Utah GOP House of Representatives-District 2 Primary Debate

KEN VERDOIA>> Good evening. I'm Ken Verdoia. Welcome to KUED for another in our series of VoteUtah election debates. Tonight we turn our attention to Utah's Second Congressional District. You may recall in past years the Second District was largely an urban and suburban district. But with the new redistricting, it has been substantially redefined. In fact, it now plays host to the landscape of all five of Utah's national parks. Quite a change.

So let's go straight to our candidates this evening. The Democratic candidate in the second district is the incumbent, first-term representative Jim Matheson. The Republican candidate is a veteran of the Utah State legislature, State Representative John Swallow.

Prior to air-time, a coin toss determined the first opening statement of two minutes would go to Representative Matheson.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON>> Thank you, Ken. Two years ago as a candidate I promised that I'd be an independent voice that would stand up for the state of Utah. As a congressman, that's exactly what I've done. I've tried to take an approach where I think that both parties have good ideas, neither party is a monopoly on all good ideas, and I think I've stood up for that what this state needs. And that's an important approach as we look at challenges we face as a country. We face some very serious issues today. National security, the war on terrorism has created a whole new series of threats none of us were thinking about two years ago. Our economy is not going in the right direction. Education…we still need to find better ways because investment in our children is among the most important things we can do. Social Security baby boomers are going to retire in a few years. Prescription drugs, we've told people we'd provide a benefit for seniors. Congress hasn't done it yet.

These issues I've just mentioned are all complicated issues. They're issues that require a lot of good thought. There's not a one-size fits-all answer. The approach I take to this job, the approach I take to stand up for the state of Utah that's the approach we need in Utah. We need to set partisan aside we
need to work together to tackle these very difficult problems because that's the purpose of Congress is to solve problems and achieve progress.

KEN VERDOIA>> And now a 2-minute opening statement from Representative John Swallow. Representative Swallow.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW>> Thank you. Good evening. It's great to be with you this evening. And I appreciate the opportunity to share my feelings and thoughts with you as we're entering this debate in this election cycle and season. A few months ago I had the opportunity to meet with our president, President Bush in the white house. He's a wonderful leader. We talked about the issues that are important to Utah, issues like the economy, issues like the war on terror and national security, education and land use. He needs strong leadership in Washington to help him as he leads America, and he needs Americans' support. This is an important time that I'm running for election so I can be a fighter for the issues that are important for Utah. These issues are very important
and I will be a leader because I believe that local control can determine a lot of the issues that we're facing, whether it comes to land use for education, no one knows better than a community what is in its own best interests.

This is an important election beyond the issues as well, because the vote that we cast in the second district could very well determine who is in control of congress in the next two or three years. Obviously President Bush is a Republican and he's sought hard and long to fight and lead our country. If we have Republican leadership working with him, he will be able to fight for an agenda that will lead America in the way that he believes America needs to be led. As I said, with President Bush I'm proud to be a Republican. I'm an
independent-thinking Republican, but when it comes right down to it in Washington, Washington is a game where the majority party leads. President Bush needs leaders leading with him, people who will work with him. I will be a Republican who will fight for the independent thinking Utahn, as well as for
a Republican leadership in Washington that will support our President and help him lead America the way America needs to be led today. Thank you very much.

KEN VERDOIA>> Thank you, gentlemen. Now our questions tonight will come from our studio audience literally the voices of Utah representing the issues that are most important to them. Each candidate will have a 90-second opportunity for initial response and then an additional 30 seconds for rebuttal to comment on what they've heard from their opponent. Let's begin with a question on health care.

QUESTION>> Given that nearly 14 percent of Utahns are uninsured, that health care costs are out of control, and way out of pace with inflation, that Americans have poor health indicators compared to other western industrialized nations, given these facts, if it were up to you to build a better health care
system where would you start? Where would we end up? How would it be financed?

KEN VERDOIA>> Representative Swallow, please take the first 90-second opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW>> Thank you. That is a very important question for Utah and for America. Health care is one of those key issues like Social Security that will take a lot of thought. As bad as it is with those who are uninsured in
Utah, there are certain communities here in Utah that have far less insurance than those that follow the quote that you mentioned with 14 percent. I think the answer to health care is not to nationalize or federalize health care but it's to provide opportunities for people to have a little more say in where their health insurance comes from. I'm for portability of health insurance. I'm also for an ability for people to not have to have insurance with their business and to have the same tax breaks as individuals as they have in their corporations and the business right now which will take tax reform. I also think that a key component of health care is to stop the mandates.

In the state legislature I've consistently fought against health care mandates. It increases the price of health care and makes it so many businesses make a decision not to find health care coverage for employees. If we work for more
personal choice give tax breaks to individuals and give that flexibility and stop mandates I believe health care will be more affordable for all Americans and that will help solve the problem.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> You've raised two very critical issues related to health care. One is about cost and the other is about access. I think these are the issues of the decade quite frankly they're very complicated issues. When it
comes to cost there are a myriad of causes that create increases in health cost in our country. We need to look at those and try to streamline our system. Medicare for example is ripe for reform and Medicare represents half of the money spent on health care in this country.

We need to have doctors and patients making decisions, not insurance companies. We need to look at prescription drug costs. The president just today actually announced his proposal to try to limit the ability of companies to prevent generic drugs from coming to market and so I think that's something we ought to be taking a look at, the United States Senate has already addressed that issue.
But prescription drug costs are one of the critical components of cost increases in health care. When it comes to access we've taken some actions to try to address uninsured. Community health centered are funded by the federal
government and it's been a good successful program.

