tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 17, 2014 6:00am-8:01am EDT
product and at the last minute change their mind. they later testified that he regretted that. that was one of his greatest best opportunities. so up to three. i think that he was the better of the three. in part because his experience was formed by being governor. the last six years or better than his first two. the republican congress forcing the come to the table and compromise. >> the people who still want to question. we only have about two minutes left. >> this seems the experiment in that state suffered some backlash. >> i think sam will win his
election. i applaud him the easy thing to do for elected leaders and politicians is take a poll. there is an old saying that politicians, basically a mob marching on city hall. he did not do that. welling the spend political capital to cut taxes and restrict the size of government which will help the economy. i think that we need leaders that are willing to use the political capital to implement pulled strategies. a think he will be rewarded. as people see the results you will see poll numbers improve. we need more of that. we have too many politicians only paying attention to short-term pools of but i'm willing to do things to address the escalating debt. we have one of the world's highest tax rates, seeing
companies toward overseas, seeing an anemic economic growth i think the lesson to be taken his eye when need bold leaders willing to debate things. the poll numbers were lonely. >> your competitive curatorial race. >> even when he was in the united states senate he took positions based upon principle and some times was a fierce advocate for human rights of the international stage, surprised a lot of folks. i think that's great. in principle, conservative leader. fortunate to have him as their governor. and it did that when you're willing to lead some times you have to make tough decisions. when people see their results that will see poll numbers come back and the popular support come back. the thing that people really
crave is someone to look them in the face into with the sooner we're going to do and be honest with them. every voter knows what he stands for and what he will do. the look of the president. against the mandate. you can keep your doctor and your health care plan. turns out not to be true. he cut premiums. we would have obamacare if it had not been finalized and were told. willing to let the voters in the face. he has made tough choices. people will exactly what he stands for. it of voters who do not agree with him all respect him for being honest up front and saying exactly what he was going to do in this support will grow. the safest thing to do, a conservative state. he could have sent back and done nothing. i know him and the reason he ran for office was to make a difference.
let other versions exist. respect other peoples opinion that even if you think they're wrong they represent people. so how can we find a common ground? we have to have the idealism, optimism that is all possible. they have an attitude towards this president that they will never support anything he puts forth. they are anti-governance. be celibate when they shut down government. they are anti-science. they still don't even believe in evolution, many of them, and so the evidence that would say something is happening to the planet where their anti-governance, anti-science and anti-barack obama. their agenda is nothing. the turntable is never, that doesn't work the american people. so again i say to my republican friends, take that to your party. this isn't the "grand old party."
100 years of president will do this, the first was teddy roosevelt as a republican. wanting to have health care. leading the way on income tax, excessive income tax and the rest of the. republican party has been a tremendous asset to america. it's been hijacked by those who would have a different value system. but still and all it represents people and we have to find our common ground. so again i think you for the public interest, the people's interest that you all committed to. and if we keep our eyes focused of there, that i think we will make the right decisions for the american people. there are so many challenges out there, at all these issues that you brought up, we should be working together on those. and i'm optimistic that with a
i'm not so proud to say that in my class of 85 students, they were 84 men and one woman. >> oh, my gosh. >> this year, 54% of our graduate come of our peoples coming to the law school were women. [applause] >> so the opportunities for women in this world are growing, are so important, and and what you have done as a figure out their larger-than-life, i mean, it should energize women all over the place to see that they can be at the very head, very head of what's going on in this country. and as i listened to your speech, i was thinking to myself, you know, law firms now
have specialties. you do tax work. ut securities work. you do litigation, all the different things. you and people in congress have a general practice firm and you have to deal with international law all over the place as well as all the domestic stuff. the breath of what you do and he can keep up with all of that stuff is absolutely remarkable. you talk about the economy and what's going on in this whole world. so it is just mind-boggling that you can keep up with the and you have to be so talented to be able to deal with that. and i think we are so lucky to have you. as i sit here i say to myself, you know, even though these problems exist, and we've always had problems in the world. i mean, how long ago was it when, for instance, in france the excepted way of killing
people was the key team, ma which is not a lot different than what's going on now. but the point is, the point is passionate guillotined. the point is that you in terms of what's going on, what a wonderful time to be in government and to the, i mean, even though these problems seem so insurmountable, the fact that you've got such importance to deal with, i think it's absolutely a wonderful place. and i think for any of -- we don't have too many students here, the idea that government is not a place to be, i think government is the place to be. and you are really liking to be where you are right in the middle of that. so again, my dear, again you see on the back cover of the program the people that have come and have been honored by you and it reads like a who's who in the
