calls and tweets for the candidates. watch c-span's live to coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on wednesday, october 19th. our live debate preview from the university of nevada-las vegas starts at 7:30 p.m. the briefing for the debate studio audience is at 8:30 p.m. eastern, and the 90 minute debate is at 9 p.m. eastern. stay with us for viewer reaction including your calls, tweets and facebook postings. and watch the debate live or on demand using your desktop, phone or tablet at c-span.org. listen to live coverage of the debate on your phone with the free c-span radio app, download it from the app store or google play. remarks now from supreme court justice elena kagan on the life and legacy of her friend and former colleague, justice antonin scalia. also law professor william kelley, a former law clerk of justice scalia, and his friend,

leonard leo, executive vice president of the federalist society. >> sometimes people talk about members of their profession as lions of the profession, and i often have a difficult time understanding the analogy. not so with justice scalia are. he was in his personal life docile, and in public life he had a roar that could be heard for miles. and so we thought it would be fitting today to bring together a few people who knew him very well to talk about his legacy, both personally and professionally. next to me, of course, is justice kagan who truly needs no introduction. you had one last night. we were very fortunate to have her with us for the fireside chat. so i'll keep this brief. safe to note that she's held pretty much, i think, every job in american law any young lawyer would aspire to have. [laughter] and she did it as the first, the first female dean of harvard law

school and the first female solicitor general of the united states. in her first oral argument in citizens united before justice scalia. we're going to hear that story this morning. next to justice kagan is my friend bill kelley. he's now a professor at notre dame. he started his career as a law clerk to justice scalia, and in between those two things he's done some mighty interesting things himself. he served as an assistant to the solicitor general of the united states arguing before the supreme court, spent time in private practice and was deputy counsel to the president of the united states in the bush administration. he's a wonderful friend, and it's a real pleasure to have you here. he's also written one of the, i think, most insightful summaries of the justice's career. i commend it to you, it's in the george washington law review, "justice scalia and the long game."

next to bill is leonard leo. leonard is a close personal friend of the justice's and his family, so we get that perspective with us today. you may have seen him on c-span reading from the scriptures at the justice's funeral. he's the executive vice president of the federalist society. he served on the united states commission on international religious freedom. he's been a u.s. delegate to the u.n. commission on human rights. among many, many other things. will you please join me in welcoming this wonderful panel this morning. [applause] now, i plan to promptly get out of the way here, but to start things off, i think everybody who knew the justice probably has a favorite anecdote. the man was larger than life. would each of you, please, share with us your favorite scalia are

anecdote. justice? >> you know, i'm not sure i have a single anecdote. i have two ways that i'm going to remember him. the first way is at conference at the court, and no particular conference, but just the experience of sitting with him at conference. so the way the conference table works in the supreme court, the chief -- it's a long, rectangular table, and the chief justice sits at one end, and the senior associate justice sits at the other end, and then it goes around the a table in order of seniority. and more all the time i have been at the court, justice scalia was the chief associate justice, so he sat on the opposite end of the table, and as the junior justice, i sat on his right down at the other end from the chief justice. and justice scalia would keep up a kind of running patter throughout our conference, you know? in our conference, it's a pretty formal affair, everybody talks

in turn and so forth. but justice scalia would sort of society toe slow they comment on everything, comment on the cases, comment on everything that was being said about the cases, and anybody who knows justice scalia knows that he has really, he had really an extraordinary sense of humor. he was an extremely witty man. so i would just be laughing all the time except, you know, he was doing it kind of sotto voce so that nobody would notice him, and i would just sort of burst out laughing on occasion, and the chief justice would be looking down at the table like what is going on there, and why is justice kagan interrupting the proceedings. [laughter] and i always wanted to kind of go like this. it's his fault, you know? [laughter] but i, you know, when i remember him, that is the way i remember him most and best, is getting me into trouble at conference all

the time. [laughter] because of his just incredible wit and maybe hisser reverence -- his sprer reverence as well. the second way i remember him as, and this is as different as different can be, but is as a hunting partner. so a story behind this, i grew up in new york city. we did not do a lot of hunting. [laughter] but as i went through the nomination process, people asked me a lot of questions about whether i had, you know, any connection with hunting or guns or gun culture or what not. and i failed all of these questions miserably because the answer was, no, i've basically been an urban east coaster all my life, this is something that's pretty foreign to my set of experiences. i was once talking to a senator, and he was asking me all these questions, but i said, you know, it's true that i've not had these experiences, but i said

i'd like to have them. and if, if you would invite me to your ranch to go out hunting with you, i'd love to come. and the senator with this abject look of horror came over his face. [laughter] and the white house staffer who accompanied me on all these visits was, like, had fallen off the sofa, and i thought, okay, i went too far. [laughter] so i tried to pull it back a little bit, and i said, well, i didn't mean to invite myself hunting with you, but i will tell you what, if i'm lucky enough to be confirmed, i promise you that the first thing i'll do is i'll go to justice scalia and ask him to take me hunting. and be so when i did get confirmed, one of the first things i did was i went to me know, and i told him this story. and he thought it was hilarious. i mean, he was just, he thought it was the funniest thing. and so he took me to his gun club, and he taught me how to

shoot and taught me about gun safety, and at a certain point he said, okay, i think you're ready to go. and he invited me out with a very longstanding group of hunting buddies he had. we went out to near charlottesville, virginia, the first time, and we shot quail. and what surprised me and i think is just a measure of his incredible personal generosity, was that he didn't do this as just a one-time thing that's a funny story, and i'll let cay began satisfy this campaign -- kagan satisfy this campaign promise of hers, but he just kept on asking me, and he basically said join our group and be a part of this thing that he loved so much. and within of the reasons i'll remember it -- one of the reasons i'll remember it, him always in that context is because, you know, one of the things that i think made justice scalia justice scalia was this incredible joy of life. and i've really never seen anybody enjoy something more than he did hunting. and and it was sort of wonderful

to watch this man just have this incredible joie de vivre as he did this thing. and also, i mean, it was on those trips where i really got to know nino extremely well. when we came out to wyoming for a few days once, we went down to mississippi for a few days. and then on these day trips, you know, it's two hours in the car to charlottesville or to richmond, two hours back, there's a lot of time to talk. so a lot of my personal connection with nino came from those trips. and that's the way that i find myself remembering him sort of over and over again. >> well, it's great to be here. thank you for inviting me, judge gorsuch, and it's great to see so many friends. as i was thinking about this, it occurred to me it's not every day that one sits on a panel next to a supreme court justice.

justice and a here ya would have said a supreme justice. i'm injury justice kagan has heard that. so it's intimidating, but not nearly as intimidating as it was over 30 years ago to be a rising second-year student facing the supervising editor, elena kagan. she was truly scary then. [laughter] i think she'd agree too. [laughter] and then the first thing she does is tell an anecdote about the sinking conference where no -- stinking conference where no human being is allowed to go unless they have a commission to the supreme court. how are you supposed to follow that? well, i can't follow that. i will say as i think about anecdotes and the justice, the idea of joie de vivre first comes to mind. the laugh, the laugh, he would laugh a lot. and he would say things which he believed to be, obviously, true and wait for everyone to react, and if you disagreed, he'd express false outrage, and if you agreed, he'd laugh, laugh, laugh.

the one anecdote that comes to mind sitting here was when i was with him, my wife and i were expecting our first child. this was a long time ago, 28 years. his third term. and i knew that boss had nine children. so i was looking for tips. [laughter] justice, think parenting tips? -- any parenting tips? no, come on. tips? what do you mean? besides, maureen did everything. [laughter] but i'll tell you this, if she's a pain in the neck when she's young, she's going to be a pain in the neck her whole life. [laughter] and if she's not, she's not. so you've got a lot at stake at the beginning, let me tell ya. [laughter] i can say, happily, that it turned out well both at the beginning and at the end. [laughter] >> well, i guess there are two things that come to mind. one is a story that the justice

used to regale us with lots of times, and we never told him we had heard it several times already. and it had to do with his senior year at georgetown. and, of course, he was a great student there, and there was a tradition back then that you had to have an oral exam before a board of priests at georgetown. i don't think they do that now. but he had his oral exam, and as he describes it, he was just hitting them out of the park, one question after the next. you know, he knew his, he knew his renaissance literature, he knew his history, he had been grounded in ancient history, so he thought he was just doing great. and then the chairman of the murder board, a priest, said, well, we just have one final question for you, mr. scalia. what was the most important event in human history?

and he doesn't remember the answer he gave, but what he remembers is all sorts of events in human history rushing through his mind. you know, the pell to nice wars, some incidents from the roman empire, the invention of the printing press, and he rattled off one of these events in human history, and the priest just shook his head and said, no, mr. scalia, the incarnation of christ. and he describes himself as just shrinking, you know, just to a tiny little person in front of this committee. and what was wonderful about the story more all of us who always heard it was, first, as i think bill alluded to, he loved to joke about himself. he had a great self-effacing sense of humor, and so he was telling a story about a failure of his which, i think, said a lot about the person.

