Skip to main content

tv   Campaign 2018 NJ 7th District U.S. House Debate  CSPAN  October 18, 2018 4:58pm-6:04pm EDT

4:58 pm
district house debate between the incumbent republican, leonard lance, and democratic challenger tom malinowski. they discussed several issues in putting health care, the iran nuclear deal, and the confirmation process for supreme court justice brett kavanaugh. this lasts about an hour. >> good evening, and welcome to the nj tv news seventh congressional debate. welcome to our candidates. thank you both for being here. we have a lot to cover. this first question is for both of you. mr. malinowski, your first. -- you're first. in light of the #metoo movement, which heightened during the confirmation process, what can be done at a federal level that can improve reporting and handling cases of sexual assault? >> thank you for that question and thank you for moderating the debate today. i very much look forward to a
4:59 pm
wide-ranging discussion. when i worked for human rights watch, a wonderful organization, dedicated to promoting civil rights and human rights in the united states and around the world, one of the causes we took up was the cause of victims and survivors of sexual violence in the united states. there was a terrible problem at that time that rape kits were being basically discarded by police departments all around the country, rather than actually tested and used in those terrible situations. we let a campaign to try to fix that problem. that was several years ago. we still have a long way to go. if i'm elected to congress, i think one of the most important things we can do at the congressional level is to set a good example. the procedures in the united states congress for reporting and acting on accusations of sexual assault and sexual harassment are way behind where they need to be and congress has
5:00 pm
not taken the steps it needs to fix those. >> thank you, mr. malinowski. mr. lance, same question to you. thank you for moderating this debate. my thanks to njtv. the house of representatives have taken action saying, moving forward, there can be no public funding regarding sexual abuse charges brought against a member of congress. that legislation has passed the house of representatives and it is now in the senate. i hope the senate of the united states will take it up in the -- in- in expeditiousa an expeditious manner. our colic from new jersey, commerce and chris smith -- our colleague from new jersey, congressman chris smith has devoted his life to this,. of course, we have to lead by example. i have always led by example in this area. i have proudly hired and promoted women on my staff, both
5:01 pm
on my political staff and in the staff of public policy. we have to speak out whenever there is sexual assault, making sure that it never occurs. >> did you want 30 seconds, mr. malinowski? >> yes. following off what the congressman said, we do have to speak out and be very clear when serious allegations are made. we have to respect the survivors . there is a difference here between us related to what happened in the judge kavanaugh case, when dr. blasey ford came forward. congressman lance said that he -- he dismissed her allegations before she could even be heard before the house of representatives. i think that's precisely the sort of thing that makes it so hard for survivors of sexual violence and sexual harassment to come forward, the knowledge that they will be dismissed. >> that's time. thank you, mr. malinowski. 30 seconds to respond? >> i believe in due process of
5:02 pm
law. when dr. ford's attorney said she might not testify, i stated throughout the matter that dr. ford should be given the opportunity to testify and that she should be treated with dignity and respect, and, indeed, that is what happened. i think we can make sure that is true, also recognizing due process of law. >> let's move on to health care. our senior correspondent put together an explainer piece for us on this issue. >> land in a new jersey hospital without insurance, and it will cost you more than $2500 per day on average. no wonder the big concern for swing voters is a stable, affordable health care market. >> i ended up buying the cheapest insurance i could get for an emergency, and that insurance is almost $800 a month, which is just ridiculous. >> on jersey's individual market, three insurers offer
5:03 pm
coverage under the aca. will's next year because -- will decrease next year. le, the trump administration is seeking to abolish coverage for pre-existing conditions. new jersey bands so-called -- bans so-called junk plans. still, jersey ranks just 17 and affordable health care -- 17th and affordable health care. 1 -- just 17th in affordable health care. >> you say you remain committed to repeal and replace. what would need to be in a health care bill for you to vote on it, and is it possible to lower health care costs if there is no individual mandate? >> of course it is possible to lower health care costs.