united states, ma and certainly you honor us with your presence. so again i want to thank you. [applause] [inaudible] >> thank you again for coming. [applause] >> if i may, thank you again for the invitation t. more important for your tremendous leadership. you are an icon. who can say no to civil? thank you, arthur come for the kind words. and let us to thank jim for his patients listing to buy long answers. up for all that is done for us all. thank you. >> thank you so much. [applause]
[inaudible conversations] >> up next, to debate. versus the nebraska u.s. senate debate featuring democrat dave, then says, an independent jim jenkins and todd watson. that's followed by the kansas governor debate. the house benghazi to me hold its first hearing today. witnesses include assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security gregory
starr whose post was created after the 2012 pounds look at that. you can see the hearing live starting at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> secretary of state john terry testifies today at two hearings look at the administration's strategy to combat isis. we will bring live coverage of his appearance before the senate foreign relations committee at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> this weekend on the c-span networks are camping 2014 debate coverage continues friday night at eight eastern on c-span. live coverage of the arkansas governor debate. you go saturday night at eight live coverage of the iowa governors debate between terry
>> next, a debate between nebraska's four candidates for the u.s. senate. democrat dave domina, republican incest an independent jim jenkins and todd watson are vying for the seat vacated by senator mike johanns. according to a cbs "new york times" poll, mr. sasse leads mr. domina by 26 points. this is 90 minutes.
>> welcome to the final 2014 nebraska u.s. senate debate. presented by n.e.t. news in cooperation with the nebraska broadcasters association. i'm bill kelly, the moderator for the next debate. we are live at north platte high school with a four candidates on the ballot for the general election, democrat dave domina, independent nonpartisan candidate jim jenkins, republican vince asked him an independent nonpartisan candidate todd watson. joininjoining me is that they'll distinguish broadcast journalists from across nebraska. mike tobias from n.e.t. news, jackie harms of dadt tv. tonight's format is little different than traditional candidate debate. first the are no opening statements. the candidates have the opportunity to record those earlier. you can find those on the n.e.t. news facebook page.
check it out. also the in depth discussions on four topics at a time to question and each every discussion will continue without times answers. questions will not be allowed to question each other directly address their opponents. this format hopefully will cover me but not every issue for the voters but we hope it will provide more depth and substance on a handful of important subjects. let's get started. our first area is u.s. involvement in foreign countries. asking the first question is mike tobias. >> the last two decades have seen u.s. military forces involved in different ways and complex throughout the world. what is your criteria for the use of u.s. military resources in foreign countries? and note an example of where you would not have supported u.s. involvement. the first question goes to 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 albania and bosnia. i think it was premature in the sense that we didn't assess the vacuum that would follow. we weren't sure what would happen after that occurred. fortunately, it worked out better than it might have but i don't have any confidence that are in she was timely. jenkins: thanks to the host and thanks to all the viewers are looking at this debate and doing this abate. this is an important question. clearly if you look over the past several decades, many times our political leaders have gotten it wrong. for example, i believe that we should not have gone into iraq. i think that was an instance where we did not have a compelling economic threat, compelling security threat. and it took our attention away from afghanistan where the true threat was at that time. i believe the united states is indispensable leader of the world and we have to be fully
engaged. we have to be focused now specifically on this war on terrorism, which is morphing around the world. but i think it's important that congress and the president develop more of a bipartisan approach to these issues. for example, right now you will notice that congress is sort of standing on the sidelines waiting for the president to make moves. the president should make a move but i think it's important congress get involved. so this is my suggestion. we need to make sure that as we engage that we don't engage without coalitions, without working with other countries, and we need to build coalitions like we did in the gulf war, and we need to make sure there's a direct a minute security and economic threat to our country. sasse: thank you to the question thank you to n.e.t. news into the nebraska broadcasters association for hosting us tonight. the first duty of the federal
government is to protect us from enemies, foreign and domestic. as you talk to nebraskans they know that war is a horrible thing and we need to be clearly resistant to going to war whenever possible, but at those times when the use of military force is required they want much more clarity about more leadership around the world about why this engagement. so fast the eighth and final u.s. national security interest at play. a good example of a place where we did need to take military action would be bosnia, or to take a more current one, we've made the right choice is fortunate be engaged in the ukraine that we should talk about why putin is on the march. putin is on the march because the u.s. doesn't have any clarity around the world about where we act to support our allies. our allies need to trust us and our enemies must fear us in ways that putin and russia no longer do. this goes back to the vacuum over the course of recent years where we made promises to poland
and the czech republic that we would deploy missile systems to try to get ukraine and other countries after the fall of the wall at the end of the soviet union, that nuclear materials returned back to moscow. we didn't keep our commitments. native with weakened because of it and putin has been able to march. this is the kind of problem you can't fix after the fact that we should been more clear about keeping our commitment to our allies at the front and wary of national security interest whatever they are. watson: i think we need to go back and look at the constitution, and in the preamble it outlines a basic needs of government. and we are called to ensure that domestic tranquility and that the military has a part to play in that aspect. and the third job of government is to provide for the common defense. we have gotten away into two-minute offenses wars and this has caused a lot of harm to our country. so that we could go back and look at the constitution and
