Skip to main content

tv   ABC 7 News Special - MD Senate Debate  ABC  March 29, 2016 12:00pm-1:00pm EDT

12:00 pm
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this is vote 2016 special coverage. your voice, your future. maryland sdratic senate debate. she served in congress longer than any woman in history but after 40 years on the hill, three decades in the senate, barbara mikulski decided to call it quits. senator mikulski: i will not be seeking a sixth term in the united states senate. >> prompting to fill her seat. while dozen vy to get her job, among them is donna edwards and chris van hollen. it would seem democrats are assure a victory in maryland but larry hogan proved there is no guarantee in the free state anymore. and now a pivotal push as primary day is just weeks away.
12:01 pm
scott: thank you for joining us today. i'm scott thuman. for the next hour you'll hear -- the leading sdatic democratic candidates. we had the republican debate just last week. let's meet the candidates. maryland congressman chris van hollen, who representing the eighth congressional district and congresswoman donna edwards, representing maryland's fourth congressional district. we will allow our audience to o ahead and applaud. all right. our candidates today will be facing questions from our panel. let's introduce them. kai jackson has spent 20 years in maryland. and bruce depuyt who has spent more than 25 years covering news and politics in and around washington.
12:02 pm
here on newschannel 8. so here are the rules. each candidate will have 60 seconds to respond to our panel's questions. after each gives their answer, their opponent can answer. each candidate then has an opportunity for a 230-second rebut @at their discretion -- 30-second rebuttal at their discretion. when we reach the 53-minute mark, we'll wrap up the comments, signaling the end of the q&a and each can make a closing argument. a coin toss determines the order of the first question and who goes first in those closing statements. bruce depuyt has our first question. brews. bruce: candidates, thank you for being here. congressman van hollen, you won the coin flip. the first question is for you. the united states grows more diverse by the day. they say we will one day be a majority minority nation. but the senate remains overwhelmingly white and male. your main rival in this race says p
12:03 pm
will not see their concerns truly addressed unless they have more of the seat at the table. is she right? mr. van hollen: well, i believe in diversity, but most of all, i believe it's important that there be somebody there for people of all races and all backgrounds and all genders and when i talk to people around the state of maryland, of all different colors, all different genders, what they say is they're looking for someone with a track record of actually getting things done. to move our country toward the promise of equal rights and equal justice and qua opportunity and if you look at people who have looked at both of our records on these important issues, i'm proud to have their support. i'm to have the support of sgiu who is out there on the front lines fighting for working men and women. they looked at our record and said van hollen can get it done. the sierra club, i looked at the record on
12:04 pm
which is an immigrants rights organization. if you talk to the county executive of prince george's county, great african-american, he said i'm a great candidate who can produce results for prince george's county. i think it's important to look at the records and not simply identify the issues but look who has put forward specific solutions over a long period of time to actually get things done. thank you. bruce: same question for you, congresswoman edwards. ms. edwards: in maryland we will become a majority minority state very soon and the fact when senator mikulski ran for the united states senate there were no women who had been elected on their own without inheriting the seat from their husband. she was the first one. now the senate is 20% women. there hasn't been an african-american in the united states senate since carl mosley braun 23 years ago and i think it matters who's at the table. when i'm
12:05 pm
reason i work to see that after-school is upers and nutritious dinners were served to children all across our congressional district. any of our colleagues could have done the same thing, but because i was at the table, that made a difference. make a difference when it comes to talking about and working on equal pay for equal work as a woman who understands what it means to work for unequal pay for equal work. it makes a difference who's at the table because it matters what you put on the table. scott: kai jackson. kai: thank you, candidates. we appreciate you being here. this deals with incarceration. in the wamu debate, you said it's because of legislators like mr. van hollen we've seen increased incarceration rates across the country and maryland. is that a fair charge and what's response to his claim that you are not a co-sponsor of legislation attacking mandatory minimum sentences?
12:06 pm
hollen, during his time in the state legislature as well as in the united states congress, even as late as 2005, supported escalating penalties, mandatory minimums, truth in sentencing. it is inarguable that those kind of policies have contributed to high rates of incarceration, more than 22,000 incarcerated individuals in the state of maryland. i have worked really hard on legislation that would give education and an opportunity to those who are serving in prison. working with groups, working with re-entries, re-entering citizens in my congressional district, convening the first group ever, working with employers to hire those who are re-entering our population. it's important for us to give people a second chance and to continue to promote policies that would escalate penalties and increase our incarceration really is wrong and flies in the face
12:07 pm
reform. mr. van hollen: as congresswoman edwards knows, within a day of making these charges, state senators, including many from prince george's county, like senator benson who i served with, sent the congresswoman a letter saying cut it out, you're misrepresenting congressman van hollen's record. and this actually is an example of a larger issue because there are many of us who in congress have actually been working to address this issue because it is a scandal in this country that nonviolent substance abuse is criminalized when we should be dealing with as a health care matter. and as a result, we see mass incarceration. so there are efforts in the congress, including the smart sentencing legislation. which i was part of long before we started this senate campaign which is an effort by those of us who have actually been focused on these efforts to actually make a difference. there's also the safe justice act. on both pieces of legislation i
12:08 pm
i've been working with our colleagues to actually get things done. so i do hope as we go forward in this debate we will not level untrue charges and we'll focus actually on getting results and solutions and that remains a difference in this race. kai: you'd like to use a rebuttal? ms. edwards: i'd like to use a rebuttal because the fact is mr. van hollen supported legislation in the house of representatives in 2005 that escalated penalties to as much as 30 years, and i'd look at a guy i visited in prison named alfonso who committed a crime but his -- is punished for many years. now he needs an education and an opportunity. these are the people i serve in my congressional district and i think that it is, you know, it's heinous that you have supported legislation over a period of time that escalates penalties instead of really dealing with incarceration and that's your record. mr. van hollen: that's fine.
