tv Campaign 2020 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand at Washington Post Live CSPAN August 20, 2019 12:00am-12:54am EDT
mechanisms that increase the integrity of the count. that's what makes this a difficult security problem. we want both of those things at the same time. host: you mentioned mitch mcconnell, his home state. crescent springs, good morning. caller: yes, mitch mcconnell is running for reelection in 2020. we need to push this issue in kentucky because he is my senator. i think he would address this issue a little bit earlier. we have like 120 counties in kentucky and out of those 120, 38 of our counties had more voters registered than we did in the population. it could be various reasons to why this was happening. currently, now, we have what i would call the optical scan. we have a paper where i fill up my black box and then we scan it through. i hope that is more viable than any of the others. also, what i would really like
to see, i would like to see more control of our voting by the county clerk in our counties, rather than giving it to the secretary of state, and she was sued by judicial watch for not cleaning up the voter rolls and at this time, the voter rolls are still not cleaned. person runningw for secretary of state and every one of these candidates and the primary has basically supported cleaning up these the voter rolls. another issue i would like to address -- host: we are out of time, i want to give professor halderman a chance to respond to follow that. guest: i would say that the very positive thing that you just mentioned is the optical scan paper ballots in the polling place. that is the best technology we have currently for securely recording people's votes. what the state also needs to
do is make sure that those paper ballots are being regularly audited to make sure that they match the statewide results. is not expensive, it is not particularly time-consuming, but it is a step that most states just don't do yet. but they need an audit in order to get a strong assurance. i think another interesting point this raises is just how local election administration tends to be. about 8000 different jurisdictions across the country responsible for running elections on the local level. unfortunately, we just don't have good standards to provide a minimum floor for securing elections across those 8000 jurisdictions. i think that's where more federal resources and federal standards could play a huge role in making things better. we still have to allow autonomy for jurisdictions to accommodate local needs and go beyond those
standards, but as it is, from county to county and state to state, we just have a highly varied patchwork of strongly protected and weakly protected jurisdictions. host: outlook turkey new mexico, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. are in new mexico, we have really good election system, i believe. i am concerned about what happens if there is an election that is questioned, where the thelts come out so that election is actually in question, even in some local jurisdictions. i've thought about the question of what happens if there is a over anddoing election, which i think would be disastrous. has got the who leading edge on those kinds of things.
do you just have to throw it to the courts and cross your fingers? good question, what happens if we find out that something is wrong? i think the answer to that is going to depend a lot on the local rules in each state about whether there are things like recounts available under the law, whether there is a paper trail to go back to and check. the good thing when you have a paper trail, you can go back, audits, potentially recounts if the audit is showing something wrong. then gets much more evidence about what is happening. it's possible the paper has been tampered with and we need to investigate any kind of evidence for that, whether the paper or the computer record has more integrity in that case. but this is all about making sure elections are more resilient. we need players of protection including physical backups like the paper trail, including other cyber security advances to just
make them as difficult to alter and as easy to go back and recheck as we can. new mexico, by the way, has a great history of strong election administration, including that they are one of the states that does the most to check the paper trail after every election to make sure it is rigorously audited and confirming the computer results are right. professor halderman is a computer science and engineering professor at the university of michigan. presidential candidate senator kirsten gillibrand sat down for a forum posted the "washington post." >> after that on fake news. then the 50th anniversary of woodstock.
to land int africans english north america would arrive here in 1619. that would begin an amazing experience in the development of the united states. saturday special american history tv, washington journal feature. as we look back to the first arrival of africans to america. 400 years ago. fortint comfort historic monroe, virginia. at 8:30 a.m. eastern we arrived -- live with norfolk stake university professor cassondra alexander newby for the history and origins of slavery in america. at 930 a.m., live coverage of the commemorative ceremonies, with speeches by virginia government officials including senator mark warner, senator tim northam,vernor ralph and lieutenant governor justin fairfax. the history of africans in america, from fort monroe, live saturday beginning at 8:30 a.m..
on c-span's washington journal. and on american history tv on c-span3. e conservative agenda as well as gun violence. mr. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am fred ryan, publisher, and am happy to have you here with us this morning. through these in-depth one-on-one conversations, we are learning more and more about the men and women seeking to become next president of the united states and what inspires them to serve the american people. our guest this morning is new york's america resting gillibrand. in.
