tv 2016 Debate for U.S. Senate NBC October 19, 2016 7:00pm-8:00pm CDT
for the u.s. senate seat representing the great state of iowa. charles grassley is a six-term u.s. senator, first elected in 1981, before that, grassley served three terms in the u.s. house of representatives, prior to that, he served in the iowa house of representatives. lieutenant governor of iowa. judge also served eight years as iowa ag secretary. also served in the iowa senate. >> now that you have had a chance to meet the candidates, it's time to hear from each of them am. each candidate will have 90 seconds for their opening statements tonight before the debate we flipped a coin to see who would go first. tonight the honor of the first opening statement goes to patty judge. >> thank you, matt. i want to thank all of you from the different tv stations that
morningside college for their participation, allowing us to be here in this facility. it is great to have this opportunity. i also want to thank the audience back here at the station, and those that are watching us around the state. we have an opportunity tonight to talk about issues that are important issues that are on the minds of people not just in iowa, but acrs we know that there is a frustration, there is gridlock and obstruction in washington, dc. we know that needs to change. and in order for that to change, i believe that we need to have new leadership. the obstruction of the supreme court of the last several months is unprecedented. that is on my opponent's shoulders. we know to be trying to find ways to move forward. we need to work on the economy.
student loan debt, making certain that young professionals aren't buried under mountains of debt. we need to talk about social security. there are issues up and down that need to be discussed that are not being discussed. i hope that we have a chance to do that. i go to washington, work for you to make progress, to make this country move again. thank you. >> thank you, mrs. judge. senator grassley, there's been a problem wit we weren't sure how much time was allotted to pat ji judge, but you have the -- patty judge. you have the time you need for your opening statement. >> thank you very much for the sponsors of this great debate, and to mrs. judge, i want to say our condolences for the loss of your father. >> thank you, thank you. i appreciate that. >> every day my job is to work for iowans. if the senators from iowa don't work for iowans, no else will.
number one: jobs, like the wind energy tax credit, 7,000 jobs, like export-related jobs, pay 15% above the national average. secondly, taxpayers of iowa need accountability for their money, so i get the false claims act passed. that's brought $48 billion back into the federal trade, and and economic security, because national security is the number one responsibility of the federal government to keep iowans safe from isis and terrorism, and also economic security, the failed policies of the last eight years of no growth have to be supplemented with pro growth policy, and that's what i have been doing over the last few years, these
am reelected, and i would very much appreciate your vote. >> thank you, senator. now the questions from our panel. each candidate will have one minute to answer each question. each candidate will then give 30 seconds of rebuttal time. the panelists do have the option to ask a follow-up question if they so choose. in that case the candidate gets 30 seconds apiece to answer. first question tonight, first be answered by senator chuck grassley. first question focuses on the nomination of judg garland to the u.s. supreme court. senator grassley, since judge garland's nomination, you have opposed convening confirmation hearings. just last month, though, you said you would consider hearings during a lame duck session after election day. why have you softened your stance? >> i will not change my position from my february 23rd letter that the people ought to have a voice and the new president, whether it's trump or mrs. clinton, will make the next appointment as far as i'm concerned.
