tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 7, 2014 1:00am-3:01am EDT
he argued throughout that under the first amendment what mattered was whether he intended to threaten somebody and the government argued with the view of most court of appeals that the quote -- to quote the government in the closing statement, it doesn't matter what he thinks. what matters is what a reasonable person would view those posts as saying. if he didn't mean it that way, it is a matter of inconvenience to the first amendment. the supreme court added a second question which was we were happy to see it because if we had raised the argument one might have said the argument wasn't reserved. the supreme court can add as many questions as it wants. by coincidence since the fifth circuit gay marriage case involved judge sutton, he concur
separately in his own opinion and labeled it dubious because he didn't think that the use of the word threat means you got to mean it to be a threat. it doesn't matter -- the criminal law very rarely has any liability of what a reasonable person think. it's got to be the guilty mind of the person doing it. so the court added that second question. i think the importance of this case is whether the case goes off on the statutory ground or the constitutional ground. this is just one federal statute and you can start again, you can try again later. although the roberts court has somewhat of a practice of throwing water on the issues and
giving everybody a chance of trying to trim their sales before they invalidate their statutes. it will be more important if it goes up on a constitutional ground because you have several statutes, not all of which include a subjective intent requirement. in addition, there are several different federal statutes. it is interesting that's goes up on the constitutional ground. >> lisa, why don't you tell us about the case about this. >> this is a case, young versus the united states and a case that was i think probably distressing for the government when the court took it, but this is a commercial fisherman who apparently there are states, licensing rules on fishing. you can't take the grouper if it
is a certain side, 20 inches or under, and this gentleman or something equivalent to the state game warden saw what appeared to be or measured him to be an undersized fish and i guess he got a citation. they were locked in a crate. several hours later the fishermen threw the fish overboard. he was actually prosecuted under this basically, which is basically the fallout from enron. the statute makes it a crime to falsify or make a false entry any record, document or tangible object. and the government said a fish is a tangible object, therefore he was guilty of a felony. i have a strong negative to that kind of prosecution.
it seems silly that they are devoting resources to bring federal prosecution under a statute that is supposed to prevent another enron to destroy his red grouper or improperly fished red grouper, i guess the fish did not belong to him. the government wrote a shockingly good brief and i think a lot of observers are now -- i think everyone at least when it was granted predicted this was going to be another big loss. we'll see what happens. i mean the argument on the defendant's side is record, documents, tangible objects. the tangible objects is something like a computer or a file cabinet that would hold documents. i don't know, i think the government at least makes a pretty obviously convincing case. there's no question that a fish is a tangible object. so in terms of people who like to watch and to make fun both of
conservatives and liberals. if you're conservative this case is very difficult because on the one hand it's government abuse. on the other hand there's a strong statutory the government has if you believe in plain language. it's interesting to see people's reactions to this case. >> i didn't realize before this provision there was no general federal ban on destroying evidence of a federal violation, right? >> it was witness tampering and this is a companion statute to witness tampering. that was a lot of the outrage post-enron. >> the government's argument is that -- the government's argument is the statute is tangible object.
>> jim, why don't we talk about, this is one of my favorite cases of the year, the texas department of housing case. i'll load this this up a little bit. this is a case the court granted last week. it is an issue. they have granted cert three times. under the fair housing act, you have to show intentional discrimination or instead can show what's known as a -- that a lending practice has a disproportionate practice on minorities. so as he talks about this case, here's what i want to ask you. 11 federal appeals court have ruled on this issue. all 11 have said, yes, the fair housing act allows this type of
liability. so why is the supreme court taking this case? with that loaded question, dive in, please. >> because 11 times doesn't mean it's right until it gets up to the big nine. and the issue here is does the fair housing act, does it encompass this impact claim? those kind of claims that only look at the impact that an action is having on a statistical basis. the fair housing act says it's unlawful to make unavailable or deny because of race, religion, sex, national origin. that is why you were denied. so here, the texas department of housing was issuing various grants to allow for and promote low income housing and affordable housing in neighborhoods.
most of these neighborhoods happened to be where poor people lived. that's where the need was. that's where the grants were being directed. statistically it shows there is an impact of this grant program on low income communities. with those sort of facts -- i think the court is clearly concerned about this because as you mentioned, there are two other grants. and in each one of those cases it got up, it was ready to go, the pitch was being pitched and just before the home run was struck at the court, the cases were settled. the department of justice in some friends of disparate impact analysis wanted to make sure
these cases didn't get before the court. a lot of money was spread around to make these cases settled. there is nothing unethical about that the it does show department of justice really doesn't want the court to look at this. that 11 courts ite talking about it, expresses a certain amount of dissatisfaction about the state of the disparate impact. if you go back to the case dealing with firefighters, we are quite aware that some of that case indicated skepticism about disparate impact. we think the court is ready to take this case and ready to look at it, and i don't think the texas department of housing is going to settle this case. they are less inclined than the other cases. other interesting aspect about this case -- in the prior
two cases, the court asked for these opinions of the solicitors. should be take it, not? they just granted without asking . -- ibly because they knew didn't want to give this case more time to languish. i think the court wants to get this and wants to give it. if i could predict an outcome i think a majority is going to apply disparate impact where it is not called for. it doesn't here because behind all of this, we have potential equal protection plans. entities had to look at whether or not their actions, that do not have any discriminatory intent, if those actions are going to create a disparate impact, will those
agencies start to have to count by race to avoid disparate impact? having an equal protection problem in doing that? >> let me turn this -- lisa filed a brief on behalf of the american bankers association, agreeing with jim's analysis on disparate impact liability. >> it's hard to underestimate how important this issue is, not just to housing but insurance samenies, lending -- the issue comes up under lending practices. it is an extremely important issue. there is a lot going on with the rightsbecause the civil community has definitely been doing a lot to get these cases
settled and i could not agree more with jim -- this will be impossible. are out offf -- they business if they settle the case. i could not agree with them more. they are sick of this course being in front of them. they are just going to take it, not waste anymore time. those of you who are not lawyers, the statute says to deny or make unavailable. said it is easy to make the argument. if i slam the door in your face i am certainly denying you and making you unavailable entrance, but if i change by opening hours am i making myself unavailable? agree that this is not going to come out well for the civil rights community.
it's unclear. briefed.s once it gets >> let me ask it this way. i think i need to play the devil's advocate on this particular issue. what does it say about the court it has not divided the lower courts, especially contrasting with what happened wherein gay marriage, advocates on both sides call for the court to get involved -- but on this issue they want to do something. >> it started off with mount holy. there was certainly a conference on how would impact, but now they are taking out that second question. argument that a creative ambiguity. those courts have not really
given a discussion of the issue. >> and i think she is right about the lower courts looking for the balancing test. intents, impacts, then there is all sorts of confusion. the only way to deal with it is that this bird impact is not part of the fair housing act. i am not sure we are going to have to wait until we see the briefing because we have seen the briefing twice before. what's going to happen to the oral argument -- you can't necessarily when one. -- win one. unless the oral argument is horrible i cannot imagine it will change what we have already seen the briefing. do youk question -- what think about the impacts of this beyond fair housing? someone say that what's driving a lot of the money and
civil rights community is what's going to happen in the financial industry. thinkere is a way -- i the financial institutions have an even stronger argument under their statute. i think they would be pleased with this decision, but they still have a very strong argument. this would be a nice, clean win for them. >> you look at every other does the statute allows for disparate impact or not? some of them may not. now.tle vii is settled for adverse effect, yes. there was aght that constitutional claim made in reaching those. >> why do we jump to another one of the new cases.
