it and it cleared the house of representatives, got stalled in edwardate, and then snowden happened and wikileaks happened and the political will was lost. and the budget problems took over the discussion. i think we need to get the election behind us. i think we need to get it settled out and nothing will energize things more than another crisis involving a journalist thing threatened with jail. so we have gotten close, so i would not give it up and it would say to everyone in this room and at home, it is an important effort and we should not give it up and we should continue to press our congresspeople to pass the protection. >> state shield laws, how well do they work to protect reporters or do judges and up saying, for this, that you and the other reason, you're not shielded? >> they come in different

flavors. there are 40 different shield laws and they have different concentric circles to what is protected. they have been successful in keeping the information in the hands of the journalists where they belong. i think we are about out of time so let me thank everybody in the audience. a special shout out and thank you for my colleague for her help with the powerpoint and arrangements. thanks to the panel and institute. [applause] >> we will take you to utah for the senate race debate between republican incumbent mike lee and him credit misty snow. ms. snow is the second transgender candidate to run for office. live coverage here on c-span. >> tonight will hear from the

incumbent, republican mike lee and his democratic challenger, misty snow. we begin with each candidate make a night -- making a 92nd statement. it was determined that misty snow will speak first. : thank you. i would like to thank the utah commission for hosting and thank all of you for watching. wasame is misty k. snow, i born here and left my entire life in the state of utah. i have a deep appreciation for the history and culture of the state. i am 31 years old. if i am elected to the u.s. senate, i will be the first millennial in the u.s. senate making me a voice for my generation. i work at a grocery store. i am a working class person who understands the needs of working class people and their families. i understand what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck. i understand what average people across the nation are going

through on a day-to-day basis. many people throughout the country feel that congress is out of touch and no longer represents them. i believe if we want government that truly represents working-class people we need to elect more working-class people to government. as your senator, i will fight to ensure that our workers have a living wage. i will fight to ensure that our children have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink . i want to ensure that our mothers have paid maternity leave and our women are paid equally. i want to fight to get money out of politics. i am not a career politician. i am not a washington insider. i am someone who has never been to washington. i am someone who will be a new voice in congress, a fresh voice, fresh voice that is needed and a voice that is underrepresented. i have always said we will truly represent working-class people in this country. lee: i want to thank the debate commission for putting

this together. it is good to be back. when i ran for the senate for the first time in 2010, i promised to be a different kind of senator. i made two promises. first, i promised i would fight every day to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. against an increasingly dysfunctional status quo in washington. second, i also promised not only to oppose been ideas, but also , betterse good ideas ideas. i have kept these promises. over the last six years, i have fought every single day against washington's dysfunctional status quo and all three branches of government. tor the years, i have helped ban earmarks to overturn president obama's unconstitutional recess appointments. and to and once and for all washington's warrantless surveillance against u.s. citizens. i have worked with democrats and

republicans, with liberals and conservatives, to develop a new reform agenda. an agenda with big ideas to help working-class families. big ideas including creating new growing wages, and expanding opportunity for all americans, especially those families and those communities the washington status quo has left behind. thanks to all of you for tuning in. i look forward to our discussion tonight. >> thank you. the utah commission has established a format that allows each candidate 90 seconds for the that initial response to a question. questions come from students and individuals who cemented their questions to the utah and debate commission website. i will begin with this question cemented by haley winter -- submitted by haley winterton. in least involved group politics is college-age students and the most important issue is being able to afford their

education. what will you do to make college more affordable? is anow: as someone who millennial, this is an issue i care a lot about because this is effecte that has a big on my generation. many people of my generation, they go to college, they find that college is almost unaffordable. a lot of people have been skipping going to college because they have determined the costs are not worth it. if they go to college the might get their degree but they will leave college with tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. i find that unacceptable. we need to make college affordable. we need to make it accessible. our nation benefits from a more educated populace. what i think we should do is try to make the student loans, let's give them a lower interest rate. why is the federal government try to make money off the backs of our students, they are charging near 6% interest on student loans. why would are we giving thanks

loans with near zero interest rates? we have a lot of grants and stuff available for students who want to go to college. a costly federal government $62 billion a year. another report shows that we could make state universities tuition free for a cost of $75 billion a year. it would be a difference of 20 -- $12 billion. there is a better plan that would make college more affordable and more accessible to people who are -- you want to able to choose a career they want. [inaudible] agree we are better off as a country. when we have well educated citizens. we end up with a bigger, better tax base and everyone prospers when they have access to an affordable, high-quality education. i completely agree the federal