12:09 pm
kai: go ahead, congressman. mr. van hollen: my record is actually co-sponsoring legislation that would do something about it. in 2005 there was legislation dealing with the ms-13 gang violence, brutal murders that were taking place and there is a major distinction between how we address nonviolent substance abuse issues and how we deal with violent crime. so, for example, in the legislature, the issue that congresswoman edwards raised had to do with truth in sentencing because judges were actually giving domestic abusers, changing their sentences without note vying the victims. which is why the focus of the community who were fighting domestic violence supported my efforts. these are easy things to distort. what you can't distort is a record of leadership and who's actually focused on solutions now. scott: kai jackson, you have the next question again. this is about social security. kai: mr. van hollen, this will start with you and the issue is here, at an earlier debate, your oppon
12:10 pm
edwards, said, quote, unlike mr. van hollen i was not going to trade away the benefits of social security just to cut a deal. i think the american people and marylanders are tired of career politicians willing to trade away our principles. as we live longer, the question is here, as we live longer, will it be necessary to adjust entitlement program formulas so we guarantee they are fiscally sound? mr. van hollen: yeah. so we do need to adjust the formulas to make them fiscally sound. which i am an orange co-sponsor of legislation -- original co-sponsor of legislation to do exactly that which is to lift the cap on wages. it's a piece of legislation similar to the efforts of bernie sanders and others that was put forward. let's just address this issue because "the baltimore sun" looked at this claim. they found it was untrue. i have 100% rating from the alliance for retired americans. in fact, i was asked by my colleagues, nancy pelosi, and my sdratic
12:11 pm
democratic colleagues at the time, including ms. edwards, to protect social security. that's what i was doing in the budget committee as recently as two weeks ago once again leading the charge. so this is another example of the difference of being on the sidelines and talking about something and actually leading the fight. and the head of the committee that preserves social security and medicare, i mean, it's a big word, he said i was a savior for being at the table. now, i don't claim to be a savior but i was at the table and i was protecting social security. kai: ms. edwards, how do you respond? mr. van hollen is saying you have levied an unfair charge against him. ms. edwards: well, i will say to our viewers and listeners they need to go to the record. if they go to "the wall street journal" in 2014, in 2012, what mr. van hollen actually said was that the simpson-bowles agreement that he was trying to negotiate was a general framework that included, as he
12:12 pm
approach to revenue and to cuts that would have cut social security, raise the retirement age and adversely impacted thousands of seniors across our state, especially the women that i represent who at the end of their lives they have social security. they don't have a 401-k plan. they don't have a pension plan. they have social security. and the question is not what you're doing now. mr. van hollen and i are both on that legislation to raise the cap. the question is what you do when you're at the table and what you do when you're at the table is negotiate a way social security and medicare, accepting the framework, the general framework, as you described it, that would cut social security and medicare and raise the retirement age. that's what you did. it's difference from what you said. mr. van hollen: i'd like to rebut. bruce: go ahead, congressman. mr. van hollen: because the congresswoman knows this is not the case. independent examiners like "the
12:13 pm
is not the case. and, again, it's -- the differences between leading and following. and when you talk about the people you want to help. the reality is i've been running on my record and congresswoman edwards has been running away from her record. there have been numerous stories in "the baltimore sun" and "the washington post" how when people come to congresswoman edwards' office she just hasn't been there for them. "the washington post" said her constituent services were notoriously bad. so when you're talking about real people needing help, it's important to look at the facts. squoip all right. next question is from bruce depuyt. bruce: a super p.a.c. on the emily list's website says, donna faces a fight and a crowded field. they said "we must defend the mikulski seat," in a "newly competitive state." are they
12:14 pm
rival is a pro-choice democrat and is this the best choice of pro-choice donations in your view? ms. edwards: well, emily's list -- and i'm proud to have their support -- it's not the dark money. it's not like the koch brothers. it's to support pro-choice democratic women running for elective office. i'm proud to have their support. they stood on the side of barbara mikulski when the political establishment said she couldn't win in a race very similar to this one. and so i'm proud to have the support of emily's list. what i want my opponent to explain is why he has the support of the realtor's p.a.c., dumping in $900,000 into his campaign, spending $55 million to lobby congress in 2014, spending almost $2 million to elect mitch mcconnell to the united states senate. why does mr. van hollen have that support? i'm proud to have the support of emily's list. they don't lobby they don't
12:15 pm
expect anything in return. what do the realtors expect from you? mr. van hollen: well, as congresswoman edwards knows, she received $25,000 -- ms. edwards: $23,000. mr. van hollen: from realtors over the years. the reason there are super p.a.c.'s in this race, is because ms. edwards did not sign an anti-super p.a.c. pledge. she said she was against citizens united and super p.a.c.'s and so was i. that was our opportunity to do that. in fact, elizabeth warren and scott brown signed a similar proposal and that keeps all super p.a.c.'s out. now, barbara mikulski didn't have the emily list super p.a.c. the p.a.c.'s were after citizens united. and they say that donna edwards don't take
12:16 pm