there were some technical issues the arizona legislature involving independent commissions to redistricting. this is the arizona case, originating in a ballot initiative that was enacted in arizona. it is trying to take the politics out of redistricting. in the old days, before the referendum, the redistricting was done by the legislature, the default rule. newly instead given to a created, independent commission, composed of two republican appointees, to democrat apointees. that took a lot of focus on the independent commission. the republicans in the legislature who did well under the last redistricting didn't complain about the constitutionality but this time, the commissioner was unduly
pro-democratic and redistricting. then aside, one of candidates, the runner-up to be the independent commissioner, was former risible deputy paul bender. he may be very happy that he can get that spot now. it could be a very contentious redistricting. the supreme court of arizona reinstated her only reality after the oral argument. it is had a fair amount of -- it's been contentious. for somebody who doesn't live in arizona it has been interesting. a three-judge district court sided with the independent redistricting commission. their public and legislators challenged it and they voted 3-0 on standing in favor of
the republican legislature. 2-1 on the constitutional question in favor of the independent redistricting. this came to the supreme court on appeal. for those of you who understand the nuances, this is one of the few instances where there is mandatory redistricting. court could have done a lot of things with it but it took the case, antedates -- and did express concerns of its jurisdiction. the legislature percent of the question as one of the areas on a constitutional provision that the referendum added. whether that provision that the breast legislature of authority to redistrict racial district -- it'm about to read it. i will bring out my pocket
constitution, but i left it in my office. holding elections shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature. but nota part of the -- unlike the treehouse of horror, there is more to it. -- and itok humans" actually said how to cook for 40 humans. let me see. it says, "the congress may at any time by law --" that is the provision that helps them. u.s.e. -- it says, is redistricted
in the manner provided by the the representative shall be picked in this manner, and the independent redistricting commission said by the law thereof and not by the legislature. there is in fact a 1916 unanimous supreme court decision which says that this was adopted for the very reason of making sure people do it by referendum. e ishe side favoring, ther eis some stuff that is very favorable to the commission on how the court restructured. ordinarily, the court let the case be argued by the person who brings the case. in this case they rephrase the question. the fact that he took the case was assigned that the court wants to revisit the 1916 precedent.
the fact that they reframed the indication that it is a sign of the commission. they rephrased it ot be two they permit use to -- and second, does the arizona legislature have standing to bring the suit. ordinarily when the court takes over these mandatory exactly.ions, if forget they put off the jurisdictional question. that's going to have to be argued. that 21 states bipartisan or independently -- i'm not sure how many of them are potentially affected. the smarty-pants i have talked to is that california is the
state most directly affected that there are a lot of states. i don't know exactly what the fallout might be. --when you say they put off is that basically the standing question? if they -- >> i think that's probably right. it might be that there are other things. on to peggy we move ups? enter case against >> the group bert -- grouper case is yates. this one is young versus the united states. love these kinds of cases, solely and exclusively because i am a woman. it is fun for me to watch the men in the court deal with cases
involving women and watch them squirm. this one is going to be one of the more interesting cases if the court sides with ups. this is a case involving ups drivers. when you drive one of those trucks you have to look at packages and walk, and this involves peggy young who was pregnant and had a difficult pregnancy and her doctor said no more than 20 pounds. the fact that she had a weight restriction -- to make a long story short, she did not fall. she wanted a temporary different assignment. "accommodations" policy says they have temporary alternative work assignment only in the case of workers who suffer on-the-job injuries, disabilities, or lose their department of transportation certification. they will, you. included in there is not pregnancy.
the court said that's fine, that is a neutral law that doesn't violate the pregnancy discrimination act. that is the question -- is the neutral law ok? discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, but there is another definitional term in the statute that talks about the treatment of pregnant women and others who are similar in their ability to work. there is no question that a pregnant woman is similar in her ability to work as someone who has an on-the-job injury, disability. she is temporarily out of pocket. only thingnk -- the that will be newsworthy -- presumably, there are at least four votes decide with paid young. but there has been very contentious sex discrimination cases.
on the surface, this restructuring case -- i and more interested in the view of the law. it's very difficult for nonlawyers to judge this. can ubs discriminate against pregnant women? that is how it is going to be perceived. >> lemmie ask you -- let me ask you. i love dealing with smart lawyers, they read the statutes and think about what the right legal answers could be. i spend time reading tea leaves based on how i cases treated. in this case, they had an interesting dynamic where peggy young asked to hear the case, but the court asked the solicitor general for his views. oftenlicitor general
relieves himself, and in this c ase, decided he would recommend to the court don't take the case of peggy young. the court was wrong below and that peggy young had a case. areon't know exactly -- we worried about what the supreme court would say. i think it is reasonable to infer that they were aware. the court agreed to grant it anyway into the case. -- and hear the case. the second i want to ask you our lot of amicus on peggy young's side. there are a number of pro-life advocates chiming in on her we don't want to be putting women in a position where they have to choose can i keep my job or can i have this baby.
aroundh all that going -- am i right and thinking peggy young has got a pretty good situation? >> i don't know about that. i want to talk about something more interesting. a male lawyer is hiring a woman to argue the case. i think that is more interesting. [laughter] i think nothing of the brief -- i don't think that is a factor at all. they do squarely things like that all the time. -- squirrelly things like that all the time. the pro-life thing is interesting but i don't think it will move the court. i think the dynamics of women in the workplace is sort of the undercurrent. the ups brief is strong. it is neutral. but what does it mean to discriminate? are you treating pregnant women -- ti think it is
straightforward. if you could say that with ledbetter, the title vii cases. >> we are going to try to shift to cases the court could hear, pending certifications. >> some panels of raise the impactn if they have an -- >> maybe i am confusing this, but i think they issued a regulation in the time that the case was decided in the lower court that says companies can't do this. it could have a deference of how much you refer to the eoc. i do not that's been briefed. >> let's jump into some of the
potential cases. in light of the time we will have to move through these quickly. i know we have some great issues out there. jim, why don't you convince us that the supreme court should and perhaps will take up the case -- >> because i took up another case dealing with fish, i had to take up this one to complement it. this deals with a three inch fish, which has wreaked havoc in the california central valley. it is cut off hundreds of thousands of acres. it has only a bit terrible drought worse. -- theent of this 400-page mess. you can follow it, it doesn't make any sense.
the judge tossed about saying this doesn't make sense. it doesn't look at the impact on humans or environmental impact. the biological opinion -- of incomprensible mess, the fact is, an agency must look at reasonable and pursuant alternatives, including economic feasibilty. the ruling says by economic feasibilty, can the agency afford to implement the biological opinion. the economic feasibilty does not mean the economic feasibilty for the people affected by the actions from the delta cutting off water. so what they are saying is, look, economic feasibilty must be looked at, not only in terms
of the impact on the agency but on the impact of the affected people. moreover, the agency is terpg its own regulation. the question is, to what extent should the agency's deference to its oblee own regulation be given deference? there is a case called northwestern university. in that case, some of the justices questioned giving deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulation. there was a case of cephlon, so many years ago, should not apply in that case. more importantedly, the cases we are asking the court to look at, do the cases from 1978 have force today? snell river, other small fish, a large government, some say boon
doing led, stopped in its tracks. the court said, under our reading of the endangered species act, the fish must be protected, whatever the cost. that "whatever the cost" language is something we are asking the court to revisit. the reason is, in light of the fact that the endangered species act asks you to look at an economic element to it, and moreover, the interpretation of authority, e valley t.v.a. vs. hill, so many years ago, is no longer as persuasive as it used to be because of the way the court dealt with looking at it. we don't think it is a great reading of the endangered species act. there has been great information
showing that this rule did not apply, and we think this could have a big deal around the country if courts were to look at the language of the endangered species cost. it is one thing to stop a overnment boon doingled -- boondogled project, and another thing to wreck economic devastation in the california central valley. >> what about the little fish? >> yes. we care about the little fish. but the client -- >> i am kidding. >> i know you are kidding, but i have to say this. -- ink the jury is thrilled wondering whether or not the -- l judge p -- the
i have to say, every year the fish goes down more fment ever ment -- down more. certainly the court could look at the people that are in rouble, too. >> can we talk rasins? >> rasins? >> yes, what do rasins have to do with the this. >> there is a law that requires rasin farmers to basically give up part of their product to ensure that school children have rasins every day with their lunch. industry out asin
there. >> i didn't know. >> yes, i didn't plan to talk about my phobia with rasins. basically the 9th court of appeals from the "left" coast of the united states, but in any event they said there that basically you couldn't bring the challenge there. that was reversed 9-0 by the supreme court and sent back down to the 9th circuit again, and this time they held essentially that there isn't a taking. and in the process they replied sort of regulatory framework which was ordinarily not applied. they applied a different and uch more difficult and ad hoc takings that you ordinarily
areply to regulatory takings, that i wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. in any event, the same people who sought cert a couple years ago are back now taking cert and filed a perfect petition with former federal judge, and a now professor at stanford, and they have an ungodly number of amicus briefs supporting them, including one my me. it will be interesting to see whether or not the court takes it. because there is -- you know, sa coined the term outrage docket. i think there is a split here. at least a colorful split. but it will be interesting to see if they will take it a second time or whether their own feerp of raisins will cause them
to turn it down. >> did you disclose your fear of rasins to the clichte? >> i hope there isn't an ethical requirement. [laughter] >> another case involving a license plate case in texas, also a first amendment case. >> any case about the first is an easy case because you don't need to know any law. this is the state of texas vs. the sons of the con fed rassy -- confederacy. this group of whatever they are -- i'm not going to try to say what they are are -- but they wanted a license plate issued with the confederate flag on it. the fifth circuit said no.
they said that violated the first amendment. first, is that license plate a public form? is it communicating government speech? if it is government speech, the government has much more of a right to display what it wants. or is it private speech? private, said it is because you can get vanity plates. s it viewpoint discrimination? is it viewpoint, speaker discrimination? the circuit said it's basically all of that. texas now presumably and other states would be required to, you know, issue license plates that say child abuse is great, black people are inferior. women suck, anything, and texas understandably doesn't want to do that.
there is a circuit conflict with almost all of the circuits siding with the fifth circuit. the law is in favor of free speech challengers, this is private speech. what texas is arguing in the supreme court is even if this is private speech, we're not discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. it's not we're saying the confederate flag is a bad thing. we would not issue a license plate with a confederate flag with a huge x on it. we're taking a neutral view on he confederate flag. the supreme court is likely to take the case, it's one of those great cases that everybody can have an opinion about. should the states issue a license plate that says anything, even if they completely disagree with what is put on the message or find it unseemly.
