facebook posts. and watch the debate live or on-demand using your desktop, phone, or tablet at www.c-span.org. listen on your phone with the .ree c-span radio app >> in utah's senate race, incumbent mike lee faces a senate race, incumbent michael he is facing a from democrat misty snow. she's the first transgender face election in a senate race. >> from the campus of brigham young university, the utah debate commission welcomes you to the utah senate candidate debate. [applause]

moderator: i am pleased to have been invited by the utah debate commission to moderate this debate. we are live in the kbyu studios on the campus of brigham young university for a debate between candidates for the united states senate. tonight, we will hear from incumbent republican mike lee and his democratic challenger, misty snow. we begin with each candidate making a 90-second opening statement. prior to the start of the debate, it was determined that misty snow will speak first. .s. snow misty: i would like to thank the utah debate commission for hosting this debate and thank all of you for hosting this debate. i was born right here in the state of utah and lived my entire life here. i have a deep connection to the

state and its people and a deep appreciation for the culture of the state. if elected to the u.s. senate, i will be the first millennial and -- in the u.s. senate, making me a voice for my generation. i work in 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 are going through on a day to day basis. many people feel that congress is out of touch. i believe if we want a government that represents working-class people, when he to elect more working-class people to government. as your senator, i will fight to make sure our workers have a living wage, that our children have clean air to breathe and water to drink. i will make sure our mothers have paid maternity leave and our women are paid equally.

i will fight to get money out of politics. i am not a career politician, not a washington insider. i am someone who will be a new voice in congress, a fresh voice that is needed and is underrepresented, one that will truly represent working-class people. moderator: thank you. similarly. -- senator lee. sen. lee: i want to thank the debate commission for putting this together and i want to thank you why you -- when i ran for the senate in 2010, i promise to be a different kind of senator. i made two promises. 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. i also promised not only to oppose bad ideas, but also to propose good ideas, better ideas. i have kept these promises. over the last six years, i have

fought every single day against washington's dysfunctional status quo in all three branches of government. over the years, i have helped to ban earmarks, two overturns president obama's -- to overturn president obama's unconstitutional recess appointments. i have also worked with democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, to develop a new reform agenda to help working-class families. big ideas including creating new jobs, growing wages and expanding opportunity for all americans, especially those families in those communities that washington's status quo has left behind. i look forward to our discussion. moderator: the utah debate commission has established a format that allows each

candidate 90 seconds for initial response to a question. questions come from students and individuals who submitted their questions to the utah debate commission website. i will begin with this question that goes to miss snow. the least evolved group in politics is college age students and probably the most important issue to most of them is being able to afford their education. what will you do to make college more affordable? ms. snow: as someone who is a millennial, this is an issue i care a lot about because this is an issue that has a big effect on my generation. many people go to college, and they find that college is almost unaffordable. a lot of people have been skipping it because they determine the costs are not worth it. to know if they go to college, they might get her degree, that they will leave with tens 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. we should try to make the student loans have a lower interest rate. wise the current -- why is the current governor -- government trying to make money off the backs of students? why can't we give our students the same deal? we have a lot of grants available for students who want to go to college. another report shows that we could make state university tuition free for about $75 billion year -- $75 billion a year. it would be a plan that makes college more accessible to people who want to choose a career they want instead of being forced into one.

moderator: senator lee, your response to this question? sen. lee: i agree that we are better off as a country when we educated citizens. we have a bigger tax base. everyone benefits with access to affordable education. i completely agree the federal government should not be in the business of making money off of the spread of the rate at which the government charges students. the government should not be in the business of commandeering the student loan industry me first ways. the fact is, we created a dynamic that has resulted in tuition hikes. the federal government and the u.s. department of education, big accrediting bodies in the institutions of higher learning which collectively restricts entry into the industry.

when you restrict entry and simultaneously subsidize people gaining access to the services provided, you hike prices. we need to increase competition in this field where it is solely lacking -- so lacking. i have introduced an act that would create competition in higher education, allowing states to a credit on their own so that alternative providers of higher education temperatures of a. one thing we know about increasing competition. two things always happen. prices tend to go down and quality tends to go up. moderator: a quick follow-up question. you agree on much of this, but in light of what senator lee just said, how do you view for-profit education which has experienced controversy? what would you do about the for-profit sector of higher education?