5:04 pm
that's why i was a sponsor of the modern public and bill in 2009 and two dozen 10 that never saw the -- modern republic -- the moderate republican bill in 2009 and 2010 that never saw the light of day. it would make sure there was no desire -- denial of coverage based on pre-existing condition, pulling together like-minded interest, health savings accounts, which mr. malinowski opposes. i think they are an important component. and medical malpractice insurance reform. i do not want to go to a single payer health care system as is true in europe and canada. i favor the system on which we have built american health care, largely through employment. i think we should make sure go in forward that we that direction. >> 30 seconds, mr. malinowski? >> 36 -- congressman lance touts this
5:05 pm
claimst was tha he a moderate alternative. it would have said you cannot be denied coverage if you wants had cancer, but you could be denied coverage if the cancer recurred. insurance companies could charge you much more if you had a pre-existing condition. to say that protects pre-existing conditions is not leveling with the voters of the seven district. we need to be honest about this. >> 30 seconds to respond. >> in the parcel bill that came out of the energy and commerce bill that-- partial came out of the energy and commerce committee, there was protection of the pre-existing conditions and in no way did we change that. it was changed in the rules committee later. that was one of the principal reasons i did not vote for the bill on the floor. of course i favor protecting people with pre-existing conditions. that's been the law in new jersey for 25 years. >> mr. malinowski? >> you voted against it more
5:06 pm
than 60 times, congressman. the bill you just posted you supported would have denied boasted youst supported would have denied people coverage for pre-existing conditions, and you can't get around that record. you used to proudly run on that record when you were not afraid of losing reelection to a democrat. now you are running away from it. what we face is a congress where the republican majority has promised that the first thing they will do, if they win the midterm elections is once again, try to repeal. >> i have to stop you there. >> the new congress will be controlled narrowly either by the republicans or the democrats. i think the most important force in the new congress will be those of us who are in the sensible center, those of us who remember that there are only two new jerseyans within the problem-solving caucus. i think our reviews will prevail
5:07 pm
on this and on so many other issues. i don't favor the proposal of mr. malinowski regarding moving to a european-style health care system. >> mr. malinowski, this question is for you. believed you, quote, " that every american should have the freedom to buy into a medicare plan." the estimated cost is $32 trillion over 10 years. what's the difference between your plans? >> it's completely different. medicare for all is an idea that we should scrap the current system, abolish private insurance, and push everybody into a medicare-style system. i am not for that. although the ads suggest ever get -- every democrat is for that. that's politics. i'm for keeping the present system, but giving everybody the freedom to choose a public option on top of all of the private options that they currently have. medicare could be one of them. , in this was first proposed
5:08 pm
2009, the congressional, the nonpartisan congressional budget office, said that it would save taxpayers money, because it would provide a less expensive, competitive option on the marketplace. that would tend to reduce rates overall for everybody. ,t's about freedom of choice additional choice, competition. these are american values we ought to embrace as we reform our health care system. >> mr. lance, 30 seconds to reply. >> i'm opposed to that. i think it would destroy medicare for senior citizens. inevitably, employers would leave private health care coverage and force their employees to go into medicare. it would cost $32 trillion. i think that is the wrong way to proceed. under obamacare, $700 billion .as taken out of medicare that was one of the principal reasons that i voted against obamacare. i do not favor that. i favor preserving medicare as
5:09 pm
we know it. >> mr. malinowski, would you like 30 seconds? >> obamacare did nothing to take away benefits from seniors under medicare. what is threatening medicare today is continued efforts by the republican leadership in the house to turn it into a voucher program. paul ryan was in the district raising money for you today. mitch mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate, candidly said that because of the deficit he helped create through the tax bill last year, the only way to pay for that now is to rob the money from medicare. that's the threat to medicare. that's the threat we need to stop in these midterm elections. >> mr. lance, 30 seconds. >> nancy pelosi would not put up the bill i favored. mr. malinowski supports nancy pelosi in the five contested .aces in new jersey this year all the other democrats have said they would not support nancy pelosi for speaker. mr. malinowski has refused to do
5:10 pm
that. i think we should protect medicare and not rob it of $700 billion as was done under obamacare. >> your thoughts on nancy pelosi, then we will move on. >> sometimes it feels like there is a republican campaign school that teaches candidates that the answer to every question should pelosi, and iancy think it's one reason people are sick of politics in this country. the vote for the -- first speaker is important. i said i will only vote for a speaker who help me deliver for new jersey, will put a bill on the floor of the house to restore our property tax deduction, help us fund the gateway tunnel. i can deliver a speaker like that. congressman lance cannot make the same prominence -- promise. there's not a single republican candidate for speaker who will help us with those issues. >> 30 seconds. >> that's inaccurate. i've said i would only vote for a speaker who agrees to break the gridlock of republicans.
5:11 pm
that means that matters like the gateway tunnel would come to the floor. who have s they would notaid -- have said they would not vote for nancy pelosi. that's not true of mr. malinowski. >> let's go over to john mooney, founding member of nj spotlight. he has our first question from our social media post. >> these debates are getting a lot of attention online. we are monitoring a lot of it. addition, we reached out to readers and viewers through platforms to get their ideas on what the issues were and get some suggestions for questions. a big topic that came up was the financial squeeze of living in new jersey. one question reflected that came
5:12 pm
from an undecided voter in district seven. he is a retired science teacher. he is worried about his own children who he feels cannot even aspire to own a home anymore. with housing costs so high, house ownership is beyond the reach of many citizens. what are your plans to make ownership more affordable? you.ank mr. lance, we will go to you first. >> we have to do a better job in new jersey on the cost of government in this state. we have far too many jurisdictions and school board -- school boards. there should be greater consolidation. that is one of the principal reasons our property taxes are so high. also in new jersey, i believe we have to do a better job regarding bringing federal aid back to this state, and that is why we have to work in a bipartisan capacity to do that. it seems to me that bipartisanship will be the way forward.
