tv New York Senate Debate CSPAN October 31, 2016 11:55pm-12:53am EDT
or the floods in binghamton i'm , always there for new yorkers. if you give me the honor of re-electing me, i will work really hard for the middle class and those trying to get there, raising the minimum wage, making college affordable, a major infrastructure bill that will employ tens of thousands of people in good paying jobs. ms. long: i want to thank union college and those involved in the debate here for a beautiful job and beautiful setting and welcome all of our friend. i want to thank our veterans and active military, our law enforcement, firefighters and first responders, who are here in the audience and those at home. you really do the public service and we are in debt to you all for the work you do for america and for civilization. i think that this election is really a big turning point in our country. we face a big choice.
do we want to go along with more of the same, the establishment, the status quo in washington that's produced record low economic growth for a decade, that has put so many new yorkers out of work and have had incomes stagnating. and many people have a corrupt pay for play, rigged it system in washington. and many people feel that my opponent sits at the apex of that system. we need to change that and i have a lot of ethical reforms i would like to propose and hope to in the course of this debate. mr. louis: mr. schumer, we saw a letter issued to members of congress to the f.b.i. director james comey in which he announced new information to hillary clinton's use of a private server that has triggered reaction including demands for more information and
calls for comey's resignation. do you think the timing and content of his letter was appropriate and should he step down or be fired? sen. schumer: i was appalled by what director comey did. i know him. i have worked with him in the past. we worked together about cleaning up the u.s. attorney's office when alberto gonzalez was politicizing them. that is what makes what he did all the more surprising and appalling. you know, there is a tradition in the u.s. attorneys' offices in washington and justice department and goes down to the brooklyn d.a.'s office that a prosecutor always avoids interfering with an election, and the fact we heard today that comey had to issue a search warrant for these emails means he doesn't know what is in them. yet he goes ahead and writes a letter and he knows what was going to happen. what he has done is wrong and both donald trump and hillary clinton have called for the emails to be made public.
i believe that's the right thing to do. mr. comey ought to make them public and second, he owes not only hillary clinton and the american people an explanation for what appears to be an appalling action. mr. louis: were you in that first round of letters that were sent by the f.b.i. director? senator schumer: i was not. ms. long: well, it's hard in 60 seconds to unpack everything that has gone wrong from a prosecutorial standpoint in this sorry mess about the clinton emails. it is a tangled mass. i was pretty unhappy with what happened when f.b.i. director comey sort of took a path, if you will, on the evidence that he had uncovered. and i think the reason for that was the great impropriety of bill clinton going and meeting with loretta lynch. she said i'm going to defer to
whatever director comey said. director comey is supposed to be gathering the evidence. and she's the one who is supposed to be the prosecutor to making the decisions. that visit from bill clinton completely removed the ability to make a proper decision. it would be one thing if hillary clinton came in and gave the evidence she was required. we are in this mess because she failed do do that. mr. louis: does mr. comey deserve a reprimand? or more severe punishment? ms. long: i don't know. his actions have been so puzzling to me that i wouldn't dare to comment on that. ms. benjamin: i believe the majority leader suggested in a letter today that perhaps the f.b.i. director perhaps violated the hatch act? do you agree with that assessment? senator schumer: i haven't seen his letter. i wouldn't comment on it. ms. benjamin: do you believe the director can continue to serve?
