On Friday, October 20, KUED broadcast a live, audience-driven debate between Democrat incumbent Jim Matheson and Republican LaVar Christensen. KUED Senior Producer Ken Verdoia moderated.

Following is a full transcript:

VOTEUTAH DEBATE: SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Ken Verdoia:  Good Evening.  I’m Ken Verdoia.  Welcome to the studios of KUED in Salt Lake City for another in our series of election season debates.  Tonight, out guests are candidates for congress in Utah’s Second Congressional District.  The incumbent is the Democrat, Representative Jim Matheson.  And the Republican Candidate is Utah State Legislator LaVar Christensen.  Tonight, as with all of our VoteUtah debates, the questions will come from our studio audience.  They will select and frame the issues for our candidates to address.  But first, prior to air time, it was determined that Representative Jim Matheson would have the first opportunity for a two-minute opening statement.  Representative?

Jim Matheson: Thank you, Ken.  Six years ago, when I first ran for Congress.  I made a promise with the people of Utah at the time I said, you shouldn't expect to agree with me on every single issue.  But what you  should expect, in fact what you should demand is that I take a thoughtful and common sense approach to everything I do.  And six years later, I'm really proud of my record in doing just that.  And it’s been a great process for me to work with so many people in Utah.  I listen to my constituent, they work with me, my constituents have made me a better Congressman,  and it's allowed me to focus on so many accomplishments for the State of Utah.  Now we're in a campaign year and its time to talk about reasons why I would like to return to Washington for two more years.  There's so many issues of great importance and I would just like to mention three really quickly.  I always am so concerned about making sure we do not renew the testing of nuclear weapons in Nevada. Utahans have paid far too great a price in terms of exposure to fallout in the past.  And I will continue to be the strongest voice in speaking out against that testing.  Secondly, spending deficits are out of control in Washington.  I have been part of a group that put forth the best proposal yet to create a structure to stop out of control spending, and bring us back to balanced budgets.  We owe that to our children.  And third I've heard from so many Utahan' s concerns about children being exposed to inappropriate content, either on the Internet or in video games.  As a congressmen, I've developed legislation to try to create impediments to protect them from that inappropriate content.  As a parent, I know how important that is and again, I've heard from so many parents in the state of Utah about this as well.  So I look forward to this discussion tonight, but let me emphasize again.  Promise made, promise kept...I've been an independent voice, and I always put Utah first.

Ken Verdoia: Thank you representative.  And now a two minute opportunity for LaVar Christensen.  Mr. Christensen...

LaVar Christensen: Thank you.  The national consequences of this congressional election are crucial, critical.  Your vote has never counted as much as it does at this important time, just six years into a new century.  Five years after terrorists sought to bring out economy and our nation to its knees.  But we are a strong, amoral and a prosperous America and we can continue to be so, if we base our votes, our elections on principles and not politics.   Principled public servants that follow a compass.  Not shrewd politicians in Washington that follow a weather vane.  There are politicians, politician Statesmen.  Politicians just want to know what makes them popular.  Which way the winds blow.  Politicians just think it's a game. They want to be Bobby Fisher, they want to play it better than anyone's ever played it before.  But Statesmen are men and women who do the right thing for the right reasons.  America needs Utah like never before.  America needs Utah.  And at this critical time, control of Congress will be determined by just one vote.  A swing one way or the other, the ultimate unintended consequences for Utah would to be to add a Democrat  vote that would set in motion dominoes in Washington to cause Nancy Pelosi  of San Francisco to become Speaker.  Harry Reid of Las Vegas to become the majority leader. And then the committee chairmanships become assigned.  The first thing a newly elected Congressman does is to go off in their respective caucus.  The Democrats will meet.  The Republicans will meet.  If the Democrats have the majority then they will decide the leadership of our congress.  The commitment of our Fathers really is the calling of our time.  It’s the calling of our generation.  I know that there's a bright dawn ahead for America that our generation can rise to the occasion. that America needs Utah. And I'm honored to serve in the Utah House of Representatives.  I've not been timid there. I will not just go along to get along in congress.  I can tell you what the principles with the values of my Utah heritage and yours, that America needs Utah and Utah can make the difference.  But you have to know the difference to be able to make the difference.  I look forward to serving the people of  Utah in Washington as I have been able to so in the Utah House of Representatives.

Ken Verdoia: All right gentlemen, thank you very much.  Now, we will alternate the first opportunity to respond to each question.  The candidates each have 90 seconds to state their case.  As appropriate, they each will have thirty seconds for rebuttal time.  Let's go right to our audience, our very first question and Representative Matheson will respond first.

Audience Question: Every day each of has to plan.  Especially for things we do at work.  So, as your potential employer, I'd like to ask you how you plan?  First I'd like to challenge you to develop a comprehensive plan for Iraq and publish it on your website. I know you can't present that tonight.  So, tonight I ask you to present a hundred day goal, one specific goal, for Iraq, and how to get to that goal.  And please, don't use the phrases, "stay the course" ,"cut and run", or "this will tip our hand to the enemy".

Ken Verdoia: Representative Matheson, you have the first opportunity to respond.

Jim Matheson: I hope I'm not violating your request when i say that what really disappoints me in our current political dialogue is that Iraq seems to be reduced to this simplistic notion that our only choices are to stay the course and to cut and run.  That doesn't do justice to the complexity of the issue and in particular it doesn't do justice to the men and women in uniform who are serving our country and deserve a more viable, substantive effort to come up with a strategy that gives a better opportunity for success.  My plan for the next hundred days, if I could engineer this in Washington, I think we need to sit down and take the politics out of this and have an honest assessment of  what's working, and what is not working.  And we need a strategic shift to find a strategy for success.  And I'm not alone in saying this.  You've heard just in the past few days, Senators of both parties are saying we need to do this.  It's not time to just have a discussion on whether or not we should have gone into Iraq.  We should acknowledge where we are now, and what it's going to take to move forward. We've got to get away from that simplistic cut and run versus stay the course discussion, because that doesn't offer strategies for success for our troops. so that would be the way that I would try to take on this issue. Again, we owe it to our troops to come up with a better strategy.
Verdoia: State Representative Christensen, your opportunity to respond.