hearing, and 52 other senators agreeing with that, we have taken the position that similar to what democratic senators have taken when there's been republican presidents, three different ones, and the point that they made, that in the last year of a presidential term, if a vacancy happens in, people give a choice, and president make it. so you can't have one rule for democrat presidents, and another rule for republican presidents. so we're being very consistent. >> sir, to be specific, those other 52 senators that you mentioned, if they were to change their minds and favored confirmation hearings during a lame duck session, not to say you would support it, but would you consider it? >> if a majority of the senate said that they were going to
at the majority of the senate of the united states, and i would follow the will of the majority of the senate. >> thank you. >> i don't expect that to happen, though. >> indeed. thank you, senator. mrs. judge, question to you on the confirmation hearings for judge garland. as consistently as senator grassley has opposed the confirmation hearings, you advocate the for them. take you back to june of 1992, as a u.s. senator, vice president joe biden talked hypothetically about postponing those hearings on any supreme court vacancy, should there b of that year in november of 1992. given your advocacy for hearings about judge garland's nomination, do you believe the vice president of the united states, one of the leaders of your party, was wrong 26 years ago? >> i believe that we now have the longest time in the history of this country between a nomination and a hearing, and that is unprecedented. i believe that it is hampering
able to function as it was designed by the constitution. we have disrupted the balance of power. whatever joe biden said in the hall of congress, if that in fact is his view, that is not my view. i believe that the duty of the judiciary committee is to have a hearing, and my opponent is refusing to do that. it should be done, and i am really, toni this answer about a lame duck session. it appears to me he's leaving himself some wiggle room so that they can have a hearing for judge garland between the time this election is over and hillary clinton takes office. >> thank you, mrs. judge. senator, you have 30 seconds to respond, if you would like. >> thank you very much. 1968, there was a vacancy, the democratic senate decided not to fill the vacancy. i presume they thought humphrey
nixon appointed two new people to the supreme court. so consequently, even in 2007, schumer said 18 months ahead of time if there was a vacancy, it should be filled by the new one. and then in 2005, reid gave a speech in which he said there's nothing in the constitution that says the senate has to move ahead. that's the checks and balances of our government. >> thank you, senator. mrs. judge, he seems to precedent. what is your response? >> my response is that this is wrong. this is obstruction of the process. we have a supreme court that is unable to function. this is exactly what's wrong with washington. this is why people are angry. because instead of getting to work, doing what should be done, they are playing political games in washington, dc, and it has to stop. >> thank you, mrs. judge.
seconds? >> i will give you ten if you need it. she will get ten more. >> there's nothing wrong with the checks and balances in our constitution. the president nominates; the senate confirms. or advises on consent or not consent, as they choose to do, based on what senator reid, the democratic leader said in 2005. >> mrs. judge, not to belabor the point, he got 15 seconds. i will give you the same 15. >> you know, we can talk about what somebody said, matter is, we have not had a functioning court for months. we will not have a functioning court for many more months. that is wrong. that is political gain, whether it's being played by the republicans or the democrats, it is wrong, and it needs to stop. >> thank you, mrs. judge. amanda? >> the next question will focus on the affordable care act, and mrs. judge, you recently admitted that the health insurance and other costs
despite having the affordable care act. you favor legislative changes to lower those costs, but you have never outlined those changes. do you have recommendations tonight? >> well, i think the affordable care act was clearly a step forward for our country. we are pro vietding health insurance today -- providing health insurance today for millions of people that did not have it before, and that's good. we do need to make some changes to the act. we do opponent has tried to do several times, and that is to get the act repealed and replace it with what, i don't know, because there's never been an alternative put forward. but we do need to look at that, we need to be finding a way to control the rising costs of premiums. we need to find a way to control the cost of prescription drugs. that was left out on purpose,
that decision. and people have been paying a price in this country ever since for extremely high cost of prescription drugs. i believe these things can be done, we can make this act work, and this country will be better because of that. >> can you elaborate on any specific changes that you would recommend? >> well, we need to examine closely what is driving insurance costs, and then make a decision on how we can curb that. that we instituted the affordable care act, is because insurance premiums kept rising, and people were not able to get coverage, and then they also were being thrown off of insurance coverage when they
>> all you got to do is look at 13 counties of iowa, going to have one choice under the exchange, just one choice. secondly, premiums are going up 28%. over the next ten years, they are projected to go up 61% on top of that. we have been lie obamacare. remember, your premiums were supposed to go down 2500. they've gone up 3500. remember if you like your doctor, you can keep it. millions of people have had to change their doctors. remember that we were promised, keep your insurance. and in turn, then, millions of people had to change their insurance. >> that's your time, senator, thank you. >> do you have a rebuttal? >> i don't think that the more
did not have before the affordable care act, i don't think the young professionals who have not yet established themselves in a career and have insurance of their own that are now allowed to stay on their parents' policies would call this a failure. this is a big step forward. it is not perfected. we need to, again, quit the partisan politics. quit playing games, and find a way to make this work. >> thank you, mrs. >> speaking of small business, a lot of small businesses around the country instead of providing insurance wanted to give their people money to buy insurance. obamacare ruled that out. if you violate that law, you are going to pay $200 every day for every employee that violates that. i have put in legislation to repeal that part of obamacare.