2006, she captured the attention of the political establishment by winning the upset victory to represent the 20th congressional district. our guest this morning is new york senator kirsten gillibrand. in 2006 she captured the attention our guest this morning is new york senator kirsten gillibrand. in 2006 she captured the attention of the political establishment winning an upset victory in the race to represent new york's 20th congressional district. just three years later she was appointed to the fill the senate seat of one of her mentors, former secretary of state hillary clinton. now in her second full term, she's working on behalf of women. she has endorsed paid family
leave, sponsored legislation on reducing maternal mortality and spoken out against sexual harassment and assault including in congress. today we'll hear more about these efforts and senator gillibrand's other priorities such as medicare for all, gun control and immigration policy and share with us thoughts about her campaign including her strategy for making it onto the democratic stage in houston next month. please join me in welcoming senator kirsten gillibrand and "the washington post's" bob costa. [applause] bob: thank you so much for joining us here on "washington post live." i am robert costa. we appreciate you taking the time. thank you so much for being here. busy of the campaign trail, you are in missouri yesterday, thank you for being here. sen: gillibrand: my pleasure. bob: a few weeks before labor day and you were struggling in the polls both nationally and in early states. what is your path ahead? sen: gillibrand: i am really proud of where our campaign is. we just had our first qualifying poll and i expect to get what i need to next few weeks. we are leading the debate on a lot of important issues. yesterday, as you said, we were in missouri, because what we have seen in the past year and half from president trump is an all-out assault on women's reproductive freedom and we went to the front lines to talk about what this means for women. it is a health care issue where
they don't have the ability to make their own decisions about whether to have children, how many children they are having, under what circumstances. it is an issue of economics, not having access to the health care they need. meaning that disproportionate harm will fall to women who do not have enough money to travel out of state. to low income women that is why the hyde amendment matters so much. and issues of basic human rights that you are telling women they cannot have agency over their own bodies to make these very hard decisions. so we have been leading the debate on women's reproductive freedom. i also went to the front lines of georgia. we have been leading the debate on a family bill of rights. why national paid leave matters. why look affordable daycare, universal pre-k matters print why equal pay for equal work matters. and making sure that the matter who you are, who you love, where you live or who you love you can actually access family rights like national paid leave and adopting children.
so despite all of that, i think it is important that my voice is heard on the national stage. so we can talk about these issues. it is why hope your viewers go to kirsten gillibrand.com and send $make the next debate stage. bob: despite all you laid out and you've struggled to get traction. whitey think that is? sen: gillibrand: this is for democrats to really say what we stand for is a party and to lift up voices be heard. i am late in the debate on issues like getting my own politics. i think my voice needs to be on the next debate stage. i think the rules we have for the dnc are new. most people are not aware of it. to get to the debate stays in need to do two things. i need to have 100 thousand individual supporters. and i'm just over 110,000. so i'm hoping that everyone here
cents a dollar. though i can make the debate stage. have theou need to national polls. it is very early. so having enough national polls is accruing to those who do have very high name recognition. bob: to those rules make sense? they're not viral. i have to follow them. i have to meet these goals. i believe in the grassroots, that every person in this room every person watching other voice actually matters. they may not realize it matters today. but it does. that is why i'm here speaking to all of your listeners and viewers to say your voice matters today. if you want issues of reproductive rights, of lgbt equality, money out of politics on that debate stage, i hope you will agree that my voice is needed. make that debate stage in houston? how close are you? sen. gillibrand: very.