understand when those two things are brought under the microscope, that should dictate how we act. furthermore, in the constitution we were not to raise money for armies for more than two years at a time. we have forgotten that will as well. so we are in continual offenses engagement, and yes, we must look at our national interest. but the oath we take is not to defend us from threats foreign and domestic it's to defend the constitution from threats, foreign and domestic. that requires a look at spies -- five main function of government but we need look our national interest, we need to care about the well being of our citizens but we must look back to constitution and examined does this meet the criteria for the defense of this nation and dobbies with the current threats that play with actual threats in a people, that would probably qualify but we must look at the constitution for general framework and guidance first
spent quick follow-up picking an example of when you would not have supported u.s. involvement in a foreign country have a good question. iraq the second time we were there. and i think we were misguided engaging that were. >> moderator: any concern should with a previous engagement? >> i will mention one if i may. of course, we all have i think, all have concerns about a previous engagement in iraq. the question as i understood it required the we put ourselves in a decision-making position at the time of entry into the conflict. and at the time of entry into the conflict in iraq we all thought we had a solid reason to go into iraq because of president of the united states told us we did. we only learned later that that wasn't true and we went when we learned it wasn't true, we all learned that entry into iraq was a questionable mission. i would also say this, our pasts
involvement that are characterized as offensive wars are intelligent wars. as a veteran i can say we don't want to fight defensive wars. we want to be on offense so we are never on defense. >> as violence continues in the gaza strip, to what extent should congressional policy support israel? spent i think israel is the one major ally we have over there. i would have actually the kurds now to that list of people that we need, or list of countries. i know the cards do not have their own country, but we need to find nations and make sure that we're working with nation's that will support us, given how tumultuous the middle east is. and so i believe that our policy needs to continue to be supportive of israel.
on the other hand, i think it's important to understand that we have had decades now of involvement in the middle east, constant peace missions trying to resolve the issues between palestine and hamas and the plo in israel, and no one has had very much success. my view again is that we support israel, but we need to go very carefully in terms of entangling ourselves in the middle east and particularly in israel. sasse: we should stand unequivocally on the side of israel. there is no moral equivalency between hamas and mutual. hamas is a terror organization that hides its missile launch sites behind innocent women and children's schools and hospitals. israel is our closest ally in the region. it believes in the rule of law, police and protecting the rights of religious minorities, and that stands ultimately for peace and freedom in the region.
as prime minister netanyahu recently said, we all know if hamas would lay down its weapons there would be no war and it is you would lay down its weapons there would be no israel. right now we have a moral vacuum in our national conversation that this administration is leading and to act as if there's more equivalency between two sides. nebraskans don't believe that an american still believe that and we should be supporting israel clearly in terms of an international committee that wants to pretend that counting bodies i decided is the sum of some sort of a moral argument. we should be standing with a nation that believes in the rule of law and the defense of its minorities. watson: we should stand 100% with israel unequivocally. they are our best ally in the middle east. it is disturbing the lack of foreign policy leadership we are seeing right now. i think u.n. resolution for israel went neutral with putin, shows but they're starting to look to for leadership now on
the international scene and that's quite disturbing. with regards to hamas, i think the plo and hamas, they do not get along. i think the plo is working often simply indicating the group under control but hamas issue meet in the fact that the alternative option that hamas is a there is a poor secular government would've and struggles and your only alternative option is hamas. so if we can find an alternative secular option that comes to power, i would think would be in everyone's best interest to allow some economic development for driving of the people there. once people start doing will they will embrace the secular leadership. we don't have a good alternative option in that area next to hamas. domina: without question we should stand firmly with israel. it's the only functioning democracy in the middle east. it is our most reliable partner
and has been since its creation. it is our most steadfast ally. we have never been asked to go to war to defend israel since 1948. it has done that itself. it saves us billions of dollars by being in a place where we would have to have a dramatic military presence without that ally. beyond that i think we need to understand the geography that drives much of this conflict, which is much, much a land and the land possession driven conflict. palestine exists in three distinct disparate not contiguous bodies of land. those three separate bodies of land have very different natural resources, very different assets, very different liabilities. the galante knights as the water for most of the region -- go along heights. went to accommodate had to make sure issue and palestine can