well, guess what, the one supporting that super p.a.c. is wall street. if we want to keep super p.a.c.'s out of maryland, congresswoman edwards, why don't you join me in putting your name to what you stand for which is -- bruce: rebuttal? ms. edwards: i would. i am very proud to have the support of emily's list. millions of women and supporters across the country who believe that we need more than 20% women in the united states senate, that there needs to be diversity of race and ethnicity in the united states senate. i am proud to have their support. what i will not have is a super p.a.c. spending money on my campaign that then spends $55 million to lobby congress for who knows what and who knows what they expect out of mr. van hollen in return. that's what the realtors are doing. emily's list is supporting a pro-choice democratic woman.
12:17 pm
to bruce for the war on terror. bruce: thank you, scott. the next question is about isis. this is for you, mr. van hollen. president obama has been criticized by some saying he hasn't done enough to contain and eliminate isis. has the president acted swift enough? how can the u.s. put pressure on other nations to play a more prominent role here? mr. van hollen: yeah, i think the president has acted swiftly with respect to isis. he has been leading the effort to bring together an allied coalition. he's been making sure we provide training and weapons to the iraqi forces. and the kurdish forces and they have pushed back isis in the area. we also need to be continuing to support them through our air cover, which is what the president has been doing. we need to work very closely with our allies and share intelligence information. we saw a terrible tragedy in brussels, and the world stands united in fighting that. what i can tell you that those who
12:18 pm
we're hearing from donald trump and other republican candidates, are actually going to inflame the situation worse, and those who are calling for putting american ground troops into syria would also make the same mistake we made in iraq because much of the problems we're seeing today in the area are the result of the bad decision to go into iraq, one i opposed strongly because i don't believe solving that issue will be accomplished through american troops on the ground. bruce: same question to you, congresswoman. ms. edwards: well, i think both the coalition, iraqi -- the iraqi army, kurdish forces have made tremendous ground in the fight against isis on the ground in the iraq and syria theater. clearly we have a problem with foreign fighters who've now gone back to europe and other places who really threaten the stability and security in
12:19 pm
we need to do a better job of cooperating with european intelligence and helping them to have a more cooperative intelligence arrangement so that we can root out these problems on the ground in europe, but i think the president has taken the right tact and multilateralism in making sure we arm iraqi security -- iraqi forces on the ground, making certain we arm the kurds on the ground and making headway with -- against isis on the ground in iraq and syria. clearly we need to do more in europe. scott: all right. kai jackson with a question something very familiar with you and the state and that's police stations. kai: around the country highlights a divide between those who have and those who have less and those who are satisfied with the work law enforcement does and those who feel o
12:20 pm
communities. as a senator, what can you do to foster dialogue between communities and the police who serve them? and i'd like to add here -- because we'd like to hear specifically from you and mr. van hollen -- is there a facet of this issue that's critically important that is not being discussed, in your opinion? ms. edwards: this is where perspectives in leadership really matter. as a mom of an african-american young man that i raised and had that conversation with him about how to interact with law enforcement on the street, i think i bring a unique perspective to this conversation about what we need to do to improve relations with law enforcement and communities, to provide training, accountability, to make certain we're funding things like community-oriented policing that really engages communities in their own protection and their safety. but i also believe that we need to demilitarize law enforcement and in fact i voted to demilitarize law enforcement a
12:21 pm
year before ferguson ever happened. unlike my opponent, who actually voted for mill tarization but now changed his -- militarizeation but now changed his position, i think it's important at the federal level to provide resources for training and other resources to make sure that we develop a collaborative relationship with law enforcement. kai: mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen: well, the tragedy of freddie gray and the other tragedies we saw around the country have highlighted a systemic problem that runs deep, both in terms of our economy, our education system, criminal justice system, and racism that has reflected in some of these awful tragedies. so what do we need to do? yes, we need to provide more in terms of police accountability and build stronger relations. yes, we need more transparency, and i'm part of an effort on the hill to make sure that we provide more funds to local
12:22 pm
cameras. but we also need to look at the root issues in the criminal justice system and make sure that we stop treating substance abuse and addiction as a criminal matter. rather than a health care matter. we need to make sure that when people come out of prison, there are re-entry programs so they can become part of society. and then we got to make sure we deal with the fundamental economic issues and make sure that every child has a good education right from the start. everybody has a chance to get a good-paying job. those are some of the fundamental issues that we need to address. scott: all right. let's get to our next question and another topic that certainly we could talk all day long. the affordable care act and its reform. kai jackson. kai: mr. van hollen, the affordable care act say patients -- the number of uninsured patients can no longer
12:23 pm
on a pre-existing condition but health care costs continue to soar and state expenses go up. what tweaks, if any, would you support going forward regarding the affordable care act? mr. van hollen: well, first, let me say i am proud i worked very closely to work with the president to pass the affordable care act which means 27 million americans have access to affordable health care. there are changes we need to make. i support creating a public option which would create more competition with the private insurers. as a first step towards moving towards a medicare for all-type program. i think we need to permanently get rid of what was misnamed the cadillac tax, because that has impinged and made it harder for unions and others to provide good packages of benefits. i also need to say with respect to the affordable care act, we were able to help move the system toward one that rewards quality over
