tv New York 11th Congressional District GOP Primary Debate CSPAN June 17, 2018 6:32pm-7:34pm EDT
war maybe should reconsider it myself. that was a turning point for the antiwar movement. >> their actions did not end the vietnam war, but i don't see how you can argue it did not help end the draft. the head of the selective service said publicly they felt they were under attack. i think it clearly -- you control a line from what they did to the draft ending in 1973. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> next, the gop primary debate from new york's 11th congressional district. dan donovan faced michael grimm to discuss health care, transportation infrastructure, and immigration. served as aeviously representative of the 11th district but resigned after pleading guilty to federal tax evasion, later serving a prison sentence. representative donovan won the
seat in a special election to replace him. this is one hour. campaign 2018. >> good evening and welcome to staten island where we are holding a republican primary debate for the 11th congressional district. i will be joined in the questioning by two of my colleagues, courtney gross, and anthony pascale. the 11th congressional district encompasses all of staten island and parts of southern brooklyn. it is currently the only congressional district to be represented by republican. let's introduce the candidates. we have the incumbent dan donovan. also with us is his challenger michael grimm. here are the rules of the debate, which have been shared with by both campaigns. they will have a maximum of 90 seconds to respond to individual
questions it will be given the opportunity to respond if directly addressed by the other candidate. we will have a cross-examination round during which each candidate will be asked to ask his opponent a question. will be a lightning round it was the answers must be yes, no, or a short response. please follow along tonight on social media. we begin now with short opening statements. the order was drawn andomly. dan donovan was selected first so he will begin with the first opening statement. dan: good evening. i think the audience and the people at home where watching tonight. i have serve this community for over 20 years with honesty and integrity. i was the deputy president of taten island during one of the most vital times of our city's history, after the september 11 tragedy. i was chief of staff when we closed the garbage dump.
i was the da of staten island during 12 years when we helped make staten island the safest community and big city and american. i read for congress at a vital time. my opponent like for community, sked us to book for him, and then used our vote to cut a deal with the justice department to get a sweeter deal. we didn't have a voice in washington for over five months drink -- during barack obama's last term in office. i have a campaign that you are watching and witnessing that has been filled with lies and dispositions. the president of the united states had to set the record straight. he told the people of our community that he wants me to be the candidate. to help him make america's first genda succeed. and help make america great again. he also told us that he didn't want us to vote for my opponent and laid out the reasons. i ask you to get through all of he lies and distortion, if you ant to help make america great
again, please vote for me. on june 26. [applause] m. mr. grim michael: i big thank you to everyone sitting on the panel tonight. i have had the honor to serve. many of you know i served in the united states marine corps in combat. i served with the fbi undercover. those were trying times. without a doubt, the proudest moment was serving all of you is your congressman. it was very difficult because we were coming off of one of the worst economies we had. we had democratic senate, and then we got ravaged by supers sandy. some people lost literally everything. we can together as a family and we led and we got things one.
i running again because over the last three years my opponent has not been sleeping in his office, he has been sleeping on the that is why i'm asking for your vote. thank you. [applause] host: thank you very much. i'm going start -- to start tonight's question. this a question for both of you. governing is about choices and there are some scenarios in which the representative of the 11th district will have to choose between supporting president trump's national goals and pursuing local priorities. on any given day, you can dvocate to build the wall on border in mexico or the seawall on the east shore. how can you assure voters that they could come first if the choice emerges between what the president wants and what the district needs? dan: it is easy for me. i'm glad that you brought up the seawall. that was fully funded by the bill that i helped write.
