senator hague hagan han has been a-- has been ahead. it's too close to call. at least half a dozen polls in the past month have shown her ahead. >> why? >> well, that's a good question. the race has been tight. north carolina is very closely divided between democrats and republicans. senator hagan has been making this as much as she can a vote about what her opponent, house speaker thom tillis has done in the state lector. it has taken the state quite a bit to the right and it's made some reductions in education spending compared to what gross would require. that is her main talking point in the campaign. >> in fact she's been quick to point out she has been the independent voice for north carolina in the u.s. senate. how does the tillis campaign

sfond to that? saysll the tillis campaign senator hagan is too closely aligned with president obama. they point to some policies, particularly the health care law. >> if you look at the upcoming debate between these two candidates courtesy of wral-tv, what are you looking for? >> it's a whans for the candidates to show voters directly how they're different from one another. some experts will think perhaps they will bring up things that didn't come up on the first debate on september 3rd, that might be issues like voting rights and gun control. ibs also possible like top like ebola and iraq and syria. speaker tillis has been trying to use some foreign policy

issues to show his strength and criticize senator hag. >> what does the tillis campaign have on the ground no north carolina and conversely the hagan campaign? >> it is more complicated in a midterm ewlecks there's no presidential race. both parties have people knocking on doors. they also have groups that support them out doing the same thing. >> we are a month away before the midterm elections. where this campaign is right now, the hagan campaign and the tillis campaign, has it surprised you or is it what you expected? >> well, it's so close and everyone all along said it would be very close. i can't say we're too surprised about that. it's still remains to be seen. >> the latest on the north carolina senate race. nee schoof is with the

mcclatchy newspapers. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. the u can watch tomorrow north carolina u.s. senate debate at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. the supreme court began its new term by refusing to hear same courts.als from several the supreme court's decision to not weigh in allows those lower court rulings to stand. next, a discussion on the sk's new term. hosted by the national review. his is an hour and 10 minutes. on behalf of national review

and the pacific legal foundation i want to welcome everyone, including those viewers on c-span to our first supreme court monday event. our focus today will be on the cases the supreme court just recently granted for this term and those which they denied that they would hear this year and some cases that our experts think that the court may grant for the second half of the term. i'm the executive director of pacific legal foundations new d.c. center. before i introduce our moderator and our panelists, i need to thank the national review for

hosting us here in their offices and for all that they've done to make this program -- especially amy mitchell who has been behind the scenes doing so. the phone staff and with learned contributors who already commented on some of today's development. as for our panel today, i need to cessarily -- i do want hit some important element. lisa black wearing the very tractive cowboy boots, i'll explain those in a minute. she has argued more cases before the supreme court than any other woman who currently practices before the court. so far, she's only argued 32 -- 33, i'm sorry, but she won 32 of

them. i know of no other person, living or dead, who's argued a significant number of cases who has that kind of record. great has also earned respect for her oral advocacy . d her written advocacy the supreme court law clerk has included her very easy oral argument style which i've seen on many occasions as scombem particularry -- exemplary. lisa is also teaches appellate law procedure at georgetown law center. to her left is john elwood. in a practice er group. he has argued seven cases before the supreme court.

he also has won aclaim among his peers as one of the leading appellate court lawyers, including his argue on almost every one of the federal court of appeals. john is also on the standing committee for the a.b.a. which helps the a.b.a. review its appellate briefs that it filed before the supreme court and other courts. john also is a frequent commentator in the legal blog. blog a conspur tore at the of consear see and he contributes to coverage of the supreme court. to -- the moderator's left but generally to the right is my colleague jim from the pacific legal foundation. he has not argued as many cases in the supreme court but he's

earned his grounds to be here today for several reasons. but since he's one of my bosses i will try to leave out the personal praise and stick to the facts. he is currently the litigation director for the pacific legal foundation. in 2001 he argued and won a case for a client. is think that his status one of seven -- several of those were under his leadership as litigation director. but perhaps even more importantly are the dozens of amicus briefs that jim supervisors that the pacific legal foundation file each year. there have been a couple of studies that have found pacific

legal foundation is the most prelivic filer in the supreme court for a public interest law firm and its effectiveness is among the highest as well. m's own focus is the -- is taking domain, wetland where he writes and he's a frequent speaker of academic conferences. our host today and pardon my one handed shuffle here, our moderator today is greg who has been covering the supreme court for bloomberg since 1998. he also writes for business weekly. he clerked for a federal judge after graduating from harvard law school. before that he was a congressional and campaign press secretary. many journalists later become press secretaries. greg went the other course and we all benefit from it. we benefit from his clear and

effective reporting, particularly on the big story -- stories that are in the law like the health care coverage. he has also been part of investigative reporting teams for bloomberg news and as such, has shared on several journalism awards. he received the sunshine award from the society of professional journalists of the financial crisis. several other awards recognizing outstanding investigative reports. he's an adjunct professor in georgetown -- i finally want to ention his book.

the book covers the effort by public interest lawyers, students and others to end racial preferences in colleges . d universities that issue resulted in kind of a muddled set of opinions that satisfied neither parties. that issue has come up again in recent years involving lisa's all mater -- alma mater, the university of texas. what we found most interesting about fwreg's reporting of the case was it focused on the players and their amicus brief strategy which i feel only a very gifted supreme court reporter could have written back. i will turn it over to greg for the rest of the problem. >> thanks very much, todd and

thank everybody for coming. this is going to be the panel that talk about all the sk store this year other than gay marriage and i think everybody in the room knows we had some gay marriage news out of the court today. i think we should address that. the court denied -- on seven pending petitions which essentially lets same-sex marriage go forward in 11 states and we will now have 30 gay marriage states, many of which are that way because of court decisions and the supreme court has decided it doesn't want to rule on the issue just yet. so i'll ask the panelists their thoughts on that development in a minute. what we will do is talk about some of the pending cases the court has agreed to hear this term and then try to get into some things that are a little bit down the pipeline that maybe the court to take up later on

this term. and we're talking about -- i'm going to try to have questions at the end. if you have questions on certain things as we go along, please fweel free to raise your hand and i will try to facilitate that. let me turn to the panelists and you all can start. whoever wants to start, start. widespread was a expectation that the court had to take gay marriage and instead the court said, no, we'll wait for now. first of all, are you all surprised as i am that they are not getting involved and what does it mean that the court is letting three med -- decisions from three federal appeals court stand and allowing gay marriage to go ahead there without them being the ones decided. >> you i am surprised. i didn't think the court would take them today.

the thing that surprised me was there wasn't a peep out of the court and they were able to resolve it basically in one try. the court when it confronts a different case, even some marginal cases will have to consider the case again and again over several conferences. it only takes one of the nine justices to say i'd like more time to consider this to have it kicked over to the next conference. the thing that strikes me about this is apparently not a single person was moved to write a dissent from the failure to grant it or that not a single person wanted to have more time to consider it. so it does seem to be a very conscious decision to kind of let it ride at the moment. you know, sure there is unanimity among the courts of ppeal. ordinarily that is considered a criteria for a cert.

when you consider other cases on the docket, it does seem to be there's kind of a disconnect between the importance of one issue versus the importance of another. with that, i will turn it over to you. >> we are going to talk about the under size fish case later on. >> when i think about why the court didn't take this place. you have to go back to rowe versus wade and think of the aftermath of that case where the public was outraged on one side and happy on the other. a lot of people said since then if the court did not decide rowe versus wade at that time the issue would have perculated through the states and they would have achieved the same thing. maybe the court was counting faces here in saying the liberals have what they need from the lower courts. why take this off up and bring all this attention and

unhappiness upon us again. and the conservatives may be saying we don't know where justice kennedy is going to go. that leaves four, you need five. maybe they were trying to avoid the issue. >> i'm actually not that surprised. there were some things a little unsettling about the fact both sides were telling the court to resolve it. it's usually the person who prevails want to keep that decision. and there as a little bit of fighting among the lawyers of who would take this case. the other thing that's remark bble it, and you guys can correct me if i'm wrong, but i think only the states of oklahoma and utah were actually defending their bans on gay marriage. >> you also had wisconsin and indiana, they filed later. >> defending? >> defending their own bands. >> maybe it was only virginia then hand nevada maybe. i i don't e don't remember.