but i need help. i have to ask your viewers to go help to go to kirsten gillibrand.com. bob: they're where the website by now. [laughter] keep askingand: you me so i keep telling you. bob: if a candidate does not make the human it -- the houston debate states, should they reconsider daca sen. gillibrand: it is up to them to decide what their campaign looks like why they are running and what they want to accomplish. i also have a different experience than most other candidates. coming from blue state, there's a false debate in the party now. either you have to be overcome aggressive who can inspire the days or you have to be a moderate who wins those red and purple areas. i believe we have to do both. my candidacy is both. not only do i laid on women's rights and gay rights and clean air and clean water and will pass agree new deal, but it actually -- in actually know how to do it and to bring people together. democrats and repugnance in a
bipartisan basis. i have passed big legislation as a u.s. senator. don't ask don't tell repeal. the nine 11 health bill. i just made it permanent a couple weeks ago. so are first responders have health care compensation for the rest of their lives. even in the last congress bypassed 18 bills all of which president trump signed into law even though he does not know he signed it into law. [laughter] slacks get a lot done. even more important is illegibility. i win in the red places and purple places in new york, on a higher margin than anyone ever before. i went higher margins than hillary, then president obama, than any person that has ever run for senate. or governor. at 72%, the highest vote threshold. so i can win places like michigan, ohio, pennsylvania and wisconsin, which are going to be necessary for the general election. fit, senator? you say you don't need to be just a moderate or liberal. sen: gillibrand: you need to be both. bob: where do you fit into that spectrum? sen: gillibrand: i am at the
forefront of a lot of our progressive issues. i actually know how to press the green new deal. i know a lot of the parts of it. i have already been working on it for decades. i know you have to put a price on carbon to use market forces to actually address global climate change. i know how to find republicans to do it on a bipartisan basis. i am effective in the senate. you need somebody who is both, at the forefront of big ideas -- women's rights, gay rights, clean-air, clean water, making sure we don't compromise our values and knowing how to find republicans that will work with you. when we repealed don't ask, don't tell, we did not water down the bill. we did it by finding brave enough republicans to help lead the way. we had the seven we needed. i had to work with democrats. there were democrats and said to me, why are you doing this now, it is not convenient? and i would look them in the eye and said, when our civil rights
re civil rights convenient? you do it because it is the right thing to do. i know how to get things done and that is what everybody needs. i am a progressive but i know how to find common ground to do things on a bipartisan basis. bob: speaking on questions of duty and timing, should chairman nadler introduce articles of impeachment this fall? sen. gillibrand: my view is yes, because i believe we have a responsibility in congress to provide oversight and accountability over the executive branch when are such serious allegations of wrongdoing. the mueller report is detailed. it has multiple serious factual analyses of obstruction of justice. robert mueller said to us, if you could have exonerated the president, he would have. it also said to us quite clearly he did not believe he had that indict.sis to i think there were delayed out
in the report that it is your job, congress, to go through the allegations, go through the facts, lift it up to the american people so we know what took place. i think we need to be in the impeachment proceedings to guarantee getting the testimony cgahn as well as barr, which i believe is essential given the allegations in the report. president trump continues to obstruct that. i think it is necessary. i do understand the importance of what speaker pelosi has put forward, that we want the american people to know our agenda. she has done that. her first 100 days were impressive -- focusing on ethics reform, voting rights, getting money out of politics economic , issues, job training issues, how to revitalize the rural economies. she is on it. but i think she has an obligation to do both of the same time. mr. costa: you went after joe biden on his recent debate on as his op-ed from years ago. but on policy, what are your key differences between you and him? he is leading in the polls. sen. gillibrand: i don't know.
that was the question i asked. he wrote this op-ed a long time ago where he said some pretty stark thanksgiving for that time. he said that a parent working outside the home was resulting in the deterioration of the family. quote. he said a parent working outside the home was avoiding , responsibility quote unquote. as a woman who has worked outside the home for her had twoe, a woman who sons and thought affordable, high-quality day care was unaffordable at the time, i wanted to know specifically what did you mean when you wrote those things. did you think me, a member of congress, was somehow undermining the family or deteriorating the family, or i was avoiding responsibility? so i respectfully asked, what did you mean when you wrote it, and to you still believe it
today? but we did not have a conversation. not only did my grandmother work outside the home a long time ago, because it was important to feed her family, but hurt my mother -- but my mother worked outside the home. i wanted to know why he believed they somehow deteriorated my family. they are my role models. it is why i'm running for president of the united states why i believe that instead of a misogynist in the white house, we need a working mom. it is why i have let on these -- led on these issues of making sure all people can have access to paid family leave. it is why i led on making affordable day care and universal pre-k a cornerstone of my presidential campaign. it is why i believe in equal pay and it will best equal work. the question is a legitimate question. what has changed is that he is running for president. and when you have written those something so far