Christensen: I believe the question was to try to be specific about what could be done to accomplish our stated mission.  And our stated mission is Enduring Iraqi Freedom.  To abandon Iraq, to surrender that vital region of the world would be the worst form of isolationism.  And no generation of Americans has ever done that.  I’m inspired continually when I think back to the lowest moment of World War II when someone asked a similar question of Winston Churchill.  They said, “What is your aim?”  And he said, “You ask what my aim is?  I will answer you in a word.  It is victory, victory, victory.  Victory no matter the terror, victory no matter how long the road.”  I am so proud of what we’ve accomplished already  - to have a Constitution, to have free elections, an eighty percent turnout, twelve million people risking their lives to vote.  To have Hussein, who looked at us and who violated seventeen United Nations resolutions, a final warning that could have avoided this conflict, and looked at us like we were just an image on a TV screen and that he had no respect for.  And then one night he looks up into the sky, and what does he see, but here comes the combined might of the will of the American people.  And so now you’ve got two hundred and ninety-two new newspapers, two thousand new businesses a month, schools, water, freedom.  I talked to dozens of returning soldiers, I’ve talked to fathers and widows.  Not a one of them will tell you they’re not proud of the effort, and that the war they are fighting is not the war we are seeing.  And so I know that what we’ll continue to do is train those people.  And to have an emerging democracy in that vital region will be a blessing to all the world.  Iran is the new Russia. We cannot let them have that region to themselves.

Verdoia:  Rebuttal time?   Representative Matheson, do you want an opportunity on this?  Because I have a follow-up question and I’d like to put it to you.  It actually came to me via e-mail from a mother in Salt Lake City this week.  And her question, let me make sure that I do justice to her by quoting her accurately.  This came from Nancy in Salt Lake City.  And she said, “This year my son will turn eighteen and will graduate from high school.  He’s talked about joining the Army to help pay for college.  But the carnage in Iraq has me scared to death.  If you could sit down with my son, what would you tell my son about his future?”

Matheson: There are a number of aspects to his future we could talk about.  First of all, I think there’s great honor in military service, and I would encourage him to look at all the opportunities that exist, if he were to follow the path of military service to help pay for his college education.  I would say that the troops have performed in every way we’ve asked, and it’s a proud group to join.  And he should be proud to join them.  I would also say that we owe those troops the best public policy decisions we can make, to make sure they have a chance to succeed.  And that means, if they don’t have enough body armor, enough armored vehicles, they ought to get it.  And while Congress had tried to fund this, that has not happened in nearly the way or timely manner it should have.  And I would also tell him that when he’s pursuing this career in the future, he should demand that the federal government back up those troops in terms of the honor they deserve.
                                                                                                                  
Verdoia:  State Representative Christensen, sitting with that young man in his living room, his mom is listening, what do you tell him?

Christensen:  You know, I’ve had that very conversation with several, and I would point out that in the 06 budget and the 07 budget we’ve put in millions of dollars, adequate to provide the Humvees, the body armor, so yes there was some lag time, but we’re there now.  And so equipping the troops, protecting the troops, giving them what they need.  But if the young man were to go into it and think it was just something to help fund his college
And did not have the fundamental commitment that it takes to go off and be those courageous men and women in uniform, then I would tell him to step back and re-evaluate.  But I’m in awe of those people.  And here in Utah, we have more that have gone over and served than any other state.  And so I know for a fact that the courage of the men and women in uniform is something that we never take for granted.  And it’s why I support the veterans so much and have in the legislature.

Verdoia:  We may return to the realm of foreign policy but lets go domestic for a while and a question about the environment.

Question: Yes, mine is a two-part question.  You both have legislative track records, which are indicators of how you may serve if elected for this congressional seat.  Please talk about how your voting record speaks to your environmental stewardship here in Utah and, the second part of the question is, with the Nevada Water District coming after our aquifer water in southwestern Utah, I would like to know whether you would inject federal influence, especially if the scientific research provokes that, and if so, in what way would you inject federal influence?

Verdoia: Okay, she just pulled a quick one on me and actually worked about three or four questions in there.  So in all fairness, I’m going to expand your time a little bit and give you at least two minutes to start with because it is a two-pronged question.  State Representative Christensen, the first opportunity to respond.  What does your environmental of land management track record say about you and then consider what some people are calling the Nevada or the Las Vegas Water Grab?

Christensen: Ken, the environmental issue is huge in this election.  There’s extreme environmentalism, as much as we want to protect our environment, it is so far in the extreme that it is strangling and suffocating out ability as a free people to do the things we do.  Let me give you a classic example.  We’ve had no new oil refineries since 1976 in this country, no drilling for oil in Alaska where we know that we can get a million barrels a day for over thirty years.  We can create a million new jobs.  So here we shut down, with the Staircase Monument, President Clinton, one-fourth of the world’s supply of clean burning coal.  We have extreme environmentalism and we have out in the Uintah Basin the ability to provide a major energy boon not just for Utah but for this country.  And so with all due respect to the good Congressman here, he has voted repeatedly to not let us, with the Democrats, to not let us drill for oil responsibly in Alaska.  He voted against a forty billion deficit reduction bill that specifically  includes Emphasis and promoting oil shale and tar sands development in Utah. So the extreme environmental position is causing difficulties for us. Cuba is auctioning off oil rights right under our noses, right off of our shore and we can't even do our own off-shore drilling.
So here we have the need for our energy resources to wean ourselves of dependence on foreign oil, to be indebted to foreign nations when we have these rich deposits and resources in our country, so we can do it responsibly.
We have the technology, we have the ability.
I can give you an example here in Utah where we wanted to build an highway to relieve the congestion for the people of northern Utah and Davis county.
A 14-mile stretch, the legacy highway.
We were sued by mayor rocky Anderson and the Sierra club, the state of Utah.
It went all the way up on appeal.
We lost $300 million, all of this as Utah taxpayers.
We can't be reimbursed for that.
Through no fault of our own.
We own the state-owned property, there was no federal involvement.
That would have helped pay for the Lake Powell pipe line which would have given us the water we need in the southern end of our state.
We will not let Nevada suck the water out from under us and we want our rightful share of the Colorado river.
But we will balance the environment with our needs and we can do it responsibly

