. i don't want people to just go

from seven dollars to $10. if you are a single mother and you are struggling at minimum wage, we want to make sure you have the skills necessary to earn $20 an hour. those jobs are open in omaha, nebraska, right now. jobs,we have demand on they will go up naturally at much higher than $10 an hour. >> how will you vote? >> i will not support that because i think we can do a better job. aker, he is kind of hoping it goes up. 70% of americans on minimum wage, a lot of them are single moms.

yes, they want to earn $20 an hour. we need to do job-training. we need to have 21st century vocational education in the schools. we are talking about low-wage earners who are trying to get off of welfare. >> i think we will move on. the next question is on social security. social security payroll taxes are currently capped under $17,000 of income. some cap -- some say it is time to raise that cap or scrap it altogether. would you support one of the options? youot, how would [inaudible] social security? click social security -- >>

social security is a social promise. we need to let the seniors know. 2040, if we do nothing, there will be a 25% automatic reduction of everyone's benefit. .e have to stop that my goal is to put everything on the table. increase the cap. we should be looking at every solution. republicans and democrats working together, holding their hands together, and coming up with a solution. each side will have to give on something. far, over the republican side of the aisle has been willing to move in some direction. >> you would raise the cap and you would raise the retirement age question mark >> i think

everything should be on the table. >> if congress does nothing, you are right, the two trust funds will be less. privatizing social security does not make any sense to me. we just raise the retirement age

to 67. we do have to take a look at all of the options. we have to take privatization of social security off the table. we don't pass anything in congress. >> do you age to 67. we do have to take a look at all of the options. we have to take privatization of social security off the table. we don't pass anything in congress. >> do you think mr. terry supported privatization? >> he will have to tell you. there were certainly a vote on privatizing social security. >> president bush -- >> you supported it at that time. >> it is not been on the table for eight years. >> it was on the table during the bush administration and you got behind it. if democrats would come to the table on this -- >> gentlemen.

>> i don't think raising -- we just raised the retirement age and i don't think it is necessary. . we need to provide the congressional oversight. it has to be done in a collaborative manner. it is a bedrock of our social system. i think we are going to move to that portion of the debate. you get to ask each other a question.

about one area that you were deeply involved in . you refuse to allow any new prisons to be built. you are the main sponsor of what .s called the good time law you fought the governor on the bill that he supported that would have done reforms to quote, unquote good time which is now just halftime. and as one of the reforms was simply you have to earn your good time and you fought the governor on that and you refused to let it come out of your committee. why don't you want reforms to good time and why would you do that to the people and violent criminals are being released? >> thanks for the question. >> thanks, lee.

the question i think 20 months ago the department of corrections came to us -- to me and said, look, we're at 140% of capacity. our law provides that when we get to 140% of capacity in our department of corrections that the governor may call an emergency, and he did not. so we took the issue and we reformed the prison system. we had no votes on a massive reform of our prison system. we did that following a significant reform in our juvenile justice system. the department of corrections did not follow the good time law that was in effect, so that instead of adding on time for inmates who miss behaved what the department of corrections was putting them in administrative segregation and not adding on additional time. the department of corrections did not follow the law. they didn't follow the law in mandatory minimum sentences that we passed either. i'll tell you what, we're nod coddling prisoners, lee, when we increase penalties for sexual predators, we increase mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes

which has resulted in a number of new inmates in our prison system. i think we've got significant reform with unanimous approval by the legislature and signed by the governor. >> mr. terry, would you like to comment? >> the reality is there are two issues, one is the miscalculation. but the bill that you passed cut every sentence in half without having to earn that. >> no it didn't. >> yes. >> no it didn't. >> and so there's two issues here, brad, and that was some of the reforms the governor wanted. the bill that i was referring to, it was never passed out of your committee that you were

the chair of. >> we have seven different -- >> may i? >> yes. >> we have seven different good time laws that have been passed over the last 25 years. the governor actually asked for a more lenient good a more lenient good time law a few years ago to alleviate prison overcrowding. the good time law we have now is an administrative sanction. every judge -- and you know this -- every judge in all district judges in this state know very well what a sentence means and what it is. we have minimum and maximum sentences. they can make the sentence as harsh or as lenient as they wish. it's when they get into the prison system that good time is used as an administrative sanction. it was not used by the department of corrections. >> ok, mr. ashford. >> sorry. >> i apologize. mr. ashford, it is time for you to ask mr. terry a question. >> you know, we've had a discussion about wages and the middle class and still today,

women's salaries, what they earn is not equal to men's. and in 2010 or at least 2009 the lilly ledbetter act passed the house and you voted no. in 2013 the paycheck fairness act which would have amended the equal pay act failed and you voted no. how do you justify those votes? >> well, first of all, i want women and everyone to have equal wages. we have a constitutional amendment that requires that. we have nebraska state laws that require that. we have an eeoc set up nationally and state to deal with those issues. so if there's someone that is receiving less wages for the exact same job, they have a legal route to go through through the courts and the administrative way through the government. so the remedies already exist. and the lillie led better act was to take the statute of limitations off and you know that there's reasons because you

were both -- we're both lawyers and grads of law school, there's a reason why you don't do a civil case 20 years later. and that's what that bill was allowing to do and that would open up the door on everything else. and the paycheck fairness act was another act that was just dove tailed into another democratic motion that as a procedural one that we voted against. >> mr. ashford. >> well, on lillie led better, lee, you also know when you're an employee and you are a victim of discrimination of your pay, if you're a woman and you're paid less than someone working right next to you, it's very unlikely if you need that job to feed your family, it's very unlikely during the course of your employment that you're going to threaten yourself with a lawsuit. all this does, this lillie led better act is after the final paycheck is received, they have

180 days to file suit. i don't think that's an unreasonable action. >> i think you misunderstood that because the -- there is time when you discover the point and it wasn't 120 days after the last paycheck. this was discovered or she learned about it years later, and they wanted to remove the typical civil case statute of limitations of repose on that. if it was 120 days there wouldn't have been an issue on this. >> i think we're going to move on to health care. i believe it is mr. ashford, you are up next. >> ok. >> you are on record supporting only some of the provisions in the health care law, including the requirement that insurance companies can max -- cannot deny coverage for a preexisting condition. but you pose to mandate the new law. how can you get those provisions without the mandate? >> first of all, the affordable

care act has passed, i would have not have voted for it because it was not a bipartisan bill. it's too big a bill to have it just go through with just democrats and not republicans. so having said that, no, i don't support the employer mandate because employers already have a tax benefit for providing insurance. they have the employees who receive the insurance also paying taxes on the income, and quite frankly i do agree that employers might make a full time employee, a part a tart time employee and it's not worth it. there are a150 million americans coughed by employer insurance and i think that will continue. as far as other mandates, if you don't pay your premium as an individual it much more works need to be done on that. there were amendments in the

senate before the bill passed that would have triggered some relief for policy owners when the premiums go up. i think there's a lot of work to be done. i do support preexisting coverage. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry. >> that's ok. the one thing i want to burrow into is a lot of folks you can't have the preexisting without without the mandate because if i'm not required to have insurance i'm going to wait until i'm sick to get hedge care -- healthth care coverage if the insurance company is required to take me on. >> i don't think you need the mand date. you have exchanges and people buy policies on the exchanges. prior to the senate bill being passed before it went

to the house, there were efforts made to if a premium you have to buy insurance you pay a tax. if the premium goes up by a large amount, 10%, 20%, whatever the amount is that there is some trigger mechanism in place. all i'm saying is i think there's plenty of money in the system to provide the insurance for preexisting conditions. it's 17% of our economy. i don't think that one prohibits the other. >> thank you very much. mr. terry, you believe the affordable healthth care act needs to be repealed. what would you tell those people who are now able to afford health care because of the new law or those people with preexisting conditions who are also now able to purchase health care because of the law? >> first of all, i do think it was a horrible law and it's caused a lot of damage within our economy.

