tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 27, 2016 9:00pm-12:01am EDT
1373-b was left out. >> we are happy to go back and make sure there is no understanding. the mayor orare of city officials or the police department chief or others authorizing officers to make? >> this policy allows officers to communicate with ice. they will help ice and any public safety in point -- event. on a there any restriction police officer making a request to ice for information regarding an individual's immigration
status? >> there is no -- the way the policy is laid out, if an officer interacts with a member of the public, he or she immediately runs that person's name against the database system. if there is a return, that person is immediately arrested. >> if you find they are not lawfully present in the u.s., what happens after they have been through the judicial process in new orleans? look new orleans is a very unique political structure. the mayor is elected parish wide d. lead the nop our sheriff is also elected parish wide so i don't represent the sheriff's department and cannot speak on behalf of them but our officers who arrested --eone on a criminal warrant
>> assuming they are prosecuted ,nd convicted and incarcerated after they have served their time, what is the policy of the new orleans police department withbout communications ice about the fact someone is about to be released from jail or prison who has been convicted of a crime and is not lawfully present? likely sent to angola. orleansabout the new jails? what we have no operational control over this year. what we are glad to have you back with us and i want to ask
if you believe that the new orleans consent decree violates federal law. click's part to substantive changes, it absolutely violated federal law. the question is whether or not in practice the new changes will remedy that situation. what we have in the country is basically two types of sanctuary city policies. it's a don't ask policy or a don't tell. policy, it was both. a don't ask and don't tell. now the question is whether or not they seem to have remedied the don't tell portion of the policy but it doesn't seem to have any changes.
>> we are going to try to take it upon ourselves to see them all law enforcement's in the state know exactly what 1373 states and how they can avoid violating that statute. , do you believe it is inconsistent for a jurisdiction to adopt the policy that violates federal law and at the same time request federal law-enforcement grant money? >> i do. but what message does that send concerning the rule of law? it's part of the demise of our criminal justice system and the reason we have an uptick in crime across the country when we allow people to flagrantly violate any law and we turn a blind eye and all it does is lead to those people committing additional crimes and thinking it's ok to break the law.
>> i heard your testimony with the correction of this, there will be no communities in the state of louisiana that will be characterized as sanctuary cities. >> thank you. i will shut the state had the same effort to put such a consistent record. virginiantleman from will lead back. >> thank you. i understand in 2005 in the civil rights division, it was involved in investigating a new orleans policy abuse in the aftermath of hurricane katrina. can you talk briefly about the acts of abuse your division uncovered as a result of that investigation? >> we launched our investigation into the new orleans police uncovered in 2010 and a very pervasive, widespread
active conduct related to explicitly excessive use of force, soft searches and arrests, commendatory policing and one of the goals we had when we came in at the invitation of the mayor was to ensure that the new orleans police department would be able to carry out its core function of providing effective policing and constitutional policing to keep our residents of new orleans we detailed after extensive data interviews and a lot of engagement with officers and command staff that these violations had thoroughly undermine the in opd ability to solve and prevent crime in new orleans and in the years sense how we have been working collaboratively with the city and working with the brave men and women of the police department to finally get new
whatns police to officers they need to be able to fight violent crime. >> we are pleased to be joined today by a member of the full judiciary committee, not a member of the subcommittee, mr. richmond also representing new orleans. i would like to yield the remainder of my time to him so you might ask question since this is his territory. >> the general from louisiana is recognized. >> thank you for the ranking member to allow me to ask some questions. let me start with a couple things here. in the opening testimony of our chairman, he said he believes that the consent decree between the city of new orleans and the department of justice was done
through collusion. the police department went under consent decree because of use of force, failing to investigate it , failing to investigate sex crimes against females. a paid detail system that invited corruption, failing to officially embrace community policing, and immigration. i would like to clear up for anyone who thinks that we colluded all of that, it's very convenient. i would ask can you help our chairman because he has to
sanctuary cities in virginia and if you are going to start cleaning up, start cleaning up at home. and well we go down the list, we .ave four in south carolina every parish in colorado. we have sioux city and representative keating district, dallas and texas. so if we are going to start talking about sanctuary cities, mind that youk would but to allege. let's talk about all of them, especially the people who are on the committee. talked aboutng we was the unfortunate death of a fire chief, a very respected and loved fire chief in st. john parish. that is what we should stop.
the guy didn't live in new orleans, he was never arrested in new orleans, the company he worked for was not in new orleans. that has absolutely no connection to the city of new orleans. operated out of st. tammany parish with an elected official as a co-owner, andh i think is deplorable i think that we should be looking at prosecution for that. when did you initiate trying to make sure the city's policy was consistent with federal law.
discussions in september. those have continued on the local and headquarters level and at no point did anyone ever say that this policy didn't comply with federal law. >> at what point is a your officers opinion that they did not comply with federal law? what's up at any time did they not comply? >> the justice department believes the revisions we just put into effect were made out of an abundance of caution after we received inquiries from .fficials in the louisiana we reviewed our inspector general's memo and an abundance of caution to ensure total clarity about the fact the policy must comply with 1370 three. we listed the language of the statute, put it into the policy inmake it very clear that
opd officers can share information with ice regarding immigration status or citizenship status of an individual and can assist in operations and respond to direct threats. they can assist in executing a criminal warrant. the revision was made to ensure total clarity with compliance of federal law. >> in summary, the old policy your opiniony is both were consistent with federal law. >> yes. do you have an opinion on that? -- in order toy do that, we really need to be on the ground, go to the city, look at some of the issues that have
been previously raised, talk with folks from the city and from ice and we haven't taken those steps and i'm not in a position to give a legal determination at this point without taking a full effort in that regard. >> a gentleman from louisiana yields back. >> sanctuary city policies had transformed to love our greatest american cities. i'm increasingly frustrated by these policies that are consistently implemented in the name of biased and community based policing. as deputy attorney general has said. the ramifications for public safety and the inability for ice to complete its mission are severe and not only affect the cities but the surrounding communities are impacted as well as. while some of the witnesses today include the deputy
attorney general would like to avoid this fact, the simple truth is immigration enforcement is a critical function of the u.s. government and one that must be supported and not undermined. as much as much of this debate centers on the practical application and whether as cities that have implemented a sanctuary policy can simultaneously comply with this section of law. based on your findings, why do you believe that 1373 requires of local jurisdictions. 1370 3 a.m. 1373 b, it essentially prohibits state, local, federal law from prohibiting or restricting in any way employees of those ,ntities from sending to requesting from, or receiving from ice information about the
immigration status of an individual. >> what do you make of the fact that mr. butterworth keeps saying it complies, but nothing in their guidance that they have the ability to request information. new policy we also received on friday afternoon and have looked at, dozens reference the word requesting, which is in the one of 1373. let's it seems to comply with a, but not with be. >> it clearly addresses a. it does include the word requesting, which is -- again, without is understanding more, i'm not in a position to get a legal opinion. the word request is not in the policy. >> correct. >> and you believe we may need
to clarify this section, correct? >> i think it is an open question. . would have to do follow-up requesting is are a reasonable question. -- attorneygeneral general landry, thank you for the work you are doing. do you believe by implementing the actuary policies, they are promoting public safety. policies?nting the absolutely not. it is a danger to public safety aremost of these cities very large cities. you have very large metropolitan footprints. what happens is it creates a magnet and draws illegal aliens as a sanctuary area for them to operate. it also creates an opportunity for if you are a member of the
drug cartel in mexico, where would you send people who are applying a legal trade? you would send them into those cities because of the ability for those members to be identified is reduced because of the sanctuary city policies. >> is new orleans a safer city today than before implementing these sanctuary policies? >> certainly there were changes they made friday that were a step in the right direction. i think clarifying it and actually determining whether or not there will be a collaborative effort to crack down on illegal immigration, isecially those in custody yet to be seen. >> as a law-enforcement official and someone who has served at the federal and state level, what do you believe is the appropriate relationship between local or state law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement? >> i believe based upon some of
,he u.s. supreme court's congress needs to clarify exactly how law enforcement agents have engaged in this type of questioning. >> i yield back my time. chair will not recognize the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you. i would like to note that we are not having a hearing today about gun violence. 500 people shot dead in chicago, 3000 this year. we're not having a hearing about police killing unarmed civilians . we aren't having a hearing about the need for immigration reform at did engine centers, a hearing
about any of the really important things. we're having hearings about a donald trump talking point that money goes to again and again, the oneness as immigrants are killers, rate this, drug dealers that are here to hurt people and not build up our country like every other immigrant group that has come before them. they are focusing on one of america's great cities with a troubling past when it comes to civil rights and building trust. i would think that we would want to work on building that trust between the police and the people. and that the efforts taken by people who build that shouldn't be undermined. lastly, i will say because it doesn't really matter, it will come and go. we aren't going to change anything. this is just another political hearing.
actually spoken to a lot of important issues that people want to talk about. the majority always says we should listen to people that are not in washington, d.c.. we should listen to local elected officials. that is where is blooming but it seems like every time you guys say anything, they have an objection when they don't like it. i just want to say to my colleagues from new orleans, i would like to yield the remaining three minutes of my time to mr. richmond to ask questions. >> thank you. he said neweral, orleans policy would invite undocumented immigrants because of its status as a sanctuary city. aboutleans population is 6%, neighboring jefferson
parish, not a sanctuary city at about 11%. how do we reconcile that with the notion new orleans is becoming a safe haven for undocumented people. clear, there was a misunderstanding. the metropolitan area becomes -- and by the illegal immigrants into that particular area because they feel the need, the ability to travel freely for when you look at not only the city, it effects the surrounding areas. just last weekend, we had an elderly man get hit head-on by an illegal immigrant who again have been arrested multiple times and yet was not reportable. >> we have a great working
relationship and i know you are very tough on crime. the company was owned by a person in louisiana and a state rep from arkansas. do you have the ability to indict the owners of the company for hiring undocumented without a license that was driving when ?e caused that fatal accident >> in louisiana, i believe the employment of an illegal. >> if it is done in a very and withouttter gross negligence, i think we do have some criminal statutes. if we can find some criminal statutes under which to charge the owners of the company who ultimately are at fault for hiring and undocumented, would you commit to charging them if
the facts fit the statute? we have a great working relationship and i certainly respect you. i can uphold the rule of law regardless. i will also mention in the legislation we put forth in the statehouse just the seer pass a largeehouse with bipartisan support. i think everyone is recognizing public safety debacle and this is the first step in ensuring our communities are safe. >> thank you and i will yield back. >> the chair will recognize the don't amend from iowa. >> i think the witnesses for their testimony and i would turn first to attorney general landry. pose a broader concept and ask you to comment on that. that is that as i read the federal law and immigration law
and as i understand it after these years on this committee, it envisions in its entirety essentially vacuuming up the illegal people in the united states and all of those who are encountered by law enforcement that anticipates the removal from the united states and it requires that when at least federal law enforcement officers isounter someone who unlawfully present in america that they shall place them in removal proceedings. would you agree so far? >> i do. >> so when i look at this statute and i read through the details of 1373, shouldn't it be clear to anyone who intends to comply with the intent of federal law that they are to help facilitate rather than -- >> i agree.