it was over $60 billion. it included the funding for the seawall. it included the moneys of the state would need to pay their portion. almost all of the money is federally funded because of the sandy bill that i helped write. more to the point, when my own party said, we are not doing flood insurance reform, i was told it would in my political career. the majority leader eric kanter told me that it would end my political career if i pushed it. the chairman of the party, of the committee that had jurisdiction said it was dead or -- dead on arrival. i went against almost everyone on the republican side. we got that buildup. not only passed the house. i woinwith the senate while we were negotiating the house version. the senate passed it in record time. i have always put the people first. i support the president's national goals, i think everything he ran on made a lot
of sense, that is why he will have my support. the district will always come first in my proof of that was the perfect example, was that the when i risked my political career to get the flood insurance reform bill passed. lot of people in our district would have been out of their homes because they would have never been able to afford those exaggerated premiums. host: thank you. dan: he paired up with maxine waters, the most liberal democrat in the house, was on the floor of the house screaming for the impeachment of president trump. and he paired up with her and it resulted in incredible increases in flood insurance premiums for the people i represent. i will make sure that seawall gets built. -- on time and on budget. i got fema to agree that once it's halfway built, many of those families will see a reduction in their fema flood insurance premiums. and many won't be in the flood zone at all. i have already shown that my district comes first.
i voted against the tax bill because it was harmful for the people i represent. i want my people do have the same tax cuts as the rest of america. i don't want it on the back mye.pl i don't want tax cuts on the people of arizona on the backs of people in brooklyn. that is why i had to vote no. we lost the most important deduction to my community that has been used since 1913, the state and local tax deduction. we negotiated. it was eliminated totally. we got a $10,000 cap put in the bill but it was not enough. -- for the people i represent. and i've already shown that i spoke to the president about it and told him why i had to. he understands. i tell people, i spoke with the president 90% of the time. i vote with the people i represent 100% of the time. michael: the seawall is not on time, it has artie been delayed. that is first and foremost. i will work with any member of
congress as long as it is going to get the ball across the line >> for my constituents. my opponent says he will vote against the tax bill. he voted against banning anctuary cities. the idea that he voted with president trump 90% of the time, he voted with the republican party 90% of the time. because the president has only lobbied for three things. the only three he's lobbied against for. my opponent has voted against -- i would have voted for it. when you analyzed the bill, 94% of average families here in the district will still get a tax break. something is better than nothing. the other thing is you cannot forget about all of the small businesses. go down, every third store is out of business.
the tax bill is excellent for small businesses, it brings a lot of relief. our local economy is still lagging behind the overall national economy. that tax bill is part of it. don't forget the ancillary enefits. it increases peoples 401(k)s and have bonuses for people. wages have increased. the economy is growing. there are more jobs. all of those things are benefits e cannot forget about. my opponent wrote an op-ed and gave an example of a family making somewhere around $90,000 a year. they lost money on the first version of the bill. the bill that actually passed, they saved money on this new tax plan. dan: that is not true. a police officer and a nurse, schoolteacher, they're going to see a tax increase next year. california is going to pay the tax benefits for the rest of the
nation. the president called the replacement plan by the republicans from the house mean. voted against it. both the president and i thought this was a terrible replacement plan. we wouldt veeeded a replacement plan. my opponent voted for obamacare seven times when you was in the house -- when he was in the house. it would increase in premiums for seniors and it was going to cost $100 million from the ospitals that ieprese one told me they would have to close if that tax bill was passed. that is why i voted no and the president understands it. and the president didn't agree with that bill. host: thank you. next question. >> we are going to the topic of immigration. i want to start with mr. donovan. you voted against stripping several fundings from sanctuary
cities last year. earlier this year, you introduce new legislation that would do just that. strip funding away from sanctuary cities. instead of targeting the nypd, this bill targeted the department of correction. it would go to some salaries. had to explain this change in osition? are you favoring nypd officers over correction officers, both of these officers keep new yorkers say. -- safe. dan: i honor both of their services. i voted against the first bill because the penalty was wrong. i have been opposed to sanctuary cities. i was a law-enforcement officer for 20 years of my life. we have to enforce the laws. you can't choose which ones. sanctuary cities choose which laws to enforce. and they don't enforce federal immigration laws. but the penalty in the original bill was going to take hundreds of millions of dollars away from police officer. new york city is the number one terrorist target in the world.
my bill has the correct one. two courts have struck down that bill, the penalty does not have the correct nexis. my bill doesn't necessarily take away money from law enforcement officers. it takes away money for lack of enforcing immigration law. if you're not going to enforce the law, we're not going to give you federal fund to do it. that's the property penalty. i'm trying to get that into the immigration bill now. we're going to do be voting on n immigration package. i think it is the right penalty that penalizes sanctuary cities but does not put our safety and jeopar. >> how would you have voted on the original bill? michael: would have supported the bill. you are seeing now is a lot of excuses why my opponent has not voted for the three things are president lobbied congress four. -- for. forget those exact votes. go back in time a little bit.