i've met people that have an advantage from that. but narcotic more people have come up to me and said about the high cost of their insurance now. and businesses have told me about how they've changed employees from full time to part-time or that if they don't get something done, some relief they may even actually go out of businesses. doctors, especially, i don't know how many times i've gone into doctors' offices and met with them, but it's changed the way they work with the patients and it's really changed the doctor-patient relationship. anything that is replaced it will be replaced immediately. and preexisting, i will admit if republicans would have taken the preexisting issue and worked with it instead of thinking that the states were going to do it with their high cost funds, we wouldn't have this bill today. so preexisting will be part of any replacement bill. >> ok. but picture yourself sitting

there with somebody who can now afford health care because of this law, what would you tell them? >> well, that they're going to have health care. if they're low income, they're still going to have medicare, but they may even have a better policy than what we're able to give them, and there will maybe be some type of rebates that will be allowed to make sure the next level had access. but the reality is the way that obamacare is done now, it's really driving up the cost of them. brad and i don't need maternity care but we're paying for it. so those are just one -- there's thousands of those types of things that are in there that that's driving up the cost. >> thank you. you're running over. i've got to be stricter here so -- >> can i just? >> yes, quickly. >> i mean, my point is i think, lee, you're right. there are lots of things that could be done. but voting to repeal it 56 times instead

of trying to solve the problem, that's why i have an issue on with you. i think we need to solve it. we need to get it done now. we need to have certainty in the system. and the way to do that is to work across the aisle and find a way to fix it, not wait four years to do it. >> in that regard the 56 times, well, i think three or four were actually repealed. the other number that you do are actually trying to make changes to those. instead of 30 hours, then the mandate on the employers you move it back to 40 because that's one of the things that is causing employers to force people to part-time. >> let's move on here. i think this one goes to mr. ashford. let's step back a little bit from this whole debate about affordable health care. the key reason the law was passed was to provide coverage from for uninsured americans. fundamentally do you think it's the federal government's job to

make sure all americans have affordable access to health care? >> yes. >> mr. terry? >> is it a right? it is something we should do, absolutely. and there's a variety of ways that we could work within the system without reshuffling all of the chairs on the titanic. one of the things i actually liked in the obamacare is a medical home that would actually reduce the cost to the patient. >> we are going to wrap up and head to the next question. mr. terry, it's your question. i'm having trouble this evening calling you mr. terry, mr. ashford, i apologize. gallup poll suggests trust in government is lower. tell me, what can congress do to regain the trust. >> well, i think you gain the trust by showing you can actually get together and work on the major issues that have to be done.

every bill that i've introduced and worked on, i've worked with the democrats from the beginning. that's why a couple years ago by my piers -- peers i was named one of the top 10 republicans to work with. my leadership style is you bring everybody in at the beginning of the process and you work through the issues. one of the most liberal members in in congress is my ranking member on my subcommittee and we worked together and came to a compromised that got to the president's desk and was signed in the law. >> the question has to do with trust and people have lost trust in their government. what do you tell those folk sns how would you regain that trust? >> i'm as equally frustrated as they are. it is so frustrating to do bills like on obamacare to just change the rule from 30 hours back to

40 where there's great bipartisan support but we have unentity that's dysfunctional right now in the senate not allowing that bill to go through the senate. it's frustrating for all of us. >> mr. ashford. >> two wrongs don't make a right. the a.c.a. should have been a bipartisan effort. it should have taken a little longer and i think the people would have had trust in the resolution of that had that occurred. but then we needed to get back to fixing it. and we haven't fixed it and four years have gone by. and trust in government has eroded because of that and other things. what i see happening is an intense partisan divide in the congress, and that's what i hear people saying to me. i don't think it was that way when tip o'neal and ronald reagan was there. i don't this was that way when johnson got together to sign the civil rights act. i don't know what the reason is.

maybe it's citizens united. i think members of congress need to work extraordinarily hard to cross that bridge and put solutions over party. that's what we've learned in the legislature. i think that's what has to happen again in the congress. i'm not saying it can't happen, but the trust is gone because there's a polarization based on bipartisan in my view. >> thank you very much. we're going to move on to immigration. and, mr. ashford, you're up. at the heart of the immigration debate is how to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in this country. we know both of you think more work needs to be done to secure the border but after that would you support a pathway to citizenship and if so, why? >> the state of nebraska has to pay the freight for the lack of action by the congress. we passed a bill on benefits and employer verification. we have to pay the cost of

foster care. all of these things are state responsibilities and costs because congress -- this is a federal responsibility. the immigration system is a federal constitutional system that has to be amended or reformed by congress. every time we get to a debate it's all about the borders. i think we should take the senate bill which was passed in a bipartisan manner by the senate, republicans and democrats alike passed the bill. it provides significantly more money for border security. obviously border security is the number one -- >> and then it had a pathway to citizenship? >> it had a criteria that had to be met before you obtain citizenship. it defined what legal status was, whether it was a young person, an adult, how they got here. the bill -- speaker boehner won't put the darn thing up for a vote an we're getting killed in nebraska financially because

the congress would not act on that bill. so, yes, there would be citizenship is in the senate bill. there's visas and work permits. there needs to be a debate on the floor of the house and that has not occurred for years. >> mr. terry, you get a few extra seconds on that. first of all, i don't like the senate bill and i don't like the absolute reward of citizenship, a pathway to citizenship. i think there's other ways to handle that. but there's so much that we actually agree on but the senate says unless there's a pathway to citizenship, we're not even going to discuss anything else. and so when we agree onboarder -- on border security and we agree on and see if they're here appropriately, we know there's repairs to the system that has

to be made because even legal immigration i support and want and we need in the united states, including keeping our stem college educated people here instead of sending them back to complete with us. why don't we get together and pass the things we can agree on and then see what we can work out a compromise to do what -- to see what we can do to help the people that are already here. >> instead of full citizenship for those folks who are living here illegally, maybe some kind of legal status where they could stay here without full citizenship. >> yes, i think that should be on the table for discussion. i'm open for the discussion. if you've been here and you haven't committed any crimes, then there may be a different way to deal with -- and a guest worker would probably be -- >>

mr. ashford. >> you have to debate. we have dealt with immigration in nebraska legislature across party lines and we passed bills on it. what i would like to see, let's deal with the children first. those that have gone through high school, going to college in nebraska that will become part of our economy hopefully, at least let's give them a pathway to citizenship first. at least let's get this on the table so we can debate it. lee, it hasn't been up for debate and i think your points can be debated, but let's get the debate going. >> ok, gentlemen, we are going to turn now to the quick question portion of our debate. we are asking that you keep it in kind of a 30 second range. and i believe i'll go with mr. terry.