exist together. the only ultimate solution is a two-state solution. we must diplomatic was supported. we must encourage israel to engage peace talks about it. we must recognize that hamas will not participate effectively in that conversation because it doesn't favor a two-state solution it favors dominance spent mr. jenkins, which you press the president to do more for israel? treachery know, i wouldn't. the more we do the worst things get. we seen to constantly interject ourselves into battles or conflict that really is not resolvable. at some point and i agree with dave, it's a two-state solution and those two states, at the end of the day whatever the united states does is not going to matter much if israel and hamas do not come to terms and lay down their weapons, not lay down their weapons but come to an
agreed upon two state solution. that's the solution. >> mr. sasse, you indicated not enough is being done in support of israel. should the president be doing more unilaterally even without the support of congress lacks. sasse: that congress wants to act. there's bipartisan support in the congress from bob and it is, the democratic senator from new jersey has a resolution to make clear to the world that u.s. foreign policy will never allow iran to fire a nuclear weapon. it's the most pressing issue in the middle east after isis. iranian nuclear quest, and there's broad bipartisan support and again the leader of this, democrat, bob menendez wants to bring a resolution to vote that would probably get 80 votes. president obama and harry reid will not bring it to a vote. we do not need more unilateralism. we need congress to exercise some of their authority. it's a broad bipartisan issue.
and spent mr. sasse, you'll be getting the next question from calling williams. >> do you support president obama's recent in a strategy to go after isis in iraq and syria, which includes increased airstrikes that additional u.s. military advisers in iraq? if not, what do you suggest? sasse: first of all we need to take action against isis and we should again at least a month ago. so i applaud the president for speaking to the nation and outlined that but we don't need to speak with nearly as muddled a voice as we're doing right now to the world. nebraskans know that war is a horrible thing. we should be incredibly reticent to go but when military action is required we should an ounce into the world we will do whatever it takes to win. we should not be having these long hard since is the ultimate about domestic political agencies and how you can qualify statements the lever in his wondeoneif we have the resolutit we should have. isis is a bloodthirsty terrorist organization that kills innocent women and children.
isis must be eradicated and the us is going to have to be the leader of the international coalition. we should bring along as many middle eastern allies into the quest as we can. watson: i agree. i support increased airstrikes on isis. they are very radical group that needs to be contained. i do think we need to start having a conversation on in any game. i personally do not believe the political structure is sound and iraq. i do not look for it to hold. i think ultimately it will settle into three different states. i think we have to be thinking in the long-term, okay, we can eradicate them that been so what? 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. furthermore, we haven't declared war since 1942. that is congresses job. we need congress to step up and start declaring war instead of
looking to the president for leadership. the president's job is to wage it. it is congresses job to declare it. i think we need to have conversations. we are mad, reacting like we did in iraq but we need to be thinking three, four steps ahead as you would in just. that's what ever else is doing around the world. we back -- we bounce back and forth. i think that's the question i challenge to the american people. what kind of long-term presence are you willing to commit, have boots on the ground in the area? i think that is the endgame if we succeed in this war. domina: i would encourage you us to carefully assess and consider the entire region and recall how recently we heard of the isis, or isil. isis or isil is a splinter group from al-qaeda. old al-qaeda and isil a religious factions. they are extreme religious factions. they are not representatives of
the billion plus people who practice the religion they profess but don't practice. we should recognize that they are a threat to their own people. ya already a splinter group, and anybody who's studied war at all knows that one sign of victory is division, the fighting leads to conquering. they have already divided themselves. so we should act with a clear objective. i think that's been defined well by the president. we should act with speed and with surprise and with decision. we should do it with as much economy as force as we can. that means send air force as much as we can, and not people. we should test and strengthen the resolve of those who must maintain the peace with our work is done so the next time we are out of the region, which should be soon, the people who remain have the wherewithal both by virtue of their commitments to
their own national identity and their religious identity to provide for the own defense. those are essential things. i do not think this is the time for the united states to be engaged in any kind of heavy criticism. i don't think it's a time for us to attack the president. i don't think that was appropriate with the last president when it happened. when we're dealing with a threat to our national security, we act together. we accomplish the tasks together. we succeed together. and we learn together. that keeps us together. jenkins: certainly i support the president, the airstrikes. in fact, i think foreign policy is the one area that we all have to understand how important it is as a nation do we come together. partisanship stops at the water's edge. but, unfortunately, as we move into this hyper partisan atmosphere, now it's more about simply criticizing the
president, no matter which president it is, and taking positions that quite frankly our political and that nothing to do with the self-interest of our country. and so what i would suggest in terms of going forward, i mentioned earlier how important the kurds are to us. they have 115,000 person fighting force. that fighting force is one of the most effective in the middle east if equipped properly. i'm grateful we are now in equipping them. i'm grateful that france has decided also to equip them. we got to go work with the kurds because they have a stable economy. they have oil and have a real desire to keep isis from building a caliphate anywhere in the middle east. i also think we need to ask saudi arabia and pakistan to stop funding the sunni terrorists, which they have been. that has to be front and center. they have to come to deal on the.