government should not be in the business of making money. the federal government not -- ought not to be in the business of student loans. we have created a dynamic that [indiscernible] the institutions of higher learning which restrict interest -- entry into this industry. entry, youstrict hike prices. what we need is to increase competition in this field, a field where competition is so badly lacking. i have introduced the higher education reform opportunity act . it has as its purpose creating more competition in higher education, allowing the states so thatdit on their own alternative providers of a higher education learning experience whether it is massive online open courses or professional certifications,

otherwise,sitions or one thing we know about increasing competition, two things always happen. prices oh down and quality tends to go up. that is what my bill would do. moderator: you agree on much of this. the follow-up is in light of what senator lee just said, how do you view for-profit education which has experienced some controversy with some of them having to be closed? what would you do about the for-profit sector of higher education? mr. snow: the for-profit lessges, they're affordable because they are tied to make a profit. we need to when we talk about accreditation, trying to lose accreditation is not a good idea because we do not want these for-profit colleges to be considered equal to an actual, institution like brigham young university. we want to have standers and it is important that the people who are going to college, their

education is worth the money they are paying. that somehe fact for-profit schools are bad this not mean that they are all bad. so too with nonprofits. there are a whole lot of nonprofit schools that are good, that does not mean they are not all good. by your fruit you shall know them and that is true in higher education as it is anywhere else. encourage top edition and that will help bring quality of and tuition down. moderator: the next question comes from a student at brigham young university. andy: i would like to know what specific actions and legislation you would take to address the issue of climate change if you are elected to office. a big debate about climate change. there is no dispute that the

climate is changing. climates change, it is what they do. they always have and they always will. some of the greatest debates surround weather and in what way, to what extent human beings are responsible for the change in climate. even more critically, what, if anything we can do to change that. what i struggle with the most with this question is that every proposal that i have heard of that will put the government in , it would do this little or nothing to affect climate change but would threaten to devastate the economy. as president obama himself admitted a few years ago, if we adopt the cap and trade and adopt any of the proposals i am aware of, it would cause energy prices to skyrocket. let's think about what that means. that is a backdoor in visible tax increase on the most regressive type of expense hike you can imagine. this disproportionately affects

poor and middle-class americans who would be stuck paying higher prices on everything they buy and would pay for it with diminished wages, on a planet, and underemployment. the best way we can get to a cleaner environment, one where we have greater efficiencies and fewer greenhouse gas emissions, is through innovation. innovation is most likely to happen when we allow our free market economy to prosper and people will will do better mousetrap and a better car and a better power plant if we have a free market economy in place. mr. snow: thank you very much for this question. the issue of climate change is a very important one. justte what senator lee said, climate change is real but even if you do not believe climate change is real, i hear in the state of utah we have a problem with air quality. more dissatisfied with its air quality and a lot of the solutions are along the same solutions that are needed to reduce air pollution. what i would like to propose is our country starts making cleaner energy.

such as solar, wind, also greener transportation structure. is cost of not doing this negative impact on the health of our citizens, especially our elderly, our children, pregnant mothers and their economic costs to those health problems. leading to a lifespan and spending money on health care costs that they would otherwise be able to spend elsewhere. the cost of not doing something i think is too high. i do not think it would cost too much to start making these investments. we actually raised the price of gasoline tax by five cents a gallon. in the audience, we did not know that until i mentioned it. it was [inaudible] if we could do that nationwide, maybe a small tax nationwide, that money could be used to make investments into solar and wind transportation infrastructure.

it is necessary we make these investments has the price of not doing it is, i think, too high and the cost of our health and future. moderator: i will rip -- invite a rebuttal. the roleion is what is of government in legislation or regulation, so to each of you, what is the role of government in fostering innovation which you mentioned and are there specific roles for government that you think got to be inbounds and in what ways to you disagree with senator lee's position? sen. lee: there is an important role to play. government needs to continue setting limits for emissions. in the case of utah, one of the things we struggle with is ozone. one of the problems that we have is we have these one-size-fits-all rules that apply to broad swaths of the country. when we have a unique geography that might make our situation difficult. reasons ie one of the have supported legislation that would increase flex ability so they can address these