We've also created the children's health insurance program. The Utah's chip program has been very suck successful. That hasn't solved this problem. I'm suggesting there have been steps taken to try to provide good affordable health care to everyone.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Swallow, your opportunity for rebuttal.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I think it was explained very well by both sides.

KEN VERDOIA >> Then let's move on to Representative Matheson.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> I just have to point out on the CHIP Program, which I think is very effective, my opponent voted against creating CHIP twice in our legislature in 1998. I think that's been a successful program in providing health care to children.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Swallow care to waive your rebuttal time?

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I'm happy to waive it.

KEN VERDOIA >> Thank you.

QUESTION>> Within the next 30 years, the number of retired persons will be two to one for the work force. To support Social Security under these conditions, taxes are going to have to be doubled or tripled. We obviously can't keep Social Security solvent under those circumstances and reform is a really big issue. I don't think either party has come up with a viable realistic approach to reforming it. What would you do to reform Social Security?

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Matheson, the first opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> You stated the question well in that there's not a solution to this. There's also not an immediate problem fortunately. The program as it's designed today is going to be solvent until the year 2041 but there's no question we ought to be making decisions now to prepare for the impending retirement of the baby boomers and when the program would otherwise become insolvent by 2041. One of the first things we ought to do is not spend Social Security surplus on other government expenditures. Everyone in congress votes about talking about the lock box, but it got picked pretty quickly when we started running deficits.

We need a viable program where that surplus is used to retire publicly held debt that's going to extend the livelihood of. I want to raise taxes you suggested that was one of the, I don't want to do that. You we need to find ways to have our systems have perhaps a greater return on the pool of money. I hope we can find a solution.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Swallow.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> This is a very critical issue as well as health care. A few days ago I was having lunch on a Sunday with my grandparents who live in Utah, and my grandfather asked me that very question. He asked, “What are you going to do for me with respect to these benefits?”

Social Security is not something that we just give to people because we happen to be nice people. These are benefits that people have earned and actually paid for. And I believe we have a moral obligation as Americans, and as a congress to
make sure that we do everything necessary to protect those benefits for those who have paid in and earned those benefits, like my grandparents.

I believe the real solution of Social Security is a long-term solution. You find few people in public office that are willing to look past the next two years or four years or six years whatever their term might be. This solution will require four principles. First, require a commitment not to raise the premiums. Second a
commitment not to extend the years before you're entitled to receive these benefits. Third, it will require that we make sure that all people who are entitled to these benefits receive the benefits. And fourth, it'll make sure we don't privatize Social Security. I'm a big believer in personal savings accounts and having a portion of the benefits or, excuse me, the premiums paid into a personal account that a person can actually use and manage and provide perhaps a higher return.

And I believe in taking care of Social Security through a two-tiered approach. Giving the younger generation an opportunity to really have a personal say in how a portion of their funds are managed to increase the return and the
benefit.

KEN VERDOIA >> rebuttal time, gentlemen?

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> If it looked like a duck. He supports individual accounts - he said so in the mailing that the AARP put out this week. He supports creating individual accounts where the money will be put at risk. When you have that proposal part and parcel of that is a cut in the guaranteed benefits. I don't support such a plan.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Swallow, your time.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> You bet. He's talking about a resolution passed in the legislature which did exactly what I said. It provides an option for personal savings account accounts which is not privatization. It should not be completely privatized but if we don't do something to give people a little more flexibility than what they do and have an ability to take a portion of their retirement and actually invest it and increase the rate of return we'll have no
choice but to raise taxes. You can't have it both ways.

KEN VERDOIA >> And let's go back to our audience for another question.

QUESTION >> My understanding of initiative 1 is it does three things: it restricts higher level of radioactive wastes from coming into our state, it imposes a fair tax on radioactive waste that is already here, and with those revenues going to education and the homeless, and it also institutes regulatory
oversight. What are your positions on what appears to be a reasonable and creative solution for both restricting Utah from being further used as a nuclear dumping site and financially benefitting the state in terms of education and
the homeless at the same time?

KEN VERDOIA >> Well, there was a statement of personal interest if I've ever heard one. Representative Swallow you have the first 90-second opportunity to respond.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> Thank you. You know, education funding has been something we've grappled with as a legislature for a number of years. We've done what we can, and we're looking for ways to fund education because it's a
top priority issue. I think this is important to the state government as national security is to the federal government.

But I don't believe initiative one is the way to go. It targets attacks on one individual enterprise, one company here in Utah. As I understand the figures it would raise the tax substantially so high that even Tooele county commissioners believe it will put the business out of business, Envirocare. I don't think that's good tax policy.

I believe we need to fund education responsibly. We need to look for ways to find more funding, to increase the dollars per pupil we spend in the state of Utah, and there are many ways to do that. But it's going to take a collective effort and a fair taxation and not one-sided taxation which has been proposed in initiative 1, and that's why we oppose it.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Matheson.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> Well often I think it's better to create law by legislation than by initiative but I think it's important the citizens have the right to move with an initiative when they feel like the legislature is not taking on an issue. In terms of initiative 1 while it may not be written exactly the way you or I would write it, I think that it does achieve some important goals.

