done, when it comes to race. and that's why we think the rule of evidence here gives way in a situation where it might not in other cases. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. with the supreme court in session we have a special webpage to help you follow the court on c-span.org. you will see the calendar for this term, a list of current justices and with video-on-demand, watch oral arguments in recent appearances by supreme court justices at c-span.org. i do not write a column that comes to the left or the right and i think i am only one who does a political common that does not have an ideological slant. >> marine dowd discusses her book, the year of voting

dangerously. >> one thing i don't like about the clintons is when they get in trouble, they try and blame ineone else so when bill got trouble with monica, the white house aides said, well, thomas jefferson -- [laughter] sunday night at 8:00 eastern. this weekend, c-span's cities tour will explore the literary history of peoria, illinois. selling the 16th president -- talks about modern marketing and selling of abraham lincoln. >> he is portrayed in your area hero, someone who stood his

ground against the spread of slavery. know onr: taylor penta explores organized crime in illinois during the 1920's-19 40's through the legendary gangster family. to a war in illinois between the clans and bootleggers. the bootleggers -- a bootlegging army. announcer: on american history tv, p aurea historians talk about its history as the whiskey capital of the world. >> it was primarily because of the quality of the water. filtered ins essence through limestone and that was perfect for distilling announcer: we'll visit the usda center where in 19 41 scientists discovered out a mass produce

penicillin credited for saving thousands of allied lives during world war ii. announcer: republican congressman joe heck and former state attorney general catherine cortez master are on the ballot to fill the seat soon-to-be vacated by minority leader harry reid, who is retiring -- republican congressman joe heck and former state attorney general catherine cortez masto. tonight, the candidates to part in an hour-long debate. >> live from las vegas, this is the 2016 senatorial debate. , ths the 2016 senatorial debate. >> tonight, we are live at canyon springs high school in

north las vegas for the first and only senatorial debate in nevada. good evening and welcome. in a moment, your candidates will face off. republican congressman joe heck and democratic attorney general of nevada catherine cortez masto . .ood evening this debate is being broadcast not only here on channel eight but across the state at cbs , live on c-span, snow.com asasvega , and it will also reenter on sunday. if you would like to take part in the debate or see additional information about the questions we will be asking tonight, you tag you for the hash

see on your screen, which is #nvdebate. each candidate a question and then the candidates will ask each other a question. finally, we have individual questions for each candidate. each candidate will have one minute to answer and begin and 30 seconds for a response. by thee is a follow-up moderators, the candidate will be given 30 seconds to answer. a bell will ring when your time is up. in an earlier coin flip, it was determined that catherine cortez ag masto : -- catherine cortez masto would be asked the first question. by the time outgoing senator harry reid was elected to the senate, he served one term in

the state assembly, two terms as the lieutenant governor, chairman of the gaming in theion, and two terms u.s. house of representatives. you are a two-term nevada attorney general, but you have never served in any legislative ranch in the state or federal government. can you explain if elected how a new junior senator would be able to maneuver through the senate halls, secure federal running, and also the influence that nevada voters have come to expect. for the: thank you question, and let me say thank you to those watching. we appreciate you hosting tonight and having the opportunity to talk with you. that's a great question. was in aey general, i unique position. i got to introduce legislation. i introduced over 40 bills during the years i was in office, and those bills was supported and passed out of our legislation with the support of democrats and republicans & by republican governor. i think that is what is missing

in washington -- bipartisan problem solving. we need to focus on what is happening in our communities, how to address those issues, and how we work together to move forward and address those concerns i see every day from working families in nevada. >> thank you. congressman, you are a two-term congressman. you served one term in the nevada state senate and since you have been in congress, you have not passed a budget or comprehensive immigration reform, so the same question -- can you explain how you would be able to maneuver through the senate halls, secure that important federal funding, and also may influence nevada voters have come to expect? rep. heck: i want to offer my thanks as well to everybody sponsoring the debate and everybody here to participate. theosition gave me background and understanding of how to work the legislative process and i was successful getting legislation passed. during my three terms in congress, i have passed multiple

pieces of legislation in bipartisan ways, each of which the specification important to the people of nevada. because i've had the opportunity to serve in washington, d.c., i've been able to build relationships and not just with members of the house but with members of the senate. i already have relationships with many on both sides of the in order that i have been able to pass my legislation that i have introduced, and i will be able to leverage those relationships and continue to work in the best interest of nevada's people. >> thank you both. our next question is from steve. steve: this seems to have been one big news moment after another involving the presidential candidates. polls show democrat hillary clinton narrowly leading republican donald trump. like it or not, both candidates are linked to the presidential candidate of their party.

congressman, six days ago, you call for donald trump to step down from the race. he has said many offensive things over the past 15 months that probably give you pause. why only now have you withdrawn your support? rep. heck:on i made -- the decision i made last week was very personal. i have tried to live my life but not just a military code of honor but a personal code of honor. as an emergency department dr., i have taken care of far too many women who have been victims of to mystic violence or sexual assault, and i have great empathy for anyone who ever had to experience such a tragedy. my wife was the victim of domestic abuse in a prior relationship. the decision i made was an extremely personal decision. steve: thank you. , you statedasto that secretary clinton has your support because --

but the fbi director testified before congress that hillary liedon live -- live -- about e-mails she said when she was secretary of state. hillary clinton has recognized and taken responsibility for those e-mails and said she would not do it again, but there's no doubt in my mind she has the temperament, experience, and ability to lead this country as commander-in-chief, but let me talk about something congressman heck said. it is astonishing to me that for eight months, nine months, he was donald trump's biggest supporter, when donald trump was attacking p.o.w.'s, attacking gold star family's. congressman heck had no problem with donald trump the and on the button. when donald trump was making fun of the disabled, attacking mexicans, calling them rapists