senator schumer: the first step is he owes an explanation and he has a big big burden of proof to speak that goes against the tradition of prosecutors at every level of government. when i heard about it, i found it hard to believe that comey i thought had some degree of integrity to do this. >> it doesn't go against prosecutorial conduct if you find new evidence if it comes to light, in this case, your friend, anthony weiner, who would have thought it turned up there. when something like that comes to light, it's the duty of the prosecutor to evaluate it. so i disagree that it should have been just ignored just because we are farther down the road. senator schumer: i have talked to a lot of prosecutors. for instance, if a grand jury is convened a month before an
election, if certain witnesses are called, it is supposed to be kept secret because we are innocent until proven guilty. letting that out can john does an election. -- jaundice on election. what comey did, i disagree, what he did was appalling and prosecutors from one end of america to one end of america know it. a leading republican prosecutor who worked for george bush said he was shocked by what mr. comey did. ms. benjamin: i would like to move. ms. long, you are an attorney and not everyone is familiar with your resume, but you did run statewide. you were defeated in that race when you ran against senator schumer's colleague and despite the statewide run, you remain unknown to a majority of new yorkers. you have chosen to skew closely to the presidential nominee of your party, though he is not popular according to the popular opinion polls in this state. how have you changed since 2012
and why should candidates give -- why should voters give your candidacy serious consideration? ms. long: some of the principles that i espoused in 2012, i'm still the same conservative vote. the principles i'm standing on are very similar. they have been affected by some of the thoughts advanced by my nominee that have caused me and other people to think again, on questions on free trade and whether it makes sense to be against some of these big trade deals that they have lauded so much or whether it makes sense to move off to a more exacting and bilateral trade posture where we can get better deals. the principal there is a good one and good conservative one the more you think about it, is what is best about america, put the american worker first. i also think that rethinking what we have done in the middle
east is a good idea. i think those of us who are loyal republicans certainly backed george bush and thought it was right to go into iraq and many of us over the years had second thoughts about that. ms. benjamin: we are going to get to those. just very quickly, if i could change it slightly, do you consider yourself more conservative than you were the last time around? ms. long: these principles of america first, protecting our borders and protecting the rule of law, those are very conservative principles. i think they are very american principles. some would call them populist. i think putting a label on them is rather difficult. i'm more comfortable with them, put it that way. senator schumer: well, the issue of donald trump goes way beyond his positions on the issues. some of the things he has done have been appalling, what he has called women, and made fun of the handicapped, how he has so many, so many times demeaned different people and different
groups and goes beyond that. that's why so many republicans, the bush family and others have refused to endorse donald trump and it's not a question of whether he is more conservative or more liberal than previous republican nominees is that he is just not fit to be president. george will, far more conservative than me, maybe more conservative than you, mrs. long, said he does president -- does not even want to be in the republican party if they can support donald trump because of how he has conducted himself. it goes beyond the specific ideology. ms. benjamin: before we move on, would you like to defend or reiterate your support for the nominee? ms. long: when we talk about use of vulgar language or saying things to women, donald trump apologized for the use of that language, just like senator schumer apologized for the bad language that he used to that nice flight attendant.
she was just trying to do her job and tell them to turn his cell phone off. these mistakes happen. people apologize. i have to say, i find it somewhat hypocritical from those on the left that we have to cover our children's ears. if we listen to "the howard stern show" and listen to amy schumer with the racism and all these things going on or hillary clinton's jay-z, to encourage young people to come out, and look at the words. go read the lyrics. the level of vulgarity, this is the pot calling the kettle black. sen. schumer: neither amy schumer, nor jay-z or howard stern are running for president. i think most americans would think they wouldn't make good presidents either. mr. louis: i would like to
switch to the economy. about 16 years ago,6 years ago, a candidate for senate made extensive promises for job creation around the state, including a famous pledge to create 200,000 jobs for upstate . that candidate was hillary clinton, and many new yorkers were skeptical to cure the state's economic ills. what have been the most successful economic growth programs you have supported and if elected to a fourth term, what new or different approaches to economic growth would you advocate? senator schumer: a number of programs have been very, very supportive. when we got a transportation bill, it took a long time because there was a blockade among the hard right. it is employing thousands and thousands of new yorkers, and building infrastructure. we need it. making college more affordable, really important. in fact, i proposed the american opportunity tax credit which a -- let's a family who makes
a $2500 tax00 get credit. i proposed making it permanent right here. we have gotten it done. when kids go to college, they are much more likely to get jobs. there are a lot of things we have done. since 1999, new york has a million more jobs than it had back then. we are making progress. here is something i would change -- trade. i oppose nafta, i oppose tpp. i think our trade regime is wrong, particularly when it comes to china. i was in crucible steel in syracuse. they told me about manipulation of currency that china is doing that throws american workers out of work. i have been the leader against china on that issue. i would hope the new congress, both democrats and republicans could change our trade regime. ms. long: on one thing, i have to say -- the college plan, i have a much better college plan than you do.