First of all, I'm tired of this state being the dumping ground for nuclear waste and in addition to the low-level waste where it would have an additional fee put on it for dumping it would ban higher levels, higher radioactive levels of waste coming to this state. I think that's a reasonable thing to do and so while this is a state issue is and I'm not going to be voting on it, as an individual in this state when I go and vote I'll be voting for initiative 1.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Swallow.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I think that just shows a little inexperience on tax issues. I've been on the revenue taxation committee a number of years. What will happen if we make it a one-business extraordinary tax on this company is
the market will drive this company out of Utah to another state and what will happen is the state of Utah will lose the revenue and lose the opportunity to have a good business that pays its taxes, pays its share. I think that's bad tax
policy. We ought to avoid the temptation of try to solve the entire education funding problem with one better and work together to get a real solution for.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> The question is, where are they going to go? Only three states take this waste right now. We charge a lower dumping fee than the other two. So I'm going to have to see that there's an opportunity this waste is not going to have a place to go if we raise the fee too high.

KEN VERDOIA >> This question comes from the internet, a viewer has tapped in on their internet e-mail system a question to us through www.voteutah.org, and out of Vernal actually, there's been a lot of talk about war. Please tell me when you think a president is justified to give an order to attack, and when should congress vote to declare a state of war? Representative Matheson, your first opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> Well I voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force by the president. That was a difficult vote to take and I think it's one all members of congress took very seriously. And I have to say that this is
not a resolution saying let's go to war right now. I don't think anybody in this country wants war as our first option.

I think they hope the military option is our last option but we do recognize the threat that Saddam Hussein represents. This is a guy who has repeatedly lied to the international community, he has used weapons of mass destruction on people
living in his own country, he has got the chemical and biological weapons today he's developing nuclear weapons no doubt about it. I got a chance to participate in a number of classified briefings and that's why I got comfortable
supporting that resolution. I had the opportunity to meet with President Bush. About a dozen members of congress sat down and talked to the president and asked him about his desire to work through the U.N. and through the international
community to try to effect disarmament and he said that's his first choice and that's what he wants to do and I believe him in that regard.

In the context of all that information that I had received I made the decision it was appropriate to support the resolution to go to war.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Swallow?

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I think the decision to go to war is always one of the most difficult decisions a president or congress will make. I believe though in America right now we're facing an opposition and enemy unlike any we've ever
faced in our history. Think about the potential and the power of a nation having the ability to send out weapons of mass destruction that could debilitate cities and even states in some instances.

I've met with President Bush as well. He's a good man, I can tell that he loves America and he'd never make a political decision to go to war and put our soldiers in danger. So I want you to know that I would support the president as well as a citizen. Right now I'm not in congress so I'm not privy to the information Congressman Matheson or Jim Hansen would be, but I can say I trust that man, our congressional leaders who have made the decision to support the President, and I hope that through diplomacy that we can convince that country and those leaders to disarm and to do something that would save us the need to go to war and to protect American lives.

KEN VERDOIA >> I want to go back to the email for your 30-second time. The writer says please tell me when you think a president is justified to give an order to attack. That's really what he's getting at. I don't think he's asking you about the Iraq, he's asking you in kind of an abstract sense, when should the president pick up the phone and say "go"? Representative Matheson?

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> It's a fair question without an easy answer but I do think that you have to have a compelling reason before a president would ever want to make that type of decision. You're going to have to have clear and imminent danger to innocent American lives. I think those are the criteria I'd like to see followed before any decision was made to take military action.

KEN VERDOIA >> And Representative Swallow, your opportunity? When should a president say "go"?

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I think when he has no other option. I think every other option should be taken before he says go. It should only happen when there's imminent danger and high needs to go to war and actually put our people at risk and to open up other thing that is could happen in repercussion to America by making that decision.

KEN VERDOIA >> Let's come back to our studio audience for the next question.

QUESTION >> Democrat leadership in congress has indicated that repealing or scaling back President Bush's tax cut is their preference. What is your level of support for the tax cut, and how will your election help protect the tax cut?

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Swallow the first opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> Thank you. I believe strongly that we did the right thing when we passed the Bush tax cut package and I would have voted to make that tax cut permanent this past spring. I think it's important to have a philosophy on tax cuts and I personally believe that tax cuts places dollars back into consumer pockets or the pockets of business owners and allows the economy to degree.

When you send John Swallow back to congress you will be sending a proven tax fighter. Just recently I received the endorsement of the national taxpayers union as someone who will be very strong on tax cutting issues. When you talk about tax cuts think about John Swallow I'll be working to keep tax dollars in
your pocket.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Matheson, your opportunity to respond to the issue of the tax cut.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> Sure, well I supported the tax cut when it passed Congress last year, one of 28 Democrats to do so. I thought it was the right thing to do at the time. I thought it was unfortunate that in terms of the compromise that came up on that tax cut that it had this sunset where everything expired at the end of nine years that was unfortunate particularly some of the provisions of the tax cut like the estate tax elimination. How can you do estate
planning when it goes away one year and comes back the next. Do you tell people they should die in that one year? That's absurd. So I thought the expiration date on it was bad. That's the bill that came before congress I voted for
it.