i get the sense that why should they take the heat and all this controversy when they are going to make a lot of people unhappy either way. i'm not convinced they're still not going to take it. i know justice ginsburg was saying pubically a lot of this turn on what the sixth circuit does. if there is ever a split the court will have to take it. i don't think we know it that the court is not taking it this term. >> [indiscernible] >> i think i'm actually not familiar except i don't count the politics or who appointed them. but according to the argument it was not clear that the chaleners were going to win -- challengers were going to win i think there can be a digs in favor of the state. there was this unanimous sway of opinions until a federal district judge i think in new orleans upheld the ban. so i'm not convinced that their

done yet or this is the last word. >> one more question and we can move on. is it now inevitable that we will have a ruling legalizing same-sex marriage at some point? and the reason i ask it that way is there are now going to be 11 new states where same-sex marriage can go forward and can the supreme court say conceivably say to all those states all those marriages entered into, those were based on a mistake and view of the law and we are now going to change e law and future people in those same sex states cannot get married. is that -- >> the longer it goes on, the harder it's going to be. >> i frankly think if there are justices who do not believe that the due process clause has anything to say about this, that issue is not going to matter to them. everyone knows this turns on one justice. this is all irrelevant, what

we're discussing. oh, justice kennedy, sorry. >> i think that that's probably right. but it is -- you do have to keep in mind though that for the supreme court, at least where it comes up the mostst in criminal procedure cases where they will change the rules of criminal procedure and throw 40,000 criminal convictions into question. and so that's the thing is i think that it does matter to them how long it goes on somewhat or at least it matters to some of them. but there is a strong streak they will do what's right when the heaven's may fall among certain members. >> let's move on to some of the cases the court has agreed to take up. john, why don't you tell us about your case. >> there are some cases that have really good stories about them and your client's case is certainly a good factual story.

>> well, it's an interesting case for this term and i feel a a time t like being slot you have to use a joke from seinfeld. i was surprised to see one of my cases as being one of the leading cases of the term. i think partly because there aren't block busters, but it is because it is an interesting case. anthony was a 27 yeerlingd ---year-old working at an amusement when his wife of seven years left him and took both of their kids. this being the united states he it to his post about close friends on facebook. there were statements showing a remarkable degree of understanding of first amendment law. one line in one of his posts he

thinks the judge need an education -- there are some statements that are imathry which earned him a visit from the f.b.i. first it earned the attention of one of his other fabe friends who was in charge of the security patrol at the amusement park who turned it over from the f.b.i. and it eventually led to him being arrested. and he was tried. he argued throughout that under the first amendment what mattered was whether he intended to threaten somebody and the government argued with the view of most court of appeals that the quote -- to quote the government in the closing statement, it doesn't matter what he thinks. what matters is what a reasonable person would view those posts as saying. if he didn't mean it that way,

it is a matter of irconvenience o the first amendment. the supreme court added a second question which was we were happy if we had ecause raised the argument one might have said the argument wasn't reserved. the supreme court can add as many questions as it wants. by coincidence since the fifth circuit gay marriage case involved judge sutton, he concur separately in his own opinion and labeled it dubious because he didn't think that the use of the word threat means you got to mean it to be a threat. it doesn't matter -- the anyinal law very rarely has liability of what a reasonable

person think. it's got to be the guilty mind of the person doing it. so the court added that second question. i think the importance of this case is whether the case goes off on the statutory ground or the constitutional ground. this is just one federal statute and you can start again, you can try again later. roberts court has somewhat of a practice of throwing water on the issues and giving everybody a chance of trying to trim their sales before they invalidate their statutes. it will be more important if it goes up on a constitutional ground because you have several statutes, not all of which include a subjective intent requirement. in addition, there are several different federal stat -- threat statutes. it is interesting that's goes up on the constitutional ground. >> lisa, why don't you tell us

case about this. >> this is a case, young versus the united states and a case that was i think probably distressing for the government when the court took it, but this is a commercial fisherman who apparently there are states, licensing rules on fishing. you can't take the grouper if it is a certain side, 20 inches or under, and this gentleman or something equivalent to the state game warden saw what appeared to be or measured him to be an undersized fish and i guess he got a citation. they were locked in a crate. several hours later the fishermen threw the fish overboard. he was actually prosecuted under this basically, which is

basically the fallout from enron. the statute makes it a crime to falsify or make a false entry any record, document or tangible object. and the government said a fish is a tangible object, therefore he was guilty of a felony. i have a strong negative retooks that kind of prosecution. it seems silly that they are devoting resources to bring federal prosecution under a statute that is supposed to prevent another enron to destroy his red grouper or improperly fished red grouper, i guess the fish did not belong to him. the government wrote a shockingly good brief and i think a lot of observers are now -- i think everyone at least when it was granted predicted

this was going to be another big loss. we'll see what happens. i mean the argument on the defendant's side is record, documents, tangible objects. the tangible objects is something like a computer or a file cabinet that would hold documents. i don't know, i think the government at least makes a pretty obviously convincing case. there's no question that a fish is a tangible object. so in terms of people who like to watch, i think -- i like to make fun ch both conservatives and liberals. if you're conservative this case is very difficult because on the one hand it's government abuse. on the other hand there's a strong statutory the government has if you believe in plain language. it's interesting to see people's reactions to this case. >> i didn't realize before this provision there was no general federal ban on destroying

evidence of a federal violation, right? >> it was witness tampering and this is a companion statute to witness tampering. that was a lot of the outrage ost-enron. >> the government's argument is that -- the government's argument is the statute is tangible object. >> jim, why don't we talk about, this is one of my favorite cases of the year, the texas department of housing case. i'll load this this up a little bit thfment is a case the court granted last week. it is an issue. they have granted cert three times. under the fair housing act, you

have to show intentional discrimination or instead can -- that as known as a lending practice has a disproportionate practice on minorities. so as he talk about this case, here's what i want to ask you. 11 federal appeals court have ruled on this issue. all 11 have said, yes, the fair housing act allows this type of linalt. so why is the supreme court taking this case? with that loaded question, dive in, please. >> because 11 times doesn't mean it's right until it gets up to the big nine. and the issue here is does the fair housing act, does it encompass this impact claim? those kind of claims that only look at the impact that an action is having on a nstituent cal basis --

statistical basis. the fair housing act says it's unlawful to make unavailable or deny because of race, religion, national origin. that is why you were denied. so here, the texas department of housing was issuing various grants to allow for and promote low income housing and affordable housing in afford -- affordable neighborhoods. ost of these neighborhoods happened to be where poor people lived. that's where the need was. that's where the grants were being directed. statistically it shows there is an impact of this grant program on low income communities. with those sort of facts -- i think the court is clearly

concerned about this because as you mentioned, there are two ther grants. each n each one of those each ot got up and was ready to go, the pitch was being made. and just before the home run was struck at the court, the case settled. the department of justice and some friends of disparate impact analyses. we wanted to make sure these cases didn't get before the court. a lot of money was spread around. there is nothing unethical about that but it clearly does show that the department of justice really doesn't want the court to look at this. where we are talking about five justices, there is dissatisfaction with the state of desperate impact -- of disparate impact.

we are quite aware that some of the comments of that case indicate skepticism about disparate impact. we think the court is ready to take this case and ready to look at it. i don't think the texas department of housing is going to settle this case. i think they are a little less inclined than the other cases. other -- another interesting aspect of this case. that they ask for the opinions of the solicitor's office. just grantedey without asking the opinion of the solicitor. possibly because they knew already and they didn't want to than justse more time language as the solicitor takes a closer to fila brief and just delays it. i think the court wants to get this. if i can predict an outcome, i believe that a majority will

scans.t scans -- look at if it calls for it, that's one thing. but it doesn't here. there are issues. have government entities to look at whether or not their actions are neutral actions, if they are going to create a disparate impact, those agency start to have to count by race and avoid disparate impact claims. if they do that to avoid the claim, are they having an equal protection problem in doing that? >> let me turn this to lisa and john. feiled a the brief -- brief agreeing with jim's analysis that disparate impact viability -- >> it is hard to underestimate

how important this issue is. not just housing but insurance companies and lending. the same issue comes up under lending practices for banks. and so it is an extremely important issue. there is a lot going on with this drama because the civil rights community is definitely doing a lot to get these cases to settle. i could not agree more that this is going to be possible because the state of texas is now party. and the plaintiff is out of business. i could not agree with them more. being in front of them, having it reefs, and they are going to take it away. it is interesting for those of you that are not lawyers.

