FULL DEBATE: Maloy-Lyman face off in GOP Congressional District 3 debate

[0:04] Welcome. I'm Thomas Wright, moderator for this exchange and on behalf of the Utah Debate Commission, [0:10] thank you for joining us. Today we'll hear from the two candidates running for the Utah Republican [0:15] Party's nomination for Utah's third congressional district. These candidates both qualified for the [0:21] primary ballot through the support of delegates at the state nominating convention. The candidates [0:26] are Celeste Malloy and Phil Lyman. We look forward to an engaging and civil discussion [0:32] with the goal of helping Utah voters make informed decisions. Candidates will each receive one minute [0:38] to answer questions with up to 30 seconds for rebuttals if needed at my discretion. A random [0:44] drawing held earlier determined that candidate Malloy will get the initial response to the first [0:49] question and we will then alternate turns on the remaining questions. Now let's begin. In recent [0:56] months Utah has seen proposals for major data center projects in both Box Elder and Iron counties. [1:02] Supporters point to jobs, tax revenue, technological leadership and national security benefits. [1:08] Opponents raise concerns about water consumption, power demands and long-term impacts on local [1:14] communities. Based on what you know today, do you support the proposed Box Elder County project [1:20] and what specific criteria should every future data center project in Utah have to meet before receiving [1:26] support? So on paper, Utah is a perfect place to build data centers. Unfortunately, data centers aren't [1:34] built on paper and states are made up of people and the people in Utah have questions and they want those [1:40] questions answered. I think we have a unique opportunity in Utah to lead on AI policy and development [1:47] that's going to require data centers. But in order to build data centers in Utah, we've got to make sure that [1:53] we're siting them where people want them and we're building the type that match our resources. [1:58] So there are basically two types of data centers. One type is water cooled and that takes a lot of [2:04] water and Utah is not a great place for that kind of data center. Then there are air cooled ones and they [2:09] take a lot of power. We can produce power in Utah, but we don't have any more water. So we should be making [2:15] thoughtful decisions about building data centers in Utah that match Utah's needs, Utah's resources, [2:22] and what the people of Utah are asking for. And we have to make sure we bring the public along and [2:27] answer their questions along the way. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. You know, I was in a meeting last [2:34] week in Box Elder County, went up to a protest there and a lot of people there that have very different [2:39] political views than I have. And I said, the one thing I think we have in common is we don't be, [2:43] is we don't like being treated poorly. And the people were treated poorly in this, in this instance. [2:48] They weren't consulted. They weren't told what was going on. We get the message coming down. [2:52] We did this in five months. This is going to be great for you. Don't ask any questions. [2:56] And when the, and when the leaders, the leaders who should be most compassionate to the needs of the [3:00] people were asked the questions, the response was a reprimand, a put down, a condescension towards those [3:06] people. And that, that type of government is what creates, creates more of the questions than were [3:12] maybe there in the first place. As far as whether I agree with the data center, I don't agree with [3:15] the process. I don't agree that, that Utah is the best place for data centers. They are water intensive [3:21] and they are a drain on, on resources. And those things can all be measured if we have transparency on [3:26] the front end of it. If we don't have transparency, then it's a no-go for me. So just a quick follow-up, [3:31] 15 second follow-up. Based on what you know today, do you support the Box Elder County data center? [3:36] Candidate Malloy and then Candidate Lyman. I propose, or I support building data centers in [3:42] Utah when the people of Utah support them. And right now, I don't know that we have that in Box Elder [3:47] County. So if, if the people who want to build the data center can answer the questions and bring the [3:51] public along, then yes. Candidate Lyman. First of all, I'm a fan, I'm a fan of, uh, [3:56] Kevin O'Leary. I'm a fan of data. I'm a fan of computers. I'm a fan of technology. I believe in that. [4:01] But as far as the one in, in Box Elder County, until they're transparent about it, I'm, I'm opposed to it. [4:06] So proponents of data centers, I'm going to ask a follow-up question. Uh, Candidate Lyman, [4:10] we'll go first to you. Proponents of data centers say that we need to compete with China. And then [4:14] there's those that think that there's a surveillance state and it's not in the best interests of our [4:19] citizens. Which side of that equation do you fall on? There's something about the way this data [4:23] center was rolled out that gives me the feeling it is about surveillance. And that's a disconcerting [4:28] feeling. I mean, it's next to the military base. There's a lot of issues, the way it's been pushed [4:32] through so quickly, uh, kind of behind closed doors. And then the attitude afterwards, [4:36] I believe that this is about surveillance more than it is about data. [4:39] Candidate Lyman, Utah has been leading the nation on AI policy in a lot of ways. And I want to see [4:45] Utah continue to lead the nation and the United States continue to lead the world when it comes to AI. [4:51] And if we want to do that, we have to be able to store data here for storing our data overseas that we [4:56] don't really have control over it. So I want to see us get to a place where the people of Utah welcome data [5:01] centers. Great. We'll get to AI later, but let's shift to water policy. Uh, candidate, uh, Lyman, [5:06] you'll go first. Southern Utah continues to be one of the fastest growing regions in the country. [5:11] Washington County in particular has built a strong economy and attracted thousands of new residents. [5:16] But much of that growth depends on water supplies and the constraint on them, especially with the [5:21] long-term pressure from droughts, population growth, and competing demands throughout the Colorado [5:26] River system. So the question is what's one specific action Congress can take during the next two to [5:32] four years to improve long-term water security for Southern Utah? Well, it's interesting. If you take [5:38] the upper Colorado River basin and you overlay it over, over Utah, it matches almost identical to CD3. [5:44] And that's where our issues are, whether we're talking about the lake levels at Flaming Gorge, [5:48] the lake levels at Lake Powell, the water that are turning in the Colorado River, uh, the Colorado River [5:53] compact that's being renegotiated right now. Utah has been behind the curve on that. Colorado's way [5:57] out in front of us with their attorneys and with their policies to try to take the water that is, [6:02] that is coming through the Colorado River. And we've made guarantees to provide wet water to these, [6:06] to these communities when we don't have it. We don't produce water. The Colorado River is a river. [6:11] And when it's low, we can't produce water. But what we can do is develop more infrastructure to fill [6:16] that, that, uh, uh, river to, to, to create more canals and more reservoirs, more pipelines to the [6:23] people that, that depend on them. I'm a big supporter of infrastructure for, for, especially [6:28] the southern half of Utah. And we're way behind on, on develop, developing that. It's, it's, it's time [6:33] in Congress that we, that we fund some of those projects. Candidate Malloy. Yeah, I agree that what we [6:39] need is the federal government to support the state and the