Since that time we've had specific votes about extending the tax cut and making it permanent. On tax cuts that require long-term planning such as the estate tax, such as expanded IRA and retirement savings, and also elimination of the
marriage penalty. I voted to permanent lip extend that tax cut right now. In terms of the marginal rate cut I don't know what the economy is going to look like in nine years and there's not a compelling reason to have to vote on that
today. We have this war on terrorism, home land security additional costs to our government I'm comfortable letting that decision sit out there until we get closer to that 9-year expiration.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I think it's interesting to listen to people talk about what they've done in congress when the truth is something just a little different. The first time the Bush tax cut came to a vote Representative
Matheson voted no on party lines. It wasn't until it came back until he finally I believe caved in to pressure have voted yes.

We need to understand what people are doing behind the scenes when they talk about supporting the president. The tax cut was an important thing for America and I would have led out in support of the tax cut all of the way.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Matheson.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> The first time we got to vote we didn't even have a budget so I voted no. Talk about caving in %9X19Y19Z19[19\19]1##9_19`19a19b1
for my courage for voting for that tax cut. It took a lot of pressure to vote against my party leadership but I chose to do that. So when it comes to a record of standing up for good tax cuts that's what I ended up doing.

KEN VERDOIA >> We're going to return to the audience for the next question again an economic issue but let's think globally.

QUESTION >> Many Americans are realizing they're facing a long-term economic crisis of low wages and partial unemployment. As a result we are experiencing increases rates of crime, homelessness and hunger. Hidden is the massive trade deficit threatening our long-term national growth pension plans and national security. What expectations, what explanations can you give for the frayed deficit and the current domestic crisis, and if elected would you promote progressive ideas in your staff policies by consulting the center of economic
policy and research and pledge to provide an annual report that accounts for every tax dollar returning to Utah?

KEN VERDOIA >> Thank you. Now's a good time for me to admonish our studio audience about information now provided you three times, this is not a forum for the statement of political speeches, this is an appropriate forum for the introduction of issues, one of which has been appropriately introduced,
which is a big picture issue of our economic well-being trade deficits.

I can't identify the total laundry list that was put before us but Representative Matheson I will let you choose from that list to respond as
comprehensively as you can to this gentleman.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> Well, there's no question we ought to be concerned about the fact that we are running a trade deficit where we are behind every month, every month we are sending more money out of this country, or more goods and services and value out of this country than come back in. And that is not an easy thing to fix quite frankly; if it was we would have done it already.

But I am a believer in having open trade, and that's a position I've taken in congress because I think it makes good economic sense. And I think that we have to make sure that we are aggressive if we believe in open trade in holding our trading partners accountable as well which we have not been doing. I think
there are a number of situations where American products are prevented from being sold overseas because other countries are putting up inappropriate trade barriers and if we want to talk open trade which I think request should we need our partners to have the same level of attitude that we ought to have open trade with them as well that's the way to help.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Swallow, your opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I can't say I disagree a lot with
that statement. I'm also in favor of open trade and I think free trading as much as possible is good for America. We have to hold that in balance in some form and make sure that we keep a strong domestic economy. One of the examples is our national energy policy and the imports that we have. We need to make sure that we are working strongly to make sure that we have the development of the resources here in this country so that we can continue to be strong domestically and solve a lot of needs for ourselves while continuing to have open borders and
the trade we need in this country?

KEN VERDOIA >> Let me offer a follow up question. In recent years we have seen some very pointed protests about concerns with world trade, with impacts on
developing nations. I don't like to use the phrase third world but exploitive
policies that punish developing nations yet we somehow as Americans pride ourselves as being an economic force for good in this world. Are we?

I'm going to give you a minute each, are we an economic force for good, or are we a heavy-handed big brother that's doing more harm than good in the global economy. Representative Matheson take the first shot.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> When you look at the history we have a chequered past in that regard and I think when it comes to trade policy and we talk about the world trade organization which has attracted protests I have to say that's an organization that I don't think reflects the process and the values that our country has in terms of being an open transparent Democratic organization and I'm really concerned about that.

If we really believe in the notion that open and free trade is a good thing then the governing body ought to be an open and transparent entity that allows points of view to be put forth, allows debate in the public point of view. I'm concerned we need to reform the WTO so it better reflects the type of open democracy we appreciate in this country.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I agree. I think we need to make sure our trade policy does reflect the fact that we in America do have an ability to be a good neighbor in trade. I really appreciate the fact that a lot of our goods are going out, and that we are able to influence other countries, third
world countries through our trade policies and products and goods and through the opportunities that we can share as a country. And so I support that and I think it's an important part of America.

KEN VERDOIA >> We have passed the midway point of this exchange and I do want to remind you of another source of information that's available at your finger tips. We invite you to join us at our web site, the Vote Utah partnership web
site, www.voteutah.org. There you'll find candidate profiles, background information on statewide ballot issues, and assistance in understanding the new look of Utah's congressional districts including point and click map that is
are accurate down to one city block that can help you. Believe me that's necessary this year understanding what district you're in in a newly-con figured political map of Utah.

Join us and let's go back to our studio audience for our next question.

QUESTION >> President Bush has proposed a substantial cut in funding for the securities and exchange commission. I'm outraged at the corporate misdoings. I wonder if you would support that decrease in funding, and if so, if you have any other ideas about how to make our corporations responsible?

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Swallow, why don't you take the first opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I'm proud that the Republican house was really the author and perhaps the mind and genius behind the latest corporate anti-corporate fraud bill that was passed by both houses in congress. It's important that Americans as we look through this economy that we have, the crisis we have right now with our markets, that we have a way of combating fraud and sending a signal back to consumers they can invest, if you have a problem, if you commit fraud, if you do white-collar crime you're going to go to today.