did rakegovernment this issue, it is easy to see intent.requires if i slammed the door in your face, i am making an available entrance. but what if i change my opening hours? i think that i do agree that this is not going to come out well. it is hard to predict until the case gets argued and briefed. >> you think it is unclear? >> because things change once it gets briefed and argued. >> let me ask it this way because i think i need to play devils's advocate on this particular issue. what does it say about the court that it wants so badly to decide that it has not divided the lower court. of gaytrasting issue

marriage, advocates on both sides get involved. they clearly want to do something. and therearted out was certainly a conflict on how to apply this impact. they are taking the second question and the court is already taking it. there is argument that the case law has created ambiguity. not reallys have given a full discussion of the issue. think she is right about the lower courts, looking at various balancing. they have intent to a certain degree and there is all kinds of confusion. we see the briefing twice before already. all know that oral argument

you either lose a case, but you can necessarily when one. unless the oral argument is oracle, -- horrible, i can't imagine it will change. >> what do you think about the impact of this beyond fair housing? >> and some would say what is driving the civil rights community is worrying about what is going to happen in the financial industry more than housing. think the financial institution has a stronger argument over that statute. they still have a very strong argument. and based on this decision, does the statute allow for disparate .mpact

discrimination. the adverse impact. >> why don't we jump to one of the new cases. i guess we call it a case even though there is technical issues with the legislature involving independent commissions doing the redistricting. >> it originates in a ballot initiative and was enacted in arizona. the redistricting was done by the legislature in the way it sort of defaulted.

a newly created independent commission composed of two republican appointees, two democratic appointees, and together they would pick the independent which puts a lot of focus on the independent commissioner. the republicans in the didn't complain about the unconstitutionality that time. that the commissioner was unduly pro-democratic in redistricting. to the supreme court, one of the candidates, i think the runner-up was former principal deputy paul bender. he may be happy that he didn't get that spot now. it might be a very contentious redistricting. thestate senate removed supreme court of arizona, reinstating her three hours

after oral arguments. amount -- itfair has been contentious and it has been interesting. courte-judge district sided with the independent redistricting commission. 3-0 in favor of the legislature and they needed challenges. the voted 2-1 on constitutional question in favor of the independent redistricting commission. this came up to an appeal for those that understand the nuances. it was one of the few areas where there was mandatory polarization in the supreme court as opposed to discretionary searches for our jurisdiction. and we could've done a lot of things with this but we did so

and expressed volatility about the jurisdiction over it. the question over whether the arizona constitutional provision added to the constitution, whether they prescribed congressional districts. and the reason i am looking down is because i am about to read it to you. to bring up my pocket constitution but i left the dam thing in my office. the manner in holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. that is their favorite part. the simpsonse episode the treehouse of horror, there is more to it. the alien blue on the cover of the book that revealed that how tokick humans revealed how cook for 40 humans.

let me see here. clause says the congress made any town bylaw for such regulations except this is a place for choosing centers. that is the provision that helps 2a, theause in t2 use sorry,e says -- i'm i get so excited i can't even read it. redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof, the representative should be picked in this manner. in the redistricting commission ,ays that by the law thereof there is a 1916 unanimous saysme court decision that with morelock, it was adopted for the very reason of making sure that people could do reapportionment by referendum.

if you are to read the tea some stuff very favorable to the commission and how the court restructured. they argued based on the special presented, that they actually rephrased the question and the fact that they took the case is a sign indicating they want to revisit the president and maybe there is something inadequate. they rephrase the question as i am about to read it to you. that theyndication may have the strong hand here. clause permitns use of a condition to adopt congressional districts? does the legislature have standing to bring the suit?

these mandatory jurisdiction cases, i forget exactly how they phrased it. put off the jurisdictional question to put off on the merits. it is going to have to be argued. states have bipartisan or independent redistricting commissions. i'm not sure how many of them are affected by this. the smarty-pants that i talk to say that those most are rectally affected by what happens in arizona, i don't know exactly what it might be if arizona is struck down. is that basically the standing question? they don't have jurisdiction if they don't have standing? >> i think the standing question .as jurisdictional issue there might be other things

waiting in the wings. >> let's move onto peggy young and the case against ups. >> i call the group or case young but it is yates versus the united states. the ups case is young versus the united states. i mean, i love these kind of cases solely and exclusively because i am a woman. it is fun for me to watch the men on the court deal with cases involving women and watch them squirm. this one is going to be definitely one of the more interesting cases if the court sides with ups. this involves ups drivers. expect, you have to list the packages and walk. she had a weight restriction, and to make a long story short,

she did not fall. they lift their boxes and the accommodations policy. drivers that suffer an on-the-job injury have a disability, or lose their certification. for any number of reasons. they will accommodate you. said that isow fine. that is a neutral law that violates the discrimination act. is a neutral law ok? it is conceded that that is neutral. they don't discriminate on the basis of pregnancy but there is in the definition term statue that talks about the treatment of pregnant women and others with their ability to work. there is no question a pregnant woman is similar in her ability

to work and someone that has an on-the-job injury. i don't think it will be newsworthy. it would be really newsworthy if it were 6'3", but there are at least four boats -- votes. there have been contentious sextus termination cases with justice breyer reading when the court sides against the woman in the case. on the surface, it is a statutory construction case. viewmore interested in the of the law from the nonlawyers. it is difficult for them to parse this. that is how it is going to be perceived. >> let me ask the 30,000 foot

question. smart dealing with lawyers because they read the statutes. i spent time reading tea leaves based on how a case is treated. they had an interesting dynamic where peggy young asked the solicitor general for his views on it. and the solicitor general often reads tea leaves himself. in this case, he decided he would recommend the court don't take the case -- >> even though they thought the court was wrong. case.gy young had had a we do not know -- the solicitor general didn't say because we are worried about what the supreme court will say. agreed to heart the case anyway.

so that is one factor. the second factor i want to ask are a lot onere the peggy young side. there are a number of pro-life advocates chiming in on her side saying, we don't want to be putting women in a position where they have to choose, can i keep my job or can i have this baby? with all that going around, am i right thinking that peggy young has a situation here? lawyer hiringmale a woman to argue the case. i think that is more interesting than the two things you raised. >> i did not know that. i don't think it is a factor at all.

it is definitely something you can quote. the pro-life thing is interesting but i don't think it will move the court. the dynamics of just women in the workplace is sort of the undercurrent. the ups brief is strong. it is neutral. what does it mean to discriminate? doesn't treat pregnant women, doesn't single them out. that with ledbetter, you can say that with the cases that involve gender discrimination. pending petition, cases they could hear. mark is going to ask the question. [inaudible]

>> abiomed and using this with when the government does this. -- perhaps i am confusing this with when the government does this, but there is a time now that says the companies can do this. they could have a deference element. i don't know how much that has been briefed yet. jump to some of the potential cases. towill probably have to try move through this quickly because i know that we have some great issues out there. what you convince us that the supreme court should and perhaps will take up the case? they took up another case dealing with small fish, they've got to take up this one. it's a little three inch fish.

hundreds of thousands of farmworkers skyrocketing. so the genesis of this is the a 400 page mass. follow mess, you can't it, it doesn't make any sense. and the trial court judge tossed it out saying that this doesn't make sense and is looking to the impact on humans. the biological opinion was tossed out. , it is 400 reversed pages of incomprehensible maess and subject to deference. an agency must look at reasonable and prudent alternatives, including their

economic feasibility. about agency, all we care is can the agency afford to implement the biological opinion? the economicean feasibility to the people actually affected by the action protecting the delta by cutting off water. what our petition is saying is that economic feasibility must be looked that not only in terms of the impact on the agency, but on the impact of the affected people. moreover, the agency is interpreting its own regulation. the question is, to what extent to the agency's interpretation of its own regulation begins in deference? given deference? in that case, some of the justices questioned the idea of giving deference to an agency's

interpretation of its own saying that it should not apply in that case. and the issue that we were asking the court to look at, does the language of the decision from 1978 still have forced today? they dealt with another small fish. some say a large government boondoggle project was stopped in its tracks because of the impact. on a reading of the endangered species act, the fish must be protected, whatever the cost. that is something we are asking the court to revisit, in light of the fact that the endangered beasties act requires you to look at prudent and feasible alternatives which we think has an economic element to it. and moreover, the interpretation

of the tennessee valley , it is no longer as persuasive as it used to be. behind the scenes of the act, we just don't think it's a good reading of the endangered species act. i have been some great scholarships done in recent that whatever the cost language should not apply. if the court were to look at the language of the endangered species act and consider whether or not the species must be protected at whatever the cost. it is one thing to stop the government boondoggle project and another thing to throw thousands of farmworkers out of business and reach thousands of acres of field. and basically, economic devastation on the central valley in california.