state's goals when it comes to water. Um, [6:45] it's also important that the federal government doesn't step on the state's toes. Uh, water law [6:50] is state law for the most part. And when it comes to something like the Colorado river, that's [6:53] interstate, there is a federal role to play. Um, but the state of Utah is we're unique. We do things [7:00] differently here and we have, you know, our state song says people working together. We actually do [7:04] that. So right now we have the federal government, the state, the local water conservancy district, the, [7:10] the counties, everybody working together to try to make sure that we have water stability [7:15] for the next, you know, 2030. I would like to see Congress helping the states make plans for water [7:20] stability for the next 100 years. And I think that's going to require infrastructure and some [7:25] thinking outside of the box and looking at large solutions that we just haven't considered yet. [7:31] Thank you. I'm gonna ask a follow up though, because the question was what's one specific [7:35] action item Congress can take in the next two to four years to improve long-term water security. [7:40] So as a follow up 15 seconds, candidate Lyman, you first, what's one specific thing Congress can do? [7:45] Well, I will say, uh, what I see happening is, is a leveraging of the water resources by [7:50] large developers to control what happens in Utah. If you control the water, you control everything in [7:56] this state. What's the one thing that Congress could do that could let us, they could let us manage our [8:00] forests better, they could let us manage our water resources ourselves. The state legislature has [8:04] jurisdiction over those things. Candidate Malloy. Well, I'm going to give you two things, [8:08] even though you only asked for one. One specific thing Congress can do is write a century water [8:13] stability plan for the west that includes infrastructure. And the other thing that [8:17] we'll hopefully be doing very soon is ratifying the agreement that the Colorado River Basin states [8:23] are negotiating. All right, let's shift to public lands, a big issue in Utah and especially in Utah's [8:28] third congressional district. As you know, Utah's third congressional district contains some of the [8:32] most federally controlled land in the country. In Grand County, for example, approximately 95% of the land is [8:38] owned and managed by the federal government. Similar challenges exist throughout San Juan, Garfield, [8:43] Kane, Emory, and Carbon counties. So the question is, who should have the greatest influence over the [8:48] management of public lands in Utah? Local communities, the state of Utah, or the federal government? [8:54] Please choose one and then explain why and tell us under what authority you would transfer it to that [8:59] level of government. Candidate Malloy. Oh, sorry. Well, I think local communities should have the greatest [9:05] input. And that doesn't necessarily mean that the authority has to be transferred. It's already [9:10] there. This is public land. The public should have input. That's one of the reasons that I [9:15] have introduced a congressional review act on the resource management plan for the Grand Staircase [9:19] Escalante National Monument, because local voices were not considered the way they should have been [9:25] when the plan was written. And so I want them to go back to the previous plan that had more input from [9:29] the locals. Sometimes when we talk about public lands, we forget that a lot of the authorities are [9:35] already there to manage these lands in a way that is beneficial to the people who live closest to them. But [9:41] what we have had in past administrations is an unwillingness to accept that input, to listen to the [9:47] locals, to manage accordingly. Right now, we have an administration that is willing to listen, is willing to [9:52] try things that haven't been tried before. And I'm working closely with my partners in the Senate and in the [9:56] administration to make sure that we're addressing that. Candidate Lyman. So when I got in the [10:01] legislature, one of the legislators approached me and said, are you going to be with us on transfer [10:06] of public lands? And I said, oh, that already happened. That was 1896 when Utah became a state. [10:10] Prior to that, we were a territory and we were governed as a territory and managed as a territory [10:15] by the people in Washington, D.C. That jurisdiction that we had, when you look at the map and you can see [10:20] Utah on the map, this funny shape, you know, on the map, that's Utah. That means we have [10:25] a geopolitical, geographic territory over which we have jurisdiction. The legislature has to step [10:31] forward and exercise the jurisdiction that they've been given. When we talk about how could we possibly [10:36] manage all the public land, all the federal land in Utah, well, we have these nifty little things [10:40] called counties. And that's exactly what they were designed to do, was to manage those resources. [10:45] And if you put people in the counties in charge of those lands and those resources, who knows better [10:50] what's going on there than the people that are living in those places day to day. We've got to protect [10:54] their interests. Just a quick follow-up, 30 seconds on this. I'll go to Kenneth Malloy first. [10:59] Can you give us a specific example of land you would support transferring or land you would not [11:04] support transferring? Yeah, I would support transferring land that's orphan parcels is what [11:09] we call them. They're inside of cities or they're surrounded by private land. And the land management [11:15] agencies have a hard time managing them anyway. Also land that's adjacent to cities. I had a proposal [11:20] last year to transfer some land that local governments need for infrastructure. The thing [11:26] that always comes up if we talk about transfer is the national parks. And I would oppose transferring [11:30] the national parks. I think everybody opposes that, but we can do a better job of managing them [11:35] for the locals. How about Lyman? So I appreciated Mike Lee's bill a few years ago that created [11:41] basically a homestead type provision. I do not support transferring ownership of federal land to the [11:47] state because if the state has jurisdiction and ownership, I've seen what they will do with their [11:51] state land. And I've watched the cronyism and the pay to play and the picking winners and users, [11:57] and I do not trust the state of Utah in this situation to be in charge of divvying up the public [12:03] land if they were to receive that from the federal government. Thank you. Let's shift to artificial [12:08] intelligence. As you know, artificial intelligence is expected to impact national security, [12:13] employment, education, health care, and really nearly every sector of the economy. Some experts [12:19] believe it may be the most important technological development in our lifetime. What role should [12:24] Congress play in the development of artificial intelligence? And specifically, should Congress [12:29] primarily be facilitating innovation, regulating risk, or maybe some combination of both? Candidate Lyman, [12:36] one minute. Well, I appreciate the question. And first of all, I believe in artificial intelligence. [12:41] I believe in AI. I've seen it. I've seen it at work. I think it is going to have a very important [12:45] role to play in our future. I don't fear it. But it is powerful. So similar to nuclear energy, [12:50] it could be used to destroy things. It could be used to really make positive changes for our society. [12:57] The fear that I have with this is from the federal government is that they will try to regulate it [13:02] to where people are not able to transact business, to have commerce on an open and free basis. [13:08] And we see that when we talk about digital currencies and Bitcoin and blockchain technologies. [13:13] Those things, Congress has to stay