12:24 pm
is a way where we can reduce the long-term deficit. so when i talked about simpson-bowles, we were focused on those issues, and congresswoman edwards knows very well, i never accepted their proposal with respect to social security. that's on the record, and we just need to emphasize that fact. kai: congresswoman, what tweaks, if any, would you support? ms. edwards: well, i was very honored, actually, to preside over the debate of the affordable care act. in fact, i have a gavel in my office. more importantly, having looked through that legislation, i went to our leadership, even at the 11th hour, and added a provision that would provide accountability for insurance companies that would raise rates. as a result of that, just this last year in maryland, we announced that the provision that i authored would save maryland consumers $66.6 million. i think there is still more we can do. obviously a public option. moving toward medicare for
12:25 pm
so we really have a more universal system of health care. getting rid of that cadillac tax that really penalized workers and negotiated benefits plans. and i think this is only the start. we also should be negotiating prescription drug coverage so we can lower the cost of health care, especially for our seniors. we've done a lot, but there's an awful lot more we can do with a democratic senate and a democrat in the white house. scott: next question comes from bruce depuyt. bruce: thank you, scott. next question deals with the issue of effectiveness. congresswoman edwards, a "washington post" editorial said congressman van hollen has an undeniable record, a deal maker with a knack for creative compromise which you're seen as widely interested in crafting legislation intending to the weeds of local funding and projects. in a politically savvy state like maryland, this is a significant charge. your response. ms. edwards: well, i think it's inaccurate. when i first came to
12:26 pm
delivers now nutritious meals to thousands of students who were otherwise getting breakfast and lunch and going home hungry. i did that as a freshman. i added a provision in the affordable care act that really reduces the insurance premiums and the cost for those who have health care. i've served on a conference committee which is by its nature a compromise for transportation and water resources to deliver those resources to our state. you know, some people are interested in doing things as a 30,000-foot level. i'm interested in helping people on the ground where they live. after-school is upers, affordable premiums for health care, really delivering resources for water resources and transportation directly into our state. not at a 30,000-foot level but on the ground where people live their lives. bruce: is that
12:27 pm
post"? mr. van hollen: yes, it was. let's talk about the ground level. let's talk about the constituents who come to our offices every day with problems that are big in their lives even though they may not seem big on the national scene. people had their homes foreclosed upon, people having trouble with social security. the reality is that congresswoman edwards has not been there for them. that is why "the washington post" described her office as notorious when it comes to constituent services. that's why heather, who represented an area that's been represented both by myself and congresswoman edwards over the years, just wrote an article in "the baltimore sun" describing the chronic problems in congresswoman edwards' office with respect to providing help to people who need it the most. when nasa employees came to her because they believe they've been discriminated against on pay based on race, she wasn't there for them. so you have to ask yourself why the people who actually are the mayors and people
12:28 pm
supporting me in this race and that's because they want someone who can deliver results and help their constituents. scott: would you like to rebut, congresswoman? ms. edwards: i will tell you about denise who has m.s. and she was diagnosed, worked for the state department, came to our office because they told her it was going to take, you know, a year for her to get her benefits and we made sure we could deliver those. antonio, who came to one of our job fairs where we've seen thousands of people come to our is fairs, got a job and now the one standing behind the desk hiring. the 9,379 people who've come to our office for service and we delivered that. the 8,000 students who've come to our college fair, housing forums, stem forums. 30,000 people. we deliver for our constituents. mr. van hollen: i'd like to -- scott: go ahead, congressman. mr. van hollen: because it's easy to say these things but there are lots of people, hundreds of peop
12:29 pm
personal experience with this fundamental obligation of a member of congress providing help to people when they need it most. and if you listen to their stories, congresswoman edwards has not been there for them. in fact, many of them have been calling our offices when they don't get that support. she closed down her constituent office in ann arundell county. en you -- ann arundel county. when ms. edwards say she has walked in people's shoes, when they go into her office, she has not been there. scott: when we return, we'll talk about the trump factor and
12:30 pm
12:31 pm
put under a microscope, we can see all the bacteria that still exists. polident's unique micro clean formula works in just 3 minutes, killing 99.99% of odor causing bacteria. for a cleaner, fresher, brighter denture every day. scott: welcome back. you are watching special coverage, live from washington of the u.s. senate democratic primary debate. we're joined by the two top polling candidates, congresswoman donna edwards and
12:32 pm