ms. snow: the for-profit colleges are less affordable because they are trying to make a profit and when we talk about accreditation, we don't want these for-profit colleges being considered equal to respected institutions like brigham young institute -- brigham young university. sen. lee: the fact that some for-profit schools arturo vizcarrondo does not mean they are all bad. so too with nonprofit schools. just because many are good does not mean they are all good. by the fruits, you should know them and that is as true in higher education and -- as it is, anywhere else. we should encourage competition and that will bring quality up.

and tuition down. moderator: the next question is from a student here. andy? andy: i would like to know what specific actions and legislation you would take to address the issue of climate change if elected to office. moderator: senator lee, first. sen. lee: there can be no dispute that the climate is changing. it is what they do. they always have and they always will. some of the greatest debates around whether and in what extent -- what way and to what extent human beings are responsible for the changing climate, and even more critically, what we can do to change that. what i struggle with the most with this question is that every proposal i have heard of that would try to put the government in the middle of this and have the government fix it would do little or nothing to affect climate change, but would simultaneously threatened to devastate the economy.

has president obama himself admitted a few years ago, if we adopt a cap and trade or any of the proposals i am aware of it , would cause energy prices to skyrocket. that is effectively a backdoor invisible tax increase on the poor. it is the most regressive type of expense height you can -- 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 also pay for it with diminished wages and unemployment and underemployment. the best way to get to a cleaner environment is through innovation. it is most likely to happen when we allow our free market economy to prosper, and people will build a better mousetrap and a better car and a better power plant. moderator: miss snow? ms. snow: the issue of climate change is a very important one and despite what -- even if you don't believe it is real, i hear

that -- in the state of you -- -- in the state of utah, we have a problem with air quality. no state is more to satisfy with with thee dissatisfied quality of its error than utah. i would like to propose that our country starts making investments into clean air -- cleaner energy, such as solar, such as wind, also greener transportation. the cost of not doing this is, of course, negative impacts on the health of our citizens, especially our elderly, our children, and pregnant mothers and the right economic costs to not addressing this problem, including spending a lot of money on health care costs. the cost of not doing something is too high. i don't think it would cost too much to start making these investments. we raise the price of gasoline taxes by five cents a gallon. most people in the audience only

did not know that. it was well observed by the -- well absorbed by the economy. if we could do something like that nationwide, a small tax, it would be good for the economy, and that money could be used to start making investments into solar, wind and greener transportation infrastructure. it is important that we start making these investments because the price of not doing it is too high. moderator: you have engaged each other on this question, so i will invite a rebuttal. the question is what is the role of government in legislation or regulation? to each of you, what is the role of government in fostering innovation? other specific roles for government that you think ought to be in balance? sen. lee: there is certainly a important role for the government to play. the government needs to set limits for emissions.

one of the things we struggle with in utah is ozone. one of the problems we have is that we have these one-size-fits-all rules that apply to broad swaths of the country when we have unique jogger be here that might make our situation difficult. that is one of the reasons why i have supported legislation that would create increased flexibility on the parts of the states so they can address the unique aspects of the state. moderator: miss snow. ms. snow: obviously, it's like -- the federal government can play a constructive role, we can start making investments into solar and wind and we talked about jobs, that is a lot of jobs to be created in these industries. solar energy is one of the fastest-growing industries in this country. the government is trying to help make investments will create new jobs and spur economic growth. moderator: great.

let's go to the next question, from clay, a student. clay: members of congress are increasingly dismissive or hostile toward one another. americans have become less and less confident in congress's ability to make laws due to widespread gridlock in both houses. will you compromise with your opposition to pass laws? moderator: miss snow. ms. snow: there are a lot of issues that resonate with the majority of people. a number of loss of past with -- and number of laws have passed with wide bipartisan support. i don't think just because there are certain issues that you cannot find agreement on, there is certainly a lot of issues you can find agreement on. there are a lot of critical issues that are very popular, such as the need for payment if -- the need for paid maternity leave. it's a popular issue. the united states is one of two countries in the world, along with poppa new guinea that , have confirmed to not offer mothers paid maternity leave. 86% of people in this country support guaranteed paid maternity leave, including 73% of republicans.