a one time $2500 tax credit will not help people all that much. this is one of the problems that is really causing most trouble for the middle class. when i started this campaign, i put my thinking cap on and thought what would really help, and whose fault all this was. partially, it is the fault of the federal government driving up the subsidies of federal -- of higher education. anytime is something subsidized -- think if they subsidized yankees tickets. what happened to the price of those? sen. schumer: they are pretty high already. ms. long: we've got to get that part under control at some point. for immediate relief, what can we do? the colleges are sitting on these big endowments. i think the college you went to has about a $40 billion endowment. mine is about $4 billion. most aren't that large. union college right here took the brave step of lowering its
tuition 42% down to $20,000. it was a wonderful thing to do. i hope more colleges will follow suit. just in case they are not in the mood to do that, my idea is this -- i think we need to ask colleges to bring tuition rates down immediately to 1996 levels, adjusted for inflation. the stick to make them do that is that if they don't, they will no longer receive all the different kinds of federal funding and benefits they get, including tax-exempt charitable status. i think that is the kind of immediate relief, and i think it will be much more significant relief than just this $2500 tax credit. sen. schumer: it is not one time. it is every year for every person. let me tell you -- the number of new yorkers who have come to me and said they were able to go to college because this credit was available. you can hear about it everywhere. it is a good thing. certainly the cost of college is too high.
we must do something to reduce it. if we enacted ms. long's plan, we would throw tens of thousands of people out of work, probably some here at union college. finding a good way to reduce the cost of tuition, i am all for it. ms. benjamin: the question was about job creation, then we morphed into trade and then got to college. sen. schumer: they are related ms. benjamin: quite clearly. since we did not hit on trade, and you mentioned tpp and fasttrack are two different things. you oppose tpp. would you give whoever is sitting in the white house next fasttrack power? would you vote for that? sen. schumer: no. bottom line, our whole trade regime has to change. i am pained by how trade workers -- trade occurs, particularly in china. lebanese -- let me tell you something i really want to see america stay number one. i love this country. general keith alexander -- not a
politician, not somebody prone to hyperbolic language -- here is what he said -- "the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world occurred in the last 20 years when chinese companies, aided by their government through cyber theft stole the intellectual , property of american companies." and he ought to know he is the , head of cyber security in our government. we ought to be coming down on chan all the time. -- on china all the time. ms. benjamin: we're going to get there. sen. schumer: i could go on and on about trade. ms. long: i wonder what he would have to say about how his friend hillary clinton, his nominee, says she wants to see basically open borders and a global, open free-trade hemisphere. ms. benjamin: on fast-track power, just quickly. we do need to move on. would you vote in favor of giving that negotiation power to either candidate? neither candidate? thank you for much. mr. louis: we have to take a short break, but we have more questions.
our exclusive u.s. senate debate continues in 60 seconds. ♪ ♪ mr. louis: welcome back to our time warner cable new york senate debate between senator charles schumer and wendy long. let's get right back to the questions. mr. schumer, throughout your career in congress, you have been a champion of wall street , the financial industry and the , new york economy. this election season in particular has seen voters in both parties expressing pronounced anger towards large financial institutions because of growing income inequality and
a perceived attitude of protection from government for companies deemed too big to fail. are you too close to wall street to help main street, and how is your advocacy for large financial institutions helping new yorkers were not connected -- who are not connected to the industry? sen. schumer: first, i think i am very mindful of the fact that wall street creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. most of them are middle-class people, and poorer people. the woman who gets on a bus and -- in eastern queens and works as a secretary. a guy from the south bronx who gets on the train and sells food. i oppose wall street whenever they oppose the interest of the middle class. i have done it over and over again. i was one of the main architects of the dodd frank bill. wall street was very mad about that. i thought it was really important to rein them in after their excesses. even back in 2000, against what bill clinton and larry summers wanted, i proposed that derivatives be traded publicly. if we had done that, we may have avoided the problem of what happened.
i was one of the main proponents of the consumer protection financial board. sometimes our banks do horrible things with payday loans, they are making our servicemen and veterans pay hundreds of percent interest. i always oppose wall street when they are wrong. i do not needlessly attacked them in terms of name-calling. when they are wrong, i go after them. there are plenty of people on wall street not too happy with chuck schumer. ms. long: he has learned from he -- he has learned from the master about the public and private positions. if you take a look at his donor list during the period leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, you will see quite a list of the famous too big to fails -- merrill lynch, lehman brothers, bear stearns, citigroup. you look at his disclosures, they are all the ones who filled up his coffers. i don't think they were that unhappy with what he was doing.