my opponent doesn't say he cosponsored to amnesty bills. two bills that had no language for border security. when hwainterviewed in october of 2016, after the president became the nominee, the new york observer, he said he disagreed with the president on his immigration policies, that he didn't believe in deporting people and that he wouldn't build a wall. those were his words. it's flip fl almost every issue. what has changed? i got in the race and now my opponent has to go to the right advertisement he didn't support amnesty and that we has reversed his positions. he's looking for technicalities. it's this technicality that says i don't support amnesty or sanctuary cities, so i'm going to change this mechanism. the truth is, the only thing that has changed is that i entered the race. dan: 20 years i have enforce laws.
when i was asked about deportation, i said we are not going to depart 25,000 -- 25 millioneople. we're going to do for people who are convicted of crimes. michael: my opponent has been an elected bureaucrat. he was behind the desk. i have been on the street. i know my dangerous it is. sanctuary cities make it dangerous for our police officers. i have actually taken doors with the new york city police department. i have served in harms way for 20 years. so believe me when i tell you, whether the penalty was right or wrong, panning sanctuary cities is just one example. i don't remember my opponent using the bully pulpit of the congressional office to push back on a progressive mayor whose policies are destroying the quality of life all across this district. hat is the bigger issue. my opponent would've left it up to bill de blasio. can you imagine that? to make the right decision for the safety of this city. i couldn't allow that to happen.
> what you mean -- michael: it would've been up to bill de blasio to put that money back in. i didn't trust him to do it. >> go back to the records here. i'm thinking about immigration reform. it's going to be on the floor of the house next week. both of you, in your careers, i am going to start with mr. grimm. have supported a pathway to citizenship. you told us both on the record multiple times. and you both talked about a solution for the dreamers. what is your position now? if you go by the rhetoric on the campaign trail, you would think that neither of you would support any type of pathway to citizenship. >> ok. i've been very consistent. if you go back and we've had discussions ourselves. i always thought daca was the
leverage. when we were negotiating in congress, the dreamers was the leverage to get all the things we need done. at that time, on your show, i believe, i was saying build a fence. build a fence. that was before president trump was even running for office. now it would be, build the wall. order security was always the top priority. always. it was combined with fencing and all of the things that go with it from technology. more importantly, it was going to a system that works for the united states. it means ending chain migration. it means end the visa lottery verify, go with e those are the big components. those were three main things, if we could get that, we would give a pathway to citizenship for daca. i still think that is the way to go. there is a companion bill the tom cotton's act, that is a village with support. my position has been consistent on that and i still supported.
i would vote for the act. >> how about you? dan: the four pillars he just mentioned, one thing he mention that was i roenick is e erify. -- ironic that i was is e verify. if we had it when he owned his restaurant, he would have been quartered a lot earlier. it requires people to check the verification the status of anybody that they hire. it is one of the pillars of immigration reform that president trump is enforcing right now. he is going after employers who hire illegal aliens. e verify is a system to prevent that. i find it ironic that my opponent, who hired illegal aliens, is now a fan. now all of a sudden is a fans of e verify. >> you want to respond? michael: everyone knows about the delivery boy, i'm not going to perpetuate that. the people sitting back home, we have heard about this for years. what do they care about?
a congressman who is going to work as hard as them. only one person standing up. actually passing substantive bills into law. my opponent has passed them out of the house. ot one bill from dan donovan has been signed into law. the record is clear on that. it is a government website that proves it. >> you want to respond? and then we have to move on to another topic. dan: very quickly, in this school, there are veteran students who now have a better housing allowance, better than it was, for going to school here and living here. it was in the ncaa bill. it was my amendment and signature. it is now a lot and you can go out there and ask any of the students were veterans how much more money they're getting because of my bill. >> we have to move on. michael: that was an amendment to someone else's bill. you always talk about how you
stand up for veterans. since the end of 2015, the veterans administration hospital in brooklyn has been closing services at reasonable year and it is getting ready to close completely if we don't stop it. that has all happened on your watch. dan: we have cap services donald trump is supporting me because of how good i am at supporting our veterans and military. michael: the clinic is now one. dan: it is not gone. >> we have to go to a different topic. host: we are going to move on. >> let's talk about an issue that a every single person who is watching tonight. that is health care. you voted against the bill that would've completely repealed the affordable care act. known as obamacare. saying, it would not provide the relief needed for local families. and end up costing seniors more. mr. grimm, you voted for a complete obamacare repeal. you still took advantage of the government health care offered o members of congress.