it was the way he opened up to a lot of people. but secondly, i think it said a lot about both his humility and about how he views human life. you know, he was looking -- the way he puts it, he was looking for some great event in human history, something that man did that made civilization great. and what, you know, the answer that was the one he was supposed to give had nothing to do with human greatness, right? and i think that says a lot about who he is and how he conducted his life. [inaudible conversations] >> that's not -- i ask the questions. >> okay, sorry. sorry. i just thought, you know -- [laughter] i loved fly fishing with the justice. as you know. i would say he fished exactly as you'd expect someone from queens, new york, to fish. [laughter] being a -- >> there are no fish in this river. [laughter]

>> that was the one time he took judicial notice. >> growing up on colorado, you learn how to place a fly on the water with some gentleness. there was, there was no gentleness. [laughter] but what it lacked in finesse he made up for in enthusiasm. he absolutely loved it. [laughter] justice, you've spoken about his contributions to statutory interpretation, and i wonder if you'd share some of your thoughts with us about tex callism and -- textualism and his views on that. >> i went, i was very honored last year to give the antonin scalia at harvard law school. a donor wanted to honor him and thought that the way to do so was to establish this lecture series, and i was asked to do it and thought it was really, you know, a terrific honor. and, this was when he was alive. i went and i spoke with my friend and one of his clerks,

john manning, about his contributions to statutory interpretation. and i think what i said there was that he should have declared victory long ago. that this is, i think, what justice scalia will go down in history for more than anything else, as having changed the entire enterprise of statutory interpretation. so i do this, if you will, if you'll indulge me a little bit with a story about a particular case of mine which i had in my first year at the court. it was a case called millner, and it was a freedom of information act case. and be it dealt with the scope of an exemption for the freedom of information act meaning that the scope of something where the government could hold back rather than disclose materials. and it was an exemption for, i think it was called internal personnel procedures and practices. and somehow the d.c. circuit had

created out of this idea of you can withhold materials relating to internal personnel practices this exemption that said you can withhold anything that would allow people to violate the law. and the way they did it was, you know, there were a set of d.c. circuit opinions about this exemption written by really superb judges at a time -- this is the time when bill and i both went to law school in the 1980s. and, you know, they didn't really mention the text the of the exemption until page 18 of the opinion, ask they just talked about -- and they just talked about all kinds of things that they found in the legislative record, and they talked about how it just made sense for this exemption to exist. and, so that was the question, was whether this exemption was still, was -- as interpreted by the d.c. circuit in a way that had been going on for decades by the time of this case had gotten to the court.

and i remember going to conference one morning, and i met nino on the way in. actually, not on the way in. the way the supreme court offices are set up, he was sort of down the hall from me. and it was really quite something. he would come out of his office door, and he would look down the hall to see if anybody was coming, the two other people down the hall were justice thomas and me. and then he would kind of wait for you to come up the hall. i always felt like, you know, a teenaged girl being, you know, somebody was waiting for me to walk to school together or something like that. [laughter] it was just sort of -- anyway, so he waited for me to come down the hall, and we walked the rest of the way to the conference room, and i said, you know, i've just been reading these cases, and, i mean, everything about the way we do statutory interpretation is different. you cannot imagine anybody writing these kinds of decisions now. i mean, nobody on the court -- on the left or the right, you

know -- nobody on the court would think you could write a decision which didn't even really mention the i statutory text. nobody on the court would write a decision which placed front and center random materials from the legislative record and legislative history. nobody on the court would just think it was enough to say, well, this kind of makes sense as we see it. and that had all changed in the prior couple of decades, and really it has all changed because of justice scalia are. and i always felt as though, you know, justice scalia was still -- i mean, the rest of us were not quite purist enough for justice scalia, you know? sometimes we would mention legislative history. sometimes we would say something that he would have thought was not completely in keeping with the focus on the text. but i always thought that he had won 80% of the game and that the only reason that everybody didn't recognize that, didn't

recognize that the entire court had moved extremely far in his direction was because he kept on demanding that we go the last 20%. [laughter] but, in fact, if he had been a little bit more of a diplomat or a little bit less of a fighter, what he would have said was isn't this cool? basically everybody interprets statutes the way that i've been saying they should, and i think that that's right. >> gents, you want to add to that? >> well, i think what justice kagan just said is exactly right, and it was part of his personality that, you know, he believed that human beings were imperfect, and so the last bit would have been difficult for him to take. >> it rankinged. >> it rankinged. that's the right word. but he did, you know, almost

single-handedly transform the terms of not only how things are done, but the debate about how things are done. even those who don't agree with justice scalia's statutory interpretation theories have to deal with them. and that really is quite a change over the last generation. >> the only other thing i'll add, i guess, on this is i would commend to everyone his last book, "reading law," which i think could potentially go down as being as important as, you know, blackstone's commentaries or cook's institutes at least for americans. here is, i think, a great explanation of how much he cared about language and about construction. you know, taking on the whole thrust and parry of the canons of construction and trying to explain that there is determinant meaning to the enterprise of interpretation even with regard to these canons that are often thrown about

rather loosely. so he had an incredible, extraordinary breadth of knowledge in this area of construction, and i think that final work is a very important capstone to his career. >> it's a terrific book. and, you know, when you and i talked about, yesterday, the lockhart decision which was a decision last year where the court had to wrestle with very, you know, weird statutory language, and justice sotomayor wrote the majority, and i wrote the dissent, and we really went at each other. one of the notable things about that decision was that both opinions relied on justice scalia's book. now, that's not to say that you can make anything of it. you know, sometimes there are good arguments on both sides, and there were arguments on both sides that could be found in the many, many pages of that book. i think what it's a sign of -- and i think that this is going,

you're going to see this over the next decade -- is that's going to be kind of the standard reference when it comes to statutory interpretation questions and particularly about the statutory canons. >> the publisher just said, okay, justice kagan just said standard reference, closed quote. [laughter] >> 140 characters. >> justice, we have to hear the story about citizens united, your very first appellate oral argument. i just cannot imagine -- [laughter] that being my first. i need to hear that story. >> well, i was very nervous. it was my first appellate argument. i was nominated to the s.g.ing position, for whatever reason -- s.g. position, for whatever reason, because, you know, i had not done an appellate argument. and to have your first one be at the supreme court, to have your first one be of the importance of citizens united, i was pretty nervous. and making me even more nervous,

the day before i had gone up to the court because the day before the argument was the investiture of justice sotomayor. and i think the clerk of the court, general suitor, you know, he was just looking to be nice, looking to make conversation, and he said, oh, i'll show you what will be on the men of for the -- bench for the justices when you go up to the podium. this is what the justices look at. and what the justices look at, it's just a few pages with your standard biographical material and who's made the motion for you to be a supreme court bar. but then attached to it is a list of the supreme court arguments you have done in the past. [laughter] and he hands me this pile of papers, and there were three other lawyers who were arguing that day, and the pile of papers, the first one is ted olson and the list sort of goes on and on, and you're flipping pages, and he's done 90 arguments. and the second one was seth waxman, and he's done 75

arguments, and you're still flipping pages. and the third one was floyd abrams, and he was like a relative newbie to the court, he had only done 25 arguments. and then it said elena kagan, and there was, like, no paper, you know? [laughter] so i said to general suitor, are you trying to psych me out? is that what you're doing? [laughter] anyway, but i get up there the next day, and my heart really is pounding. and, you know, i almost, like, couldn't hear anybody for it pounding so hard. but i finally, i got up to the podium, and i think i was -- i forget what, third, fourth. and i had a few sentences, five or six sentences memorized to get me into the argument. and i thought i would get five or six sentences out before the justices interrupted me. and i got a single sentence out, literally one sentence -- and it was a short sentence too. and then from the bench i hear

no, no, no, no, no. [laughter] and then he proceeded to tell me why this single declarative sentence i had uttered was 100% wrong. [laughter] but it was great for me that day. the best thing that could have happened to me because it's just like when that comes at you, you have to deal with it, and you have to say something back. and as soon as -- and i said something back, and i thought, okay, i'm in this. i'm in this game. so it was like a great favor that he did to me, i think. and for the entire year, i actually loved being questioned by justice scalia. as a collision to have general, you know, i argued a very wide range of cases, and some were cases in which justice scalia naturally agreed, predictably agreed, and some were cases in which the position i took justice scalia did not agree. but either way i actually loved being questioned by justice scalia.