geographical unique aspects of our state. obviously, the federal government could play a very constructive role. we could start making investments into solar and wind and when you talk about economic , you talk about jobs for you there is a lot of jobs to be created in these industries. solar is one of the fastest growing industries and the government is trying to help make investments and it will create new jobs in those fields and will help spur economic growth. nextator: let's go to the question. americans ahve -- have become less confident in government. what you compromise with your opposition to pass laws? mr. snow: there is a lot of issues that resonate. there is a number of laws that

passes with wide i partisan support. are not think -- there uncertain issues -- there are issues where you cannot find agreement. there is a lot of critical issues that i think are very popular. paidas the need for maternity leave, it is a popular issue. the u.s. is one of two countries in the entire world along with new guinea that is confirmed to not offer its mothers paid maternity leave. of012 poll showed a 6% people in the country in -- leave. maternity it is a popular issue because everybody has a mother, everyone knows [indiscernible] i we could ensure that our mothers have access to paid maternity leave like every other country and it takes some people in congress to draft legislation to advocate for it. i think we could pass a bill like that with wide bipartisan agreement because it is an issue

that resonates with a lot of people, especially coming from a state like utah which has the highest birthrate in the nation. we saw countless bills passed like 90% of the senate in agreement and i think we could still do that. there might be some disagreement on certain issues but on other issues, i think there is lot of agreement to be found. ms. snow there are as correctly notes, a lot of areas in which the parties are deadlocked. they are irreconcilably in conflict and they are doing this not just to be obstinate, they are doing this because the people themselves that they represent have different opinions. people across this country have somewhat different vision. correct in putting out there are other areas where this is not the case and this is one of my favorite parts of being a senator. i am constantly looking for areas where we could find

bipartisan agreement. i was troubled by the fact that the federal government was phoneting data on your calls. everyone's phone calls, the phone calls of every single american. they knew who you call, who called you, who talk to you and how long they spoke and this kept -- was kept in the database for five years. this bothered me. i found an ally in pat leahy. democrat is a liberal from vermont. he and i put together a bipartisan compromise, a solution to this call the usa freedom act. embers of my party, the republican party were very reluctant to go along with this. the democrats were overwhelmingly supportive but we got it passed. with almost all the democrats and about half the republicans in the senate. resident obamand signed into law. this is a good example of where this kind of copper mines as possible. nextator: let's go to the question. i heard both of you say you

would be willing to compromise. >> some republican leaders have shutdown oftotal islamic immigration or shutting down immigration from dangerous areas. what are your views on this policy? : this goes to senator lee first. sen. lee: is a descendent of people who were ordered to be exterminated by the governor of missouri on october 20 7, 1838, i am strongly against any kind of religious test. we should shun any room -- approach that says if you belong to religion religious belief -- or you must believf y, leave. anytime we are talking about who we are going to allow into this country whether it is for humanitarian reasons or economic reasons or look related reasons,

we have to be careful we know who it is we're leading in and have a good idea whether or not they have the potential to be good u.s. citizens, to fit in, to abide by our values and respect their fellow americans. in,y time we take someone particularly when taking refugees from a war-torn country like syria, we have to make sure that we have procedures in place to make sure that we know who we are taking in. this is difficult with syria. in the case of syria, they have no established reliable record-keeping system. to the extent they had one before the current civil war it has been badly damaged and weakened. will have to undertake it -- we will have to undertake a next her cautious -- extra cautious effort to know who we are living in. ms. snow: i do not think we should be favoring immigrants or refugees of one religion over another.

that is at -- antithetical to the values of our religion. not favor establishment of one religion over another and that should apply when we are talking about our immigration policies as well. this is something that requires a lot of compassion. people coming from syria or iraq or anywhere else, these people are tying to escape about bad situation, trying to escape war, poverty, and many cases, certain death from a lot of the war that is happening there, there is a lot of different forces like from isis and other groups that are at war and there is a lot of innocent people caught in the middle. i think as a nation, we should show these people compassion. i think it is ok to accept refugees from syria and elsewhere. the u.s. has one of the most stringent vetting processes of any nation when it comes to taking in refugees and their

religion should not matter. our constitution protects the rights of all people to practice their religion regardless of what it is. people of all faiths and to the great diversity of our nation and it is what makes our nation when it is. largely agree with each other in terms of the principal other may be some disagreement on the vetting process so a quick follow-up question. are you confident the vetting process works to my perhaps in cases other than syria and would you support donald trump's position of a across the board probation for muslims? the lee: the second part of question, no, heck, no, never. ever support that. the other part of your question think, generally speaking,

we do a decent job in vetting people who come here as refugees. syria is a notable exception. we know that isis is manipulating refugee programs in western countries to carry out terrorist activity. we can't let that happen. abouttor: the question vetting and are you stand. ms. snow: i think donald trump is great wrong in that issue. religious tests are antithetical to our values. syria is problematic that the vetting process is pretty stringent area if there is a reason we have concerned, i trust our immigration services to catch them. i trust our security services to catch them. i have a lot of confidence in our government because it has been proven to be very effective. we have had very few problems with refugees coming in from syria or elsewhere. >> must americans are concerned about gun violence in their communities. wrassee ever-increasing