out of step with our party, i just need to know that you don't believe that anymore, and that is a legitimate question. bob: and legitimate question from your point of view. onhave seen your criticism that op-ed. anybroadly, do you have policy differences with the vice president, on foreign policy and economic policy? sen. gillibrand: on trade. has been a.f.t.a. disaster for this country in places like upstate new york, even long island, this is like michigan, ohio, pennsylvania and wisconsin. when you sign on to a bad trade deal that is a giveaway to corporate interests, it harms us. i think n.a.f.t.a. 2.0 under president trump has harmed us. i think trump's bad trade deal is a giveaway to companies in new mexico, locking in higher -- companies in mexico, locking in higher profits than they would ever be entitled to, it is
a giveaway. that is what is wrong with some of our trade agreements. i did not support ttp. specifically the transpacific partnership, because there were locked-in guarantees for multinational companies where they would have more power than a local government trying to protect our air and water. just imagine that for a minute. imagine a country is trying to say that this particular product from this manufacturer causes cancer, we don't want it in our water and we want litigation against a multinational company trying to pollute our community. , theythe tpp agreement didn't have a right to do that. it was outrageous. so i have a different view on trade from president biden and others running because i cannot support a trade agreement that is a giveaway. do believe in medicare for all? sen. gillibrand: yes. vice president biden supports a public option under
obama's health care law. if you are the democratic nominee, how do you fight that argument on the right? sen. gillibrand: on medicare for all? it is easy. back to the first thing i told you about me, i am different from most candidates running for president because i have an understanding and sensibility about how people who live in read --rld, people who live in these red, r ural places see the world. i hate to admit this but i have uncles who voted for trump. [laughter] sen. gillibrand: so i know what is going on in their minds. when i ran for congress, in 2005, i actually ran on medicare for all. when i was traveling around my congressional district, this was pre-obamacare, people are being dropped from their coverage because of pre-existing conditions. kept insurance companies charging too much money, their co-pays were too high and a deductibles. it is a life or death issue. every issue the american people kitchen-table
issues. that they struggle with every night that they cannot get sleep because they are worried about it. their child is sick and they do not know how to get the treatment they need. i know what it feels like as a mom to have anxiety over a child. when ceo as a toddler had an allergic reaction. his face blowup. and literally ran to the shower, doused him with water, rushed to the emergency room. throatfraid his would close the only thing is not afraid of was i had insurance card in my wallet, credit card in my wallet. imagine every mother or father who is rushing to the emergency room who has no security and knowledge that they can buy whatever health care their child needs to save their life. that is the reality for people today. it was a reality for people in
2005. so i said to my district, how would you feel if you could buy the medicare at a price you could afford, 4% or 5% of income. the matter what, it is always there for you. they loved it. this is a 2:1 republican district. i promise you as president i can go anywhere in the country and say, why not have a not-for-profit public option competing with your insurance that charges you too much money? why do you think a for-profit company cares about whether you get access to the medicine you need or that second day in the hospital, or that treatment that costs too much money? they don't. companies, they have an obligation to their shareholders, not to you. it is how the economy works. it is their obligation. so i could very sensibly say to them, let's at least have a not-for-profit insurance option. i can take it to republican members of congress and say let's just try it and see how it
works. it will work. before you go about medicare for all, you will need to fix it. it will have to cover everything families need, dental, hearing, vision, all the things people have buy extra insurance to get to make it work. second, make sure the reimbursement rate to the hospital or provider actually covers costs. those are things you can build on. give them five years. right? create a transition period, something i wrote in senator sanders' bill. it is not necessary -- this is necessary. buy-in over the year and see how many do. i would not be surprised if it was 90% of americans pay more than 90% of americans -- would you like to have access to all the health you need a $4000 a year? you would want it. mr. costa: you mentioned an uncle who supported president trump -- sen. gillibrand: i have not spoken to him about it.
i will tell you why, i am still angry. it i didn't find out about from him, by the way, i found out from my cousin. i said, that can't be true, they knew how much i loved hillary, that can't be true! the used to be representative from that area in new york and now you are running for president of the united states. how do you convince those uncles, others like them who , to nowgun rights support gun control? sen. gillibrand: so this is also easy for me. i think the amount of gun deaths we have seen in the last decade is so alarming to so many people. we don't want to live in a world where we our teaching our children shelter in place itself as opposed to math drills. i can't imagine a fear every
parent is feeling right now because the last shooting was families going to walmart for back-to-school shopping. that is not an america we should want to live in, where there is so much anxiety. and easy access that these individual shooters have to weapons of war. in america today, we have americans fueled by hate, racism, division, hunting down other people with weapons of war. i think there is already common ground on this. i think nra members want to ban military style assault weapons and large magazines. they want universal background checks. i cannot imagine something more common sense. and they want to have a federal and type trafficking law. the last one is the easiest.