finally, i think we have to, all over the world, as our european allies and other allies to step up. or jeanette lee as we go forward -- fortunately as a go board we continue to allow our allies to stand on the sidelines. and, finally, what i would say is that we cannot have a great foreign policy unless you have some sort of a keyboard between the president and congress. and it's disappointing to me to see both republicans and democrats in congress standing on the sideline waiting for the president to act so that they can then go in the election season, go in and criticizing. they need to step up and help take a position, help us develop the positions that are so critical in fighting the war on terror. >> moderator: thank you. we want to remind our audience both on radio and on television, you're listening to nebraska u.s. senate debate presented by
n.e.t. news in cooperation with the nebraska broadcasters association. we will move on to our second topic, the global economy. the question is going to come from jackie arms of knop-tv to start our discussion. jackie. >> mr. jenkins, i believe you're first in this category. every nebraska neutral zone unit are purchasing things for great britain, i'm concerned china. we are wondering if there data safe. so what do we do to protect our american entrepreneurs, consumers, the people on the internet every day from hackers? jenkins: club as we moved into this, as we have led the world in developing the internet, technology, right now you take the top 20 out of the top 25 computer companies, technology companies in the world, the united states is leading. it's the one great example of our entrepreneurial society
really leveraging our resources. that includes government research, it includes all the private technology to the investment banking capital is going to do that. it's critical that we as government and private companies stepped forward and do everything we can to make sure that this very important economic system, internet and technology system, is protected. once again, i hate to keep bringing this point up that if you look at congress, congress has not made this a priority. congress literally over the last two or three years has not come up with a comprehensive program in working with private companies to ensure internet technology safety, and it again a great example of gridlock and dysfunction in congress. the two parties unwilling to
prioritize are undermining our economic situation in the united states transport we do face great challenges. we're going through a structural transition in the economy from mostly agriculture and extraction and manufacturing jobs are mostly knowledge economy and i.t. jobs in the future. one recent demographic study showed since the 2008 economic downturn, majority of americans who are in the workforce are today employed by firms they were not employed by in 2008. this is the pace of change the world has never known and we want to celebrate the u.s. as the knowledge economy and job creating capital of the world, but we have to do that with some greater clarity about the cyber threats that we face. we know that we have great challenges from chinese piracy hacking and international property, intellectual property violation. we need to have u.s. leadership in those conversations.
it does require bipartisan participation either requires understanding the future of the world of big data needs to be led into first and perl ways by silicon valley and bu and by new high-tech centers that will rise up across the nation, including across nebraska. washington, d.c., will not be able to lead this change but we need to celebrate the time in his them and the entrepreneur lesson of the u.s. economy as we have over the last two and a quarter centuries. at the same time as the u.s. does try to provide a framework for conversation and we need to be sure where celebrate the fourth amendment. the american citizens rights to privacy and they're guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures requires a lot more robust oversight from the congress that we've seen in many issues of nsa spying on the american people, including the most recent yahoo! data stored over the last few days. there's a lot of work to be done budget has descended on
americans civil society and ingenuity of 310 million diverse and creative american people. watson: the two distinct areas that one can we need to stay out of it. the market will fix the problem but we have leading financial institutions that have a very vested interest in the security of these issues. i don't see when i do get the government involved in protection of the economy for the security of money. they been doing this quite well for some time. if you're talking on issue of government security, it's one of the areas we need to address the most, security of our data from an intelligence perspective. we continue to throw money at large steel machines, et cetera, but having the leading edge in i.t. is imperative on the military sector. so our government needs to be involved in the specific area. it is foolish to say let's have the government both solve our monetary security in the private sector.