We're going to hold you responsible for any fraud that you commit to the shareholders. I think that's so important and we've neglected that. But I think we've taken an appropriate response as a government. We can go too far but having the laws in place and enforcing the laws to send a message if you commit white collar crime in America you're going to prison and lose your assets. I think it's a powerful signal and I'm proud of our government for taking that bold step, for the Republican leadership in that area, and I hope it makes a
difference.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Matheson.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> Well, first of all there's no question we need to beef up the Securities and Exchange Commission funding. They are woefully under funded and unable to do their job to hold people accountable and I think that
initial budget submitted by the administration last, earlier this year is not going to be adhered to.

I think there is a strong bipartisan desire in congress to adequately fund the
securities and exchange commission. The legislation congress passed was a good example of when the parties come together and work together to come up with a good solution. The legislation for corporate accountability that the president
signed into law creates an overnight board for the securities and exchange commission of regular citizens it increases the penalties it asks CEO's to sign off personally on financial statements. There was a problem of conflict with interest where accounting firms were providing consulting services to
the same client. They can't do that any more with this legislation. It's a
very good piece of legislation the senate took the lead on that under Senator Bains and I'm glad the house joined in on that. It was a good first step in addressing what's a very born problem for our country.

KEN VERDOIA >> I sense agreement. Do we need rebuttal time on this issue?
Representative Swallow?

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> No.

KEN VERDOIA >> Let's go to our next issue because this is a big issue that needs attention.

QUESTION >> With education funding in Utah in crisis, I'd like to know how you view the federal role, given that the federal contribution to education in Utah is at about 7 percent, how many you view the federal role in helping to fund our public schools?

KEN VERDOIA >> And Representative Matheson, please take the first 90-second opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> Well. The federal role should be very limited quite frankly. Education is a state and local function and that's how it should be in terms of administration and curriculum decisions that's something I think is very important. The federal government has played a role in a few situations that are very important. It's taken a look at folks in disadvantaged situations, special education being one, and also in terms of title 1 schools for people in low socioeconomic neighborhoods.

But it's important that the federal government is going to be involved we have
fewer strings attached. I think that the president's legislation the leave no child behind act which I supported moved in that direction. It consolidated programs and was a good step in terms of trying to maintain that federal-state relationship.

Let me jump to a completely different. That is from a land policy standpoint
we need to consolidate these state school trust lands. When my dad was in office as governor 20 years ago he made a big deal about this issue it's hard to get it done because it takes an act of congress but I'm going to try to consolidate
the school trust lands that's another potential source of revenues for our school kids.

KEN VERDOIA >> rebuttal time? Your initial response to this issue, sorry. I'm jumping ahead of myself.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> What can be more important for a state than education funding? And I appreciate the question. The role of federal government in education ought to be diminished to some extent and the money we save from diminishing that role can be passed back to the states including Utah without strings attached and that's one of the ways I can help as a congressman fund education in Utah.

The other way that I think is significant is an initiative being pushed in the western states, and what it does is compensates for the extensive land management and ownership that the federal government has in the state of Utah where 68 percent of our lands between the nations and the federal government
are owned by the federal government. We're losing all of the revenues pretty much, there are some payments we receive but we're losing a lot of the action planned for public lands, and education is something I'll be pushing. I've worked with several legislators in congress about this initiative, it's a
powerful initiative and it will provide utah and the western states with moneys from the federal government to compensate for the lack of ownership of the lands, or at least the use of the lands, the revenues that come from the lands in the western states where there's such a disproportionate amount owned by the federal government versus the east coast.

These are two ways to help us get out of education. I would not have supported the president's bill. It is important that we decrease the role of the federal government instead of increase the role.

KEN VERDOIA >> Now we are in rebuttal time.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> That is the difference. He supported the president's bill and quite frankly the president used to be the governor of Texas. My opponent has voted for abolishing the department of education. That goes too far.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> Let me say this about the bill. Senator Bennett voted against it as well. When it was first passed a lot of people wondered what was going on when he would vote against a bill like that. Now we're finding the
local school districts throughout as I've traveled it creates more unfunded mandates on the state. s. We don't need that kind of intervention from Washington. It's a local issue the best thing to do is send the money back to the state without strings attached and let the local districts and people and
educators decide how education will be funded in Utah.

KEN VERDOIA >> Our next question again comes from the internet, a viewer in Hanksville has a very pointed and direct question. What do you want to do with the land known as the San Raphael swell? Representative Swallow the first
90-second opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> Thank you. That's a difficult question. I certainly believe that these types of decision ought to be made by local people and I appreciate this initiative is going to actually be on the ballot in Emery County where it's affected in rural Utah.

When we talk about increasing the protected areas within the state, and more
federal involvement over those lands, it really should be a local decision. And the local people ought to have a big input in that. I also think if we're going to do that I support land swaps like the land swap that's going through,
and hopefully that will make a big difference as we consider what to do with those lands there. But again, these federal land issues that have become so much part of the federal government ought to be decided at a local level with local
input so that local residents and citizens can have say into how their lands are managed.

I believe that they're local issues and the federal government should stay further and further away from them as they are right now.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Matheson?