help their people get insurance any way to get it. >> okay. let's talk ethanol and renewable fuel standards. congress approved ethanol fuel mandates in 2005 through the renewable fuel standard for iowans, ethanol, of course, means jobs, and economic growth, not just replacing foreign oil with domestic plant-based fuels. so now in congress some say the mandate should be phase issue? we will begin with you, senator. >> i fully support the renewable fuel standard and the tax credits that go with cell u -- cellulose ethanol and bio diesel until they get to be a mature industry and we can keep the tax credit like we did on ethanol from grain. the renewable fuel standard is per nantes law -- permanent law until 2022. i believe we have the votes in the united states senate to
repealed, but we have a big problem with epa wanting to cut down on the amount that's supposed to be done. they don't have the authority to do it, but this administration that said they were for ethanol have let them get away with it, and that's a big victory for big oil. big oil can't win in congress, but they can win in this obama administration, and my opp seems to like everything that epa does, and epa is ruining rfs by not having the full gallonage mixed with petroleum, as it should be. >> okay. mrs. judge? >> well, you are not going to get a lot of argument between senator grassley and i on the importance of the renewable fuel standard, and the fact that ethanol is iowa's home-grown product, and we're
fuel standard in place in order to make things work until the industry can mature. i would say that while people have criticized this, it is not as significant as the subsidies that big oil received for years and years that senator grassley has supported. >> response, senator? >> yes, sir. not a response to that, but it is a big j in washington, dc, because there's so many people ignorant of it. now, people from the midwest, both republicans and democrats, fight hard against epa. you can easily get ten republicans and ten democrats to meet with the chief of staff of president obama, which we've had to do several times in order to get ahead of epa. but the reason there is a lot of ignorance is because so many
[ laughter ] i >> we're done with ethanol then, or ee-thanol. >> we will never be done with it. >> i am from iowa, so i know how to pronounce ethanol. the next question, much of this country's national security policy is focused on two areas: immigration and security of the border. tackling threats like overseas threats like isis and al qaeda. when it comes to national security, should on the security at home, abroad, or both? mrs. judge, you are first. >> well, that's a big question for a minute. >> trust me, we can give you all the time you two need. >> you are correct, and as -- i was the homeland security officer for the state of iowa for four years. during that period of time i
united states, and overseas, and there is a threat, both places. it has to be, really has to be addressed both places. i think we are getting -- there's lots of activity right now in the middle east, and we are all reading about that, and i think the obama administration is getting a -- doing a good job of pushing back on the threat of isis the middle east, and there is good surveillance going on in the united states. but we have to be constantly vigilant. there's probably nothing more important than making certain that our families are safe here in the united states. >> thank you, mrs. judge. senator, the question to you. >> my opponent said before the sioux city newspaper board of editors, whatever you call it, that we were containing isis.