-- rash of mass shootings, a majority of americans favor tighter gun control laws. without denying second amendment rights for sportsmen and individuals seeking self-defense, and in the spirit of a partisan compromise, what can be done in congress to address this problem? obviously, this is a huge issue. we have seen several mass shootings over the last year, including one of the worst in our nation's history in orlando back in june. i think what we need to do, when we talk about polling, a pull from august in the state of utah showed 81% of utahn wanted universal background checks and 78 percent would like to see [indiscernible] these are popular ideas and because they are popular we could get some bipartisan support area there might be some issues with how the terrorist

watch list is structured. it does give us a good idea of what the public wants on how to move forward on this issue. i think we could find a way to balance legitimate safety needs of our citizens without filing their constitutional rights created on the flipside, why we people on terrorist watch lists to buy firearms, we are allowing people to why toijuana -- from being able buy firearms. it is a bit of an inconsistency in that we are banning people who use cannabis in accordance with state law from buying firearms but we are ok with allowing people who are on terrorist watch lists for buying firearms. i have not seen a lot of leadership from likely on this issue. i would like to see him support and protect the rights of cannabis leaders buying firearms. sen. lee: i agree we should not

let convicted felons let -- have access. i recognize the fact that numbersdata results in like those that you cited. we do have to remember that what we vote on in congress are not polling questions. they are legislation. we have to read the actual bill. three years ago, there was a big push for a gun-control measure by a couple of my colleagues. people in the media and around town in washington were predicting that this would pass, it would pass overwhelmingly. it would be signed into law and nothing would change it. you had many if not most members of the u.s. senate signing on to this legislation before it had been written. true story. this happened sometimes and friday when the legislature was released, it had 50 or 60 cosponsors but no one had read it because it did not exist.

i spent the weekend reviewing it. i like to read bills before a written -- vote on them. this bill would do little or nothing at all to stop violent crime. what it would do is dramatically restrict those who are law abiding citizens. every time i reviewed gun-control legislation, i review it with an eye toward, as you said, respecting the second amendment and affecting the rights of the law-abiding and comparing that to what it would do from -- to protect violence -- americans violent crime. miss no mention some things that cannabis which is legal in some places but would prohibit them getting firearms. a response on that question and on -- ms.o, question snowe, a question on assault weapons if they are worthy of probations. ms. snow: you are asking about

the legalization of marijuana. moderator: and linked to the ability to buy firearms. make the mostould sense to allow states the option of deciding what medical treatments are appropriate and legal within that state area rather than having that decision made by government bureaucrats in washington. it is not the system of laws we have currently. we have a nationwide federal criminal ban on a number of things including marijuana. a debate on this, it is a debate that warrants further study but as a matter of first principles, states ought to be able to have the right to decide what treatments can benefit people in that state so people do not have to wait for years at a time pending fda approval. ms. snow: i do not have any issues necessarily with assault rifles. we should work to create background checks and restricting certain people from buying. people --nterested in

taking people's guns away and why i care about the prohibition of marijuana, most states already have cannabis legal for medicinal purposes including right here in utah where we have cannabis oil legal for the treatment of epilepsy. i find it problematic that a lot of people who are using marijuana in accordance with their state laws are now running into issues with a can no longer own firearms. moderator: we have two questions for the time of one. we know near the midpoint of our time tonight. i welcome you want to get into this debate between misty snow and michael lee, candidates for the u.s. senate. you are joining us live on the campus of brigham young university in provo. this debate and others held in 2014 and 2016 are the result of a group of citizens and media outlets joining together to broadcast statewide a series of exchanges between candidates for statewide and federal office.