, atve been to have a markup about the time of the inception of the situation. he's concerned about the leased department and sheriff's office who had a federal consent decree and they are complying with the federal consent decree. it will now cause the city of new orleans to lose valuable federal money in terms of dhs and fema funds. i think it has been known that there is a clear violation here of at least the intent of the or the intent of 1373 by the consent decree and the underlying policy, which is a sanctuary city policy by my reading of it. have you examined the legal language of this in such a way
that you are aware of any loopholes that are being exploited in this process that seems to be a collaboration between doj and the city of new orleans? again, i think that language frustrates the entire consent decree. be alivehe fire chief today if we enforced her immigration laws as intended by this congress? >> you can make an argument that everyone who has been a victim has lost that loved one simply because we failed to enforce existing law. >> would you agree with a
statement made by donald trump a couple weeks ago that there are thousands of americans grieving today because of the loss of a family member or loved one due to the failure to enforce immigration law in the united states? >> i agree. >> we have had difficulty in getting apples to apples. it doesn't become real clear to me as to the position on whether you believe that the sanctuary policy of new orleans violates 1373. >> we look at the policy that preexisted friday and found they had a savings clause in their that employeesng could comply if required to do
so by federal and state law. our concern was how was that being interpreted and used because section 1370 three doesn't require anything. it simply prevents state and federal jurisdictions from preventing federal employees responding. other parts of the policy did address that. >> that seems to be the loophole we have identified over some years here. ask is like to then there any federal law or any statute that you are aware of that prohibits law enforcement profiling as exercise your job? there is nothing in the policy that prevents me --
>> are you aware of any law or statute that inhibits profiling in the enforcement of law? >> yes. the constitution prevents the racial profiling. a if there happens to be blue-eyed person that has committed a crime and you are on the hunt for them, you cannot say that? >> when there is a direct and articulated reason, probable cause -- >> can you characterize the appearance of a suspect in the enforcement of the law? may answer. >> it is against the law to engage in discriminatory policing. >> i ask unanimous consent to press this witness until she answers my question. she is invasive and her responses. >> objection. the witness has been asked and she has answered. >> she has not answered.
>> she has been asked into has answered. texasthe general from will yield, i will address the matter but it's hard for me to interrupt you and do so. does the witness feel like she has answered the question as adequately as she is able to do so? >> i do. i'm happy to finish a sentence or yield. what you are welcome to finish the sentence. >> it is illegal to engage in discriminatory policing, to take policing decision solely on the base of one race or another characteristic. >> i think the chairman. i would just point out i don't believe i did get an answer to my specific question but i think it's obvious and i would yield back. >> i think the chairman very much and i do want to express my appreciation when any witness comes to share with this
lawmaking body because we should -- let me thank all of you. i would say that i would join with the comments of my colleagues here on this side of the aisle, in particular my colleague from new orleans for his response of questioning. but we should be doing criminal justice reform that i hope we will do. we should be doing immigration point tod there is a the fact there are cities around that may need the clarification that i think the inspector general's report has offered and i think that's a solution. let me first of all ask, thank you for your service. idle aware we would be if we didn't have a civil rights division. have you made any pronouncements
that new orleans or any city in the state is not eligible for federal grant? >> we have not. >> let me read quickly into the record the genesis of the civil rights decision coming to new orleans. this was a request by mayor andrew at the request to conduct an investigation. he says nothing short of a complete transformation is necessary to ensure safety for the citizens of new orleans. i believe you are interested in the overall security and safety of all citizens and all individuals in new orleans. that was a request made our the mayor. and representative of the mayor, is that my understanding. i understand you are looking at anduse of excessive force including racial and ethnic profiling.
do you recall that? >> that is right. >> you were dealing with the civil rights of that community. the inspector general offered three points that would help inspection 373. ,he clarification i believe read the requiring grant applicants to provide certification about their interaction with ice and making sure grant recipients communicate with personnel. do you have any opposition to that? >> no. >> would you be in compliance or intend to give some guidance to that section? >> since the reason we make the division's most recently was to that the policy that officers1373 can share from information regarding information status of an individual with ice and there's nothing within the
policy that prevents officers from requesting immigration status from ice as well. >> i just want to be clear there is no ban right now that you have offered and you are not trying to block. can you tell me if the sentiment expressed by a manager in the policy of the major cities chief association of particular people like tom manger that policies like the one in new orleans will enhance public safety, is that some ring electric from other law enforcement agencies? >> we have heard this from a number of leading law enforcement leaders but also importantly the reason this policy was undertaken was to help the nop defied violent crime. ofheard from any number victims and witnesses who were
afraid or refusing to cooperate with the pd electrical, vital information about crime and was undermining the pd ability to prevent violent crime in those communities. >> the gentleman is recognized for 36 seconds. put the quotekly that i made in context that had nothing to do with immigration. that quote was because new orleans was under a federal consent decree. it was costing us over $50 million a year which was glventing us from making the or the police department constitutional but since the representative brought it up, , can youk you quickly please coordinate with the attorney general from iowa to help them with you there 23 sanctuary counties they have in
iowa and maybe you can with representative king to help them with this 23. >> i would be glad to put in a workshop and 49 other states. >> i yield back. >> i have a submission i would ask unanimous consent if i might put into the record following documents. i think the witnesses and you mr. chairman. >> thank you.
have you ever prosecuted a case? >> a criminal case, not since being an attorney general. ever prosecuted a case? >> i did. >> have you ever prosecuted a case? >> yes. is your client? >> the state of louisiana. >> the people of the state? >> correct. >> who was your client? >> the united states. >> the united states. sayn your opening, you cannot solvers crimes and therefore cannot help victims prosecute criminals or help federal law enforcement record violent criminals of witnesses feel afraid to set -- share information. afraiduse they would be
of the suspect. how about if they are in this country illegally and they share information and they are asked about their status in this country. would they feel afraid to share information for that reason? they could be deported or held it there in this country illegally? >> if a person is victimized, they would report it regardless of that. but we have seen as a former law enforcement officer, i have seen that they are a suspect of law-enforcement altogether regardless of their immigration status. >> could someone feel afraid to report a crime because they are committing a crime themselves? >> it has been a wild since i prosecuted a case but you could certainly see that being a concern. >> let's go further. let's dig deep into the recess of our memory here.
let me ask you something. it an allowable part of cross-examination to ask a victim or witness a question that would determine their motive for testifying or reporting a crime? depends on the judge's ruling as to the scope of that. >> but your interpretation lies with the rules of evidence. that would be allowed to question about motive. what about harassing? >> it would be allowed to the extent and scope of the judge allowed it. >> if someone were to report a crime and they had committed a crime or had a motive, if they ,anted to stay in the country it allows a prosecutor to apply to immigration authorities to allow someone to stay in this country if they are a victim of a crime. it would be fair to inquire of
that person whether they had committed a crime themselves by being in the country illegally in order to get a full picture about the merits of the case, would it not? >> presumably but depending on the circumstances, ultimately. >> let me ask you something. when the department of justice, the civil rights does -- division, decides they are going to protect one group of individuals who are committing crimes in this country and make not prosecuting another group of individuals, are they in fact choosing which ?ype of criminal they want >> we are choosing between what laws we will follow and what laws we allowed to be broken. >> why would someone do that politically, what is the political advantage? >> you would have to ask them.
type ofengage in that activity. >> because it's unethical. if you believe you are not enforcing the laws or enter into a dissent decree and are not representing your client, the people being victimized, that would be unethical, would it not? >> it would be. what would you agree? depending on the fact and circumstances, yes. >> i yield back. >> the chair will now yield to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing but i have to confess that i am more than a little embarrassed that the american people have to see a congressional hearing dealing with the absurdity of the subject matter we are dealing with today. right now as schools across america, we are hopefully teaching our kids about the
constitution and with respect to my colleagues across the aisle who keep saying that we are hypocritical for asserting that the federal government has a role here, i hope we're doing a better job of teaching our kids about the constitution than we did in teaching some of our colleagues because the very first sentence of the constitution in the preamble is americans learn the primary role of the federal government is to provide for the common defense and the single most important part of that is ensuring the sovereignty and integrity of our territorial borders. that is the reason we have a federal government. that is the one thing the federal government is supposed to do. that is the business the federal government is supposed to be in. it's not supposed to be mandating health care decisions for americans, it's not supposed to be interfering with teachers and parents and decisions about
kids education. we have a federal government to people americans against from outside our borders who might cause us harm to protect americans like katie steinle in san francisco and germane star in louisiana and grace in hacking and ellie brian in my district in northeast texas, all of whom were killed by illegal aliens who violated the sovereignty and integrity of our territorial borders to come to this country and these are just five of the countless victims killed by illegal aliens every year. if that is the primary goal of our federal government, are we really having a hearing about the fact that instead of enforcing our federal immigration laws, the federal government is doing the exact and is actually code or
sink cities and to not complying with federal immigration laws? american people tuning into this hearing today see that the very same department of justice that is tying the hand of law-enforcement turns around and rewards so-called sanctuary cities by handing out federal funds even though the conditions for those federal funds is that the recipients abide by federal law? and did i hear correctly that two thirds of all federal money going to law-enforcement is going to 10 jurisdictions that intend to comply with federal immigration laws and harbor the and violent criminals refuse to cooperate with the federal government that supports them? that is as shocking as it is shameful.