out of the way. Those things belong to the people. And I think this [13:18] is going to be, you know, as we move forward, I believe that AI has the potential to make our society [13:23] much better. I think it has the potential to make government much more transparent, give us greater [13:28] access to the actual facts that are going on inside of the government, and to be able to give people [13:33] the tools and the power to really monitor the government itself. [13:38] Candidate Malloy. [13:39] I've been impressed to see Utah stepping up to meet this moment. [13:43] AI is happening. It's changing the way we do business. I talked to a small business owner just [13:48] this weekend who's excited about having the ability to use AI in his business so that he doesn't have to [13:54] hire people to do some of the menial tasks, and he can hire people who are specialized and let AI do some [14:00] of the busy work and make his small business leaner and more efficient. And Utah's been leading the way [14:06] on AI regulation as well. The model in Utah is that we shouldn't regulate the development of AI. [14:12] We need to be making sure we're keeping up on that. But maybe we should regulate the deployment [14:17] to make sure that AI isn't violating American civil liberties, it isn't harming children, make sure that [14:23] the way AI is being deployed doesn't harm people. And I think the federal government should learn from [14:29] that example and not interfere with the state's ability to be innovative and be pioneering on this. [14:36] So I'm going to ask a quick follow-up. 30 seconds first to you, Candidate Lyman. [14:41] What concerns you more? America moving too slowly and losing China, losing ground to China, [14:47] or America moving too quickly without sufficient safeguards? [14:53] You know, in a free market, the market dictates what people will do. And in a country that is based on [15:00] consent, people are able to produce and to innovate the way that they should. Now, [15:05] if government gets involved, I fear that we have people in our own government who put China before [15:11] America, who put those policies first. So this is a perfect time when government needs to, you know, [15:18] practice laissez-faire, let the market do what it will do, and let our innovators innovate in the United [15:25] States. So to you, America moving too slowly and losing ground to China is what you're most concerned [15:31] about? I believe that government does a better job of restricting growth and advance than in [15:38] promoting it in America. We need to just stay out of the way and let this innovation take its course. [15:43] Thank you. Candidate Malloy, same question. Yeah, I fear moving too slowly more than I fear moving too [15:48] quickly. We can figure this out as we go. We've always done that. When trains came around, they were a new [15:53] technology. We figured out how to do it. When cars came around, we didn't have a lot of roads. We [15:57] figured out how to build them. But what we need to do right now is make sure we're innovating and we're [16:02] not falling behind our neighbors who don't have our best interests at heart and making Americans [16:09] vulnerable to technologies that are being deployed elsewhere in the world. All right, [16:13] well, let's shift gears and let's go to foreign policy. Many voters supported President Trump because [16:18] they believed he would pursue an American first policy agenda and avoid unnecessary foreign conflicts. [16:25] Yet there's events overseas that continue to affect us, energy prices, inflation, and the cost of living [16:31] for families in Utah's third congressional district. Where do you draw the line between strategic [16:36] restraint and military intervention? Candidate Malloy. So I ascribe to Ronald Reagan's vision of peace [16:43] through strength. And I support President Trump's opposition to unnecessary intervention around the [16:50] world. There are some places that it is necessary. In the past, we've had administrations that didn't [16:55] show strength in certain parts of the country and emboldened some of our enemies. And this administration [17:00] was willing to take bold action and address some of those problems. Iran's been the world's largest [17:06] sponsor of terrorism since before I was born. And I'm getting wrinkles and my hair's starting to go gray. [17:11] That's a long time. We stepped forward. We met the moment. But through the entire process, [17:18] the administration's been focused on getting us to peace. There are peace talks happening right now. [17:23] We had clearly defined goals. I was just in Korea last week commemorating the Utah National Guard's [17:30] role in the Korean War. And they have a big sign that says, freedom isn't free. And it's true, [17:35] it's never been free. We always have to pay a price for peace. But the end goal is peace. [17:40] And the climate. Well, we talk about policy on one hand, and then we got to talk about people [17:46] on the other hand. I trust President Trump. I trust the direction that he wants to take. I trust the [17:51] power in his hands that I would not trust that same power in the hands of Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris. [17:57] So the people in charge make a huge difference. And I do trust President Trump. When we're talking about [18:04] global economic interests, it is really the commerce world, global commerce that has driven [18:11] more of the peace talks and more of the motivation for countries to come together. And we see this [18:16] right now over in the Strait of Hormuz and in the Middle East. The economics of this are playing such [18:22] a huge factor. Iran is behind the times, and they are a threat. And they're chanting death to America [18:28] and threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. We have to protect ourselves against those [18:33] types of threats. But at the end of the day, it's commerce and the ability for people to transact [18:40] globally that is going to resolve more problems than going to war and shooting. [18:45] So just to be really clear, yes or no answer, we'll go to you first, candidate Malloy. Do you support [18:50] President Trump's actions regarding Iran and support the conflict as it stands right now? [18:55] Yes. [18:56] Candidate Lyman. [18:57] I do, but there is a constitutional question about the War Powers Act and the justification [19:03] that needs to come. I think Congress needs to either authorize additional hostilities in that area or [19:08] they need to weigh in on it. Anything else, Candidate Alloy, on that? [19:12] I agree that Congress needs to take action. [19:14] All right, let's shift gears, not really from foreign policy, but to the state of Israel. Do you view [19:19] Israel as one of America's strongest and most important allies? And if so, please identify one specific [19:25] thing the United States has done for Israel and one specific thing Israel has done for the United [19:30] States that justifies that relationship. Candidate Malloy. [19:33] I do support the alliance between Israel and the United States. When I talk about peace through [19:39] strength, we're talking about military strength. And Israel has been a strategic ally in the Middle East [19:45] where we've needed to show strength. They're sitting in a very vulnerable position. And one specific [19:50] thing we've done for them is the Iron Dome. And one specific thing they've done for us is eliminating the [19:57] Ayatollah. So when I talk about the world's number one sponsor of terrorism since before I was born, [20:02] it was driven by an individual. And Israel had the intelligence to know how to take that individual out. [20:09] And they worked with us, took action and eliminated a threat that we have talked about drawing red lines in the sand for. [20:16] And we haven't always shown the strength we should have shown. And having a strategic ally [20:22] allows us to have the military strength and the respect around the world that we have to have to have peace. [20:27] Yeah. So