Ken Verdoia: Okay, boy she really did pull a quick one here on this.
Basically you had two minutes and you used the two minutes, I'm going to come back to the Nevada water question and give you each additional time.
So representative Matheson, take this two minutes to explore your environmental track record, your legislative record, and how that relates to the future of Utah and the nation.
Two minutes here and then we'll get around to Nevada water.

Jim Matheson: Well this is such an important question because we live in such a remarkable state.  And a lot of people like living here is because it's a great place to live.
And preserving that quality of life, and acting as good stewards, is something that is in all of our interests to do.
And I've tried to take a very comprehensive approach in that regard.
There are a number of issues we could talk in about two minutes is very limiting.
First of all in terms of Utah and our environmental quality, we have concerns, we all have concerns about the inversions and the air quality along the Wasatch Front.
We need to find ways to have lower emissions in cars, we need to have more transit and as a member of the highway and transit subcommittee in the house I've aggressively pursued funding for commuter rail.
There are public policy steps we can take that will allow us to have and preserve a quality of life here that we all love so much, so that we don't have uncontrolled growth and sprawl, so we don't just pack all these valleys with more and more motor vehicles.
So clean air is a critical part in my opinion of your question about my legislative record in terms of trying to per sue good environment here in Utah.
Secondly, there's no question that when it comes to energy development that we need to take a balanced and comprehensive approach.
The deficit reduction is wrong.
I voted on oil shale and tar sands in Utah.
But the measure he was talking about was other significant issues and that was tacked on and I welcome that discussion later on.
I think at the end of the day though if you're ever going to solve and move forward with making good decisions in Utah, you need to bring stake holders together in Utah, and have them talk about what the future's going to be and what they want it to be.
We should be driving this decision here.
Washington, D.C. shouldn't be driving this decision.
Utahns should and that's the direction I've taken as a congressman.
I think, as I said, there's a lot of common ground because we all love living here and the common ground ought to be the starting point at which the various stake holders try to address the issue.

LaVar Christensen:  Now the issue is out on the table so let's pick this up and consider- -   May I just respond briefly?

Ken Verdoia: If you wanted rebuttal time on this I will afford you the opportunity and afford it to the representative.
Each take 30 seconds for rebuttal.

LaVar Christensen: I want to be clear on this.
Of course we support conservation.
Of course we support trying to pursue alternative fuels but 234 the meantime 220 million vehicles, I think where it's taxes or oil production, the congressman has consistently voted with the Democrats to block new oil refineries because of extreme environmentalism.
He's voted to block the discovery of oil in Alaska.
The farmer who bragged on prize pig said, just when I trained it to live on no food it up and died.
There's a limit, we can maintain a good environment but we need to have our resources and the freedom to pursue them.
>> I wish we had more than 30 seconds.

Jim Matheson: Having worked in the energy business, I'm here to tell you the reason you haven't had new refineries built, a start from scratch refinery since 1976 is the economic decision would never have you start one from scratch.
It always makes sense to add on to an existing and in fact our capacity has grown during that period in the United States.
So it is not because of environmental restrictions that new refineries haven't been built.
It's because the economics of the refinery business, if you talk to people in the industry they'll tell you just that.
There was a piece of legislation we voted on in the house where the government was going to get in the refinery business.
I personally believe in the market system.
I don't think the government ought to be building refineries and getting in the refining business.
And that is the legislation he's referring to that I voted against because I just think the government shouldn't be interfering with the markets.

Ken Verdoia: Let's return to part 2 of that question long ago that I still recall, was about Las Vegas' interest in western Utah desert aquifer in the great basin.
So representative Christensen I'd like to you take the first one-minute opportunity to weigh in on the relationship between Utah and Nevada on water.

LaVar Christensen: Whenever you talk about aquifers those are the hidden resources underneath the ground.
That's basic RIPARIAN rights if you're upstream you have a prior entitlement.
When people try to take it out that's not right.
You have to stand up and not be so obligated to them.
I know, again, that the congressman has made it clear he said over and over again Harry Reid makes me proud to be a western Democrat.
I respect senator Reid, but I think that the association there, I think here in Utah we're going to have to say you know what?
We're not getting our rightful share of the Colorado river, the Lake Powell pipe line I believe the congressman's neutral on that.
He says he's not sure if he's for or against the like Powell pipe line.
I know it's vital and we're not just going to cram in high density.
We have a vision Dixie plan in St. George that's in the works, so the water is critical, we need to have access to that, and we're not going to let Nevada take that water out from under us.
We need to have that.
And I'm so impressed by the master planning for example in St. George with the conservancy district there they have a great master plan.

Ken Verdoia:   Representative your time.

Jim Matheson: The question isn't about the Colorado river.
The question is about ground water that in an aquifer underneath Utah and Nevada.
Primarily Millard and Beaver County.
Nevada is looking at granting rights on its side of the border to drill for more water than folks in Utah they ought to be able to take out of what is a shared aquifer.
One would think reasonable people could go out and find some hydrologist who is would agree on what the total amount of water is, how much could be appropriately taken out of that aquifer each year without destroying the integrity of the aquifer and how between where the line is on the map that could be al lo indicated between the two states.
That's the approach I think we ought to take to this.
I've talked with the rest of our delegation about how we're going to make sure that Utah doesn't lose its rightful water share but that's the way we ought to approach the issue.