>> can you give us the short version of the pan handling case as well, another great first amendment case? >> this is, i don't know the name of the case, it's a city out of illinois. >> springfield. >> springfield, right, the capital, that bans, you're going to love this, within a two-mile radius of the historic district requesting money but only for an immediate exchange. so that basically means not pan handling, hey, buddy, can you spare a dime you cannot do you can say hey buddy, can you pledge a dime and mail it to me? it's so transparently targeting homeless people but they say oh, no, no, this is totally fine and the fifth circuit imposed, they agreed yes, you can have this law. so it's just quite extraordinary that a politician could not say i'm lisa blatt, i'm running for mayor would you mind contributing and i will take our money now. she would have to say, i have a mailbox and address, so i find
these kind of laws incredibly offenses because i'm a big fan of the first amendment. the city won, the law is on their side, there is a split. is that discriminatory against the nature of the speech? >> all four of the cases we mentioned, three first amendment cases, they're all timed so the court could agree to hear them this term next year? >> correct. >> unless extensions are granted that would make the response brief due in january. they're all, not necessarily the pan handling, it depends on how fast it moves. >> i want to leave a little time for questions. how quickly can you sum up all of health care, jim? >> really, really quickly. we have three cases, one health care that could make to the supreme court, one, cert has been filed, the king case, in two of these cases out of the d.c. circuit, they involve the
question of we have the state exchanges and we have subsidies according to the statute for people who are getting health care through an exchange created by the state. as you know, most states did not create an exchange, so the federal government stepped in to o their own exchanges. those people getting federal money on the fedex changes, are they entitled to the subsidy. there are all sorts of reasons it's a good thing or a bad thing. there is a split, because a d.c. circuit has taken the case up on en banc, there is a split. the case that you remember after the big case out of florida where the supreme court upheld the health care, the health care act where it said that under the commerce clause, you cannot require people to get health insurance, but under the taxing power, you can require that people pay a penalty. the issue is if this penalty is a texas the supreme court said it was, then was this tax properly filed and properly adopted by congress, the origination clause says all taxes for the purpose of raising revenue must originate in the house of representatives. this started with a military benefit bill that was six pages
long, every word was stripped, 900 pages was put no it by the senate. does that originate out of the senate or not. the government and d.c. circuit says it doesn't really matter because it wasn't for the purpose of raising money of it was the purpose of doing something good with health care. we don't see the purpose effect s any kind of precedent. there is a petition for rehearing that has just been filed today in the d.c. circuit and these cases are eventually going to wind their way back to the supreme court. so the supreme court can fixed whatever it did the last time it ruled on health care or not. or not, as the case may be. >> i'm not of that view. if there is no split, i don't
know why the court would weigh in. i'm a dissent from that. i don't necessarily see the court has dying to strike obama care. i'm telling you, most people will tell you the court will take it. it's not clear to me it will be a split. >> would you tell us that? >> on the one hand, it's a big important issue. the court, the first time around, took the spending clause challenge on the first obama care challenge even though that case, that issue was split and it became the first court in merican history to strike down a law on the spending clause. so, you know, it's hard to say. i don't think it's beyond the pale that they may want to stay out of it if the issue remained
splitless. >> they're so reluctant to get into that little controversy about marriage, they're going to have to take health care to redeem themselves. >> again, i really think the convention wisdom is they will take it even if there is no split. the reason is the people who are against this law think the statutory arguments are so contrary to the government's position that it deserves the airing of the supreme court or there are five votes on the challenger's side. i just don't know yet. maybe there will be a split, i don't know. >> if you look at the decisions of the courts below, they are rather convoluted. they're rather difficult to follow and difficult to justify and by that i mean, they're trying to create a statutory conflict and ambiguity in the statute to which the agency can defer. there are questions, should there be deference or not be deference in this sort of conversation. is there ambiguity in the first place where one side says absolutely nor ambiguities, this is completely lawful. the other side says there is complete ambiguity. an oklahoma district court just signed with the original decision from the d.c. circuit,
so there is going to be conflict coming up and i think the court is going to have to take this one at some time, at least i'm conventional in my wisdom. >> very conventional. >> indeed. >> let me open it up for questions now. i have all sorts of additional questions nobody does. clark. >> staying on the subject, the perspective between declaring a law being unconstitutional on the other hand and simply a strict statutory interpretation and they might get satisfaction i don't know if this is going to break the law or not. let the chips fall where they may. >> the question is whether, you're talking health care specifically, right? >> the case about the subsidies, whether the chief justice might who in the previous health care case was willing to avoid constitutional questions by interpreting the statute in a
certain way, avoid having the court make a big decision striking down this law might be in this case willing to say, hey, the statute is what the statute is. it reads as if you cannot get sub si dose in these states have the fedex change, would they be willing to do that? >> that is divorced from reality. if you remember, he actually did say obama care was unconstitutional under the commerce clause. he had no problem going along with four others and four of them were willing to take down the whole statute. so i also don't think he is able, he is going to be able to pretend that striking this provision isn't striking the so law and somehow congress is going to go back and fix it.
is that really? i think that's laughable, sorry. [inaudible] >> i think if he really thinks that -- my guess is if five of them think that there is no ambiguity and what you are not entitled to the subsidies on the federal exchange, they're going to say that's the interpretation of the statute. >> he has already proven he is not in it to overturn obama care, he is fair and neutral. if he reads the statute and finds that it's unconstitutional, it's not because i was out to get the statute, i proved i am not out to get that statute. >> congress made a mistake in the way they drafted it. i think it is clear that's not what they intended. the question is, is that what
congress wrote? what had congress intended? >> had they thought this far? >> had they read what they drafted? >> they can't be expected to read what they pass. >> no. >> any other questions? [inaudible] >> can you start the question over? >> the origination clause turn out to be successful, that would not require four other justices to agree with the chief that obama care -- >> they were largely silent on that issue. that's been decided. it's the rule of the united states that is a tax. that's why it's surviving. if they declare next that we don't agree that it's a tax, then the whole basis of the original upholding will have to fade away as well. i don't see that that is doing
-- that that is going to be an insurmountable problem. that is the precedent of the case. they're not being expressly asked to overturn that precedent. it's part of what goes up to the court. >> in my view, a bigger issue with that case that your position is going to require the court to essentially tell the senate and the house, your procedures are not what you say they are, we see you as -- i mean, in their view, it did start in the house where it's supposed to. >> there is a concern about separation of powers, but the supreme court has addressed this issue in the case where it says in this case in this case, we're going to look to see whether or not the origination clause has been violated. in that case it found it wasn't violated, because the particular tax was not actually an assessment or a fee, not a real tax. i think the court has shown that
it's willing to second-guess the what happens and i think that's its duty to look at that, to determine whether or not what we're dealing with is a lawful tax or not. this was something of critical importance to the founder of the constitution. they wanted to make really, really sure that taxes began in the people's house rather than the senate. and if you are simply going to rely on congress to determine whether or not it's own statutes are constitutional or not or fundamental procedures like this, then i think we have some serious problems, does the constitution mean anything anymore. so i think the court can look at it and not be terribly worried about the separation of powers issue, especially based on what they did in that case a number of years ago. >> any other questions? ok. well, thank our panel on behalf of national review and the legal foundation, jim, lisa, john, i know i had a great time, a very interesting discussion, thank you. >> you're welcome.