in fact, he was loosening regulations, pressing regulators of all kinds to give them the leeway that they wanted. these are the big banks, the two -- the too big to fails, including going to the credit rating agencies and pressing them to give aaa ratings to these collateralized debt securities that were full of these junk subprime mortgages that brought down the system. i think, actually, a good nickname would be the senator from the big short. sen. schumer: bottom line is very simple. i proposed over and over again. i have supported and will support in the senate getting rid of carried interest, because many people get away with it. the irony is, my opponent is against dodd frank. in other words, it is what you do, not what you say. dodd frank is one of the tougher regulations we have. one of the main things it has done is it has required large
capital requirements for the banks. they hate it. they say it cuts down on their profitability. then when they make a big mistake, with the capital cushion, guess who pays? the management and the shareholders, not the public. actions speak louder than words. i have opposed wall street's time and time again. i do not support come as i think my opponent does, no regulation on the big institutions. i support dodd frank. she does not. ms. long: first of all, that is not true at all. i will get back to dodd frank in a minute. you said something there very quickly about the carried interest rule that really surprised me. i have known for so long that you have defended the carried interest rule for all your big friends in the hedge funds and private equity firms so that they basically end up effectively paying the same tax rate as their secretaries. this is a huge, abusive loophole in the tax code, and it is for your friends. they are the biggest ones who have given you your $27 million.
you have been for protecting that carried interest rule, is that not correct? sen. schumer: that is certainly not correct, and you should learn your facts. i have voted to get rid of it four times. i have put it on the floor in my recent proposal to help the cost of college interest rates. i have been against it over and over again. when it was first proposed, i said don't just do it for financial institutions in new york, do it for real estate, for venture capital. ms. long: the poison pill, that is it. sen. schumer: do it for real estate, for venture capital. that would have been fairer. when congress just did it for financial institutions, i still voted for that and supported it. mr. louis: we will leave that for the fact checkers. quickly ms. long, on dodd frank. ms. long: the dodd frank he likes is the one that guarantees too big to fail. it allows enormous risks in the
biggest banks, and promises to transfer that risk to the taxpayers. that is what he likes, and that is what his big donors like. what i propose, and what i think is a much better bill, is the brown bitter bill which is pending in the senate. for those really really big institutions, $500 billion in assets or more, they need to increase their capital equity requirements so they can cover themselves. that prevents them -- they don't like that, because they would rather have more leverage -- and what the practical effect of that might be is to force them to downsize, which i think would be a good thing. it would be their decision. they can be responsible for themselves and not be on the hook for the taxpayers, or they can comply with increasing their capital requirements. sen. schumer: i am for capital requirements for all bank, not those that choose to have it. ms. long: you have punished the smaller and community banks, like first niagara.
a wonderful, 150-year-old institution in buffalo. it has been through the depression, two world wars, a great new york bank. sen. schumer: mismanaged. ms. long: could not keep up with the regime of dodd frank, with all the lawyers and all the regulators and all the requirements that you love to put on them for the big banks. it had a choice -- either it was going to have to grow, or it -- to get out of these requirements, or it would have to be sold out to keybank. it chose to die. that was bad for new york. sen. schumer: she does not know the facts. there are much larger and stronger capital requirements on the big banks. the 50 largest banks have much tougher requirements than the community banks. should the community banks have some? absolutely. when community banks of these -- abuse people, absolutely we should go after them. the thrust of dodd frank is that
the largest institutions that cause things to fail, about every major person who has studied this issue -- except for the hard right that does not believe in regulation -- thinks that dodd frank is a good thing to rein in the banks. ms. benjamin: this goes to you ms. long. the supreme court did start its new session this month with one vacancy. the senate still has not voted on president obama's latest nominee, merrick garland. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says he does not want to take up any nominees in the presidential election year. are you concerned about the precedent this sets? when a nominee comes up for a vote, what is your standard on whether or not a nominee is confirmed? ms. long: what the constitution says is that the president shall nominate, and then with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint. those are the two steps. the president has done his duty. he has nominated. it takes the advice and consent of the senate for a person to
ascend to the supreme court. there are no further restrictions or directions on how the senate does that. in the case of merrick garland, i personally think the senate has done it efficiently. they knew they were not going to approve him, so they said why go through this charade of holding hearings? it is a waste of time and a waste of money. it just doesn't make any sense, since they're not going to approve him. that is a perfectly constitutional and proper way for them to discharge their duty. ms. benjamin: do you have a standard or litmus test for a candidate if he or she does in fact get before the senate for a confirmation hearing? ms. long: if there is a nominee who has a long judicial record, as merrick garland does, and one is able to judge on that record, and see something that is quite alarming -- and there are several things in the case of merrick garland. what alarms people as he had had voted for a
rehearing of an important case that went to the supreme court and clarify the second amendment right in this country. everyone could read from that quite easily that merrick garland would vote to overturn those two pro-second amendment cases that had only recently made their way to the supreme court, underscoring the guarantee that each one of us as americans has the right to keep and bear arms. that was just way too high-stakes to allow to go forward for those who saw that in his record. sen. schumer: let me say i find it really very bad -- shall we say -- that there has been no vote on merrick garland for all these months. this is unprecedented. look at the last four justices of the supreme court -- two were fairly liberal, nominated by obama. some republicans voted for them and put them on the court. the two previous were
conservatives, nominated by george bush. many democrats voted for them and put them on the court. the republican leadership in the senate has done something unprecedented, which is saying they will not even hold a hearing. they will not even give the american people the chance to see merrick garland's views. you could certainly bring up and that hearing a vote you do not like. you may disagree with it, but so be it. that has been because they do not once to fill the bench. that is violating the whole principle of the way america works. we have never had this before, and i hope we won't have again. i hope that in the new congress, democrats and republicans will work together to at least ensure there is a hearing, and then let the chips fall where they may. ms. long: my ears are ringing. the difference in standard that you articulate when you are standing over here versus when you're standing over there. you have held up all kinds of nominees.