acronym isis for a few years now. it's very dangerous. they want to kill us. we got to make sure that they don't use our refugee program to bring people in under the umbrella of refugees, because we want to take refugees, but we've got to make sure that our intelligence community and our fbi are adequately vetting. and not move a say they can be vetted. >> thank you, senator. you have 30 seconds for rebuttal, mrs. judge. >> well, this country and particularly the state of iowa has been a welcoming haven for refugees going back to the tiem e of -- the people from vietnam,
that are in danger of their lives. i believe we need to find a way that they can be brought here just as other war refugees have been brought here. we do have excellent surveillance, we do have a vetting process which is extremely rigorous. >> thank you, that's your time. senator greatly, rebuttal. >> -- grassley, we rebuttal. >> we welcome refugees like we welcome a million immigrants ev legally. we just want to make sure we don't have refugees coming here to kill us. >> we'll address immigration in a few moments. i want to follow up with the both of you, starting with you, mrs. judge, in respect to senator grassley's comments that isis is in 36 countries around the world. tonight there's u.s.-backed coalition of iraqi and kurdish forces trying to retake mosul, the second largest city in iraq. i would be curious to know, though, the senate wouldn't visor consent upon that action, what you think about the action
>> i think, regarding the movement to retake the city of mosul from the hands of isis, this is appropriate, this is being led by iraqi forces, which is appropriate. we do have advisors in there. it really is quite a coalition that is pushing back and retaking that city. this is the way, in my that we should operate, and give the support to our allies to make certain that this threat of isis is contained and eradicated. >> thanks, that's your time. senator grassley, your thoughts on the movement on mosul? >> considering the situation that the president put us in by withdrawing troops in 2011, leaving a vacuum that isis
doing there is about the best we can do. the president has all the information, it doesn't seem like we have a strategy. we need our institution -- constitutional commander-in-chief who is the president of the united states with that responsibility to make sure he has a strategy. we need a strategy. >> thank you, senator. amanda? >> our next question is about immigration. senator grassley, we'll start with you tonight. you led the effort to reform the h-1b visa program to bet were often forced out of their jobs in place of less-skilled foreign workers. does this prevent legal immigrants from calling iowa home and then furthermore, offering more growth to our state. >> definitely not. the h-1b program is a legitimate program, set up in 1990, so that when we didn't have enough people educated in this country to do professional jobs, they could be brought in.
then have their workers train them, and then fire their workers, like california con edison, i believe was the company, or orlando down there. so here's where we are. we need to reform the system, so that we make sure that there is a good faith effort of corporations to find first workers in this country, then if they can't, use the h-1b compromise, which is what senator durbin, democrats in illinois and iowa are working on, we will then be able to help get even more h-1b's, if they are needed. and only if they are needed, and do some other things that will help the program actually work the way it's supposed to work. but it's wrong to bring people in and have your workers train them, and then fire american workers. >> mrs. judge, you have been
deportation of all those people who are living in the u.s. illegally. do you endorse a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers who are living currently in the u.s.? >> what i endorse is a comprehensive immigration reform bill. there was a bill that was passed two years ago, it is sitting in the house of representatives. the republicans have refused to take that bill the senate. it addresses the issues surrounding immigration, it gives us a path to get people who are working in our country as undocumented workers documented, to get them out of the shadows, to get them on the tax rolls. we need to get this done. there is no reason not to do it. if there are portions of that bill that we are not in
to have that discussion. again, once more, this is the obstruction, the deliberate obstruction of the process that is so frustrating to us, and it has to stop. >> senator? >> yes. i voted against it because it did not secure the border. and we always talk about securing the border, as if it is just a mexico problem. it is not just a mexico problem, it is also a problem at our airports, exit and track people coming and going. half of the people here are overstaying visas, not just crossing the border without papers. and we need -- also need interior enforcement. bottom line is, we need to enforce the laws. >> may i respond to that? there is provisions in this bill for border security, and i
in fact it was not adequate, or it was lacking in some way, why is there not an attempt to perfect the bill. why cannot we bring it up, have a decision, have a discussion and come to consensus on a way that we can deal with this problem, this growing problem of immigration in our country. >> i would like to ask a follow-up question, mrs. judge. you talked about bringing the people from out of the shadows. residency process is very lengthy in the united states. so what about the people who have done it legally the right way from day one. what is your message to those people? >> my message to them is, thank you. however, we cannot ignore the fact that we have millions of people in our country that are not documented, they came here