5:13 pm
regarding senior citizens, we have to preserve medicare so they can continue to live in new jersey and not take 700 million -- out of medicare. $700 billion i am the author of a constitutional amendment and it prohibits further state borrowing without voter approval. that has had a good effect regarding expenditures at the state level which in turn will help reduce the cost of living in new jersey. >> same question to you. homeownershipmake more affordable? >> this is a crisis in the state of new jersey. it is homeownership, it is the cost of a college education and transportation. it is the cost of living across the board. the federal government is not helping us. we're getting back 74 cents from washington for every dollar we
5:14 pm
send in texas. -- taxes. the critical first step we have to take next year is to make sure congress restores those deductions. the republican leader in the house of representatives her -- including kevin mccarthy, the likely next speaker, who mr. lance the support, has made it clear that under republican leadership will they do that -- they will not do that. the only way is bipartisan legislation to address the needs of our state, which will require a democratic majority. >> the house did recently vote to make that cap permanent the $10,000 cap on state and local tax elections. one poll found that your district, nearly half of the residents expect their tax bill
5:15 pm
to increase. how will you work to restore the deduction? >> i would continue to work on that issue. the new congress will pass that because of the problem solvers. for any speaker who would not bring to the floor legislation that is cosponsored by a majority republicans and democrats and i think that will occur. number two, the bill that passed the house recently has no chance at all of passing the senate, so it will not become law. what we need most of all is an advocate in the senate of the united states on the republican side. that is why so strongly support bob huguenin for senate. in the tri-state area, new york, netiquette -- connecticut, in new jersey there is no , republican in the senate and while we advocate for this in the house we need a republican , in the senate to help with republicans across the country
5:16 pm
for our point of view regarding this. >> same question to you. you said you would work to restore the deduction. how? >> we need to elect a majority in the house of representatives that agrees with us that this reduction should be restored. this is not very complicated. politics in the house is a team sport. the speaker, the chairs of the various committees and it -- the leadership controls the agenda. the next speaker of the house of representatives, if the republicans maintain their majority, will be kevin mccarthy, who believes paul ryan was too conciliatory with democrats and who has stated repeatedly he does not believe that the salt reduction should be restored. we can take a circuitous route and reelect that majority and then create new rules and enable a few republicans to somehow rebel against their leadership and get it done, or we could just elect a majority that agrees with us.
5:17 pm
that is the simpler and more available approach. that's what we can achieve in the seventh congressional district, because we are one of the swing districts that will determine who controls the house. i will give you 30 seconds to respond. >> yes. i'm sorry that mr. malinowski dismisses the work of the problem solvers caucus and the critical proposal to break the gridlock. i would urge all constituents to examine that. that's why i am supported by the labels in this campaign. the preeminent bipartisan group in washington. repeat, the real issue is getting this through the use senate -- the senate. to do that, we need a strong republican voice for new jersey, and that's what we have in bob. >> maybe you should run for senate. you keep talking about that race. this is a choice between congress and lance and myself. -- congressman lance and myself. this is about what kind of house
5:18 pm
and leadership we are going to send to the house of representatives. thathether we can ensure body sends to the senate and ultimately to the president a bill that gets this done for the state of new jersey. togressman lance has failed stop the passage of the tax bill last year. he failed to stop the passage of the bill to make it permanent. he helped his leadership out by voting for a rule that prevented his own amendment. >> we have a bicameral federal legislature. we need bob huguenin in the senate. , to have legislation passed the house is not good enough. it has to pass the senate as well. >> let's move on from there. let's talk about, mr. lance, you brought up some of the government programs. this question is for both of you. mr. malinowski, you are first.
5:19 pm
social security and medicare and medicaid are based on a compact with the government. does the government have a responsibility to honor that at any cost? the government absolutely has a responsibility to honor the deal that it made with seniors in this country. these are not entitlement programs. these are not social welfare programs, social security and medicare in particular. these are programs we paid into and there was a promise made to us that we would get the benefits. now we have to make sure they are viable going forward into the future. medicare, in another 10 or 12 years, we could hit a crisis. one of the things i would like to do, if i'm elected, that would help medicare is to give it the opportunity, the legal right to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies the price of prescription drugs is -- drugs. the price of prescription drugs is going through the roof. it is another cost of living crisis we face.
5:20 pm
it would save medicare a lot of money in the long term to make that reform which president trump promised he would pursue in the campaign and it would extend the viability of that all-important promise to our seniors. >> same question to you. and your thoughts on mr. malinowski's proposal on negotiating those costs. >> absolutely come social security and medicare programs the american people have paid into that we have to protect them. course, under obama care, medicare was robbed of $700 billion and that's no way to protect medicare. regarding medicaid, which you mentioned as well, i figure the expansion of medicaid that has been helpful in new jersey. care, every state was supposed to expand medicaid. the supreme court ruled that is unconstitutional. new jersey was one of 31 states to expand medicaid, done by a republican governor, chris christie, and a democratically controlled legislature.
5:21 pm
certainly i have fought in washington for funding for that medicaid expansion. drugs, i the cost of think a principal culprit is pbms, and we have to reform pbm's. we have to get much tougher with other nations which do not contribute to the cost of research and development. the american people are in effect paying for research and development in the pharmaceutical industry, and that's not fair to the american public. >> a follow-up for both of you. mr. malinowski, you talk about keeping this solvent. would you support raising the retirement age to do so? >> no. this is the difference between us. congressman lance has proposed raising it further. it is being raised right now. based on an agreement made years ago. he supports raising it even further. i think that's a really bad deal for the american people, particularly folks who are
5:22 pm
in jobs that require heavy physical labor. tell it to a steel worker that the way we are going to save this system, which politicians have mismanaged in washington, is that they have to work two or three or four years longer in the future. this is coming from the same people who are telling us that somehow this deficit has been created, somehow we are looking at trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. we know why. it's because of the tax bill they passed. their solution to that is to cut social security and medicare and medicaid. how do we know that? because they honestly say so. mitch mcconnell has told us that this week. that is the threat of social -- to social security and medicare today that i am determined not to allow happen. >> mr. lance, same question. >> mr. malinowski is not running against mitch mcconnell. he's running against me and i favor preserving social security and medicare.