it just says law enforcement can go after gun traffickers. in a city like chicago or new york city, it is true. these weapons get sold to gang members out of a truck, with no opportunity for background checks, because there is no federal anti-gun trafficking law. last time we got 58 votes. you need 58 votes to pass the law in the senate, this close to passing it. mitch mcconnell had the courage ifmitch mcconnell had the courage to stand up to the n.r.a., we would stand up on those measures and i would not three be surprised if all of them passed today. mr. costa: should the federal government ban assault weapons and then force people to sell them? sen. gillibrand: we have a federal statute right now that mandates how we treat certain weapons of war. we use in requiring weapons of war like machine guns the registered, that you have to get your fingerprints done, you have to have background checks to have access to them anyway. you could use that same statute
for all military-style assault weapons. i think he should make it illegal to buy or sell them, because you don't want to create a black market, and you should make it illegal to use them. we should pass a federal ban on these weapons and large magazines. we have done it before and we can do it again. that is the regulatory framework. and you should have a nationwide buyback, so that those people who did purchase these weapons because they are gun enthusiasts could actually have them purchased back by the federal government. that is the framework you should use. bob: would you force people to sell them back? sen. gillibrand: you would create fear using that language. but you can basically get it done through the combination of a guaranteed federal buyback combined with this mandatory registration as we use that framework for machine guns over a decade ago. bob: but if you choose to keep your gun in your home, there is
no criminal penalty under your plan? sen. durbin: you could look at if the point is that it is just in your home and you are not using it or buying or selling it, there is no harm there. you want to make sure there is no buying or selling and you can make sure it is illegal. you can look at it and keep all options on the table, but the first step would be the regulatory framework combined with a ban on assault weapons and banning the purchasing and selling and use. i think that is the most strong and effective legal framework you can create. bob: it has been well-tread territory that you have evolved over the years. you were supported by the n.r.a. when you are a member of the house and now you have an f rating from the n.r.a.. the question i have when you think about your history on guns, did your private views change over the years or were you always against guns privately, but for political reasons, were supportive of the n.r.a.?
sen. gillibrand: for me, it was really simple. as a member of congress 10 years ago, i supported the second amendment. i still support the second amendment. what i recognized 10 years ago when i became senator was that i needed to do much more. there was gun violence and gun deaths all across our state and country, and as a congress member i should have cared what was happening in places outside my district. that is what leadership is. a recognized pretty quickly that i was wrong, and i was going to lead on this issue. the truth is when you to meet a family who has lost someone to gun violence, it changes you. meeting with the parents of a young teenage girl hit me as a moment where i recognized i was not leading in the way i should have been. and i make sure those parents not diet she would in vain, and immature her classmates knew that i will lift up her story as an urgency about
why we need to end gun violence in this country. and that is why i got to work with our police commissioner, was the moms groups, with a number of advocates on how we end gun violence, and that is why i authored the federal gun officking law, because how this young girl lost her life. bob: what about before when columbine happened? it is not about what you should have done, what were your personal views when columbine happened, or gun violence before regardless of your political 2009, position? sen. gillibrand: i have always been against gun violence and deaths and i have always been against children losing their lives. that is who i am and it has always been way. as a member of congress, i should have been looking to legislative solutions to protect those people. that is what i should have done. but i have the humility to recognize when i am wrong, which many leaders do not, especially president trump.
imagine president trump admitting he is wrong on anything. he neither has the humility, the wisdom, or the courage to do that, and it makes him a leaker leader. we should want a president who can admit when they are wrong. sexual harassment issues in the bob: have been a leader onsexual harassment issues in the military and nationally, what is franken episode has gotten more attention because of a "new yorker" story. what is your context looking back for how you handle that? sen. gillibrand: for those who remember that moment in time, senator franken had eight credible allegations against him that were corroborated in real time. two were since he was elected. the eighth one that got my attention was a congressional staffer. and i have been working in this space for a very long time, trying to end sexual violence in the military, trying to end sexual violence on college campuses, trying to end sexual harassment in congress.