job. i think their employers need to be held somewhat responsible in this issue also. we need to find a way if we need them as a workforce in our state, which seems to be that we do, then we need to find a way to get them the proper documentation so they are working here legally. that's something different than being a resident and eventually a citizen. >> can i ask you, does your question raise the issue about people t legally, being resentful for people that come here without papers? >> yes, senator. >> very definitely. i haven't heard, in the last year or two, i haven't heard as much about immigration as i did in '13 and 14, when it came up, practically every one of my town meetings that i have around iowa, 99 and all the other town meetings i have; and i did sense a real resentment from people who stand in line
quotas when people can come here, they have to wait their turn, and then they come here, and then they see other people here that have violated our laws crossing the borders without papers. >> thank you, senator. thank you, mrs. judge. if you checked your clocks, we have hit the halfway mark, 30 minutes down, 30 minutes to go in this u.s. senate debate. straight' -- ahead n a mrit climate best described as -- political climate, we tackle the candidates' commitment to bi-partisanship, and to serve the great state of iowa. you're watching the iowa u.s. senate debate on the stations
it's troubling. congressman blum actually co-sponsored a bill that could make it legal for a woman to be fired just for being pregnant. and blum tried to defund planned parenthood, even though women depend on it for critical care, like cancer screenings. i was diagnosed with breast cancer, and i know it was early detection that made a difference. it's not a political issue. i'm monica vernon, and i approve this message. ?? >> welcome back to the iowa u.s. senate debate, live from
college in sioux city, iowa. the next is on the farm bill, it comes from my colleague from kttc television. >> thank you. my grandfather was a norwegian farmer in north central iowa. farming is so important to the state of iowa. do you think the federal government should provide farmers with a cost-sharing safety net program that manages revenue risk and catastrophic disaster. we'll start with you, mrs. judge. >> well, we have had some agriculture for the last few years. crop prices have been good, livestock prices good. and so this issue of the farm safety net has not really been one that people have given a lot of thought. however, things are not nearly as robust as they were, and definitely as we write a new farm bill, we'll have to address what sort of a safety net is appropriate.
insurance safety net in place, but we really haven't had to test that out too much, and i believe that whatever we do, we have got to make certain that we've got a strong safety net under family farmers, under people that actually live on our farms in iowa, we need to protect them, we cannot lose another generation of farmers in iowa. we have to keep them there, that is one of the things that i believe that i want to do first in washington. >> senator, how do we protect farmers? >> yes, we should have a safety net, and the crop insurance is what you are talking about, and farmers pay into it. that's the way it should be done. plan ahead. we have other disasters, like you can have in agriculture. you can have an earthquake, and we help 100% disaster relief.
and you have 100% disaster relief. you can have floods, and if you do and you help them, it is 100% disaster. but when it comes to the farmers, they plan ahead. 95% of them in iowa, and they pay for the crop insurance along with the taxpayers. so it is a good deal for the taxpayers, because if we didn't have it, it would be 100% disaster relief like we had prior to 1990. mrs. judge, any additional comments on that? >> i think we just have to be very, very certain that it works well. crop prices are better today, i think corn was 3, 3.13 today. but that still is right on the edge of being a disaster. for iowa farmers. as i said before, we have to make certain that those family
market downturn. >> senator, final comments? >> no, i just think that too often people don't stop to think about everything the farmer goes through. you pay what they charge you for input, when the price of corn at newhart ford today is 3.10, if you deliver it, you want to sell it, you take what they will give you. we have droughts, we have a lot of things. even international war, and carter grain embargoes, nothing the rm farer has control over -- farmer has control over. they should be able to have the cop insurance program they contribute to. >> mrs. judge, a follow-up question. would you support comprehensive tax reform that lowers effective tax rates for farmers and creates permanent tax policy that gives farmers any certainty for future years? >> i think as we talk about tax reform, we really have to talk
i would not think it would be wise to single out a particular industry, including farming. we need to look at tax reform, we need to look at making it more fair, more equitable for all of us, for working families, for small businesses. we need to close loopholes at the top, that are preventing large, multi-billion dollar corporations from paying taxes whatsoever. we need to close loopholes to make sure that the wealthiest people in this country are in fact paying taxes, and when we have a presidential candidate that is openly bragging about not paying taxes, it's very concerning. we ail need -- all need to pay taxes. we enjoy living in this country, but we want those taxes to be fair and equitable across the board, from those of