why should members of congress benefit from government health care but the rest of the country can't have that option? michael: i think everyone hould. my understanding, members of congress have the exact same health care that everyone else oes. we go through the exchange and had to pick a plan like everyone else. that was my understanding. i remember looking for a plan. you mentioned something. i voted to repeal obamacare. every time it was an up-and-down vote, i voted repeal. -- obamacare. what my opponent keeps throwing out there which is deceptive and dishonest are the funding bills. when you have a democrat president and democratic senate, it puts things in there that you either hold your nose and vote for it or you shut down the government. although it was funding for obamacare and planned
parenthood, there's no way around it other than shutting down the government. i believe the last funding bill that my opponent but it have funding for obamacare and planned parenthood. there is a difference between voting for a funding bill and voting up-and-down on whether you would repeal it or not. >> are there any aspects of obacare you ? that you think they should keep? michael: are t certa aspects, yes. i don't think we should keep obamacare. i think we should start from scratch. it is allowing children to stay on longer, those that have pre-existing conditions. all of those makes sense. the bottom line is what happened here, all we did was increase medicaid and make everyone else pay for it. it has hurt our seniors most of all because many doctors stopped taking seniors altogether. there were less doctors out there. then the exchanges -- there were not enough providers to actually provide the services.
you were not able to keep your doctor. when you look at government intervention into our health-care care system, it was the worst thing we can do. the private sector doeth more effectively and we can keep the government out of our health care. >> mr. donovan you were open to -- [applause] >> you said they were opened of certain aspect of obamacare, you said there are good parts of it. what are those good parts? are you concerned that they may no longer be available? dan: allowing children to stay n their parents help insurance until they are 26 years old. covering people with pre-existing conditions. the solution here is that we have to break it apart. let's pass the things that everybody agrees on. allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines or lower the premiums for people working for health are.
let's try that and see it work. let's go this step-by-step and appeal it. you repeal the whole package, i voted no and president trump said it was a mean replacement plan. i voted seven times repeal obamacare. when the replacement plan came up for a vote, were too many things. we have to hospital systems on staten island. anyone who goes when emergency room andees the wait that they have and how many people are in there and tell long it takes them, some people walk out. can you imagine what it would be like if we only had one ospital? i have learned a lot of things in this job, one is to listen to people in the field. when i asked the hospital administrators about the replacement plan, both toby was going to be devastating, that convinced me. >> what about the people who can't afford insurance? >> there are gaps there. > what about those gaps? dan: we allow small businesses to pull together, somebody who has four employees, a cost them fortune to buy a health
insurance for them. that employee can pull with other employees, you have 5000 people, you can get a cheaper rate and never -- better coverage. that's one of the ways to help people who can't afford health insurance to get it. >> isn't fair to say that you agree here? you are here for a piecemeal apoach to dismantling obamacare and possibly -- 3450eu can: no, i think we should outright repeal it. -- michael: no, i think we should outright repeal it. my opponent is saying it is because the hospital said it would be devastating. the reality is, the reason it is devastating to the hospitals is because of the massive cut in medicaid. all of these hospitals receive much more money in the expansion of medicaid. it is not because of the replacement or anything else. it is a massive cuts in edicaid. he said before that many times to repeal obamacare. the only thing that changed, they were still going to receive
those cuts under those other appeals. only thing that changes that he now had a president that would sign it into law. the second thing is, my opponent doesn't tell you that right now add some running all over fox news from a pro-obamacare special-interest group in ashington. lastly, he was recently endorsed by the afl-cio, the number one issue was keeping obamacare. all of these pro-obamacare groups are supporting my pponent. if you drill down on why the hospital didn't want to draw repeal it was because of the medicaid funding that it came with. which all the other times he voted to repeal obamacare would have taken that away also. >> mr. donovan, you have a quick response. dan: if he wants to tell the who depend on the hospital system every day for their health care, those doctors, those nurses, if he wants to tell them that he would have voted t thedown, let him explain that to
them. [applause] michael: those people, at least they know me and my face. ecause when we had irene and sandy, i was there at 2:00 in the morning in the rain, taking sure that they had a backup generator. they know me well. host: thank you candidates. we are to have a short lightning round. this is based on what you know. yes, no, i will start with you, mr. grimm. ou russia be allowed to join the g7? michael: no. dan: no. host: have you ever voted for democrat? dan: yes. michael: yes. host: should victims of domestic abuse be granted at the -- granted asylum at the border? michael: i don't know. that is a case-by-case basis. host: should the yankees have agreed to change their name to the pizza rest? dan: hell no.