to the point where enough was enough, and it couldn't defend him. i couldn't defend unwanted grouping enforceable kissing -- and forcible kissing. i decided i had to say that i couldn't support him anymore and other senators followed it may not seem like that today because i seem to stand alone, but i would do it again because i just talks to that congressional staffer and i would stand by her today and go do it again. it is hard. there are some direct owners that want to on your the senator of -- for the better of senator franken -- senato. [inaudible]
election.r his next those are his decisions and loan alone. on senator schumer to work with you at the time? sen. gillibrand: [inaudible] women was in the military and she had come on board and i know happens in the military to know critics with military to come forward because more often than not, there careers are ended when they come forward. was very concerned that this was something that was very hard for me to be silent and was thereby a number of
members of the senate at the time and we had our own personal wass i remember our work seeking the long and we were hearings, press --ferences come work on press conferences, work on sexual harassment. it was a done time for me of us. -- have to cases like this be handled in the? should there be a process in place?uestar -- in sen. gillibrand: there is a process. --alternately passed ultimately passed. entitledss is you are
to a hearing by the ethics committee, what you are not entitled to is the silence of your colleagues and acting members of congress to stay silent and not be heard is something that they care passionately about, whether these women are survivors deserve someone to stand by them, and for our party to ask members of the senate who came say enough is enough, i think it is an outrage. bob: you said you recently spoke to one of the accusers. would you oppose a political comeback by senator franken? sen. gillibrand: there's always room -- there's always room for redemption by anybody. anybody who wants a second chance, is always there for everyone. is -- we are a country that believes in second chances. we believe in someone that has humility to come forward and say
sorry, they have paid consequences and want to reemerge. that is always there for everyone and that is a decision or someone to make themselves heard it is not my decision. it is certainly not my responsibility. there's always a path for redemption for anybody. halperin about mark who recently signed a deal. does he have a path to redemption or not? sen. gillibrand: it is not for me to judge. it starts with humility and recognition that you acknowledge you have done something wrong. people make mistakes all the time, but that acknowledgment is .aving some measure you just have to go through it and it depends on what you are accused of and what the facts are and the allegations are.
commit a, if you criminal offense, you may be doing jail time and that is what i someone who believes in someone that has done their time has their right to vote back to it you won a path of redemption for anyone. these are different allegations or you made a mistake have harassed someone, there is a different path, not a criminal allegation. bob: do you approve of the democrats or to prove who --ticipated in his book? disapprove for those who purchase in his book? sen. gillibrand: it is not for me to decide. . read on the your
economy? i disagree with president trump that there is a conspiracy. i disagree that the economy is strong for everyone and that the fake news of america is somehow misleading the american people. just the other day in ohio i was in youngstown about a month ago on my broken promises bus tour to talk about all the trump broken promises, getting the cost of prescription drugs down. went straight to the voters who voted for him. i was showing democrats how i would be president trump and i will go right to his backyard. part of that, i was in youngstown ohio that met with to and women who decided
close down. some were notified by text message. i was met by a community that was affected by massive job losses. they did not feel like the economy was soaring. they see their communities being left behind and so i believe the economy has to be our priority. gets access to job training and a partnership programs to their skills and have access to their jobs they want to make sure we invest in communities that are left behind because of bad trade deals and reinvesting in them. use it as a platform to actually .nvest in real energy markets
as president, you can marshal federal sources into minutes that are desperate in opportunities like youngstown ohio. i think president trump not spent time talking to real real unemployment is much higher andy underemployment rate is far more than anyone estimated. ohio, to places like places like iowa and new hampshire and they will tell you, they might have a job and they may not be counted as unemployed, but they are deeply underemployed. we see it on the number equal living below the poverty line. the employment rate is two point something, but 20% of the people are living below the poverty line. toey cannot put together high actually provide for their
families. take pride inls saying wall street would fear them if they were elected. should wall street fear you if you were elected? sen. gillibrand: i believe there needs to be far more oversight and accountability. i would first repeal the trump tax cut which was a massive giveaway for the most elite of the elite in terms of wealthy americans, but also among the elite and successful companies. [inaudible] take away the tax cuts that went to the ultra wealthy and the most successful companies. that is worth about $1 trillion. i would be using and employees in youngstown ohio to make sure they have access to new jobs, new manufacturing in the entities so they can continue to