do you think the keystone pipeline will ever be built? >> it needs to be built. it's important to our national energy security. it's important to our economy. it creates jobs here in nebraska . but i don't think it's going to be built until the -- we change presidents, until there's a new president. >> and after that will it be built? >> i think it will be. >> what do you think, mr. ashford? >> the legislate took this issue up in special session. we approved a process for the pipeline. it had environmental concerns met, i believe in the bill, l.b. 1 in the social session. and i think once the process is completed on the federal side i think it will be approved and build. >> thank you. mr. ashford, you get the next. what nation do you think poses the biggest long-term threat to the united states? >> iran.

>> and why? >> i think they put -- israel is our strongest ally in the middle east. they've been our strongest ally in the middle east since 1948. we've been embroiled in conflict in iraq and afghanistan for legitimate reasons because of the taliban. we've talked about that. i do think that to some extent the two state solution which prime minister net ya -- netanyahu has been retired to some extent because the american focus -- are we off the clock? >> yeah. >> all right, i apologize. but i think iran is our number one -- >> ok. i asked a follow up so i'll take take that one. what nation do you think holds -- >> >> absolutely it's iran. now i think they're deceptively enriching uranium and plutonium and to have a nuclear

iran is scary for the world. >> mr. terry, do you believe that climate change is man made? >> i believe that we have an impact on our economy -- i mean on our environment. that's why i drive a hybrid. i want to lesson my impact on -- lessen my impact on the environment. i do believe we're in a period of climate change. i think we have a responsibility to reduce our impact on the environment when we can. >> so you believe that man may -- >> have some impact. but i've debated friends who think it's 100% man made. >> mr. ashford do you believe that climate change is man made? >> yes. >> we are moving on to mr. ashford.

do you support president obama's decision to send 3,000 american soldiers to west africa to fight ebola? >> that's a tough one. i think we need -- when i first heard about that, my reaction was that the african yoonyoon -- union should be primarily responsible for security and for keeping track of what's going on and sending medical help is what i would support and the african union providing security. that would be my initial reaction without looking further into it. >> mr. terry. >> i think the ebola crisis is real and we have to deal with that before it spreads into europe and the united states. so i support the president's effort to send 3,000 troops to build the facilities. >> mr. terry, name a president who you admire.

>> john dingle, democrat from a drot area. he is the consummate legislate >> john -- legislator. we don't always agree, but i love how he works with everybody, republican or democrat. i'm working with him on a data security bill right now and he's just such a base of knowledge and a really decent guy. >> thank you very much. >> a member of congress? >> name a congressman, past or present do you admire. >> without question it's chip o'neal. i've always admired ronald reagan and tip o'neal because he had the ability to work with president reagan and do amazing things. that whole way of business is gone. my hope is should i be so fortunate to be elected is to hopefully go back to those days when tip o'neal and ronald reagan made things happen in the congress. >> thank you.

it's time now for closing statements. prior to the debate and after drawing cards it was determined that mr. terry would go first. mr. terry. >> i think the reason why i'm running for congress again is because i want to secure the future for our children and grandchildren. and to do that, we need to do some basic things to make sure that our economy stays strong and that we can be competitive in a global world in a data driven world. the first is realize that we have a real asset in the united states with our energy and we need to be energy independent. taxes are next. taxes we absolutely have to reform our tax code. we have to lower it so we're competitive with the rest of the world. then we solve the inversion problems. we don't have to worry about headquarters going overseas. my opponent has raised taxes and fees 12 times. so obviously we have a different -- in just the last four years. we need to teach the skills necessary so that people earn good middle wage -- middle

income wages. the other is rules and regulations and in my hearings, i hear about the stifling rules on small businesses and gallup even says that there's less startups and shut downs downs in the first time of american history. obviously we've got to deal with our debt. i've been hit by my opponent for voting for the republican budget and not voting for the democratic budget. but we are the only budget that said we will balance it within 10 years. i made sure we had a balance budget amendment. i'm still working for that. at least i'm going to vote for a budget that's going to get us there. >> mr. ashford. >> thanks. this has been fun. thank you, lee for this discussion. i'm running for congress because

i believe congress has failed the american public. it is so polarized, we can't decide immigration issues and fix the health care bill. we don't have an environmental policy. we need a comprehensive energy policy for our country. it's time for a change. it's time to get back to tip o'neal. it's time to do things the way they were done 25 years ago. it's time for a change. here are my promises. number one, i will never ever vote to shut the government down. i will never asked to be paid if and when the government is shut down. i will always put real solutions over political positions. and the day i get elected to congress, i will find 25 friends. i could care less what political party anybody is, i would find 25 friends. with 25 friends we will pick priorities and make change. we will decide real issues.

we will pledge that politics has to take a back seat to solutions. that's why i'm running and i respectfully request your vote. thank you very much. >> thank you both. >> thank you. >> that will have to be the last word. thanks to both candidates for participating tonight and for your willingness to serve in an elected office. thanks to our sponsors the world herald and u.n.l. television. thanks -- and thanks especially to you, our viewers and listeners to tuning in. look for analysis on the debate of omaha.com as well as in friday's world harold. -- world herald. the debate will be available to watch again in the coming days on omaha.com. we encourage you to vote in the november 4 election. the issues matter. good night. ♪

>> that was one of nearly 100 campaign debates. this afternoon at 2:00, we will be live at the oregon governors debate. >> the democratic governor is richardson.ess richardson. thank you for being with us. how would you size up the race? what does he bring to the campaign? >> both of these candidates are political veterans in oregon. he is seeking an unprecedented fourth term as oregon's governor. limited and came back and won a third term in 2010 and is going for a fourth term. nobody is ever done that in oregon before.

he is a former er doc you are in a long time democratic -- er doctor and a long time democratic politician. he tries to talk about his ability to reach out to the republicans and come together to find agreements. he has been criticized for his handling or lack of oversight of the state health insurance exchange. he has fairly solid in the craddick credentials -- democratic written details -- credentials. richardson is a longtime state representative from southern oregon. of the mostutside populated area of the state. he is a republican. no republican has been elected governor of oregon since 1982.

there are no republicans holding any statewide office currently in oregon. republican, and is somebody who is not very well battle.e has an uphill >> we have been tracking some of the ads in this race. hasn't been particularly negative from your standpoint? >> this has not been an overly negative campaign so far. of course, there is still over a month to go. i say that in comparison with our synod race, -- senate race, which has gotten fairly nasty. there have not been a lot of ads this far. are of these candidates very good at talking policy. both of them have a tendency to do it in a wonky kind of way.