5:23 pm
in 1985, i believe, president reagan and tip o'neill passed a bill that raised the retirement age very gradually for people my age. mr. malinowski's age, not affecting anybody close to retirement. it was raised very gradually from 65 in four-month increments up to 67. depending on your cohort, you can retire with full benefits at 65, 66, or the top ages 67. i would raise that for teenagers and people in their 20's perhaps a year or two. the reason i say that is, when social security was enacted in 1935, the age expectancy in this country was 61. now it is roughly 80. >> i have to stop you there. it is time now for your candidate to candidate questions that you have each prepared.
5:24 pm
we did a coin toss earlier to determine who would go first. mr. lance, you will ask your question first. >> thank you very much. mr. malinowski, you and i have a fundamental disagreement on the irani and nuclear agreement -- the iranian nuclear agreement. i've -- i recognize this is based upon our views of policy. i think the official -- the people of this district have a right to recognize i am a strong opponent of the nuclear agreement and you were a strong proponent of it. i do not think it was in the national security interests of the united states or of our closest allies. billions and billions of dollars were given to the iranian government. given,t $1.7 billion was pallets of cash in the dead of night. can you guarantee, mr. malinowski, none of that funding went for terrorism against the united states or our closest
5:25 pm
allies? >> thank you for the question. i have spent much of my career, as you know, working to protect the national interest and the national security of this country. no one takes these issues more seriously than i do. for years under both republican and democratic administrations it was our highest objective with respect to iran to end that country's nuclear program. over the years, both the bush and obama administrations mobilized sanctions, mobilized the international community, and we reached an agreement that the head of the israeli defense iran'ssaid setback nuclear program by over 10 years. it was not a perfect deal. there were flaws in the deal. it did not do enough to counter iran's support for terrorism. it did not do enough to counter iran's other malign activities in the region. here is what happened in the last year.
5:26 pm
the trump administration managed to get agreement from our -- our allies in nato to get tougher on iran in those issues. >> that's time. you can wrap up. >> we turned our backs on that agreement. instead of the europeans working with us to counter iran, iran is working with the europeans to counter us. we are in no position to protect israel. you have no plan to resolve that problem. >> your question to mr. lance. >> thank you. congressman, you speak a lot about your moderation, your bipartisanship. you tout your membership in the problem solvers caucus him as you have many times tonight. you have argued that, in a future congress, which will have more democrats, something you seem to favor, thank you, that caucus will have more influence over policy. here is what puzzles me about that. your party right now has a 23% -- 23-seat majority in the house of representatives.
5:27 pm
the problem solvers caucus has 24 republican members. you have the power right now as a caucus to control the agenda of the house of representatives. you could pass that break the gridlock rule right now. you could write now use that 24 votes -- right now use that 24 votes to pass moderate, responsible else care legislation, universal background checks for gun purchases, something on the salt reduction -- deduction. why don't you use that influence now, and if you cannot use it now, why do you think you will be able to use it in the future? >> first of all,, you didn't answer my question. certainly, a good deal of money that we gave to the iranians was used for terrorism against the united states, and i think you should admit that. the problem solvers caucus will be more effective in the new term because whoever controls congress, it will be by a narrower margin. most important of all, the problem solvers caucus break the
5:28 pm
gridlock proposal will mean that bipartisan legislation will be able to come to the floor of congress. i will not vote for a speaker who does not agree to break the gridlock. i urge you to examine that. i hope you might be able to endorse that. >> you have more time, mr. lance, if you would like to finish. >> i think my record of bipartisanship is well known. 13th mostranked the bipartisan member of the house of representatives, 13 out of 435, in the top 3%. colleague,imer, my has been ranked eighth. i think it's no accident that he and i are the only members of the new jersey delegation in the problem solvers caucus. >> thank you. let's talk about trade. mr. malinowski, the deal to hasace nafta, called usmca, been agreed upon by the u.s., mexico, and canada, but still requires approval from congress. supporters tout domestic job growth. others say -- opponents say it
5:29 pm
will lead to higher costs for consumers. mitch mcconnell indicated a vote not take place until next year. if elected, will you support the deal? >> i think this has been a really interesting and disturbing episode. president trump railed against the north american free trade agreement, effectively declared war on one of our closest allies and partners in the world, canada, even as he cozied up to kim jong-un and other dictators around the world, calling this the worst trade deal ever negotiated. and then they negotiated a bill that was 99% the same as nafta. i think this is theater. hadink americans have enough. in the meantime, businesses and consumers are living in a state of anxiety about the future of the economy and the nature of this trade war the president keeps starting and stopping is going to mean.
5:30 pm
through all this time the united states congress has done absolutely nothing. there are moderate republican members who felt the congress should gain the right to approve the steel tariffs before they would be imposed and heard american consumers. moderator: time. lance, same question. would you support the new deal, the usnca? i'm likely to support it. i would want to read its entirety -- in it entirety. politicalture and philosophy of free trader. let me say, however i think we need to be much tougher on china. i have observed this in washington and i think the chinese have gotten away with hacking that is completely inappropriate that only regarding the dumping of steel and other matters but also in intellectual property rights.