and criminals, and calling women names and denigrating women, which we know why he was, because he thinks he can sexually assault women, congressman heck had high hopes donald trump would be president. let's call this what it is -- congressman heck is worried about his political career. donald trump's ship is sinking, congressman heck wants to try to save his career. steve: there's the bell. i have a hunch that congressman heck -- [applause] against your count time, sir. please, give us your response. rep. heck: as i said, this was a very personal decision for me to decision,a political and i find it difficult to my opponent would support someone who the american people have deemed untrustworthy. when my opponent was asked if she would consider using a private server, she said she would not want to speculate

about that. this is a woman who lied to the families of the people lost in benghazi about why they lost their lives as american patriots, because the equipment and material needed to keep them secure was not provided by the state department. >> over 50 national security of, republican security advisers think donald trump is a security risk and they are not supporting him, but you were still supporting him. again, you cannot walk away or run away from now. you do not get credit for that. you were with him for eight months. it was a desperate attempt to save your political career. steve: desperate attempt. 15 seconds. [applause] steve: that will not count against your time, either. rep. heck: likewise, my opponent continues to support someone who has been deemed untrustworthy by the american people, lied to the family members of those who died in benghazi, kept classified material on her personal server. leave: thank you both. [applause] -- steve: thank you both.

[applause] have certainly a lot of enthusiasm for the issue. let's talk about an issue that is very important to our state, and that is immigration. >> you both say you are for immigration reform. both of your plans call for a secure border and a path to citizenship. we hear a lot of statements such as bring people out of the shadows and keep families together, but not a lot of specifics. please tell us at least one specific aspect of your immigration reform plan that is different from your opponent's. ag masto: first of all, thank you for the question and this should be a priority in congress. my grandfather came from mexico. he crossed the rio grande, served in our military, and became a united states citizen and brought his family to las vegas for the opportunity to succeed, work hard, make sure your kids have every opportunity

. that is no different than the people in this state. there is a family rate here that i have talked to. they are here. they are fighting to ensure their kids have every opportunity, and, yes, it is about ensuring we put them on a tough but fair path to citizenship. it is bringing them out of the shadows. it is time they have the opportunity to have a job and not worry about being deported. comprehensiveg immigration reform would contribute to our economy, and we can't tell address the border security in this country, so this should be a priority, and for me, it is. as your next united states senator, this is something i would be focusing on -- [bell rings] [applause] >> how would you specifically tackle border security, since you brought it up? ag masto: that's a great question. i worked with state and federal law enforcement always concerned about the people in this state.

we already know with respect to border security, we have 21st istury technology, if it jerome's, satellites, the technology we can use now can help us address the border issues. we have put funding already into the border for bodies and resources, and we want to continue to do so, but at the end of the day, let's not get caught up in the specifics of border security where my opponent wants to go -- [bell rings] ag masto: let me just say, it is about passing comprehensive immigration reform and not arresting dreamers when they show up to your office asking to move forward. >> congressman, the same question to you. [applause] you will get your time. give us one specific aspect of your immigration reform plan that is different am your opponent's. my maternalikewise, grandparents immigrated here from italy to give their family a better life.

not for them taking that risk, i would not have the opportunities that i have here today. i cannot say what is different on my opponent because she has not ever said what her strategy would be for comprehensive immigration reform. however, i would they one of the things we must do is addressed our legal immigration system. if we do not fix our legal system, we will continue to have the problems we face today. when someone does go through the legal channels and becomes a or even getsident citizenship, they should not have to wait 10 to 12 years in order to bring their spouse or family over. let's talk about a robust guestworker program that meets unmet demands in the united states while not disenfranchising unemployed americans. both unskilled and high-tech, we have critical needs. let's work, as i did, in drafting legislation with many members who are probably in the audience tonight to come up with ways for dream is to get a path to citizenship. [bell rings] [applause]

ag masto: congressman heck, you know where we differ. i support the bipartisan version that passed out of the senate and you opposed it. there's a clear distinction between the two of us. when you talk about passing immigration reform and helping people, and you do not sign on to sue the president. you have an opportunity to move this issue forward in the house youmove forward on it, all had to do was sign a petition, and you refused to even lift a pen to sign that. rep. heck: the comprehensive bill that came out of the senate never came up for vote in the house. we need to work toward comprehensive immigration reform. i do not support a 2000-page bill. i support addressing each piece of immigration reform

individually. >> deportation as well? rep. heck: i've never talked about deportation. i believe when we talk about the undocumented outside dreamers, that those are have a criminal past should be deported, however those -- [bell rings] rep. heck: vendors of the undocumented community without records of violent crimes should be given a path to citizenship. >> of want to remind the audience we appreciate your enthusiasm, but this is our one and only chance to talk to these candidates, and if you continue to interrupt, that goes against their time. steve: our next question comes from colleen jeffrey, who wrote in via facebook asking if you would support a government shutdown. back in 2013, there was a government shutdown. here is a look at some of the consequent is. federal workers who live and work at a nevada national security site were furloughed. some of our top tourist estimations were closed. there was also the threat of ,topping benefits programs