Ken Verdoia: Back to the audience next question and we're going to turn to education. That is a Utah PTA badge.  That is a Utah PTA.
And that's Rhonda rose vice president of the Utah parent teachers association.

Audience Question: Thank you.
Since all 50 states failed the No Child Left Behind highly qualified teacher mandate, what will you do to ensure that the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind will not be a one-size-fits all program but truly meet the needs of the children?

Ken Verdoia: Representative Matheson, please take the first opportunity to respond.  No Child Left Behind.

Jim Matheson: The specific question is the provision in No Child Left Behind that defines what is a highly qualified teacher.
And while the notion of a highly qualified teacher is something we all think sounds really good and we want qualified teachers this legislation is flawed.
It says you have to have a college major in a subject in which you're teaching.
Escalante has a school in my district where grades K through 12 have only 54 kids.
You've got teachers teaching a whole bunch of different subjects.
It's not realistic to think they'd have a college major in every single subject they're teaching.
I've introduced legislation that will change this section of No Child Left Behind in terms of the definition of a highly qualified teacher.
It will allow states far more flexibility to make decisions about what constitutes a qualified teacher.
It's the right step to take.
This legislation comes up as you suggest in your question, to be revoted on in 2007.
And let me assure you that I'm going to be, I will be very aggressive in taking my proposal and trying to incorporate that in the reauthorization of this legislation.

Ken Verdoia: State representative Christensen your opportunity.

 

LaVar Christensen: This is an area where Jim really talks in circles.
I'm so sorry.
Early in his tenure Harry Reid again advised the Democrats to get elected he said move to the middle so early in Jim's service he moved to the middle and he supported President Bush on the No Child Left Behind.
The president meant well as governor in Texas he was excited about the changes that they made.
But he skipped over the 10th amendment when he adopted it at the federal level and that's because although they're well intentioned and they want to be able to guarantee a good education, it's a local matter.
It's for the PTA's it's for the school.
I serve as vice chair of the education committee I'm on the public education appropriation committee.
With low taxes and a strong economy we just gave education the biggest increase in 17 years, $250 million.
We've got more to do.
One in every four citizens in Utah is under the age 618.
It was Walt Disney that said America's greatest natural resource is the minds of our children.
As much as we love our lakes and valleys they can't touch our children and their education.
That's why in Utah we have a Constitutional ear marking of our income tax.
Our fathers and grandfathers adopted on the heels of the depression.
Who would voluntarily a state income tax in the most difficult environment?
I'll tell you who, a people who love their kids and believe in education as the key to progress.
100 percent of every dollar corporate or individual goes to fund education in Utah.
But No Child Left Behind with all of its good intentions so to have voted for it and to now say I've introduced legislation to do something about it, we've gone full circle.
And it's taking too much of our annual budget, it's time to come back home to local control, moms, dads, kids, teachers, classrooms.
There's magic in the classroom when you get a teacher who loves the child and loves the subject, and we don't need the federal government in our classroom.

Ken Verdoia: I sense the need for rebuttal and since you went a little longer representative Christensen, Representative Matheson please take up to a minute.

Jim Matheson: Lets be clear on that.
My opponent likes to inject partisanship into every question because he doesn't want to represent who's going to be you.
To characterize No Child Left Behind as the fault of the Democratic party is laughable.
This was President Bush's program.
92 senators out of 100 voted for it.
And yes I voted for it, I'll be very up front about that.
And the intentions of the legislation were good.
But as we've seen it implemented we've seen where it goes too far in the highly qualified teach every component that was asked in the previous question and the other places where it goes too far is the overly restrictive federal interpretation of how we measure progress of students.
The Utah model where we measure each individual kid is much better.
And finally this legislation said states we're going to give you a lot of money to help implement these provisions but they've never received it.
It's been under-funded by billions every year.
Those are three weaknesses but it was a bipartisan piece of legislation and we ought to work to fix it.

Ken Verdoia:  Representative your rebuttal.

LaVar Christensen: This isn't partisanship.
I'm saying early in Jim's service when he wanted to side with the president as often as possible with high approval ratings in Utah but he didn't have a comprehensive view of the issue and he didn't have a compass at the time that told him that this violates local control, it violates the 10th amendment.
There's no Constitutional justification for that type of involvement.
No matter how well intentioned it is.
If it came to us as suggestions we could consider and use it but as a mandate and tell us we get a report card and we're accountable to Washington that is an unintended consequence of the bill.
And now to say you've introduced legislation that doesn't make sense.
So yes it's not partisan.
But on education I'm the education candidate in the sense that I've been serving in the classroom with the people of Utah the last four years.
I know it well and I can make a difference and that will be giving more local control back.

Ken Verdoia:  As we move to the second half of our program, just a reminder that the full content of each of our debates is available online and our vote Utah web site, and that's www.votetah.org.
In addition to the debates you can also down load the individual state campaign statements of every ballot-qualified candidate in the congressional elections.
Again www.voteutah.org, it's worth your time.
Let's go back to our audience and another question and your question will first be answered by representative Christensen.

Audience Question: Okay, yesterday President Bush signed into law the military commissions act of 2006.
The so-called torture bill.
What are the future ramifications of this bill, and will it help make America safer?

 

LaVar Christensen: Thank you very much.
You know I think- --Rightfully so.
We had a very vigorous debate about what the boundaries should be.
We see in so many instances, we see it with illegal immigration, people who are not citizens who have come here and violated the law but when they're apprehended they want their day in court which is more like five years in court.
And so to a fault we absolutely did he ever and defer and give the liberties and freedoms and courtesies and protections to those.
What the president pointed out in this war against terror is that we have situations we're not going to go off and torture people.
We're a humane civilization.
We're not going to do that.
We have our own people that can tell us what they experienced when they've been other places.
But the debate and the discussion was about what those boundaries would be and to make sure that due process was there in the context of Geneva protections and otherwise.
And the congress came together and found the appropriate boundaries.
But the feeling is, is that we made progress, that we clarified areas that were extremely vague and we will go forward with a better system that will enable us to make sure that we can do two things--that we can continue to fight the war against terror, at the same time we can continue to be a beacon of freedom to all the world but you have to be on higher ground to lift others and America will continue to remain on high ground.
Ken Verdoia:   Representative Matheson your opportunity to respond.

