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

mr. domina. if that will be from jacque harms. >> mr. mina, undocumented immigrants are now in nebraska. you think the children should be allowed to cross the border and stay in the united states or should they be sent home? domina: they should be allowed to cross the border and stay in the united states until there is a legal adjudication about whether they are as they appear to be in claim to be refugees. a refugee is not an immigrant. and that is a matter of settled law. the united states has treaties with the countries from which these children have come in central america. we assigned the united nations charter. we abide by the international laws to which it subscribes in which it legislates and for which we have voted. there is a definition of refugee. there is a legal procedure we have agreed to administer as a recipient nation about how to do with refugees. those children are entitled to protection of the united states, the welcome of the distance of the united states and due process of law before anything else about the discussio

mr. domina. domina: thank you very much, mike. the answer really requires we recall why we have a 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, we don't even hear about it. when something breaks out that goes beyond that level, the objective is to contain it before it reaches our shores. and heaven forbid if that were to happen, to repel it within our boundaries if it reaches the united states. so that's what our military is for. that's how it should be used. it should be used when the principles of war permit it to be deployed intelligently and effectively, when we can identify objective that is attainable and achievable, and we can do with most economy, human and financial resource but you asked me to identify a time when i would not have favorite involvement. and the answer to that is very difficult to identify. i think our involvement was premature when we elected to go to alba

mr. domina and did this in his question on border security. i want to hear what this week 3 of you have to say about supporting any variation of a path way to citizenship for immigrants in the united states illegally, and what other specific action would you take and let's start with mr. watson. >> i like this new definition called registered provisional immigrant. it is a class that can be defined and limited to what benefits we provide, a first step. we have this no middle ground straight to legal residents of some sort. we need an intermediary step involved in law, it has some potential because we can limit the benefits. no one has rights tomorrow, you are in this first stage before you get to the second stage and a good evolution of law and different class we need to work on the benefits that are much less, eligible tomorrow. status at some future point in time once you have shown the first five years of good record, good work, this two step process may be a path way to find a compromise between two parties because you can limit benefits i

mr. domina. david domina: well, i think the answer to this is, in part, attitude, but it's in part identifying where a new united states senator can agree with people in the opposing party and disagree with people in his own and do that intelligently. it's also a matter of identifying problems of common interest and concern particularly with our neighbors. south dakota and iowa will have new united states senators this year. we have enormous problems with the missouri river affecting those three states. gavin's point dam and lewis and clark lake are big engineering problems. they will cost enormous amounts of money if we don't address the simple matter of the fact that the dam is silting full of mud. that's something we can work on. we're still trying to clean up from the 2011 flood. that's something those three new united states senators can work on together starting on day one and should. from there you grow it out to another issue, another subject. and be careful to speak only when there's som

mr. domina, good morning. >> may please the court, i am dave domina, and i'm here on behalf of the three landowners that challenge lb 1161 and contend that it violates several statutes of the thoracic constitution. one of those was discussed earlier today, article four, section 20. in addition to that, additional ways for a pipeline applicant to seek ways to build a pipeline in nebraska provides routes that go without judicial review. if it goes to the governor and the governor makes the decision of the kind that would otherwise be made with legal limits applied and with due process hearing, if the governor makes that decision and set of the pfc, there is no judicial review in this statute. pfc, there's the no judicial review in the statute. for that specific reason, we see the court's decision today is pretty simple and straightforward. >> excuse me. standing echo >> yes, we do believe our clients have standing. for three separate reasons. the one that has not been discussed thus far is direct standing. i want to recall some dates. the161 was enacted by legislature on april 17. we filed

mr. domina, good morning. >> good morning, your honor.may it please the court, i am dave domina, and i'm here on behalf of the three landowners that challenge lb 1161 and contend that it violates several provisions of the nebraska constitution. one of those was discussed earlier today, article four, section 20. in addition to that, additional ways for a pipeline applicant to seek permission to build a pipeline in the brusca provides for a route that is without judicial review. if it goes to the governor and the governor makes the decision of the kind that would otherwise be made with legal limits apply, with proof required, and with due process hearing, if the governor makes that decision and set of the pfc, there is no judicial review in this statute. for that simple and specific reason, i'm answered by the attorney general see the court's decision today as simple and straightforward. >> excuse me. standing? >> yes, we do believe our clients have standing. for three separate reasons. the one that has not been discussed thus far is direct