questions for this debate were submitted in advance at the utah debate commission website. the aim is to better inform you about the candidates. now back to the questions. early, what is the proper balance between religious liberties and the rights of lesbian gay, bisexual, transgender citizens? are we near the balance now, and if not, what would you advocate? very much for you your question. this is an important issue. understandtant to there are two different types of discrimination we see in our society. one type of discrimination, private, is when two individuals interact. another type, public, is when government itself discriminates against its own disfavored citizens based on some characteristic disfavored by

those in power. both are forms of discrimination and can be deadly and ugly, but between the two, public discrimination is perhaps the most dangerous, for the simple reason that when government is disfavoring people based on their characteristics that people don't like, people don't have any choice. they can't not interact their government. there is a disparity in their power and ability to resist, because government, particularly the federal government, operates with overpowering force. it's what governments do. it's why they exist. that's why we got to be very whenever government starts to discriminate on the basis of a disfavored religious belief. i am convinced that lgbt writes and religious liberties can thrive in the same environment. the government needs to take a position of nondiscrimination.

it is not going to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, and it will treat all citizens, regardless of race or sexual orientation, with dignity. moderator: ms. snow. ms. snow: absolutely i do believe all people deserve equal protection under the law, and that extends to lgbt people. the balance of religious rights and rights of minorities is that people have the right to believe in whatever religion they want whatever god or gods they want, they believe they have the right to worship how they want, and it is a terrorist value of our nation. at the same time, you cannot -- it is a great value of our nation. at the same time, you cannot use to oppress others. "fire" you cannot yell in a crowded theater, you cannot use your religion as an excuse

to discriminate. the supreme court has world that -- ruled that business cannot this from a against a -- cannot discriminate against a couple based on their religion, and they should not able to discriminate against a same-sex couple for the same reason. i think it is possible to balance all rights of people. i don't think it is a problem to say if you need a business, you need to treat all customers equally, you should not favor some customers over another, you should not be able to serve only christians, white people, or people. cis i think most people agree with that. you need to show equal treatment all people.on to as a senator, i will absolutely support equal rights for lgbt people, without exception. moderator: what either of you like time for a rebuttal? mr. lee: i would like to

respond. i have introduced a bill called the first amendment defense act, the purpose of which is to prohibit the federal government or any of its agencies or departments from discriminating against any religious institution or individual. based on a religious belief about marriage. regardless of what your beliefs about marriage are, or regardless of what your neighbor might believe about marriage. neither you nor your neighbor should ever be discriminated against a government based on that belief. ms. snow: the problem with that is it pretty much legalizes discrimination in the name of religion. let's say you have a hospital owned by the catholic church. it would be wrong for the hospital to be able to discriminate against somebody who needs life-saving medical care just because they are lgbt.

there have been issues where, back in the year 2000, there was a man who was transgender and had ovarian cancer. he was denied access to 13 different hospitals on the basis denied was trans, and he from his condition because he was not able to get medical care by private hospitals. mr. lee: i would like to respond to that if i could. moderator: a 10 second response. mr. lee: sure. if you take a look at the first amendment defense act, it does not cover what you described. what we are talking about is protecting religious individuals and institutions like byu so their tax exempt status cannot be denied, so no other adverse actions can be taken based on religious beliefs. moderator: 10 seconds as well. ms. snow: i would encourage religious institutions to treat all students equally, regardless of whether or not they are lgbt. i think that is the loving, humane, compassionate and to do.

moderator: let's go to the next question -- [applause] moderator: i invite you to hold your applause, please. >> we often loom on the precipice of government shutdowns because we cannot pass a budget. senator lee, you shut down the government in 2013. under what circumstances would you support shutting down the government if reelected, and the under-- and ms. snow, what circumstances would you shut it down? ms. snow: i don't think they should shut it down. congress has a job to pass a budget. the government shutdown of 2013i think was a shameful part on our nation's history, and it was really about whether or not we should give health care to our citizens. lee and othermike republicans did not offer an alternative to the affordable care act. later worldcourt

that the affordable care act is constitutional. the federal government is the largest employer in the state of utah, employing about 35,000 people. during the shutdown, those people were out of work. they did not know when their next paycheck would be. and a lot of people were notggling because they were sure if they would see a paycheck anytime soon. and furthermore, it did not just hurt the public employees. utah has multiple national monuments, millions of acres of oflic land that brings a lot tourism to the state. a lot of communities depend on .he national park places like cedar city depend on tourism. tourism is the life of those cities. during the government shutdown, people were not coming to their hotels, their restaurants, or