[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014 cable satellite corp. 2014 >> the court will decide whether states can ban same-sex marriage. we spoke with a reporter about the issue. >> what was the significance of what the court did today? >> it was highly significant and highly surprising.
i think most commentateors thought the supreme court would take up one of these cases and settle once and for all whether bans on same sex marriage are legal. what the court did today was said, we're not going to hear these cases now. essentially what it does, it leavens in place all the lower court rulings, and all of which have said that same sex marriage bans are illegal or unconstitutional. it basically says all those rulings from before can stand, and you know, we're going to see more states now as a result that have legalized same sex marriage. >> these three sirkts, the fourth, the 10th include north carolina, south carolina, kansas, wyoming, west virginia, and colorado. for those states specifically what does it mean? >> there are actually two categories of states here, not to get too in the weeds on this. there were direct challenges from five states. i don't have a list off the top
of my head. those five states, essentially same sex marriage, will be legal in those states immediately. there were a number of other states that were covered by the earlier rulings. rulings arising out of federal courts of appeals, federal courts of appeals cover a number of states. so the ruling that one state often refers to or covers a number of states. so in those states, it will also likely mean that same sex marriage is legal. in those states, the group that you just mentioned, it might take longer for those -- kind of the legal procedural nicities to work their way through. but it does mean that at the end of the day, i think 30 states plugs washington, d.c., same sex marriage will be legal as a result of today's ruling. >> can you give any insight into how they reached this decision today? >> we don't. in order to grant a case, the
nine justices, four of them have to agree to hear it. if four say, yes, we should hear this, then the full court hears it. all we know is that in none of the cases did four justices say, yes, we want to hear this case. beyond that, we don't know much. do know other thing we is justice beginsburg said she didn't think -- ginsburg said she didn't think the timing was right because there was not a lower court split. in the ases have -- lower courts has struck down. typically the court doesn't see cases unless there is a split in the lower courts. we can extrapolate she did not vote to hear these cases. in terms of the others and how
they are lined up, we don't know at this point. >> this does not settle the case. the court down the road could take it up at some point in the future, correct? >> yes. just because they said they don't want to get involved now doesn't preclude them from looking at it later. if we get a ruling that says, a ban on same sex marriage is legal. then we would have a circuit break. then we would have the cases necessary for the supreme court to get involved. in justice ginsburg's case, for example. we have a case in louisiana which could come out in favor of the states. we have one in the fifth circuit in cincinnati which could come out the other way. we will be playing close attention to those rulings going forward and seeing if they do provide the necessary circuit split. >> ashby jones reporting on this story today. what sort of attention has this
received from people who support the ban and those who oppose it. >> nobody is happy with this. i shouldn't say nobody is happy. groups big glupes -- on both sides of the debate that are not happy. obviously the people not in favor of same sex marriage are not hape this paves the way for same sex marriage. i think the people who support same sex marriage are happy, but not entirely happy. they were hoping for the supreme court to rule on this and basically weigh in and pave the way for same sex marriage to happen across the country. i do think there is a little frustration on both sides, but it is a bigger win for those who favor same sex marriage. >> as someone who has been covering this issue, did this surprise you today, the message from the courts? >> you know, it did.
the supreme court in the past -- typically they do wait until there is a circuit split to jump in on something, but it hasn't stopped them from jumping in on controversial things in the past. you can think of bush v. gore. there wasn't exactly a circuit split, and they didn't hesitate o jump in and solve a highly polarizing issue. two years ago they jumped in and took up two cases that dealt dealt with the same issue. i was surprised they didn't get involved today, even though there is not the circuit split they like to see. i think a lot of commentators were relatively surprised, too. whether it is the end of the story or whether we bush it off for another day, we will have to wait and see. >> ashby jones joining us from new york city. appreciate you being with us. >> thanks for having me.
>> live coverage coming up on c-span. -- panel will examine how affects latin america and u.s. id-term elections. later in the afternoon, the wilson center hosts an event on the keystone oilpipeline. we'll hear from energy reporters and analysts. coverage starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> you don't have to be an einstein to know the only way to keep ebola from getting into the united states is for the president to step in and say no one from africa is able to come back to the u.s. for 10 years or
more. i can't comprehend how people nonchalant alant -- about people coming into the united states. i hope everyone will demand the president to take the action i have suggested. >> what do people expect about this ebola outbreak? they said it would never reach the united states ever. now look? look what's happened? and they put 3,000 other people over there? re you kidding me? >> they are smiling up there? oh, we've got this under control? it will never spread, blah, blah, blah. well, it wasn't supposed to get blah, re either, blah, blah. >> there has been a wonderful discussion with the ebola virus.
and it has been renewed this morning that a person left liberia and came from west africa over here. he got off, went to his kin folks house in northeast dallas. his family members contracted the ebola virus from him. that ld be construed that was a wake-up call to the americans from god when this guy was allow today pleave with this playing with the ebola virus without someone having checking him out before he got on the plane. he came here, no one checked him out, he goes right into the dallas community, and now as a he's in the hospital. they wonder whether he is going to die.
i was checking the local news here, because i have it on c-span right now, to see whether he's going to live or die. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. e-mail us at comments at c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> create a five to seven minute documentary entitled "the three branches and you." go to studentcam.org. grab a camera, and get started today.
determined via coin toss immediately before the program began. candidate one is congressman gardner and candidate two is senator udall. how today will work, i will ask a question and candidate one will have 60 seconds to respond. candidate two will have 60 seconds to respond as well. following that 60-second response, there is an option for a 30-second rebuttal and a 15-second rebuttal to continue the conversation. we will continue the sequence until the debate ends. there will be no official opening remarks, however we will have closing statements for each candidate which you can speak two minutes each. candidate one will begin followed by candidate two. so with that, any questions, candidates? ok. ready to go. ok, great. thank you again. congressman gardner, i would like to ask you about some of your recent ads, you call yourself "a new kind of republican." yet according to some ratings, your voting record has been ranked as one of the most conservative in the house. why should voters she you are a new kind of republican when your voting record suggests you align with conservatives in the senate republican conference.
>> thank you for hosting this debate. it's great to be with you to talk about colorado business issues, things that matter. i focus on a debate to get this country back to work. that is what my voting record has represented. it's about the four corners of this state, it's a voting record that is about helping small businesses, 97% of the employers in colorado are small businesses. it's about creating a tax environment that creates an opportunity for people to hire, to invest. the four corners plan that i have put together is about growing jobs. it's about the economy. it's about north american energy security and independence. it's about making sure we have chances for our children to be educated and the gray informs our education system and making sure that we protect our environment. the policies of this campaign that are at issue that are on debate right now, the president just said it yesterday. his policies are on the ballot. that's what we are going to be discussing today, the policies of the president and the fact that mark udall has voted with him 99% of the time. >> senator udall, i would like you to respond to that as well when you respond, address this, this congress has been one of the most historically
dysfunctional and unproductive in history and if you are re-elected shall the chances that a democrat keep control of the senate will increase significantly. why should voters here think anything will be different for them and their economic security if the senate main stays democrat? >> let me start as well by thanking the chamber for hosting this important event. we have worked together during my tenure in the senate on all kinds of ways in which we have moved the state forward. we have an aerospace consortium part of the chamber. we work to protect and enhance the presence of the military in our state which plays a key role in our national security needs. we worked on a best of the above energy approach together and just on the drive in seeing what we have done with union station is so uplifting and inspiring. i remember working with you all to make sure we have a patent office here, that the fast tracks initiative is underway, that we together proposed and brought to the ballot successfully c and d back when
the state was beginning to languish. we have a great clean tech community. i look forward to working with you going forward because this is the best chamber in the country and this is the best state in the country, we want to welcome you here. i have used all my time, i think. let me say that congressman gardner didn't answer the question. he has the 10th most partisan record in the house of representatives. his record is out of the mainstream. it's in the extreme. that's the contrast that you have in this race. i look forward to the debate going forward because i know congressman gardner and i will have different points of view of where the state is heading. >> you can certainly rebut that. if you do that, can you name a couple of issues where you break from your party in washington to suggest that you are a different kind of republican? >> certainly, i'm glad the senator brought up aerospace. we were the second highest aerospace jobs in the country. the national defense authorization act has a provision in it that senator udall failed to strip out of the bill that could cost thousands of jobs here in colorado. this is about business.