which governor sandoval called "catastrophic." we're going to do something different. i want you to raise your hand if as a senator, you would commit to never shutting down the federal government, through inaction or action. congressman has already done it. i don't know why he is raising his hand. rep. heck: there was never a vote to shut down the government. seed: we will come to you in a second. --gressman heck, you voted back in 2013, there was a dispute over the affordable care act, and the government almost was shut down or actually, was shut down for 16 days. is she right? there was never a vote to shut down the government, and a voted for every piece of legislation to open the government backed up and voted to a guard pay and benefits for military members. there was never a vote to shut

down the government. steve: this will be a 32nd -- 30-secondw-up -- follow-up. there is a pathway by which when there is a government slowdown that certain nonessential services are curtailed. again, there was never a vote to shut down the government. i voted for every piece of legislation to openly government backed up and voted to safeguard those whose benefits were in jeopardy -- ismasto: listen to what he saying. he is trying to dance around the subject. he supported the government shutdown and continue to support it voting 16 times for the sequestration. he cannot run from his record. rep. heck: sequestration had nothing to do with government shutdown. two separate items. ag masto: it is a typical washington politician trying to dance around the problem.

we need people that are problem solvers that are working together to make sure we are impacting lives and doing a better job of helping working families in this country and state. i get around the state and talk to them, but we have the worst foreclosure crisis we have ever seen. i fought not only on the national mortgage settlement, but seven or eight other banks and financial institutions because when people are suffering in your state, you fight for them and ensure you are doing everything. because of that, we got over $1.9 million in relief to homeowners here. there is a homeowner in the audience now. we helped save her home -- talk aboute going to the housing issue a little bit later. [applause] on, let'shts, moving take another question. >> on the ballot in november, a question of all gun sales being subjected to a background check by a third party. we commissioned a poll and found

that nevadans support the measure by 51% and 38% oppose. do you support? , and will you support universal background checks on a national level? oneasto: i support question . my husband is a retired secret service agent. i was born and raised in nevada and my father and uncles and cousins all our hunches, but you now what we have in common? we are responsible gun owners. raised inorn and nevada and my father and uncles and cousins all are hunters. it requires us at a federal level to address these issues, and one of the commonsense things we could have done is made sure we passed a law to make sure terrorists are no-fly lists cannot buy a gun in this country, but congressman heck -- terrorists are

no-fly list cannot buy a gun in this country, but congressman heck opposed that. he would not even vote for that. >> congressman, same question to you. rep. heck: i do not support question one because i feel it does not really address the problem that we face. the issue is not a legal gun owners. the issue is that the records necessary to run background checks are not in the background why isystem, and that's supported legislation that provided additional resources to the states, to get the records necessary into the system to actually run an adequate background check. in addition, we need to prosecute those who go to a gun store and try to purchase a gun when they are -- they know they are not able to do so. we prosecute very few of them. likewise, we need to stiffen penalties on the third person or strawman buyer, the individual who is purchasing a gun to give to someone they know is not able to hold a gun. then we need to address the mental health issue. if you look at the tragic mess shootings that have occurred in all decade, they were

committed by legally purchased guns by individuals who underwent a background check. what we are doing is putting a band-aid on the issue without addressing the root cause. it's really talk about the mental health issues in this state and this country to provide the resources to take care of those individuals. [l rings] [applause] >> congressman, thank you. even thoughosition polls show 51% support the measure? ag masto: -- rep. heck: it is my decision. it would criminalize people for living a gun to a person at an established gun mage, but there is no definition of an established gun range. very ambiguous and would criminalize otherwise legal activity. again, a typical washington politician trying to come up with a because i let me tell you, we are already

addressing straw buyers and enforcing the law and arresting individuals. what we need is more people working together to reduce the gun violence, and expanding the background checks, closing the gun show loophole -- i don't think so but it should be able to buy a gun over the internet, but congressman heck does. that's the difference here. we need people working on commonsense solutions to get things done in this country. and, yes, we have a mental health issue we should address. absolutely, but that requires people in washington to continue to run the services we need for mental health in this country. congressman heck votes with the ryan budget and they cut services for treatment for mental health. he is voting with his tea party and the right wing nine times out of 10 when he is in washington. >> 15 seconds to respond, congressman. [applause] rep. heck: i had taken a proactive approach trying to address the real problems associated with gun violence, working with democrats to

increase resources for the background check system, making and we increase penalties prosecute those who illegally purchase firearms. we passed legislation out of the house of representatives to provide services necessary as well as the competence of addiction and recovery act to provide services to those who have substance abuse problems. those are the issues we need to address most urgently if we truly want to decrease the propensity for gun violence in this country. as we seen, the acts that have occurred were done by those who purchased guns legally. [bell rings] [applause] tomasto: now is the time pass question one and address the background check issue, mixer individuals cannot buy guns on the internet. this one is astounding to me. you must pass a law at the federal level to ensure that terrorists are no watchlist or no-fly lists cannot buy weapons in the country. the terrorist no-fly list is a political ploy put up by the other side in order to

score points. there's only about 1000 u.s. persons on that list. even the american liberties because against it there's no due process. we know many people on the list are on there was no good reason. in addition, the department of investigation does not want that to happen because of preventive and from initiating investigations on people who might be on the list. >> thank you. [applause] >> congressman heck, it sounds like you have your washington republican talking points down on that issue. >> we are moving on to another topic because we had a lot of questions. we will give you plenty of time to apply at the end of the program. i appreciate your enthusiasm, but your taking time away. this is a question that comes rahm mike evans via facebook. mike evans via facebook. he asked --