it's a popular issue and it is a popular issue because everybody has a mother, everybody knows somebody who has given birth and we can finally ensure that mothers in this country have access to paid maternity leave like every other country and it just takes people and congress to actually draft legislation and 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 does have the nations highest birthrate. i think we can have 90% senate agreement with certain issues. moderator: senator lee? sen. lee: miss snow correctly notes a lot of areas in which the parties are deadlocked.

just you reconcile in conflict. they are doing this not just to be obstinate, but the people they represent have different opinions. people across this country have different visions. ms. snow is also correct in pointing out there are areas where that is not the case. this is one of my favorite parts about being a senator. i constantly looking for places am where we can find bipartisan agreement. it's one of the reasons why a few years ago i was troubled by the fact that the federal government and the nsa was collecting data on your phone calls, everyone's phone calls. they know who you called, when you talk and how long you spoke and they kept it in a database for five years. this bothered me and i found a ally in pat leahy. now pat leahy is a liberal democrat from vermont. i am very rarely described that way. he and i put together a bipartisan compromise, a solution called the usa freedom

act. initially members of my party, the republican party were very , reluctant to go along with this. democrats were overwhelmingly supportive and we got a pass with almost all the democrats and about half the republicans in the senate and president obama signed it into law. this is a good example of where this kind of compromise is possible. moderator: i think you both heard -- i think i heard you both say you would be willing to compromise. rachel has the next question. rachel some republican leaders : have advocated a total shutdown of islamic immigration or immigration from dangerous areas. what are your views on this policy? moderator: this question goes to senator lee first. sen. lee: as a religious minority, myself, a descendent of people who were ordered exterminated by the governor of 1828,ri on october 27th, i am strongly against any type of religious test. we should shun any approach that says if you belong to religion

x or believe in religious belief y, you cannot come here or you lose access to this or that. we should push back against that anytime it happens. i also think anytime we are talking about who we will allow into this country, whether it is for humanitarian reasons or economic reasons or work reasons, we have to be careful lettingknow who we are in, we have a good idea whether they had the potential to be u.s. citizens, to abide by our values and respect their fellow americans. every time we take someone in, particularly when taking in refugees from a war-torn country, we have to make sure that we have procedures in place to make sure we know who we are taking in. this is especially difficult with syria. in the case of syria, they have no established record-keeping

system. to the extent that they had one before the civil war, it has been badly damaged. we will have to undertake an extra cautious effort to make sure that we have something to back that up, so we know who is coming in. .oderator: ms. snowe ms. snow: i agree with what -- much of what mike lee said. we should not be favoring immigrants or refugees of one religion over another. it is antithetical to the ideas -- values of our nation. as assess in the we shall not first amendment, establish or favor one religion over another. i think that should apply to our immigration policies as well. this is something that requires a lot of compassion. people are coming from syria or iraq or anywhere else. these people are trying to escape a bad situation. in many cases, certain death from a lot of the war that is happening, a lot of different forces like isis and other groups unaffiliated with them

that are at war with each other. there are a lot of innocent people caught in the middle of that and as a nation, we should show these people compassion. it is ok to accept refugees from syria and elsewhere. the united states has one of the most stringent vetting processes when it comes to bringing people into our nation, 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 add to the great diversity of our nation and it is what makes our nation what it is. moderator: you market leader -- largely agree with each other in terms of the principal, there you largely agree with each

other in terms of the principle, there may be some disagreement on the vetting process. are you confident that the process works and secondly, would you support donald trump's position of an across-the-board prohibition? sen. lee: the second part of that question, absolutely not. no. never. i cannot support that. the other part, i think generally speaking, we do a decent job in vetting people who come here is refugees. syria is a notable exception , and one of the reasons we need to focus on syria is we know isis is manipulating refugee programs in western countries to carry out terrorist activity. we can't let that happen. moderator: miss snow, same question. ms. snow: i agree that donald trump is very wrong on that issue and that religious test -- that is antithetical to our values. honestly syria is problematic, but the vetting process is pretty stringent.