that is something we think the court may pay attention to. >> what about the little fish? >> we care about the little fish. >> i was kidding. >> i know, but i have to say this. i think the jury is still far from having been decided about whether the fish was going to be affected or protected by stopping the water. the fish goes down even more. there are other factors. but certainly, they look at the people in trouble, too. >> if they grant the delta smelt case and decide the other case so that we can have fun writing big fish, little fish decisions. john, raisins? what do they have to do with the first amendment? agriculturaln

thatting order for raisins requires raisin farmers to basically give up part of their ensureich is used to that schoolchildren can't throw away a boxer raisins every day -- can throw away a boxer of raisins every day. i'm sorry to the raisin industry but i have always been creeped out by those things. the daypend the rest of talking about my phobia of raisins. basically on the reverse opinion from the ninth circuit which is the court of appeals, much-maligned and reversed. unjustifiably, i have to add. they said that basically, you couldn't take the challenge there.

it was reversed 9-0. sent back down to the ninth circuit again, this time, they held essentially that there is an undertaking. and they apply sort of regulatory framework that is ordinarily not applied when you're taking property out right. you ordinarily apply for the regulatory taking that i wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. event, they are back now. petition -- dave a petition.itiothey filed including one by me. interesting to see

where the court takes it. outragened the term toc docket. they will take it with a clear split. at least a colorful split. we will see if they have appetite to take it a second time. raisinse their fear of will cause them to turn it down. >> do you disclose fear of raisins in your brief? there may not be an ethical requirement. >> there are cases involving license plates in texas. >> any case about the first amendment is so wonderful because you don't need to know any law. are you allowed to say that your wife should die? , i don't know the name

of the texas official but the state of texas versus the confederacy. heldhat the fifth circuit was that this group of whatever they are, i'm not going to try to say what they are, they wanted a license plate issued with the confederate flag and texas said no. the fifth circuit said it violated the first amendment. is that license plate a public forum? is a license plate communicating government speech and they have much more leeway to decide what it wants to say? and is a private speech? the court said it is private it.ch because you own

>> can you get vanityty plates. is it viewpoint, speaker discrimination? the circuit said it's basically all of that. texas now presumably and other states would be required to, you know, issue license plates that say child abuse is great, black people are inferior. women suck, anything, and texas understandably doesn't want to do that. there is a circuit conflict with almost all of the circuits siding with the fifth circuit. the law is in favor of free speech challengers, this is private speech. what texas is arguing in the supreme court is even if this is private speech, we're not discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. it's not we're saying the confederate flag is a bad thing. we would not issue a license plate with a confederate flag

with a huge x on it. we're taking a neutral view on the confederate flag. the supreme court is likely to take the case, it's one of those great cases that everybody can have an opinion about. should the states issue a license plate that says anything, even if they completely disagree with what is put on the message or find it unseemly. >> can you give us the short version of the pan handling case as well, another great first amendment case? >> this is, i don't know the name of the case, it's a city out of illinois. >> springfield. >> springfield, right, the capital, that bans, you're going to love this, within a two-mile radius of the historic district requesting money but only for an immediate exchange. so that basically means not pan handling, hey, buddy, can you spare a dime you cannot do you can say hey buddy, can you pledge a dime and mail it to me? it's so transparently targeting

homeless people but they say oh, no, no, this is totally fine and the fifth circuit imposed, they agreed yes, you can have this law. so it's just quite extraordinary that a politician could not say i'm lisa blatt, i'm running for mayor would you mind contributing and i will take your money now. she would have to say, i have a mailbox and address, so i find these kind of laws incredibly offenses because i'm a big fan of the first amendment. the city won, the law is on their side, there is a split. is that discriminatory against the nature of the speech? >> all four of the cases we mentioned, three first amendment cases, they're all timed so the court could agree to hear them this term next year? >> correct. >> unless extensions are granted that would make the response brief due in january. they're all, not necessarily the pan handling, it depends on

how fast it moves. >> i want to leave a little tile for questions. how quickly can you sum up all of health care, jim? >> really, really quickly. we have three cases, one health care that could make to the supreme court, one, cert has been filed, the king case, in two of these cases out of the d.c. circuit, they involve the question of we have the state exchanges and we have subsidies according to the statute for people who are getting health care through an exchange created by the state. as you know, most states did not create an exchange, so the federal government stepped in to do their own exchanges. those people getting federal money on the fedex changes, are they entitled to the subsidy. there are all sorts of reasons it's a good thing or a bad thing. there is a split, because a d.c. circuit has taken the case up on en banc, there is a

split. the case that you remember after the big case out of florida where the supreme court upheld the health care, the health care act where it said that under the commerce clause, you cannot require people to get health insurance, but under the taxing power, you can require that people pay a penalty. the issue is if this penalty is a texas the supreme court said it was, then was this tax properly filed and properly adopted by congress, the origination clause says all taxes for the purpose of raising revenue must originate in the house of representatives. this started with a military benefit bill that was six pages long, every word was stripped, 900 pages was put no it by the senate. does that originate out of the senate or not. the government and d.c. circuit says it doesn't really matter because it wasn't for the purpose of raising money of it was the purpose of doing

something good with health care. we don't see the purpose effect as any kind of precedent. there is a petition for rehearing that has just been filed today in the d.c. circuit and these cases are eventually going to wind their way back to the supreme court. so the supreme court can fixed whatever it did the last time it ruled on health care or not. >> i'm not of that view. if there is no split, i don't know why the court would weigh in. i'm a dissent from that. i don't necessarily see the court has dying to strike obama care. i'm telling you, most people will tell you the court will take it. it's not clear to me it will be a split. >> would you tell us that? >> on the one hand, it's a big important issue. the court, the first time around, took the spending clause challenge on the first obama care challenge even though that case, that issue

was split and it became the first court in american history to strike down a law on the spending clause. so, you know, it's hard to say. i don't think it's beyond the pale that they may want to stay out of it if the issue remained splitless. >> they're so reluctant to get into that little controversy about marriage, they're going to have to take health care to redeem themselves. >> again, i really think the convention wisdom is they will take it even if there is no split. the reason is the people who are against this law think the statutory arguments are so contrary to the government's position that it deserves the airing of the supreme court or there are five votes on the challenger's side. i just don't know yet. maybe there will be a split, i don't know. >> if you look at the decisions of the courts below, they are rather convoluted. they're rather difficult to follow and difficult to justify and by that i mean, they're trying to create a statutory

conflict and ambiguity in the statute to which the agency can defer. there are questions, should there be deference or not be deference in this sort of conversation. is there ambiguity in the first place where one side says absolutely nor ambiguities, this is completely lawful. the other side says there is complete ambiguity. an oklahoma district court just signed with the original decision from the d.c. circuit, so there is going to be conflict coming up and i think the court is going to have to take this one at some time, at least i'm conventional in my wisdom. >> very conventional. >>en -- indeed. let me open it up for questions now. i have all sorts of additional questions nobody does. clark. staying on the subject, the perspective between declaring a law being unconstitutional on a other hand and simply

strict statutory interpretation and they might get satisfaction i don't know if this is going to break the law or not. let the chips fall where they may. >> the question is whether, you're talking health care specifically, right? >> the case about the subsidies, whether the chief justice might who in the previous health care case was willing to avoid constitutional questions by interpreting the statute in a certain way, avoid having the court make a big decision striking down this law might be in this case willing to say, hey, the statute is what the statute is.

it reads as if you cannot get sub si dose in these states have the fedex change, would they be willing to do that? >> that is divorced from reality. if you remember, he actually did say obama care was unconstitutional under the commerce clause. he had no problem going along with four others and four of them were willing to take down the whole statute. so i also don't think he is able, he is going to be able to pretend that striking this provision isn't striking the so law and somehow congress is going to go back and fix it. is that really? i think that's laughable, sorry. [inaudible] >> i think if he really thinks that -- my guess is if five of them think that there is no ambiguity and what you are not entitled to the subsidies on the fedex change, they're going to say that's the interpretation of the statute.