you have articulated a standard for george bush's nominees, saying if it is within the last year of the bush administration, they can't come forward. you filibuster them. you have done everything you can in every possible procedural posture to stop the nominees. sen. schumer: name one previous supreme court justice who did not get a vote in this amount of time. name one. you can't, because there isn't one. ms. long: this justice isn't getting a hearing. it is not even wasting the time of getting a hearing. once you move forward with a hearing -- what about miguel estrada? sen. schumer: he had a hearing and a vote. ms. long: how long did that take? ms. benjamin: i think we will move on to the next topic. mr. louis: mr. schumer, if you are elevated to become senate majority leader, and hillary clinton is elected president, it will be the first time that we have seen a senate majority leader and a president from the same state.
sen. schumer: not shabby for new york, right? mr. louis: not bad. you would be working with someone you worked side-by-side with in the senate for eight years. some republican critics say that you would function as a rubberstamp for a clinton white house. how would you show your independence from clinton as the senate's democratic leader? and when, if ever did you disagree with clinton when you served together in washington? sen. schumer: i will work closely with, hopefully, president clinton. we tend to agree on many many issues. the worst that can happen in my judgment in the next congress -- no matter who was the president and who controls the house and senate -- is another four more years of gridlock. the american people are frustrated. middle-class incomes have to get higher, it has to be easier to get to the middle class. gridlock does nobody any good.
if i become the majority leader, if i become the majority leader, i've already talked to many of my republican colleagues. i want to work with them to get things done. i don't just want bills on the floor of the senate, we vote yes they vote no. then they put bills on the floor, we vote no they vote yes. when i disagree with secretary clinton, i will. she and i disagree greatly for instance on the iran agreement. i thought that was a very bad idea. she thought it was a good idea. that didn't stop me. i studied it, i got lots of briefings, and i came to the right conclusion. when hopefully president clinton is wrong, i will disagree with her. mr. louis: in your senate years, were there issues of magnitude where you differed with her? sen. schumer: i'm sure there are issues we disagreed, but i cannot think of one of major magnitude where we disagreed. ms. long: i think the iran agreement is one of major magnitude, and i'm glad you brought it up. i thought your behavior concerning that was very peculiar. you agonized over it, you read it, and then you said you finally came to this conclusion
that it was a bad deal. you were right about that. but then, suddenly, you just went out of character. because what you usually do when you come to an intelligent conclusion -- sen. schumer: thank you. it does happen, you know? [laughter] ms. long: you stand at a podium like this and let all your brilliance shine forth and tell people what is wrong with the deal. not only that, because you're so influential and so powerful, you want to persuade your colleagues to do the right thing. it is puzzling to a lot of us when you didn't want to do that, given that so much is at stake, and that the iran deal was such a bad deal. but then it continued as we went down to the next few months. we had the $150 billion going to iran. we had exchange of money for hostages. we had pallets loaded with swiss francs and euros in the middle of the night.