in the Middle East, you've got Israel there with a population of about 9 million people [20:35] surrounded by about 200 million hostile, potentially hostile forces. And they do feel that that is an existential threat. [20:45] So what has America done for Israel? We've given our military strength. We've stood behind them [20:50] with our military strength. And that's an important thing. And it's important to the United States. [20:54] We have to have an ally in the Middle East because it is such a crucial part of the global economy. [21:00] And the oil that moves to that area, just the people that live there. What have we done for Israel [21:07] besides the military, the strikes on Iran, I think were a direct response to the threats that Israel [21:15] were facing. And what has Israel done for us? They are an ally. They are a presence in the Middle East [21:21] that is vital to the United States interests there. And they've been a friend to the United States. [21:27] Okay. This next question on the economy will go to you, candidate Lyman. [21:32] The 2024 election cycle centered heavily on affordability and cost of living. [21:37] While unemployment remains relatively low, many families are still feeling the pinch. [21:42] I just read recently Walmart reported that the average fuel purchase at its gas stations fell below [21:48] 10 gallons per purchase for the first time in several years, which made me think it's a sign of [21:54] growing financial stress amongst your consumers and constituents. What is the clearest sign that the [22:00] economy is not working as well as it should be for families in Utah's third congressional district? [22:05] And what is the first federal policy you would change to address it? [22:09] Well, it's interesting to me that certain government officials will come out and talk [22:14] about all the good things that they're doing for America. We're giving you the biggest tax cuts in [22:18] history. We're giving you all this money while we see the cost of everything going up. [22:23] Inflation is a very real thing. We've got a national debt that's pushing $40 trillion right now. [22:27] The only way that they're going to address that is by printing more money, quantitative easing. [22:31] That's a huge tax on everybody. And we see that tax in our mortgages. You know, [22:37] you've got a fixed rate mortgage, but your mortgage payment goes up because your insurance has gone [22:40] up and your property taxes are going up. People fill it. They fill it in the fees that they pay. [22:45] Services that used to be free at the Utah.gov are now $35 a year and then a payment for each [22:51] additional thing. And that's the same thing at the federal government. The attempt to pacify people [23:01] and to convince them that they're doing better is astonishing to me when families are truly [23:05] struggling. And I see it in my own CPA firm. I see families who are truly struggling to pay even [23:10] their basic necessities. Kenneth Malloy. We have to make sure that Utah families are keeping more of [23:16] their dollars in their own pockets, in their family budget. So we have eliminated some of the direct [23:24] costs of government by making the tax cuts permanent, doubling the child tax credit. There's no state that [23:30] benefits from that as much as Utah does. I hear from parents how much they appreciate that. [23:36] And we have to keep going. We passed 12 individual appropriations bills last year. [23:41] That's where we cut the discretionary spending. We also cut mandatory spending last year [23:48] through the reconciliation package. Through the rescissions, we pulled back money that had already [23:54] been appropriated that hadn't been spent. And at the same time, we're working on eliminating some of [23:59] these hidden costs to families, where government regulation makes things cost more, and that [24:05] makes your dollars not go as far. We're working on both at the same time, and we have to keep going. [24:10] We didn't get here overnight. We've had administrations and congresses in the past that just wanted to [24:16] print more money and wanted to go into more debt. And now we're finally heading in the right direction. [24:20] Can I have a rebuttal to that? Go ahead, candidate Lyman. [24:22] In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and it was a great tax cut. It doubled the child [24:30] tax credit. That was set to expire here this year. Congress made a bill that it would not expire, [24:36] so they kept the $2,000. They raised it by $200. That's not doubling the child tax credit. And all [24:41] the other things that were going to expire with that 2017 bill are not a huge tax cut. In fact, [24:46] at the same time that the child tax credit was doubled, they took away the dependency exemption, [24:52] which was a huge cut to people who live in Utah, especially if they're above the 25% tax bracket, [24:58] because they get a $4,150 tax deduction per child, and now they get a $1,000 tax credit. [25:04] We have not seen major cuts on taxes in regards to that 2017 bill or especially to the 2020 vote. [25:11] Candidate Malloy. So we reduced the tax on tips, the tax on overtime, the tax on Social Security. [25:18] We doubled the death tax cap so that when a family is passing down a farm or a small business, [25:23] they keep more of that money and less of it goes to the federal government. [25:28] This Congress has been very busy working to make sure that Americans can invest their own money and [25:33] not have it go to the federal government. I'm going to ask a follow-up, because this third [25:37] congressional district is really an interesting district. You have some of the fastest growing [25:43] communities in America, and then you have rural communities like Price and Castledale, Blanding, [25:49] Pengwich, Kanab, that maybe aren't experiencing that same economic growth. [25:56] So what would you say to residents and voters in that district, in those communities? How did we get [26:01] where we are with these tough economic conditions? Why are they putting eight gallons of gas in their car at [26:05] a time, and what can be done to fix it for them? Candidate, Lyman first, and then Moy? [26:14] So I feel very blessed to live in a town that looks very much like it did when I was a kid, [26:18] and my children that are moving back want that same experience for their children. So growth for the [26:24] sake of growth is not necessarily a good thing. I don't think these communities are feeling left out [26:28] from a growth standpoint. What they are feeling is treated poorly by those people who are making [26:33] decisions that are giving out the money. We talk about things like water development. Water [26:37] development for whom? Where it's going to the Wasatch Front. It's not going to the rural areas. [26:41] They're the ones that are paying the price. Even when we talk about things like [26:45] like cloud seeding and stuff like that, it's not cloud seeding in the rural areas. It's [26:48] cloud seeding for the ski resorts, and we see it. Those people in those communities, [26:52] they're not dumb, and they can see where the money is going. They're appreciative of the benefits. [26:56] They're appreciative of government, but it's not right when families are picking up the tab [27:03] for the Olympics, or for stadiums, or for things like that, that they're not going to be the [27:06] beneficiaries of, and they feel that it's not right. And somebody's got to step in and advocate [27:12] and protect those families. Great. Candidate Malloy. We have to make sure that the rural towns, [27:18] rural counties are not being left out of the economic growth that's happening in Utah. [27:22] And to that end, I have worked with the elected officials in those areas to make sure that we are [27:27] investing in water infrastructure, in road infrastructure, making sure that these rural [27:33] communities that don't have the tax base, largely because they're surrounded by federal land, [27:38] have the ability to keep up with the infrastructure