and kai jackson has our next question. kai. kai: i think it's bruce, actually. bruce: i think it's me. i have a trade and jobs question for you, congressman van hollen. in the second presidential debate of 1992, ross perot said we have got to stop sending jobs overseas. it's pretty simple. $14 're paying $12, $13, an hour, pay a dollar for labor -- except for the part about mexico being overseas, was ross perot right? have trade deals like nafta hurt u.s. workers and the environment? mr. van hollen: well, certainly nafta i believe has hurt workers and i think like any agreement you have to look at each one on its own merits and decide, is it good for american jobs? is it good for american workers? is it going to boost
12:33 pm
and when i looked at the most recent t.p.p., i concluded it did not meet that test. and that's why i opposed that and opposed the fast track which prevented us from trying to make changes to improve that. we do need to boost our exports around the country. i was just recently at the port of baltimore and that is a huge economic engine for the state of maryland. so we need to continue to push forward in those areas. i'm very proud to have been endorsed by the united auto workers who are very interested in expanding manufacturing. we have an auto plant in western maryland. we need to build more manufacturing around the state of maryland, and trade agreements that don't accomplish that goal should be rejected. but it's important to look at everything on its own merits, and that's what i think a senator should do. ms. edwards: well, here's where there is a huge difference between myself and mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen has supported
12:34 pm
where colombia as a human rights violator has killed thousands of workers who were trying to organize a union. korea where we had a negligible trade deficit with korea. today, after mr. van hollen inked that trade deal with korea, we have a 90% deficit in a trade deal with korea. peru, which has huge environmental violations. and so what i'd like to know is, what the standard is for mr. van hollen. these deals have resulted in maryland losing over 70,000 jobs and many of them attributable to trade over the last two decades. the folks at b.t. solar in frederick, whose job is now in asia someplace. solo cup company which was in owings mill, is now someplace else. these trade deals have been bad for the american worker and
12:35 pm
mr. van hollen: those facts just aren't true. if not the united auto workers would not be supporting me in this current race because they want to bring more jobs and more manufacturing right here. look, we got to get at this issue, including the tax code, which actually encourages american companies to move jobs and capital overseas instead of here. i put forward a specific solution, to close those tax breaks, bring that money, invest it in here, invest in clean energy, invest in our infrastructure, invest in our education. so a lot of the problems we're seeing relates to the tax code, we need to change it to bring jobs here home and invest right here in maryland. ms. edwards: well, i would just like to ask because we've been at three debates now and mr. van hollen, each time he's asked about trade, defers to the tax code. and the reality is that his record speaks for itself. he supported nine of the last
12:36 pm
i have read the details which is why i voted against those trade deals and have been leading in the fight in the congress against the t.p.p. you're a late-comer to that fight, but the fact is these trade deals have resulted in losing american jobs overseas when we should be investing in manufacturing here in the united states and it's because of people like you who supported. mr. van hollen: do i have a rebuttal? scott: you can use one on this. mr. van hollen: look, i was at the port of baltimore yesterday. it's a great economic engine for our state. in the last 10 years, one big change has happened. instead of seeing just imported cars, we're actually also exporting lots of cars out of the port of baltimore. that means american jobs, maryland jobs and good-paying wages. so i support manufacturing, and the reality is that trade agreements lead to -- need to be looked
12:37 pm
merits. t.p.p. is bad. it's important to read those. congresswoman edwards came out against it before it was finished. ms. edwards: i can use another rebuttal here. what i'd like to say is first of all, i have read these deals and it's a bad deal for the american worker and the fact is, mr. van hollen, you have supported nine of the last 11 trade deals that have resulted in huge job loss all across this country and manufacturing loss in our state of maryland. and i would like to know, what it is about colombia and peru and bahrain and panama that were so good you decided that was ok but supporting the t.p.p. was not. mr. van hollen: well, listen, let me just engage on this issue. because the reality is those agreements have resulted in more maryland jobs and that's why you got to look at the details of each one. but you also need to look at the broader strategy of investing in our future, investing in research here at
12:38 pm
home, changing the tax code which is important and it's also important to be a leader on these issues. i put forward specific proposals in congress to make sure that american workers get a fair shake which is why the fciu, which is the cutting edge of american workers, supported me in this race when they supported congresswoman edwards in 2008. scott: we'll move on to the next question. all right. kai, you got the microphone here on endorsements. kai: all right, scott. thank you. we'll start with ms. edwards. you collected a long list of endorsements and mr. van hollen eluded to this. county executive for prince george's county, two prominent african-americans support your opponent, mr. van hollen, as well as elected leaders in prince george's county. why haven't you been able to close the deal with people you know best? ms. edwards: i think if people go to my website,
12:39 pm
www.donnaedwardsforsenate.com, ey can find endorsers, unions, organizations. i don't know. maybe -- i worked really closely with county executive baker on trying to bring the f.b.i. headquarters to prince george's county but i didn't support him when he wanted to raise our property taxes by nearly 30%. and so maybe that's the reason. i think each of us has a long list of endorsers but the real endorsements are the people of the great state of maryland. and i look forward on election day, on april 26, gaining their support and voters of the state of maryland and making sure we can bring the voices of middle-class families, of working families into the united states senate. scott: congressman, your response. mr. van hollen: well, i think these endorsements are important because these are people who know both candidates.