then we had sanctions revoked in the middle of the night. now we have our government trying to bring iran back into the community of banking nations. then you have the canadian and american expect us to -- inspectors thrown out. all these things are happening, and i do not hear ap -- of the -- a peep from you about that. i am just wondering why. sen. schumer: on the first issue, what i did -- and you're exactly right, i studied it so carefully -- i found on the most important issues, you are going to make somebody angry. that is just how american politics is. i spent a lot of time studying , getting briefed, classified briefings, learning all kinds of things about it, and came to the conclusion that it was not a good deal. what i did one wednesday night, i sat at my desk, took out my nice little blue marking pen -- which i like very much -- and wrote on a yellow pad why i thought it was wrong. the next day, most conservative institutions praised it. some call it the most articulate reasoning against it as possible. and then, many of my colleagues would come up and ask me about
my view, and i would tell them. i didn't persuade a lot of them. the president persuaded more of them. that was not for lack of trying. i heard people asking why didn't you twist arms and force people to vote for it, using my clout. that is not how the senate works for me. it was a decision of conscience. i had an obligation to tell people my reasoning. for other people, it was a decision of conscience for them, too. ms. benjamin: we are going to have to take a brief break for timing purposes. ms. long: in the meantime, we have shipped billions, and hundreds of billions of dollars back to iran, that has gone right to what our state department labels the main state sponsor of terrorism, right to the revolutionary guard. sen. schumer: we are in fact putting on the floor of the senate a bill for strong sanctions when we get back.
ms. benjamin: take a short break. when we return, the senate will have the opportunity to ask one another questions. you have to stay with us in order to find out. [applause] ♪ ♪ ms. benjamin: we are back. we're live from the historic memorial at union college in schenectady with our exclusive time warner cable u.s. senate debate. each candidate gets to ask the other a question. senator schumer, you are up first. sen. schumer: mrs. long, throughout your career, you
have stood for -- there are too much regulations of corporations. someone say it is not regulation, but protection for the environment, for consumers, for workers. i would like to ask you, particularly since you are supporting donald trump who has a more libertarian view than you have expressed in the past, your view on regulations. the present put into regulation something to stop the cold burning plants from sending all their noxious stuff over to us. as you know, many of our lakes and other places in the adirondacks are dead because of that. i am for it, i don't know what you think. second, i would ask about the consumer protection board. it protects consumers when banks take advantage of them very i was one of the offers of
this -- authors of this. the banks were cap a, but it was the right thing to do. what do you think of that? third, i believe in unions. i believe they are a way to bring the middle class up. we have government regulations that protect workers when they try to organize a union heard what do you think of that? ms. long: i will go in reverse order. actually believe in unions. i think the history of unions is something that is part of america and unimportant part of america. i think workers do need an equal bargaining power. i like that they are a private entity, instead of a government entity. that appeals to me very much. what bothers me is when i see the union bosses abuse their membership. when the members aren't really benefiting from what they are doing, the bosses are doing something that benefits them. that bothers me, and i think that is something we need to look at. going back to the cpf be -- cpfb. as you wrote it, it was ruled
unconstitutional. i hope that will be fixed. we can't have agencies like this that are just free floating in our government. our founders were careful to set up a government with three branches, and the accountability of those three vantage -- particularly the executive. it is concerning to me that we have so many independent or free-floating executive branch agencies that are really unanswerable to anyone. what that means is they are not accountable to the people. there is no way for the people to have any recourse if they don't like what that agent he is doing. i hope that is going to be fixed. en. schumer: it is functioning now. it was a little piece that had to be changed, but it is punching right now. ms. long: i do see a role for that. with respect to the coal -- i have not studied the levels of this, but i don't think we should be putting coal miners out of work. i think it is an important part of our energy resources. we have to take a cost-benefit
nalysis. we have to see where works out that we can get clean air and fill out a coworkers doesn't go miners work. senator, you are far richer han i am -- all my small donors are great people, and the ones who really a $10, $20 checks, i am the bernie sanders of campaign contributions -- small donors. they rightly sweet notes of encouragement, they sunday prayers, thus they send me prayers. hat probably more to me than you're $28 million means to you. there is a sense among the people that these people gave you the $28 million did not give it just because they love you. they're expecting something in return pore it.