since the beginning of time business owners have major they held onto the gold. for the government to step into that arena is foolish. i would concur on the fourth time in as well. we talked about google and we saw the wiretapping if they did not know about by the government. they evolved their security systems to a new level as well as other i.t. data services. we are leading in this category because we learned from actual experience. i think the private sector will handle it quite well trying to with all due respect i don't think the question has been addressed by any of the three speakers. we money moves in a transaction on the internet between entrepreneurs, it moves between private sources, one bank to another bank. it doesn't move on the federal reserve wire. it moves on the internet system that is owned principally by mastercard and visa. the reason we have insecurity is that we don't have government
standards to require those banks to establish thresholds they must meet or which they're monitored to assure compliance. we have some bank examination for safety in that area, but we don't have a standard that regulates mastercard and visa. and we have allowed all of those transactions to go off the federal reserve wire. is what i think we could do to get attention focused on this problem. first and foremost, protect american entrepreneurs by allowing transactions on the internet to be taxed. that will get the government involved. second, established a set of standards. third, provided the banking system of the united states of america, the federal reserve system, is a path for moving money. that introduces a whole array of new crimes that are not now prosecutable under the existing system. fourth, extending the existing crimes to violations that occur on the net. and fit, remember that we are
not ever going to move entirely to a knowledge economy. food and water will always be the most important product including the food produced in nebraska and it is foolish to think or say otherwise. >> moderator: mr. sasse, went to get an opportunity to respond. are you saying that federal law currently is sufficient to deal with cybercrime, especially those from coming from foreign countries. sasse: there are clear involving categories of exposure both from commercial transactions and from cyber terrorism. we're fortunate to have stratcom invested and there's a lot of investment the u.s. needs to be making to combat cybe cyberwar,r terrorism and also cybercrime. there are surely additional categories needed but at the
level country of the federal government will come in and set standards for every aspect of these transactions, i would point your viewers to the study that came out of the office of inspector general at hhs just two weeks ago. the federal government has just been in the course of the last five years $26 billion of american taxpayer money to try to promote health information technology, something that is needed and as the federal government tried to do it from the center it turns out their standards don't work and the different systems we subsidize with use tax dollars are not interoperable. >> is federal law sufficient? watson: i think we need a change in attitude in government. yes, i think primarily it is. the attitude of government preaching to the private sector and what did it have to do is the wrong approach. we need partnerships. we need not to treat the people in the private sector as if they are already criminals are already messing up. we need more of a partnership for me.
that's when the networks will in the state. the regulators work with private business to get better. on the federal level you already do not know what you are doing and it's that type of attitude so we bore of a partnership to help move us forward. >> moderator: next question will be for mr. sasse. >> expansion of free trade. some say we should have open trade with every country in the world, globalization is good. nafta, the wto should all be expanded and made less restrictive. while others would say americans should buy some -- should buy from other americans and the government should restrict trade with any country that caused u.s. jobs or create a trade deficit. where do you stand? sasse: i'm in favor of free trade. free trade is a more to lift people out of poverty around the globe in almost any other single variable you can point you over the last two millennia. so free trade benefits both sides when there are free and fair rules. we know many countries do not
play fair, and we can have multiple examples. by south korea, china, other nations on the u.s. in ways that harm nebraskans. new court and north fork is very exciting and put them doing wonderful things in that community and we suffer because of something that happened to the u.s. needs to act clearly and with a steady hand in our support of international organizations that try to investigate and prosecute those that would perpetrate attacks on free trade regimes. but over all free trade is the right choice for the people of the world, for the people of the u.s. and in particular for the poor and the middle class but it's also important to recognize that nebraska as we are living the most productive geographic area in the world for agriculture, as the most productive times i in the histoy of agriculture, benefits greatly from foreign markets for our agricultural exports so we
should continue to celebrate that and promote those regimes. watson: i think if you look at the world you see every country doing quantitative easing to increase exports around the world. quantitative easing is really hurting our population. the value of the dollar, we're not able to buy what we used to buy. that's why not a big fan of the federal reserve. it's controlled by the banking institutions and we bailed out them on the backs of the people. we have a lot of people struggling in this country trying to make ends meet. i think you need a flexible policy like we've had in our history. we used to have protections to get the manufacturing base going. we've seen the manufacturing base go elsewhere and i'll tell people to look at england post world war ii and the damage that happened to that country. i think we need to look at policies and rise the tide of all individuals so we are not stimulating endless welfare.