but them together in the same room, both of them will try azinger or two, but they will stick closely to the issues and have a civil discussion. ask oregon -- >> or get is the one state -- oregon is the one state that has mail-in voting. >> you might think of it as permanent absentee balloting. everybody gets their ballot delivered to them through the mail. so have about three weeks or . you can fill it out in the comfort of your dining room or whatever. you can mail it back in. you can drop it off at some of the elections offices. it is fairly easy. you don't have to request the ballot.

it automatically comes to you. there are no voting booths on election day. we do not even referred to as election day as much as the deadline to cast the ballot. your vote count just as much the first day of or whether you wait until the end. postmarks do not count. if you put your ballot in the mail on election day, it will not be counted. you do have to watch for that. your recommended not to trust the postal service to deliver in a day or two, but instead to drive it to the elections office. >> what is the race all about? richardson pointed out he is

hoping the public is tired. that has been part of a national trend over the past four years. it is true that the unemployment rate has lowered since the time that he came into office. tosays he has the experience carry the state forward for another four years. he does acknowledge that the health insurance exchange was not the brightest moment for the state. despite the website, some people did manage to sign up for health insurance. that was the result of some of his policies. dennis richardson says, we could have done things a little bit better.

i think dennis richardson as per trying himself as a more involved hands-on governor. he said he would actually live at the governor's mansion. he portrays himself as a more pragmatic problem solver kind of person who is also a social conservative, which is something that will probably cost him some votes. northwest news network in oregon public broadcasting. thank you for being with us. 2:00, live coverage of the oregon governors debate.

leans democratic. the governor with more than a nine point lead over the republican challenger. on sunday, we will be live with the u.s. iowa senate debate. rated as a tossup. it is sunday evening and starts at 6:00 eastern. chuck hagel and general martin dempsey will hold a news conference this afternoon, their first public comments since the airstrike campaign started in syria. live coverage at 1:15 p.m. eastern the 2015 c-span student cam video competition is underway, open to all middle and high school students to create a documentary on the theme "the ."ree branches and you

200 cash prizes for students and teachers totaling $100,000. the ap reported murders lawmakers have voted to join the us-led coalition of nations launching airstrikes. david cameron described the move as critical to national security , arguing that facing down terrorists has become a matter of urgency. he made a passionate plea that spelled out the consequences of inaction. that vote was 524-43. members of congress are in their own districts. georgia republican congressman was at his son's class this

morning when he got questions on isis. he sent out this tweet about it this morning. we will show you a discussion from this morning's washington journal about the military campaign against isis. want to start by showing you this story. this is in the "miami herald." we have 1000, this new group is going to be the headquarters. they're going to be split between baghdad and the curtis can region. the first wave of the 475. host: what will these troops be

doing it? advising and assisting. they will help guide the iraqi forces. they will do everything from a to help coordinate the fighting. the big question is how much -- willy be allowed they go out of control? makes it more difficult to say they are not combat troops when they are facing isis fighters in the field. go out forse people better targeting.

the pentagon says no boots on the ground. we will see how that goes. host: how well-trained are the iraqi forces? caller: trained and disciplined are two different things. there are pentagon at leaders , theyd the iraq war repeatedly said they don't think that's the reason the iraqi army melted away. .t was that they didn't want to they did not want to fight for this government or the commanders that melekeok gave them. the americans who were trained up a back during the war. there were soldiers who are standing in their post and collecting a paycheck.

they got out of the way fast. the question is not sending trainers to see if it know how to shoot straight. .hey need to reorganize if they have the backing of the government that is inclusive and does not stoke sectarian fears. host: this is a story from the associated press. the british parliament is debating whether or not to join the coalition. how many participants are there? is it all u.s. with some side or is it a shared burden?

guest: mostly u.s., but it is a new thing. in the case of the british, they have not done any airstrikes yet. yesterday, the pentagon ticked off a list of this new coalition. i am talking about non-americans. they are the arab states, publicly involved in attacking other terrorists in their own region. you have the saudis, the arab emirates, jordan, there are five. the fighters that women are the americans. the second wave was mostly americans. the final wave was mostly the rest of them.

how many bombs have been dropped? guest: i don't know the exact number. yesterday they were briefing us on the previous day's operation. i think it was about 40 bombs. these are the precision-guided bombs. host: is it more syria or more iraq right now? caller: more syria. the number dropped off. i think the same thing in syria right now. the first wave was some hydroelectric dams. the oil refineries are on long the syrian border.

very remote. oil is key to their revenue. the pentagon went to great lengths to show satellite imagery of one side of the yard or depot had been bombed. they pointed out they left the refinery tower standing. the point is to incapacitate and not destroy it. these are revenue sources for syria and will have to be in the future. it goes to show the great lengths the military goes to when they undertake these kinds of operations. host: are we at war? guest: it's hard to argue that we are not.

when you start dropping any kind of lethal weaponry, that does it for me. ask congress. ask the president. the real question is about the authorities. how long can a president attack another country before going to congress and getting that declaration. there is a 60-day deadline for the war powers resolution. we will see. the pentagon and the president are setting us up for a long fight. dempsey said it would be eight to 10 months to get the training down. the jerker of joint operations who runs the operation from d.c. -- that director of joint operations who runs the

-- ation from d.c., says that this could be a years-long campaign. the pentagon has not named the campaign yet. the pentagon likes to name everything could we're waiting to find out what this will be called, operation what? host: kevin baron, assad seems to reap benefits from u.s.-led raids. how is that? guest: a lot think we are doing this fight for him. we could have been launching missiles against him in september. we gave him a whole another year. this is what happened. the group isis or isil, which has been around since 2011 in iraq, has had enough time to congeal and form. they took on assad somewhat. meantime, there was a stalemate and a lot more death and destruction. here now, the status quo in

syria, the man in charge gets to still be in charge and the u.s. says it is not coordinating with him directly, but these are being permitted to happen. we are taking out one more group that is assad's enemy. is this a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend? i do not know. they have a plan to not only continue to bomb isis back to finally train an armed syrian army somewhat. but we will see. right now, the focus is entirely on this terrorist group, the islamic state. host: another part of this was the aid to the syrian rebels. has that started, and what kind of aid? guest: i am not sure if that has started.

what is important is that it has started. there were a lot of calls, especially from washington, not just from the hawkish side like john mccain, but from moderates or security-minded liberals or democrats who thought we should have been giving them much greater weaponry or at least support a long time ago. at the beginning of last summer, even general odierno who spent more time in iraq than anybody else, was saying publicly that assad's days were numbered. the territory the rebel groups held, the damage inflicted, the disorganization to the assad regime -- i do not know if he was overestimating or was hopeful or if it really was that close and things changed and they lost their ground and assad was able to establish himself more and more.