you obviously share my frustration. why you wrote to attorney general loretta lynch and asked her if the department of justice , that they were enthusiastically approving and supporting the new orleans police department policy was actually requiring the city of new orleans to adopt that sanctuary city policy. did attorney general lynch respond to you? >> she finally did respond to me some months later with a nonanswer. anyf it makes you feel better, alley she responded to you. i have written her a lot of letters and she hasn't responded to any of mine. miss group to -- you have heard from mr. landry and i have heard the exchange between you and mr. butterworth and mr. richmond about really trying to clear up to record here with respect
the fact that this policy is and always was in compliance with federal law but the record really underscores that it hasn't been and that is what congressman richmond last year was soft to remove that provision to prohibit sanctuary cities from receiving federal law enforcement grants because of his stated belief that new orleans would be barred from receiving grants because of immigration provisions. given that there are legitimate concerns in the new orleans policy by folks here, did you of thejudicial review policy by district court to determine whether or not it complied with section 1373? hadhe district court reviewed the policies.
but as theis expired attorney general doesn't respond to any of my letters, i wonder if you might carry a message to her and that message would be on behalf of my constituents and millions of americans that if she really believes in enforcing the rule of law, i think she ought to be prosecuting jurisdictions that violate federal immigration policy. >> mr. butterworth, what is the penalty for crossing the border unlawfully? >> i would defer to the department of justice. >> who has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration cases? quested is outside of my lane but i would say cbp or ice. >> exclusively federal.
it is crossing a border extending a visa are the only two ways you can get an unlawfully. those are both exclusively federal. but i think you will agree with me that almost all of our interactions in life are with state and local law enforcement. agent forn fbi speeding. it is not an atf agent working .he bar scene if most of our citizen police andunters are staying local yet immigration is exclusively federal, how are the federal officers supposed to know about folks who are not here lawfully? >> the department of homeland security has the program which i am not at liberty to speak on
and i would say if congress passed the law and commandeered every local police officer and wanted to pay for that, i think we would welcome it. about we just say cooperate? you don't commandeer people for your terrorism task force? it is called cooperation. thatet you have a policy says a police department member should not make inquiries into an individual's immigration status. what do you mean by inquiry? >> if an officer in direct with that person and as a criminal warrant -- >> i don't know what you mean by criminal. you mean if there is probable cause to believe an offense was committed or if there's already an outstanding warrant? cuts if there is a war and or probable cause and an officer involved --
inquire as to the person status. >> are officers do not inquire about a person's immigration status. >> they can or cannot. >> under this policy, they do not. >> why not? >> we believe it violates federal law. >> how are the federal law-enforcement all those are supposed to know who is here unlawfully if your officers don't inquire? they are not the ones interacting with them. they are not enforcing traffic laws. they don't respond to domestic violence calls. .he fbi doesn't that would be your state and local officers. how is that supposed to happen? >> i think your concerns are with a broader system and not with this policy. we arrest every criminal and to act with and bring them to the jail. >> you arrest every criminal you interact with. there are a criminal after they have had a jury trial. they are a suspect until that point. >> correct.
policy was ok so why did they revise it? >> and don't have the answer to that question. you are a good lawyer, mr. horowitz. at the original contract was fine, usually don't draft another one. if your original indictment was ok, did you have a superseding indictment? >> generally not. >> you don't. if the original policy is fine, why did we get this random policy? >> well obviously our memorandum outlining the concerns we had about the provision that then existed they will have triggered the provisions. to be cynical but i think you are right. you said you were a prosecutor.
there was a prosecution i got away back in time that i never had a good answer for whenever a family member who had lost a loved one to an act of violence to someone who was out on bond would ask me why was that person out of jail, i never really had a good answer. you can cite the constitution that you are entitled to bond under some circumstances, but that is kind of a hollow explanation. what with the explanation be to those that have lost loved ones to violent crime from people who are here unlawfully and the federal government knows it? who has beendy accused of a violent crime, nop is entitled in its authority to prosecuted to the fullest of the law. >> your other missing my point in a importantly or -- inadvertently or intentionally. i realize you prosecute people after homicide.
i'm tried to figure out how to prevent the homicide. what is the explanation for why the person wasn't dealt with before the murder? >> let me say that the resume intercept the policy was to fight violentuld crime and get critical information from witnesses who need to share critical information with the nopd in order to solve and prevent violent crime. quickly both know we rely on all sorts of witnesses, some of whom expose themselves to criminal liability in the process of cooperating so the amnestyou have to give to people before they will cooperate with law enforcement has not been my experience. but attorney general, i'm out of time. you asked a question. how do you answer it when family members ask you why was this person not dealt with before they committed the act of violence? unfortunately, i have had to
answer that question in louisiana here lately and the best way i answer is that my system in this country is broken. with that, i would think all the witnesses. >> i ask for one minute please. i'm sure the gentleman from texas and colorado will want to do it also. >> briefly. >> ok. >> i want to make it very clear that i don't think there is one member here who does not feel the deep pain for the families lost loved ones, particularly those that died in the terrible crash trying to help others in .aton rouge i am from texas and i feel for
my brothers and sisters in louisiana. i was there for them in katrina so i have the sympathy. i do want to make sure however that you are not asking for new orleans -- is that correct? you aren't asking us to block from getting federal funds. what's i'm asking you to file federal law. for therenot asking to be a declaration for new orleans not to receive federal funds from the department of justice. >> i have been asking the state to withhold funds for violating federal law. >> is new orleans violating federal law? >> new orleans under this policy , this policy does not violate federal law and we are working with new orleans to ensure constitutional policing. >> they are communicating with ice and you are not blocking that. the pdpolicy makes clear can communicate with ice and
request information about a person's immigration status. >> gentlelady's time has expired. >> thank you. >> we think of all of our witnesses. legislative five days to submit additional material to the record. thank you again to the witnesses and we are adjourned. >> election officials and cyber security specialists will meet on capitol hill tomorrow afternoon to brief lawmakers on cyber threats to the u.s. election system. i've coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three.
you can watch it live on c-span.org or listen live on the c-span radio app. our c-span campaign 2016 buses traveling throughout new york this week ask others -- asking voters what questions would you ask the candidates about the debate? is how the feel of about the transpacific partnership and would you do anything to change it, maybe make it more favorable for americans as a whole? i've heard a lot of people say we are getting screwed over by the transpacific partnership and generally may even though i'm completely in favor, i want to know how you feel. and'm a professor of media communications. to ask mr. would be trump why it took him so long in the face of all the evidence of
the contrary to finally agree that president obama really was a citizen of the united states and when all the evidence came out as late as 2008 why he still persisted in proposing that idea. >> hello. my name is cody abraham and i'm a junior in political science. if i could ask any question to the candidates, it would be what are your thoughts on common core and what direction do you see america's education system going if you are elected in the next four years? onvoices from the road c-span. c-span.org, your primary source for presidential debate coverage on your desktop, phone, tablet. watch each question and answer from the debate asking the content you want quickly and
easily. use our video cloaking tool to make clips of your favorite moments to share on social media. >> hillary clinton reflected on monday night's presidential campaign her way to a stop in raleigh, north carolina. let's have a look. sec. clinton: hey, everybody. well, we had a great, great time last night. and i have to say i was thrilled that i got a chance to lay out some of the middle-class economic policies and pro-family policies that i have been talking about throughout this campaign to all the viewers who tuned in. i felt so positive about it and, you know, one of the thoughts that popped in my head was, one of my favorite baseball players growing up, ernie banks, used to get so excited about going to
play that he'd say, let's play, too. so i'm looking forward to the next debate and then the one after that. reporter: what do you think were the most critical moments last night? sec. clinton: i think viewers got a real chance to begin to compare us on policy. you know, policy gets lost a lot of the time. in coverage with the back and forth that goes on. and laying out my plans for strong growth and fair growth and dealing with family economic issues like affordable childcare and paid family leave and debt-free college with no real response, no real offer coming from my opponent. the tax plan that we put forth are so different, and his would explode the deficit and debt, and it would be a huge dip to the wealthiest of americans, including him and his own family. i think that all began to come into focus for people. reporter: what about the way he
kept interrupting and the way he answered the question about gender? do you think women would react to that? sec. clinton: well, i think his demeanor, his temperament, his behavior on the stage could be seen by everybody and people can draw their own conclusion. and i thought on several occasions he was making charges and claims that were demonstrably untrue, offering opinions that i think a lot of people would find offensive and off-putting. he can run his campaign and present himself however he chooses, but the real point is about temperament and fitness and qualifications to hold the most important, hardest job in the world, and i think people saw last night some very clear differences between us.