do you think that is true? would you say that quarterly, you could disclose the actions on behalf of all of those people that have given you all that money? sen. schumer: time and time again, i have opposed special interests, whether the financial, drugs -- i'm one of the leading proponents of generic drugs. the pharmaceutical industry does not like it, but it has made cheaper for billions and billions of dollars in the pockets of average folks. in sandy, when the insurance industry tried to take it vantage of the poor homeowners, i went after them and stopped it. i do the right thing. it is regardless of who contributes and who doesn't. if somebody who contributes and that is angry with me, so be it. the best way to get all this money out of politics -- which
i would like -- is to support the supreme court that will repeal citizens united, the worst decision in 100 years. just a handful of people can put hundreds of millions of dollars into our system, undisclosed. would you help me oppose citizens united and get this disclosure you talk about? i have no problem with disclosure. i disclosed pretty much everything. i am hardly known as a resort, guarded person. you know, i am from rooklyn. citizens united, if it went, many of the things you once -- would you help us get it epealed? either legislatively or by the supreme court? sen. schumer: if you -- ms. long: if you believe anything he just said, i think he told us that bridge between brooklyn and lower
manhattan. i'm asking that you disclose quarterly what you have done or the people who give to you, like the $10,000 from mylan, when you keep your mouth closed about the epipen. ms. long: i think he has just sold is that bridge between lower manhattan and brooklyn. i'm proposing that you disclose quarterly what you have done for all the people would have given you like $10,000 when you kept your mouth closed about the epipen. all those big donations you get from hospitals and purchasing associations and year after year, you will not get rid of this anti-kickback rule. they get huge kickbacks, driving price spikes in generic drugs. huge shortages so that we have to buy saline solutions from europe. it is crazy what these hospital cartels do. ms. benjamin: for timing purposes, we will have to take a break. but if you want to respond. senator schumer: judge my actions. when epipens did its bad deeds, opposed them. i have said repeatedly to get
the regulators to come down on epipen. if they don't, we'll pass legislation to do it. that means far more to families who needs these pens in terms of what we are talking about in terms of contributions. one more thing, my daughter has allergies. peanuts and shellfish. my wife has to carry around several of these, and for $600 apiece families cannot afford this. mr. louis: we will take a final break. we had one more round of questions and closing statements from the candidates still to come. [applause] ♪ ♪
ms. benjamin: welcome back once again to our debate between charles schumer and wendy long. we have had spirited back-and-forth. we may try to move it along. senator, this question to you. in 2014, you said it was a mistake for democrats to pursue health care reform so early. you said it would have been smart to pursue something that meant more to a broader swap of the middle class. we have learned that premiums will go up quite a bit in some states. your party stands beside obamacare. do you believe your yes vote was a mistake? what changes do you believe need to be made? senator schumer: i do not believe it was a mistake. in the old days, the insurance companies could say we will not ensure you. no more.
what about college students who get out of college and get a job, but they don't give you health care. now the insurance company is required to cover you up to age 26. for women, it is to be ok for insurance companies to discriminate against women and charge then much higher premiums than men who have the same relative health. all that is good. to throw out obamacare is a mistake. there are problems, absolutely. we put a provision in the bill that allowed insurance regulators to limit high costs. we should toughen that up. one of the reasons drug costs are so high is drugs that cost a fortune. i want to be very involved in enerics. we should have a public option. we should let there be a public group that competes in the
exchanges. obamacare only covers about a present of new york's -- 8% of new york's people. for the rest, let there be a public option. one final point, i did not tell the president not to do obamacare. said let's start off with more bipartisan support. education reform and immigration reform to bring the parties together. that is the kind of leadership i would bring to the senate. senator schumer: ms. long: answer one little thing? ms. benjamin: go for it. ms. long: you don't mind if george soros spends billions and billions, but you want to shut down conservatives spending money. senator schumer: i want to shut down everybody spending money. get them out of the system. unions, corporations, everybody. s. long: what do you think the
funder meant when they said freedom of speech. senator schumer: this is a fundamental disagreement. i am a believer in the first amendment. but no amendment is bsolute. there is no right to put an dvertisement on tv because you are a billionaire. here is a clear limitation that when the whole business of government is being poisoned by a handful of people, putting in a whole ton of money, the first amendment is not absolute. it is not absolute when we have ibel laws. it is not absolute against child pornography. this was the most ridiculous decision that just about every legal scholar thought was off the deep end. ms. benjamin: we had three minutes left. do you have anything to say
about health care? ms. long: obamacare is an unmitigated disaster. people come up to me with tears in her eyes saying they cannot afford these premiums. this is insane. we know how to visit. it is not how you said to fix it. you lie about how costs are oing to go down. they have gone up. we have another huge premium increase coming up. it is a disaster and it is killing the middle class. mr. louis: a quick question on immigration. keep your responses short. mr. schumer, do you support the resettlement of syrian refugees to new york? hillary clinton has said she would like to see as many as 65,000 somewhere in the united states. should refugees the screen based on -- be screened based on region of origin? senator schumer: they should be