buying stuff from the good shots. -- from the gift shops. i would do everything i can to keep government working for the people, as i was sent there to do. moderator: senator donnelly. -- senator lee. mr. lee: shutting down the government is bad. let me tell you what happened in 2013. we learned that president obama had rewritten four keeper visions of obamacare, without any authority under the constitution. he said it was necessary, because obamacare was not ready to be implemented as written. , i andn that explanation other members of the house said if it is not ready to be implemented, let's not find its implementation. onwas set to kick in fully january 1, 20 14. what we proposed is not fund it, because president obama said it was not ready. by the way, we now know what he meant. we know that people have seen premium increases, year after

year. just recently, one of utah's health insurers announced another increase, this one a 40% premium increase that will hit ratepayers next year. what we suggested is that we have at least two bank votes to fund the government. that's one of the biggest problems with washington. bill,ush it all on one one day, with just a few hours to go. i said let's have at least two bank votes. let's have one vote on whether to fund obamacare. what's happened other on funding for everything else in the government. funding have another on for everything else in the government. president obama said no. if you don't fund obamacare, i won't let you find anything. president obama shut down the government. you have been told otherwise by the media, but they are wrong. moderator: a response? ms. snow: i think the senate should have done more to prevent

that. i don't think it is all obama's fault. the senate does create bills. they do put a lot of provisions in a single bill. that shutting down the government was such an extreme response. are talking about the affordable care act. the affordable care act has been very good at reducing the number of people who are uninsured, has very good consumer protection that allow people to have health insurance that were being denied because of pre-existing conditions. obviously we need to do more to make sure that everybody has access to health care, but it is a complex top like. -- complex topic. moderator: a rebuttal, senator lee? mr. lee: it is a huge problem in washington, a little like something you might experience if you are in an outlying area. only one grocery store for miles around. your spouse calls saying to bring home bread, milk, and eggs . you get to the counter and the cashier says, i'm sorry, i can't sell you those items unless you

also buy a bucket of nails and a book about cowboy poetry, and a very manilow album. i don't even like barry manilow, they say too bad. this is how washington has been funding itself. this is wrong and it has to stop. moderator: the next question i will post for both senator lee some senators have held open the possibility confirmg on a vote to merrick garland for the united states supreme court before the new president is sworn in. republican leader mitch mcconnell says the newly elected president should name that. -- may not justice. if elected, would you vote to confirm merrick garland to the ,upreme court, why or why not and who would you include on your shortlist list for supreme court justices, and why? first. lee

those who are wanting justice garland confirmed are often saying that the senate needs to do its job and act. the senate does act every time a senate confirmation. the senate acts sometimes by holding votes and voting the person up, confirming the person. the senate can also vote someone down. the said it also acts and speaks when he chooses not to hold hearings, because that is the same result as voting the person down. this is the senate's prerogative, and it is taken seriously because the senate is a political body, and it is put into the appointment process for a reason. it is a reason that has become increasingly important, because the supreme court of the united has started involving itself in the process of deciding all kinds of issues that are hotly debated matters of public policy. it has decided issues ranging

from the sanctity of unborn human life to the definition of marriage and everything else in between. with that politicization of the supreme court of the united states, it should not be surprising that the united states senate has chosen to exercise its power and to allow the next president of the united states to fulfill the vacancy left by antonin scalia a. utahns wouldy feel that mike lee is not doing his job. of utahnsws that 65% want to merrick garland to have a hearing. him questions,k and if he is not satisfied, he can go 10 down -- he can vote in down. that is how the process is supposed to work, and it is shameful that every day our nation is setting a new record for the longest vacancy on the supreme court. bea u.s. senator, i would

willing to give merrick garland a hearing, or whoever else the sitting president nominates. i would give him a fair hearing and vote him up or down based on the merits. i think that is what the senate is supposed to do. i think that is what the majority of citizens across the nation want, including a majority of utahns. it is also a situation where vacancies on the court prevent it from working effectively. since scalia's death, we have had a number of 4-4 decisions. court has always decided important issues facing the nation. you can go back to the 19th century, even early parts of the 20th century. they have always ruled on the constitutionality of laws. i think that is their purpose, and i think the senate needs to work to confirm that nominee to fill the vacancy as soon as