needs that make it so that people can live there, [27:43] to make it so people can move there, can invest there, start their small business there. [27:46] So the rural counties aren't being left out of the economic boom. Um, you know, I grew up in a small [27:52] town. We love to say that the biggest export from our rural areas is our kids. And I want to make sure [27:58] that the kids who want to stay in rural areas can stay, that they have the ability to build a house, [28:04] start a business, start a family, and make sure that those rural communities keep thriving, and that [28:10] they keep being the charming places that we love, where people want to settle down, where they want to [28:14] raise their kids. Thank you for those answers. Let's shift gears and go to housing. We have some [28:19] students here from Utah Valley University, two bright Utah students, one of which has a question [28:25] related to housing. It's better than my question. So I'll save mine for the follow-up, but student [28:29] question comes from Alexa Herrera. Alexa. Thank you, Tom. Candidates, my question to you is obviously this [28:35] topic of housing. I want to hone in on students in your district who are being priced out of their [28:39] housing near their schools. What specific federal regulations are policies, excuse me, or policies are [28:46] making that worse? And if elected, what would you do to lower the cost of living for college students [28:52] specifically? Candidate Malloy. Well, I'll tell you one thing that I've done just recently. We just [28:58] passed out of the house the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, and it's designed to address some of the [29:04] inputs to housing that make them more expensive on the back end. And in a well-intentioned move, it [29:10] originally had a clause in there that didn't allow corporations to invest in housing and own it. And [29:16] then somebody realized that that would harm renters. There are a lot of corporations that build housing [29:22] specifically for renters. And if they had to divest that housing, it would harm college students and [29:27] people who are just starting out in their professional careers. So we adjusted it and passed it again to make [29:33] sure that people who want to invest in temporary housing for college students or for young couples [29:40] who are starting out or for small families are not knocked out of the market, that they can help [29:46] supply that need and that we didn't have an unintended consequence while we're addressing the real issues [29:50] that prevent people from being able to build housing. Candidate Lyman. Yeah, well, thank you, [29:56] Alexa, for the question. And what I see happening is huge incentives for high density housing, [30:03] government subsidies for low-income housing. And who gets left out of that? It's the single [30:08] families, it's the students, it's those people that are just trying to pay rent. At the same time, [30:12] you've got a massive push by business people to buy up all the houses and turn them into vacation [30:19] rentals. I see that in these small communities. And the college students are suffering from that. [30:24] I've said before many times, bad policy hurts people. And you can trace most of the housing crisis, [30:29] you can trace back to bad policy, whether it's immigration and having an overabundance of illegal [30:36] immigrants who are buying up the houses or corporations who have incentives to build only [30:41] high density homes. Or if you've got corporations that are coming in and buying up the houses with [30:46] the blessing and the lifting of the regulations by the state themselves because they're spending so [30:50] much money. So we're favoring, we're picking winners and losers in the housing market. And unfortunately, [30:55] the students tend to be at the bottom of that scale. One quick follow-up, 30 seconds on this. [31:00] Washington County communities like St. George, Washington, Hurricane are struggling with affordability [31:05] as the growth continues at a rapid pace. Meanwhile, communities like Monticello, Monticello, Escalante, [31:11] Beaver, Hanksville, they face a different challenge, right? There's not enough investment, [31:15] there's not enough economic activity to make new housing projects financially viable. How, as a member of [31:20] Congress, will you balance those two interests? Congress Molloy. So I'm going to refer to my earlier [31:25] answer. We have to make sure that the rural counties don't miss out on the economic benefits. When [31:31] new businesses are coming into Beaver County, which they are, then the county has the tax base to [31:37] invest in infrastructure that encourages new housing. So I think we can address a lot of the problems in [31:43] the smaller communities by making sure that we're investing in getting businesses to locate there and [31:49] create jobs. Candidate Lyman. Again, housing is one of those areas where [31:56] entrepreneur-ing minded people look and say, you know, I have an advantage here because I know how [32:00] to build houses. I would have an even greater advantage if I could own all of the water rights [32:05] that allowed me to build or if I could make the get the legislature to pass legislation that would favor [32:10] my projects in these counties. If I could get PIDs and TIFs and all of these incentives to help [32:18] subsidize those programs, the net effect is housing that goes through the roof and becomes unaffordable [32:23] to everybody else. Thank you. We've now reached the halfway point of the debate featuring the primary [32:29] election candidates for the Utah Republican Party's nomination for Utah's third congressional district. [32:35] If you're just joining us, I'm Thomas Wright, moderator for this presentation of the Utah Debate [32:39] Commission. We're coming to you from the PBS Utah studios on the campus of the University of Utah in [32:45] Salt Lake City. Let's get back now to the questions. We have a candidate, we have a student question [32:50] from another great student at UVU. This question deals with federalism and it's going to be asked by [32:56] Rebecca White. Utah consistently leads out on many federalism initiatives. As a member of Congress, [33:02] how will you help balance the role of the states versus the role of the federal government? Candidate Lyman. [33:08] Well, thank you for that question. I know UVU has got their federalism department down there. [33:12] They've been doing some great things. They've been doing some research. Federalism is the balance [33:17] of government. It's the three branches. It's the state versus the federal, those things that keep [33:21] government in check. And I've always said, government, if it will stay in its lane, does a service. [33:26] When it gets out of its lane, it does not do a service. The federal government will expand and [33:32] overreach and encroach upon the rights of Utah every time we let them. And who is it that's supposed to [33:38] be there to hold the line? It's the state legislature. And if the state legislature won't [33:43] hold that line on federalism, then we're going to see an overreach and a dysfunction in that function [33:48] of government. By the same token, you've got the legislative, the judicial, and the executive [33:51] branches. And we've got to have a point in our government where the legislative branch is willing [33:57] to stand up to the executive, if that's what it comes to, or stand up to the judicial. And we've seen [34:01] that here in Utah over and over and over, whether it's the judicial branch drawing the districts [34:05] for our congressional boundaries, or whether it's the legislature yielding to the federal [34:10] government on public lands jurisdiction. [34:12] Kenneth Malloy. [34:13] I love that question. Federalism is part of the genius of what makes our system of government work. [34:20] And we're celebrating America's 250th birthday in about a month, having our big semi-quincentennial. [34:27] And I think part of the reason we're still