we're going to dig a little deeper into this question. this is a multipart question. bear with us. the question will appear on the monitor in front of you. we are looking at a dollar figure here. we will give you the full minute to respond to the answer. the first question is going to ms. cortez masto. at what income level do you consider a family to be middle-class? just a dollar figure. ag masto: the median income for people in the state of nevada is $52,000 a year. >> based on that, do you support raising taxes on top wage earners, and at what income with that oh ag masto: let's talk about that. here's the challenge we have in this country -- we have working families that we know that paycheck does not go as far, and that of giving them tax breaks, which i have talked about, giving thousand dollars tax breaks to working families so they can keep more of their hard-earned money, and you know how we pay for it yet it sure we're not giving tax breaks to big corporations

shipping jobs overseas. we take away the unnecessary subsidies to big oil, and we passed something like the buffet rule to ensure millionaires and billionaires are not at lower tax rate than of administrative assistance, but we need people in washington who are looking out for working families, not those big corporations. congressman heck is working for the big corporations. all of his votes in congress have then to support big corporations, unnecessary subsidies for big oil, and he is not looking out or working families. cliques can we get a number from you? is actuallyinton proposing raising taxes on 250 thousand dollars or more. is that a bigger you are comfortable with? ag masto: i think that is something we need to look at in this country, how we ensure we are bringing families out poverty. if you are making minimum wage making date, you are $15,000 -- >> is there a number you have in mind? ag masto: no, and that is something we need to address in

this country. if that pulls people out of poverty and does a better job or working families in nevada and pulls people out of poverty, i would absolutely like to look at it. >> perhaps congressman heck has a number in mind. we have the question on the monitor so you can all along. at what income level would you consider a family to be middle-class? rep. heck: that is geographically dependent. the median in nevada is $50,000 year, but in other areas around the country, middle-class is much higher. a member from new york became quite perturbed when it was mentioned that $110,000 would be considered middle-class for his constituents in new york city. >> but you are right, it is 52,000 in nevada. let talk about what it would be for top wage earners and what income that at for you and would you consider taxing those people? work onk: we need to reforming our tax code in general, negatively so everybody can feel at the taxes on one sheet of april. nobody should get away without

paying anything, if you are an individual or big corporation. everybody should be paying something into the treasury to support that man or woman who was wearing a you, picking up a weapon and standing to keep our liberties and freedoms safe. >> mr. trump is proposing across-the-board tax relief for everybody. rep. heck: i think we need to make a fairer, flatter tax system that lowers rates especially for the middle class. have aneither of you hard figure. last 30 seconds on this topic. ag masto: it's difficult. he does not answer the question and dances around it. i am absolutely willing to ask for hillary clinton's proposal, but here's my concern -- i know he is concerned about people in new york, but i am concerned about people here in nevada. i want to make sure that we are -- [applause] pulling families out of poverty. do i have a your for you right now yahoo! no, but i am absolutely willing to explore and to make sure we

are fighting for families in nevada. i find it a critical that i did not answer the question which did not give a number as well. [applause] rep. heck: the fact is we do everything possible to make our tax code fairer, flatter, easier and lowering tax rates for all americans to spur economic growth, create better paying jobs, and lift the ball out of poverty. >> a lot of work to do in, it sounds like. let's move on to our next question. >> many have questioned chief ontice john roberts' ruling obamacare. it caught many people off guard that a conservative justice ruled in favor. should it be a litmus test for judicial confirmations, and if not, what is your litmus test for a supreme court justice? ap. heck: i do not have litmus test on any given issue for a supreme court nominee. i want to look at their history during their time on the bench. i would prefer to support somebody who will interpret the constitution as written, uphold

the constitution and our freedoms and liberties and not attempt to legislate or rewrite the constitution on the bench in order to fulfill some political agenda. >> are you saying you do not have a specific criteria for a supreme court justice? have no specific individual litmus test. i will judge them on their history on the bench. listen, there are characteristics and individuals that i like and admire, like justice sotomayor or an justice but for me, i'm looking for some who has an understanding of the rule of law, can live a lot rarely and equitably, and also, we need a more diverse bench, right we need to ensure we are putting justices there that have real world application because we know it impacts people every day in their lives. let me just say it is astonishing to me congressman heck does not say he has a litmus test when he is on record and the type of justice he is

looking for is one like justice scalia. >> do you have a response to that? is no response. i can point out specific justices, just like she did. we all had justices we believe represent our views. that is not a litmus test. it is a individual personality. ag masto: but it is, because of your looking at, like justice scalia, who we know is very conservative and would overturn roe v wade, that is a concern for many people across this country -- rep. heck: no, just this really is -- [applause] rep. heck: justice scalia of health original. , which is my primary doctrine -- justice scalia upheld original theory. you to the audience for applauding my next question, which is about the a portable care act. according to the health and human services department, more than 73,000 people in nevada are

butlled in obamacare, premiums here and across the country are skyrocketing. in some states, it is going up by more than 50%. the issue has republicans and democrats calling for changes, in looting former president clinton. president clinton: you had this crazy system were suddenly, 25,000 people help health care and suddenly, people wind up with their premiums doubled their coverage cut in half. it is the craziest thing in the world. steve: just this week, one of the more liberal governors in the country said -- americans say they want to keep three provisions -- three key provisions in the act -- so, ms. cortez masto, to you,