Jim Matheson: I'm glad you asked this question because this is an issue where I think there's been a substantial amount of misunderstanding and misinformation about the bill.
And I'm glad you made the reference in your question to the fact that it's the torture bill because I don't see where there's torture in this bill.
This bill does not condone torture; this bill does not remove any Geneva conventions.
In fact, what happened is this.
Congress passed the detainee treatment act in January of this year, which prohibited torture because there was concern about whether or not this country should allow that.
Torture is wrong, it's immoral, this country's law says you can't do it.
What the detainee legislation dealt with was that there was this open-ended question about how detainees should be addressed, and what legal rights they have.
And the Supreme Court said congress, you need to do more.
Your detainee treatment act which banned torture didn't complete the full set of issues that needed to be resolved about what to do with these detainees, these enemy combatants.
It's important we have the ability to go after terrorists, it's important we have a structure in place for how we deal with them and this legislation, in addition to affirming we don't do torture and we recognize the Geneva convention even though the president want the the ability not to, congress said no, this was a compromise.
Finally it lays out 26 specific legal protections for detainees.
Protections they didn't have before.
So that is the substance of this question, and I think it creates more clarity in terms of how this country can move forward with the detainee issue.

Ken Verdoia: Do we have need for rebuttal time?
I'm going to step back into the audience, step up with me, and let's shift our attention back to the domestic arena and health care.

Audience Question: Over the past few years there have been cuts to health care programs such as Medicaid.
Basic health care should not be a luxury but a growing number of people are unable to afford basic life-preserving care.
Do you believe that the government has a responsibility to ensure that all people have access to this basic health care necessary to prevent, to preserve life and to prevent serious illness?
And if so, how would you work to solve the health care crisis?

Ken Verdoia: Representative Matheson on the subject of health care and the right to health care.

Jim Matheson: This is an issue I hear about everywhere I go in Utah.
Even if it's a meeting with a group of people who want to talk about something else.  Health care comes up because all of us sense our health care system has lost its way and we're going down a path that is not sustainable.
And the fundamental issues we want to talk about in health care are access to health care, or how we deal with rising costs, and how we ensure quality.
And your question focused on the first of those three which has to do with access.
Although all three are related and we should address them in a comprehensive way.
I think it's important for us to look for policies that allow for greater access to a health care system, and what has happened at the federal level so far is the creation of the community health care system, for example, which does provide opportunity for people to access basic health care services.
Secondly, it's also been an effort to encourage the Medicaid and Medicare programs which are significant opportunities for people to have access.
It doesn't mean we've gone far enough, but I do think it's important as we move forward we take a comprehensive look at all aspects of our health care system and I would just offer one principle I'd throw in with that, and that is I'm not so sure that, I I shouldn't say I'm not so sure.
I do not think that the federal government should be running the health care company.
I like the idea of consumer choice and consumer-oriented decision making and I hope we can preserve that in whatever health care system we have.
But let's face it we all can relate to this.
Our health care system is very complicated, cumbersome and one would hope we could set a public policy direction that would create a more efficient system.

Ken Verdoia: State representative Christian Christensen your opportunity.

LaVar Christensen: One thing that just breaks my heart is when I see it all too often, a situation where one spouse in this great country of ours is self-employed, makes a good living but maybe doesn't have insurance and the other spouse leaves the home and goes off to work for insurance.
An insurance payments that are what many people would have thought of as a staggering house payment and they keep sky rocketing and the millions that are uninsured and we see it's unobtainable and unaffordable for far too many.
But the temptation is to use the force of law, and to just compel it, and to say to every businessperson that you will do this and you shall do that.
Same problem with the minimum wage law.
If all we had to do was pass a law to guarantee a desired social outcome, I'd pass a law tomorrow that said there will be no poverty, there'll be world peace, every marriage will endure, every marriage will be happy, every home will be happy.
But we do have free markets, and we need to have the incentive to work and to dream and to invest and to save.
And we need to be sensitive to the limitations but right now it's too dependent upon the employer.
And we want individuals to be able to have greater control, to expand the COBRA principle where you can take it when you go, you can have larger group purchasing plans.
We have to worry about the need with the doctors who are more discouraged than they've ever been having to practice what they call defensive medicine.
All those things go into the blend.
But we know ultimately it's the catastrophic illness and my family losing someone to cancer, knowing that these limitations and we all have those experiences that tell us we must solve the health care crisis.

Ken Verdoia:  You both seem sympathetic to the central theme of we must solve the health care crisis.
Let me ask you a follow-up.
The person that will be elected in the November election will go to Washington representing tens of thousands, if not more than 100,000 people in your district who have no health insurance, and therefore, in their definition, have no access except for the most extreme form of emergency medical care.
Sorry we can't treat your diabetes, but we can help you amputate your leg.  That seems to me to be what my father used to call a crying shame.
What do we do about?
Take a minute, two minutes, take what you think is appropriate.
What do we do about those people that are your constituents that you're going to represent?
Jim Matheson: I can't argue say with saying it's a crying shame.
Here's an interesting fact.
Most people who do not have health insurance in Utah, in fact nine out of ten, are working.
These aren't people sitting around in a lazy fashion.
They're working every day to try to get through the day, and they can't afford health insurance.
And so first of all you're right, it's a crying shame.
Secondly, one thing we should do that helps level the playing field is right now small employers and small businesses and self-employed face far higher costs for insurance than large corporations, because of the volume component of this.
And I've supported legislation in congress that specifically allows small businesses or self-employed to band together and create an association together to have a health plan.
I think that that doesn't solve all the problems but it level s that playing field between large corporations who get the volume discount and everybody else because small business is the driver of our economy.
That would be one step to help a lot of people working right now without health insurance perhaps that creates more affordable from where they are work to afford health insurance.
That would be one specific legislative item I could offer that might help in this situation.