so if people above the poverty line. i'm strongly against the minimum wage because that's not the way to do but we need to close the border, rise the demand of labor and then get them naturally to the market up to a level where they can support themselves. it's usually a equals b. but we need to look at an all-encompassing policy and get a equals b. equals c. which is closing the border advising the type of people so there's a demand for labor. domina: i think first of all our objective 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 the u.s. trade deficit. that's the first thing. the second thing is all of the trade rules should be reciprocal. that includes environmental rules, labor rules, safety standards rules, inspection rules. all of the rules that go into compliance with constructing of products in the united states.
if the playing field isn't level, the trade isn't there. there should be no currency manipulation. our largest foreign trading partners regularly underprice their currency so they can buy u.s. dollars cheap. we should have a prohibition against that in every trade agreement. we should recognize that the north american free trade agreement, the most successful of all of them, has hurt the united states because it didn't contain the guarantees i have just mentioned. free trade has cost jobs, driven down the standard of living, reduced average compensation, dried-up receipt of federal taxes and put pressures on our national budget. we have to have fair trade before it can be free and it hasn't been. those are essential things. jenkins: first of all i would you say the trade environment is
impossiblimpossibl e. the fact of the matter is if you make everything perfectly equal, there would be no trading done. we live in a messy world. i would like to see fair trade. i would like to make sure there is not anti-dumping her i would like to see there's not currency manipulation. but the fact of the matter is, if you're going to get anything done in business, or the world, you'll have to come to some messy compromises and continue to negotiate through those messy compromises. the fact of the matter is when you look at the countries that have the poorest economies in the world, it's the countries that are not trading. they do not have the trade that the united states or north america has but the fact of the matter is, not have strengthened the north america continent. it strengthen canada and mexico. i am for free trade principally because i am involved in agriculture. if you look at the facts in 1998 we had 2% of our cattle, beef shipments going out of this
country. now we are of around 13 or 14%. we now have record cattle prices. we have, without the trade, corn and cattle and soybeans and ethanol, everything that we trade is enhancing this economy. i'm strongly supportive of the to understand we do need to work for fair trade to the best we can but there's no such a thing, you know, a perfect solution that date is mentioned but it should not allow us to get in the way of continuing to negotiate free trade agreements all over the world. >> moderator: next question for dave domina from mike tobias. >> thank you. before the debate we did ask her audience for suggestions for depression and this one comes from john in lincoln. according to a magazine forecast, china is investing in research and develop and in a much faster pace than our nation. that means china's investment in medical research, defense, energy and other national priorities will surpass the united states in just eight
years. what, if anything, were you do about this if you're elected and what can the senate do? domina: thank you but it's a good question and it addresses fundamentally what kind of a country we want to have. if we are committed to being entrepreneurial and if we are committed to being innovative, then we have to commit resources of the united states of america, the funds of the public, to research and development. that is not purely a private sector function. our land-grant universities were built on the premise that federal research would be conducted at those institutions. we have virtually abandoned that in favor of people chasing after money from the private sector. that's the first thing. the second thing we have to do is reinvigorate our markets to encourage research. we live now at a time when corporate merger after merger after merger reduces the will of
competitors in the marketplace to improve, innovate and develop new products. that has hurt innovation. it has reduced and put more pressure on research and development budgets. it has emphasized the right hand side of the balance sheet, expenses, not the left and cyber assets and income are. that's only fun to a poor federal tax policy and the lack of a commitment to the value of knowledge. we need to return to that kind of commitment. recall for a few moments 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. jenkins: we have about a two and a half trillion dollars shortfall in infrastructure. this whole state was built on infrastructure. the land grant university that they spoke about, the highway system, nebraska public power, irrigation systems. huge amounts of government
research going into and helping our universities the research on agriculture. we have a meet export trade group that helps us export meat. that one of the safest food supplies in the world because of infrastructure we put into food safety. it's absolutely critical and yet right now it is dissipating. one reason it's dissipating is you have people like my republican opponent vince asked to sign off on a pledge not to raise any taxes to a high paid washington lobbyist named grover norquist, even though this nation has experienced over the last 12 or 14 years $6 trillion worth of deficit that was bipartisan. it was deficit associated with spending on the wars there it was a deficit going through one of the worst recessions in history. and yet because mr. sasse been locked into one position he is not willing to ask the american