where would you start to fixed skyrocketing cost premiums? ag masto: it is a great question. we know governor sandoval created the exchange in nevada, expanded medicaid so we have more people that have insurance in this state, and, listen, i know being around and talking to people about this very issue, frustration, rightfully so, by nevadans, and we can do more, but it starts with a reform-minded approach, working together to keep what works, what you just talked about, steve, and axing what does not, like repealing and addressing the cadillac tax and the high premiums we see, but that is what we need to start, a reform-minded approach. my opponent was to repeal it. we do not need to go through another divisive fight over health care industry. a comment 300,000 nevadans will no longer have health insurance. when -- back to the day

is being a woman considered a pre-existing condition? he would open up the doughnut hole for medicare part d for seniors who need that insurance. this is an issue where we need bipartisan problem solvers. heck -- ngressman [applause] steve: congressman heck, you have voted to repeal the of double act, but assuming it stays in place, what ideas do you have to fix the high cost of premiums you have voted to repeal the affordable care act. rep. heck: my position is to repeal, repair, and replace the most egregious portions of the law that have resulted in actually less access to health care. and people may have received insurance, but that does not mean you get access to health care, and that is the critical issue. people who have bought policies on exchanges, not knowing it had a $5,000 deductible, when they went to use it on the first time, we all agree we want to keep the provisions in the law. nobody should be dropped the day

after they get sick or be nonrenewed because the insurance company think they are too old or too much of a risk. we need to get away from the mandates and penalties and is the device and provide increased competition. instead of telling somebody to buy a policy approved but a government where we will tax you, we should give people a tax credit to buy the policy that works for them and their families with the coverage they need and allow them to use health savings accounts, something the affordable care act took away, and we need to put 700 million dollars back into medicare that the affordable care act took out. [applause] ag masto: listen to what he is saying. he is saying, "we will repeal the affordable care act. we're going to make sure we have a process-centered approach for health insurance companies and doctors. we're not talking about preventative care anymore. premiums are going to skyrocket under his plan. that is the difference here. again, he is a typical washington politician. he likes to define the issues,

but he does not come up with real solutions to the people that i see every a that are struggling. listen -- i don't think that if you are living in this country, they you should die because you cannot afford health care. i don't think you should -- let me finish because this is such an important issue. i don't think that you should, unfortunately, though bankrupt because you cannot afford your medical bill -- go bankrupt because you cannot afford your medical bill. steve: let's give congressman heck a chance to respond. you still want to repeal the affordable care act? rep. heck: i want to replace the pieces that do not work with pieces that make sense. act was pushed through. my opponent is harry potter handpicked candidate. no difference in how she was up for this law, but the fact is while there were republican options and ideas, they were not even given the opportunity to be offered. there are ways we can lower costs, and more importantly, actually increase access to health care.

at the end of the day, it does not take a difference if you have an insurance card if you cannot see a health professional. [applause] steve: real quick, 15 seconds. ag masto: it still seems more of the same. he continues to talk about how others forced this down. many nevadans have insurance now, but he does not talk about specific portions he wants to repeal. why do we need to repeal it? let's keep it where it is and improve what does not work? rep. heck: you did not hear me. i thought i would repeal the mandates and penalties, and i would rather incentivized someone with a tax credit to go by the policy that works for them and their families and have the coverage that they need and want. [applause] ag masto: you repeal the mandate and you will give higher profits to the insurance companies, there's no doubt about it. >> i think our audience will

really like this portion of the debate. a reminder one last time, please hold your applause. we really want to hear from our candidate. in this portion of the debate, we will last -- we will allow candidates to ask each other questions. you will have 20 seconds to ask the questions, a minute to respond and 30 seconds to the other for rebuttal. joe heck, you may ask the first question of your opponent. what if anything should china what ifp. heck: anything should the united states due to combat china has expansion -- china's expansion? ag masto: we need to make sure we have a president that will hold china accountable. our relationship with china is cap located. there are some areas we work together, and there's other areas where we compete, and we know with trade alone loan, they put the united states at a disadvantage with their currency manipulation and what they are doing in the south china sea, but because of it, we need to

ensure we have a commander-in-chief who has a steady hand and who understands those complexities and can hold china accountable. .hat is not donald trump donald trump is a national security risk. we have seen it in the security advisers for not supporting him. securityss, homeland adviser michael chertoff is voting for hillary clinton, and he is a republican voted and under donald bush. toastounds me you continue support donald trump when you know he is a national security risk and has no business being commander-in-chief. rep. heck: as president obama has rebalance the asia-pacific, critical issue and communities right here in southern nevada, we have to make sure there is freedom of navigation. of $5 trillion, roughly 30% of global trade passes through the china seas, and if we do not have the ability to utilize that maritime passage, we will lose good-paying jobs right here in nevada.

the large filipino and vietnamese populations right here in southern nevada are worried about the impact on their families in the region. >> 15 seconds to button this up. he sounds good, but at the end of the day, he is supporting donald trump, and to me, that is a security risk. that is not somebody who is going to be safe on china. listen, donald trump thinks we should go to war with china because we think unpredictability. this is someone that congressman heck supports. rep. heck: [inaudible] [applause] >> let's give you a chance now ,o ask -- ms. cortez masto let's give you the opportunity to ask congressman heck a question. ag masto: congressman heck, you supported the government shutdown, and while the government was shut down, federal employees were required

to work without pay. during that time, over 200 congressmen donated their salaries to charity because they wanted to support those federal employees. you did not. how did you feel cashing your paycheck when air traffic controllers and law enforcement did not have enough money and were struggling to pay their bills? [applause] first, again, there was a no vote to shut down the government, and after the government reopened, congress passed legislation to provide everyone who lost pay while they were full load -- while they were furloughed their full pay and benefits, so we took care of the issue after the fact. ag masto: let me address this because here is a true leader, and here is what you should have done. you should have donated to charity. when i was attorney general for eight years, the legislature started cutting the salary of my employees and state employees by 6%, and there were mandatory furloughs. i return and gave back $44,000