immigration services. i trust our security services. i have a lot of confidence in our government because it has proven to be very effective. we have had very few problems with refugees coming into this nation. moderator: the next question is from the student. >> most americans are concerned about gun violence in their communities. with the increasing rash of mass shootings, many polls indicate 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 bipartisan compromise, what can be done in congress to address this problem? .oderator: ms. snowe ms. snow: this is a huge issue. we have seen several mass shootings over the last year, including one of the worst in our nations history in orlando.

i think that we need to do. when we talk about polling, a poll from august in utah showed that 80% of utahans would like to see people on terror watchlist's band from purchasing guns. i believe it is something we could get some bipartisan support. there might be some issues with how the terror watchlist is structured, but it does give us a good idea on what the public wants on how to move forward on this issue and i think we can find a way to balance the -- legitimate safety needs of our citizens without violating their constitutional rights. we are currently banning people who use marijuana in accordance with state law what a case out of power -- california, from being able to purchase a firearm. there is inconsistency in the

way we are banning citizens from purchasing a firearm, when we allow people on terrorist watch list to buy a firearm. i would like to see mike lee discuss the prohibition of marijuana and protect the rights of legal cannabis users to purchase firearms. sen. lee: we should not let terrorists get guns and we should not put convicted felons -- let convicted felons have access to guns and i understand that polling data often results in numbers like those you cited. we have to rev or what we vote -- we do have to remember that what we vote on in congress is not polling questions. it is legislation, we have to read the actual bill. three years ago, there was a big push for gun-control measure by a couple of my colleagues. people in the media and around washington were predicting that this would pass overwhelmingly, it would be signed into law by the president and nothing would

change it. you had most members of the senate signing on to this legislation before it was even written. this happens, sometimes. i remember when the legislation was released, it had 50 or 60 cosponsors, but no one had read it has it did not exist. when it was released, i spent the weekend reading it. i discovered that this bill would do little or nothing at all to stop violent crime. what it would do was dramatically restrict those who are already law-abiding citizens. every time i review gun-control legislation, i review it with an eye toward respecting the second amendment and comparing that's what it would do if to protect americans from violent crime.

moderator: senator lee, ms. snow mentioned something about cannabis, which is legal in some places but would prohibit people from getting firearms. a response on that question and for ms. snow, a question on assault weapons and other kinds of weapons that you think might be worthy of some premonitions, if any. sen. lee: you are asking me about the legalization of marijuana. moderator: and how it relates to the acquisition of firearms. sen. lee: if we were starting as a matter of first principles, it would make the most sense to allow states the option of deciding what medical treatments are appropriate and legal within that state, rather than having

that is -- decision made by bureaucrats in washington. we currently have a nationwide criminal ban on a number of things, including marijuana, so there is a debate on this that warrants further study, but it is a matter of -- as a matter of first principles, i believe each state should be able to decide what medical treatments are proper for that state. ms. snow: i don't have any issues necessarily with assault rifles. i would say we should work with universal background checks or restrict in certain people from being able to buy arms before we talk about banning certain types of firearms. i am not interested in taking people's guns away and it is why i care so much about the federal prohibition of marijuana. it has treated this issue where many states have legalized cannabis for medical reasons. it is problematic that a lot of people who are using marijuana in accordance with their state law are running into issues where they can no longer own firearms. moderator: two questions for the time of one, and now we are nearing the midpoint.

i welcome you to this debate between misty snow and mike lee, candidates for united states senate. you are joining us live on the campus of brigham young university. this debate is the result of a group of citizens and media outlets joining together to broadcast statewide, a series of exchange and's -- exchanges between candidates for statewide or federal office. questions were submitted in advance at the utah debate commission website. the boehm is -- the aim is to better inform the voters. the next question goes to kim anderson. >> what is the proper balance between religious liberties and the rights of lgbt citizens? are we near the balance now, and if not, what would you advocate? sen. lee: this is an important issue, today.