host: where are the bombers taking off from? guest: all over. the first real wave had b-2's, b-1's, f-22's and others, and there are aircraft carriers in the region. a lot of the b-2's, they fly from the u.s., all the way over. air bases from across the gulf, some out of europe. it is kind of amazing. at least half a dozen types of aircraft. the level of sophistication and dexterity and variety that the americans will bring to some thing like this is fairly staggering, including use of the of the f-22's, designed

specifically to do aerial dogfights with fighters from the soviet union and maybe and china to come. the u.s. significantly decrease the amount of these planes they originally intended to buy because there is nothing to match them with. but they are sitting around and it costs a whole lot of money, hundreds of millions of dollars each or so they were used for the first time to drop bombs, f-22's with incredible stealth capability. you have seen pictures of isis. they drive around in pickup trucks. so there are a lot of questions about cost, extremely high cost that was employed to go after this group. host: has there been an estimate of the cost so far? guest: it is coming.

they say they are working on it. admiral kirby yesterday said it was $7 million to $10 million a day, which is not that much for a military operation or you can count the planes and the bombs, but how many people, how many bases, how many commands, going back to central command headquarters, central command is based out of tampa. the pentagon, you know, i cannot imagine how many thousands of people are involved or have eyes on these things. host: militarily, what has been the results so far? guest: a couple things, tactical and strategic or tactical, we have seen images of checkpoints and encampments. there are a lot of so-called bad guys being wiped off the face of the earth real fast. strategically, this was the pentagon's point yesterday, going after these oil refineries, which was not a

target to go after commanders are individuals. it was specifically to basically shake the tree and rattle isis' base, take out the funding, let them know what is possible from the u.s. and the coalition, and see how they react, how they make up the difference. will it change the amount of fighters flocking toward isis? will it hurt their ability to recruit? will it cause them to scatter? it reveals a lot of intelligence usually. they will keep coming, for sure. these strikes will keep coming. host: kevin baron, executive editor of "defense one." we will find out what that is in a minute.

we are talking about some of the military operations being used in iraq and syria. what is defense one? guest: we are the latest new website from atlantic media, part of the same family as the "atlantic monthly" and "national journal." we run a lot of op-ed commentaries from the secretary of defense, members of congress, as well as our reporting and pretty much of the national security content, all in one shop. we cover a cross-section that has to do with national security debates in washington, from the politics to places around the world were military is deployed, looking at technologies being developed faster than ever

before. the command structure, the doctrine of future plans of not just the u.s. military but u.s. national security. our theme behind everything is the future of defense, where we are going next, what is coming forward. a lot of wheels are turning and strategizing and thinking about how the u.s., especially the u.s. military, needs to be structured, built, equipped to handle the threats of the future, how much the u.s. needs to get involved and is responsible for u.s. security. these are the questions we are asking. not only with our website, but with our annual summit in we had a large event last year with secretary hagel on stage. this year we will have dempsey and general odierno and others joining us. that is what we do. host: let's take some calls.

barkley is calling from maine on our republican line. you are on with kevin baron. caller: good morning. good morning. yeah, my question is -- i grew up in turkey and have a strong interest in turkey. i am curious to know what the current status is in terms of trying to persuade turkey to be more involved. my understanding is that the turks do not want us to use the air force base which is right near the syrian border and would be an obvious source of attacks into syria from there, but what is going on diplomatically with trying to persuade turkey to be more involved? also, turkey is importing oil on a black market scale from the isis-controlled oil refineries. i would like to hear a little about that. guest: the easy answer would be

to check out "the wall street journal's" front page today. they have a great story on how turkey's attitude is changing rapidly ever since the release of these 49 hostages. turkey kept quiet and on the sidelines when there should have been a lot of commanders because of these hostages. they have now changed their tune since last week. the vice president met with the president, i believe, and i believe president obama called turkey's president on thursday. you are right. the air base is right there. i have been there a few times. there are plenty of air bases in the region. the u.s. does not particularly need that one base. the reality of it is that turkey is the northern border and will apply a lot more pressure

militarily and politically on the regime than it has in the past, and now the hitch that kept them from doing so has been removed, you are right that there has been a lot of eager folks in the pentagon and across nato that are hoping that turkey will get in the fight in a big way. host: manassas, virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. who is the security force protecting these civilians in iraq? are there any security companies in the u.s. that use contracts to protect those civilians? guest: who is protecting the civilians? american western civilians in iraq? when you are a civilian contractor working for the military, in a lot of cases you're on the base. otherwise, you are on your own. there are lots of contractors in iraq still that really nobody is covering. i think there are a lot of good sources for a lot of reporters,

especially coming out of baghdad where there is really not a lot of information coming out of now for sensitive reasons. it is not like the days of the war with blackwater and the old days -- just not that level of an operation yet. i am not sure beyond that the status of the contractors there. host: where are most of the reporters covering this base? guest: most of them are right here in washington. there are no american troops on the ground going out of control. imbedded coverage was specific to the war in iraq then, and afghanistan. this is a lot different, a free-for-all in some ways. some of my friends, a producer for bbc, had a crew right up in there in fallujah.

there was a reporter in the north, kind of embedded with the kurdish peshmerga. it is a little odd to see -- these are reporters, just like soldiers, who lived through the war, some for years, and they cannot believe they are going back to iraq again. it is a lot of crazy deja vu. more and more slowly, some reporters will need to initially get into there, especially tv and crew. and those that follow the secretary of state, for example, they have had a couple touch-and-gos. honestly, i think the beheadings have kept people away in a big way. people have stayed away since syria started. no one is in syria. it is an invisible war. nobody is there, very few people.

the few that went, a lot of them were freelance. they did not have an employer to say no, which is what a lot of employers are doing because it is too dangerous. even in libya. all the libyan skirmishes, this is not like you are going to the front with the troops and are under their protection. i am curious to see what happens going forward, because this is not going to turn into iraq war iii at that level. so journalists want to cover it. it will have to be hopefully a hybrid version of war. at least journalists will be so unprotected so they are not picked up and held hostage and have their heads cut off. hopefully some will develop. at the same time, there dying to know what is going on there. i would love to get out there. so we will see how this goes. host: patricia in illinois,

hi. caller: yes, i think the strategy that the u.s. has adopted towards isis is absolutely ludicrous and the definition of insanity, which is to repeat actions which lead to nothing and nowhere. interestingly enough, as an aside, i take note that the mention of al qaeda has disappeared altogether. i just want to point that out. at the bottom line is that the u.s. needs to rethink its strategy towards iraq and pull out all of its contractors, and it needs to rethink its policy towards israel and the middle east as a whole. i do not know why this man is saying that he does not see there is going to be a third war or that there will not be boots on the ground in the future. i cannot believe that that will not happen in time as we have multiple embassies over there to protect and we also have u.s. oil interests over there to protect.