of my salary so i could dent in the shoes of my employees and take the same 6% cut that they took. that's leadership. [applause] >> your response? rep. heck: donating money to charity would not have paid the bills for those who were on furlough, which is why we provide legislation to what they lost, so that they could pay bills. [applause] >> we want to give each of you a chance to sort of smile tonight and cause, so before we moved to the individual questions, one more question for both of you. this is a little bit more personal to get our vote is a chance to know who you are behind the political persona. we wanted to know at what moment did you know that your husband, seen here on the screen, was the person you wanted to spend the rest of your life with. ag masto: oh, that's easy, on our first date. he was working as a secret

service agent. we met thanks to president bill clinton, who was here at the time, and he asked me out on a , and then we negotiated for lunch. we went out, and we have been together 19 years ever sense. [applause] samengressman heck, the question for you. i understand you and lisa have been married nearly 21 years now if my math is correct. at what moment did you realize she was the lovely woman you want to spend the rest of your life with? rep. heck: the moment i get her at a hospital christmas party. i knew it was fate. we started talking about where we were from. we were both from pennsylvania at the time. we both went to the same college at the same time, hung out in the same places and never met. we met here in vegas roughly eight years later. it was fate. [applause]

>> thanks for sharing that. in this portion of the debate, we are going to question the candidates individually. each candidate will have one minute left for the question. panelists may ask a 32nd follow-up question. there will be a response from the other candidate. , the firstman heck question is for you. members of your campaign and your son have been in the news. a buzzfeed story highlighted disturbing comments on your -- reddit it --eddir account. understand you did not commit these actions yourself, many voters told us they feel that reflects on your character. what do you say to minority voters who are thinking about voting for you but are still

concerned about these comments? rep. heck: certainly the former staff members -- and they are former staff members -- and the state party person does not work for me, so i cannot control or talk about what they did as private citizens. the actions of my son, we have apologized and so has he. anybody who has had teenagers knows that as hard as you try to raise your children to be the best they can be, it is not an easy task, so i thank you for your concern about my family, but we need to move on from this issue, and my son has moved on from this issue and hope elite will become a better person because of it. >> it might become for voters to have someone so close to you have those type of disparaging would you sayat to assuage them? rep. heck: again, it is not something he ever heard in my household. he is seeking help for an issue and will become a better person because of it. the key thing is you love your

children, stand beside them, support them. it's not always possible to have them turn out the best as hard as you try, but you stand behind them and do not give up. >> thank you. [applause] >> next question comes from steve. crisis likelysing impacted more nevadans than probably any other issues. don't dispute that banks and mortgage companies were part of creating the problem. you referred to the county coroner's office as a crime scene because of the numbers of fraudulent documents that had been filed there. my question is why did no one go to jail for these crimes? it's a greathink question, and that is a frustration that not only did i have put me in my colleagues, attorneys general across the when we're talking to the federal government. there should have been criminal action at the federal level. we did everything we could at the state level. not only the national mortgage overement, but there were

nine litigations i pursued as attorney general. again, big banks and financial is titian's and i were able to bring over $9 million of relief to homeowners in the state because we know people were struggling and we were ground zero for the foreclosure crisis. we took some of that money and created a program which still exists in the attorney general's office to help homeowners for free. they can sit down with a hud-certified housing counselor and get legal aid for free to save their homes. that's what we did in nevada and we took every action both civil and criminal to hold people accountable without a state laws, but the federal law at the federal level, believe me, i colleagues and i across the country had discussions with the gog. steve: 30 seconds to respond, you say you did everything you could civilly and criminally, but nobody went to jail over this. are you concerned people in those positions they feel they can pay a fine and sort of by

their way out of personal accountability in doing things like this? is a greato, it question. we have seen what happens when they enter into agreements at the federal level that they just had to pay a fine, and now that is their cost of doing business. in the state of nevada, we brought criminal action. not only did we pursue individuals here, listen, you are not going to win every case, but it was important that we took that action to let people know they will be held accountable if they are going to violate the laws of the state, that i would come after them. steve: with her other conditions with nobody going to jail? ag masto: not and criminal actions we had. there were some that did, but not in the big banks. we did not have the teeth to pursue them at the federal level, so that the department of justice would go after them. i did everything i could with our state laws here.

is --ause our audience has been so polite, we had time for one at your question. the united states is currently accepting refugees from the least and countries. this year, we are on pace to have a record 85,000 refugees enter this country. the pew research center estimates half of them are muslim. patricia jeffries had this to say to us on our facebook page -- "stop the refugees coming into our state and city." congressman heck, this question is for you. are you comfortable with the current process being used by 'se fbi to that -- to vet refugees or how would you change the process? rep. heck: i will get to that, but when my opponent holds himself out to be the champion of the victims of the housing crisis, she said that the cake was already baked with a settlement was done. in addition, the $2000 or $3000 each person may have received was probably enough to help them

pay for the movers as they lost their homes. as for the refugee crisis, the issue is simple. we heard from the directives of the fbi, cia, and national intelligence that they did not have the ability to adequately vet individuals coming from a current region of conflict, and we should not let anybody in here in less you know they are not going to do us harm. there are other ways we can handle this. through the united nations, we should set of safe havens within the region and provide humanitarian support, keeping closer to their country of origin so that when the conflict is over, they can return to their homes. the united states is the beacon on the hill. we have accepted many people for many years, for decades, for centuries that were fleeing persecution, but we have to make sure the first and foremost responsibility to the federal government is to keep this nation safe. [applause] >> thank you. youcortez masto, are comfortable with the current process being used by the fbi to vet these refugees, and if not,