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> The San Raphael swell is a special place. I've spent a lot of time there, and it's an area that deserves a lot of consideration. I don't know that monument designation is necessarily the best way to go. I know
Governor Leavitt has approached the president and asked him to move in that direction.

But what I do like about the process that has been outlined that the governor has initiated is that it encourages a lot of different stake holders to sit around and table and talk about this land, and talk about the future of this land, and what type of protections or uses that should take place on that land. That sounds like a better way to approach these decisions to get people within the state of Utah talk about that than having someone make a decision with the stroke of a pen.

I'm hopeful that process will work out in that context and the people develop good consensus. That may be a template for the rest of the state. We'll have
to see how it goes and I'm supportive of having active public involvement.

KEN VERDOIA >> In behalf of the gentleman who emails from
Hanksville, %I71I81I91I:1I;1I<1I=1I>1I?1And I appreciate the sensitivities you both have expressed to local voices, what is your personal voice on this issue of the San Raphael swell. Greater protection? Less protection? No protection? What do you think?

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I think that, personally, I think that we have a problem with locking away our natural resources. We have an ability to protect these lands. We have been in Utah ever since Utah was, the state of Utah was
formed, and we gained state hood and before obviously we've taken good care of these lands. I feel like there's enough federal control over our lands without adding another layer or another monument. There are ways to protect these lands,
and like I said before, I'm going to leave it to the local community because I don't live in that community but my inclination is we have enough federally-protected land, and I want to go slowly, make sure I understand what the people
want there, but my inclination is to say no unless an overwhelming majority of the people want to designate it as a monument.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative?

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> I said it's a special place. There aren't a lot of natural resources there in terms of energy development or mineral development possibilities. The concern we have right now, and it's what's really just erupted in the last few years is the massive infusion of off-road vehicles.
Most everyone who uses off-road vehicles behaves in responsible ways, stays on trails, there are a few folks who are irrelevant responsible and they do damage to the land and that's what I think is forcing this issue to the table more
now than it used to be.

We have to take some real tough decisions in the state to try to decide if there are pieces of land that ought to be protected. I've met with a number of sportsmen in our state. There's some critical wildlife habitat within the San Raphael swell where the elk herds. They're concerned in that particular area. Those are the issues we need to be looking at.

KEN VERDOIA >> Let's go back to our studio audience.

QUESTION >> The United States has a system of separation of powers and checks and balances. Recently the scales have been tipped toward the executive branch. In the past year the Department of Justice has obtained broad new police powers shrouded with secrecy which alter our concepts of due process and privacy.
Do you think congress should monitor and evaluate the government's creation and use of these new powers, and if so, how?

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Matheson, first opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> Well of course Congress should monitor everything the executive branch is doing. I think that's incumbent on the system of government we have with the separation of powers that congress conducts that oversight
role and I would support that.

Now, in terms of the particular issues you're raising, first of all, congress did pass legislation that did expand some of the powers of the justice department in the aftermath of September 11th. And there was great concern about if it was an effort that was going to be trampling on certain civil liberties of
individuals. One thing congress did to try to make sure that congress didn't overstep its bounds was it put an expiration date on that of five years. So it said if we went too far all this will go away and the only way to make it happen after that is it will require an affirmative vote of congress to create that again.

You mentioned the executive branch as moving further. You're right. The justice department set up a program called the tips program where they want to get your meter reader and cable guy to spy on you? Congress passed legislation saying we will not fund one dollar for that program. So they've told the executive branch
you're going too far.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Swallow, your opportunity?
REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I think that's a very important question and I agree. We can go too far if we're not careful. I believe and support Congress' role in watching the executive branch and having a healthy, if you want to say, competition or whatever you want to say but a stewardship between the two. We call it a healthy attention between the legislature and the governor's office here in Utah. I am also concerned about the expanded powers, but we're facing a time in our history like I said that's unprecedented. We are facing an enemy that we can't see, that has massive power to destroy, and is very creative in dangerous, has no respect for life at all. I've actually come out on record and saying I was concerned about the quote unquote patriot act asking. I think the sunset provision should have been much shorter than five years. I think we should force Congress on a more regular basis to go in and make sure we still need that authority.

I know that'll be inconvenient but the price of freedom is never convenient and we need to stand vigilantly for the freedoms that we have and be willing to pay that price for freedom.

KEN VERDOIA >> Rebuttal time? Okay then I'm going to ask this gentleman in the front row, would you please stand up. I'd like to give you the opportunity to ask the next question. Representative Swallow, you'll respond first.

QUESTION >> What can you do to assist that segment of students who have, through their hard work worked really hard to get through high school, would like to go to college but cannot do that because of their legal status here in this country, the house and the senate passed a wonderful piece of legislation this past year but we need the federal level. What can we do to help them out?

KEN VERDOIA >> What about these people who don't have quote unquote legal status in this country in their desire to pursue higher education.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> That's a powerful question. It's going to force us as a country to really examine and understand better where we want to be on our immigration policies and the benefits for those undocumented workers in our country.

My feeling is that we ought to do what we can to really re-examine our policy and decide where we want to be, streamline the ability of people who are undocumented to be here legally and to receive those documents that will make it
so that they are here and can receive the benefits that are important to people who live here, work here, raise children here, pay taxes here and contribute to society.

I was one of those in the legislature who thought we ought to solve the problem first before we enacted that legislation. I'll be frank I voted no on that bill because I believe we ought to create a process where people can be here legally in a documented way and then provide them all the benefits they need to have.