so the bottom line as far as i am concerned that the u.s. should withdraw from iraq altogether and let their people decide their future as they see fit. when i say withdraw, i mean also withdrawing all the contractors, period. host: thank you, patricia. guest: that is a common feeling. a couple points, you are absolutely right, the mention of al qaeda has somewhat disappeared. that is kind of to be expected because there is a new, urgent media story happening. at the same time, in this region, at least, al qaeda was never really the source of conflict. that is who we are fighting in yemen and that is still the greater terrorist group, but in syria it was assad, and this is a group that splintered off al qaeda. in a way, a name is a name. a rose by any other name -- this is from that same group. the al qaeda of old really was

the core group based out of afghanistan, pakistan, and that has been degraded for a long time. it does not take much then raising a black flag to call yourself al qaeda around the world. right now the names on that are the people and the ideology. in the middle east strategy, you are right. there is a lot of talk. on the academic side of national security in washington and across the think tanks, if not inside the white house and others, other places in government, that this is a big opportunity that not just requires rethinking of a larger middle east strategy, but thje u.s. should take advantage of it. right now, the middle east, at least some of the middle east, is in such chaos that we are talking about a chance to redraw maps. what can the u.s. do to get it in that direction and get to him that end state? we talking decades-long strategy, not what we do now

against isis in the next six weeks. i do not think that there is going to be a ground war or iraq war iii. you know, we are in it. we are back there. it is fine. they're absolutely will be some sort of combat level. if i had to guess, i would expect that you will see some special operations forces fighting. there has already been a request to let them get there and be out in the field so they can help with some of this targeting and get involved. but this president, you have to remember, has shown time and time again an extremely high bar for that type of military intervention. he has had a very low bar for drones, for signature strikes or other types of military intervention. it is false to say obama does not want to get involved or does not want to fight. it is how. he came into office thinking this and saying it, you know, that he was going to end this war.

this is the same president who sent 30,000 additional troops into afghanistan on a major surge. now -- good afternoon. as you all know, this has been an important week in our campaign against isil. let me make a few comments about that campaign. and what has been going on in the last week, and then general dempsey will make some comments, and then we will take some questions. said, this week has been an important week for the u.s. and our coalition forces as we began our strikes in syria. along with france, we have conducted over 200 airstrikes in in support ofsil

iraqi forces. we have conducted 43 airstrikes in syria. combined with the ongoing efforts in iraq, these strikes will continue to deny isil freedom of movement and challenge its ability to plan and direct and sustained its operations. we also took action in syria against a network of al qaeda ntterance known as the khorasa group. we are still assessing the operational impact of these strikes. this was a critical operation. members of this group were actively taught in -- plotting attacks against the united states and our friends' allies. in syria there has been no cord nation, nor will there be with the assad regime. nothing is changed about our position which has shifted our approach to assad and his regime

because this regime, president -- allhas lost all june legitimacy. i wanted emphasize that no one thatder any illusions airstrikes alone will destroy isil. they are one element against our comprehensive campaign against has, campaign that diplomatic, intelligence, and other military components, working with coalition partners and a new government in iraq. this week we move forward on each of these fronts. in new york the president chaired a un security council meeting on stopping the flow of fighters in and out of the region. with the treasury department in the league, the united states and our partners are intensifying efforts to cut off isil's financing, and we continue to support the iraqi

government and its program of reform and reconciliation. because that is the only long-term solution to the sectarian tensions that enabled isil rise. on wednesday president obama met with prime minister abadi. the president from america's support for him, his new government, and the iraqi he will. yesterday secretary kerry met with members of the cooperation council, and the president and vice president spoke with the turkish president to strengthen our coalition's cooperation against isil. senior officials can you to coordinate with our partners. now that we have the support of congress, we are moving forward with their plan to train and equip the moderate syrian opposition. we have begun detailed military planning for this mission.

assessment teams have arrived in saudi arabia. in iraq, isil's strongholds continued to pose a major challenge. but our support for iraqi and kurdish forces is enabling many iraqi units to go on the offensive. coalition forces will continue to maintain pressure on i sil fighters. as the president and the sized of his wednesday speech, this brought everybody, economic, and military campaign is underwritten by a broad multinational coalition of more than 40 nations, including five regional partners. and this coalition continues to expand. the the last two days, governments of belgium, denmark, and the netherlands have announced their intention to participate in coalition airstrikes in iraq. a few minutes ago, before coming down here, i spoke with defenses -- britain's

minister. he called me as he left the chambers of the parliament to inform you that the british 43rliament had just voted 524- to join the air campaign in iraq with the united states and our coalition partners. a broad coalition has been and will continue to be a cornerstone of our strategy appreciatel, and we all the contributions and commitments of our friends and allies as we continue to work closely with them and coordinate their participation and efforts. broadning on a diplomatic and military campaign will require a long-term mimic from the united states and all our partners and allies. this will not be an easy or brief effort. we are at the beginning, not the end. here at the beginning, not the end of our effort to degrade and destroy isil.

i know americans have confidence in the skill and professional mentalism in -- professionalism of our men and women in uniform. when i have the opportunity to visit centcom last week in tech, we made a point of expressing our deep appropriation to the general and his centcom team for their hard work, their planning, and this hard work and planning and commitment to this country is keeping america secure. i am proud of them. the president is proud of them. we are all proud of them. we are proud of all these men and women who do so much for our country, and the men and women downrange who are carrying out this mission every day, with courage and designation and resolve. a key. marty? >> thank you, mr. secretary, and i would like to reiterate that the campaign against isil will be a persistent and sustained campaign, and it will take time. as i said last week, this is not an iraq. this is an iraq first strategy, but not anorak only one.

-- an iraq only strategy. our targeted actions are disrupting isil's kinetic and troll, their capabilities, and infrastructure in syria, while in iraq we are empowering a reiki partners to go back on the offensive. we will continue to build, guide, and sustained a credible coalition to include importantly arab states to set the stage for a broader international campaign against isil. part of a actions are comprehensive strategy that includes disrupting your financing, interdicting, recruitment and movement of foreign fighters and exposing isil's false narratives, in particular, stripping away their cloak of religious lives is a messy behind which they high. while the situation in the middle east involves and continues to demand attention, where pressing challenges in other areas. the ebola outbreak is the largest the world has ever seen.

this is a context emergency beyond a public health crisis that has significant humanitarian, economic, political, and security dimensions. as part of the inter-agency and international response, we are leveraging military capabilities to establish command and control nodes, hubs, training for health care personnel, and as most of you know, i just returned from a trip to france, lithuania, and croatia were had some candid and productive discussions with my nato counterparts. russia's aggression in eastern europe and former abilities -- and ourerability enduring commitment in afghanistan will continue to demand the attention of our european allies. while in europe i had a chance to visit the american military cemetery in normandy with my french colleague. that's sacred ground near the sands of omaha beach is a testament to the extraordinary

men and women in uniform who safeguard our freemans. today they are conducting hundreds of exercises, activities, and engagements across the globe of actions that the turk on flight and i sure our allies. they are always foremost on my mind, as are their families, and with that, i will be happy to take your questions. >> mr. secretary, you mentioned the president of turkey. turkey is also speaking about a buffer zone, and raised the prospect of a no-fly zone. i know chairman dempsey have spoken about that. i'm wondering if the united states would now consider to protect atively no-fly zone or buffer zone to enforce one them and also can you please give me some examples of how the united states is protected against civilian casualties in syria.