12:40 pm
and they all want results for their communities. so when the county executive of prince george's county baker, the county executive who's the head of the home county for congresswoman edwards, says that van hollen will be the best person to help get more jobs and opportunity for prince george's county, i think it's significant. it's not just him. state senator joanne benson, state senator pinsky, people that worked with both of us are saying, if you want to get stuff done, you should vote for van hollen. i think people should look at these areas of prince george's county that have been represented by both of us over a period of time. and ask the mayors of the port towns. african-american women who they're supporting. they're supporting me. when i represented that area, we got money for public safety, stuff at the ground level that makes a difference in people's lives. i am glad to have the support of people that know the both of
12:41 pm
kai jackson you have a topic just about everyone's talking about these days. kai: yeah. i'm sure our candidates were anxious to talk about this one and here it goes. this regards anger throughout america and the tone of the presidential campaign right now. the rise of donald trump and bernie sanders is being interpreted as a sign that americans are really angry with all levels of government. mr. van hollen, we'll start with you. you've been in office since 1990 and the ranking member of the house budget committee. is the wrong cycle to be seen as a washington insider? mr. van hollen: well, i think this is the right cycle to be seen as somebody who is a problem solver. i think the frustration around the country is because of the polarization in washington. and what i've done throughout my public life is try to get results. and sometimes that means taking on a beating of special interests. like when we beat the n.r.a. to pass gun legislation and beat the oil
12:42 pm
drilling around the bay. sometimes it takes on beating the tea party budget. but sometimes it does mean finding common ground because we can't allow division in washington to stop all progress. so i have worked across the aisle to get more funds for metro, to get more funds for the chesapeake bay, to help families who have kids with disabilities. and the reality is on this, there's a big difference. because a nonpartisan group looked at both of our records and found that congresswoman edwards was the least likely of all the democrats in the last congress, the least likely to look for common ground, to get results. and that is exactly what's leading to their frustration around the country. scott: congresswoman, your response. ms. edwards: well, i think people are understandably angry when they're dealing with a wall street that crashed our nation's economy. when young men carrying skittles on the street loses his life but those who crash our economy don't go to jail. i think people are un
12:43 pm
that. and there's no excuse, though, for the trump language that is racist and xeno phobic, but there is a frustration brewing across the country and i felt that in our state. look, reality is that people want somebody who has walked in their shoes and can deliver for them based on an experience of understanding what it means to work for minimum wage, understanding what it means to race home from daycare to pick up a child, introducing legislation to deal with childcare issues precisely because of that experience. knowing our returning citizens need to come back home whole, able to participate in the economy, which is why i introduced legislation to restore education rights for those who are incarcerated. mr. van hollen: i'd like to make rebuttal. scott: and you'll have one more rebuttal after this, congressman. mr. van hollen: look, what people are actually looking for is when they come to us for their story is we take action. i helped a mom by the
12:44 pm
carol price who lost a son due to gun violence. we required trigger loss. it's not because i lost a child myself, it's because i wanted to help her. i did the same thing with parents with kids with disabilities. you're able to fashion solutions in response to the stories you hear. congresswoman edwards has not been there for all these people who have come to her office with their real problems. people of all different races, different genders, she simply hasn't been there. and you can read about it in the papers. scott: do you care to respond or should we go to the next question, congresswoman? ms. edwards: look, i want to say i care about denise who comes to my office and is about to lose her social security and disability benefits. to antonio who needs a job and comes to my job fair. because of thousands. 8,000 students who came to my college fair. many of them first generation students who don't have the benefit of living in mr. van hollen's district and their
12:45 pm
country to visit schools. they could come to my college fair in order to do that. this is the way you serve constituents on an everyday basis. mr. van hollen: i'd like to -- scott: this will be your last rebuttal. mr. van hollen: i represented a part of prince george's county for 10 years. i was there on the ground and i was helping families in need. i was helping getting support for after-school programs. i was helping make sure that local police had the resources they need for public safety. and that's why it's important that we go and ask the mayors of those towns. for them it doesn't matter what your color is, what your gender is, what matters is that you are there for them and it's not just me saying it. "the washington post" looked at this and found that congresswoman edwards was made notorious for her lack of constituent services. scott: would you like to respond or should we go to the next question? all right. we'll move on. bruce depuyt. bruce: thank you, scott. drink down
12:46 pm