michael: i agree. hell, no. host: should pharmaceutical companies be held criminally liable for the opioid crisis? mi yes. dan: those who were deceptive. host: there is a controversy over whether or not the bridge has been misspelled because the original family spelled it with two z's. should it be added? dan: no. it is like getting a stamp where the plane is upside down. let's keep it. michael: i wouldn't change it. host: should members of congress be allowed to sleep in their d.c. offices? michael: no. dan: yes. they should. host: your favorite restaurant in the district? michael: tony's brick oven. dan: that is a really tough one. i eat out a lot. i don't want to upset nyone.
one of my favorites is the new ones, the corner house. host: they can candidates. it is time for our cross-examination round. each candidate gets to question his opponent. we areo starwith mel grimm. michael: there has been enough name-calling, i think that the people want to your about what is going on in the district. we haven't heard an update in a long time. i think this is a great opportuny. there is a park with contamination. we haven't heard anything. can you tell us what exactly the source of the contamination is? is there a timeline to get it one?
>> they found the flyover and realized it was caused by the city. it's a federal parkland and it was decided the city will clean it. it's going to be part of the seawall as we'retarting the seawall from underneath the bridge and going along the east coast. it ends at the oakwood treatment center, treatment plant. that's why we started the project that way to give the city time to remediate and rid the park of that contamination. and it wold hold up the seawall. >> is the city actually doing the work? my understanding the city had to pay for it. >> the fed had to ok that. >> your turn to ask a question, mr. donovan. >> in the spring of 2012, your retained patent box for an investigation into your campaign finances which ended up actually
resulting in your girlfriend sh unwedfederal prison mother -- unwed mother going to prison. since that they've forgiven $5,000 of debt that you owe them for that criminal representation. did you do anything for such a generous gift for them. did they lobby you for anything to forgive nearly $500,000 that you owed them? >> first of all, you're talking about michael grimmm congress. it's not me personally. i don't get the opportunity. i don't have the legal authority to make any deals on that account whatsoever. that account has a treasurerer. however the treasurerer can't make that deal. the reality is the way it works is the fdc, the government that regulates those companies and those type of accounts has to approve it. so right now, it is pending for
approval with the fec. there is no deal right now. if they approve it then obviously it's well within the wall. if they don't approve it, then it stays on the books. >> my question is did you do offerng for such a patent that you were forgiven $500 million. >> i dent make that decision. and no, i didn't receive any benefit whatsoever because that campaign account is its own entity. it's not me personally. i'm not done speak. i owe that money. the campaign owns it. it's similar to a business. if the business goes out, if it goes under then you only get what's left. it's not like they have a demoice the matter. but again, this is up to the federal action commission. not mission. i don't get to make that decision. the government does. >> do they lobby you at all. >> we can control the question. we can't control the abs.
i think he's answered your question. >> i asked did he lobby -- was boggs? ed by patent >> absolutely. i did not receive any ben fit. >> did they lobby you? >> well, i know where you're going. you know, if you think it's a little gotcha. it's petulant and it's a vacuous attack. and let me tell you why. i said on new york one that to the best of my recollection, i was never even lobbied by patent boggs and that's 100% true statement because i didn't recollect. back in 2011, patent boggs had one meeting with a staffer that i knew nothing about. what i found out later because i looked it up after the attack. they were lobbying for bajan which i'm on the opposite side of my the issue. i have always recognized the genocide of the armenian people.