thrive. that is where i would put investment into real training and i would invest in national public service. i would tell every young person in the country if you are willing to do a year of how the service, you could pay for two years of community college, willing to do for years of public service, -- two years, you could have college pay for. that would change our country and character overnight or if you want an antidote to print from selfishness, the best thing peoples have young health nurse. >> you have been crowned around the country talking about abortion rights. if you were president of the united states, what with the federal government do to
intervene in some of these states were there making new abortion laws? sen. gillibrand: i would only judges and justices that see roe v. wade as law of the land. women have had a constitutional right for only -- over 40 years. i want a judge that would say this is stated law. present trump, he enlisted 20 justices and knew they would overturn roe v. wade. i will make sure it is andup to the next president repeal the heideman it which is the federal law that prohibits spending federal money on repealing a abortion services. it harms communities of color
and it is a health care issue as well as human rights, so i will repeal that and forth, i would make sure that reproductive health or service is included no matter what state you live in. mattere coverage and no how bad your government is or legislature, you will have these basic reproductive rights. on: what about a litmus test judicial nominees? it is not about independence, it is about human rights. i think it would be shocking to the american consciousness if we no longer had economy. it would be shocking that we could not have basic reproductive rights and i think having any under -- any other standard is in denial of what this law the land has been for
over 40 years. if the situation and hong kong to curious, what should the u.s. do? for ave studied china long time. going toibrand: i was say something in chinese, but that is too cheeky. people in hong kong have lived under a different legal framework for longtime and the agreements made with the u.k. bring the change over or more specific or if they had never imagined they would be extra credits remain china and beholden to the laws of mainland china. they never imagined they would have no free speech rights. they never imagined they would be denied basic constitutional
rights like the two protests. protestingghtfully and we believe in these basic human rights and should be supporting them. unwilling to stand up to china, unwilling to stand up to russia. bob: what should you do with xi jinping? sen. gillibrand: if you an america that will engage with you, you should not cross this line. as the power of the american government that you not only have the bully pulpit, but engage the community. present trump should be engaging to have a united front to say this violation of basic human and weshould not stand expect more of you to be part of the world community.
it is called leverage come pressure. it is what we used to do in the world. we used to hold our friends a couple when they were wrong or at present trump does not do that. bob: should the united states consider sanctions? sen. gillibrand: absolutely for it it is what we have in our toolbox when we think they are doing the wrong thing. president trump won't do it and won't even have a honest conversation with the president of israel. he should be a better leader and should not be shrinking away from his responsibility on the world stage. bob: we have a couple of minutes left. elationine your current ships with the clintons -- your relationship with the clintons. sen. gillibrand: i think hillary has inspired women to dream big.
got 65 million cracks from the ceiling and without her, you have women running president today, so i still consider hillary a great model and a friend and i value the clintons and what they have done for the country as of decades in the country. bob: president clinton? sen. gillibrand: same. bob: is it time for mayor de blasio to go back to the big apple? med ofllibrand: waziristan's done extraordinary things for our country, especially for new york city. he has led on making sure we have universal pre-k and led a $15 minimum wage and i'm grateful for his service to our state and city. bob: do you support senator markey's reelection?
sen. gillibrand: god bless them both. i will likely support my colleague, but think it is preacher. -- [inaudible] inspired me to serve and make it my but mission and if i'm called to serve in any capacity i would do it. bob: are you confident in the new [indiscernible] you have called on representative steve king to resign overpromising made on abortion -- to resign on comments on abortion. sen. gillibrand: i think he should resign. his statements are outrageous.
it, it isant to say so outrageous. he should resign. bob: should republicans forced him to resign? sen. gillibrand: yes, they should have a backbone and stand up to someone in their own society. forced to resign by his party, but you have not seen kurds or strength out of republicans since president was elected. they don't stand up to him and democrats should be proud of who we are that we die women and that they are fundamentally part of the heart and soul of our society. bob: thank you for the time to be here this morning.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on