reporter: are you concerned that donald trump will not show up for the next debate? are you concerned that he won't show up? sec. clinton: well, i'm going to show up. he gets to decide what he wants to do. i will be at washu in st. louis and then after that in las vegas. if i'm the only person on stage, well, you know, i'm the only person on stage. reporter: donald trump says he actually showed great restraint last night and that he could have gone after you and your husband for personal matters. sec. clinton: as i say, he can run his campaign however he chooses. and, you know, i will continue to talk about what i want to do for the american people, lay out specific plans with very clear goals in mind to help us deal with all the challenges we face. i'm excited about where we are in this country. he talks down america every chance he gets. he calls us names. he calls us a third-world country. he talks in such dire and dark
terms. that's not who america is. you know, we are the best problem-solvers in the world. our diversity is a strength. i am excited about helping to pull our country together, to set some big goals on infrastructure and advanced manufacturing and clean energy to take on climate change which, by the way, is not a hoax made up by the chinese, and do everything that i talked about. and you should know by now when i set my mind on something, i keep going. i don't quit. whatever the static, whatever the incoming is -- and that's what i'll do for the american people. i am looking forward to it. thank you. reporter: what about his stamina? what about his stamina? what i'll do for the american sec. clinton: anybody that has complains about the microphone is not having a good night.
announcer: today is national date andistration -- hillary clinton spoke in north carolina about the importance of getting out to vote. this is just under one hour. good afternoon, everyone. i said, good afternoon everyone. [applause] my kids did not think that would work. it did. good afternoon. my name is christine bonaventure . i am the proud parent of three wonderful children and i'm a graduating member of the wake class of 2016. i just graduated in may. [applause] so, i just want to share a little bit of my story with you today.
back, i of years underwent a very difficult stage in my life, not unlike any of you probably here today. i was newly divorced, sick of my everyday grind, struggling to support my family. i continued to spiral deeper and deeper into a place of ofression and in the summer 2014, i tried not once, but twice to take my own life. but i survived. [applause] ms. bonaventure: and out of that dark place i found a bright willingness to keep moving forward. i decided at that time i needed a change. i became interested in becoming takese, but i could not
out any additional loans because i was still paying back loans for my first degree. into --ly, i bumped thankfully, i bumped into wake tech college. give it up. [applause] is annaventure: wake tech institution that provides a number of resources in opportunities that allows students like me obtained or degrees. a few months later with the help of a $1000 mature woman woman'ship from the club, i was able to begin this new chapter in my life. [applause] now, whennture: thousand dollars does go a long way. -- $1000 does go a long way. but i still had to put in a lot of work to see this through. a typical day for me involved
getting up about 7:00 in the morning, getting begins ready for school, going to school myself, leaving class at noon, from a half day of subbing 12: 30 to about 4:00 then heading to a restaurant to 5:00 to waitress until about 9:00, maybe 10:00. come home, see my kids sleeping, 3:00, nap, wake up at study until 7:00. that was my day. [applause] ms. bonaventure: of course i had to enlist the help of my two kids, my two brilliant daughters in my son. we were able to put off as a family unit to where i am today. now i have the privilege and the joy of working as a cardiac nurse at duke regional hospital. [applause]
ms. bonaventure: every day -- well, three days a week -- i touch the lives of those in need. suffice to say that these past few years have not been easy. but with the affordable college option that wake tech has to offer through the strength of my friends and family network, and the willingness to work hard, i was able to start over. stakethere is so much at in this election for americans across the country, for me, it is pretty simple. we need a leader who will stand up for families like mine and make it easier for people like me to achieve their professional aspiration. that leader is hillary clinton. [applause]
ms. bonaventure: throughout her career, hillary has consistently but families first. as a working mother, i sincerely appreciate her strong effort to fight for paid family leave and increase the minimum wage. i admire her commitment to building an economy that works for everyone. top, butthose on everyone. [applause] she has worked, she will continue to work to expand access to the quality health care, safe and affordable reliableosts, and transportation that families need in order to succeed across this great nation. [applause] ms. bonaventure: that's right.
hillary is also committed to helping people from all walks of life realize their dreams of going to college. she knows because of education makes it difficult for many students, including myself and soon my children, who will be going to college in the next few she knows because ofyears, to sr life for a new career. why i am excited that hillary has put forward plans to invest in our nation's community colleges and break down the barrier costs by making college debt-free for those who cannot afford it. everybody should be clapping right now. [applause] ms. bonaventure: so today, it is i'm goingleasure -- to say it again -- it is my
great pleasure and i am so honored to welcome to the stage welcome going to cry -- to the stage a woman who knows that we are stronger and have the experience and the bold vision we need to affect real positive change in the communities across the country. my last sentence, i'm going to say it without crying. , pleasend gentlemen welcomein giving a warm to the next president of the united states, hillary clinton! [applause] ♪
sec. clinton: did anybody see that debate last night? [applause] yes.clinton: oh, go.down, two to [applause] sec. clinton: i am so excited to be back here at wake tech. ago and i eight years was so impressed then with the kinds of programs and opportunities that are offered christineople like that i wanted to come back to raleigh, but i wanted to come back here to wake tech. when christine was talking, i was backstage watching her on the screen. how she wasing about to cry -- i was about to
cry. know, her story says so much, not just about her, but about our country. of secondountry chances and third and fourth changes for people willing to work for them, get up every day, do their best. the basis of our america. i was really proud of christine. thank you. [applause] and i think her patients at duke regional are in for a treat. that shethe skills learned here at wake tech but that personality, the get up and go personality will mean a lot to the people she is taking care of. christine, thank you. godspeed. [applause] sec. clinton: now, i have to
thank dr. stephen scott, president of wake tech community college. all the administrators, the faculty and the students of wake tech. [applause] now, dr. scott told me the enrollment is about 73,000. what a tribute to what this institution represents. huge, huge supporter. [laughter] sec. clinton: you know, i just see america differently. i think there is nothing be cannot do if we make our minds appeared role of our sleeves -- make up our minds. supportour sleeves, people like christine and that is what i support to do -- what
i plan to do. i want to thank mayor mcfarlane, thank you so much for being here. [applause] state senator dan blue junior. [applause] i also want to recognize linda coleman, candidate for lieutenant governor of north carolina. linda came so close last time. this time, are you going to bring her over the finish line? [applause] and i tell you somebody else i really excited about -- that is the democratic candidate for the senate, former state representative debra ross. [applause] sec. clinton: i have watched the campaign she has run and the intensity and the incredible passion that she brings to it. i tell you what, we sure could
use her in washington representing north carolina. [applause] i want to thank all the elected officials who are here. , aant to do a special special shout out to a longtime ne,end of my husband's and mi somebody we admire so much who did really transform this state during his governorship, that his former governor jim hunt. [applause] sec. clinton: there is a lot that i want to talk about today, but let me start with this because you may or may not know -- today is national voter registration day. [applause] and you see some
signs people are holding -- i will vote. now, that is not only a great sign that shows you are committed to vote, but it is a website. and you can go to i will vote.com to make sure you're registered. you all will. and i hope you will tell everybody that you know to do the same, because we want to make sure people are registered. there is still time to get registered here in north carolina. and i hope that you will, because think about everything that is at stake in this election. write your north carolina, the very mean-spirited, wrongheaded decision by your legislature and governor to have them signed house bill 2 has hurt the state. but more than that it has hurt people.
it has sent a message to so many you are not well, really wanted, you are not really part of us. i think the american dream is big enough for everybody. [applause] sec. clinton: the other thing that, the other thing that your governor and legislature did is everything they could to make voting harder for people. now, they were pretty blatant about it. make it harder for people of color. make it harder for the elderly. make it harder for the young. now, some of that has been rolled back, thankfully, because it was so wrong. and i would argue, unconstitutional. [applause] but the best way
a democracy, in like ours, we could have the most vigorous, vibrant debate. that is what it is about. but we want everybody to exercise his or her right to vote. that is the way we are supposed to be making decisions. ifdistorts our democracy some groups of people tried to prevent other people from being able to do that. elections and i have lost elections, so i know what the difference is. -- i will tell you this believe in what our founders established for us. , to continueselves to widen the circle of opportunity, and that includes the opportunity to be heard, to express yourself, your voice and
your vote. ourhe best way to reaffirm commitment to that fundamental bedrock american value is to show up and vote. and demonstrate the importance of your vote. [applause] sec. clinton: i believe that we may have a record-setting turnout in this election. [applause] some folks who follow this are saying we could have the biggest turnout we have ever had. sensehat kind of makes morese you cannot have two different visions about where we want our country to go in the future. and we are fighting for. but early information is actually quite encouraging. we are seeing spikes in early voting and we are seeing voting
rates among african-americans, latinos and young people going up. [applause] and for the first time the estimate is that young people could represent 25% of the vote. [applause] sec. clinton: now, i would love to see that. obviously i would hope people vote for me, what i would love to see that because every election is about the future, and honestly, it is more about the future of young people and children than it has ever been because of the difference in the approaches and the experiences of me and my opponent. chancest night, i got a -- [applause]
sec. clinton: i got a chance to say if you things. -- say a few things about what i would want to do if i am fortunate enough to be your president. i do have this old-fashioned idea that if i am asking for your vote, i should tell you what i want to do. [applause] sec. clinton: and i also got to convey my excitement about what we can do together. i really think the central question in this election is what kind of country we want to be and what kind of future we want to build for our children and our grandchildren. i think about that a lot. outart because i started working for the children defense fund, that has always been my tosion, about what we can do help more kids live up to their
god-given potential. and during this campaign, people have asked me, how did you get interested in that? the simple answer is my mother ,ad such a neglected childhood she was basically abandoned by her parents, sent to live with grandparents who did not want her. by the age of 14 she was out on her own, working in a home, babysitting, keeping house. she was basically a maid. when i think about my mother's own life and how she told me when i was old enough to understand how different her life was than the one that she created for me and my brothers, she would say she was so often saved by the kindness of other people. you know, we overlook the
importance of just how we treat each other. the respect we show, the kindness, the love that we shall. -- that we show. [applause] sec. clinton: and i am well aware that is not something you necessarily on a campaign website, but i have been talking about it because i think that we our got to reassert fundamental connection to each other. you know, when my mother was in first grade, she never had any food. enter first grade teacher noticed that in those days, they just want little bags of food and they would sit in the classroom and eat it. my mother never had any food. that first grade teacher noticed that and begin to bring extra food, but without embarrassing her. she would say, dorothy, i brought to much food.