down on working across the aisle which i think americans seem to want or hope for, if elected, what will you do, what can you foresee possibly doing to work with colleges in the other party, and what examples do you have from your experiences in life, in politics and beyond to -- in terms of your reaching and working across the aisle? ms. edwards: well, i worked across the aisle in my time on the house of representatives. i had to negotiate a bipartisan solution to authorize nasa. when it broke down on party lines, i went to my colleague from mississippi and said, let's sit down and work this out and, guess what, we did. we came up with a bipartisan bill to authorize nasa that passed unanimously out of our committee and out of the house of representatives. i've worked with barbara comstock from virginia on metro safety and on transit-oriented development, and so i think it's actually inaccurate and i think the way you d
12:47 pm
not seeking a name on a committee but being there on the ground willing to work with people who may share a different vision or a view than you do but a willingness to do that. and long before i came into the congress, i worked across the aisle to pass a bipartisan violence against women act where i had to go and recruit our republican counterpart to make sure we could get that legislation passed. scott: congressman, the question is about examples in which you reached across the aisle. mr. van hollen: let's talk about how this works in real life. i was at our local park one day and i met two twin boys. will and jamie. they had down syndrome. and their parents told me they were very worried about what would happen to will and jamie when they passed away. so i actually teamed up with some of our republican colleagues. we worked for four years to pass bipartisan legislation to change the tax code so parents like the parents of will and jamie would be able to put aside a little money
12:48 pm
them and provide economic security. that required bipartisan work. that required getting things done. like i did when i worked with tom davis to get money for the metro and got money for chesapeake bay protection, one of the first of the kind in the country. in the last congress, a nonpartisan group found that congresswoman edwards was the least likely of all the democrats to find common ground and not one of the bill she introduced in that legislation -- that session had a republican co-sponsor. now, if you want to get stuff done, you need to do some work in a bipartisan manner. scott: do you care to respond? all right. bruce depuyt. bruce: thank you, scott. congressman van hollen, the next question is for you. wall street played a major role in the collapse of the global economy in 2008 and yet not a single person, at least not that i am aware of, has ever been held accountable. is our system totally in the thrall in the corporate interests?
12:49 pm
no doubt the economy is rigged. it's rigged in favor of the folks at the very top, which is why i put forward a plan long before this campaign began to build an economy that works for everybody, not just the 1%. and that means actually going after all these special interests breaks for folks on wall street. which is why i proposed a fee on wall street transactions. and we would use the funds to expand child independent care benefits. so people can make sure their kids are in a safe place and not bust the family back. it's why i put forward the proposal to end the special break for hedge fund managers who get a lower tax rate than school bus drivers. it's why i proposed the c.e.o. employee paycheck fairness act to end the huge deductions that corporations get for their c.e.o.'s when they're not giving their employees an increase. these are actually issues that i worked on, and i'm leading on and i've been hri
12:50 pm
words over the last couple weeks but actions and solutions matter. ms. edwards: well, i think they do, and that's why when we brought wall street reform in front of the congress, i added in consumer protections for many of the homeowners and consumers in my congressional district, thousands and thousands that came to our office who were losing their home to foreclosure because of the irresponsibility on wall street. when i saw that, i added in consumer protections. again, wasn't a headline, but it makes a difference for people who are in my congressional district and across our country. scott: kai jackson. kai: ms. edwards, let's try and get these questions quickly if we can. the f.b.i. said they got into the iphone of one of the san bernardino, california, massacre killers without the help of apple. i'd like to find out from both of you what you believe apple's responsibility is to help the f.b.i. while there are many who say apple has no responsibi
12:51 pm
into an iphone because it threatens the privacy of all americans. ms. edwards: long before this issue, specific issue came before us, i supported legislation that came to the floor of the house protecting privacy and internet freedom. and i believed all along that the united states government, with our resources and our security capability, have the ability to seek the solution that they needed in order to, as we now know, to get into the iphone device. and i don't think that the federal government should be in the business of compelling businesses and private citizens to produce what it can do as a government. i think that we have tremendous resources, have tremendous technical and other capability, and i am glad that this specific issue with the iphone has in this case has been resolved and i would like to see, you know, if apple wants to provide that kd
12:52 pm
but i don't think we should be compelling them to do that. that's the business of government. scott: congressman van hollen. mr. van hollen: well, it's very important that we protect our security and that we identify threats and take action. it's also very important that we protect our liberty and our privacy. and we can't allow the effort to get into every iphone to undermine that important rivacy and lebrit. -- liberty. in this case the government was able to get into the iphone which raises the general question of cybersecurity for all of us. and it is important that we move in that area. i've been very focused on making sure both on the public side and private side we build up our defenses in cybersecurity. we're seeing foreign countries. we're seeing large entities from overseas hacking into systems and so it's very, very