are there changes you have in mind? ag masto: let me address the cake is baked because this is again a smear tactic by my opponent and his allies, who we all know have been fact checked independently as false. i was not part of the initial settlement for the agreement in the executive committee, and i was frustrated that nevadans were not at the table when the settlement came out. the's when i talked about cake was baked but that i would continue to fight to improve the settlement, and i did. that's why the attorney general from washington, who is a republican, who was on the executive committee came out and supported me and basically is on record saying i improved that settlement for the state of nevada and across the country. a did that working in bipartisan way, so let's address the refugees. listen, i, like everyone else -- i think we need a strong, thorough vetting process in this country.

i've been working with law enforcement, with the fbi, with homeland security. at the same time, we know many of the refugees, particularly coming from syria, our women and children who are being or their lives from isis -- fleeing for their lives from isis. we can still have a strong vetting process. i amtorney general, concerned about the security of people in this state and work with state and local and federal law enforcement and -- [bell rings] ag masto: let me finish because this is a concern that i have. >> am afraid you used your time earlier to talk about the housing crisis. rep. heck: the primary role of the federal government is to keep this nation safe. we heard from the directors of the security organization of this nation that the apparatus was not adequate for our security.

when you to make sure that when the conflict is over they can return to their country of origin. ag masto: if congressman heck wanted to keep this country safe, he would not have introduced an act that had national security concerns that we can the tools that national security needs to combat terrorism, the homeland security department, the state department, and even some of his own republican colleagues objected to the security concerns in his bill, and you know what he did? he ignored them. he was arrogant and on flexing -- unflexing. rep. heck: it was an act to increase tourism, which is the lifeblood of nevada and we did so by mandating a biometric increasing security safeguards for those coming here and trying to increase the economic and if it brought by

international travel and tourism. >> thank you both -- [applause] get thatwe had time to question in. for the last part of the debate, each candidate will have 30 seconds to make their closing statement. congressman heck, you get to go first. rep. heck: thank you very much for everyone who made this debate possible. our state and country face critical challenges -- sluggish economic recovery, threat to our international -- threats to our national security from home and abroad, and an education system that is failing to many nevada students. as a business owner, soldier, dr., father, i want to use my real world experience to address the most important issues on behalf of all nevadans, so i humbly ask you for your vote or the u.s. senate. thank you and good night. -- your vote for the u.s. senate. thank you and good night. [applause] >> we're not done yet. we would like to hear from ms. cortez masto.

much.to: thank you so i was born and raised in the state and honored to be the attorney general for eight years. during that time, i had the opportunity to sit down and hear the stories from some of the most vulnerable members of our community, from women and children who were sexually exploited to families of seniors who were defrauded by banks to victims of domestic violence, they made it my mission to ensure i was fighting for every single one of them because we cannot tolerate leaving anyone behind, and that means continuing to fight in washington. [bell rings] will continue to fight on behalf of families in washington. that's why i'm asking for your vote for the u.s. senate. [applause] >> thank you. thank you for your patience, and do not forget to vote early. it starts on october 22, and the general election is november 8. >> throughout the debate, we put

a lot of issues we spoke about on social media. you can look for that by using # nvdebate. one-hourwill have our debate special with reaction from experts, undecided >> listen to live coverage of the debate on your phone with the free app. downloaded from the app store or google play.

>> every weekend, book tv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. here is what is coming up this weekend. book tv is live from the 20th annual southern festival of books in nashville. it features over 200 authors from around the country, panel discussions and book signings. on saturday, our coverage begins at 11 a.m. featured authors include arlie hochschild. hochschild. 1936 to 1939. beth macy, two brothers, a kidnapping at a mother's quest. a true story of the jim crow south. and patrick phillips, "blood at the roots." twounday, it is day number

of the festival beginning at 1 p.m. eastern. featured authors include joseph "a lawyers fight for justice in 1930's alabama." kelly oliver, "hunting girls." andrew marinus, "strong inside." marjory wentworth. bernard powers, "we are charleston." at 9 p.m., temple university robb talks about the cost of higher education in her book, "paying the price." she's interviewed by lisa, a former president of city university of new york. >> fees are less than half and sometimes even maybe 30% of the total cost of attending college. the real hangups that students

have are the need to pay their rent, their utilities, buy food. they cannot do those things on the same way way -- when they are in college because they have to be in the classroom. it is those kinds of things trip them up over time. it really was not the tuition. for the booktv.org complete weekend schedule. utah's senate race, the incumbent is facing a challenge from the first transgender woman to represent a major party in the senate race. the candidates answered questions about college affordability, the environment, immigration and trade agreements. >> 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 kb why you studio 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. 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 an appreciation for the culture. if elected to the u.s. senate, i will be the first millennial and 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 represent working-class people. moderator: thank you. 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 that ideas, that -- but

to propose good ideas, better ideas. 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. why is the current governor -- government trying to make money off the backs of students? why can't we give our students the same bill? 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 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 leach. -- senator lee. sen. lee: i agree that we are better off as a country when we have well-educated send that citizens -- educated citizens. 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 fact is, we created a dynamic that has resulted in tuition hikes. the federal government and the u.s. department of education, 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 can dissipate. one thing we know about increasing competition. two things always happen, prices tend to go down and holiday 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 are bad 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.