>> senator, your viewpoint on the comprehensive tax reform. >> i think the estate tax can be done away with, it isn't going to be done away with, but i favored that. i think that's passing on the farm from one to the other. and i don't think you can have tax reform just for farmers, you got to have tax reform for people across the board. and if she's -- if my opponent is talking about wealthy people, and she's including that farmers that inflation in their land prices, and you shouldn't tax inflation, but it would be taxed under the existing law, we've got hillary clinton wanting to put a 65% tax rate on it. and you also want to reduce the exemption down from five plus million dollars down to three and a half million dollars, this is going to cause farmers to split up their efficient operation, and you won't have a farming operation that's economically run, and that
young people into farming. >> mrs. judge? >> you know, i agree with hillary clinton on most issues. i'm sure that doesn't surprise anyone too much. but the issue of estate tax and the plan she has put forward i do not agree with. i will be very clear about that. i think it is unfair to farmers, again, i've been secretary of agriculture in this state for eight years, i do prices, about fluctuation, about the fact that you may be wealthy one day and dead broke the next day if you are in agriculture. but the estate taxi would not -- tax i would not ever vote to enact the hillary estate tax plan. >> final comments? >> i don't think i need to say any more on that subject t. would just kill young people getting into farming and passing farms from one to the other. really, it wouldn't be
confiscation. >> interesting, thank you. next question in tonight's debate focuses on qualifications for office. you both have lengthy political resum?s. senator grassley, you have been a lawmaker in washington for 40 years; mrs. judge, six years in the iowa senate, eight years at ag secretary and four years as the state's lieutenant governor. senator grassley to you first, how do you avoid complacency with your position in washington, dc, after four decades in the nation's capitol. >> washington is surrounded by reality. get out of there. i come home every weekend. for 36 years in a row, i've gone to every county to have at least one meeting in every county. polk county this year, 31 or 32 q&a with constituents in polk county, just as one example. it is keeping in touch with people. representative government is a two-way street, i am one-half of that process. when she was a state senator,
process. our constituency, the other half. you got to have dialogue. so i make sure that i'm on top of things by having dialogue with my constituents so i can better represent them in washington, dc. i think one thing to do is when you're campaigning, don't over-promise. and when you do promise something, carry it out. and always tell the truth. because then you don't have to worry about what you told somebody else. >> thank you, senator. laughter mrs. [ laughter ] you have 18 years in elected office at the state level. how do you expect to bring a different approach when you go to washington, dc with exactly zero days of experience inside the beltway? >> well, i went to the state senate with zero experience in the state senate. the years i was there, i was able to work across party lines, did that very well. we were able to move a lot of important issues. i did work as a mediator for a number of years, and that is a skill that i think is very
consensus. but you know, i really would like to point out that when my opponent talks about the need to get out of there in washington, after having been there for 42 years, it is almost humorous. i don't need to have 99 town hall meetings to know what's going on in iowa. i live here. i am here. i've worked life. tried to serve the people of this state the best of my ability. and i believe that washington does change people. the money, the power, that people enjoy when they are there for a long time changes the views. and it is time for a breath of fresh air. >> senator grassley, is washington fundamentally changed you? >> my opponent, i don't think she would mean to imply that
and having all these meetings, and making the process of government work is something that is wrong about washington. that's kind of what i heard, though. but i think that all you have to do is ask the people who know me and work with me, and say that chuck grassley is the same chuck grassley that went to the senate,ea john culver in 1980. >> mrs. judge, did you mean to say that coming home was a bad thing, as senator grassley -- >> no, i think it's great that he comes home. i just think that it's strange that he talks about the need to get out of washington, and yet he has gone back year after year, has become a fixture in washington, openly in one of his commercials, talks about being a big deal in washington these days. i'm just trying to point out
between living and working in washington for over 40 years, and living and working in iowa for that same period of time. >> follow-up, mrs. judge. can you deny that senator grassley has influence in congress after more than 42 years in washington. if elected, how do you plan to make gains with no seniority? how do you plan to benefit iowa? >> when the seniority is used for the benefit of your benefit of working families in iowa, that seniority is really not of great value. and this is what we have seen happen. there has been deliberate obstruction. we have already talked about the issue of the supreme court, but we also talked about the immigration bill. we've also talked about many other issues that are being