he asked questions in a very straightforward way. they were often extremely tough, they were often extremely aggressive, but there was never anything hidden in them. there was no sort of, like, hidden agenda, and there was no lack of clarity. you always knew exactly where he was coming from and exactly what he meant. and he also gave you a chance to respond to those questions, which sometimes in supreme court arguments you don't have. but he was very fair in that way, you know? he was going to give you the best he had, but he was going to give you a chance to argue back. so for the entire year, i really, i so enjoyed the back and forth with justice scalia, found it, you know, i think probably if i picked a single justice where i just case in, case out whether i was with him or against him or whether he was with me or against me, just case in, case out that those were the exchanges that i enjoyed best,

it was with him. >> bill, as a law clerk give us some insight into his workings, and he could be tough on counsel at oral argument. and maybe some insight into why. >> well, i was there his third term, so he was a young person and still learning the job. and one of the things about becoming a federal judge as many in the room know and a supreme court justice in particular is there's a lot of law to learn, and we expect our federal judges to become expert in every area of substantive federal law and procedural federal law. it's a hard thing to do. and when you're on the supreme court, you're expected to write opinions that will meet the stern criticism of the smartest people specializing in patent law, antitrust law, labor law, federal courts, criminal proceed jury -- procedure, the whole

gamut. you're supposed to be expert at the level of the true experts in every subject. it's a really hard thing to do. so there's a lot to learn. it's a very hard job. so it was really exciting to him, and it was incredibly exciting and be fun to be with him as he was figuring out what he thought, because he genuinely didn't have views about most questions when he began on the supreme court. he knew a lot about administrative law and the regulatory questions that came before him on the d.c. circuit, but he was not a world expert on criminal procedure or things like that. and so he was learning, and he loved it, and it was fun. but it was hard. his process was that after he had read the briefs and you had read the briefs, he would gather all of the law clerks for a meeting before the conference in every case. and the group would talk about every case for as long as it

took for him to get to a point where he thought he knew what he thought. and that experience to this day was, is extraordinary legal experience as i've had and as challenging one as i've had because just as he was an active questioner on the bench, imagine what it was like when there was nobody listening. [laughter] and it was fun and very, very challenging. for us as well, the excitement was that this -- we really felt like justice scalia was different. he was new and different because he really cared about theory and methodology and the right way to do the job appropriate to the role of judges in our constitutional system. he really cared about that from the beginning. and to see him work out that was really quite, quite extraordinary. and part of the reason why i think he was so aggressive in

argument, at least frequently so -- and sometimes in his opinions he was very aggressive, as we all know, particularly his separate opinions -- was that for him it wasn't personal. it just wasn't. it was about the law. he took seriously when he put the robe on, it was the office and not the person. and he understood that and believed it and lived it in a way from case to case across 30 years that really was extraordinary. he did not care who won the case. he didn't care. if it was the government in a criminal case, the government's got to follow the law. what is the law? that's what he cared about. what's the right legal answer. and it wasn't that he didn't care about the human consequences of cases. he thought that the people of the united states had established the ways in which the legal system would resolve these questions about people's legal rights and duties, and no

one had given him the power to decide who should win except insofar as the law dictated that answer. and so for him it was the law. it wasn't the person that mattered. in case after case, term after term. that's who he was. he would have no more thought that it was his role to decide winners and losers in a legal case in terms of the consequences of the outcome than he would have thought it was his role to go across the street to the congress and urge them to pass or not pass a law which will have consequences for people. that wasn't his job, he thought. and so that was reflected in how he dealt with the ideas and the legal materials. legal materials, man, that's what he cared about. >> leonard, tell us a little bit about the justice's personal life that we don't know. he was a big family man. he started his career, i don't think many people know, in ohio.

>> yeah. so he, he started his career as a practicing lawyer, i believe it was jones day in ohio. looking back on his career, not necessarily what you would expect, right? he was occasionally asked about that by law students, and he gave a very interesting answer. he -- and we had talked about it at one point. he said that, you know, when he got out of law school and he entered into the practice of law, you know, of course he loved the law, and he was very good at it, but he thought it was very important to be a good father and husband. be and he wanted a reasonable legal career, one where he could spend time with his family. and one that was not going to be as frenetic. and back then he says jones day was a firm that recognized the

importance of balancing work and family. and you see that throughout, i mean, throughout his career. even though he was extraordinarily busy, obviously, with being a lawyer and then being an act dem cantic and then being a judge -- academic and then being a judge and a government official, he always had time for his family. they are a very closely-knit family. they have great, they had great fun together particularly at the dinner table where there was lots of banter, as you can imagine, much like around a conference table in a court. and, you know, always great jokes. so he had a great family life. and you'd always see a twinkle in his eye when he's talk about his children and his many grandchildren. i think it was -- i keep forgetting the number now, but it's quite a number. is it 42? it's a very large number of grandchildren.

so he was a great family man. he was also, of course, very devoted to his faith. and there's one image that's just indelibly marked on my mind about that. he'd sit, he'd -- after holy communion, he'd go back toward the back of the church, go back to the pew, kneel, bow down completely still and silent for a long time with his face cupped in his hands. and that was, for me, just a tremendous symbol of his humility. and i think that it spoke volumes about, about who he was. and and that was, of course, very much instilled upon his family, though they tell different stories about the prenettic rush to get to mass -- frenetic rush to get to mass.

you can imagine when you have nine children, it's not easy to get out of the house for 9 a.m. mass on sunday or getting into mass late and sort of rustling around. but ultimately, he imparking lotted a tremendous sense of -- imparted a tremendous sense of faith and family on his children. and you can see that, they're all great kids. many of you probably saw father paul scalia's celebration of the funeral mass in washington and, of course, you were there. it was extraordinary. to see his son preside over that mass for, what, two hours? must have been at least two hours. have to cross the casket to stand before his entire family to deliver what was probably one of the most powerful homilies i've ever seen at a funeral mass or any mass. and that is, i think, a tremendous tribute to his dad, right the? that was in many ways a manifestation of that upbringing.

so it's really quite, quite powerful. >> justice, can you share with us what the holiday parties at the court were like with justice scalia? [laughter] >> the supreme court has a christmas party every year, and justice scalia was the, i don't know if he was the self-appointed -- i suspect he was the self-appointed -- sort of head of singing. [laughter] he had a great voice, so he would sort of lead the room in the supreme court where the caroling took place, and he would lead the caroling with a great deal of gusto. but, you know, in terms of his singing and his music and the joy he brought to that as well, the hinge that i remember -- the thing that i remember actually even more than the holiday party is we have this tradition at the court -- court is a place of many traditions, some of them a little bit peculiar.

and one of them is we gather for any justice's birthday, all nine of us, and we sing happy birthday to whoever's birthday it is. and justice scalia was, is -- was the only one of us who could sing. [laughter] so justice scalia would sing happy birthday, and the rest of us would go kind of -- ♪ ♪ [laughter] you know? and then after justice scalia's passing, we had to kind of carry on without justice scalia's voice, and it really sounded atrocious. it was terrible. [laughter] so all of us were like, oh, my gosh, bring nino back, please. [laughter] >> bill, we've talked a little bit about the justice's statutory interpretation contributions. we haven't yet touched on his contributions to the interpretation of the constitution and his originalism. some people profess surprise when the justice often ruled in

favor of criminal defendants whether it be in the sixth amendment context, crawford, fourth amendment, kilo, jones, the rule of lenity which he promoted or even just last term in the acca cases. do you see those rulings as surprises? >> no, i don't think in general it was surprising at all that his interpretive methodology would lead him with some frequency to rule in favor of criminal defendants. when people sometimes criticize him and other judges and justices for being results-oriented, i often think you think as a policy matter they think it's a good thing if a person who's obviously guilty of a serious crime goes free as a policy matter? that's a good outcome? he would want that? of course not. but there are more important values at stake than the immediate, than that immediate question, obviously.

and so for the justice, he took some time intellectually to come to the view that originalism was the right way to interpret the constitution with all of its challenges and foibles. and one thing he liked to say was you can't beat something with nothing, and there's not a lot of good competitors out there. that's what he would a say. and so if he believed that the constitution as originally understood, its original meaning, required an outcome then, of course, that's where he would go without fear or favor every time. and one thing about justice scalia's personality was that he believed -- or his views, he believed that the default position of human beings in this country is one of freedom. that's where we start. we're free, and something's got to intervene to change that in

the law. and the constitution, originally understood, originally meant some abridgments on people's liberty out of bounds, it's that simple. that's, obviously, very simple for lawyers to hear that talk. but the fundamental fact was for him to the extent that he was libertarian when it came to criminal procedure cases, it was because he believed that the constitution itself was founded upon libertarian premises when people are dealing with the government many situations where the -- in situations where the criminal law is at stake, the people who made this law made sure that the freedoms of people could not be abridged in specific ways, and he followed that where he thought it led. >> would either of you two like to comment on originalism and the justice? leonard? >> well, i think it was part of

a broader enterprise for him which is the preservation and defense of the structural constitution. i think one of the most important contributions he made was inspiring two generations of law students to think about the constitution in a different and really important way. if you go back to the '70s and '80s and even to some extent today, when you ask people about the constitution or about constitutionalism, they tend to talk about rights, you know? the first amendment, the fourth amendment, criminal procedure rights, privacy, equal protection. and i remember he used to say over and over again as he crisscrossed the country talking to law students, he used to say -- he used to ask why is america such a free country? if you think it's the bill of rights, you're crazy.

every, every president for life, every banana republic, even the former evil empire, the former soviet union had a bigger and better bill of rights than ours. and the point he was trying to make was that without the structural constitution, without separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances, bicameralism -- he used to talk about all of these different structural features with law students all the time -- without those things, those rights are just partially guarantees. now, i think, of course, the limited role of the judiciary which is tied up with the issue of originalism and about how one goes about the business of interpreting the constitution is a part of this commitment to defending the structural constitution as, in his view i think, the most important bulwark of freedom and the dignity and worth of the human person in our constitutional system.