it is important to understand that they were two different types of discrimination. one type of discrimination, i call private, is what happens when two individuals interact. another type, is when government itself discriminates against its own deceit -- disfavored citizens based on some characteristic disfavored by those in power. both forms can be deadly and ugly and some of the worst things that we see. between the two, public discrimination is perhaps the most dangerous. it is for the simple reason that when government is disfavoring people based on their characteristics that government does not like, people don't have any choice. they can't not interact with the government. there is a disparity in their power and ability to resist because government, particularly the federal government operates with overpowering force. it is what they do. we have to be very careful,

whenever government starts to discriminate on the basis of a disfavored religious belief. i am convinced that lgbt rights and religious liberties can thrive in the same environment and what the government needs to do is take a position of nondiscrimination. it is not going to discriminate people on the basis of the religious police and it will treat all citizens, regardless of race, sexual orientation, with dignity, compassion and respect. ms. snow: i believe that all people deserve equal protection under the law and that extends to lgbt people. the balance of religious rights and the rights of minorities is

that people have the right to believe in whatever religion they want, whatever god or goddess or gods they want. that is a great value of our nation. at the same time, you cannot use those rights to supersede the rights of others. religious rights end where the rights of other individuals begin. you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, you cannot use your religion as an excuse to discriminate against someone. the supreme court has ruled that a business cannot discriminate against interracial couples based on the religion and as per the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, they should not be able to discriminate against same-sex couples for the same reason. it is possible to balance all rights of all people. i don't think it is a problem to say you need to treat all customers equally if you own a business.

you should not favor some customers over others and you should not be able to serve only christians or white people and you should not only be able to serve straight cis people. we should show equal treatment and love and compassion to all people and as a senate -- as a senator, i will support equal rights for lgbt people without exception. moderator: what either of you like time for rebuttal? sen. lee: i would. designed at the old called the first amendment defense act, the purpose of which was to prohibit the federal government or any of its agencies or departments from discriminate against any religious institution or individual. regardless of what your religious police about marriage are, and regardless of what your neighbor might believe from a religious standpoint about

marriage, neither you nor your neighbor should ever be discriminate against by government waste on that belief. ms. snow: the problem with bills like the first amendment defense act is that it allows -- primus legalizes discrimination in the name of religion. let's say you own a hospital by the catholic church. it would be wrong for the hospital to discriminate against someone who needs life-saving medical care because they are lgbt. there are issues where back in 2000, there was a man -- a transgender men with ovarian cancer who was denied access to 13 different hospitals on the basis that he was trans and that he died from his condition because he was not able to get medical care due to discrimination by private hospitals. sen. lee: i would like to respond if i could? moderator: a-10-second response.

sen. lee: if you look at the first amendment defense act, it is not cover what you described. for we are talking about is -- : i would like to encourage religious institutions like byu to treat all students equally, regardless of whether or not they are lgbt. that is the loving, humane and compassionate thing to do. moderator: hold your applause please. this next question goes to misty snow, first. >> we often loom on the precipice of government shutdowns because we cannot pass a budget. senator lee, you were a supporter of shutting down the government in 2013. under what conditions would you support shutting down the government if reelected? -- ms. snow, what conditions would you support shutting of the government? ms. snow: i don't think congress should shut down the government. congress has a job to govern, to

pass a budget. that government shutdown of 2013 that mike lee was a huge part of, i think was a shameful mark on our ship -- nation's history and it was about trying -- whether or not we should get health care to our citizens, which -- republicans did not offer an alternative to the affordable care act, they just claimed that it was unconstitutional. of course, the supreme court ruled if double care act is in fact constitutional. while the government was shutdown, the state of utah lost nearly $30 million and the federal government is the largest employer in the state of utah. people were out of work, they did not know when their next paycheck would be an people that live with them, families and children, were struggling because they were not sure if they were going to see a paycheck anytime soon. we have five national parks,

national monuments, millions of acres of public land. a lot of communities that depend on the national parks, places like cedar city, they depend on tourism in their communities. during the government shutdown, people were not coming to their hotels, to the restaurants, a -- people were not buying stuff, and that hurts those communities and showing them the government is no way to lead and i would do everything i can to keep government working for the people. moderator senator lee. : sen. lee: shutting down the government is bad. let me tell you what really happened in 2013. halfway through 2013, we learned that president obama rewrote key portions of obamacare without statutory authority, without any authority under the constitution. he said it was necessary because as he explained it, obamacare was not ready to be implemented is written. based on that explanation, i and other members of the house said if it is not ready to be of