>> he has already proven he is not in it to overturn obama care, he is fair and neutral. if he reads the statute and finds that it's unconstitutional, it's not because i was out to get the statute, i proved i am not out to get that statute. >> the question is is that what congress wrote? >> what congress would have intended -- >> had they thought this far. >> had they been a little bit careful, had they read what they drafted. >> they can't be expected to read what they passed. >> any other questions? inaudible] >> can you start the question over? >> the origination clause turn out to be successful, that would not require four other justices to agree with the

-- that obama care >> they were largely silent on that issue. that's been decided. it's the rule of the united states that is a tax. that's why it's surviving. if they declare next that we don't agree that it's a tax, then the whole basis of the original upholding will have to fade away as well. i don't see that that is doing to be an insurmountable problem. that is the precedent of the case. they're not being expressly asked to overturn that precedent. it's part of what goes up to the court. >> in my view, a bigger issue with that case that your position is going to require the court to essentially tell the senate and the house, your procedures are not what you say they are, we see you as -- i mean, in their view, it did

start in the house where it's supposed to. >> there is a concern about separation of powers, but the supreme court has addressed this issue in the case where it says in this case in this case, we're going to look to see whether or not the origination clause has been violated. in that indication we found it wasn't violated because of a particular tax was actually an assessment, a fee, not a real tax, i think the court has shown that it's willing to second-guess the what happens and i think that's its duty to look at that, to determine whether or not what we're dealing with is a lawful tax or not. this was something of critical importance to the founder of the constitution. they wanted to make really, really sure that taxes began in the people's house rather than the senate. and if you are simply going to rely on congress to determine whether or not it's own statutes are constitutional or not or fundamental procedures like this, then i think we have some serious problems, does the constitution mean anything anymore. so i think the court can look at it and not be terribly

worried about the separation of powers issue, especially based on what they did in that case a number of years ago. > any other questions? ok. well, thank our panel on behalf of national review and the gal foundation, jim, lisa, john, i know i had a great time, a very interesting discussion, thank you. >> you're welcome. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014 >> a look at our live coverage coming up on c-span, a panel will examine how u.s. foreign policy decisions affect latin america and hispanic voters in the u.s. we'll hear from the the media director, live coverage from the center for strategic and international studies begins tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the wilson center has an event

on the keystone oil pipeline. we'll hear from reporters and legal analysts. our coverage starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> democratic senator mike udall and his republican channeler congressman cory gardner participating in a debate in denver. the event was co-sponsored by the devin chamber of commerce and politico. it's 45 minutes. >> thank you for being here today. i would like to remind you all that we are live filming today, so we ask that you please hold your applause. today the candidates will speak in random order which was determined via coin toss immediately before the program began. candidate one is congressman gardner and candidate two is senator udall. how today will work, i will ask a question and candidate one will have 60 seconds to

respond. candidate two will have 60 seconds to respond as well. following that 60-second response, there is an option for a 30-second rebuttal and a 15-second rebuttal to continue the conversation. we will continue the sequence until the debate ends. there will be no official opening remarks, however we will have closing statements for each candidate which you can speak two minutes each. candidate one will begin followed by candidate two. so with that, any questions, candidates? ok. ready to go. ok, great. thank you again. congressman gardner, i would like to ask you about some of your recent ads, you call yourself "a new kind of republican." yet according to some ratings, your voting record has been ranked as one of the mow conservative in the house. why should voters she you are a new kind of republican when your voting record suggests you align with conservatives in the

senate republican conference. >> thank you for hosting this debate. it's great to be with you to talk about colorado business issues, things that matter. i focus on a debate to get this country back to work. that is what my voting record has represented. it's about the four corners of this state, it's a voting record that is about helping small businesses, 97% of the employers in colorado are small businesses. it's about creating a tax environment that creates an opportunity for people to hire, to invest. the four corners plan that i have put together is about growing jobs. it's about the economy. it's about north american energy security and independence. it's about making sure we have chances for our children to be educated and the gray informs our education system and making sure that we protect our environment. the policies of this campaign that are at issue that are on debate right now, the president just said it yesterday. his policies are on the ballot. that's what we are going to be discussing today, the policies of the president and the fact that mark udall has voted with

him 99% of the time. >> senator udall, i would like you to respond to that as well when you respond, address this, this congress has been one of the most historically dysfunctional and unproductive in history and if you are re-elected shall the chances that a democrat keep control of the senate will increase significantly. why should voters here think anything will be different for them and their economic security if the senate main stays democrat? >> let me start as well by thanking the chamber for hosting this important event. we have worked together during my tenure in the senate on all kinds of ways in which we have moved the state forward. we have an aerospace consortium part of the chamber. we work to protect and enhance the presence of the military in our state which plays a key role in our national security needs. we worked on a best of the above energy approach together and just on the drive in seeing what we have done with union station is so uplifting and inspiring. i remember working with you all

to make sure we have a patent office here, that the fast tracks initiative is underway, that we together proposed and brought to the ballot successfully c and d back when the state was beginning to languish. we have a great clean tech community. i look forward to working with you going forward because this is the best chamber in the country and this is the best state in the country, we want to welcome you here. i have used all my time, i think. let me say that congressman gardner didn't answer the question. he has the 10th most partisan record in the house of representatives. his record is out of the mainstream. it's in the extreme. that's the contrast that you have in this race. i look forward to the debate going forward because i know congressman gardner and i will have different points of view of where the state is heading. >> you can certainly rebut that. if you do that, can you name a couple of issues where you break from your party in washington to suggest that you are a different kind of republican? >> certainly, i'm glad the senator brought up aerospace. we were the second highest

aerospace jobs in the country. the national defense authorization act has a provision in it that senator udall failed to strip out of the bill that could cost thousands of jobs here in colorado. this is about business. this is about opportunities for colorado businesses and employment opportunities. that language could potentially devastate united launch alliance in colorado. i was one of 33 republicans to vote against the house violence against women act because i believed that was watered down, i voted for the senate version, one of a handful of republicans to vote for that piece of legislation. >> do you want to respond? >> there is no better champion of aerospace, not only in this state but the country. i sit on the intelligence committee and steer the strategic forces subcommittee. colorado's aerospace committee has been well supported by me and will continue to be well supported by me. we are playing in a very important role in three crucial areas, in civilian space, in special spares, and in military space. congressman gardner knows that i have been a big supporter of

aerospace in colorado and continue to do so. >> except the thousands of job because of the language you failed to stand up against. >> we have language that is going to protect u.l.a. and protect, this is a part of how to build new rocket engines and colorado will lead the way, a sure you. >> if the jobs are here. >> move on to the next question and get back to that. senator udall, to you. you have called for putting a price on carbon pollution, enacting cap and trade legislation and you lauded cent e.p.a. proposals to slash carbon dioxide emissions from coal producing power plants. the action would dramatically increase prices for consumers and cost jobs. why shouldn't the e.p.a. in washington consider the economic burden on your home state's energy industry when moving forward with these policies? >> this is an exciting time because colorado is leading the way. we have the best of the above energy community here,

everything from the clean burning coal in the northwestern part of the state to the natural gas that we're producing here on the eastern plains to abundant wind and sun which you see today. we were ready for the e.p.a. regulations. cash quon pollution is real. coloradans know the climate science, a lot that is generated here show we have to act. we see this as an opportunity. we are prepared to put a price on carbon. the last time we put a price on pollutants was under the leadership of the first president bush. there were a host of horribles described as going to occur. they didn't occur. we developed new technologies. we moved this country forward. we have the lowest energy prices in the country right now in colorado. we're up to this challenge. congressman gardner, on the other hand, doesn't think climate change is occurring. he doesn't think we should have an across the board best of the above approach. he opposed our renewable electricity standard on three different occasions when we could move the state forward. thank god the voters and

legislature understood this is the way we should be going. >> you do still support cap and trade legislation? >> i support putting a price on carbons. do it in a way that americans are lifted by it. colorado is incredibly well positioned to take the leadership. there are a lot of people in this room that want to take that-lap. the e.p.a. rules are a start. we are leading the country and dare say leading the world when it comes to new energy technologies. >> one of the things that senator udall mentioned, you expressed skepticism as to whether humans are causing the climate to change. do you believe that humans are causing climate change? >> i have said all along that i believe the climate is changing. what i'm not willing to do is destroy the economy for policies to address that. that's why i have supported natural gas, a strong supporter of colorado renewable energy opportunities. that's why i have as part of my four corners plan to grow jobs to make sure that we have renewable and natural gas energies as part of our future. i help lead the way for natural

gas, liquified natural gas opportunities to help our allies creating 45,000 jobs lifting him off the unemployment roles throughout the state. let me tell you what some of these new regulations would do. this is part of the policies that the president said will be on the ballot this election, part of the policies that senator udall has stood with hook, line, and sinker, $1,700 per family, and 250,000 jobs will be lost as a result, our own study by i.h.s. in this state said it could cost as much as $50 billion, the economic impact that senator udall has embraced. i would ask this question, what is the price that you would put on carbon? >> congressman, the price i would put on -- the opportunity that we're going to miss if we don't go all in. we have had floods, fires, droughts, we have the leading climate scientists in this state telling us it's happening. we know it's happening.