>> i was reminded when bill said that in his view originalism didn't have to be perfect, it just had to be better than the other methodological contenders, i was reminded of a joke that justice scalia used to tell about this. it was about two guys in a forest, and a bear comes along. one of the guys starts running, and the one guy says why are you running, you can't outrun a bear. the guy says i don't have to outrun the bear, i just have to outrun you. [laughter] that is true, nothing's perfect and the question is, you know, what's better than the rest? you know, i myself, it's going to be no shock to you all, think that originalism is not better than the rest, and i'm not going to take time now to talk about that. but instead just to say one thing about justice scalia's contribution in this area which is that i think justice scalia

put on the table for absolutely everybody, those who reached his answer and those who didn't reach his answer, a pretty fundamental question and a pretty fundamental challenge. and that was that somehow, somehow everybody had to come up with a method of resolving constitutional robs that -- problems that disciplined judges. in other words, that a judge couldn't do whatever he or she wanted, that a judge couldn't say here are my values, here are my principles, here are my politics, here's the way i think a perfect world would look like, that that was not the way to do the law, and it was not the way to do constitutional law any more than it was the way to do other law. and that what justice scalia, i think -- but what his really outspoken, even aggressive formulation of originalist principles and an originalist methodology, what it did was to make everybody else -- those who didn't share his answer as well as those who did -- grapple with

this question of if it's not that, if it's not the originalist answer, if it's not that, what does discipline judges? and you have to come up with an answer to that question, and if you don't have one, indeed, originalism does win. the only way it loses and the only way another method of interpreting the constitution can be better than it is if it has a better, is if it among its other virtues has an answer to the question of how are judges disciplined so that it's not all about them. it is about the law. >> justice, i don't know if you saw this when you were at law school teaching, but i also get the impression that he improved upon the originalist enterprise in some important ways. when i went to law school in the '80s, we talked about it more as original intent, and law students had a tendency of

trying to get into the heads of particular framers. and be i think his origin aalism was -- originalism was much more the if not exclusively about public meaning and a proper use of originalist materials in that way. so i think in additioning to advancing the theory of -- in addition to advancing the theory of judges, i think he improved upon its approach in a way that i think is very important for people across the ideological and philosophical spectrum. because there are people on the left who tend to use originalist principles a little more than maybe 20 years ago. and i think that's partly because it's been, i think, tweaked a bit in good part by justice scalia's role. >> i just want to add a word about this subject, two separate, very quick points. one is i do think that this these times in which we live in the legal world and more

broadly, it is important to just note and reflect upon the reality that the nine justices who disagree about big things very sharply sing happy birthday to one another, that justice kagan is here speaking about her friend justice scalia even though they disagreed mightily about big, big questions. and it's, the supreme court and how its functions -- it functions collegially should be a role model for all of us in our professional and personal lives. i also want to say about precedent, the justice believed in the rule of starry stare dece was often times point to the commission on the wall, and he would say i am not a nut! be and he's responsible for -- he said i'm responsible for the vote and for what i say and starry stare decisis is part of our system. and so one way in which we temper deep and fundamental philosophical disagreements

about how justices should go about their job and how judges could interpret the law is through the doctrine of precedent. the reason why -- frequently at least -- that justice kagan and justice scalia could agree on a case about something that matters a lot in the real world would be that they would agree that the precedents lead to an outcome. and i think that's an important safety valve in the system of jurisprudence that we have. >> all three of you are among the finest legal educators in the country. and i know justice scalia cared passionately about legal education, and one of his great memorials, leonard is involved in with the renaming of the george hayson university -- mason university law school in the justice's honor. i wonder whether you all might contribute on his views and contribution to legal education. leonard or, do you want to start with this? >> well, he always, he always

loved being a teacher. and i think even when he was a judge, he was really a teacher. he used to talk about how his dissents were a way of imparting ideas on future generations of law students and lawyers. i think it's very fitting that there this be a law school named in his honor because of his dedication to teaching the law. george mason, obviously, is a school that, you know, is near where he lived and worked, and he also gave the dedication speech to george mason many, many years earlier when it first started. so it's, in that respect, a very appropriate place. but he had a tremendous love for the legal academy broadly. i think he had great affection for what was going on at harvard, particularly under justice kagan's leadership back then. he used the talk about that from time to time. he loved his years teaching at uva and chicago and even

stanford briefly. and he loved crisscrossing the country talking to law students. he used to spend an hour, an hour and a half on his feet fielding question after question after question, and he did occasionally get a question about legal education. occasionally, a law student would get up and say what should i do here at law school to really prepare well? and this goes back to, i think, a point that, bill, i think you made about how people expect federal judges to be experts at everything. he used to tell law students take the real law courses. take intellectual property, take tax, you know? take the statutory courses. learn how to be a real lawyer and learn real law. sure, you can take a seminar on law and philosophy, but take those other real law courses, because that's what you're going to need. and he used to express regret sometimes at not taking enough of those in law school. >> i'll just add that he would often say, i'm sure many of us

in the room have heard him say, that the reason why he wrote his separate opinions was for the law students. and for the future generations of lawyers. he, he was concern given the rest of his personality, he was surprisingly optimistic in the sense that he actually thought that reason would and should prevail. and so he would make the case, and he would say, yeah, i didn't persuade people this time, but maybe next time. and sometimes that happened. but he also wanted to make his separate opinions, especially his dissenting opinions, well, fun to read. and, because law students have short attention spans, i guess. [laughter] and so part of that was, you know, his educational mindset was i want to, you know, if i can't persuade people today, i'm

thinking about ten years from now. >> and and he succeeded in that. i mean, i was a classroom teacher for 15 years, and i thought thousands of students, and the most fun classes almost always involved a justice scalia opinion. and students are mesmerized by the way justice scalia writes. and sometimes he wanted to shake them a little bit -- you wanted to shake them a little bit. you know, come on, just look past the way he writes, you know? [laughter] but he was so -- the way he writes is mesmerizing. and in positions that you didn't think you would ever be attracted to all of a sudden become attractive because of the way he presents them and argues them. and if -- he did say a number of times that his target audience was law students and, boy, he hit the bull's eye because law students, they come in, they'd open up these textbooks, it's

dry opinion after dry opinion. nobody looks as though they have a sense of humor, nobody looks as though -- just, you know, there's no life. and then you reach a justice scalia opinion, and you start smiling, and you start nodding along, and you start fighting with him within the opinion. and, i mean, it's just -- the opinions are, they just -- it's a hard thing even to describe, you know? year after year after year, class after class after class, all these students, they would come to me and they would say, you know, i came to law school like a good liberal, and i just find myself really attracted to what he's saying. now, he would say that that was because of the power of his ideas, and i'll let him have that. but in addition to that, there's

just an incredible power behind the style, and he knew what was going to make law students sit up and take notice, and they did. >> will we rank justice scalia in the pantheon of justices a hundred years from now? >> i'm not sure i want to do a ranking, but one of the things that i said up at harvard and i'm glad, you know, he was alive then, and i'm glad he knew that i had said this, he actually critiqued my entire -- [laughter] scalia lecture. it was fantastic. john manning sent him a tape, he watched the whole tape. he came back and he had, like, four points of agreement and four points of disagreement. [laughter] it was tremendous. you took an hour of your life to -- and it was like, well, of course i did, you know? what are you talking about. it was tremendous. but one of the things i said then is i said, you know, all of us, you know, a-up years from

now -- a hundred years from now most of us are names are -- our names are going to be forgotten. nobody's going to remember who we are. we seem important now, but in the long course of history, i mean, i assure you if you go back to justices in the 1916, you won't know a lot of those names. .. that we talked about because of the way he wrote, because of the way he changed comes with all talk about law. what fascinated me the most was the fundamental thing and it was a little implicit in to educate

to your statutory interpretation question but justices scalia changed the framing of legal arguments. he changed the way we all speak that argued about law. pretty good accomplishment or so 100 years from now people will wake up and they will say who were the supreme court justices, who would be great, whether you agree or disagree with any member of the decisions, he's going to be high on that list. >> i completely agree. i did write one time that when justice scalia was appointed there was lots of comments, nominated. a lot of commentary this very young and charismatic and charming and full of life person would be very effective on the supreme court, walking the halls and charming his colleagues into agreeing with them in contested cases.