this is about opportunities for colorado businesses and employment opportunities. that language could potentially devastate united launch alliance in colorado. i was one of 33 republicans to vote against the house violence against women act because i believed that was watered down, i voted for the senate version, one of a handful of republicans to vote for that piece of legislation. >> do you want to respond? >> there is no better champion of aerospace, not only in this state but the country. i sit on the intelligence committee and steer the strategic forces subcommittee. colorado's aerospace committee has been well supported by me and will continue to be well supported by me. we are playing in a very important role in three crucial areas, in civilian space, in special spares, and in military space. congressman gardner knows that i have been a big supporter of aerospace in colorado and continue to do so. >> except the thousands of job because of the language you failed to stand up against. >> we have language that is going to protect u.l.a. and
protect, this is a part of how to build new rocket engines and colorado will lead the way, a sure you. >> if the jobs are here. >> move on to the next question and get back to that. senator udall, to you. you have called for putting a price on carbon pollution, enacting cap and trade legislation and you lauded recent e.p.a. proposals to slash carbon dioxide emissions from coal producing power plants. the action would dramatically increase prices for consumers and cost jobs. why shouldn't the e.p.a. in washington consider the economic burden on your home state's energy industry when moving forward with these policies? >> this is an exciting time because colorado is leading the way. we have the best of the above energy community here, everything from the clean burning coal in the northwestern part of the state to the natural gas that we're producing here on the eastern plains to abundant wind and sun which you see today.
we were ready for the e.p.a. regulations. carbon pollution is real. coloradans know the climate science, a lot that is generated here show we have to act. we see this as an opportunity. we are prepared to put a price on carbon. the last time we put a price on pollutants was under the leadership of the first president bush. there were a host of horrible things described as going to occur. they didn't occur. we developed new technologies. we moved this country forward. we have the lowest energy prices in the country right now in colorado. we're up to this challenge. congressman gardner, on the other hand, doesn't think climate change is occurring. he doesn't think we should have an across the board best of the above approach. he opposed our renewable electricity standard on three different occasions when we could move the state forward. thank god the voters and legislature understood this is the way we should be going. >> you do still support cap and trade legislation? >> i support putting a price on carbons. there are a lot of mechanisms
that ought to be revenue neutral. colorado is in a position to take that leadership. do it in a way that americans are lifted by it. there are a lot of people in this room that want to take that-lap. the e.p.a. rules are a start. we are leading the country and dare say leading the world when it comes to new energy technologies. >> one of the things that senator udall mentioned, you expressed skepticism as to whether humans are causing the climate to change. do you believe that humans are causing climate change? >> i have said all along that i believe the climate is changing. what i'm not willing to do is destroy the economy for policies to address that. that's why i have supported natural gas, a strong supporter of colorado renewable energy opportunities. that's why i have as part of my four corners plan to grow jobs to make sure that we have renewable and natural gas energies as part of our future. i help lead the way for natural gas, liquified natural gas opportunities to help our allies creating 45,000 jobs lifting him off the unemployment roles throughout the state.
i created the energy sfishsy caucus. -- efficiency caucus. let me tell you what some of these new regulations would do. this is part of the policies that the president said will be on the ballot this election, part of the policies that senator udall has stood with hook, line, and sinker, $1,700 per family, and 250,000 jobs will be lost as a result, our own study by i.h.s. in this state said it could cost as much as $50 billion, the economic impact that senator udall has embraced. i would ask this question, what is the price that you would put on carbon? >> congressman, the price i would put on -- the opportunity that we're going to miss if we don't go all in. we have had floods, fires, droughts, we have the leading climate scientists in this state telling us it's happening. we know it's happening. the farmers know it's happening. we all know it's happening. let's lean forward. let's create our future. congressman gardner is looking backwards, let's look forwards and embrace the future and these technologies.
they're right there for the taking. >> i have 15 seconds if i could. i'm looking forward to the next energy bill, what is the cost that you will put on carbon with your tax? >> you want to respond? >> congressman, the point is that we have shown that we can a price on pollution. >> how much? why when we send those signals to the market, a lot of market-oriented people here today. when we send the signals to the marketplace, our systems respond. we're going to innovate, that's how we make the future. we innovate. we're in a global economic race and you innovate to create jobs and grow your economy. >> i want to pin you down, congressman, who is causing climate change? it's so important in determining the solution to it. are humans causing climate change? >> no doubt that pollution contributes to the climate change around us. i refuse to support a tax bill that was put in place that would have cost farmers and ranchers in this state over $5,000 per sprinkler, that would cost small businesses the opportunity to grow, that would increase the
bills that families pay $1,700 a year. we hear people talk about putting a price on carbon, but they won't talk about how much that price of carbon is. let's just have an answer on what is the price, is it $5 a month, $10, $20. senator udall, am i not going high enough? >> congressman, again, i have answered your question. > we'll move on to the similar energy question that i want to stay with you, senator udall, about the keystone pipeline. >> yes, >> you had reservations about moving forward, your votes in the senate suggest just that. this issue has been studied for years and even the state department on analysis said it will not alter global greenhouse glass emission. why is this not the time to move forward on this? >> we have developed our energy sources here in safe and responsible manner, whether it's been our coal resources, our
natural gas, we are producing some shale oil, we have abundant sun and wind, geothermal energy potential here in colorado. i think that's the screen and the measurement by which the keystone pipeline ought to be considered. the science is underway and i think it's not too much to ask if the keystone pipeline is going to be built that it's done in a safe and responsible way. i would also suggest that if the keystone pipeline were built through eastern colorado, that the farmers and the ranchers and the businesspeople who live in eastern colorado would want to make sure that their soils and the air and the water in those regions were protected. that's all the people of nebraska are asking for. that's where this started. that's where the concerns are expressed most notably. for us to weigh in and tell people in nebraska that the pipeline is driven through the center of their state without having their say, it doesn't make sense. it is not respectful and honor local control. >> you are a republican who believes in local control, does it conflict with your ideology. >> part of my four corners plan, i talk about energy independence.
it means we build the keystone pipeline. we have had studies, the department of state has study after study forward talking about this. the senator has voted against the keystone pipeline four times. i, too, want to put a colorado face to the keystone pipeline. thousands of jobs could be created right here in this state if we move forward with the keystone pipeline. you know what? overwhelming support for the state of colorado for the keystone pipeline. they believe we should move forward because it creates jobs and opportunity, it creates north american energy security. two companies in denver, colorado, this is about denver business and creating jobs. an engineering firm could create jobs because of the keystone pipeline. a copy in long monitor, the alberta oil sands would expand if the pipeline were to be built. they could add jobs and create opportunity. this is about doing what is right for the public. it's not standing up for special interests. it's creating jobs for people who desperately need a $20 an hour job welding on the keystone pipeline that they don't have
today because of the failed policies of this dministration. >> do you want to respond? >> there are jobs created when the keystone pipeline is built. the long term jobs in the hundreds, the congressman is overstating the economic effect of this pipeline. the process has been politicized. my focus has been on making sure that colorado continues to lead. we truly are best of the above energy state. we have remarkable leaders here. we have remarkable technology. i would ask congressman gardner why isn't he supporting the governor's blue ribbon commission to find the right balance between local control and protecting jobs. he is missing in action. we join together to make sure we don't have this facing us a month from now. the congressman is not present in this discussion. he should be. it's too important too colorado >> what did you mean when hydraulic fracturing keeps us trapped in the old system? >> as you know, that was a right-wing blog approach that the mainstream media
disregarded. i didn't say it. don't believe it. >> moving on, the issue of immigration, congressman gardner, first to you. you voted against a republican bill in august that would have stopped the president's deferred action for children arrivals or the program that allows certain people who came to the country illegally to stay in the united tates. your critics say this has been an election-year conversion after you have taken the opposite approach on this subject. given your vote in august, does that mean that you now would vote to enact the dream act if it came up for a vote in the senate and you're elected in november? >> ultimately i think the dream act is going to be part of the solution of immigration reform, it has to be. i believe in immigration reform. over a year and a half ago, i testified before the house judiciary committee on the need for immigration reform. i believe it should start with border security, we can have a meaningful guest worker program
that has to go part and parcel of that border security. entry exit system, i believe the dream act will be part of it. i believe we should have a solution for the people of this state. the executive order process which the president has decided he wants to pursue, even the president has said he lacked the legal authority to go around congress and now he is trying to go around it. he is also stringing people along, he'll issue an executive order and then saying he won't. we need to work with the congress, the house, the senate, the president to pass meaningful immigration reform. i certainly will continue to support that. my opponent senator udall has voted to make undocumented individuals felons. even those people who assist them including what could be their school teacher. when he had a chance in 2010 to pass immigration reform, he actually said that, no, let's move forward on climate change legislation first, cap and trade legislation first before pursuing immigration reform. if that went first, he was afraid he wouldn't be able to pass his cap and trade legislation. >> why did you change your vote n this bill in august?