the farmers know it's happening. we all know it's happening. let's lean forward. let's create our future. congressman gardner is looking backwards, let's look forwards and embrace the future and these technologies. they're right there for the taking. >> i have 15 seconds if i could. i'm looking forward to the next energy bill, what is the cost that you will put on carbon with your tax? >> you want to respond? >> congressman, the point is that we have shown that we can a price on pollution. >> how much? why when we send those signals to the market, a lot of market-oriented people here today. when we send the signals to the marketplace, our systems respond. we're going to innovate, that's how we make the future. we innovate. we're in a global economic race and you innovate to create jobs and grow your economy. >> i want to pin you down, congressman, who is causing climate change? it's so important in determining the solution to it. are humans causing climate change? >> no doubt that pollution contributes to the climate

change around us. i refuse to support a tax bill that was put in place that would have cost farmers and ranchers in this state over $5,000 per sprinkler, that would cost small businesses the opportunity to grow, that would increase the bills that families pay $1,700 a year. we hear people talk about putting a price on carbon, but they won't talk about how much that price of carbon is. let's just have an answer on what is the price, is it $5 a month, $10, $20. senator udall, am i not going high enough? >> congressman, again, i have answered your question. >> we'll move on to the similar energy question that i want to stay with you, senator udall, about the keystone pipeline. >> yes, >> you had reservations about moving forward, your votes in the senate suggest just that. this issue has been studied for years and even the state department on analysis said it will not alter global greenhouse glass emission. why is this not the time to

move forward on this? >> we have developed our energy sources here in safe and responsible manner, whether it's been our coal resources, our natural gas, we are producing some shale oil, we have abundant sun and wind, geothermal energy potential here in colorado. i think that's the screen and the measurement by which the keystone pipeline ought to be considered. the science is underway and i think it's not too much to ask if the keystone pipeline is going to be built that it's done in a safe and responsible way. i would also suggest that if the keystone pipeline were built through eastern colorado, that the farmers and the ranchers and the businesspeople who live in eastern colorado would want to make sure that their soils and the air and the water in those regions were protected. that's all the people of nebraska are asking for. that's where this started. that's where the concerns are expressed most notably. for us to weigh in and tell people in nebraska that the pipeline is driven through the sther of their state without having their say, it doesn't

make sense. it is not respectful and honor local control. >> you are a republican who believes in local control, does it conflict with your ideology. >> part of my four corners plan, i talk about energy independence. it means we build the keystone pipeline. we have had studies, the department of state has study after study forward talking about this. the senator has voted against the keystone pipeline four times. i, too, want to put a colorado face to the keystone pipeline. thousands of jobs could be created right here in this state if we move forward with the keystone hypeline. you know what? overwhelming support for the state of colorado for the keystone hype pipeline. they believe we should move forward because it creates jobs and opportunity, it creates north american energy security. two companies in denver, colorado, this is about denver business and creating jobs. an engineering firm could create jobs because of the keystone pipeline. a copy in long monitor, the alberta oil sands would expand if the pipeline were to be

built. they could add jobs and create opportunity. this is about doing what is right for the public. it's not standing up for special interests. it's creating jobs for people who desperately need a $20 an hour job welding on the keystone pipeline that they don't have today because of the failed policies of this administration. >> do you want to respond? >> there are jobs created when the keystone pipeline is built. the long term jobs in the hundreds, the congressman is overstating the economic effect of this pipeline. the process has been politicized. my focus has been on making sure that colorado continues to lead. we truly are best of the above energy state. we have remarkable leaders here. we have remarkable technology. i would ask congressman gardner why isn't he supporting the governor's blue ribbon commission to find the right balance between local control and protecting jobs. he is missing in action. we join together to make sure we don't have this facing us a month from now. the congressman is not present in this discussion. he should be.

it's too important too colorado >> what did you mean when hydraulic fracturing keeps us trapped in the old system? >> as you know, that was a right-wing blog approach that the mainstream media disregarded. i didn't say it. i don't believe it. >> moving on, the issue of immigration, congressman gardner, first to you. you voted against a republican bill in august that would have stopped the president's deferred action for children arrivals or the program that allows certain people who came to the country illegally to stay in the united states. you're critics say this is an election year conversion after you have taken the opposite approach on this subject. given your vote in august, does that mean that you now would vote to enact the dream act if it came up for a vote in the senate and you're elected in november? >> ultimately i think the dream act is going to be part of the solution of immigration reform, it has to be. i believe in i am depration reform. over a year and a half ago, i testified before the house

judiciary committee on the need for immigration reform. i believe it should start with border security, we can have a meaningful guest worker program that has to go part and parcel of that border security. entry exit system, i believe the dream act will be part of it. i believe we should have a solution for the people of this state. the executive order process which the president has decided he wants to pursue, even the president has said he lacked the legal authority to go around congress and now he is trying to go around it. he is also stringing people along, he'll issue an executive order and then saying he won't. we need to work with the congress, the house, the senate, the president to pass meaningful immigration reform. i certainly will continue to support that. my opponent senator udall has voted to make undocumented individuals felons. even those people who assist them including what could be their school teacher. when he had a chance in 2010 to pass immigration reform, he actually said that, no, let's move forward on climate change legislation first, cap and

trade legislation first before pursuing immigration reform. if that went first, he was afraid he wouldn't be able to pass his cap and trade legislation. >> why did you change your vote on this bill in august? >> again, this vote was about a bill that i think had unintended consequences, it would be further than just addressing the issue of deferred action participants. it could have affected other work visa holders and ended in a spot that is unacceptable for children. >> let's talk about today. they're sitting in the house of representatives, a comprehensive immigration reform bill package that passed almost 70 points in the united states senate. it has the bipartisan report. has the support of people in the room. you know that when we fix a broken system, which by the way what congressman gardner supporting a broken system, he is for de facto amnesty.

we'll see labor market certainty. he hasn't lifted a finger to move it in the house of representatives. >> congressman, you do still oppose a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million memory who are here illegally? >> some form of earned status is going to be the ultimate status, i believe an earned status is ultimately part of the solution. here is the thing. the senate, believe it or not, oesn't have a monopoly on good ideas. andrew romanoff said that as speaker of the house. i would like to know from senator udall, why did you vote to make undocumented individuals felons? >> you want to respond? >> i want to respond to what is lannishing in the house of representatives. he hasn't taken a single step to move immigration reform to the goal line. it's time to pass immigration reform. this is a clear contrast between congressman gardner and me in this race. this race is the most obvious

race in the country when it comes to contrasts between the two candidates. this is one prime example. you know the importance of getting comprehensive immigration reform passed. >> moving forward, another immigration question to you, senator udall. i would like to talk to you about the president acting unilaterally on immigration. you said you were disappointed with the decision not to move forward before the elections on this issue. why is it ok and constitutional for the president to circumvent congress as he has done time and time again and he may now on immigration? >> look, i reject your premise, the president of the united states like many of the c.e.o.s in this room as the responsibility to move u.s.a. inge forward. the congress has been missing in action in a number of respects. it's been more the house of representatives than not, the graveyard of a lot of great ideas. the president is frustrated that the congress isn't acting. he doesn't relish moving to a

set of actions whereby families won't be prone up. right now we are deporting families, we're splitting up members of families rather than focusing on criminals and . ople who are public safety the president has failed to act. we have a number of immigrant communities. they expect that we're going to step up and reform our system. we're going to secure the borders, we're going to make sure you have the tools. we're going to hold you responsible and we are going to provide a way for people to earn citizenship over a long time frame, some 13 years. this is too important for it to be left on the sidelines. >> why shouldn't the president move forward and prevent deportations which are clearly tearing apart families here in colorado? >> the president himself admitted over a year ago that he lacked the legal authority to do this. now he is saying that he wants to do this. i don't know what legal authority he has and he said he didn't have it before.