that was part of the narrative actually before he was confirmed. very quickly several years later and there is peace to put nation and he alienates people and is ineffective. it's my view that justice begin did play the long game and he wanted the ideas in the words do matter over time. i think what justice kagan says about transforming debate in fundamental ways is exactly right and i think he will be remembered for that. he will be remembered as well i think although not unrelated for his prose. the pros really was unbelievable. after justice jackson, with justice jackson, it's hard to find better pros in supreme court opinions than that of justice scalia. and i do think sometimes that distraction. what justice kagan said about students being beguiled by the

verb of the writing with a really digging into the underlying substance can sometimes be true. i think justice jackson's opinions are better written and reasoned. but having said that one of the things justice good frequency is good and clear writing is a sign of good and clear thinking. the opposite is true as well. i think history will treat him kindly on both fronts. >> i have no doubt he will be remembered as a great justice. i also hope he will be remembered as a great american. this not only has to do with the quality of the work product but with the integrity, honesty, dedication to our country and its ideals your i think dedication to faith and family. and so help is that he will be both a great justice to many people but also remembered as a great american who defended our

country's principles and stood up for what could character out to be in public life more broadly your. >> please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> we have the road to the white house event later. hillary clinton and former vice president al gore will be appearing at a campaign rally in miami. live coverage at 3 p.m. eastern on c-span. also donald trump will be speaking to supporters at about in panama city, florida. coverage begins at 8:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. we have for you tonight at the live hour-long interviews separately with third party

presidential candidates, gary johnson is at 8 p.m. and the green party jill stein follows at nine. we will take your phone calls and tweaks for the candidates. >> watch c-span's live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on wednesday october 19. live debate preview from university of nevada las vegas starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. the briefing for the audience is at 8:30 p.m. eastern and the 90 minute debate is at 9 p.m. eastern. stay with us following the debate for your reaction including calls, tweets and facebook postings. watched the debate live or on-demand using your desktop, phone or tablet at c-span.org. listen to live coverage on your phone with a free c-span rated at. download it from the app store or at a google play. >> c-span greater but america's cable television companies and brought you as a public service

by your cable or satellite provider. >> members o of the house and senate in their constituencies doing very -- various activities. pete olson tweeted this picture today. change, 7:20 a.m. sunrise, too dark. >> congress is out until mid-november. some of the lame duck items of good government funding past december 9, a to flip michigan for the contaminate the water situation, medical research and defense department programs. the house will be back november 14. the senate will meet the next day. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. >> and not candidates for utah's fourth congressional district incumbent republican mia love and democrat doug owens debate congressional ethics rules, the

economy, climate change and america's criminal justice system. >> from the campus of salt lake energy college in salt lake city, the utah debate commission welcomes you to the fourth congressional district candidates debate. [applause] >> i'm ken verdoia unwelcome to salt lake yemen because one of the most anticipated exchanges sponsored by the utah debate commission the utah debate commission during this 2016 election season. tonight we gather for debate between candidate in utah's fourth breschel district and our debate is a rematch of an exchange that took place two

years ago. tonight we'll hear from the republican candidate, the incumbent. love:mia love and the democratic candidate doug owens. prior to airtime it was determine doug owens would have the first opportunity. mr. owens. owens: good evening. want to thank the debate commission for organizing this event. congresswoman love for being here. thank you. i want to thank salt lake community college. this is one awesome institution. to educate 60,000 young utahans and give them a great launch into laughter on proud to be your. i want to tell you why i'm running. my dad came from a little town in southern utah. he was the youngest of nine children born in a one bedroom house. my grandfather lost his arm in the depression. so my dad grew up dirt poor. he did not have a toothbrush until he was 15. but he believed in the american dream and so at 18 he came up to

salt lake city and he got a job at kentucky fried chicken. with that job is able to put himself through the university of utah your i know you students out salt lake community college or not able to do that. you are taking heavy student loans. i am running because we need to keep college affordable and every of the pathway that people follow to get into the living wage job, the kind of jobs they can raise a family on, it's critical that we hang on to every one of those pathways. so that's college come that's job training, that's biggish anybody gets an opportunity to get back into a living wage job. that's what i'm running to fight for you and i appreciate against the chance to be. thank you for moderating. love: thank you. thank you to all the students that are here today and thank you to all of those that are watching from home today. i know it's easy to take in the doom and gloom of the daily news, but i want you to know

i've confidence in our nation. i have been able to work with the fourth district. i've worked with extraordinary people. people like gordon who is here with me today your gordon was injured, severely injured in combat while serving in iraq. thank you for everything that you done for us. we are you a great deal of gratitude. there are a lot of people that believe we can solve our problems because we are too divided as a nation. although i disagree quite often with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle i think there's more that actually unites us than divides us. i've been able to post several of them here in our state to show them what we do as a community to elevate people are striving for a better life. we have made so much progress that we've been able to bring people to come along with it. people like david scott a democrat in the house who has endorsed this campaign. that hasn't happened in heaven knows how long. it's because david scott knows the issues we face are not just

left or right issues. they are american family issues. i think it's time that we elevate the conversation past the politics to the solutions that are going to our utah families. i hope we can do that tonight. thank you. >> moderator: the debate commission is established implement allows each candidate 90 seconds for a reply to a question. these questions were drawn from voter input to utah debate commission website. other questions will, from our audience here including students from salt lake community college. each candidate will also have rebuttal time to speak directly to the use of the opponent but each question. so let's begin. how can we ignore this one? the last five days of represent a new level of intensity in the spirited debate over the qualifications of candidates standing to serve as the next president. throughout the nation people are beginning political conversations with i could never vote for, and then they fill in that blank. what are the values you were

looking for in the next president and he best represents those values in 2016? representative love. love: being the only woman in the delegation, it's incredibly difficult to do with the environment in a male-dominated congress, but i'm from utah and comments into the things like to roll off my back. however, the past weekend has really given us an insight as to what is really at stake in washington. let me give you an example. for too long our members of congress have given their power away. our members of congress, people in utah and around the nation have been looking to washington for the answers. now is the time we need to look within. i stood very firm and have not endorsed donald trump and i certainly have not endorsed hillary clinton. now is the time for us to make

sure that we have a balance of powers to the administration. now is the time to make sure that nancy pelosi isn't the speaker of the house, that we do everything we can to make sure as a check and balance in washington because it's time to restore utah's voice acting, make sure we're concentrating on us in what we needed you to restore the people's voice back into washington transit you seem to have injected none of the above as a box to check. i want to ask you once again, as a candidate represent your values in 2016? love: i can tell you right now hillary clinton doesn't represent my values. donald trump does a record -- doesn't represent my values. again, i have not closed the door on the other candidates. but there's still some time left. >> moderator: very well. you clarify. your response. owens: i do look for values in national politics. i look you at home.

i know many people have struggled with this issue in the presidential, i think there's been too much focus. i ran for congress not to play in the presidential race to do what i could for utah. sisix generations of them have called this place home, seven if you count my kids were here tonight. i'm interested do what i can for utah. i have said i'm voting for my party's nominee that that's not come i've not endorsed any candidate. i end up it is beginning to raise. i am kind to do it again for utah. i don't look there for values. i think we need to get our values to washington. i think of people like firefighters who have endorsed my candidacy. those are guys who run to the problem. if we have more of those values in congress come if we could roll up our sleeves and get the job done, that's the kind of values we need to take. i think of teachers who are really struggling. my mother was a teacher. she put her heart and soul into her job. she's her own salary to help pay for the materials in the classroom. those are the kind of people who

are partly our school system and to educate our children. that's why but for values and those of the things i want to take to washington. i think it's important when you look at the presidential race it's all the more important to pick the person who can go to washington and take our values there and do what's right for us. >> moderator: apparently i missed the distribution of polls. i've never been with two candidates in a debate setting where neither candidate would publicly endorsed a top of the national ticket in a presidential election year. i'm going to come back to you one more time. what are we hearing about the american state of politics that you to give you cannot endorse her own top ticket? love: i said i wouldn't endorse and i'm not going to vote for the two nominees at the top of the ticket. however, i think it's important that when we say we're going to vote for somebody, especially when you're in number of congress, there are people that are looking to you.

you become that example. i find it really interesting that my opponent says that he is supporting counties voting for hillary clinton, this is a person who has lied to the american people, this is a person who took their e-mail servers and hid them. this is a person who the soldiers in benghazi on their own and actually nothing. so again i am sticking with my district and sticking to the issues that might get you to supporting and i'm not looking to washington as an example. we are looking right here. >> moderator: 45 seconds to respond. owens: i've indicate how i'm going to vote. what's more important i'm going to vote, get washington. i can work with the president of either party. i can hold them accountable no matter which party they're from when they're not doing what's right for our state. that's what i'm industries. is nothing to do with national party politics. i think people in washington are entirely too stuck on party labels come on the kind of nonsense the race to the bottom we've seen in the presidential.

i was talking to one guy over the weekend as it was like a nightmare he could wake up from. i think it's all the more bored you to focus on this race and put it of us can do for utah. >> moderator: let's move on to a next topic. a series of recent national surveys i major print and broadcast entities revealed deep-seated concern in the hearts and minds of average americans on to general topics. the economy and national security. we have students standing by that will pamper you with questions on the economy. at this point please turn your tension to national study. because of acts of domestic terrorism, americans are expressing concern for their own safety in their home states and in their home communities. short of declaring a police state how do we fight terrorism on our own shores without trampling the principles of justice? mr. owens, the first opportunity. owens: thank you. the highest party for me is keeping americans safe at home. that is absolute top priority.