would you like the sandwich, would you like this milk? and it was not until she herself was much older that my mother realized that that teacher fit her for that school year, something she did not have to do. but her love for her students, recognition of a child who was not well taken care of meant that she stepped in. then when my mother worked as a maid, she really want to go to high school. she started working right before you would have been in high school because she had to get out of her grandparents home -- grandparent's home. the woman she worked for realize how much my mother wanted to go to high school. and so she said to her, if you sends likey -- it christine getting up so early -- if you get up early and you get your chores done, you can go to
high school. that is what my mother did for four years. she got up early and she literally had to run, run to get to high school. , but not for my mom. she thought it was such a great gift of kindness that this woman gave her a place to live, gave her food to eat, gave her the chance to go to high school. so, when i talk about us being stronger together, and not just talking about what our government needs to do. i am talking about what each of us can do to contribute. we do need to make sure -- [applause] sec. clinton: we need to make sure that our economy does work for everyone, not just those at the top. and that means we have to make investments in more good, new jobs.
infrastructure jobs. advanced manufacturing jobs. technology and innovation, clean renewable energy jobs. and we have to do more to help small businesses because that is where most of the new jobs will come from. as i said last night, my dad was in small business -- was a small businessman. when he got out of the navy after world war ii, the -- he withed a small business drapery fredericks. he had a plan in chicago. it was a dark room, there was no natural light. he had two long tables. he spread the fabric on the table. he would start at one end, he would pour the paint and he would take the squeegee. he would go all the way down and start on the other table. he would do that until he got the job done. i would help him out from time to time, so i knew how hard he
worked. but he was so proud that he could give us a good middle-class life because his dad was a factory worker. he was able to do what we want to see in america -- keep going, keep reaching, move as high as your hard work and ambition will take you. so i want us to have an economy that works for everyone. to grow the economy, to create more jobs. but i also want a fairer economy. because -- [applause] sec. clinton: when you work hard, you should not be still in poverty at the end of the year. but if you are a minimum-wage worker, if you work full-time minimum-wage, you will make $15,000 a year. two thirds of minimum-wage workers are women, most of them with families to support.
and i have talked to a lot of these women's. some in a cafe some in a store. one of the most humbling experiences about being out there talking to people is that if you are open to it, people will tell you what is on their minds and in their hearts. women who were working to full-time minimum-wage jobs to make enough to be able to afford their kids. we need to raise the minimum wage. [cheers and applause] clinton: and we need to guarantee finally equal pay for number one, because it is fair.
if your mother, your wife, your sister, or your daughter is working, don't you want to see her being paid for the work she does? want toother thing i do, i want to make sure that more companies offer profit-sharing to their employees who help make the profits in the first place. makes no sense to me that sharing and profits would only go to the top executives. i want more people in more jobs to realize the benefit of their hard work. last night at the debate, one of my guess was mark cuban -- one mark cuban.was
no mark cuban -- you is a real millionaire, by the way -- [cheers and applause] used off an: he has cheering for his first business. not only while the business was going, but also when it was sold, it he made 300 of his employees millionaires overnight. [cheers and applause] now, that is the kind of business leadership i want to hold up. what we have seen from my opponent is someone whose own -- hegn manager has led builds a lot of is this is on the backs of the little guy. stiffing people. plumbers,s, painters, glass installers, marble
installers, drapery installers across america. have come forward. go to our website in see their stories. it is heartbreaking. as i said last night, i am glad my dad never had a contract with donald trump when he was running his small business. to making theon economy fair we have got to make it work better for working families who are trying to balance family and work. it is really hard out there, isn't it? listening to christine story, getting up at 4:00, studying, going just goal, going to work, going to another job, that is not in uncommon story. we have made it really hard for a lot of people. need to do, it is not a luxury it is a necessity because i want more families to be able to go as far as their
hard work will tell them in i have heard so many stories. people of told me about the difficult choices they face. the stresses they are under. so let's, finally, since every other advance economy has already done this -- let's have paid family leave so that when you are sick or yours house or child is sick or you have a -- orn applause] secretary clinton so you can take care of them. -- and let's is have a earned sick days so when you are sick you don't have to go to work. affordableave childcare which in a lot of states cost as much or more as in-date college tuition. i do not think any family should never have to pay more than 10%
of your income for child care and we are going to fix that said that becomes the norm. and, let's make sure every educational opportunity is available without sending you into debt and breaking your budget. tomorrow in new hampshire, bernie sanders in and i are going to talk about the college plan for debt-free college at he anduniversities that i have worked on since the end of our primary. applause] : i want everyton family in north carolina to know that help is on the way and we are also going to work so you can refinance the debt you already have at much lower rates and get it paid off a lot sooner.
now, how are we going to do that? we going to go where the money is, at the top. to go after millionaires, billionaires, and corporations. we're going to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires in close corporate loopholes. . believe we can get that done in part, because you are going to send deborah ross to the senate so we will have another democrat senator. but also because our government needs to start working for everybody again. not just those who have andyists and lawyers influence. that has not worked out so well. we have got to get back to first principles. job is to give the maximum opportunities to the maximum number of americans and to especially focus on people who
are working their way out of poverty and people in the middle class who want to go as far as they can go. thes see a government for struggling, the striving, and the successful. so, i am excited about what we can do. i am going tod leave it to the fact checkers to go through all of donald trump's claims. there was a lot of work or fact checkers last night. but, here is a couple of things that caught my attention. he actually bragged about gaming the system to get out of paying his fair share of taxes. booing]
sec. clinton: in fact, i think there is a strong possibility that he is not paid taxes for a number of years. this is a man who goes around criticizing every institution from health care to education. he probably has not aid a penny to support our troops or our veterans or our schools or our health care system. and when i confronted him with the reason why he will not release his tax return in and i got to the point where i said, maybe he has paid zero, he said that makes him smart. makesf not paying taxes an smart, what does that make all of the rest of us? you know, i have got to tell you bill and i have been blessed. we did not come from million or families.
my husband's father -- biological father -- died before he was born. his mother went to nursing school in order to support him. they struggled. a worked hard. -- and america gave him the chance to get a good education. pursue his dreams, and up being president. my dad, as i told you, work hard. so, bill in die have released all of our tax returns going back 40 years. i have released all of our tax forms going back 40 years. you will see we paid the highest marginal rate will stop we try to give 10% to charity. believe in this country and we believe with the blessings we have been given we
should do our part. [cheers and applause] [chanting "hillary"] sec. clinton: the other thing he admitted last night was that t actually rooted for the housing --sis to happen will stop the other thing he admitted last night was that he actually rooted for the housing crisis to happen. i don't the guy wouldn't be back, but he thought it showed how smart he was. he said, yes, if the housing market crashes i could go win in by step and make more money. i have got to tell you, what kind of person believes that? what kind of person would want to root for 9 million families
losing their homes? who should never a president is the answer to that question. applause] sec. clinton: and he made it very clear that he did not repair for that debate will stop -- prepare for that debate. he was kind of digging me for spending time off the campaign trail to get prepared by just keeping track of everything he says took a lot of time in effort. yes, i did prepare you and i will tell you what else i prepared for -- i prepared to be president of the united states and i think that is good. , as i said in the beginning,
we have two different visions here. i believe we are stronger together, that is at the core of what i have done over my years in advocacy and public service. i believe that america is already great and it is our responsibility to make it even greater. i believe that as we make our economy work for everyone, we also need to keep our country safe and provide strong, steady leadership in the world with our allies and our partners. laid out my views on a range of national security and foreign policy issues. i have laid out my plan for defeating and destroying isis.
and, what we hear from my opponent is dangerously incoherent. it is unclear exactly what he is saying. last nightatter and it sounded like he was basically telling our treaty allies in we are not sure we are going to be there for you even know we have a mutual defense. words matter. people here that the and they start to doubt america's word. america's intention. i felt like i had to jump in and say, i just want to be clear, we will honor our treaties. we will support our allies and our partners. not realityis is tv, this is real. it is is real as it gets.
we are going to get the economy working for everybody, not just those at the top. we're going to keep america safe , provide strong city leadership and bring our country together across the divide. that have pitted the americans against each other. economic worries are not the only ones keeping families up at night, are they? there is still a lot we do not know about recent incident in tulsa and charlotte but this we do know. we have got to bring communities together. we have got to listen to each other. we have to make it clear that everyone is safer when there is respect from the law for the communities for the communities they protect and
respect for the law from the communities that are protected. and, we have got to do something about the epidemic of gun violence that has taken too many to many lives in our country. comein, i think we can together if a large majority of americans and gun owners believe in comprehensive background checks. they believe that the second amendment, as i do. they believe in the right of individuals to have guns, as i do. but they believe along with me that we should not let guns fall into the wrong hands of people who will use them to kill other people and make it so easy to get them.