>> again, this vote was about a bill that i think had unintended consequences, it would be further than just addressing the issue of deferred action participants. it could have affected other work visa holders and ended in a spot that is unacceptable for children. >> let's talk about today. they're sitting in the house of representatives, a comprehensive immigration reform bill package that passed almost 70 points in the united states senate. it has the bipartisan report. has the support of people in the room. you know that when we fix a broken system, which by the way what congressman gardner supporting a broken system, he is for de facto amnesty. we'll see labor market certainty. he hasn't lifted a finger to move it in the house of representatives. >> congressman, you do still oppose a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million memory who are here illegally?
>> some form of earned status is going to be the ultimate status, i believe an earned status is ultimately part of the solution. here is the thing. the senate, believe it or not, doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas. andrew romanoff said that as speaker of the house. i would like to know from enator udall, why did you vote to make undocumented individuals felons? >> you want to respond? >> i want to respond to what is languishing in the house of representatives. he hasn't taken a single step to move immigration reform to the goal line. it's time to pass immigration reform. this is a clear contrast between congressman gardner and me in this race. this race is the most obvious race in the country when it comes to contrasts between the two candidates. this is one prime example. you know the importance of getting comprehensive immigration reform passed.
>> moving forward, another immigration question to you, senator udall. i would like to talk to you about the president acting unilaterally on immigration. you said you were disappointed with the decision not to move forward before the elections on this issue. why is it ok and constitutional for the president to circumvent congress as he has done time and time again and he may now on immigration? >> look, i reject your premise, the president of the united states like many of the c.e.o.s in this room as the responsibility to move u.s.a. inc. forward. the congress has been missing in action in a number of respects. it's been more the house of representatives than not, the graveyard of a lot of great ideas. the president is frustrated that the congress isn't acting. he doesn't relish moving to a set of actions whereby families won't be prone up. right now we are deporting families, we're splitting up members of families rather than focusing on criminals and people who are public safety.
the president has failed to act. we have a number of immigrant communities. they expect that we're going to step up and reform our system. we're going to secure the borders, we're going to make sure you have the tools. we're going to hold you responsible and we are going to provide a way for people to earn citizenship over a long time frame, some 13 years. this is too important for it to be left on the sidelines. >> why shouldn't the president move forward and prevent deportations which are clearly tearing apart families here in colorado? >> the president himself admitted over a year ago that he lacked the legal authority to do this. now he is saying that he wants to do this. i don't know what legal authority he has and he said he didn't have it before. look, we ought to work with the house and the senate and the president. we are in this mess because of failed leadership from the white house, because of failed leadership in 2010 from senator udall and others when they had a
chance to pass immigration reform decided to pursue a carbon tax legislation instead of immigration reform. we are a better stronger country because of our nation of immigrants. most of us come here from somewhere else. that is what made our country stronger. i look forward to pursuing and fighting for immigration reform. on the ballot in just a few weeks will be the president's policies. mark udall has voted for the president's policies 99% of the time. that's what we're voting on. the president admitted that the other day and in the newspaper over the weekend, the senator votes with the president when he agrees with him, which means i guess he disagrees with him only 1% of the time. >> senator udall. >> look, there is a clear choice here. the president is taking a look at his legal options as to what he should and can do to make sure we don't break families apart. this is too important to leave it on the sidelines. this is too important an opportunity for us. you have supported the comprehensive immigration reform.
you know the benefits it will bring to our state of colorado. look at congressman gardner's record. he has voted to deport dreamers. we should provide citizenship for those who serve in the military. there are many, by the way. we ought to grant them citizenship. he has proposed deporting his family members. you can't have it both ways. we need to move forward. maintain the status quo, he certainly in some ways would move us backwards. let's move forwards, that's the colorado way. >> respond in 15 seconds, why did you support deporting -- >> i want to thank the senator for acknowledging that i have supported efforts on immigration reform after spending self -- spending several minutes saying i haven't supported immigration reform. i'm grateful for it, thank you. >> thank you. we'll move on to the next topic n health care.
december 24, 2009, senator udall, you were one of 60 senate democrats to vote on final passage in the senate of the affordable care act. given the problems that have occurred with the implementation of the law and the insurance companies threatening to can sal coverage of 250,000 coloradans, would you still have voted to pass that bill, or would you have voted no and made more changes before moving forward? >> we had a broken system. many of you in this room knew it was broken. insurance companies were in charge. if you were a woman, you paid more for your coverage. if you had a family member that suddenly became sick, you could be dropped overnight from your policy. insurance companies could jack up your rights at a moment's notice. many of you this in room know this is the situation that you faced. i voted for a series of steps that we're going to provide more coverage to more americans. we're seeing the benefits of that here in colorado. the governor in a bipartisan group in the state legislature created the colorado exchange. we have over 400,000 coloradans in that exchange have quality
health care they didn't have a year ago. the premium increases are being projected at 2%, we have seen the uninsured raid from 17% to 11% here in colorado. this is a difference between congressman gardner and me again. he has voted some 50 times to repeal the affordable care act and take us back to the old system without a proposal how to cover the people that are now covered. that's the difference between the two of us. i want to move us forward. we can make the affordable care act work, it's not perfect, but we'll make it work for the small, medium and long term. >> you would have voted? >> yes, hindsight is 20/20, there are changes i would have made. i'm happy to share those with you today or on the campaign trail. >> you have called for the laws repealed. what would you say to those 263,000 coloradans who have signed up for medicaid through the medicaid expansion, would you appeal the medicaid
expansion as well? >> i agree, we not go back to the old systems. a small business background myself understood what we had wasn't working. costs increased dramatically. that was in our small business, the family implement dealership. it doesn't take 20/20 to see problems. he had the opportunity to vote for an amendment that would have prevented the 340,000 coloradans who had their insurance plans from being cancelled. e had a chance to vote to keep them from being cancelled. he voted against that. as a result, 340,000 coloradans had their health insurance plans cancelled. the people who are hurt the most by obama care are the people they made the promises to. if you like your health care flan, you can keep it. not true. the fact if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. not true. this would reduce the cost of health showers, not true. 2.5 million fewer workers in this country, 18% of small businesses, many of you this in -- in this room aren't hiring because of the impact of obama care.
the little corporations are hurt, the little businesses, the small businesses, those that started in a small garage. they can't afford high-priced lawyers and accountants to figure out how to get around, how to make the books look like it worked so they can afford the kind of regulation and mandates. >> wouldn't people lose their health care coverage, people that are relying on medicaid? >> we can make sure we have treatment for people with preexisting conditions and pay for medicaid. i haven't seen a plan yet of how the state of colorado is going to pay for the medicate expansion once the federal government is no longer paying. once we have this in place, how on earth will this be paid for, adding millions of dollars in debt to this country that we simply can't afford. the primary promises made in obama care and senator udall
reported every single one. if you-like your health care plan, you can keep it. 340,000 coloradans found out, he didn't say if i like your health care plan, he said if you, you could keep it. turned out not to be true. >> let me respond quickly. the amendment that gardner mentions and it looked great on paper. when you investigated what it would is done, we would have gone to the old system, women discriminated against, and preexisting conditions couldn't get coverage. that was 2010. we're in 2014. how do we make the affordable care act work. entioned the 350,000 letters that had cancellation notices in them. most of those letters had a renewal option as well. when i found out that the insurance companies weren't keeping faith with the intent, i was as angry as anybody.
i offered a piece of legislation so people could keep their plans. find every measure to give the insurance companies the flexibility and let them know this isn't appropriate and we worked with the state governor hicken looper and the legislature to make the division of insurance could give that kind of flexibility to coloradans here. nine out of 10 have called the insurance and 10-10 have access to insurance coverage which they didn't have before this law was passed. what do you say to kim, self-employed in a beauty salon. her daughter is paying 100 a onth for the coverage. she was paying $600 a month. $1,000 a year you would strip away. >> what about the person sitting in this room who had their business health care cancelled an not able to renew it? what about them? i know a small business owner who owns a bakery, a female-owned business, minority owned business and they can't keep their insurance. if you would let me fill it, i will. they can't keep their insurance. did you break your word when you
said you could keep your insurance and now they can't? did you break your word? >> congressman, you didn't answer my question. you know that we're going to continue working so that every coloradan has affordable health care coverage. that's the challenge for us. this state is such a wonderful state. i have such pride when i'm in washington, d.c., get to brag about this state. we are rugged collaborators here. we're leading the nation. that's how we make sure the affordable care act continues to improve and evove and do its initial intent. we're a long ways meeting that goal. let's work together. that's how we roll as coloradans. >> he had plenty of time, if you don't mind. i think this goes to the very heart of many of the contrasts between the senator and i. i have introduced legislation that would allow people with
preexisting conditions to be covered. i believe that we should allow insurance to be sold across state lines, health savings accounts, undo obama care that allows people to have insurance cancelled in the first place, the -- and to the woman that we were talking about, we can provide and should and have an bligation to provide low coast -- low cost health insurance. we need to make sure we have opportunities for people regardless of income, regardless of where they are, where they work, that they should have the opportunity to have affordable insurance. the 2,700-page partisan bill of obama care was not the solution. in 2010, senator udall had an opportunity to vote on an amendment that would keep his word. and he voted against it. >> do you want to respond briefly? >> congressman, that all sounds great. when you vote some 50 times to repeal the affordable care act and your only response is how you're going to replace it, some ideas that make sense but wouldn't meet the goal to make sure ever coloradan has coverage, i don't know how that stands up to scrutiny.