i think that it's incumbent on congress to give the military, the fbi, and the immigration authorities all the resources they need to make sure that people are coming into this country are safe. and that we are safe at home. that's the absolute top priority for me. it's clear when you look around the world and you see an expansionist russia and china come to see trouble in the middle east and domestically as you say, ken, it's all the more important congress go to work to make sure we do come argued our military and our police the resources they need to combat terror. domestically it's interesting, if you look at those last three incidents of domestic care, all three of those guys that come up on law enforcement radar before the incidents. law enforcement for grace reasons have not gone after them. i think it's incumbent on us to examine those and make sure the police and other authorities have the resources they need to keep us safe. that's congresses job. >> moderator: and

representative love, your response on the subject of keeping americans safe at home from acts of terror. love: okay. there is no question that we have a serious problem in our country. a poll published last year shows that 47% of americans are fearful that they will be the victim, or a loved one, would be the victim of terrorist activities. for years the administration has been gutting our military. i believe that the world will see peace when we are a beacon of strength. when you're gutting the military as the administration is for the past seven years it makes it difficult for the united states to be a beacon of strength. we have to make sure we're providing the resources for our military. when it comes to boots on the ground there are certain values and things have to happen before i will agree to put boots on the ground. first of all the house, this can't be a decision by unilateral out unilaterally by

president or congress has to be involved. we have to make sure we have a clear mission as to what we're going to do and how these people are going to be able to come out. we have to make sure that if there's a threat to american lives, not just american interests. and we have to have a way out. if i would add another one for me would be to make sure that our men and women in uniform have all the tools that they need in order to combat, in order to reach their missions. those are the things i would do before i would be able to boots on the ground. >> moderator: rebuttal time. unlike an time. unlike when asked if equipped with each other because he made very broad statements in general support but let me ask you specifically, what are you the best person to represent the fourth district when it comes to making this nation safer from acts of terror on our home sure? doug owens. owens: i intend what might approach will be. every time i think about it is, those are the most weighty, the most serious decisions about

whether to apply the american forces. i will never lose sight of the fact that those are our sons and daughters. i never use the expression boots on the ground. those are your brothers and sisters. i've been here to do been here to the veterans been here to do that in center of salt lake chamber to college and i've seen that assistance mr. to make sure our veterans are taken care of. i'm the best person because i'm going to make sure to wake those decision as the most important, never losing sight of the fact that these are our people, our sons and daughters. trent lowe i can tell you i have made sure in the house that i support every proband and overcomes the only are we supposed to keep the promises that we made to our veterans when they come home. were supposed to keep the promises that w we've made to te families when they do not. i have voted to increase funding for our military, to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the tools they need. i have voted everything against the president when he wanted to gut our military.

there isn't a veteran out there in utah that understands the work that we've done, that knows, that doesn't understand that we been proband and promilitary. >> moderator: thank you both. i promise we would have student representation, that would be turning our attention to the economy through those students with very personal reactions. let's go now and to our audience here at salt lake community college and turned a student gabe eric your question. >> good evening. so my question is nearly 12% of utah's live in poverty. what measures do you support to reduce income inequality and food insecurity? such as increasing the federal minimum wage, expanding competition programs and boosting snack benefits? love: this is never would have worked across the aisle. i am the only republican member in the congressional black caucus and i've been able to host members on the other side of the aisle to we could talk

about what we've done in utah to elevate those who are striving for a better life, to lift poverty. we have to understand that the way to washington does it has actually hurt the most mobile among us. there's a difference between intergenerational poverty and situation poverty. sometimes the solution to one actually perpetuates the other. it's important to make sure in washington we give our local agencies the tools that they need in order to take care poverty. because they are the ones dealing with the issues over and over again and they know these individuals personally. there are a lot of people who have worked here in the state making sure we give them the tools. in terms of minimum wage and what the department of labor has been doing in terms of the overtime rule, a knee-jerk reaction for regulators is to create more regulation. they end up hurting those that they vowed to protect. in other words, when you raise the minimum wage and to artificially raise that wage,

it's very difficult for an employer who says i have a set amount of money, what am i going to do with that? often someone gets fired. often people think of losing their job. we should be doing what we do in the state, making sure we are creating jobs, making sure we're innovative, range down the unemployment rate so we can actually bring up the minimum wage. >> moderator: mr. owens, your opportunity to address several key issues of social with the economy. owens: i appreciate the question. this is why i am running. i looked around and seen way too many families, sometimes the parents working two, three, four jobs between them just to keep the lights on, just to keep food on the table. that's for those people that i am running for office. the jobs that were lost in the recession paid on average 22% more than the jobs that have been created since the recession. what the coach is americans are working harder than ever, more hours them more jobs and not doing as well. this is what i am running for congress.

this is the biggest reason. because want to make sure families have the opportunity to make the right choices for them. i've got a job plan that i've introduced, that hope to get the chance to work on in congress. it's working on education, deregulation, making sure we've got lower corporate tax or. no one should ever have an incentive to ship jobs overseas. it's rebuilding infrastructure. there is so much the congress can do on this issue. this is really why i'm running. i think you have to to get which of us can most effectively work across the party line. i think that's the finding -- the defining issue of our time. are we going to get hung up on these national issues or camry grow up our sleeves and go to work? i've got an opponent, congresswoman love, who has voted 98% of the time with her party. i will tell you that no party is right 98% of the time. we do need to roll up our sleeves, work across the aisle and saw some of these problems.

i'm proud of my ideas transcend i want to thank dave for his question. in rebuttal to what you each is basically respond to question. one of his concerns was your position on raising the federal minimum wage. you both talked about in principle. let me put before you the direct question. do you support an increase to the federal minimum wage, why or why not? love: actually i added the question. i believe that artificial raising the minimum wage on the federal side is the wrong thing to do. the way that we create jobs is by innovation. way that we create jobs is by free market principles, by deregulate. i'm glad my opponent agrees with me on the regulating because i'm part of the article one project that is deregulating congress. but we know that free markets have taken more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history of the world.

we have to make sure we're bringing down the unemployment rate so that naturally people can bring up the wages and allow people to thrive. >> moderator: obligated a 452nd opportunity as well. owens: the muscle of the obligation -- americans this is the private sector. i've been in the private sector my life. i've been in the real world helping to secure jobs. i've been a business attorney for 25 years. sometime the government needs to get out of the way. of the times there are things government can do to level the playing field and imagine some of the important job opportunity things come opportunities i think congress can bring about. the minimum wage is a tough issue because i have seen a business perspective where i know that this is sometimes is unduly impacted by government regulation. it is a two edged sword. it makes it harder to our but also increases the demand and economy. is a lot of evidence to the fact to back up what mitt romney said, that it is time to consider ways in this been

raising the minimum wage and that's what i want to do transit back to her student body. this is a representative of the student body. your question on the economy. >> thank you. so my question is tuition cost a dramatic increase in the past 10 years. often two to three times the rate of inflation. yet education is the best hope for many low-income americans. improve their lives and those of the families. what would you do to either increase the fafsa award about or in state, a year-round financial award? owens: let me state general about education and get more specific to you. you know, i do think about on my mother when it comes to education. i mentioned by that coming out of the small town. he was really poor. he had a very loving family but

they hav had no ability to helpm get on in life. it was the teachers who saw in indicates something special and investigating and help him get on his way in life. so i strongly believe in public education, and educate as a pathway, the number that would help people. this is something the parties i go to work together. let's invest in a people, grow the economy come enable them to take care of themselves, enable them to take care of the families. this is most critical issue for me in terms of job growth and building our economy. it's also the most critical issue in terms of getting caught is working again. also my mother was a fifth grade teacher in rose park. she put her heart and soul into that job and she used her own salary to buy classroom supplies. i knew many teachers are doing the. she went and took a fifth grade class all the way to washington, d.c. for a field trip. that's how much she cared. i think we've got a huge teacher retention problem in the state. we lose almost 40% of our teachers in the first five

years. my job would be to get every federal dollar i came into our education system. that is number one halfway to get people out of poverty and being full-fledged participant in our private enterprise system in this country which is our greatest strength. we need to tap everybody and make sure they're fully enabled to participate in the economy. that's my number one goal. >> moderator: representative love, your opportunity that five personal i want you to know that i thought about this and dissident a concern of mine. i understand what the students are going through. when i went to school college tuition was $20,000 a year. i actually at the age of 35 pay back all of my student loans. so think about this. today at the same school college education is $44,000 a year. how long is it going to take a student graduating today to pay back those student loans?