5:31 pm
move forward, we and free trade in new jersey as a free trade state, and i am an eisenhower republican who believes in free trade but we have to be much tougher with china and i think this administration is attempting that. i hope it is successful. ultimately the end goal, however, should be free trade. moderator: let's move on to for policy then. david cruz put together a background piece on the issue. david: the president has ratcheted up the trade war with china announcing tariffs on $200 billion of chinese products. china responded with $60 billion in tariffs tariffs on u.s. products. these two economic powers seem headed for a lingering economic cold war. with iran, the administration has scrapped the obama era nuclear deal and is hoping sanctions will force tehran acts of the bargaining table. in north korea, securing id new station deal and identifying -- will take more than just love
5:32 pm
from the leaders of these two long-term adversaries. against russia are starting to hurt the economy they are reporting to analyst. and very severe measures are further next month complicating a relationship that is already under scrutiny by the special counsel. as a kingdombia warned the u.s. not to impose sanctions over the disappearance of the saudi journalist jamal khashoggi. moderator: rep. lance: which u.s. foreign relationship requires the most immediate attention? >> i think as of today we are all focused on this very dysfunctional relationship we have had with saudi arabia for many years which was brought into stock relief by the apparent brutal murder of an american resident, the journalist jamal khashoggi who saudi embassy the
5:33 pm
in turkey. when i was in the state department, helps convince president obama to suspend arms sales to saudi arabia that were being used in a brutal war in yemen. one of the worst decisions this made when iton came into office was to restore those arms sales. now seems as if the president is willing to give credence to the ridiculous denials that are coming from the suaudi government. i think it is extremely important that we set a tough precedent. that you cannot do this. we have a lot of people living in new jersey on the united states of our critics of governments around the world and we cannot allow the precendent that they can be killed. moderator: same question two. which foreign relationship needs the most immediate attention? >> the most dangerous place on earth is north korea. and when the obama
5:34 pm
administration left office, there had been no progress in that area at all. and i believe that president obama said to president-elect trump that that would be the most serious area. do i think we will be successful with north korea? i don't know. i'm glad we're engaged there, but i am very cautious. i believe and trust but verify. so, i do not know whether it will work. i hope it will work. illusion thatno that is a sure thing could regarding saudi arabia, we should not continue with the agreement. this is appalling, and congress is outraged by this. there have been statements by quite a few people including lindsey graham, for example, of south carolina. then, finally, let me say, regarding russia, i believe deeply in the russian sanctions. we passed that. the president signed that into law, perhaps reluctantly but
5:35 pm
that is a difficult area as well. moderator: if i am hearing you correctly, north korea would be where your most immediate attention -- >> that is the most immediate. but saudi arabia is a terrible situation as of today. moderator: let's move on. we have another social media question. let's head back over to the newsroom where john mooney is standing by with that for us. john: thanks. upther topic that is coming a lot and actually in the facebook discussion we are doing right now is climate change, rising urgency of the crisis and what is going to happen to address it. a recent international report talked about dire consequences as soon as the next decade or two. and this is a concern of one of our readeres. e's a retired biochemistry professor and he worries about his grandchildren and the earth they will inhabit. his question is quick and to the point. what is the first thing congress should do about global warming? moderator: we like quick and to the point. mr. malinowski, 60 seconds.
5:36 pm
>> climate change is a threat to the planet. our failure to confront is missing a tremendous economic opportunity. i want the united states to lead the world to a clean energy future, not china. there are two different ways to approach this if we are serious. regulation,gh compelling energy emitting companies to lower their emissions and i understand that most of the private sector does not like that. congressman lance as a republican does not like that. the alternative is to use market incentives, a cap and trade plan, a carbon fee that would place a market price on carbon that would be returned to the american taxpayers in the form of a rebate. now, president obama proposed first one and then the other. congressman lance said no to both. he will say he is for solar energy and for wind and all of these things, so am i, so is everybody but what are we doing
5:37 pm
about in the united states congress if we're rejecting every alternative that has been presented that might work? moderator: mr. lance? >> yes, i iam am a member of the climate change caucus. i believe in climate change, i believe in signs and i think this is a serious issue. i favor a strategy of all of the above. wind, solar, nuclear, half of the power in the state comes from nuclear. energy. and regarding the atlantic coast, this is an ideal area for wind farms. however, mr. malinowski and ii do disagree. i do not favor a carbon tax. i think the people of the united states are taxed too much. and i believe that is not in the best interests of the american taxpayer. i think we can get to where we need to be by these alternative sources of energy. recognizing that they are important in the tax code,
5:38 pm
making sure we move forward with me repeatr and let regarding nuclear energy -- we in new jersey rely on that to a much greater extent than other state. moderator: i'll give you 30 seconds and you can respond to the carbon tax. >> he said exactly what i predicted, he says he favors nuclear and wind and solar. you are a member of congress. what are you doing to favor those things? >> tax credits. >> tax credits are not going to get us to the point. >> i don't favor a carbon tax. favor anything that serious economists have told us will meet the targets we need to avert the catastrophe that is looming. it is quite pathetic. >> we are over taxed in this country and i do not favor a carbon tax. i do think it would be in the best favor of the united states. i hardly consider that pathetic. moderator: let's move onto a topic that has been a big issue across the country but also for
5:39 pm
your districts. mr. lance, this question goes to you regarding guns. allow2, you voted to licensed gun carriers from other states to bring firearms into new jersey, but you recently voted against the concealed carry reciprocity act. how do you explain the change? >> that was based upon the fact aat after hurricane sandy person came into new jersey, good samaritan to help us, and had a weapon that was legally purchased in another state. and i thought it was unfair that person should be arrested. gun control and that is why have been endorsed by get begin for its. it is one of my proudest endorsements. gabby giffords and her organization. havenk it is possible to been safety laws at the same time strongly support the second amendment. i do not believe they are mutually inconsistent. for example, i do not favor concealed carry and voted recently that way. this is well beyond sandy.