purpose. this is purposeful. and it is wrong. and the people of this state and across this country know that. they want to see progress. and if you have been there for 42 years, and you have not been able to make the progress that needs to be made, then it's time to come home and have someone else give it a try. >> senator, why should iowa send you back to the senate? is >> my friends say i don't smile enough. [ laughter ] that makes me smile fromhe standpoint of just look at, to get things done in washington, you've got to work across party lines. and i think my record, just since i've been chairman of the judiciary committee, but many positions i've held before that, just think, 30 bills voted out of my committee. all of them are bi-partisan bills. 13 of them have been signed by democratic presidents. i'm sponsoring criminal justice reform with the senate
i've had two discussions with president obama, on that very bill that he supports. if you don't want to take my word for it, go to the georgetown university study released maybe now six months ago. they studied all 100 senators, and of those 100 senators, i came in in the top five of being bi-partisan. so i think when you say getting things done and it's got to be done in a bi-partisan proven that you can work in a bi-partisan way and get things done. 13 bills by a democratic president says it all. >> mrs. judge, you appear to be itching for 30 seconds. >> i don't know if i need the full 30 seconds. i would just say that the workload in the united states senate in the last year, two, has been the lightest in years, probably since the eisenhower years. time to get back to work. let's get back to work. let's start talking about
student loan debt, prescription drugs, let's start talking about climate change, clean air, clean water. we need to be talking about the issues that are important to people today. they are not being addressed. >> senator, final comment. >> can i answer about the workload of the united states senate? >> please. you have 30 seconds. >> compare 2014 with 2015. senate -- basically shot down the united states senate, 18 we had, yeah, 18 roll calls on amendments, and even democrats couldn't offer amendments. we said if we took over the senate, we're going to have the senate work, and perform. and in that year we had 198 roll call votes on amendments, 98 of them were republican amendments, 94 democrat amendments, and the first thing we passed in the united states senate was the excel pipeline bill to create 20,000 jobs.
couldn't override the veto, but there's a whole lot of other things we put on the president's desk that reid would never let go there. >> that will be the final word on that question. amanda? >> in campaigns, talking about bi-partisanships, candidates promise to work across party lines for the interests of the voter. how can you reassure iowaens you will keep this promise in elected, senator, start with you. >> i just stated one record, le claims act i said in my opening statement. $48 billion back in the federal treasury. that was democratic congressman berman in 2006, for helping medicaid for middle income people that have high-cost children's care, special needs kids. senator kennedy and i got the family opportunity act passed. congress had exempted itself
connecticut, democrat and i, got the congressional accountability act, so those laws cover us now. and then title -- part d of medicare, was a bill that senator balkus, democrat from montana and i worked out, so that senior citizens could get prescription drugs, because they had never had it under medicare. and those are just some t pieces of legislation that i worked across party lines to do real things to help real people, or to abide by a principle that congress isn't different than the rest of the people. >> thank you, senator. >> mrs. judge, how will you reassure iowans that you will keep that promise? >> i believe that we need to be having discussion, whether we
immaterial. you have to be willing to listen, you have to appreciate your counterpart's point of view, and you have to -- when you understand their point of view, look for common ground, where you can meet and you can start moving forward. again, we've just heard, quoting a lot of history from the senate. i'm less concerned about press debit and history than i am the minds of iowans today. and those are the issues that i want to go to washington and talk about, not just with democrats, but with republicans, too. that's issues of getting the economy moving, creating jobs, making education affordable. prescription drug costs, the environment, clean water, clean air, climate change, these are the issues we need to be talking about, and we're going to have to talk about them in a bi-partisan way, or we will
>> let me state 10 seconds, the issues you folks have brought up here are the very same issues that come up in my q&a sessions that i have so many every year with iowans that keep in touch, and so you are asking the issues that my constituents tell me they are interested in, and i don't think my opponent should say that the issues aren't being discussed. >> i would say are they being discussed on the floor of the united states senate. i know they are being discussed in iowa, senator. i have been -- i have lived here, i live here. i have also been on the campaign since last march, talking to people, just as you have. and i hear the same things you do. i also hear a whole lot of frustration about the fact that they are not being discussed. there is no action in washington. washington is broken. washington is grid locked. >> we passed the highway bill.