here 250 years later is that we have that natural tension [34:32] between the states and the federal government, between the branches. And so one of the things [34:37] I do personally, as a member of Congress, is I decline to support a lot of bills that sound like [34:44] a good idea, except that they should be handled by the states. The way federalism is designed to work [34:50] and the way it has to work is that we have to stay in our lane in the federal government. And the state [34:55] needs to be legislating on most issues. So the state should be jealous, should be guarding its authority. [35:01] The legislative branch should be jealously guarding our authority. The judicial branch should be [35:05] exercising checks and balances. That's what makes it so that the people can control the government [35:10] and no part of the government can get strong enough to violate people's rights. [35:16] On the federal budget, the federal government hasn't run a balanced budget for 25 plus years. [35:22] And since then, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the White House and the Congress [35:27] at same times and similar times. Yet the national debt has continued to grow and skyrocket. We're now [35:33] exceeds, what, $39 trillion. Why has Washington failed to balance the budget for more than 25 years? [35:39] And what can you do in office to correct that? Candidate Malloy? [35:43] Well, I'll answer the second part of the question first. The reason it's so difficult for Washington, [35:48] D.C. to balance a budget is because people want things from the federal government. And people who are in [35:53] elected office want to give people things in order to stay in office. But what we're doing right now [35:58] is course correcting and making sure that we're doing our job. I'm on the appropriations committee. [36:03] That's where the spending decisions are made. We're passing our appropriations bills, [36:07] 12 individual bills, the way we're supposed to, negotiated by subcommittee chairs who understand the [36:12] issue areas. And we're cutting spending. At the same time that we're investing in our national defense [36:19] and making sure we have a strong military, we're cutting other things out of the budget [36:23] and making sure that we're spending less money year over year. Not just slowing down the growth, [36:27] but spending less money year over year. And at the same time, through the reconciliation process, [36:32] we're also making changes to mandatory spending. Because if we want to get back to a balanced budget, [36:37] what we have to do is stop spending on some of the things we've been spending on. [36:41] Candidate Lyman? Well, it's interesting to see Congress continue to spend and spend and spend. [36:48] And what we see sometimes is an inclination to bend their knee to the government interests, [36:56] such as government shutdowns. Oh, we can't have a government shutdown. That's going to [36:59] affect too many people when that's probably exactly what needs to happen if they're doing the wrong [37:03] things. So they hold us hostage. They hold Congress hostage. They hold us hostage with these [37:09] government shutdowns. We cannot be making excuses for the government at the expense of the people of [37:14] Utah. And we've got to recognize that the family's budget is more important than the budget of the [37:21] states or the county. That those families that are struggling to pay their bills is more important. [37:27] The sad reality of the deficit that we've got is that it will take more quantitative easing, [37:32] and that is going to lead to greater inflation. You'll still get your social security check. It just [37:36] won't buy what it used to buy or what it should be able to buy. And that's a serious problem moving [37:40] forward. The biggest tax we have in this country is not our income tax. It is the inflation. And as [37:45] we see those things go up, it's going to get worse and worse and worse, unless we will really pull back [37:49] on the spending. So let's dig into the budget a little bit here. I have a couple follow-ups, [37:53] and we'll go first to you, candidate Malloy. Continuing resolutions have become the order of [37:58] the day, meaning the government hasn't passed a budget, so we operate on a continuing resolution. [38:02] Why hasn't the government been able to pass a budget in over 25 years? [38:06] So this is what we're actually doing right now. We were doing continuing resolutions. Speaker [38:12] Johnson made it a goal of his not to do a continuing resolution last year. We had to do a temporary one [38:18] to get our bills done, but we got 12 appropriations bills done. We're well into the appropriations [38:23] process this year. We're on track to get all 12 appropriations bills done this year. This is what the [38:28] American public has been asking for. People talk a lot about regular order. We have to get back to [38:33] regular order. That's what it means. It means the committees are doing their jobs. We're going [38:37] through the appropriations bills line by line and deciding what should be in, what should be out. [38:42] We're having committee hearings, committee markups. We're voting on the floor. We're passing these. [38:48] That's how we keep the government accountable, because then I'm voting on what we're spending [38:53] in the government. I'm not just kicking the can down the road. And we're making decisions [38:59] every year about what goes in and what comes out. So we're modern. We're up to date. We're meeting [39:05] the needs of today instead of just doing a continuing resolution so we don't have to do something that's [39:09] hard. Thank you. Candidate Lyman. Well, you know, the American people, they watch this happen, [39:15] and that's why there's such low trust in government is because they see the things that are happening. [39:19] We read just this last week about a David Rush who had 303 gold bars and two million dollars worth of [39:26] foreign currency in his possession. The FBI raided his house and arrested him. Well, this wasn't a [39:32] gangster from Chicago. This was former top leader of the CIA who's pilfering this money. So we're [39:39] talking about these efforts to save money when Doge came about. It wasn't that government woke up and [39:47] said, oh, wow, we didn't realize we were overspending so much money. It's because it was revealed to the [39:51] people of America. And they said, we cannot continue to spend this kind of money. And so we saw [39:56] programs that that that evaporated overnight. And I think that that without the transparency in this [40:02] in a system, we are not going to see the results that we we hope to because they continue to pilfer [40:09] where we're literally being run by pirates at the at the government level. And it's no surprise. [40:14] So 30 second follow up just to conclude our debate on the federal budget. [40:18] We all agree that $2 trillion deficit every year isn't sustainable. That's why we're $39 trillion [40:24] dollars in debt and counting. What's one program federal cut in the budget you would make to get [40:31] our spending under control? 