5:40 pm
i favor background checks. i think that is the most of foreign piece of legislation we can pass, it is known as the thompson-king belt. ill. harassment thompson is a democrat from california and congressman king a republican from long island. i'm confident we can move forward with that. i also believe in repealing the dickie amendment and i voted for that, which should examine this issue. moderator: time. mr. malinowski, i will give you 30 seconds to reply. >> as we are speaking tonight there are children telling her parents across this district they the live drills encounter today. this started with the sandy hook massacre in connecticut when those children were killed in their elementary school. when that happened, those parents pleaded with you congressman, pleaded with the congress to do something. opposed universal background checks, you oppose the ban on the site rifles, -- on assault rifles.
5:41 pm
what has changed? you are afraid of losing an election. moderator: i do have a follow-up. you say your are in favor of strong gun-control reforms. what one piece of legislation would you prioritize? >> there are number of things we have to do. universal background checks is one of them. returning to the ban on military style assault rifles, saving lives in america in the 1990's. the minimum age of purchase for weapons, limiting the amount of ammunition people can buy. i should not be able to go to a ton show and buy enough ammo equip an army peonies are steps the vast majority of americans support. and even that universal background check that congressman lance now in his effort to survive this race is saying that he supports has absolutely no chance of passage if the republicans retain the majority. if you think the problem solvers caucus can do it, congressman, you could do it right now. you have 24 members who could
5:42 pm
force a vote on that bill right now that they are not with. you cannot do this. i can. moderator: mr. lance, 30 seconds. >> this congress has passed gun control legislation that -- a democratic congress did not pass. amendment.he dickie when barack obama was first president and the democrats controlled the house and the senate by 60 votes, the administration did not bring former the assault weapons ban, because it would not have passed the senate. i think we should work in areas where we can be effective and i believe the next most effective step is the background check. limiting the gun show loophole. i am committed to doing that. my views are based upon my views and not political considerations. moderator: one more rebuttal. for any of those things until you got afraid of losing reelection.
5:43 pm
campaigns you probably campaigned on your opposition to universal background checks and to everything that you now say you are for. thatickie on then languished in the energy and commerce committee which he sat on for years -- it's the law after the parkland messenger. whassacre. my support byd of gapping efforts give her it's. she is the important person in this area. >> i was endorsed by the brady campaign and have the support of moms demand action. all of the activists that are canvassing for me and demonstrating outside of your offers every single wednesday because they know your record. >> my record i am proud of and i a proud that gap again for itb, leader, has endorsed me. moderator: thank you both. let's move on to transportation. mr. lance, first question to you. it's unclear if federal funding
5:44 pm
will be granted to continue the gateway tunnel. since congress has been unable to shore up the financial would you, where look to find money a federal funding fails? >> i am one of those responsible for $500 million in the appropriations bill for the gateway tunnel. i give an a norm is amount of credit to my colleagues, the chairman of the appropriations committee. i personally defended that portion of the appropriations bill in the house of representatives when a colleague from north carolina wanted to strip it out of the bill. i am proud of that fact. . gateway funding has to come from sources. that has to come from the federal government. when i was in the white house, i had been in the white house precisely twice in the trump presidency, once fighting for gateway funding and another time in opposition to the health care bill. the federalme from government, from the state of new jersey, trenton, the state
5:45 pm
of new york and albany and from the port authority of new york and new jersey and i think that because i and it will think these forces should come together. no one source will be responsible but i think it is a source from the various entities i have described. moderator: it is a $30 billion project. the tunnel itself cost $13 billion. would you favor a public-private partnership to get the funding, if in exchange the repayments we need to come in a form of tolls and fees on commuters? >> i favor the deal it was reached under which the federal government is supposed to provide 50% of the funding. we do not give up on that in the state of new jersey just because we have a president who wants to break the deal. we elect the congress that is going to fight for it. now we did get a little bit of money in the budget last year to start the process of paying for this tunnel. correctressman lance is
5:46 pm
because we got a primarily cuts congressman freeling housing is the chairman. but he's retiring. he is giving up. if the republicans maintain the majority, the next chair of that all-important committee that will decide this question will be someone either from texas, oklahoma, or alabama. those are the candidates. we are not going to get federal funding for the gateway tunnel if we reelect the leadership the congressman lance support is in the united states congress. moderator: 30 seconds. >> yes, i am hopeful that the new chairman might be congressman carl of oklahoma, a perfectly reasonable man. he has been in my own residence in new jersey. and i think he would be favorably disposed to helping us. i do not discriminate against men a congress based upon their geography. in congress.eople of a proud proponent
5:47 pm
treating every member of congress the same regardless of where he or she may come from. moderator: we need to move on from there. let's talk about politics. mr. malinowski, how would a democratic congress function differently to accomplish national goals than the current republican congress with a republican also in the white house? >> well, first of all we would repeal what is known as the reasonsrule, one of the for the gridlock that has taken place in the house of representatives. the rule that the republican majority has embraced that says you cannot even get a vote on a bill unless a majority of republican caucus is for it. that gives the tea party republicans the veto power over everything. we will not govern in that way because it is in our interest as democrats to move bipartisan legislation forward. i'll tell you why. because of the threat to our country and the big threat to the democratic party is the