limited, let's not fund its implementation. it was set to kick in fully january 1, to the what we 14. proposed was that we delay funding for that first year because president obama said it was not ready. we know now what he meant when he said it was not ready. we know that people have seen premium increases year after year and just recently, one of utah's largest health insurance -- health insurers announced another increase that will hit ratepayers, next year. what we suggest it was that we have a least two votes to fund the government. it is one of the problems of washington, to put all the spending decisions into one vote. we said let's have at least two votes. we'll have one vote on whether to fund obamacare, another vote on funding for everything else in the government. president obama said no, unless you are willing to fund everything in government,

including obamacare, i will not let you fund everything -- anything. not veterans benefits, not national parks, nothing else. president obama shut down the government. you have been told otherwise by the media, but you are wrong. ms. snow: the government was shutdown, you should have done more, the senate could have done more to have prevented that. the senate does create bills, they do put provisions into single bills, returning on the government was such an extreme response. talking about the affordable care act, it has been very good in reducing the number of people who are uninsured in this country with very good consumer protections that allow people to have health insurance without being denied because of pre-existing conditions. obviously we need to do more to ensure that everyone has access to health care, but it is a complex topic we can't talk about in 90 seconds. sen. lee: only one grocery store

for miles around, your spouse calls you and says bring home bread, milk and eggs. you get those in the cashier says i cannot sell you those items unless you also buy a bucket of nails and a half ton of iron or and a book about cowboy poetry and a barry manilow album. you say you don't even like barry manilow and they say too bad, unless you buy all these items, you can't buy anything. this is how washington has been funding itself. it is wrong and it has to stop. moderator: the next question for both candidates. some senators have held open the possibility of moving on a vote to confirm member garland for the united states supreme court before the new president is sworn in. belkin majority leader mitch mcconnell has says the new -- has said the newly elected president should name that justice.

if elected, would you vote to confirm member garland to the supreme court? why or why not? who would you include on your short list for supreme court justices? sen. lee: every time he will talk about the supreme court vacancy that is currently open, those who want judge garland confirmed are often using the talking point that the senate needs to do its job and act. the senate does act, anytime the president nominates someone requiring senate confirmation. the senate acts in some cases by holding hearings and votes and putting the person up. the senate can also do that when it puts the person down. the senate also ask and speaks which uses not to hold hearings or vote because that is the same result as voting the person down. this is the senate's prerogative and it is one taken seriously because the senate is a local

body. -- a political body. and it is put into the appointment process for a reason. it has become increasingly important in recent years because the supreme court has started involving itself in the process of deciding all kinds of issues that are hotly debated matters of public policy. it's decided issues ranging from the sanctity of unborn human life to the definition of marriage and everything in between. with that politicizing of the supreme court, it should not be surprising that the senate has chosen to exercise its power to allow the next president to fill this vacancy left by the late justice antonin scalia. ms. snow: many utah ends -- many thoughtans -- many utahans would feel that mike lee is not doing his job. a public policy pulled from august showed a majority wanted

merrick garland to have a hearing. that is how the process is supposed to work and i think it is shameful that every day, our nation is setting a new record for the longest vacancy in the history of our nation on the supreme court. as a u.s. senator, i would be willing to give mary garland a hearing or whoever else the sitting president nominates. i would give them a fair hearing and vote them up or down based on the merits. that is what the senate is supposed to do, that is what the majority of people across the nation one, it is a issue where having vacancies on the court prevents the court from working as effectively. since antonin scalia is death, we have had a number of 4-4 decisions -- antonin scalia is -- antonin scalia's death, we

have had a number of 4-4 decisions. you can go back to early parts of the 20th century and they always ruled on the constitutionality of laws. i think that is their purpose and to confirm that nominee to, to fill that vacancy, that is what is needed. moderator: how long would you allow such a period to go if you were saying the senate was acting by not acting? would you still bring it to a vote? sen. lee: the question of deciding when to bring it up is the decision of the majority leader. that will be up to chuck schumer or mitch mcconnell. i want to be clear about one thing with judge garland. it is an open secret, a well-known fact that if he were