moderator: the next question is from a student here. >> 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 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 pros of that 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 imagine. this disproportionately affects poor and middle-class americans who would be stuck paying higher prices on everything they buy and would be doing it with diminished wages and unemployment. 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 -- you, we have a problem with air quality. no state is more to satisfy with the quality of its air then utah. i would like to propose that our country starts making investments into clean air -- cleaner energy, such as solar, wind and greener transportation. the cost of not doing this is 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 economy, and we could do something like that, nationwide. 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 and 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 support legislation that would create in -- increased flexibility on the parts of the states so they can address the unique aspects of the state. moderator: miss snow. ms. snow: 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 energies -- solar energy is one of the fastest-growing industries in this country. investment will create new jobs

and spur economic growth. moderator: next question is from another student. >> 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 wide bipartisan support. just because there are certain issues that you cannot find agreement on, there is certainly a lot of issues where you can find agreement. there are a lot of critical issues that are very popular, such as the need for payment if you leave -- paid maternity leave. the united states is one of those countries in the world 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 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. they are even as i will be -- they are in conflict. the people they represent have different opinions. people across this country have different visions. she 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. we are constantly looking for places where we can find bipartisan agreement. 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 in a database for five years. this bothered me and i found a ally and a liberal democrat from vermont. he and i put together a bipartisan compromise, a solution called the freedom act. members of my party initially

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. >> some republican leaders have advocated a total shutdown of islamic immigration or immigration from dangerous areas. what are your views on this 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 missouri, i am strongly against

any type of religious test. we should shun any approach that says if you belong to religion ask 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 tried -- careful that we know who it is we are living 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. 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. 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 of our nation. we shall not 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. 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 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 a across-the-board premonition? sen. lee: the second part of that question, absolutely not. 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 because we know isis is manipulating refugee programs in western countries to carry out terrorist activity. moderator: miss snow, same question. ms. snow: i agree that donald trump is very wrong on that issue and that religious test are antithetical to our values. 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? 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 pulling, 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 second amendment 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 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 leach, miss snow mention 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 sitting 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 burning -- 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 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 religious -- 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 -- you should not be able to only serve straight 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 remodel -- would either of you like time to -- time for a rebuttal? sen. lee: i would. -- 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 adequate care due to discrimination by private hospitals. sen. lee:.

i would like to respond if you look at the first amendment defense act, it is not cover what you described. for we are talking about is protecting religious individuals and institutions like byu so their tax-exempt status cannot be denied and no other adverse action can be taken against them based on their religious beliefs. ms. snow: i would 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: this next question goes to misty snow, first. >> we often loom on the precipice of government shutdowns because we cannot pass a budget. lee was a supporter of shutting down the government in 2013. under what conditions would you support shutting down the government in 20 -- if elected? 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 likely was a 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 it care act, they just claimed that it was unconstitutional despite the fight for the supreme court later ruled that it was 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 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. halfway through 2013, we learned that president obama rewrote key portions of obamacare 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. what we 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. 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 talk about -- complex con -- complex topic we cannot 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 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. 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 utahans would

feel that mike lee is not doing his job. 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 -- a fair hearing and vote up or down. 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

by partisans of -- 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. 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 the workers -- 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? 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: 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 a fifth grader or high school student studying

american history? ms. snow: there is a problem currently with my generation. we are the largest voting bloc, but we are not actually exercising our power. that is the message i would like our young people growing up to have. i want them to be 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 like representatives. if we learn and read the constitution, we will be better off. moderator: we have time remaining for 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 vast collection of natural resources. the wealth is there because the power is there, concentrated in the hands of washington elites, it officials and government bureaucrats. i asked for your vote tonight for the 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: miss 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 us. i have 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 talk about that did not get brought up. when we talk about protecting women. i would like to point out that senator mike lee put it against the renewal of the violence against women act.

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 local 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. [applause] moderator: my thanks to senator mike lee and misty snow for their participation. 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 utahdebatecommission.org. we invite you to exercise your right to vote on or before november 8. i invite the live audience to join me in expressing appreciation to the candidates. [applause] ♪

>> c-span's washington journal live every day with policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, washington examiner campaign will talkyan lovely about campaign 2016 and the demise of the growing party over donald trump. discuss theuer will voting rights of felons. michael schmidt will discuss the role of the u.s. in yemen after the u.s. military filed missiles inside the country on sites operated by rebels. they launched two failed missiles on u.s. navy ships.

watch washington journal at 7 a.m. this morning. join the discussion. >> every four years, the presidential candidates turn from politics to humor at the al smith memorial foundation dinner to raise money for catholic charities. at new york's historic although our story hotel. >> i have traveled the banquet circuit for many years and i never understood the logistics of dinners like this and how the absence of one individual could cost three of us not to have seats. >> i'm glad to see you here tonight. instead, many times in this campaign, you want to give america back to the little guy. mr. vice president, i'm that man. >> it has been an honor to share the dias of a descendent of the great house with. your great-grandfather was my

favorite kind of governor. the kind who ran for president and lost. now, how, you're right, a campaign can require a lot of wardrobe changes. blue jeans in the morning, perhaps, suits for a lunch fundraiser, sport coat for dinner, but it is nice to annelly relax and wear what and i wear around the house. >> watch the foundation dinner with clinton and donald trump on c-span and c-span.org, and listen in on :00 p.m. eastern with the c-span radio app. weekend on american history tv on c-span3, at 6:00 mstern, historian chris ikowski on the courthouse, which