possible. rebuttal with a quick follow-up up -- how long would you allow such a period to go without a hearing or vote if the senate is not acting, and under what circumstances would you supporting nominee from an opposing party that you disagreed with? would you still bring it to a vote? mr. lee: the question of deciding to bring it up for a vote is the question of the majority leader. that is up to mitch mcconnell or chuck schumer, not me. i want to be very clear with an openrland -- it is secret, a well-known fact that if judge garland were confirmed, judge garland would predictably, ofiably vote with the bloc justices that include brier, kagan, ginsburg, and so the mayor. -- sotamayor. that judge disagree

garland would be as liberal as mike lee says. when he was approved to lower court, he had spoken very highly by senator orrin hatch because he is a fairly moderate justice, probably the most conservative justice that a democratic president has nominated in recent years. what would get me to supporting nominee of an uprising party really just depends -- an opposing party really depends on how to answer the question. the most important issue would be a justice willing to overturn citizens united. in the past, we have had justices confirmed with bipartisan support, and i believe justice scalia was confirmed unanimously. it is possible to have bipartisan appointments. moderator: let's go to the next question. >> if brought to a vote, would you support the transpacific , which aims to strengthen ties between partnering nations in the pacific rim by slashing tariffs and fostering trade? why or why not? ms. snow: no, i am actually

against the transpacific partnership. there are a lot of problematic provisions in that -- it feels like there are a number of provisions that gives too much power to corporations that would actually undermine the sovereignty of our own government. also, i find it problematic that many of the provisions were drafted largely in secret, without congressional approval or oversight until very recently. many of our members in the house of representatives and senators had no idea what was in the bill. i find that very problematic. if our congress is supposed to do the vote on such bills, i think it is important that they know what is in it. there needs to be transparency. instead of having a trade bill written by congress, it seems to have been written by private corporations. when we are looking at trade deals overall, i find some of , while theyde deals

might have increased trade, i think they have actually hurt american workers and workers abroad. there are no labor protections or environmental protections. there is no wage standard in those laws. has four star workers to compete with brutalized child labor in the third world and sweatshop jobs in filthy conditions, and that has led to a number of corporations closing up shop here and moving abroad, where labor is cheaper. we need to have fared trade deals and not only free-trade deals. moderator: senator lee. the transpacific partnership is an international trade agreement. i am supportive of free trade. free trade is good for consumers because it gives consumers access to more affordable products. it is good for manufacturers who transact internationally, because it gives them access to the markets.

when revealing this or any other trade agreement, i have that is my central inquiry -- what will this do to promote free trade? will it do more to promote free trade been restricted? anything it would do to oppose it? transpacific partnership in particular, it requires a lot of study, because it is more than 5000 pages long. i agree with ms. snow that there has been a problem with transparency in this document. a few months ago, it was tight yet public. i had to go into an underground bunker in order to review it. i cannot take any parts of it outside of the capital. to public subject disclosure. it is now out. i am reviewing it, but it is over 5000 pages long. if it does promote free trade, and if it does not diminish american national sovereignty by

subjecting u.s. law to an international tribunal, i can support it, but my decision is not made yet. moderator: thank you both. you have been very good at staying on time. he will go to our last question, and it will be a 45 second answer. what would be the most important message about our country that you as a united states senator would share with a utah fifth rater or high school student studying american history? moderator: this one goes to ms. snow first. ms. snow: i would say become involved in current events, pay attention to what is happening in your country, and as you get older, pay attention to the political process. there is a problem currently with my generation, millennials. we are the largest voting bloc, but we are not actually exercising our power accordingly. i think it is important that they become active citizens and and be involved politically. that is a message i would like

our young people to have. i want them to be engaged and pay attention to how government works. moderator: senator lee. the most important message i would have been focus on is the u.s. constitution. wisedocument, written by men, raised up by the almighty god for that very purpose, has fostered the greatest civilization the world has ever known. it has done this by limiting government power. not just because we want small government or weak government, it's because we want strong citizens. the constitution is often misunderstood and too seldom read anymore. it is not taught as much as it should be. it limits power in two ways, by keeping power close to the people and making sure power is exercised only by elected representatives. if we read the constitution and understand it as a people, we will be better off as a result. moderator: we are approaching the conclusion of this hour.