Ken Verdoia: Representative Christensen that was about 1:30, why don't you take another 90 seconds and continue on.

LaVar Christensen: Thank you very much.
Please look at this in context, as well.
Connect the dots.
Again, look at it in terms of an entire budget that here while your health care needs are going sky high here go your gas prices, here goes the taxation burden, all these things come together and you look at how much you have left to work with, and you look at the tension and the pressure.
But look at the pro growth policies we've been able to keep, we have unemployment less than 4 percent, look at the economy we've had lowering the taxes lowering the interest rates, the housing boom, the lower mortgages.
All of that, even in that context, the health care crisis just looms out there.
And right now what it's consuming in our annual government budget is enormous.
We have an entitlement program mentality that is just gobbling up the federal budget in ways right now that's a large part of the deficit.
It chains us to minimum interest only payments, almost $400 billion a year.
I mentioned before the COBRA concept, the larger purchasing power, we know what the principles are.
I believe in every situation that comes before you, pick any issue you want, just look at it, get the facts, study it, research it.
You know they say confidence is what you feel right before you understand a situation.
I see too many people in government that are way too confident that they've got it all figured out, research it, study it, and then what are the principles that should govern the outcome, govern the decision?
And you need to have freedom of choice, you need to have greater control, you can't be so heavily dependent on the employer to have greater flexibility, greater control over health care, plans, future, that's a start.
We can do it in principled way.

Ken Verdoia: Thank you, back to our studio audience this is another one of those times where I feel like I'm working the red carpet.
Stephen Cruz is the executive director of the Utah foundation a resource organization here in Utah who's partnered with vote Utah at times in the past.
Tonight asking a question not necessarily from the foundation standpoint but certainly about an issue the foundation is concerned about, global economy.

Audience Question: You know as we track the Utah economy, things are just hot right now.
And the American economy is really good as well.
But it won't always be that way and there's long-term concerns about jobs going overseas, and when we think about what does America most need to stay competitive in the world economy, I want to know what your ideas are.
What does America most need and what will you do in congress to give America the advantages that we need to hold on to good jobs and have a thriving economy?

Ken Verdoia: State Representative Christensen, first opportunity.

LaVar Christensen: Thank you.
Again, I believe so strongly in the Reagan legacy, common sense tells us if you put a heavy tax on something people will produce less of it.
The Democrats at the time argued that if we lowered taxes we wouldn't have the revenue we need.
Hard to believe that our taxes at one time went as high as 70 percent but they did pre-Reagan.
They dropped it down to 28 percent revenues increased 54 percent.
It's been morning in America for 25 years.
With only relatively modest recessionary dips, we've had uninterrupted prosperity.
But I also worry, and I want to thank the Utah foundation, one of the very first things I did as a legislator was to get a copy of a publication called financing government in Utah.
I found it to be extremely helpful I thank you for the great work you do.
But I'll tell you this.
With the emphasis on the global economy we've so emphasized the worker we've neglected the citizen.
And so in Utah in the legislature I passed two important pieces of legislation for civic and character education in our schools.
I was able to help recently form the lieutenant governor's commission on character education teaching our youth what does it mean to be an American?
What does it mean to be a citizen and to be able to carry that on from one generation to the next and never take for granted where our freedoms came from, what they cost, and what's at stake?
And so I know that in this global economy that we like to emphasize, we will, with our free enterprise system and free market system if we use good judgment and scale back the debt, but if we continue to build our lives and policies on sound principles, we'll continue to be a light to the world while raising a future generations of citizens, not just workers.

Ken Verdoia: Representative Matheson.

Jim Matheson: The question is how do we compete in a global economy.
Global economy is more competitive than ever.
We all have the sense that there is greater competition and the world is getting smaller all the time.
Investment in people is the first way we compete.
We need to invest in education in a way like we've never done before.
Quite frankly that's primarily a state issue, that's not necessarily a federal issue to put that funding in.
But the notion in investing in people not just in primary and secondary education, but also throughout their life, investing in people, retraining workers because there are transitions and disruptions in making a commitment to life long learning and investment in people, that's how this country competes.
It's always how this country's competed.
We can't compete on sheer numbers we're at 300 million there are other countries with more people.
We don't win on quantity.
The way we compete is with quality and that's investing in people.
Secondly, you've got to invest in basic infrastructure in your own country.
China's going to build the equivalent of our entire interstate system in the next 15 years.
They're investing in ports in a way that's far beyond the investment in this country.
It's important to invest in base I I can infrastructure.
Finally I think you need to pursue a policy that incorporates fair and open trade throughout the globe.
You know the country of China right now in my opinion is manipulating its currency in a way that is inappropriate and artificially depressed and it's creating an inappropriate advantage for that country.
And from a public policy perspective in Washington China needs to be held accountable we need to get them to let their currency float to the appropriate level.
That will make America more competitive.

Ken Verdoia: Do we need rebuttal time on this one, gentlemen?

LaVar Christensen:  I'd like to address I'm not sure if we'll touch on immigration or not but with Mexico our neighbor, we know that we've got 12 million illegals here in our country.
What people don't realize is, is that $20 billion a year is being sent over to Mexico from those illegals.
They are profiting so much from it it's no wonder they won't contribute to the solution.
We need to March down there and say you've got a problem, you've got a problem.
But when you talk about global economy I believe in free markets, I support free trade.
But we cannot look the other way when our neighbor, we talk about an aquifer taking water out from under us, $20 billion a year being taken across the border illegally.
That's part of the global economy that we're talking about.