first year of the obama administration, but it wasn't. we passed -- we reformed or did away with no child left behind, passed a new education bill. that had been reauthorized year after year after year, should have been reauthorized seven or eight years ago, and things like that. i shouldn't take up all your time to go through a long list of things, but this senate has produced. >> thank you, senator. questions from our panel. when we return, the last word from the candidates, their closing statements are straight ahead. you're watching the iowa u.s. senate debate on the stations
each candidate will have get two minutes for their closing statement, they will happen in the same order as the opening statement. the person who had the first word will also have the last word. the first comes from patty judge. you have two minutes. >> thank you very much. this time has just flown by. i have enjoyed being here, enjoyed having the opportunity to answer your questions. i've enjoyed having the opportunity to are -- have a discussion with senator grassley also. i think you've hea that we have been able to articulate. and i think the conclusion is that chuck grassley in 42 years has not really changed washington. washington probably in fact changed him. today we see gridlock and obstruction. we-zgreat unhappiness -- great unhappiness for working families across this country
need -- we need to get at that work. we need to be talking about economic opportunity in our country. we went through a rough recession. we are rebounding from that, but not as vigorously as we would like. and we should be investing in infrastructure in the country as a way to create good jobs. we need to raise the minimum wage, folks. to $15 an hour, over the next six years, and start pumping someon economy. we need to get student loan debt under control. we need to let students start refinancing those debts, and stretching the terms so that they can take part in our economy, just as we have had that opportunity. we need to be talking about social security and making certain it is there for people as they retire. as it was promised when they began their working careers. we ned to be talking about the environment, and climate
science is real. climate change is real. and we have to take action. i want to thank you all. we have got lots of issues. this has been a spirited conversation, and a spirited campaign. and, again, i am very proud to stand before you. i ask for your vote, and as we say good night, i also want to say god bless iowa and god bless the united states of america. >> thank you, mrs. judge. senator grassley, you have two minutes for the final word >> thank you, moderators, thank you, viewers, i thank the audience. you've heard me say many times about my work for iowans. that is my work. you also heard a lot from my opponent. i think that you heard a lot that represents an agreement with the failed policies of the last years, whether it's obamacare that she likes, whether it's epa regulations
waters of the u.s., something that's going to be a real problem for farmers if it finally goes through. i work for iowans, as i told you. senatorses from their individual states have to work for their constituents. let me repeat, in three different ways, one, creating jobs. i talked about wind energy, because i never knew it would be the big thing it turned out to be when i got it passed in policy, or when i passed the false claims at, bringing in $48 billion to make sure that the taxpayers' money is responsibly handled. i didn't know that would bring in $48 billion, but it has. the third responsibility i have working for iowans, to make sure you are safe. number one responsibility of the federal government is national security. i have a responsibility to
from isis or terrorists, whether it's over there, or whether it's right here domestically, and, remember, the fbi director said that they are watching 900 people in the united states, and at least one in every state. and finally, then, economic program that will grow, not like the last eight years, where everything has been stagnant. we need to create jobs. that's what i've done in my years, and i am going i'm reelected. finally, i ask you for your vote. >> thank you, senator grassley. unfortunately that is our time for tonight's iowa u.s. senate debate. we would like to thank our two guests, senator charles grassley, and patty judge for a spirited debate tonight. >> we would also like to thank the stations of quincy media for livestreaming this event, this debate tonight, and televising it. >> spirited debate, and informative debate as well. a big thank you to the staff here at morningside college,
(achoo!) did you know you can pick up cold & flu viruses from things in your home for up to 48 hours? it's like having a sick family member that you didn't even know was there. and we all know what happens when one family member gets sick. but lysol spray and lysol wipes kill 99.9% of germs including 8 common cold & flu viruses to help protect your home. this cold and flu season help keep your home happy and healthy
hillary clinton is the most corrupt person ever to run for president. >> i'm really -- i really don't carewhat he says about me, but i will stand up and defend everyone else who he insults. >> the election is by corrupt media pushing outright lies. >> when they go low, we go high. >> from nbc news, decision 2016, the final presidential debate. live from the university of nevada, las vegas, here now,