As a matter of congressional action, we ought to find, we ought to go through the same process, find a way to help people here without documentation become here legally and par take of all the benefits of being here, documented working
and benefitting and contributing to the American society.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Matheson?

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> I've cosponsored the legislation, this is what Congressman Cannon has supported in terms of the federal level giving the states the ability to offer education to kids who have grown up in this country, gone to public schools you suggested and want to go to college but they don't have legal status. I think that's a reasonable step to take.

It does highlight a broader issue about the fact that our system is broken when it comes to discouraging people who want to play by the rules from being able to play by the rules, and we need to examine our immigration policy, we need to perform our immigration policy, because we need to have a situation where people who want to be here as productive members of society can do so. And right now the immigration and naturalization service, the INS is one of the most dysfunctional agencies in the government in my opinion. It does not encourage people to play by the rules. It frustrates people, it doesn't act with good customer service, if you will and I think it's incumbent on congress to take on that issue and make sure that agency does a better job.

KEN VERDOIA >> Rebuttal time? Okay, let's move on to our next question. Ma'am, will you stand up and I will give you the microphone. What was your
question?

QUESTION >> If elected, what will you do to help clear up the backlog of federal judge nominees?

KEN VERDOIA >> Now, is that possible for a member of the house of representatives? Let's give Representative Matheson the first opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> That solely takes place in the United States senate for confirmation of judges and other presidential appointments. So as a member of the house of representatives it would be difficult for anyone in the house
of representatives to have a significant role in that regard.

I've spoken out all along critical of both parties over the last twelve or fifteen, maybe even twenty years in terms of their lack of action in the Senate. This is a bipartisan problem that's taken place over the last few years. I
introduced a nominee from Utah who was nominated for the Tenth Circuit a few weeks ago in the Senate hearing but quite frankly there's not much more that people on the house of representative side can do.

KEN VERDOIA >> If not an actual job from the representative second district, what's your opinion on the whole issue of the federal judiciary and the backlog?

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I think when we have party politics in Washington the sad reality is you have party politics in Washington. As much as I dislike that and perhaps my opponent dislikes it as well as he said and I respect that opinion, at the end of the day, the party that's in control, controls the
chairmanships. And so it may not matter that much how we vote except that vote when we decide in this game the person with the most members, or the body with the most members sets the rules, appear points the chairman and in this case the
Democratic party is in control of the senate we have a Republican president trying to get judges confirmed and he can't. It's grid lock caused by a party that's in control, a chairman who's in control, and by that one vote we lost Orrin hatch who would have been the senate chairman and in charge of moving those nominees forward. It's indicative of the problem but the reality is we have the opportunity to support President Bush and if it comes down to one vote in the house it will be very important to send leadership to Washington to
control congress is a real issue in our every day lives.

KEN VERDOIA >> Okay, question came in from Grand County just this afternoon. The Second District now contains Utah's five national parks, which is going to force the next representative to be a forceful advocate, if not a fan, of the national park system. Assess the health of our national parks, and specifically what do you think is needed at the Utah parks, which he goes on to list. The health, if you, relative to health, Representative Matheson, the first 90-second opportunity to respond to this.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> Well, the health is not good right now. We have a significant backlog in our national park system of projects to maintain those facilities. It's a serious problem we have, and it's a budget issue that has
been faced by congress for years, or actually I should say congress hasn't faced it for year sos I'm very concerned about these wonderful assets in our country.

Obviously we have five here in Utah and there are national parks throughout the country. We have to make a decision about how much we value those. I think personally I value them very much and it's incumbent on us to maintain the funding levels to maintain these facilities. Millions of people visit our
national park goes every year, and that provides some wear and tear and it's up to us to make sure we provide those parks the type of maintenance they need to maintain the quality we enjoy.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Swallow.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> Thank you. It's a powerful question and we have a lot of scenic areas in our state and we need to protect them and to invest the resources into those to make them beautiful and that people across the nation can enjoy those.

I was at Brianhead a few weeks ago on top of the mountain at Brian head and I was able to observe first hand the damage caused by the bark beetle. I call it the gray forest. If you haven't been up there, you ought to go up and see the damage that damage was caused because back in '92 or '93 when they discovered the problem, there were challenges to the forest management. And that's why I really appreciate what President Bush is doing, and Gale Norton, the interior
secretary, is trying to come up with a better forest management for our country that talks about responsible management and takes care of our forests. That's very important as we consider where we're going from here.

But if we don't manage our beautiful areas, our national parks and our forests in the state, then we'll have serious problems and that's one of the concerns I have about some of these so-called careful environmental groups that I think are
quite out of control. Really stopping healthy management of our areas and causing more damage than they'd ever hoped to cause by judge letting things be taken care of by a good strong management system.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Matheson? Okay. Would you like to stand up and I will stand up with you. You have the next question.

QUESTION >> Good evening. Two years ago research conducted by Lake Research showed that the majority of Utahns, 60 to 75 percent, depending on their party affiliation, support legislatively-mandated equity in insurance coverage of
contraceptives. What is your stance on contraceptive equity?

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Swallow?