Ken Verdoia: 30 seconds is yours.

Jim Matheson: The immigration issues we ought to talk about.

Ken Verdoia: I think that's coming up.

Jim Matheson: But relative to the issue of global competitiveness, our tech community talk to the people in the tech community and they will tell you that they are so frustrated because a restrictive immigration policy is not allowing them to bring in the highly-educated workers that make the tech industry work in this country.
This country's always been the leader in the world with invention and even prepresent usership and to have a restrictive policy -- not letting the brightest people come and help these companies that's hurting American competitiveness.
That's another federal issue we could address to make us more competitive.

Ken Verdoia: I'll go back to the audience this young man when I came up to him he said are you ready to ask your question?
He said it's kind of broad I don't know if I should ask it.
And I looked and I said you know there's no such thing as a bad broadly-stated question.
It turns on how they choose to respond.
Representative Matheson you'll go first.

Audience Question: Where do you stand on moral issues, and where do you feel our country is headed morally?

Jim Matheson: That certainly is a broad question.
Listen I don't- -
Different people characterize different moral issues in different ways.
I think that what I would characterize for me in terms of this debate and talking about who you're electing to represent you in congress is this.
What you've got in Jim Matheson, who's someone who is always honest with you, in every issue I tell you exactly what I think I'm going to do and if I don't know an answer I'll tell you I don't know it.
I think we need integrity in Washington.
Washington is quite frankly very much in deficit right now for integrity, as we know.
And I think you need honest politicians who are prepared to go to you and say this is what I think, maybe I agree with you, maybe I don't.
I think that's the highest level of where we can act in a moral way.
And I grew up in a family that taught the basic values of commitment to family, commitment to community, and commitment to an honesty and integrity.
Those are the values I bring to the job and that's how I'll answer your question.

Ken Verdoia: Well done, and representative Christensen, your opportunity to define it your own way.

LaVar Christensen: I don't view that as a broad question, philosophically.
I view that as a critical question.
John Adams said at the outset of the nation he said our Constitution was only intended for a moral and religious people and unsuited for any other.
Why is that so?
Because the founders looked down through the corridors of time to our day and beyond and asked that fundamental question can a people be trusted with so much liberty and freedom, with self-government?
Will that freedom be a blessing or a curse as time goes on?
The reason they knew they could make that important leap of faith is because they knew that every generation of Americans could be trusted that the majority of the people would choose right and do right, and every election is a decision anew.
Who are the majority?
What will they do?
And so when you look to your founding document, the declaration of independence which refers to a creator, the supreme judge of the world, firm reliance on divine providence, nature's God, in the legislature I sponsored and passed a Constitutional amendment in support of marriage as a legal unit between a man and woman.
I never thought in our lifetime we would need such an amendment but such are the times we live in.
And again this is not partisan, it's just simply where we are with the parties, with their ideologies and what they've chosen to embrace.
But not one Democrat in the Utah state senate would support that amendment, that amendment 3, two thirds of the legislature passed it, two thirds of the people passed it.
But it was the Republican difference that gave us that critical protection going into the future, and looking out to the control of congress question, the Democrats are on record saying that if they get control of congress they embrace same sex marriage, they're comfortable with liberal court decisions that adopt laws that the majority of people would never accept by popular vote.

Ken Verdoia: Shall we continue this?

Jim Matheson: I'd like to continue because I don't think it's fair to paint everyone with a broad brush in a political party.
There are some serious questions about certain people in congress right now according in a Republican congress.
But far be it from me to paint everybody in the Republican party with a broad brush.
But you're suggesting that all Democrats are the same.
Again this election is about who's going to represent you, and your choices are sitting right here.

LaVar Christensen: Ken, that requires a rebuttal.

Ken Verdoia: It does.

LaVar Christensen: The first vote, the only vote that you know you can count on is that when you go into your democratic caucus and you select Nancy Pelosi as your majority leader that platform.
This is not partisanship or meant to be disrespectful.
The New Jersey governor they had to change governor of the democrats because he had a scandal.
Breakdowns of character and morality know no partisan boundaries.
The Democrats and Republicans have bad examples.
That's my point.
Go back to the founders.
What did we expect?
What type of character did we expect from our leaders and from our congress?
But if you don't know where you're going any road will take you there and your moral beliefs are your compass.
I'm not interested in a weather VANE a compass that will continue to guide America.

Ken Verdoia: I want to go to an e-mail question we've received earlier this week and you were invited to e-mail those questions to us through our vote Utah web site at www.voteutah.org.
Let's go to this.
This question came from Robert in Price, and the question is, “it seems political parties and candidates are running away from the issue they all claimed a year ago--immigration.
Where do you stand on immigration?
Specifically, the millions of people already living illegally in this country.
Not border security, but the people that are already here.”
State Representative Christensen, first opportunity.

LaVar Christensen: Thank you.
That absolutely goes to the heart of the issue.
It's the hardest of all.
Because we're so compassionate.
Who could look into the eyes of another human being and not want to help them?
But 20 years ago we gave amnesty to 3 million illegals we thought it was a one-time phenomenon.
It opened the flood gates now we're up to 12 million.
The ultimate admission that the federal government has known about this problem for far too long is the fact they systematically fund and subsidize all 50 states.
We used to get $2 million a year in Utah.
It's down to $300,000.
Jim voted against the funding you would need to get equal to what the actual ramifications are.
There's huge issues here.
I serve on the law enforcement criminal justice committee.
You can't generalize.
And yet I look down at the prison population data and I weep when I see something that cries out, jumps out at you, 240-some illegals in our prison, 190 sex offenses, 40-some hundred murders.
That's not a snap shot of the entire population, there's so many people that come here with a dream hoping but they came here illegally and we have a system where we believe in the rule of law.
And your first act as a citizen is not to go out and break a law, and we can't reward that.
We have a backlog of over 3 million people looking for legal applications.
I personally helped a constituent in my district brought here at age 4 by the marines from Vietnam.
Took me over a year and I found out it's physically impossible to talk to a live human being in the U.S. immigration department.
But I helped him get citizenship.
But it took a huge effort to be able to do that.
So with those people that are here, you've got to be able to give them a window of time.
You're not going to do the amnesty.
All of the temporary programs won't be temporary.
And you're going to have to uphold your laws and you've got to mar the employers understand that and we have to address that window.
But we can't give them amnesty and we can't just simply embrace it.
We tried it 20 years ago.