confirmed, he would predictably reliably vote with the block of justices that includes ginsburg, breyer, kagan and sotomayor. if you like the far left agenda pushed by those justices, then you would want to confirm judge garland. if not, you would feel differently. ms. snow: i disagree that judge garland would be as liberal as mike lee says. he was spoken of very highly because he is a fairly moderate justice and probably the most conservative justice that a democratic president has nominated in recent years. what would get me to support a nominee of an opposing party, it depends on how the answer our questions. the most important issue would be justices going to overturn citizens united. we have had justices confirmed with bipartisan support. antonin scalia was confirmed unanimously. moderator: the next question is

from sam williams. >> if brought to a vote, will you support the transpacific partnership which aims to strengthen economic ties between partnering nations in the pacific rim by slashing tariffs and fostering trade. -- fostering trade? why or why not? ms. snow: i am against the transpacific partnership. there are a lot of problematic provisions in the tpp. it gives too much power to corporations that would undermine the sovereignty of our own government. i find it problematic that many of the provisions were drafted largely in secret without congressional approval until very recently. many of the members of the house and our senators had no idea what was in the trade deal being discussed. i find that very problematic and if our congress is supposed to vote on such bills, there needs

to be transparency in the process. instead of having the trade deal written by congress, it seems to have been written by private corporations and we were done we're looking at trade deals overall, i find some of our past trade deals such as nafta, while it might of increased trade, it has actually hurt the american workers and abroad in that there are no labor protections and environmental protections, no wage standards in those laws and it has forced our workers to compete with brutalize child labor in the third world and sweatshops in filthy conditions and that has led to a number of corporations closing up shop here and moving abroad where labor is cheaper and it is a race to the bottom, and we need to have fair trade deals that protect our -- interests of our

workers and their workers. sen. lee: the tpp is a international trade agreement. i am supportive of free trade. it is good for consumers because it gives consumers access to more affordable products. it is good for manufacturers, including right here in utah and to farmers and other businesses who transact internationally because it gives them access to new markets. when reviewing this or other trade agreements, i have that as my central inquiry, what will this do to promote free trade? we would do more to promote free trade then to restrict it -- then to restrict it? is there any other reason to oppose it? will it subject american policymaking authorities and with it, american sovereignty to some international tribunal of people making decisions? with the tpp, this requires a lot of study because the thing is more than 5000 pages long. i agree with missed note that there has been a problem with transparency in this document. when i went to read it, it was

not public. i had to go into this underground bunker to review it. i could not take any parts of it outside the capital. it was not subject to public disclosure. it is now out and i are reviewing it. -- i am reviewing it. 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 at this point. moderator: thank you both. you have been very good on staying on time. we will go to the next question, our last question with a 45 second answer. stephen jamison will ask. >> what will be the most important message about our country that you as a senator would share with you top that rader or high school student studying american history? -- would share with a fifth grader or high school student studying american history? ms. snow: become involved in

current events, pay attention, and as you get older, pay attention to the political process. there is a problem currently with my generation. we are the largest voting block, but we are not actually exercising our power proportionally. it is important as they come of age, they become active citizens and vote and become involved politically. that is the message i would like our young people growing up to have. i want them to be cynically engaged and pay attention to how government works. sen. lee: the single most important message i have to focus on would be the u.s. constitution. this document has foster the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. it has done this by limiting government power, not just because we want weak government, but because we want strong citizens. the u.s. constitution is often misunderstood and to seldom read. it is not even taught as much as

it should be. its two most important features are that limits power and make sure it is exercised only by a -- by elected representatives. if we learn and read the constitution, we we better off. -- we will be better off as a result. moderator: thank you for those motivational statements. we are approaching the end of the we have time remaining for hour. each candidate to present a one minute closing statement. just before the debate, it was determined that senator lee will speak first. sen. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank the utah debate commission for hosting this event and i want to thank my opponent for being here. this has been 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 manufactures nothing. it is not a technological