[cheers and applause] sec. clinton: so there's work to do, starting right here in north carolina. this election is going to be days. they all are these that is why ever call you make, every door you knock on, every friend you register to vote could make the difference. i want you, if you can to text j-o-i-and right now. volunteerght now to at north carolina. i know there is a big overflow room and i am told they can hear me, so to my friends in the overflow room, we
want you to be just as involved as anyone else. thank you for coming! remember, here in north carolina starting on october 20, you can register and vote early at the same time. any one-stop early voting site in your county. remember, it is not just the residential race. it is the governor's race, the lieutenant governor's race, the u.s. senate race and other races up and down the ticket. prove who went to are as americans in this election. we are not fearful. we do not want to build walls, we want to build bridges. againstt want to turn
each other. we want to work with one another. we want to set big goals again here in our country. i have got some big goals i know we can achieve. take climate change, which my opponent says is a hoax perpetrated by the chinese. be one of theld biggest economic opportunities our country is in racine and i want to take advantage of that. it might be one of the biggest economic opportunities our country has ever seen and i want to take advantage of that. we are one to build solar panels in my administration and we will produce enough clean power to power every home in america within 10 years and we are going to lead the world. because some country is going to
be the clean energy superpower of the 21st century and the way things are stacking up, it will either be germany, china, or us. i want it to be us. and it will be us. applause] "usa"] g sec. clinton: that is exactly right. i love this country, i am proud of this country, i want to be the leader who brings people together in this country. that's goals, cheap some, and proves once and for all that the love trumps hate. thank you! cheers and applause] ♪
violence and his call for a justice department investigation into the trunk foundation. and, our spotlight on monday feature talksne the democratic party using certain tactics to invite anxiety over discrimination and exclusion in order to solidify support from minority groups. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal. join the discussion. three to go. down, the next one in farmville, virginia, on the campus of virginia -- on the campus of longwood university. joining us is the reporter for the richmond times dispatch. thank you for being with us.
why longwood? >> , the commission on debates hs a long history of holding these contests to schools that are not the largest. we had one in 1992 at the university of richmond. we have had small schools in missouri, one in wake forest years ago. longwood is an interesting place because of the surrounding community. it has an important role in the civil rights story. for that reason, it is going to advantage.illed not only has he served in office for 22 years, but he was steeped in the story of the state which the farmville area in many ways to demises him as a former will write lawyer.
he and his wife decided early on to make reconciliation their mission and part of what he has termed because of richmond's scar tissue. thei respect -- expect debate at farmville, he will try to sketch its historic importance in the civil rights story. he will talk about the 16-year-old girl in the high school in 1951 who segregate -- protested desegregated school facilities which help underscore the separate but not equal. it was rolled in brown versus order of education and help to make a difference in the landmark supreme court case so i would say that longwood probably got this coveted spot in part theuse of their history of
surrounding area in the civil rights story. mccainefore senator john was named running mate, how was the university preparing for the debate? what will it look like? the basketball hall turned debate forum. and how is the university including the president preparing for next thursday? >> the student will probably be off but they of the biggest haul set up to accommodate it. there will be a lot of invited guests. there was a big filing center. i think 700 people have credentials for this event. they are working on ways to incorporate as a into the curriculum. it will be a coveted opportunity for those who are able to part. it will be an important role for
the school to play and a coveted spot in their history. we saw this on the campus of hofstra university on monday, a festival like atmosphere between the students, media, andion, political officers in anticipation of the first debate. a similar scene on the campus of longwood university? andrew cain: for sure. they of the spin room and everything ready to go. we have reporters who will be writing about what this means. i think folks from richmond down to arm bill will be excited about this not just because it is themccain because it moment in the sun. host: let's talk about the purple state. some polls showing hillary clinton is ahead in the commonwealth.
>> i am running to be a nice governor because there is a better way. winky. -- thank you. >> the inside the rate commission has established a format that will allow you to the candidates 30 seconds. you will get your initial reply to the question. many of the questions are coming from suggestion that were made by those of you who went to our utah commission website. we also have some students who will be asking questions from utah university. i get the first shot at it. in this question, mr. white hall coming will be the first to answer this question. we often find a place education at the top of their list and issues. prioritize what measures do you believe
need to be taken to improve education in utah. can you touch on the current levels? >> for years governor herbert has talked about education being his top priority. he has had several years to make it that. we still find ourselves under his administration as dead last in the country for funding. you know that we have a funding crisis. when you drop your kids off at school, you see the class sizes. you job your child off and they walk into class with 38 other children. you see teachers pay for their own supplies or ask for your help in getting those supplies. you know our teachers are overworked and underpaid. been deadt always last in the country for funding. in the 90's -- in the 1990's, we prioritize education.
we were spending between 30 and 34% of our state .udget on education in her administration, we are only been spending about 22-26%. you cannot say it is your top priority if you're not going to put your money where your mouth is. my friend scott anderson, who i served on the board with for over a decade, wrote a inspiring to thinkut the need about education like a moonshot. we need to do something big and bold. him.ee with as her governor, i will absolutely make this a priority and not give it the storm -- not just give it the service. -- live service.
>> education has been my number one budget priority. fact, we stopped cutting the budget for education and started replenishing it with increased amount of money. there are three ways to do that. you can raise taxes, which is my opponents desire. you can reprioritize. or you can regrow the economy. we have a healthy economy. invest anen able to additional 1.8 -- $1.8 billion in education. two thirds of the state budget goes education. our commitment is there. three dollars out of every four dollars goes into education. it is about time we started talking about all of education and not just how much money we put into it. one of the outcomes?
are good teachers, are incredible principles for getting us a good outcome. acp test scores are up. act test scores are up. in eighth grade or 12th grade -- are minority scores are up. we have grown the economy and are investing more in our education. it is not where we need to be, but we are in the right direction. you have 30 seconds if you want to make a rebuttal. >> governor herbert lights that talk about the billions of dollars being reinvested in education over the years. that sound like a big number, but we are still not out of dead last ranking in the country.
-- prettyt back to pre- recession funding levels. we have to get serious about this. the governor mentioned outcomes. act scores have actually gone down. we are below the national average. 70% of our high school students are graduated and prepared for college. our outcomes are not the way they should be. >> governor herbert, you have 30 seconds. >> the proof is in what we see and what we are achieving. supportness community -- they are the frontlines of what is taking place in the classroom. the fact that they have endorsed my candidacy speaks volumes about what we are doing for education. they would not do that if they do not think we are doing a good
job. they are supporting my can -- candidacy. >> very good, gentlemen. we're going to have torn next question. this time we have a number of our media asking our question. >> let us talk about medical marijuana. the legislature is likely to advance another bill in the next session. you have expressed concerns about this in the past. mr. white hall's you have made it personal when you said your wife was under investigation for medical marijuana use. do you suggest any legislation this year or -- and what type? does this lead to a slippery slope of recreational marijuana in utah? i think the disappointment to me is that the current administration it just has not
allowed us to do the research necessary to back up some of the anecdotal stories. it needs to be researched. we have great research institutions, we are in one right now. we have actually passed legislation that allows cannabis to be used for certain procedures. my sister -- forcibly -- for seizures. again, it is not a matter that willing to embrace. there needs to be a process for this can be a controlled substance. it means to be prescribed by a doctor and given by a pharmacist, where we can control quality -- quantity and quality. be careful about what you do.
is what we're doing here in utah. i think we will see what bubbles up in the legislation. i think there is a need for research. new see if we can have it as a controlled substance abuse for medicinal purposes. yes, i cannot believe that this bell just build a make it out. the witnesses that were brought forward were so moving. anddren with seizures elderly women with cancer, all people who could benefit from the legalization of medical cannabis. as far as where i am, i stand -- ofhe 71% of utah and utah who supported.
as for the slippery slope, i think we should only look at medical cannabis. recreational is a bridge too far for utah. it definitely has positive aspects that can help people who are suffering. -- suffering from various conditions. the other thing we need to focus on is the opioid epidemic we have. utah has one of the worst rates deaths fromn and the opioid addiction. we have to look at that as well. i spent 30 years in health care. adjust -- address complex issues like this. we need to get serious about this. that the billd did not make it. >> governor herbert, do you have
anything you need to add? >> i agree that we have substance abuse and needs to be treated. the problem is countrywide. as chair of the national governors association, that is something we have taken very seriously. again, i have empathy for those who get relief from medical marijuana. we need to find science the back of the anecdotal story. the administration has turned a blind eye. we need to do the research so we can come up with conclusions based on science. >> 30 seconds. herbertee with governor . the federal government has dragged its feet with declassifying cannabis as a schedule one drug.
we can still do things locally. we always have local solutions, especially when the federal government is dragging their feet. we need to lead out on this issue. >> thank you both. a question from one of our students. any, do you have a question for the candidates #--? suicide is the leading cause of death for teenagers. you declared a mental health crisis at the university. what are your policies and funding suggestions related to mental health in utah. mr. reinhold.th >> there is a mental health crisis. one of the things we can do to address it, is expand medicaid. governor herbert has failed to expand medicaid to help people.
our families and neighbors and friends who are suffering and in need of care, cannot go to the doctor when they are sick. governor herbert had the opportunity to unilaterally expand medicaid, but he decided and push that responsibility to the legislature. we know how that worked out. helpding of medicaid would with mental health issues, help with addiction issues, it would help on many different levels. this is a utah valley you. you.utah valley medicaidreason that was not expanded by our governor and our one-party legislature is
for political reasons. it is one of the worst examples of putting politics for people that i have ever seen. in my business career, i was always known for putting people first. this is something i will never do in government. i will never put politics for people. >> now we get to the republican candidate gary herbert. >> the question was about suicide. legislature has passed a couple pieces of legislation to help this issue. we have hotlines in place, counseling put in place to help our young people who have those kinds of tendencies who maybe they need someone to talk to. we are making significant strides in the right direction putting programs in place to help people that have that kind of hopelessness. we need toething come together on. medicaid issue is really kind of a red herring here. i do not rubberstamp the
affordable care act. i think there are serious issues with that. we see the problem with the rising costs. about 16 just this past year. aetna is one group. another health policy group getting out of the business of health care with the exchange. we have been a very fiscally responsible state. we are one of only 98 in america that has a aaa bond rate. it is not a matter of helping people, i came up with a program to help utah. you get off of government assistance by getting a job. again, we have the concern of those we need to help the we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way. not only was the failure to
expand medicaid morally bankrupt, it was fiscally irresponsible because you have artie paid the taxes for this. we are sending hundreds of millions of dollars every year to washington and other parts of the country, and we are not bringing that money back to utah. we spent billions of your dollars elsewhere and are not bringing it back to utah. >> your 30 seconds, governor. >> maybe you should take his hand at being a legislator. i understand the physical aspect of it. again, you misunderstand the statutes. i cannot do it unilaterally.