Ken Verdoia: Representative Matheson I'm going to give you two minutes to respond to this subject.

Jim Matheson: Clearly our current set of immigration laws is not functioning well.
We don't know who is here or who is not here, and people aren't all playing by the rules, and none of us accept that.
That's just not the way it's supposed to be.
We should all be playing by the rules and everything should be accountable.
And so clearly there's a comprehensive set of issues that need to be address the here.
And the specific question was about those already here, and I don't condone anyone breaking the law, and that includes not just the people who are here without legal status--that includes the employers who are hiring them.
And I voted for legislation in the Hess of representatives that puts penalties on employers who do that.
Because it's not fair to the employers who do play by the rules.
I have a constituent in Murray who owns a landscaping business.
He always plays by the rules.
And with the slowdown of processing of immigration requests from visa requests, he had a summer where he missed getting people to come work for him.
He said what bothers me is I try to play by the rules and I lost a season of work.
My competitor hired people who weren't legal and they got the business for the year.
We have to change the set of rules that are dysfunctional and don't treat everyone fairly and I think while the folks are here, die not support amnesty you have to have some type of temporary guest worker component, bring people out of the shadows, everyone plays by the same rules, that's how you solve this system.
And while the question said it's about who's here and not border security it's comprehensive.
You have to have real border security as well.
You have to be able to monitor who is here, who comes, who goes, it's all part of a comprehensive effort to fix what is right now a completely dysfunctional system.

Ken Verdoia: 30 seconds each for rebuttal time.

LaVar Christensen: I know it's complicate the and difficult.
I've seen votes where Jim voted where he didn't support the position where he didn't hold the position of the employer, and where he didn't support strengthening the border in Canada.
Here's the one I want to talk about, I talked to a returning soldier just recently from Iraq who says LaVar I'm a dry-waller I lost my job when my employer told me he could hire an illegal cheaper than me and he sent me home.
That makes it vivid and real.

Ken Verdoia: Representative?

Jim Matheson: I'm scratching my head coming up with the Canadian border vote but all I can say is there's a separate vote just on Canadian border security I'm not aware of it.
And I think my record on border security is quite strong.

Ken Verdoia: We have time for one final question and each candidate will only get a 90-second opportunity to respond.
We won't have time for rebuttal.
Let's go to oversight.
Let me hold the microphone for you.

Audience Question: Our Constitution has a system of checks and balances between all branches of government.
Some of us think the congress has not done its job.
I wonder what your role is in congressional oversight over the executive branch?

Ken Verdoia: Representative Matheson you'll have the first 90-second opportunity.

Jim Matheson: A well-stated question.
Because the framers of the Constitution did set up this system of checks and balances and there's supposed to be a natural tension between the three branches where they keep an eye on each other.
My concern is partisanship has overwhelmed those institutional roles.
You do not have oversight going on in congress today, and you haven't had it going on since one party controls everything in Washington right now.
And let me give you a statistic that will bear that out.
Since Mr. Bush became president, the House of Representatives over the last six years has not issued one subpoena of the executive branch.
In the previous six years where there was a difference between party in the house and the white house, over 1,000 subpoenas were issued by the House of Representatives.
In my opinion, it shouldn't be a witch-hunt.  It’s about accountability.
It's about asking different agencies to tell us, are you doing your job?
And I've got to tell you there's a lot of questions that aren't getting asked.
Most agencies have trouble telling you where they're spending their money.
A quick example, the department of defense, 57 different, or excuse me 63 different agencies within the department of defense and 57 of them can't give you a clean audit of their books.
And congress hasn't held a hearing yet in an oversight context to say what are you doing with the money?
We owe that to the taxpayers.
And there are multiple stories of that type of lack of oversight and I think you're right on with that question and it's an institutional issue.
It shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Ken Verdoia: You're watching the clock closely now, representative Christensen your opportunity.

LaVar Christensen: If it all hinges on subpoenas I would submit that when president Clinton said at the beginning of his administration he wanted to change the character of the president I would say, did you ever.
And there were a lot of subpoenas during that time period.
We take an oath of office each of us to uphold the Constitution.
I think every congressman should read it, underline it, understand it-- know its origins.
The further back you can see the farther ahead you're likely to be able to see.
History is the foundation on which the present rests and the future depends.
A sponsored legislation in the state legislature to have auditors so that we would have zero-based budget so you don't go forward from year to year with this use it or lose it mentality on funding where you don't want to come clean.
We've had audits and we've found departments where they had waste.
But they wouldn't come clean and show it to you because they wanted to grow their department from year to year.
This is the taxpayers' money, and the only way to keep government from growing is to stop feeding it.
And so with that type of a background we do know.
But the checks and balance, the ultimate checks and balance on the branches, article 1, 2, 3, it's impeachment and the shocking thing is, is those Democrats that will take control of the committees have said they're just itching to terminate the war against terror and to conduct war against our president.
He was just here in August, had a chance to meet with them and talk to them about the war, and I think the people of Utah know he's a good, moral man with the weight of the world on his shoulders and we don't need that kind of contentiousness back in Utah.
Ken Verdoia: Much to my chagrin for the first time in my term of service as a moderator we have expended all of our time in the actual discussion of the issues and we will not have the opportunity for closing statements, so I have to say, representative Jim Matheson, my apologies for no closing statements, state representative LaVar Christensen thank you for being here, we are out of time.

Thank you for joining vote Utah, good night.