look, we ought to work with the house and the senate and the president. we are in this mess because of failed leadership from the white house, because of failed leadership in 2010 from senator udall and others when they had a chance to pass immigration reform decided to pursue a carbon tax legislation instead of immigration reform. we are a better stronger country because of our nation of immigrants. most of us come here from somewhere else. that is what made our country stronger. i look forward to pursuing and fighting for immigration reform. on the ballot in just a few weeks will be the president's policies. mark udall has voted for the president's policies 99% of the time. that's what we're voting on. the president admitted that the other day and in the newspaper over the weekend, the senator votes with the president when he agrees with him, which means i guess he zpreeze with him only 1% of the time. >> senator udall. >> look, there is a clear choice here. the president is taking a look at his legal options as to what he should and can do to make

sure we don't break families apart. this is too important to leave it on the sidelines. this is too important an opportunity for us. you have supported the comprehensive immigration reform. you know the benefits it will bring to our state of colorado. look at congressman gardner's record. he has voted to deport dreamers. we should provide citizenship for those who serve in the military. there are many, by the way. we ought to grant them citizenship. he has proposed deporting his family members. you can't have it both ways. we need to move forward. maintain the status quo, he certainly in some ways would move us backwards. let's move forwards, that's the colorado way. >> respond in 15 seconds, why did you support deporting -- >> i want to thank the senator for acknowledging that i have supported efforts on immigration reform after spending self minutes saying i haven't supported immigration form. i'm grateful for it, thank you.

>> thank you. we'll move on to the next topic on health care. december 24, 2009, senator udall, you were one of 60 senate democrats to vote on final passage in the senate of the affordable care act. given the problems that have occurred with the implementation of the law and the insurance companies threatening to can sal coverage of 250,000 coloradans, would you still have voted to pass that bill, or would you have voted no and made more changes before moving forward? >> we had a broken system. many of you in this room knew it was broken. insurance companies were in charge. if you were a woman, you paid more for your coverage. if you had a family member that suddenly became sick, you could be dropped overnight from your policy. insurance companies could jack up your rights at a moment's notice. many of you this in room know this is the situation that you faced. i voted for a series of steps that we're going to provide more coverage to more americans. we're seeing the benefits of that here in colorado. the governor in a bipartisan

group in the state legislature created the colorado exchange. we have over 400,000 coloradans in that exchange have quality health care they didn't have a year ago. the premium increases are being projected at 2%, we have seen the uninsured raid from 17% to 11% here in colorado. this is a difference between congressman gardner and me again. he has voted some 50 times to repeal the affordable care act and take us back to the old system without a proposal how to cover the people that are now covered. that's the difference between the two of us. i want to move us forward. we can make the affordable care act work, it's not perfect, but we'll make it work for the small, medium and long term. >> you would have voted? >> yes, hindsight is 20/20, there are changes i would have made. i'm happy to share those with you today or on the campaign trail. >> you have called for the laws repealed. what would you say to those

263,000 coloradans who have signed up for medicaid through the medicaid expansion, would you appeal the medicaid expansion as well? >> i agree, we not go back to the old systems. a small business background myself understood what we had wasn't working. costs increased dramatically. that was in our small business, the family implement dealership. it doesn't take 20/20 to see problems. he had the opportunity to vote for an amendment that would have prevented the 340,000 colans who had their insurance plans from being cancelled. he had a chance to vote to keep them from being cancelled. he voted against that. as a result, 340,000 coloradans had their health insurance plans cancelled. the people who are hurt the most by obama care are the people they made the promises to. if you like your health care flan, you can keep it. not true. the fact if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. not true. this would reduce the cost of health showers, not true.

2.5 million fewer workers in this country, 18% of small businesses, many of you this in -- in this room aren't hiring because of the impact of obama care. the little corporations are hurt, the little businesses, the small businesses, those that started in a small garage. they can't afford high-priced lawyers and accountants to figure out how to get around, how to make the books look like it worked so they can afford the kind of regulation and mandates. >> wouldn't people lose their health care coverage, people that are relying on medicaid? >> we can make sure we have treatment for people with preexisting conditions and pay for medicaid. i haven't seen a plan yet of how the state of colorado is going to pay for the medicate expansion once the federal government is no longer paying. once we have this in place, how on earth will this be paid for, adding millions of dollars in debt to this country that we

simply can't afford. the primary promises made in obama care and senator udall reported every single one. if you-like your health care plan, you can keep it. 340,000 coloradans found out, he didn't say if i like your health care plan, he said if you, you could keep it. turned out not to be true. >> let me respond quickly. the amendment that gardner mentions and it looked great on paper. when you investigated what it would is done, we would have gone to the old system, women discriminated against, and preexisting conditions couldn't get coverage. that was 2010. we're in 2014. how do we make the affordable care act work. mentioned the 350,000 letters that had cancellation notices in them. most of those letters had a renewal option as well. when i found out that the

insurance companies weren't keeping faith with the intent, i was as angry as anybody. i offered a piece of legislation so people could keep their plans. find every measure to give the insurance companies the flexibility and let them know this isn't appropriate and we worked with the state governor hicken looper and the legislature to make the division of insurance could give that kind of flexibility to coloradans here. nine out of 10 have called the insurance and 10-10 have access to insurance coverage which they didn't have before this law was passed. what do you say to kim, self-employed in a beauty salon. her daughter is paying 100 a month for the coverage. $1,000 a year you would strip away. >> what about the person sitting in this rom who had their business health care cancelled an not able to renew it? what about them? i know a small business owner who owns a bakery, a

female-owned business, minority owned business and they can't keep their insurance. if you would let me fill it, i will. they can't keep their insurance. did you break your word when you said you could keep your insurance and now they can't? did you break your word? >> congressman, you didn't answer my question. you know that we're going to continue working so that every coloradan has affordable health care coverage. that's the challenge for us. this state is such a wonderful state. i have such pride when i'm in washington, d.c., get to brag about this state. we are rugged collaborators here. we're leading the nation. that's how we make sure the affordable care act continues to improve and evove and do its initial intent. we're a long ways meeting that goal. let's work together. that's how we roll as coloradans. >> he had plenty of time, if you don't mind. i think this dose to the very heart of many of the contrasts between the senator and i.

i have introduced legislation that would allow people with preexisting conditions to be covered. i believe that we should allow insurance to be sold across state lines, health savings accounts, undo obama care that allows people to have insurance cancelled in the first place, the -- and to the woman that we were talking about, we can provide and should and have an obligation to provide low coast health insurance. we need to make sure we have opportunities for people regardless of income, regardless of where they are, where they work, that they should have the opportunity to have affordable insurance. the 2,700-page partisan bill of obama care was not the solution. in 2010, senator udall had an opportunity to vote on an amendment that would keep his word. and he voted against it. >> do you want to respond briefly? >> congressman, that all sounds

great. when you vote some 50 times to repeal the affordable care act and your only response is how you're going to replace it, some ideas that make sense but wouldn't meet the goal to make sure ever coloradan has coverage, i don't know how that stands up to scrutiny. i will also remind everybody in this room that a year ago right now, we were in the throes of a government shutdown that congressman gardner supported, when we were trying to recover from the floods, biblical floods. congressman gardner out of a misplaced ideology to the tea party, i don't know to who or to what, voted to shut down the government. he wanted to show everyone, i don't know what. at our greatest time of need, an ideology took the whole of congressman gardner when we needed all hands on break. congressman that was irresponsible. you delayed the recovery. you put additional emotional weight on the people affected by the blood. it's reckless and irresponsible

to have done so. >> that is one of my questions later. i guess we can talk about it now. the governor shutdown last year, we were shut down at this time last year, house republicans included that provision that would have defunded and delayed the affordable care act. looking back at it one year later, did house republicans make the right decision in starting that? >> i never supported the government shutdown, never did. i was roundly criticized by conservative outlets when i refused to sign letters demanding that the government be shut down. i worked closely with senator udall during the government shutdown to make sure we take care of the people in colorado who had needs from the flood. there were significant needs. i was proud of the work that senator udall and i went on together. we went on a blackhawk helicopter together in the days following the food together. i had a picture of a cat on his lap that made it into some of

the local media coverage on this thoment. we worked together. there wasn't a moment of partisan politics then. i'm saddened that there is now as he politicized a tragedy where lives were lost, thousands of coloradans lost their homes. i remember traveling to weld county in the days after the flood trying to make sure that we beat the floods, that i could actually cross highway 34 to get to the weld county emergency center, in long monitor, congratulations for the incredible work that you did for your community rebuilding. i have proud to stand with you then and proud to stand with senator udall. together we worked on legislation that would provide emergency transportation relief dollars, $350 million of relief money that we passed, senator udall, i was in your office working together with you on that. >> we can keep our answers to the time limit here. we're running short on time. if you want 30 seconds to respond, you can. >> we did spend a half a day in a blackhawk helicopter in the devastation was stunning.