i will also remind everybody in this room that a year ago right now, we were in the throes of a government shutdown that congressman gardner supported, when we were trying to recover from the floods, biblical floods. congressman gardner out of a misplaced ideology to the tea party, i don't know to who or to what, voted to shut down the government. he wanted to show everyone, i don't know what. at our greatest time of need, an ideology took the whole of congressman gardner when we needed all hands on break. congressman that was irresponsible. you delayed the recovery. you put additional emotional weight on the people affected by the blood. it's reckless and irresponsible to have done so. >> that is one of my questions later. i guess we can talk about it now. the governor shutdown last year,
we were shut down at this time last year, house republicans included that provision that would have defunded and delayed the affordable care act. looking back at it one year later, did house republicans make the right decision in starting that? >> i never supported the government shutdown, never did. i was roundly criticized by conservative outlets when i refused to sign letters demanding that the government be shut down. i worked closely with senator udall during the government shutdown to make sure we take care of the people in colorado who had needs from the flood. there were significant needs. i was proud of the work that senator udall and i went on together. we went on a blackhawk helicopter together in the days following the food together. i had a picture of a cat on his lap that made it into some of the local media coverage on this moment.
we worked together. there wasn't a moment of partisan politics then. i'm saddened that there is now as he politicized a tragedy where lives were lost, thousands of coloradans lost their homes. i remember traveling to weld county in the days after the flood trying to make sure that we beat the floods, that i could actually cross highway 34 to get to the weld county emergency center, in long monitor, congratulations for the incredible work that you did for your community rebuilding. i have proud to stand with you then and proud to stand with senator udall. together we worked on legislation that would provide emergency transportation relief dollars, $350 million of relief money that we passed, senator udall, i was in your office working together with you on that. >> we can keep our answers to the time limit here. we're running short on time. if you want 30 seconds to respond, you can. >> we did spend a half a day in a blackhawk helicopter in the devastation was stunning. we had a chance to rescue a couple of families that had been
stranded. when we got off that helicopter, we were unified. when congressman gardner got off an airplane a week later in d.c., his actions belied that unified feeling we had that day. this was unacceptable. it hurt our state and economy. the government shutdown nationwide cost our competent $24 billion. you in this room know it was reckless and irresponsible. talk to the people in estes park, they needed rocky mountain national park open so people could get there. it cost estes park consecutively half a million dollars. talk to people at the gateway communities of mesa verde national park. this is a fundamental difference between us. we worked together later in the year because we needed to do it. he wants to represent the entire state of colorado in the u.s. senate, you have to stand up for the state of colorado. >> you will have a chance to respond to that. >> senator udall, i don't think it's appropriate to politicize tragedy. >> congressman, you politicize -- >> you have plenty of time to talk, we worked together.
we should take great pride in the fact that we worked together. what i think the state of colorado also needs is a vision for the state that is based on growing jobs in this room, what we can do to get this economy back on track. i know you want to play politics. i know that you want to politicize things that are simply i believe out of bounds. >> one of the issues that you have to deal with in the next congress, congressman gardner is taxes. the business community is concerned about that issue. in 2009, you also signed no tax increase pledge. while you have advocated for tax reform, would you oppose any tax reform that includes a dime of a net revenue increase from taxes? >> i don't think increasing taxes is the answer. i think the federal government has police department of money. we ought to focus on ways that we can actually reduce spending, make the federal government balance its own books, make sure the government is spending it's money wisely the way it should be doing before it turns around
and asks the people of colorado for one more dime of their hard-earned dollars. if you look at the bill i introduced on wasteful spending, $200 billion could be saved because we eliminated overlapping programs. we must make sure that we are reducing spending. reforming taxes, we have to reform taxes. we have to make sure that small businesses can keep their dollars in their own pocket to invest in job creation. i support comprehensive tax reform. that's why i believe we can have coloradans to vest more money in their own families to keep that money. senator udall has voted for the largest estate tax in the history of our country. he has voted for higher taxes time and time again. he had a balanced budget amendment that exempted a great degree of spending. he lines to call himself a fiscal hawk. senator udall, i think you plucked the fiscal hawk when you voted for the stimulus bill. >> one minute to respond.
>> you don't know and i have worked with you and many in this room, i'm a long time proponent of the proposal, it's one of the major mistakes that this president made not fully addressing it in 2010. there is corporate tax reform that i support. we should start a goal of getting ourselves to the 25%. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. we're higher than japan of all things. we ought to do it in a way that doesn't balance the budget on the back of the middle class and working americans. this is a contrast between congressman gardner's record and mine. he has voted for budgets to gut social security, turn medicare into a program. you know who is going to win that exchange. congressman gardner has voted to lift tax rates on billionaires and millionaires while increasing tax rates on middle class and working people. i am the proud author of the
first democrat balanced budget amendment in 20 years. in that amendment, we're going to work hard to get our deficits under control and -- >> we're running short on time -- >> we're going to protect social secured, medicare and medicaid. those are earned benefits important to our seniors and society, stability. >> congressman, would you vote -- respond, would you vote for the paul ryan plan to overhaul medicare again if you were in the senate? >> i would vote for a bill that allows us to balance the budget, that protects medicare. that's what i did. senator udall voted for a bill that protects medicare, protects retirees and their social safety nets. we will fight hard to protect them. your plan is bankruptcy for those programs because you haven't come up with a solution. you cut medicare when you voted for the affordable care act. >> you need to wrap up. we -- >> i would like to end very quickly. >> 15 seconds.
>> voted for $800 million in tax cuts. i voted for cuts to medicare advantage that went to shoring up medicare and extending the solvency of it. there is a contrast, how do we move colorado forward. congressman gardner will take us backwards. >> we have ran out of time. 90 seconds for closing statements. congressman gardner, since you won the draw, you go first. >> thanks for the opportunity to share this contrast of ideas. growing up in yuma, colorado, going to that hometown today, there is a cornerstone that says j.a.s. and son, 1910. that was a business that was started by my great-great grandmother, 100 years later my great-grandfather took over the business, a farmer implement company, it's there today. my wife who is here, we walk by that cornerstone and wonder will they have the same kind of opportunities that they're great great great grandparents did to
create a better way of life, to create a business, to create opportunities for themselves and families. the answer is no. when senator udall, unless we do something different and change direction of this country. when senator udall was elected to congress, our national debt was over $15 trillion. today it's over $17 trillion. over the last several years median household income in this state has declined by over $4,000. it's been since 1999 that middle class wages have stayed the same. that's under the leadership of mark udall. and the president made it very clear in his statements this week is that his policies are on the ballot. what we are voting on are his policies. if we elect mark udall who has voted 99% of the time for these policies, one more time, what makes any of us think that hings will be different than
they were over the last 16 years s we watched median household income decline as the labor participation rate is lower than in 36 years. my four corners plan, we will grow jobs, energy independence, get our education on track, make sure it's stronger and make sure that we protect our environment. >> senator udall. >> thanks again to the chamber. it's been the most amazing privilege of my life to represent in the united states senate, the wonderful state of colorado. we have accomplished a lot over the last six years. i alluded to some of those accomplishments. we recovered from biblical floods, we turned up the capacity to fight fires. we have the best of the above energy regime that is the envy of the nation. we see our economy coming back. all of us are excited about what we're seeing and doing in these numbers. we need to make sure that college are affordable and women are paid the same as men in the workplace. we need to invest in infrastructure, all of the things that the chamber knows are crucial. congressman gardner and i love colorado, both.