30 seconds to you, Candidate Moy. Well, other than the appropriations [40:36] process, which I just described, which I'm part of, we also have to root out all the waste, fraud, [40:40] and abuse. It's true that we do have a low trust environment right now because there have been things [40:47] that have been happening that didn't get addressed. We're addressing them now. The president has [40:52] assigned the vice president to be in charge of rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. We have [40:56] committees in Congress rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. That that's a drag on the whole system. [41:01] And it's one of those hidden costs we talked about earlier. And it is the easiest least controversial way [41:06] to cut the budget. Candidate Lyman. You know, do we have this deficit because [41:11] America doesn't have resources or innovation or the ability to produce? No, we have this because of [41:16] the lack of transparency and the absolute plundering that's taking place in this government. I'm a CPA. [41:23] We audit things. We go in and we look at things. If we wanted to audit the Pentagon, and I think they [41:28] did that and came up by missing a trillion dollars. So what programs would I cut? I would cut the U.S. [41:34] Department of Education. I know we're in the process of doing that. And across the board with all the [41:40] entitlement programs, what you find is those people that are benefit from the entitlement programs are [41:45] not the ones who are targeted as the ones that should be benefiting. Thank you. Let's talk about [41:50] Social Security. For years, Americans have been warned that Social Security faces long-term financial [41:55] challenges. Yet Congress has repeatedly postponed major reforms, and many younger workers question [42:01] whether the system will be there for them when they retire. Do you believe Social Security can [42:05] be preserved without reducing benefits, increasing taxes, or raising their retirement age? Why or why [42:11] not? Candidate Lyman. Well, as I said before, I mean, you've got people who live in their homes, [42:17] have lived in their homes for 70 years, who are now being taxed out of their homes. The value of that [42:22] house has gone from the $8,000 that they paid for it to over a million dollars. I know some families up in [42:29] midway that this is exactly the case. And this is inflation. You know, we went off the gold standard [42:35] back in 1971. We've seen this massive inflation. This is, again, this is policy that is hurting [42:41] people. It's destroying the lives of people. So do I think that the Social Security checks will stop? [42:45] No. I think that they will continue to go to those people. But they won't buy what they were intended to [42:51] buy or what they used to be able to buy. They're not holding up their end of the bargain. And it has been a [42:56] pyramid scheme where the ones at the bottom are paying more in to support the ones at the top. [43:00] The government, in true form, has been plundering and pilfering the Social Security fund as they are [43:06] inclined to do. And who is protecting? Who is standing in the way of that? Because Congress certainly [43:11] has not been standing in the way of that. Candidate Molloy. I'm one of those younger people who [43:17] doesn't expect Social Security to be solvent by the time I'm eligible. And I think we have to do two [43:23] things with Social Security. We have to keep the promise we made to people who are dependent on [43:28] Social Security or about to retire. And we have to put all options on the table long-term to see [43:33] what we can do to keep it solvent for future generations, for people who are just entering [43:38] the workforce, people like me who are mid-career, so that we can plan ahead and make sure that we have [43:44] a retirement plan that will actually work for us and not keep pretending that Social Security is going [43:50] to be okay. And I saw just recently that this is the first time in history that people who are of [43:57] retirement age agree with that, and people on both sides of the aisle agree with that. I think 20 years [44:02] ago, if you heard that Social Security might not be solvent in 30 years, you could feel like that wasn't [44:07] going to be your problem, maybe. And that's not the case anymore. So I think we have the political will [44:12] to actually look at innovative solutions, finally. So I want to ask a follow-up question. I'll come to you [44:18] first candidate lineman. If changes are necessary, how do you prioritize the following things you're [44:25] welcome to add to them, and which one would you attack first to create a more solvent system? [44:30] Would you go for raising the retirement age, adjusting benefits for higher income retirees, [44:36] increasing payroll taxes, or any other combination? What would you do to solve this problem? [44:41] Well again, the problem with the Social Security is that it has been plundered. The savings of the [44:47] people that put into Social Security has been used for other purposes. It's been taken and used for [44:52] other purposes. And what are those other purposes? And we're starting to see what some of those are. [44:56] Through the Doge effort, we saw what a lot of those purposes are. It's pure, it's wrong. It's wrong what [45:02] we've done to the Social Security. So what do we do to address that issue? Again, I believe that there's going [45:07] to be an aggressive continued pattern of quantitative easing, and it's going to continue to push inflation up for [45:14] all of us. In the meantime, there's alternatives to this, which are the hard assets. People that saw [45:19] this long ago are buying real estate, buying gold, buying silver. What I don't want to see happen is [45:23] that the federal government come in and regulate those abilities, the ability to create transactions [45:28] or to perform transactions based on with those hard assets. When we get into the digital currency, [45:33] that's a way for people to divorce themselves from a collapsing dollar that we're watching happen [45:38] right now. And that's something that we've got to allow on a global scale. We've got to allow our [45:42] citizens to participate in those transactions. Candidate Malloy. I already said that I think [45:47] we should put all options on the table for addressing Social Security. If I had to choose one first, [45:53] I'd probably go with adjusting the retirement age, but I think it needs to be paired with other [45:58] adjustments and it needs to be graduated so that people who are close to retirement can make their [46:04] plans and people who have a lot of working years left, like I do, can also plan for what their [46:09] retirement will look like. But the one thing I'm sure of is we have to make sure that Americans [46:14] have a system we can count on. What we can't do is continue to go down this road where people are [46:20] paying into a system that we know won't remain solvent and they won't be able to draw out of it. [46:27] So all options are on the table. It's time to get creative. It's time to think big. And it's time [46:32] to make sure that we keep the promise to people who are retired or eligible for retirement. But we extend [46:37] that promise to people who are younger than that. Thank you. Let's shift gears, [46:41] go to immigration. Immigration remains one of the most debated issues in our country. [46:45] Most Americans agree that the border should be secure, but there is far less agreement on what [46:50] should happen after that. What should be the top immigration priority for Congress over the next [46:54] four years? Securing the border, increasing deportations, reforming legal immigration processes, [47:00] addressing workforce shortages, or something else? Please tell us about your immigration stance and why. [47:06] Count it up, Malloy. Well, luckily, [47:08] the number one issue a year ago was border security. And we've done a great job of that. The Trump [47:13] administration was willing to go enforce the laws that were already on the books. And we're doing [47:17] much better at the border. And now we have to decide what to do with our immigration system. [47:23] We've always been a country that welcomes people who want to come here, be Americans, [47:28] contribute. But what we've had for the last five years, for the four years before this [47:32] administration came back, were people crossing the border illegally and not becoming part of our [47:39] culture, not contributing to our tax rolls. And the quickest way to go bankrupt is to have a welfare [47:45] state and have people coming in who are not part of contributing. So we've got the border under [47:50] control. Now we need to do two things at the same time. And we can do two things at the same time. [47:55] We have to make sure we're deporting the people who need to be deported and fixing the legal immigration [48:00] system. So people