taxpayer to actually pay for some of that deficit. today, to put something toward the. is willing to ask the american young people to go out and sacrifice, but not sacrifice so we can improve our deficit and actually begin spending on some important issues like infrastructure on our economy. sasse: to be honest i'm not sure what that has to do with the last question but here's the simple factor i think dave domina's answer was greater we under invest in infrastructure and in basic science is different which is but one of the fundamental duties of the federal government is to invest in infrastructure investment and in basic research for interstate commerce. one of the main reasons that's not happening is because washington has a bipartisan agreement about not telling the truth. it's true. i stand guilty as charged but i don't think the problem in washington is that we taxed too little. i'm not in favor of tax
increases and if i'm the only candidate in this race who believes that, so be. we did have promises in our entitlement programs that don't stand epigraph 16 workers per retiree. today with 2.8. we need to do everything we can to make clear to seniors we're going to protect those currently on social security or near retirement age that we should be telling the truth to people my age and younger. i'm 42, but the fact we need to recalibrate our investment. >> moderator: focus on china's research and development place. director we have too little. sasse: we have too little. i am for greater investment in r&d and infrastructure. watson: we need to look back to the constitution yet again on this issue. we need to promote the general welfare and the constitution specifically calls for our branch to invest in arts and
sciences, and we have come again, we mismanaged our budget. we do not prioritize appropriately. science is an important element of investing in and called for by the constitution. we can't promote the corporate welfare. were supposed to promote the general welfare. primarily how we try to get science going is direct handouts to companies like when the companies as this will create better technology. we need to work with our universities. these individuals that truly investigate sign science to fine solutions. how we deploy that money needs to change. i would fo further say we the crisis in s.t.e.m. education. we are specifically low in students in these categories. we've got to look back and say we could invest more but do we have the person or the students available to even take advantage of those investments? we've got to work backwards. i don't believe education is a federal issue. i believe it's a local issue. but as a public figure we need
to encourage our parents and individuals to really work with the schools and make sure there is a focus on stem, to make sure we have the personnel to deploy the money to great the new technologies we did to advance society. is looking back at the constitution and i think looking to our people. it is we the people in the constitution to address the school system turn what we are about at the halfway point at a debate and i want to remind our viewers and listeners on radio that you're watching a nebraska u.s. senate debate presented by n.e.t. news in cooperation with the nebraska broadcasters association. i am bill kelly, your vibrator. i want to reintroduce our panel. joining the is mike tobias the n.e.t. news, jackie harm's of knop-tv and colleen williams. we're talking with the four candidates of u.s. senate on the u.s. election ballot. dave domina, independent nonpartisan candidate jim jenkins come republican ben sasse an independent nonpartisan
candidate todd watson. we will move forward on arthur top but now, immigration. colleen williams starts our discussion and the question go to mr. sasse. >> point blank, everyone keeps saying we should secure our borders. what additional actions can use senate take everything this is a pretty, would you take to secure our borders? sasse: thank you for the question. i do so because the first duty is to protect us from enemies for and domestic we need secure borders. we don't have secure borders. there are 19 different sectors across the gulf coast from the mexican border and the canadian border. cdb does have clarity about standard operating procedures. they don't have clarity about standard metrics. they don't have clarity any corporation has about its operate division, about what you over your progress looks like, to be reducing border crossings. we have a crisis at our borders and we should acknowledge that the particular crisis over the
course of the last three or four months is about these 55, 65,000 unaccompanied minors. when nebraska to do with the issued and when they see that they don't start with partisanship about republican or democrat. they start as parents. but i am the father of three little kids and they're worried about his kids and they want the problem to be solved. it requires the president to state clearly that we are not headed toward some unilateral mass amnesty which is what ultimately creates a vacuum that is pulling so many to the border. we need moral clarity out of the president about the fact our borders are meant to be close, not open and congress should be writing immigration law, not the president. we should also have a cbp that has oversight with a 30 about the metrics and procedures so it isn't a political hot button to try to turn texas into a blue or purple state but it's trying to be sure the u.s. decides for the good of 310 million u.s. citizens who should be coming
and going. watson: let's just start off, 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. the third role to defend the constitution is to provide for the common defense. we talk about all the international engages. our first priority should be to secure the border. that's the biggest and closest definition to defense. furthermore, we have a crisis in this country for a lack of debate. i'm very hard on harry reid but you should be aware that the house will not debate s. 744 which is a very thorough bill. and i doubt very many people have read or reviewed that bill, but it should be debated. we need more debate to find solutions, and both sides are contributing to the problem.
so i would say look to that bill, start debating it. i have stayed consistent from the start. i think reagan build the right framework, to secure the border. it just was not executed. we need to make sure as this is one of our core responsibilities with the appropriate funds, the appropriate personnel for are allocated to the board to make sure it's secure so we conduct our first order of business which is outlined in the constitution. ..