i'm a fourth generation coloradan as well on my mother's side. there is real contrast in this race. elections ought to be about competition. they ought to be about the future. congressman gardner talks about being a member of the next generation and a new republican. the next generation doesn't want to shut off science. the next generation doesn't want to shut out immigrants. the next generation doesn't want to shut down the government. the next generation and i should say all generations frankly see the world my way. they see colorado moving forward. i therefore ask for your vote. working together, we can keep colorado moving forward. >> thank you both, thank you all. thank you both candidates, congressman gardner and senator udall. >> our campaign 2014 coverage continues tomorrow. we'll have live coverage of the west virginia senate debate capito republican shelly
tennant, democrat. and then mark warner and ed gillespie. that's live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span-2. >> c-span's 2015 student cam competition is underway. this competition for middle and high school students will award prizes to $100,000. complete a video cam on the opic "the three branches and you." go to "student cam.org. agree grab a camera, and get started today. -- representative joseph
lieberman and scott brown. in lieberman served connecticut. mr. brown served in massachusetts and is currently running in new hampshire. this is at a center in wall nut creek, california. [applause] >> good evening. that was a little different saying that. i'm used to saying "good morning." i do enjoy coming to these every year. it is such a pleasure and a thrill for me, and i love speaking with special guests. i am particularly excited this evening with two speakers. instead of hearing just 12-second soundbites like we do on the news, we are going to hear two esteemed politicians and have a robust conversation about some of the important topics going on in the world today. let me start by introducing former and potentially future
senator scott brown. as steve mentioned, senator brown made a significant effort to keep his pledge to appear here tonight, since he is in the middle of a campaign. -- he later moved to new hampshire, where he announced he was running for senate. he picked up speed, and it seems his bid is increasingly applausible. senator brown told me he's four points ahead right now, and with
the senate up in the -- senate control up in the air, this race has real national implications. brown describes himself as a reagan republican, fiscally conservative. he served 35 years in the army national guard, recently retiring with the rank of colonel. in 1982 when brown was a law tudent he won cosmopolitan magazine contest as america's sexiest man. that led to some part-time jobs that helped pay for law school, and here he is today. so more than just a pretty face. [applause] thank you. and tonight's other speaker is also a former snar. he was elected as a reform
democrat in 1970 to the connecticut senate and served three terms as the majority leader. he was state attorney general for seven years before winning election as u.s. senator in 1988. actually, i covered one of his campaign stops as a reporter when i was growing up in connecticut. it was fun to see him again. he was re-elected to the senate three times, the third time as a third hft party candidate. e gained a reputation as a politician that found middle ground. oday his aim is to hit islamic terror groups where it hurts, their pocketbook. he's best known as the democratic nominee running with al gore. he became the first jewish
politician on a major ticket. w, there are many strong speeches made in that campaign. one of my favorite lines that senator lieberman said when accepting the nomination for vice president, he said, we all know what's behind a really successful man -- a really surprised mother-in-law. [laughter] >> ladies and gentlemen, may i introduce senator lieberman. he has a very surprised mother-in-law. >> thank you. [applause] >> so senators, welcome, both of you. we certainly appreciate you being here coming from the east coast, and a busy time for you both. we have a couple different topics we'll be discussing. i'll be asking you some questions, and we can go back and forth and make it a
free-for-all. i know you certainly respect each other. i think one of the biggest questions has to do with national security. there are certainly a lot of challenges going on right now in the world. iraq, kes, syria and fringe al-qaeda groups, the tension between ukraine and russia, and then of course the intruder in the white house just last week. senator lieberman, let me start with you. what do you feel is the biggest threat that we face today, and how should our country respond? >> first, let me say thank you. good to see you again. and let me say thank you to the lesher foundation and the contribution they give to the community here in wall nut creek.
i will just give you a one-liner about history. this is my favorite. from winston church yill. someone asked him at one point how did he think history would treat him. churchill said, "i am confident history will treat me very well because i intend to write it." [laughter] >> that has appealed to me more and more as my career goes on. to me, to get to your question, to me the most serious challenge we face in the world is the islamist iolent extremism. whether it comes in the form of the state of iran, the republic from the r it comes shia or in the forms of the various terrorist groups and now particularly -- al-qaeda and now
particularly isis. these groups threaten other parts of the world and they threaten our homeland security. we know they attacked us on 9/11 to begin this period of history. in my opinion they clearly do not represent anything beyond a minority of the muslim world. when these groups like isis or al-qaeda take over, most of the muslims there run because they don't want to live under that kind of oppressive regime. we have to try to work to defeat them and also to give people within the muslim world the courage to stand up and fight them. the group i'm forming now, i'm very excited about this, is called the c.e.p., the counter extremism project. it is focused on one, trying to cut off funding to these terrorist groups, and two trying to find a counter-narrative for young people growing up in the
muslim world to vote for freedom and opportunity in the modern world we've now got a former ambassador from pakistan of the u.n., former head of german intelligence, the former defense minister from australia. i think we're going to surprise people with the support we're going to get from within the arab world, which is now understanding that they are the first target of these extremists, whether iran or isis. >> president obama has made that clear. there needs to be a lot more support from that part of the world. >> i think one of the most significant things to happen in this fight against our most serious threat to our security is the fact that saudi arabia, bahrain, uae and jordan, all
flew as part of those first air attacks on isis and syria. some of them, frankly their participation was in a way symbolic. but the fact is that they were there. i think it's a turning point that hopefully we in the private sector group that i'm in, and the governments, can keep going, because that's the way we're going to defeat this enemy and protect them and ourselves. >> senator brown? >> first of all, it's an attorney to be here. we were -- it's an honor to be here. it's good to see joe again. joe is a mentor and friend. we served on the armed services together. good to see you, joe. i think we need to step back, though, and see why we're here. why is isis "isis"? it is al-qaeda of iraq. when we left iraq, i'm not sure if you remember, but we signed a letter, asking the president not to leave iraq as is, leave a transition force, a quick reaction force to allow the iraqi government to be there to lean on us in case they needed to. and the president did not listen. he did not do the agreement and left.
and who came in? criminal elements and terrorist groups. that group morphed into isis, which is now about the size of new england. and they're bank robbers. they go into cities and towns and rob banks. they get the money, hire mercenaries, steal equipment that we've left there. and now they're using that equipment to -- their mission, as you know, is to march down pennsylvania avenue and plant a flag at the white house. with all due respect, what is our goal? to make sure that doesn't happen. what we have noticed, what i have noticed, as a former senator and someone who was in the military, is that there is a lack of trust with us and our allies, a lack of fear and respect from our foes, because of the president's incoherent and confusing policy on these issues, because he said, with syria, i'm drawing a line.
you cross that line, hey, you're in big trouble. and what did he do? he did nothing. by also saying, hey, we're not going to use ground troops, i'm not advocating ground groups, but why would you throw that pass and let them know -- we have the greatest military in the world. it is a deterrent if we say, hey, they're there in case we need them. so there's a lack of coherent policy. and it has sent a very bad message. the only way -- let me just step back and say one thing. i want the president to succeed. as an american, i want him to succeed. i don't want him, and i don't want him to fail, because if he fails, then we are in trouble. so how do you do it? the only thing we can do right now is to go for those targeted air strikes, go after the command and control structures, work with our europe and arab partners to try to find ways to push them back, arm the kurds, allow them to push on one side, allow the iraqi army to reestablish.
they have to have the will to fight. they're five miles from baghdad. they have to fight for their existence. very complicated but i believe we didn't need to be here. >> you had mentioned boots on the ground. that's something a lot of people are unsure about. is that something -- you said you really don't think we're going to need that? >> no, i didn't say that. we should never take our options off the table and telegraph what we're doing. general dempsey said there may be a time where we may make that recommendation. the president took it off the table. our allies are confused. our foes are emboldened. i would rely on the generals on the ground to make that determination. of course we don't want to send more me and women into harm's way. but iraqi veterans who have left blood, limbs and friends on the battlefield are so disgusted and upset about what's happening there. it's a real problem. it sends a very bad message. >> if i may, i agree totally with what scott just said. so if we feel so threatened, as
we should be, by isis and the terrorists, and particularly after this unbelievable beheading of two americans, and people from other countries, and our goal is to defeat them, degrade and defeat them, as the president said, then you can't start that by saying we're going to eliminate any possibility of ever using ground troops. none of us want to go back into anything like the iraq war again. but it may come. there may come a time to protect our own security when we're going to have to put a limited number of special operation forces on the ground there to defeat isis. and i don't think you ever want to tell your enemy what you're not going to do. you want your enemy to be frightened about what you're going to do, particularly if, as we are, you're the strongest country in the world. >> may i add something? >> sure. >> joe and i have a lot in common, one issue in particular. we know for a fact that there are over 300 american citizens who have left america and are fighting alongsi