>> thank you. on the first question, the buffer zone issue, as i mentioned, and you know, the president and vice president have spoken to my minister -- to the prime minister of turkey last week. we continued to talk with the turkish leadership about their different ways to contribute to the coalition. the issue of offer zone is -- the issue of a buffer zone is not a new issue. we discussed all these possibilities and we will continue to talk about what the turks believe they require. they know clearly that isil and what is happening in serious and iraq is a clear and present threat of danger to them. they are now posting about 1 .3 million refugees, plus all

the dimensions of the isil threat to their country and their people. damage, oureral military, every mission that it plans, always factors in first collateral damage questions and assessments. , no militarytrike operation ever undertaken in our military without that clear assessment. and then a judgment has to be used as to whether we would go forward with that mission. it is first and foremost the priority of our commanders who have responsibility for strikes to make sure that -- do everything they can to make sure there is no collateral damage specifically civilian casualties.

>> one of the things you're seeing in this air campaign is of fruition of two decades interoperability and procurement activities, training activities, education activities with our allies in the region who are performing just as well as we are on the issue of precision and reducing the possibility of collateral damage. of course, you know you cannot reduce it to zero, and i suspect over time isil will publish a few propaganda videos alleging civilian casualties. but we have got a pretty good suite over there now that should enable us to actually determine not only how to strike, but the results of it after the fact, battle damageatt assessment. our allies are doing well. >> can i ask you to clarify an

issue of enforcing a no-fly zone turkey?h may become aone possibility in the future, but that is not part of our present plan. >> want to ask you first come are you aware of the threat faced by syrian occurred in northwestern syrian along the turkish border? there was a firefight playing out between isis fighters and the syrian kurds a short time ago, that they appear to be facing the same genocidal threat in we solve the yazdiidis iraq. why has not the united states come to the aid of the syrian kurds from there, and i was wondering if i could have a quick follow-up with the general? >> first of all, as general dempsey said, we have a rather sophisticated and complete isr picture of all that area, including the area that you talk about.

so we are aware of what is going on. whate discussing how and we can do with our coalition deal witho help them it. so it is not a matter of us not being aware of it, nor not actively looking at the options we have to deal with it. >> is that mean someone like turkey would be more likely to act in the u.s. -- the u.s.? >> we are talking to turkey about this and all the different aspects of the isil threat. >> it has been little more than a week since you testified before congress, and you mentioned during that testimony that you believed it was the right step, you would recommend employing u.s. ground forces in certain areas, if you believe that was the right and to recommend to the president. we have heard from many

officials attempting to walk that back. you were a commander saying honestly and sincerely what you recommendyou would what was necessary if you thought it was necessary to compass the mission. i wonder if you stand by that, if you believe it is necessary you will go to the president say, mr. obama, i need ground troops in certain roles to succeed here? >> if you're asking me if i would provide my best military advice at all times, the answer is absolutely. if you're suggesting that i might at some point recommend that we need a large ground force to counter isil, the answer to that is also absolutely. it does not have to be americans. ideally, for the kinds of issues we are confronting their, the the ideal for, some of the only truly effective force that we would be able to reject isil from within its own population, is a force comprised of iraqis and kurds and moderate syrian opposition.

at some point, if we have to advise them more closely than currently we are, of course, i would recommend it, but we have not reached that point. >> i'm not talking about a large presence, but talking about for instance hoping in targeting airstrikes or forward deployed advisors. are those specific missions you might ask the president for? >> i just didn't buy the statement. i will make a recommendation -- the president gave me a mission, destroyed isil, and i will recommend to him what it takes to destroy isil. i have been ing with the president of the united states and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff over the last year and a half, the president has made very clear as i have made it clear, as secretary of defense, he expects them of the president of the united states, the absolute most direct and honest military advice that general dempsey and other military uniform leaders

can be given, and he wanted and he must rely on it. he says he relies on it. .> a couple questions what are the resource implications along a persistent campaign? can you realistically conducted within the confines of your current budgeting plans, specifically, you have a $15 billion request for fiscal funny 15 -- fiscal 2015. can you accommodate this contained within those levels of spending? generallyknow, we are spending roughly, since this effort started, $7 million to $10 million a day. that is being funded out of oco, overseas contingency operations, and we are going to require congressl funding from and should go forward. as you know, the continuing

resolution isn't due -- is due on december 11. we're working now with the appropriate committees on how we go forward with authorizations and funding. >> could i add? when we submitted the budget to thear and it went white house for approval and it was approved and sent over to congress, the joint chiefs alsosaid we could come push the nation's security needs with that budget with certain assumptions. one was the number of commitments ought to come down, and secondly that we would get some flexibility in the budget to change a, compensation, health care, determined, weapon systems, and infrastructure. the minutes have gone up. the things we were looking for in terms of flexibility have only very minimally been delivered. if you're asking me if i assess right now, as you go to the fall review, that we will have budget problems, yes. >> there's going to be traffic from 26,000 troops to 98,000

yesterday. that is going to come down. cannot you just move the savings from that into the isil campaign? >> you're talking about oco. oco is gasoline. -- baseline budget is what i yet it separate that when we are talking about budget. >> and we will be. ne and the pentagon doe analysis on how long -- >> we are doing that right now. we would have to project out, as we are, what the chairman's point was about baseline budgets. that is the critical part of this. so, yes we are doing that now. >> i just got asked minutes ago, how long will it take to recapture mosul?

i say great question. if you do not mind, i will answer it with a cushion. how long will it take the new government of iraq to ia, ande the sunni, sh kurds that the future rests with them, not along sectarian lines? this is a campaign that strains the activity together, and one is the government of iraq that can draw the people back to them so that isil can no longer swim freely within their ranks. german dempsey, do you believe -- german dempsey, do you believe it will in fact take some ground troops inside syria to destroy isis? and if they are not americans, do you have enough faith in training 5000 free syrian army troops, the nonaggressive militants, to achieve that goal, to destroy isis? >> i never heard the phrase nonaggressive militants, but i

suppose -- let me see if i can answer the question. air power alone -- there is no military solution to isil. military only solution, ok? there is no air power alone solution to isil, either in direct or syria. the answer is, yes, there has to be ground component to the campaign against isil in syria, and we believe that the path to develop that is the syrian moderate opposition. 5000 has never been the end state. we have that estimate anywhere from 12,002 15,000 is what we believe to believe to recapture lost territory in eastern syria. i'm confident we can establish their training if we do it right . we have to do it right, not fast. you have to have military leaders that bind them together. they have to be -- to have a political structure into

which they can do, and that will take some time. >> mr. secretary, you said earlier this week that the u.s. would defend militarily the free syrian army. what does that mean? the talking about possibly engaging syrian forces are terribly? -- forces military ily? >> the questions goes to those who we would be training. if they were attacked, if we would help them, i said yes. towhy was the decision made send the headquarters out of the first infantry division to iraq? what will they be doing there? will they be leading joint operation centers? >> first of all, i can help you with that one. is with thes son first division. you recall the president, when he announced the nation what his

strategy was and what he was instructing the defense department to do, he mentioned that there would be an increase of 475 personnel. so the demand and control function of that will come out of the first division. as other personnel will be assigned as well from other components. but that is why they are going. coherentand they are a standing or fighting organization that understands how to integrate these multiple activities and to manage the activities of the coalition. the group that went there in initially was focused on just beginning to make the initial contacts that the iraqi security forces and moderating activities of the assessment team. this is an organization that has the bandwidth and the skill sets to manage a campaign. >> did you --