you need cooperation of the legislature. it has to be approved. we put it in the budget for medicaid expansion or any other program. you do not understand how the system works. >> i wish we had more time to talk about this issue. we need to move on. our next question comes from a reporter from utah needs. >> we do have more time to talk about medicaid is mentioned because that is what my question is. i'm going to adjust a little bit on the points that you made. a scaled-back version was passed in the state of utah. at this point, the estimates are 10 to 11,000 utah will be affected. not only do they not have health insurance, they have no option of health insurance through the exchanges or the medicaid program. are you, my question is
satisfied with that number or are you looking to land that? -- to expand that? how do you get legislature behind that if you want to expand medicaid to get everyone into the coverage. >> i have not satisfied. ofhelped them get off government assistance. the reason they don't help me all -- help me out is because they are unemployed or underemployed. we need to provide for this, which is not easy to get done. to come inow people and give them some health care but also given training for a better job. that is our culture. the average length of time anyone is on medicaid is nine months. can get them all help and
they can help themselves. i think there are opportunities for us so work with the legislature. we have to convince them that it is the fiscally prudent thing to do. it looks like the cost of premium increase is going to be 17-20% across the country in the next year. people are concerned. health care companies are getting out of the exchange. we have 16 exchanges failing. it sends a red flag asking if this is sustainable. that is what we have to can -- convince the legislator. it is one of the few that has a aaa bond rate. we need to respect the taxpayers dollars. thank you.
first of all, it is extremely $9,000inting that only 11,000 people were covered by the plan that came out of the legislator. this is another example of not listening to the people. soundly in favor of expanding medicaid. what are legislator dave and water governor signed into law last session was picking winners and losers. are 120,000 of our family members and neighbors who are , and the legislature sits in an ivory tower and says we will cover you 9000, but you 111,000 have to continue to suffer. that is a moral outrage. as far as being able to afford it, of course we can afford it. we have already paid for it. we are not bringing a billion dollars back into our economy. when the governor talked about
we don't know if the federal government will be a good partner, we never asked that question when the federal ourrnment is on -- is partner on roads or transportation. we have only brought that up when it comes to this health care program. friends do not like it because it is part of the affordable care act. let us get serious about what people want, but more importantly about what the 120,000 people need. >> i know you want to do a rebuttal, but i know he has a were -- follow-up question. >> the legislature has made it clear that that is one of their main concerns. you have to get them on board. when you talk about that we have already paid for it, the state has a portion we still need to pay. when our specific ideas of where you can find the funding to pay the state half -- state half of
that. questions me? again, the argument we have made is that it makes sense because we have sent money to washington to get it back. our interest is in the state. do not take the money from us in the first place rate we do not than they are.er if you take the money from us, given back to us is that the state has flexibility. why would we want to have the same kind of health care program in a state that is the end of america. stated to have flexibility. the affordable care act does not give us the flexibility we need. we ask that question all the time. with any kind of federal program , is it going to be sustainable? is it going to break the bank?
republicans are saying the budget busters is -- one of the budget busters is medicaid. whether it is transportation or education or anything all, we are always concerned about the federal government and whether they will keep their promises or leave us high and dry when it comes to money. polling shows that the people of utah do not support medicaid in the majority. they support a healthy utah because it makes common sense. obamacare in the state of utah is not a popular thing. this expansion of obamacare is a problem for the people of utah. >> you have an opportunity to reply to mr. mills question. >> this is part of the problem. you are politicizing it by
knowingly calling it a obamacare because the people of utah are not enamored with that. again, it is putting politics before people. in terms of the able to afford it, of course we can afford it. how can we not afford to take care of our families and neighbors. it would have cost $44 million to fully expand medicaid. we have that money. we had $53 million to waste on a coal port in california that nobody in california, and nobody d, but we could not afford $44 million to take care of each other. that is outrageous. so, we need to get our priorities straight. you still have 30 seconds. is there anything else you would like to add? >> i am done. moderator: good, you said it
all. [laughter] moderator: another big topic we are discussing tonight. we have an opportunity to have students here asking questions. this time, we will take a question from cameron. >> my question has to do with minimum wage, regarding living wage. utah has a little growth in wages since the great recession. according to m.i.t., utah ranks 33rd in the nation. is it time to raise the minimum wage in utah? moderator: mr. weinholtz, you have the first response. mr. weinholtz: yes, i believe it is, but first of all, on the economy, this is a great example of governor herbert being out of touch with everyday working families. and it may be because he spends so much of his time with his fat cat large corporate donors that he doesn't have a sense of what
is important for everyday families. this economy is not working for everybody. it is only working for those that the top. and we have got enough minimum-wage jobs. we have 250,000 people in the state making minimum wage. we have enough minimum wage jobs and $10 an hour jobs. we need careers that can support families. i would love to see governor herbert and the legislature live with no an hour benefits. all of these things are connected because when you don't have a living wage, you suffer everywhere. because those jobs also don't have benefits, which is why we need to expand medicaid. so, all of these things are connected and we need to be smarter about them. moderator: all right, governor? mr. weinholtz: it is interesting
-- gov. herbert: it is interesting that you are talking about my fatcat rich people, like that is somehow not politicizing the argument. i have spoken with president obama and he himself called the obama care. the facts are what the facts are. again, i am a free market guy. i believe the market will make the determinations of the winners and losers, and as we have seen the results of having the best performing economy, the most diversified economy, in america today, personal income is up 5.7%. we have household income, now the 11th highest in the nation. our incomes are moving up. that is what has made america great, the pressures of the market. people look to utah as the land of opportunity. i appreciate the fact that he
took the option to come to the most fertile business environment in america to build his business. i hope everybody has the same opportunity he has to become one of those that cap out there who is rich -- become one of those fat cat guys out there who is rich. i want everybody to have the kind of success. again, the american dream is upward mobility. and utah today is the best place in this country for upward mobility and people with the american dream. by the way, people agree with me on the right track-wrong track believe 80% of utahns we are on the right track. they reflect what i am doing. that means we are addressing their issues and the way we like. moderator: we do have time for a 32nd rebuttal, if the you would like to add, mr. weinholtz. mr. weinholtz: these statistics the governor uses are great, but
areyday utahns know they working harder for less, they are struggling to get by, and the economy is not working for everyone. we need to be able to bring higher-paying jobs here. you know, i have created thousands of jobs in my company, and in previous companies. i look what red companies look like, that pay living wages and take care of people. moderator: 30 seconds. gov. herbert: that is what my jobs are bringing. we have a lot of people relocating here to utah that are being driven out from other states because they are raising taxes. they have too many business regulations that are stopping progress. the environment here is producing great outcomes. whether it is oracle, ebay, or goldman sachs, people come to utah to create high-paying jobs. certainly, not everything is equal around the state, but
everybody has the opportunity to have success in this great it. moderator: thank you, gentlemen. believe it or not, we are actually at the midpoint of our debate this evening. i do want to welcome everyone, once again, to this live debate between the candidates for utah governor. we are broadcasting live from the campus of utah state university in logan. as of now, this is the only televised debate that has been scheduled between these two candidates, including the republican governor gary herbert, the incumbent, and his democratic opponent, mike weinholtz. this is one of several debates that will take place before the elections, which are scheduled for november 8. we also have a citizen-based initiative that we are working with to provide statewide debate coverage for utah's federal and state offices. many of the questions are coming from you who went online to the utah debate website.
ehat is utahdebat commission.org. also, when you go to our website, there is an archive debate listing there and we have a schedule of our future debates that will be happening. , we will go back to our questions and exchange. we are beginning this exchange with mr. eagen from ksl. >> utah is known around the world for our incredible luminous areas, but here at home, there is a debate regarding who should control the 30 million acres currently under control of the federal government. our legislature set aside millions of dollars for a possible lawsuit. my question is, do you support moving forward with litigation against the federal government? and who is better positioned to manage our public lands, utah or the federal government? moderator: and governor herbert, you can begin. gov. herbert: it is a shared
responsibility, our public lands. as you work together in partnership, we end up getting better outcomes. the problem has become over time, and by the way, we have had about six different sagebrush rebellions we call three of them led by republican governors and three led by democratic governors. saying, wetah are know what is happening here. we should have more to say in the management of our public lands. hence, we put together the public land initiative, to come up with a wage to resolve these conflicts out there. we understand that is not utah's backyard, but it is america's backyard. finding that optimal place to be is the best for us all. one way to do that is the negotiation, which we are doing all the time. the second one is legislation, which we are trying to do right
now. and a third is litigation. all three are arrows in the quiver, and we are using all of them. litigation because we cannot resolve disputes on rs2477. we are being forced to go to court to litigate each one of those roads. they cannot be designated as wilderness. it will be a combined effort of working together to find the appropriate solution and doing itutah is not the right way because of poor management by the federal government. moderator: ok, we are short on time so i will be asked that we keep our eye on the clock. mr. weinholtz have an opportunity to respond. mr. weinholtz: when i think of public lands, i think of the times it took my son chase hiking and fishing and camping
on the pristine, beautiful lands we have in utah. my concern is he won't be able to take his children to the same places where we enjoyed those father and son moments. the reason i am concerned is because governor herbert wants to sell off these public lands. when we do that, we lose our heritage. and i am not willing to let that happen. as it relates to the lawsuit, not only is this poor judgment, but it was fiscally irresponsible. our own attorneys told this was not a winnable lawsuit. so, what did the governor and legislature do? attorneysand shot for until they found one that gave them the answer they wanted, and then they committed $40 million thisur money to pursue unwinnable lawsuit. it is fiscally irresponsible. it is poor judgment.