who want to come here, live the American dream and become Americans, [48:04] have a way to do that that makes sense. [48:07] Candidate Lyman. [48:07] Well, I think what you find in Congress are certain members of Congress who hate America. [48:14] And they're pushing for the same policies that are destroying this country. And [48:17] immigration is one of those, I think Congress needs to wake up and recognize that China has an agenda [48:23] when it comes to immigration. Cuba had an agenda back with Jimmy Carter to send their worst, [48:28] their most vile, their drug dealers, their human trafficking people to destabilize and undermine [48:34] this country. China has a wolf diplomacy policy of taking over countries through their belt and road [48:41] initiative. And it's happening all over the world and we're watching it. And then we go along in the [48:46] United States as if somehow our virtue doesn't allow us to address those issues. Gad Saad calls it [48:55] suicidal empathy. And it is suicidal when we're unwilling to look at visa programs that were [49:01] designed to provide temporary workers being abused and turned into conduits for human trafficking and [49:07] fentanyl trafficking. A Congress that can't distinguish between those two is doomed to have [49:11] some serious problems in immigration. And that's what we've got right now. [49:13] 30-second follow-up. There's been discussion about locating a large-scale immigration detention [49:18] center in Utah. Do you support that proposal? Candidate Molloy. [49:21] I support having more beds for federal detainees in Utah. This is something I've been working on [49:26] for years, actually. We don't have enough beds for detainees that the marshals pick up or ICE. [49:33] What I would like to see is the administration work with Utah and treat us like we are a state that [49:40] supports them and find a place and do it in a way that makes sense for the state and not have a heavy [49:46] hand the way a Democrat administration would be expected to act in Utah. Candidate Lyman. [49:52] No, I don't think that Utah should build a giant facility to house illegal immigrants. I think [49:57] those immigrants should be shipped back to their countries. And the only crime worthy of deportation [50:02] should be that you entered the country illegally. Now, when we want to implement that, it might be [50:07] that we go after criminals that are known first. But anybody that's in this country illegally should [50:13] be deported. And no, I do not support building a facility out there. Utah has kind of a prison [50:17] mentality already. And I'm afraid that if we build a big facility like that, the emphasis would be [50:21] more to keep it full than to get it emptied. Let's go rapid fire. You guys want to do some [50:26] rapid fire questions. We'll start with you, Candidate Lyman. We'll go 15 seconds each. I got some good [50:31] rapid fire for you. Before the broadcast, I asked you what your favorite Tom Petty song was. So I already [50:36] know that about you guys. But let's start with this one. Do you support term limits for members of Congress? [50:41] Yes, I do. Candidate Malloy. I'm kind of indifferent on term limits. If I have to [50:46] vote on it, I'll probably vote in favor. Thank you. Candidate Malloy, this comes to you. Tell us [50:51] about a time you changed your mind on a significant issue. That is a good question. I probably have [51:01] changed my mind on how much I think the federal government should be involved in water infrastructure. [51:06] I want the federal government to spend less. But I think water infrastructure is an investment, [51:11] not a cost. Great. Candidate Lyman. When I was a county commissioner and they brought up the [51:16] proposition of mail-in ballots, I looked at the benefit that that would be to San Juan County, [51:21] thinking, you know, this could work. And I had an idea from a CPA standpoint how that might work. [51:26] In retrospect, we should never have implemented mail-in ballots in the first place. [51:30] Okay. Candidate Lyman, this one to you. Should members of Congress be required to publicly [51:34] disclose every stock and company investment they own? Yes. I think they are required to do that, [51:39] but yes, they should be. Go ahead. I was going to say, and not only that, [51:43] it's interesting that they are the only group of people, the only senators and congressmen, [51:47] the only people who are exempt from insider trading. I don't know why that's the case, [51:50] but yes, they should at least have to disclose it. I think that was the nature of the question, [51:52] the insider trading, but thank you. Candidate Malloy. So, yes, I think we should be required. [51:56] We are required, and we're not actually exempt from insider trading, but we need to make sure that it's [52:01] being enforced, and I've supported bills that ban stock trading by members of Congress. Great. Thank you both. [52:07] We've reached the end of our debate. Each candidate will now receive one minute to share a closing [52:11] statement. A random drawing held earlier determined that candidate Malloy will go first. Thank you. [52:19] I'm here running for reelection, and I already talked about America's 250th birthday. I want to [52:24] close on a similar and hopeful note. 250 years ago, our founding fathers had this idea that ordinary [52:32] people could govern themselves, that you didn't have to have a certain bloodline or a calling from God. [52:37] And I'm standing here, an ordinary person. I'm a middle child from a middle-class family who grew [52:42] up in the middle of nowhere, and I've managed to get involved in policy and then politics. And now I [52:48] have the profound honor of representing my fellow Utahns on the national stage. I get to go vote on behalf [52:56] of the people in the current second district. I'm running to represent the people in the new third [53:02] district because representation matters, and I want to make sure that everybody in this state has a [53:09] voice on the federal stage that reflects who they are. And I'm so grateful to be here, and I would love [53:15] to have your vote and represent you again. Candidate Lyman. So about 20 years ago, my wife and I moved [53:22] into a house that we built. And we built the house not so we'd have a place to live, but so that we could teach [53:26] our boys responsibility how to be providers, how to stand up and provide for a family. We just graduated [53:33] a third one from medical school, a third son from medical school a couple of weeks ago. I defined, [53:39] I've described my politics as aspirational. What I mean by that is I believe that we can do better. [53:44] I believe that there is a way for America to be the America that our founding fathers envisioned it to [53:49] be. The Constitution is not just a document, a historical document. It's a pattern. It's a business [53:55] model that works for us. And I believe that if our children understand the ability and the importance [54:02] of taking accountability for their lives, they're going to live better lives. [54:09] For me, getting involved in politics has never been in the abstract. Everything that I do is dealing [54:13] directly with issues that I face, whether it's the public lands issues, the weaponization of the IRS, [54:19] or the Bureau of Land Management, all of those things have been firsthand experiences for me. [54:25] Thank you to the candidates for participating. And thank you, our audience, for engaging us online [54:30] or through TV and radio. Election day is Tuesday, June 23rd, and ballots begin arriving in mailboxes on [54:37] June 2nd. Contact your county clerk if you have any questions about making your vote count this election [54:42] cycle. We appreciate PBS Utah and the University of Utah for hosting us, and also want to acknowledge the [54:48] members of the Utah Debate Commission Advisory Board, representing media organizations and colleges and [54:54] universities throughout our state. My name is Thomas Wright. Thank you again for joining us.