we had a chance to rescue a couple of families that had been stranded. when we got off that helicopter, we were unified. when congressman gardner got off an airplane a week later in d.c., his actions belied that unified feeling we had that day. this was unacceptable. it hurt our state and economy. the government shutdown nationwide cost our competent $24 billion. you in this room know it was reckless and irresponsible. talk to the people inestest park, they needed rocky mountain national park open so people could get there. it cost estes park consecutively half a million dollars. talk to people at the gateway communities of mesa verde national park. this is a fundamental difference between us. we worked together later in the year because we needed to do it. he wants to represent the entire state of colorado in the u.s. senate, you have to stand up for the state of colorado. >> you will have a chance to

respond to that. >> senator udall, i don't think it's appropriate to politicize tragedy. >> congressman, you politicize -- >> you have plenty of time to talk, we worked together. we should take great pride in the fact that we worked together. what i think the state of colorado also needs is a vision for the state that is based on growing jobs in this room, what we can do to get this economy back on track. i know you want to play politics. i know that you want to politicize things that are simply i believe out of bounds. >> one of the issues that you have to deal with in the next congress, congressman gardner is taxes. the business community is concerned about that issue. no tax you also signed increase pledge. while you have advocated for tax reform, would you oppose any tax reform that includes a dime of a net revenue increase from taxes? >> i don't think increasing taxes is the answer. i think the federal government has police department of money.

we ought to focus on ways that we can actually reduce spending, make the federal government balance its own books, make sure the government is spending it's money wisely the way it should be doing before it turns around and asks the people of colorado for one more dime of their hard-earned dollars. if you look at the bill i introduced on wasteful spending, $200 billion could be saved because we eliminated overlapping programs. we must make sure that we are reducing spending. reforming taxes, we have to reform taxes. we have to make sure that small businesses can keep their dollars in their own pocket to invest in job creation. i support comprehensive tax reform. that's why i believe we can have coloradans to vest more money in their own families to keep that money. senator udall has voted for the largest estate tax in the history of our country. he has voted for higher taxes time and time again. he had a balanced budget amendment that exempted a great degree of spending.

he lines to call himself a fiscal hawk. senator udall, i think you plucked the fiscal hawk when you voted for the stimulus bill. >> one minute to respond. >> you don't know and i have worked with you and many this this room, i'm a long time proponent of the proposal, it's one of the major mistakes that this president made not fully addressing it in 2010. there is corporate tax reform that i support. we should start a goal of getting ourselves to the 25%. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the worldment we're higher than japan of all things. we ought to do it in a way that doesn't balance the budget on the back of the middle class and working americans. this is a contrast between congressman gardner's record and mine. he has voted for budgets to gut social security, tush medicare into a program. you know who is going to win that exchange. congressman gardner has voted

to lift tax rates on billionaires and millionaires while increasing tax rates on middle class and working people. i am the proud author of the first democrat balanced budget amendment in 20 years. in that amendment, we're going to work hard to get our deficits under control and -- >> we're running short on time -- >> we're going to protect social secured, medicare and medicaid. those are earned benefits important to our seniors and society, stability. >> congressman, would you vote -- respond, would you vote for the paul ryan plan to overhaul medicare again if you were in the senate? >> i would vote for a bill that allows us to balance the budget, that protects medicare. that's what i did. senator udall voted for a bill that protects medicare, protects retirees and their social safety nets. we will fight hard to protect them. your plan is bankruptcy for those programs because you haven't come up with a solution. you cut medicare when you voted

for the affordable care act. > you need to wrap up. we -- >> i would like to end very quickly. >> 15 seconds. >> voted for $800 million in tax cuts. i voted for cuts to medicare advantage that went to shoring up medicare and extending the sole inventoriesy of it. there is a contrast, how do we move colorado forward. congressman gardner will take us backwards. >> we have ran out of time. 90 seconds for closing statements. congressman gardner, since you won the draw, you go first. >> thanks for the opportunity to share this contrast of ideas. growing up in yuma, colorado, going to that hometown today, there is a cornerstone that says j.a.s. and son, 1910. that was a business that was started by my great great grandmother, 100 years later my great-grandfather took over the

business, a farmer implement company, it's there today. my wife who is here, we walk by that cornerstone and wonder will they have the same kind of opportunities that they're great great great grandparents did to create a better way of life, to create a business, to create opportunities for themselves and families. the answer is no. when senator udall, unless we do something different and change direction of this country. when senator udall was elected to congress, our national debt was offense $5 trillion. today it's over $17 trillion. over the last several years median household income in this state has declined by over $4,000. it's been since 1999 that middle class wages have stayed the same. that's under the leadership of mark udall. and the president made it very clear in his statements this year that his policies are on the ballot. what we are voting on are his policies. if we elect mark udall who has

voted 99% of the time for these policies, one more time, what makes any of us think that things will be different than they were offense the last 16 as we watched median household income decline as the labor participation rate is lower than in 36 years. my four corners plan, we will grow jobs, energy independence, get our education on track, make sure it's stronger and make sure that we protect our environment. >> senator udall. >> thanks again to the chamber. it's been the most amazing privilege of my life to represent in the united states senate, the wonderful state of colorado. we have accomplished a lot over the last six years. i alluded to some of those accomplishments. we recovered from biblical floosedz, we turned up the capacity to fight fires. we have the best of the above energy regime that is the envy of the nation. we see our economy coming back. all of us are excited about what we're seeing and doing in these numbers. we need to make sure that college are affordable and

women are paid the same as men in the workplace. we need to invest in infrastructure, all of the things that the chamber knows are crucial. congressman gardner and i love colorado, both. i'm a fourth generation coloradan as well on my mother's side. there is real contrasts this this race. elections ought to be about competition. they ought to be about the future. congressman gardner talks about being a member of the next generation and a new republican. the next generation doesn't want to shut off science. the next generation doesn't want to shut out immigrants. the next generation doesn't want to shut down the government. the next generation and i should say all generations frankly see the world my way. they see colorado moving forward. i therefore ask for your vote. working together, we can keep colorado moving forward. >> thank you both, thank you all. thank you both candidates, congressman gardner and senator udall. > >> on our next "washington

fiscally voting conservative candidates for congress. after that, our c-span bus big ten college tour continues at the university of maryland where president wallace lowe looks at public policy issues and higher education, plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. "wall street journal" is live each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> former president bill clinton campaigned in his home state of arkansas. he was at the campaign rally for senator mark prior. cal candidate patrick henry haze. we'll hear from the current governor mike beebe. from the university of central arkansas in conway, this is 40 minutes. >> welcome to the stage your team that is putting arkansas

first, patrick henry hayes, mike ross, senator mike pryor, governor mike beebe and resident bill clinton! cheers and applause]

>> good afternoon! ood afternoon! [crowd chanting bill] >> i am patrick henry hayes and i'm going to be your next second district congressman. let's go get them, all right! [cheers and applause] >> let me first of all say it's great to be in the city of colleges. it is a terrific afternoon and i'll tell you the energy that each of you are giving us on

this stage is extraordinary. it's terrific. it pumps us up. we got two weeks to early voting, we're four weeks from tomorrow is judgment day and we know what kind of judgment we're going to have for all of us up here on this stage. so thank you for being here and helping that judgment come. good for democrats. let's go. [cheers and applause] in two days my grandson harper will turn 6. in one week on october 13, my granddaughter isabela, middle granddaughter will turn 10. my granddaughter save ana turned -- savannah turned 12 in july. mr. president, i think it was