and governor, i know you have said you don't have the intention of selling these lands you signed the2, transfer of public lands bill, which allows for selling these lands off, and we are selling lands off today. you can look it up. as your governor, i will protect our heritage and public lands and i won't allow them to be sold off. moderator: mr. herbert, as i you taking notes. would you like rebuttal time? gov. herbert: you know there is no plan to sell off the public land. that is a false statement. the legislation in fact, where penalized. proceeds had to go to the federal government. there is no motivation or desire. i have said this very clearly. we are a public land state here in utah and we always will be. that is the intent. we do not like the mismanagement of the federal government and most of the people of you to understand we can do a better job of managing the public lands. for example, we are not allowed
to manage the lumber industry. moderator: ok, now 40 seconds for mr. weinholtz. mr. weinholtz: governor herbert talks about the three arrows in the quiver, but it seems we are always using the lawsuit one. governor'se current campaign literature talks about suing the federal government over 12,000 times. i don't know how he is time to do anything else other than sue the federal government if you have sued them 12,000 times, but maybe that is why our economy is not working for all utahns. maybe that is why we can't get medicaid expanded. moderator: we are out of time. this will have to carry on at another time. i am sure the conversation could butn and on on this topic, we do need to keep close watch on the time. that turns the time to me because i will be asking the
next question. there are several debates, not just this debate happening throughout the nation. including the presidential debate. i would like to know, beginning , who will youoltz be voting for for president and why? mr. weinholtz: both candidates are extremely unpopular here in utah. [laughter] mr. weinholtz: so, you know, this is a great question. [laughter] .r. weinholtz: but, it is clear the democratic nominee is far more qualified than donald trump. the democratic nominee has not for an entirean religion, which should be very concerning to the people of utah, given our history of persecution of the mormon church. the democratic candidate has not pigs," and other
names. the democratic candidate has not called mexicans "rapists" and "murderers." donald trump is imminently unqualified to lead this country for many reasons, most of them be ieing temperament. he also said that if anybody gestures the wrong way at us on the high seas, he will blow them out of the water and start a war. this man is patently unqualified. so, i understand there are a lot of people here in our state who do not like the democratic nominee, but she is imminently more qualified than the joker who the republicans have put up for the selection. moderator: ok. [applause] ok, we ask you to please refrain from any applauding during the debate, please.
governor herbert, who do you plan to vote for and why? mr. weinholtz: as i said -- gov. herbert: as i said, i will vote for donald trump and i will tell you why. i cannot see voting for hillary clinton. the estimates are right now, what she plans to do with her programs, and she plans to grow the government out of control. $1 trillion additionally to the debt. she will raise taxes and increase spending. i don't believe that is the pathway forward for this state of utah. the people of utah really don't like hillary clinton. infact, 80% of democrats utah don't like clinton. most democrats, the majority, don't believe she is trustworthy. it is one thing to have outlandish behavior, but it is another, in fact, to be dishonest. and in fact, bordering on criminal activity. so, i can't see us voting for hillary clinton, it was going to
grow government and increase our taxes and double down on the current administration, which has not been good for america. certainly, we have lost respect around the world. we somebody who will in fact, make sure we have a strong national fence and have peace through strength. we need simply he will appoint the right people to the supreme court, people who will not legislate from the bench. the appointments they put in to all the different departments are important and i believe we will get a better outcome if we don't support hillary clinton. again, i know it is not popular, but as you can pair, this is a binary choice. hillary clinton is the wrong choice for utah. moderator: ok, we are going to move things along a little bit. we will go directly to rod decker form rom kutv news. >> who my asking? moderator: you were asking governor herbert first. >> administration o approved
burning and copper in salt lake county? are you serious about cleaner air? gov. herbert: a vote for me and the current administration certainly is. we have cleaned up the air in many ways. we are not where we want to be, but we are going the right direction. we in fact, understand how significantly in port and it is to our ability to attract businesses, our ability to attract tourism and travel to our state, and increase our economic growth, which is the best in america. we understand how important environmental issues are. and what we have done, i have created what is called the utah clean air partnership. what we can do, in fact, to find new ideas to in fact, improve on air quality in utah. we in fact, have classed 31 different regulations addressing industry and business to have
the best available technology to reduce pollution in our aair ir. $10 million was passed to promote electrical car use. again, addressing the air quality issues here. the good news is, we have improved the air quality. we had a 35% reduction in the last 10 years. it is not enough, but it shows we are serious and actually doing something about it. we are now 10th in the nation the it comes this in notice states, and our commercial billing. we are doing many things to reduce pollution in the state of utah. we are not where we need to be, but we have done a lot to get where we are today. moderator: the same question for mr. weinholtz, or a different question? >> has he done a good job? vote for me isweinholtz: a
a vote to get serious about claim air. i cannot believe governor herbert is claiming he is serious about the issue. you in the audience and you at home know this is a public health crisis because our families and our children are breathing this filthy air. it is not just during inversion season. it is year round. there are ozone issues. and you know we have more children with asthma, t havwho have to stay inside, rather than go out for recess in school because of red air days. and now we have maroon air days, as if red air days when not bad enough. pregnant mothers are advised to stay indoors. this is a serious problem that we are not taking seriously enough. it also hurts our economic development and our economy. no company wants to move here when they know that their employees will be breathing dirty air. in fact, i have had ceo friends and business people tell me they don't even try to bring new employees or new business
partners to utah in the winter anymore because they get off the plane, they look at the dirty air, and they get back on the plane. we don't even consider moving here. so, we have to get serious about this issue. we have to give the department of environmental quality the authority to enforce, because right now, they lack that. that is the way that we need to get serious about this issue. moderator: thank you, gentlemen. we are not going to do a rebuttal because they are nearly is of time and this question something that must be important because you both spent time recently visiting areas of the community in salt lake, where there is a homeless population and the problem of homelessness. i am wondering if you feel like we are failing, and why we are failing to try to resolve this important issue. we're going to have mike weinholtz begin answering there
and we have one minute and 10 seconds. mr. weinholtz: i believe that the state is not doing enough on homelessness. in fact, they have said to the county and to the cities, you are on your own on this issue. this is a local issue. many times, local solutions are the best answer. and mayor mcadams in salt lake county and the mayor of the lake city are doing great work to address the homelessness issue statet lake city, but the needs to lead out on this because our homelessness problem is getting worse every day. when you drive through those areas, you see more and more homeless people. and by the way, it is directly related to our economy. there aren't enough people able to get good paying jobs. and the other issue, i come back to medicaid expansion again
because so many of the homeless people have mental health issues or addiction issues, and if they were receiving the proper treatment, we could get them off the streets. hasthe governor and state to do serious about being a partner to the cities and counties, rather than leaving them on their own. moderator: governor herbert. gov. herbert: just because we are not perfect as not mean we are not serious. there should at least be summit knowledge meant of the progress being made from where we were when i came into office and where we are today. we have made significant progress. the homeless issue is in fact, a very complex issue. it is not only that people don't have home or a job. they have substance abuse problems and mental health problems, many issues that have to be addressed. the state probably has the ability to help facilitate and certainly wants to be a partner, but thought lake county and public city have got to take the lead on this, particularly when it comes to law enforcement problems. we are serious about this. by the way, mike again set it
right. this is about economic element. there is a reason why we have 1/3 less poverty here than in other states. we are the best in the nation. i was with bigger brian and others in our -- i was with speaker ryan and others in our congressional delegation and they were touting that we were the best in the nation. our poverty is 1/3 lower, best in the nation. moderator: well, gentlemen, thank you. believe it or not, that concludes our questioning for this evening. he does we have reached the time of our a lot of questions -- of our allotted questions, we are going to move to a one minute closing. we will give you the opportunity to make a statement. again, before we went on air this evening, we determined governor gary herbert would have the opportunity to do that first. gov. herbert: thank you, and
thank you to utah state university. thank you, mike, for being a part of this discussion. let's all get out and vote. that is the first message. utah should lead the nation when it comes to voter turnout. sometimes we can get complacent. we should be humbled and progress.our data does not lie. the statistics tell us we are doing very well. why? there are many reasons, but i will give you one illustration. last week i was in weaver county, washington terrace. we had a storm, a tornado, and guess what happened? remarkably, hundreds of people showed up to help their neighbors at a time of stress and trial. they helped clean up, give them a shoulder to cry on, and give them love and support. that is the secret of utah, it is our people.
our people are doing great things. work with me, support me, vote for me, and we will work together to make sure utah remains the best place in america to live, had a family, and do business. mr. weinholtz: tonight, you have heard two there different visions, two clear choices for the future of utah. one is a 26 year career politician who was been governor for seven years and is asking for four more years to do more of the same. deserve aah families better way forward, and now you have a choice. i agree with governor herbert, please vote. the governor has thrown a lot of statistics now there, but data doesn't always equate to how it is affecting people on the ground. and, you know that our economy is not working for everyone. you know there is a better way forward.
on funding our classrooms and paying our teachers, there is a better way. on protecting our heritage, yes, there is a better way. building an economy that works for everyone, yes, there is a better way. and i look forward to being your next governor and helping lead you through that better way. moderator: thank you. our time is up and i do want to thank the candidates, governor gary herbert and mike weinholtz for being with us. i want to thank utah state university, who let us use this wonderful performance hall. the elections are november 8. again, a thank you to you gentlemen for being with us this evening. thank you and good night. [applause]
is traveling throughout new york this week, asking voters, what question would you ask the candidates at the debate? >> i am brian murray. my question is, how do you feel about the transpacific partnership and if elected, would you do anything to change it to maybe make it more favorable for americans as a whole? i have heard a lot of people say we are getting screwed over in general by the partnership. even though i am in favor of it, i want to know how you feel. >> hello, i am jack. i am a professor of communications. my question, if i had a chance to ask, would be to ask mr. trump why it took them so long, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, to finally agree that president obama really was a citizen of the united states, and when all the evidence came out as late as 2008 -- or as early as 2008, why he still persisted in proposing that idea?
>> hello. my name is cody ingriaham. if i could ask any question to the candidates, it would be, what are your thoughts on common core? and what direction do you see america's education system >> voices from the road on c-span. >> election officials and cyber security specialists meet on capitol hill tomorrow afternoon to brief lawmakers on cyber threats to the u.s. election system. two -- 2:00ins at p.m. eastern. >> coal, gun control, taxes and health care top list of issues