innovation hub. it is not the home of many fast collection of natural resources. the wealth is there 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 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 power back to where it belongs, in your hometowns, your neighborhoods, your families. i am running so that i can return power to you. moderator: ms. snow. ms. snow: thank you very much

for hosting this debate. i would like to thank mike lee for debating with me. this has been a great privilege. i hope that you understand that there are some key differences between senator mike lee and i -- i a working class person who am has lived my entire life in utah. i will represent working-class issues. there are a number of issues i would have liked to talk about that did not get brought up. i think when we talk about protecting women, and i would like to point out that senator mike lee voted against the renewal of the violence against women act in 2013. i would have liked to have had an opportunity to discuss those issues, but i find mike lee's actions on those topics problematic and we need someone who wants to protect our most vulnerable citizens, including our women and children and i will be such a senator. you have more power than you realize. you have a power to elect a working-class person who will

represent working-class people, and i would encourage you to exercise that power. thank you very much. [applause] moderator: my thanks to senator mike lee and misty snow for their participation. they are candidates for the united states senate. thanks to those who submitted and asked questions and appreciation to the administration, faculty, staff and students at brigham young university for hosting this event on their campus. the utah debate commission reminds you that the next debate will be at 6 p.m. on monday, october 17 from we pursue university in ogden. that debate will feature candidates for utah's first congressional district. if you would like to attend that debate or the final debate in this series, or if you have questions you would like to have submitted for consideration, please visit the utah debate commission website at utah it -- -- the utah debate commission website at utahdebatecommission.org.

you will also find a video archive that will contain this and all of the season's debates. we invite you to exercise your right to vote on or before november 8. for the candidates of your mcabee,i'm david wishing you a good evening and inviting the live audience to join me in expressing appreciation to the candidates. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> saturday on c-span, donald trump holds a campaign rally in portsmouth, new hampshire. watch live coverage on c-span or listen onn.org your smart with the c-span radio cap -- on your smart phone with the c-span radio app. >> i don't write a column that comes from the left of the right. i think i am the only one who doesn't have an ideological slant. >> sunday night on q&a, maureen dowd discusses her book "the year of voting dangerously." do not like about the clintons -- and donald trump

does this, too -- when they get in trouble, they try to blame someone else. when bill got in trouble with monica, the white house aides would call around and say, well, thomas jefferson -- dead presidents they are dragging in, right? >> sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. >> every four years the presidential candidates turned to humor at the alfred e. smith memorial foundation dinner at the historic waldorf four-story a hotel. i have nevergan: understood the logistics of been is like this and how the absence of us do not have seat. >> mr. vice president, i am glad to see you tonight be you said many times you want to give america back to the little guy. mr. vice president, i am that man.

>> it's an honor to share the ais with a descendent of the great out smith. he was my favorite kind of governor. the kind who ran for president and lost. >> you are right. a campaign can require a lot of wardrobe changes. blue jeans in a morning, suits for a lunch fundraiser, a sport for dinner,t coat and now it's nice to relax and and i wear around the house. >> watch the alfred e. smith memorial foundation dinner with hillary clinton and donald trump. >> in the wisconsin senate race, income but ron johnson is up against former senator russ feingold. in a one-hour debate they

answered questions about the .ontrol, health care, education this comes courtesy the wisconsin broadcasters association. infrom the studios of wluk green bay, the 2016 u.s. senate debate, with incumbent republican senator ron johnson and democratic challenger russ feingold. the vba foundation -- ident and ceo >> good evening. the wisconsin broadcasters association and its member television and radio stations are pleased to welcome you to two leadingbetween candidates, ron johnson and russ feingold. tonight's debate originates from green bay, wisconsin, from the studios of wluk tv.

behind me, the home of the green bay packers, the legendary lambeau field. tonight the debate is underwritten by the wba foundation and the wisconsin association of independent colleges and universities. it is being broadcast on radio and television stations across wisconsin and on c-span. let's go to our moderator, a veteran wisconsin broadcaster, member of the wnba hall of fame and professor of integrity, joe geisler. jill: our goal tonight is a debate that helps voters make choices. the panelists ask questions that are relevant, fact-based, and fair. the candidates answer with specifics. no ducking, dodging, or changing the subject. the panelists have researched and done their part. we are incorporating a social