the problem that we have one of these unlimited flow of federal dollars going in to higher education, it's causing the rate of higher education to rise far faster than the rate of inflation. it's making it difficult permitted income families and the poor stems able to go to school. i want you to know that i know that education is the great equalizer and also believe the family is a great stabilizer. we have to do everything we can to put money back into the hands of families and put free market principles into our college education so that way the schools tend to be for those fun things. one event has i've introduced three bills that does exactly that. the college, the now before you go act which allows the schools to give you a matrix of how much it costs, how many people have been able to graduate in the area study and if there are jobs, rather than jobs waiting for them. we've also introduced a college of for the act and the hero act so that we can bring down the

cost of higher education so you are not spending all of your life being backed a federal government. >> moderator: let's turn to rebuttal time because of differences between u2. mr. owens, you have the first opportunity. owens: thank you again for the equation. it's a very important one. i will say on important things that we do to bring down the cost of higher education. for starters give them enough money sitting in the capital markets to lend a bank 0%, student loans out to me that 0% keep investing in themselves, whether they'll do that. we have to go after these predatory private schools a lot of the debt on kids and don't let them have any opportunity to pay that off ever. there's an awesome idea that came out of taylorsville where they put committed senior of high school the first year of community college at no expense to the student. there are great ideas. there are no shortage of good ideas to make college affordable. whether is is a lack of goodwill in congress to get anything done. we need to make sure we change that. i'm tired of sending people to

washington who are justly out for themselves and forgetting to send them there after not getting the work done. >> moderatortransit a reminder that timing devices around your not just for ornamental purposes. they do indicate the allotment of time and the fact that it expired. i'm going to give you 45 seconds to respond on the subject of education. love: there's a clear difference between my opponent and i and i think that's okay. this is your choice. there is a monopoly right now with the federal government and they're the only ones there providing the student loans. i think that we should be able to open up those markets. i think colleges should complete editing the institutions should also be held accountable. have to some sort of skin in the game to make sure that students that are graduating are able to get a job when they graduate. it's also important to realize that for your colleges is not

the only option out there. that the skills training, that the our online training. there's accreditation that are states can work with. we want to open up the options iinto people's the options as possible. owens: you have the first response of the next question. deeply that is conclusive scientific evidence that human activity substantially contributes to climate change? help us understand your reasoning on the subject and what you believe is the appropriate role for the federal government and congress. love: the first town hall meeting that i held as a new member of congress was in west jordan. a number one issue, we had residents come from all over, a lot of those residents came from south salt lake military and climate change was one of the biggest issues. so much we decided you going to do a town hall based on that issue alone. we got a lot of our local groups involved.

what we did instead of venturing back and forth, we focus on solutions. we have four guests that were there that talk about innovative technology so that we could make sure that we're taking vehicles off the roads that are emitting pollutants. we talked about educating on the climate. i'll tell you right now all of my colleagues my side of the refused to recognize that there may be a problem, and so any time you look at salt lake, at certain times of the year, you can tell that there is a problem with inequality. i think we need to focus on the solutions. i don't think we should do it at the expense of coal, at the expense of some of her other energy producers. this is a false choice when he saith of one or the other. i think the solutions can be found right here in the fourth district. i think we can get all of the players involved and find the solution that i think it's important to be good stewards of the land that we live on.

that's why clear path has endorsed me. i support clean energy. i support all of the above. i think we need to do everything we can to make sure that we are getting people involved and really talking about these issues. >> moderator: mr. owens. owens: i appreciate your warning about those red, yellow and green lights. reminds me of driving with my kids. i don't that red light is not just a polite warning. so i appreciate that i will try to be more observant. so climate change, there is evidence that climate is changing. there's strong evidence humans are contributing to a. the tougher issues what are we going to do about it? i look around the world fantasy need to make sure that whatever is done is done on an international basis. i have no desire and i would fight any effort just to handicap our economy to curb co2 emissions when china or some other country is growing at such a rapid rate that they will be erased those gains immediately.

i think it's got to be done on an international basis, cooperatively. so it's a tough issue. we talked about jobs. my number one issue in running is wanted to make sure families don't have to three and four jobs just to keep the lights on. i see a great opportunity to bash of larger problems. we've got a climate change issue and we've got a job issue. we can put those together and make an opportunity to invest in a clean energy system that would export all over the world. so let's use our resources as a people to invest in education and in industry that's developing clean energy technologies. and then we can go export that and create good jobs at home. we need to lead on this issue and there's multiple reasons to do it. sometimes he put together to problems you get the opportunity to. >> moderator: we are passing the midpoint of our time tonight and want to welcome you once again to this live debate between candidates in utah's fourth congressional district.

we are on the millichap us of salt lake community college. this is the second election cycle served by the utah debate commission and that's a landmark effort in voter information with the media joining together with a citizen-based initiative to provide debate coverage for utah's federal and statewide offices. tonight's questions are drawn from those submitted to the utah debate commission at their website. we encourage you to visit the site to learn more about the commission and to you biggest debates%. we invite your comments and feedback on election year effort of the commission. he would alter the website, utah debate commission.org. back to our exchange. the question from another student, sydney. >> according to a 26 report by the joint economic committee of euros of congress the united states is a projected to close the gender pay gap for another 43 years.

i will be 63 by then and how will you work to close that gap sooner? >> moderator: i'm going to direct your question for an initial response to doug owens and ask you to be gentle with people in their 60s. [laughter] owens: you know, i was blessed with a very strong mother. i got a very strong mother-in-law who's here tonight. i've got a very strong headed why. i've got a very strong headed daughter. i strongly believe in making sure that we respect women as people, that they be equal participants in making choices. have opportunities to make the choices that anybody does. you know, 20 odd years ago when i first had been practicing law for a few years, my wife and i were looking at our circumstances. we realize that she couldn't finish her training as a pediatrician, maybe doctor, if i didn't take a couple years off to stay home with my kids. so we have it in three little

boys, and i have a chance to take two years off from our law practice and stay home with them. it was a life altering experience, and it changed my world and the way i look at it. i have told you about these parents that i see working three and four jobs between them and not saving for their own retirement and that saving for the kids education. this is why i am running. this is what i want to go to work on. i had put to use of my life behind an idea that i strongly feel that women onto every opportunity if you want to go seek. i will work to close the pay gap and work on any other issue that could help advance the cause. >> moderator: representative love, your opportunity on narrowing that gender gap. love: merely a gender pay gap, okay. sydney, thank you for that question. i can it's incredibly, i have an insight into his because i am a female in a very male-dominated area, and there are times where it's important for us to know that we have a voice out there.

we should be out there women i believe i did part of running the economy. even though i'm a member of congress, i am a mother, and my first job is to make sure that in providing for my children and that i'm teaching them. not to be victims but to make sure that they're getting the skills and education that they need. there's quite a few different ideas when people are taking in a country at what the wage gap is to do some women to choose to stay home and that is their choice. but if a woman chooses to go out into the workforce, she should be paid the same amount of money as america's pay for the same amount of work. i think they should be opportunities for women to be able to become managers, to become ceos going to be able to provide great innovative products that maybe we haven't seen before. those are the great opportunities that we have.

i have joined the caucus which is the great tactical education caucus and it promoted s.t.e.m. education for our young women. because my daughter wants to be a rocket scientist, and the as a congresswoman, it's my job to provide all of the opportunities to do just that. >> moderator: do we leave it to the good graces of market forces that would eventually close this gap most efficient and effectively in the private sector or is there a role for strict mandate from the federal government ensuring that there is no pay gap between genders? mr. owens. owens: the law should require editors require that there be equal pay for equal work, and to think that get enforced. i have tried to sow believe in that and i'm trying to say that i put my money where my mouth is in terms of trying to support my own wife and my family. i hope people will see someone who is currently invested in the issue. >> moderator: do we need for the regulation or is it something that's going to be

addressed in the market? love: i didn't have any answer to that from an opponent so it's hard for me to understand ready stance but i can tell you i stand on the issue. whenever government gets too involved in one issue, the same thing always happens, quality goes down, prices go up in the in between those dates out to protect. i think the issue we need to face is creating, loan for people to be innovative, create more jobs, create more opportunities for our young women to be up to get an education in all areas of technology so that they can compete in this world. >> moderator: i mentioned national surveys of voter concerns. one recurring theme is a strong, widespread distrust of the federal government in general. congress specifically. our federal government is viewed as being tied into knots with partisan intransigence, valued more important to stable two-party rather than to engage in shared problem-solving. i assume you're not self

identify as being part of the problem, so please help me understand how you do so as an antidote to this toxic situation. representative love, first opportunity. love: i mentioned in my opening argument that it's important for us to bring people to come along with us. went iran for this office i promise i would bring people to come along with us. david scott, a democrat in the united states house of representatives, has endorsed our campaign. we have been able to go and, heaven knows how long that's been a we reached across party lines and we said forget what the party says, let's work on these issues. we've been able to do that. in terms of more importance to a boil to a party come up with i've been pretty independent in making sure i stuck with my district, especially when it didn't just go along with the party nominee just to get along. it's important for us to make sure we're doing everything we can to bring people to come

along with us. i get to talk to the utah, utah values every day in washington. i get to go and tell them what we're doing great in the state in the hopes we can get people that really care about their communities to come along and we've been able to do that. i know that there was another question in there, i want to make sure i got the other part of it. >> moderator: the element out of party loyalty rather than shared problem-solving. i think you've addressed the question. i would reserve that time should you choose to expand it. mr. owens, your opportunity to respond for 90 seconds on the theme of toxic partisanship blocking shared problem-solving. owens: i think this is the defining problem of our time. you know, we've got a broken system, a system that will not work on any of the problems that we want it to come that will not fix immigration, not give us energy policy, when i could work on the president using armed

forces around the world. congress will not even debate what to do in syria. we have ample trouble. we have problems that need solving. we need to have a congress that works again. i have put out an important ethics program that help you give me the chance to go work on. it covers about requires covers to begin working five days a week again. but now they work to enact is a week. i think they should be washed in five days a week working together to solve these problems. we should do away with automatic pay raises, luxury travel to the self-promotional use of taxpayer dollars to fund mass mailers. there's a lot of stuff we can do to get congress working again. i hope i get the chance to do it because it is a defining problem of our time. i have seen a better way. i seem times when people got elected to congress and realized that the election has ended and they went to work to solve problems. this is how you run your family. you don't seem role of the people, you don't roadblocks of the people.