screened on the basis of potential for terrorism. the bottom line is very simple. refugees are vetted coming into this country. they go through a lengthy process. if i were isis and wanted to infiltrate a terrorist into the united states, i would use the visa waiver program. if you are a citizen of france or belgium or a friendly country, you come in no questions asked. the refugee issue is not a problem. terrorism is a source i have gone over left and right. the new york post called me knowledgeable and very ood. the bottom line is i came up with the lone wolf provision. i want to fight terrorism, refugees are not the problem. ms. long: we will probably soon
see what we have already seen in europe. all of our military leaders ave said we do not possess the means to adequately screen these refugees who are coming in because they do not have the documentation. it is not that we do not have the ability to do it, it is garbage in, garbage out. that is what is happening in europe. i'm afraid that is coming here. in addition to that, we have an actual genocide of christians going on in the middle east. no one has been able to explain to me why when we know that we can screen them with 100% certainty and that they do not pose any danger to us, why are we not admitting the christians? i don't know if the senator can nswer that question. we can find places for these refugees that would be much more hospitable to them and much safer for us. ms. benjamin: we are out of time. senator schumer: if we did what
donald trump did, no refugees -- ms. benjamin: senator, it is time for closing tatements. senator schumer: this is been a nice, lively, and fun debate. thank you very much. my linchpin, my wellspring is the middle class. that is what i have bought for in my whole career. the middle class and people trying to get there. as i came from a middle-class background, my dad was an exterminator, my parents worked so hard to give their kids a better life. all i want is for every new yorker to have that opportunity. that is why i have worked so hard to create jobs in new york and fight for jobs in every corner of the state. i am from brooklyn. sometimes i see that beautiful
lady in the harbor with the torch. the torch symbolizes to most americans the american dream. if you ask the average american, what does this dream means you? they will put it simple. it means if i work hard, i will do better 10 years from now that i am today. if you elect me, citizens of new york, i will work every day to make that torch burn brighter. ms. long: he says this at the end of every debate and most other speeches he makes. he says he is fighting for the middle class. at the end of his last bit, he said with a middle class, the best is yet to come. that was six years ago. we're still waiting. the problem is it has not happened. he invented an imaginary middle-class family. if you have to talk to a real middle-class family, they would tell you they are not doing so well. wages have been stagnant for a
decade. we have had record low economic growth. new york has lost jobs and people. it has lost congressional districts just to prove it. people are struggling with obamacare. the middle class is not doing well. he college debt, the fact they cannot find jobs, it is not going well. year after year, term after term -- mr. louis: that is going to do it. they're going to take us right off the air. hank you for joining us. that concludes our debate of our candidates. we thank senator schumer and ms. long for participating. >> this has been a presentation of time warner cable news. a special thanks to union college. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
[captions copyright national ble satellite corp. 2016 announcer: here is what press secretary josh earnest had to say when asked about the decision by f.b.i. director james comey to tell members of congress about official new evidence. >> i think, josh, what i have observed in the past is that director comey is a man of integrity, principal and a man who is well regarded by senior officials in both parties. he served in a senior position in the bush administration. he got strong bipartisan support when his nomination to be director of the f.b.i. was considered by the united states senate. so all those things are true. they speak to his good character and the present assessment of his integrity and his character has not changed. for example, the present doesn't believe that director comey is intentionally trying
to influence the outcome of an election. the president doesn't sympathy he is secretly strategizing one candidate or one political party. he is in a tough spot. he is the one who will be in a position to defend his actions in the face of significant criticism from a variety of gal experts including vids who -- vids who served in positions that were led by residents of both parties. i'm not going to be in a as to what to communicate in public, that is separate, josh, from the kind of prosecutorial and investigative decisions that are made by the tennessee and the department of justice. that is their institutional
responsibility, to make those decision about investigations prosecutions np. >> is it concern to the white house that you have the justice department and the f.b.i. basically griping at each other n some form of public or semipublic fashion? they obviously have to work very close together to keep the country safe. is there an issue there that needs to be resolved so the just department isn't accusing the f.b.i. of not following proper procedures? >> josh, you heard me discuss director's of the integrity. loretta lynch spent decades as a career prosecutor. she is not new to any of this.
a lot of that work was done when she was the head of the eastern district of new york, the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york. that is a position where these nds of decisions are closely scrutinize by the media that is based in the largest city in our country. she is used to this kind of pressure. also have complete confidence in her ability to handle this responsibly and consistent with the responsibilities vested in the department of justice. announcer: donald trump campaigns in wisconsin with his running mate mike pence. they hold a rally at 8:00 p.m. eastern in eau claire. hillary clinton has several events planned in florida. one is a rally in fort lauderdale, 8:45 p.m.