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> You know I kind of mentioned this earlier when I was talking about health care. One of the problems we have is we have a tendency as a government to try to solve all our problems. I noticed in the legislature that
it's always easier for someone to say well here's a problem let's not let market forces take care of it but legislate a quick solution that way everybody's happy and we can go home. What people fail to realize is the cost and the burden of
those mandates as we talk about insurance mandates and equity and everything else you talk about. What happens is who pays for those benefits?
Businesses pay for those benefits. Who pays for business? Well consumers who buy products or services pay for business.

The more you increase the costs on business, then the less likely you are to grow business, and the less likely it is for business to provide any benefits at all to employees. I'm a little more concerned in fact quite a bit more concerned
about the numbers of people who are not insured, and I don't want to do anything that would increase the costs of that insurance. Artificially by government interaction or intervention. So my policy will be I will not be supporting
mandates to coverage. I will let the market take care of that and ploy the flexibility so people don't have to go through their employer to be insured so they can find the program that covers what they want to have covered.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Matheson?

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> I've supported contraceptive equity at the federal level. I think it's the right thing to do.

KEN VERDOIA >> I've been caught flat-footed on this one. In the remaining time we have which is limited about a minute each for you to respond to this question. You've obviously given great time to the issues that are affecting not only Utah's second congressional district but our nation at this time. Is this an election of war? Is this an election of the economy? What do you think the voters are signaling to you as their pre-eminent concern at this point in time on this October date Representative Matheson, how are you reading the
public?

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> Both of those issues are being mentioned by a lot of people. I don't see the national security issues as being necessarily a differentiating issue in this election quite frankly. I do think that when people generally tend to vote their pocket book in most elections I think the economy will come to the fore once again and I think it's important we have a good discussion about that because a lot of people are hurting in this economy right now.

The ranks of unemployed have gone up, bankruptcies are up in this state more than any place else. We know what's happened in the stock market. Those are the issues affecting people in their day to day lives right now. While I don't want to diminish the national security issues we face I think they're very important, I think in this election it's going to come around to the economy.

KEN VERDOIA >> Pocketbook election. What do you see, Representative Swallow?

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> I see a combination of the economy and public land use and how that dovetails. This district used to be Salt Lake County but as I've traveled every county in the district and worked hard to understand the issues I
see a huge relationship between our land use policies in this nation and in the west and the ability of local communities to help with their own economy, to create jobs that will allow them to have their kids go to school and stay at home and raise families off the Wasatch Front, and that has a lot to do with limitation on how they can actually grow their economies off the Wasatch Front. And so it has to do with water issues as well and they all relate to this economy issue. We're all struggling to make a living, and to chase the American dream, to own a home and to provide for our children, our families, and help our children be better than we were. That has everything to do with the economy and
public land use and land policies which I'll be fighting very strongly for as a member of congress.

KEN VERDOIA >> At this point of the evening we're going to move now to closing statements. We have a little more than one minute each for each of you. About a minute 30 seconds we'll afford you that time. Prior to air time it was determined that John Swallow would have that first 90-second opportunity for a closing statement.

REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW >> Thank you. It has been a pleasure to be with you here tonight and you know this election has been a wonderful experience for me. I have learned things that I never thought I'd learn. I thought I knew Utah well. I spent a lot of my years here growing up, I've been in Utah all of my adult life through my college years and since then living in Sandy with my family. I have rural roots I grew up as a boy in St. George and on our eastern Nevada farm.

I have learned more about Utah in the last three or four months than I ever thought I didn't know. I've learned about a people who care, who are fighting for their rights and freedoms and the ability to make an income and living. I believe this election is very important. It really is about the vision that
President Bush has for our nation as he moves on the road to handle an America that's in choppy seas right now. I believe I'm a person who's independent enough minded but who's proud to be a Republican who but can vote for a leadership team President Bush can work with. We've learned in the senate that if we have a leadership team he can't work with we get gridlock. If we lose the house and the senate, President Bush will not have the ability to lead in America.

It's easy for my opponent to say he supports Utah values but really if he supports Utah values and votes for Democratic leadership that will not support the values of the state of Utah he can't be supporting Utah. I won't have that conflict. Can I have it both ways. I can say I'm a Republican from Utah, I can support a Republican leadership team, and I can be independent minded at the same time. I appreciate this opportunity. Thank you very much.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Matheson, your 90-second opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE MATHESON >> I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and I appreciate those who have taken the time to watch this debate. It's been a real honor to represent Utah in congress I've really enjoyed the experience and I've been impressed with how many people in our state take the time to talk to their congressman. I've learned so much from talking to people. I pass legislation where I got the idea from a constituent I never would have thought of it myself. It's made the experience better for me.

I think this election comes down to really one fundamental issue and that is who do you want representing you? And I think that my record speaks for itself. I try to take a thoughtful, common-sense approach to every issue, try to do what's best two the state of Utah, and I'm not going to be a rubber stamp for any ideology or any political party. It has been an honor as I said to represent this district.
This is a special time, this is a special state to represent, and I look forward to continuing representing this new, this greatly expanded second congressional district.

KEN VERDOIA >> Representative Matheson, thank you very much for your time, Representative Swallow, thank you for joining us this evening for this exchange.

On November 5th voters in Utah's Second Congressional District will have the chance to determine who will speak for them in the halls of congress for the next two years. Regardless of the office at stake--and there are many--your presence in the voting booth assures that you'll be part of the ongoing process of shaping this American experience. So share that passion and show your
wisdom.

Help write the next chapter of history with your vote on November 5th. I'm Ken Verdoia--good night.