you work together. this is how you run the workplace. this is how we need to run together. we need to get back to work solving problems together. >> moderator: returning to you for an opportunity, to want to extend your time? at the absolutely. this a couple things i want to talk about because they have been brought up so support for me to bring this up. first of all i think some people believe the most important work done is in washington. i can tell you my experience, the most important work that i do is right here in the district where i was sitting across with other families that have issues, that are working through what is a be a problem are working getting to benefits, social security are working through being able to get their citizenship legally. those are the people i represent the most important work i do is right here and to support for me to come home every single week and remember who it is that represent. that is utah. not be in washington and stay there and forget who i represent the but it's right here.

the other thing i want to mention i want to continue to go to this, the whole idea of the self-promoting male is dishonest. both papers agree that there is dishonest and they're rarely agree. this is the benefit that mr. owens is actually using for his own purpose. keys using this benefit for its own purpose. he understands that this is part of an entire -- this bike stated time? >> moderator: you are in your extended time. love: i just want to bring up the fact that he didn't mentioned as part of a big budget, that we have saved $110,000 in the budget, that where we are up on communications we've decided to stay low on employers to make sure that we're spending time communicating. as a member of congress, it's important to let people know where we are, how to reach us. that's how we've been able to help mr. johnson received the medals if received the medals he

received a simple to bring the epic he is being dishonest and i think that we need to make sure that is recognized. >> moderator: mr. owens, you get one minute to respond. owens: congress has plenty of time to be home and to distribute they get every fourth week off. they get multiple recesses. they should be in washington doing business and forget out the problems of this country that are not getting solved. i think they ought to work five days a week again. i would do away with those mailers. you know, and i have no papers that it's incorrect and my apple has used $300,000 of taxpayer dollars per self-promotional mail. that's almost three times as much as every other member of congress from utah but together. i think that's a waste of money. my son got his first full-time job recently. he comes to mee me with his payb and he says that, what are these deductions? they are taking half of my paycheck. i know you know that disappointment i have seen it myself. i think tax dollars are sacred and that is a horrible waste of

money and i would stop it asininity to washington. >> moderator: turn back your student audience once again to the next question will be coming from honor hold. he is interested in what comes after his college education. >> so when i graduate with a degree in business in two years, i want to work a full-time job been that many young americans are cruelly underemployed or stuck in part-time jobs. what future plan to grow the economy wrecks. >> moderator: mr. owens. owens: i told you i'm born i think this is. i appreciate that question. i strongly believe education is our number one pathway forward. we have got to invest in our people. i had been in the private sector my life. i've been in the real world and have seen how business creates jobs. sometimes government needs to get out of the way. other times there are things to do to level the playing field. it doesn't bother me the kid flipping burgers is not earning what the ceo of the company is.

what does bother me and i don't bothers anybody in this room is the executive has a shot at the job. so let's invest in people, make sure they've got every pathway into the american dream. some people say the country is that you have a shot at getting wealthy. that is what it is. it's not how a few of us are doing it. i've got nothing against anybody getting wealthy but the american dream is about how all of us are doing. whether an everyday person can get the house in a safe neighborhood, can send their kids to good schools and to look forward to our retirement with some dignity. this is the number one priority for me. education is the biggest part. i've mentioned rebuilding infrastructure, deregulation, doing away with one the tax rate and doing away with all the loopholes so now has an incentive to ship a job overseas. fair trade agreement as another think we can work on. this is job one and i'll get to work on it. >> moderator: representative love? love: i want to make sure i get back to one more thing and then i'll answer your question very quickly.

where you are being dishonest is the house and actually scrutinizes every piece of mail that we sent out, and it is signed by republican and democrat to make sure that it is nonpolitical nature of also mentioned that he didn't have a problem when they communicate more than the rest of the delegation. he did that very well. he communicated with his constituents, and i'm proud of the fact that i used the budget to communicate as opposed to using the budget to th to have a massive amount of staff members. and i continue to behave fiscally responsible for turning my back to the treasury. to your answer, it's very clear what we need to do. and it comes to job creation. there are four pillars. people talk about three pillars but there are four pillars that need to happen. for small job creation through innovation, removing regulations that is stifling our small business. it is harder to open up a small business today than it has ever been in our history.

we have to make sure that we're producing energy. we have to be able to be competitive on the global market. we have to make sure that we sympathize the tax code. tax code makes it so that it's easy for people, for big businesses to get to the supposed and more difficult for our small businesses. and we have to create liquidity. went to make sure people have access to credit, whether it is buying a car, purchasing a house or being able to start a business. you do those three can you do those four and you'll be able to grow the economy and the united states will be competitive on the global market and. >> moderator: we will come back to you for rebuttal time and recognizing a good portion of the represent his comments dealt with the mailing privilege. owens: there is n the issue with some racing and to that announces a town meeting the that's not what those mailers

for about for one second. those were self-promotional capping pieces that were paid for by the taxpayer to my opponent just try to excuse that i see both the republicans and democrats do it. that's one of the problems back there. i would never do something just because everybody does it. goes our way someone and and i would do away with them. >> moderator: all right. representative can you have an additional 30 seconds. love: there's absolutely no response. this is just something he's using to his own benefit to complain because he's got nothing else. i understand he has a problem so it's okay. >> moderator: let me see how you respond to this question. our headlines -- [inaudible] >> moderator: you technically cannot because she way for rebuttal time to you don't get to claim it. so i regret that but more time will be coming. weekly our headlines are stained with reports of mass shootings in this nation the router nation big cities, small towns, on community college campuses. in 2015 more than 10,000

americans were fatally shot, more than 25,000 were wounded. those figures do not include use of firearms in suicides. apart from going on social media and praying for the victims and their families, what is the role of congress in addressing this issue? representative love, you had the first 90 seconds. love: i think it's important to recognize that there are people in their community that feel like they don't have a shot. there are people that you feel like you're being targeted. i think it's important to recognize that but i also believe that the role in any leader would be to unify, not to divide, our country. i believe that we are more divided today and we have been in seven years. i think that it's the lack of leadership on the administration side and, frankly, a lack of leadership in washington.

as they made what i did when we realized that people were having an adverse type of relationship with our police officers, we decided that w we're going to gt her own police officers that live in our own community, so people. enforcing the law for all of their neighbors. these are the same people that, their children are going to the same school playing in the same parts, going to the same church. it creates an environ where the person that is not an enforcer by the person is a community police officer. a person is going to help you in your neighborhood. it is incredibly important that we get everything we can to make sure we are not trying to fix the problem at the end. we have to make sure that kids on the street of baltimore, kids on the street here in salt lake actually have an education. so that we they can become police officers in their own community and be able to be the role model in their communities transit i've been informed that we have enough time remaining for your fold response to this,

mr. owens, but no further time. you have to 90-second opportunity. owens: i do want to go back and address one other issue. i think it's more to talk about what a city number of cards has been doing for two years. i think it's perfectly fair to point out the use of taxpayer money and i would give it any day of the week. i think there's no, i have not been abusing the privilege myself. i certainly never had any taxpayer dollars in my control to use in that way. i think it's terribly inappropriate and it's part of the ethics for i would do if i got back to congress to get congress working again, to do away with of mass mailers, self promotion, luxury travel and a future congress works again. i think that is the bedrock of what we're going to build to do to move this country forward because we can't make progress on these other issues until we reform the way congress operates. now, to the issue of policing. my brother is in law enforcement. i want to make sure every law-enforcement officer goes

home safety was kids at night. we need to give them the resources to do their job. we need to give them the resources to have the training to stop the conduct that sometimes we seem to often. but if we trained them, if we work together, i am all about solutions. i am all about trying to bring people together rather than saying it's us versus them. we can work together to solve our problems. this is the united states and i believe that's how we're going to go forward. it is just like her family. it is just like your workplace. if you take account of other people to see things get really, you can work out your problems and try and find common ground i will take the skill to washington. >> moderator: while i sincerely wish i had additional time to redirect the question, wwe've reached the end of our allotted time. four of the question was a candidate now we must move to one minute closing statement. prior to airtime it was determined that representative love would have the first 60-second opportunity. love: a key. thank you so much for being

here. i have had the opportunity to represent the wonderful diversity of the fourth district for the past year and after almost two years. and it is been my honor and my privilege to do that. i have gotten to know you. i do know your families, and this is not just about a job to me. you have become my neighbors and my friend of what you do know that i believe we still live in the greatest country on earth. it certainly is worth fighting for and it is worth saving. we should never let anyone tell us any different. you know, we are going to be able to have an opportunity, an opportunity to make sure the nancy pelosi does not become the speaker of the house, an opportunity to hold onto a republican congress so that we can be a check and balance to whatever is the president, and opportunity to look within instead of looking without. i think it's important for us to be able to vote. ..