5:48 pm
cynicism that is so pervasive about the ability of the congress to get things done. it will be in our interest to pass bills, which this congress has been unable to do, apart from that tax bill that gouged new jersey. moderator: mr. lance, as mr. the all they way to maintain a check on the opposing party as the majority in congress? >> no, of course not. each of us as a member of congress should be a check. where i have disagreed with the president i have indicated so. but if nancy pelosi, who is mr. malinowski's candidate for speaker, become speaker, she is one of the most partisan people in washington. proof of this is when nancy pelosi was speaker of the house, republican bills did not come to the floor. id regarding bipartisanship have always tried to be
5:49 pm
bipartisan. the 13th most bipartisan member of congress. in a prior debate mr. malinowski accuse the republican party of washington, d.c., of debating whether or not it is a white nationalist party. one of the most appalling statements i've heard in public life. that is no way forward. i would never accuse the democratic party of any such action related in any way. we should treat each other in congress as we should treat each other as americans. and respectfully and that is the way i have always conducted myself. moderator: mr. malinowski, i will give you 30 seconds. mr. lance is referring to the form of the gateway regional chamber of commerce. >> of course. i was very clear in that comment that i would never achieve you those kinds of sentiments to you congressman lance or to the bass majority of republicans i meet in the district. i have been endorsed recently by several elected republican officials in the district. but to say that there is no
5:50 pm
debate when, after all, the president is a republican and he has praised white nationalist in charlottesville and complained white genocide going on around the world and said the people who are against confederate moderate -- monuments are threatening the culture of our country, to say there is no debate, to deny that there is an issue is to not be in a position to do anything about it. i have to be honest. moderator: i will give you 30 seconds. and then we need to move on. >> mr. malinowski did not make it all clear at the chamber of commerce debate whether he was referring to me. i'm in washington in my responsible responsibilities. those were certainly not his remarks at the gateway chamber of commerce. it is no way for regarding bipartisanship.i tried it all colleagues with the respect they deserve. townis why i have held 47 hall meetings, more than any
5:51 pm
other member of congress in new jersey, more than all members of congress in new jersey together. moderator: quickly, 30. >seconds. did make that clear. i made clear i did not talk about the new jersey republican party. we cannot be in a state of denial about the sources of instability in our country today. the president of the united states is a role model. children hear what he says. and, honestly, congressman when it comes to checks and balances, it is not enough if you are a member of congress to say, you disapproved. that is not a check. that is not a balance. the congress has constitutional responsibilities to act and it is not doing so. moderator: mr. lance, what letter grade would you give president trump and why? >> i would give him a b. i believe he is doing a better job fighting isis. i certain he favored moving our embassy from tel aviv to
5:52 pm
jerusalem. pro much more strongly israel than mr. malinowski. but i have been critical of the president. regarding the 10 or where -- regarding the tenor of wthe president's twitter. certainly critical of charlottesville. i do believe firmly that we should always be civil and respectful of each other. hillary clinton said, civility after this election. i thought it was an appalling statement. the president is the leader of the country. and he certainly should be more civil. so should democratic leaders as well. moderator: 30 seconds. >> to suggest there is any equivalence is again an example of congressman lance's state of denial. there are not democratic leaders were calling women horse faces. there are not democratic leaders who fail to distinction between
5:53 pm
patrioticemacists and america to demonstrate against them. we have a problem. and we are not going to address that problem by simply occasionally disapproving and notng, i wish you would tweet so much. this is a much deeper problem that requires leadership and the house of representatives and in the congress. moderator: time. we are going to move on to immigration. mr. malinowski, this question is for you. which you support funding for a wall on the southern border in exchange for a path for citizenship for daca recipients? >> no, i don't believe we should hold these children hostage to build a wall that we don't need. have you ever heard of the 35th ladder? it is preposterous. so that president trump can keep the campaign promise that he made that we force these young people who have given everything to this country, some of whom have served in the united states military, that we should hold their fate hostage to that is terribly wrong.
5:54 pm
would not have this problem if the united states congress several years ago had not failed to pass the dream act. arecommerce wetlands, you one of the republicans who voted against the dream act. you helped create this problem that we are now trying to dig our way out of with these ridiculous negotiations over a wall. to protectn bill these kids. and then we should have bipartisan,, copper heads of immigration reform but set aside the daca kids, please. moderator: the trump administration did recently cap the number of new refugees to 30,000. is that an appropriate number? >> no, i think that number should be higher. not me say regarding the issue of immigration, i am a sponsor of a clean fdream act. but i do not think that will pass in the senate of the united states. pass is ast likely to
5:55 pm
compromise bill that leads to greater border security. not the building of a wall. -aguilar bill., i'm a cosponsor of that bill. i favor a path to citizenship for dreamers. i fever greater border security. -- i favor greater border security, not a wall. regarding the parents of dreamers who came here illegally, i favor a path to legalization but not to citizenship. is in someone who washington who understands the dynamics of both the house and thesenate, as i hope i do, way forward is a compromise security,ter border not a wall and a path to citizenship for the dreamers. moderator: thank you. mr. malinowski, i will go to you for a response. >> here is the defeatist attitude from congressman lance. we should not try to do something in the house unless we know it will pass the senate.