>> i wanted to follow-up with aggression. give us an update about the training of iraqi forces and what are the risks to u.s. troops that will be doing the training and advising there? , as i update is that mentioned in a previous 26 or sot, of the -- we arehat we working with centcom, working with the iraqi military leaders to ensure that what occurs on the ground as their campaign, not our campaign. he wanted to be there campaign us, not oury campaign where we drag them along for legitimacy. i can assure you that all the activities you have seen in and around baghdad up until now have been iraq military leaders establishing priorities and

objectives enabled by us. we are making progress. we have got to have a longer him a larger campaign that actually recaptures lost territory. what risks? by the way, the men and women in uniform understand, understand how to manage it. we have been doing training and equip for the last 12 years nonstop. we cannot ever drive risk to zero, but i assured the moms and dance out there that we have mitigated it to the greatest sin possible. >> do you believe that so far you have avoided any civilian casualties in your air campaign? and do you have any reason to believe that the reports that senior leaders of isis and khorasan have been doing some of these airstrikes? >> we have received no reports cavs, or collateral

damage up to this point in the campaign. there's always some latency in reporting on the ground in an air campaign. so we are alert for it. tried to confirm battle damage assessments with isr. as for some of the key leaders havether khorasan or isil been killed, too soon to tell. their various kinds of intelligence. we have scanned social media. this is normally the first place to find out, frankie. it is too soon to tell. who is the head of the pre-syrian opposition, the moderate rebels that you are and, chairmanain, dempsey, do you need spotters on the ground to be more precise in your air strike in syria, and is that what is stopping you from helping the kurds along the turkish order right now -- turkish border right now? >> we in the process of setting up the vetting system for those

who we will begin training moderate opposition syrian fighters. >> who is the head of that opposition? >> we do not have a head of it in that we are vetting and we will continue to vet to regional partners, state farm is, -- state departments as they will build a coalition with our help where. we will not instruct them as to who their leaders are. they will make their own decision on who their leaders are. >> and, jennifer, the question about whether we need spotters for the air controllers on the ground to help in syria and whether that is a limiting factor in what is going on with the syrian kurds from the answer is no. as i mentioned in testimony to the issue of the requirement for controllers on the ground really manifests itself when the force is strong and become intermingled. that is when it becomes very consultative and difficult to manage from a full-motion-video

feed from a predator. these forces have to be separated, so that is not a limiting factor. actually, thats, you cannot be everyplace and see everything. i know some of the has an iphone out there taking a picture of it, but that does not mean we are anywhere nearby is the centcom commander, given the tasks, privatizes his resources and may not be happening to look at the syrian border. >> take you. appreciate it. >> thank you. if you missed any of this briefing, you can see they get on a website, www.c-span.org. this from the associated press. kurdish lawmakers have voted to join the u.s.-led coalition of

nations launching airstrikes on militants in iraq and will send warplanes to the struggle. david cameron described the move that is critical to national security arguing facing down terrorists is become a matter of urgency. , and earlier524-43 in the day, belgium and denmark also voted to join the coalition. it just a couple moments, we will have live coverage of oregon governor's debate. real clear politics says this race means the mechanic. an average of recent polls so the government, with more than 89-point lead over the challenger. here's a preview. kidemocratic governor john tzhaber will debate the republican challenger. this is chris lehman.

thanks for being with us. kitzhaber bring to the race? >> both these candidates are political veterans in oregon. is seeking an unprecedented fourth term as governor. he was elected twice in the 1990's after a long career in the legislature, and then he was term limited and came back and won a third term in 2010 and now is going for a fourth term. but he has ever done that in organ before. -- in organ for. before.egon he has been criticized for his handling or perhaps lack of oversight to the state's health

insurers exchange which had a troubled rollout. generally speaking, yes solid credentialsrint -- and expects to do well in the upcoming election. in this richardson is a longtime state representative from southern oregon at a republican. him, are two marks against one that he is outside the most populated area, and he is a republican. the republican is elected governor of oregon since 1982. that was the last time that happened, and there are no republicans holding any statewide office currently in oregon. is republican and as somebody who is not very well known on the state level, despite his terms in the statehouse, he has an uphill battle ahead of him. >> we have been tracking some of the ads in this race. has it been negative from your standpoint? >> this has not been an overly negative campaign so far.

there's still over a month to go. i say that in part two. two hour u.s. senate race which hase candidates gotten fairly nasty. the governor's race so far, there have not been a lot of ad at this point. we can expect to see a lot more in coming months. both of these candidates are and good at talking policy, both of them have a tendency to do it in a sort of wonky kind of way. put them together in the same room, and both of them will tow,bly try a seniozinger or but they will probably stick closely to the issue and have a civil discussion of them. >> organ is unique because it is the one state that has mail-in voting. explain to the rest of the viewers what that means. >> you might think of it as

permanently absent the -- absentee balloting in that everybody gets their ballot delivered to them in the mail. yet three weeks from the time you get your ballot until the time you have to turn it in. you can't deliver out in the comfort that you can fill it out and the comfort of your dining room or whatever. you can mail it back in it, or if you do not want a paper stamped them you can drop it off at some local election offices. it is fairly easy. you do not have to request the ballot be sent to you. comes tomatically you. there are no voting booths on election day. we do not refer to voting on election day as rather the deadline to cast a ballot them because your vote counts just as much but he send it back in the first day you get it or whether you wait until the end. one thing you have to be careful is that postmarks do not count. you put your ballot in the mail

on election day, it is not going to be counted because obviously it will not arrive at the election office until at the very earliest the day after the election. so you do have to watch for that. if you're getting close to the end, you are recommended not to try the postal service to deliver it, but drive it down to the election office, which quite a lot of people do. >> what is the race all about? aber'ss the race for kitzh claim for fourth term, and from richardson who pointed out that the public is hopefully tired of kitzhaber? >> kitzhaber is pointing to the improving state economy. it is true that the unemployment rate has lowered since the time that he came into office four years ago. he says he has got the experience to carry the state forward for another four years,

and he does acknowledge that the rollout of a health insurance exchange was not the most brightest moment for the state, but he says despite the website that never did work properly, some people -- a lot of people in fact did sign up for health insurance that do not have it before, through pen and paper and other methods. and he says that was the result of some of his policies. says we couldson have done things a little bit better. he points out the $250 million or so of taxpayer many -- money that went to the website that does not work. is the subject of a lawsuit right now. is portrayingson himself as a more involved hands on governor. he lives at the governor's mansion. that is something that kitzhaber does not do.

he portrays himself as a more pragmatic problem solver person who is by the way social conservative, which is something that has caused dust that will in the moree votes populous part of the state. with oregonman is now, live coverage of the oregon governor debate. john kitzhaber faces dennis richardson. the importance of free television and radio before the legislature in salem. the omb organizes programs and activities that encourage and promote sound broadcast practices to better serve you and we provide scholarships for broadcast tunes across the region to attract and retain emerging journal