we have time for each candidate to present a one minute closing statement. before the debate, it was determined that senator lee would speak first. mr. lee: thank you very much. and i want to thank the big commission and byu -- the utah that they commission and byu for hosting, and i want to thank miss know for being here. this is a great discussion. today, six of the wealthiest counties in the united states are in the washington, d.c. area. this is an area that manufacturers basically nothing. it is not a technological innovation hub, and it is not the home of any fast collection of national resources. the wealth is there only because the power is there, concentrated in the hands of washington elites, elected officials, and government bureaucrats. i am asking for your vote tonight for the very same reason i ask your vote -- asked for your vote in 2010, to allow me

to serve the people of utah by working to dismantle the concentration of power in washington, d.c., and to restore the separation of powers put in place by the u.s. constitution. i am running to put our back desperate power back where it -- back where it belongs, in your neighborhoods, families, and communities. i am running so i can return power back to you. thank you very much. moderator: ms. snow. ms. snow: thank you very much for hosting this debate, and i would like to thank likely for debating -- mike lee for debating with me. this has been a great privilege. i hope that you understand there are key differences between senator mike lee and i. i am a working class person who has lived my entire life in utah . i will represent working-class issues. there are a number of issues i would like to have talked about

that did not get brought up, like protecting women. i would like to point out that senator mike lee voted against the violence against women act in 2013. i would have liked an opportunity to discuss this. it was not brought up. what i find mike lee's actions to be very problematic, and i think we need somebody who wants to protect our most vulnerable citizens, including women and children. i will be such a senator. you have more power than you realize. you have a power to elect a working class person that will represent working-class people in the u.s. senate, and i would encourage you to exercise that power. thank you very much. my thanks to mike lee and missy snow. -- misty snow. thank you to those who asked questions. faculty and to the

students of brigham young university for hosting this on their campus. the utah that they commission reminds you that the next debate will be at 6:00 p.m. on monday, october 17 reliever state university. featureate will candidates for utah's first congressional district. if you would like to attend that debate, or the final debate in this series featuring the third congressional district candidates on october 19, or would you -- or if you have a question you would like to have submitted for consideration, lee's visit utahtodaycommission.org. there you will also find a video archive that will contain this and all of this season's debates. we invite you to exercise your right to vote on or before november 8 for the candidates of your choice. magleby, i'm david wishing you a good evening, and inviting the live audience to express appreciation to the

candidates. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span.r: created by america's television companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable provider. coming up tonight, our coverage of house and governors races from around the country continues. we start with a house race in michigan's upper and its low between democrat lon johnson and republican jack bergmann. later, debates from fremont and north carolina. watch c-span's live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on wednesday, october 19. our live preview from the university of nevada las vegas starts at seven: 30's term. the studiog for audience is at 8:30 eastern, and the debate is that 9:00 p.m.

eastern. watch the debate live or on-demand using your desktop, phones, tablet at c-span.org. listen to live coverage on the c-span at, downloaded from the app store or google play. announcer: now a debate in michigan's open first congressional district, democrat lon johnson and republican jack bergman met for an hour. up north live special presentation, brought to you by abc 29. welcome to the first congressional district debate from the campus of northwestern michigan college. now here is your moderator, mark hyman. >> good evening, and welcome to the only televised debate of first congressional district race between jack bergman and the general, united

, lons marine corps retired johnson, democratic nominee for the u.s. congress. the candidates have agreed to how they will be addressed this evening. the order in which the candidates are seated and the order in which they deliver their opening remarks and closing statements but decided earlier this evening by the campaigns flipping a coin. asking questions are my colleagues, bankers of seven and for use -- the anchors of 7 and 4 news. each candidate has 60 seconds to respond to a question. 32ndeach have eight eight 30 second rebuttals. however, a rebuttal must be used prior to the closing statements.

as a moderator, i reserve the right to ask a question if it is needed to clarify things. audience -- wehe have an audience with supporters of both candidates and some undecided voters. i am asking the audience to refrain from reaction during the debate. however, there are two exceptions. one at the conclusion of the debate, and right now when we welcome the candidates. [applause] moderator: gentlemen, good luck. let's get started. 60the flip of a coin, the second organization will start with mr. johnson. mr. johnson: working hard,

playing by the rules, never giving up. those are the lessons in values my family of five generations through northern michigan history. i was one of the first in my family to graduate from college. in 2005, i went to iraq a civilian. came home in 2006, married my wife, and worked to endorse -- worked to grow manufacturing companies. we need to protect what you worked a lifetime to earn, your social security v.a. benefits. and second, we need to create a future where our families can stay and succeed. we are losing too many of our kids and grandkids. to do that, we need to invest in and protect our greatest assets, our people, our land, and our great lakes, and i look forward to having that debate tonight. thank you. bergman: good evening, i'm jack bergman. the