5:56 pm
mosts been rated the 13th bipartisan member but he has ifth least the ff effective and we see exactly why. >> that is an appalling statement. that was by a left-wing blogger that has gone out of business. it is really not in the best interest to make such a statement. i was rated the 13th most bipartisan member of congress by the lugar center at georgetown. that is quite different from a left-wing blogger. >> i can't think of a single major piece of legislation that you have gone through congress. singlet think of a single thing that has changed for the people of our district on health care, gun violence, immigration, on the environment, on the gateway tunnel because of something you did congressman. you've renamed the post office. that was one bill that you passed. this is a serious question.
5:57 pm
we are electing somebody who needs to fight for us. i don't see a modify in you in the united states congress. we need to change that if we want to get results. >> my opponent just disparaged, a great hero of world war ii regarding the renaming of a post office. thessed the health act, breast cancer education act . the anti-scamming act. i have passed $1 billion for chip for children in puerto rico after the horrible hurricane there. pieces ofsed major legislation in the opiate package that has passed and his reach the president's desk. i was responsible for the bill fighting opiates. moderator: mr. lance, this question is for you about women's health. you proposes splitting planned parenthood into two organizations. one that deals with women's health and another to perform
5:58 pm
aobortions. do you stand by that proportion. >> i would hope that would be the case for it i think that would end the controversy. i support funding for women's health services. i would preferred that it would be through qualified health centers but when the bill came back to us in the house in the senate for planned parenthood i voted for that. there are lots of republicans who did not. but i'm one of those republicans who voted for that funding. i would hope moving forward that we can continue with these essential programs and that is ned i voted for plan to bu parenthood, but i would've preferred that funding go to qualified health care centers. there are far more in his congressional district and across the nation and there are planned parenthood facilities. moderator: 30 seconds. >> that is not true. is the onlyood organization that provides a vital services, cancer screenings, contraceptive care, to women in many parts of our
5:59 pm
congressional district, congressman. you say you know the district like the back of your hand, you should know that. and again toagain deny funding to planned parenthood and this preposterous idea they should split into two organization to give yourself an easier time politically to vote on this issue, it's certainly dead on arrival with what we need to do is to support reproductive health care. moderator: thank you. it is time for closing statements. the order was determined earlier. mr. malinowski, you will go first. >> thank you very much for this fascinating debate we have had. there is a lot of noise out there. as there is in every election. their ridiculous negative ads funded by super pac's the people are turning off rather than watch. but this is an important election. every election is about choices. lastve seen just in the
6:00 pm
two days the republican leadership in the congress has been very honest, i give them credit, about what a vote for them would mean. one, they will try to repeal the affordable care act again and this time john mccain is not there to cast the no vote. they want to make the tax bill permanent and to pay for the hole in the budget they have created by raiding social security and medicare. there will be no checks and balances. congressman lance can do nothing about those things. but we can do something in the district. we can elect a congressman who has a record of effectively fighting in the united states congress and a congress that will agree with new jersey on the major issues of the day. moderator: mr. lance? >> i run for re-election based on my record of service over the last 10 years. i run for re-election based on my knowledge of the district. mr. malls nowkey parachuted into his district a year ago having
6:01 pm
never lived in the district. he's a complete carpetbagger. his views are not those of the majority of the congressional district. the majority of the district believes in cent rhythm. the best government is from the center out. that's why i'm proud of my responsibilities moving forward to break the gridlock, maybing sure we work together in a bipartisan exasstasme bipartisan capacity will require continued civility as i have always conducted myself and certainly i believe that my views are the views of a majority of the residents of this congressional district of i ask for continued support. i am confident and optimistic about the future of this country. we can and will work together to create a better america. moderator: thank you, leonard lance, tom malls nowkey, that concludes our seventh -- tom malinowski. that concludes our seventh
6:02 pm
condition gregsal district debate. >> with the election weeks away, watch the dates from key house and senate races. make c-span your primary source for campaign 2018. >> with 19 days until the mid-term leches, c-span's campaign 2018 coverage continue this is evening with a live pennsylvania 10th district house debate between republican incumbent scot perry and democratic challenger george scott. they'll meat in harrisburg. that gets under way live at 7:00 p.m. eastern, we'll have it for you here on c-span. also tonight, president trump attends a campaign rally for montana republican u.s. senate candidate rosendale who is running against jon tester. the president gives remarks in missoula beginning live at 8:30 p.m. eastern on c-span . coming up monday, more campaign events as former president bruckbruck heads to las vegas
6:03 pm
for the nevada democratic party and their get out the vote rally. he'll be live at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and that evening, more from president trump as he speaks at a rally in support of texas senator ted cruz who is running against congressman beto o'rourke for the texas senate. see those live monday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> up next a michigan governors debate


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on