12:53 pm
cybersecurity. it is a real threat. but our response to that threat should not involve undermining privacy and liberty. scott: congresswoman, you have one more rebuttal if you care to use it. ms. edwards: is this the last question? scott: i have a quick follow-up. ok. here's your 10-second question of the day in the brief lightning round. primary day on the ballot, who are you voting for in the presidential election, presidential primary? ms. edwards: i said some time ago i'm supporting hillary clinton. i believe on the democratic side we have two stellar candidates, either of whom would get the nomination i'd be proud to support them and i think either of them would be a great candidate. scott: all right. congressman. let's get on record with you. mr. van hollen: i believe we have two terrific candidates. i think secretary clinton would be a great president. but i think they both have good ideas and i put forward proposals in congress that are consistent with different
12:54 pm
forward. scott: very political of both of you. well, that is all the time we have for the questions. now we want to move on to our final segment when each candidates gets a chance to make a one-minute closing statement. congressman van hollen, as determined by our coin toss, you'll go first. mr. van hollen: well, thank you and thank everybody for listening. when i think of senator mikulski, i think of somebody who's focused on getting real results for all marylanders and we can't rest in every child, from west baltimore to western maryland, east baltimore to the eastern shore and all other parts of our great state, have the very best start in life and that means getting a very good education and we can't rest until we build an economy that works for all marylanders, not just the 1%. until we deal with the scourge of gun violence and the scandal of mass incarceration and address climate change. it's not enough to simply talk about these issues. we have to put forward specific solutions, and i'm the only candidate who has actually butt
12:55 pm
addressing each of these issues. it's not enough to talk the talk. we have to walk the walk. you know, one of my favorite sayings is the world needs dreamers and the world needs doers but most of all the world needs dreamers who do. let's be dreamers and doers together. i ask for your support in this election. scott: all right. congresswoman edwards, you have one minute for your closing remarks. ms. edwards: when senator mikulski, barbara mikulski, ran for the united states senate they told her that a woman couldn't win on her own unless she inherited the seat from her husband. as senator mikulski likes to say today, when i ran 30 years ago, they told me i didn't look the part and today the part looks like me. we have an opportunity on april 26 to make history again and to make a difference for the middle class and those who are working their way into the middle class. and that's the maryland way, by offering a helping hand to the single parent raising a child on their own, as we do to the person who's working and
12:56 pm
to make a living wage. and the same hand we offer to the young man or woman who messed up but today wants to rebuild their lives and needs a second chance. and we're going to say no to the gun lobby and absolutely not to republicans or to democrats who want to take away and bargain away social security. that's the fight we're going to wage on april 26. i look forward to your vote. scott: congresswoman, congressman, thank you so much for your time today. before we go we want to remind people of the upcoming primary. just four weeks away. of course, this year's presidential race has certainly added to the interest in the primaries. maryland's polls will be open primary day, that's april 26, from 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. you can also vote rl by going to an early -- early by going to an early voting location. you can only fight in the primary of a party you're which affiliated. unaffiliated people cannot choose. after that the change will not take effect before primary day
12:57 pm
candidates today. that is all the time we have for this special coverage of vote 2016. your voice, your future. the maryland democratic senate debate. remember to vote april 26. i'm scott thuman. have a great day, everyone.
tv-commercial
12:58 pm
but jamie raskin is the only democrat for congress o's authored landmark ogressive laws -- marriage equality, equal pay for women, green maryland act, assault weapons ban, and more. raskin: i'm jamie raskin, and i approve this message. stronger is blasting without risking her bones. it's training her good cells... to fight the bad guys. stronger is less pain... new hope... more fight. it's doing everything in your power... and everything in ours. stronger, is changing even faster than they do. because we don't just want your kids to grow up. we want them to grow up stronger.
12:59 pm
1:00 pm
♪ >> announcer: get ready to throw complicated recipes out the window because we're bringing you "the chew's essentials." carla is whipping up an incredible dish inspired by our brand-new book, "the chew's essential guide to cooking and entertaining." then, michael's rocking out in the kitchen with the incredible questlove and they're showing you how to make a restaurant favorite in your very own kitchen. plus, if you love mac and cheese, you're in luck because daphne's got a light and tasty twist you won't want to miss. the party starts right now on "the chew." ♪ [ cheers and applause ] hey, everybody. welcome to "the chew." thank you so much. thank you. [ cheers and applause ] go

87 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on