they may have attempted to lobby -- they met in 2001 well over seven years ago spoke to one staffer. i'm on the opposite side of the issue and i've never changed my position. >> the delta association that they sent you e-mails about you lobbying on their behalf of s.p.a. -- t at the >> i'm sorry, is this a filibuster? >> we have to leave that for the reporters and other fact checkers. the next question we're going to ask you to answer first. we are in hurricane season. and, indeed, the national flood insurance program you both referenced before is going to expire at the end of july. there are homeowners in this district complaining about annual double digit percentage increase and their premiums. the program is under $24 billion in the red even after a bail out. do you support reforms to the program?
>> we have to reform the program. we priced people out of their homes. but the seawall will help the people in stanton island. it's been built to with stand the 300-year storm. we've gotten fema to agree when it's 50% complete, the people be protected will no longer be in the flood zone or their premiums will be reduced. we're working with the city of new york to fight the fema on the present flood maps. we don't think the flood maps are accurate. premiums are based on inaccurate flood insurance. one, we have to redo the maps. two, we have to complete the seawall. and the people of stanton island will be much better after that. michael: i'm proud to say that we got to the seawall thanks to a bill i was able to write after hurricane sandy. almost $60 billion.
my opponent says that the flood insurance reform bill that i worked on with max seen waters and many other members of congress didn't nough job. but he hasn't put in his own bill to make it better. listen, i'm not saying it was perfect. we had a lot of opposition. we had to take on the majority leader and the chairman who had jurisdiction. we could only get through what we could get through. but that should have been amended or redone to make it better. i don't disagree with that. if we had a congressman that wasn't sleeping in the office, maybe we would have gotten that done. >> under the white house roposed budget fema would have had not had representative flood projects. this is the trump administration budget would phase it out for commercial property of flood prone regions another gap between what the white house wants and what the district needs. how would you handle that >> one of the things they're doing is working with fema.
one of the way you mitigate your premiums is to elevate your home. and so if you elevate your home your flood insurance premiums go down. so many of the people i represent can't elevate. they live in a tatched housing. so fema is coming up at my request for a list of things that people who lived in attached housing whether it be a townhouse or a duplex what they can do to lower their flood insurance premium because they can't elevate. elevate is the only solution for them. one of the things i have to do is again, the very first thing i did when i went to congress, the very first bill i proposed was to stop the fraud after sandy when engineering reports were altered by insurance companies were claiming that damage was preexisting. yoas a homeowner will get the original engineering report so if it's altered or modified
later on you will know it. >> one of the things -- one of the issues is there are certain areas that people shouldn't live, it's just too dangerous. >> yes, elevation is one option. there are other options which we use here. one of them is a buyout. we can buy tm out at market rate. there e two things you can do there. one, you can giv it back to nature and allow it to be a part of the blue belt and natural drainage which is important. mother nature is in charge, we sometimes forget. we build area where is mother nature tells us not to like in wet lands and that shouldn't be. that's number one. the second thing is we can buy people out and reoffer that land and bid it out so that developers can come in and rebuild property with the proper elevations and all the things that go along with that, break away walls and you can give him a chance to buy back in.
it should be a part of the plan to rebuild all of those areas, make them a beautiful waterfront property which is something we don't do here. >> going along with sandy -- this week at my request they remove the sandy money from the package that we rain the sandy money that our people so desperately need at my request. >> thank you, candidates. next question from courtney. >> we're going to move to a crisis that's ravaging this district. and that's the opioid crisis. in 2016, 116 people died in staten island from a drug overdose. last year it was 99. both of you have talked about treatment options. we need more treatment options. and we we talk to providers on -- within the district they say there's a shortage of them. so i want to start with mr. grimmm and ask what have you done specifically to make sure there are enough treatment
options, that there are enough rehabs within the district to address this growing need? >> well, recently i haven't been in office so i haven't been able to do that. but going back one of the first thing is had to do was re-edute myself. i joined -- there is a congressional caucus for opioid abuse. i joined that so i can go around the country and get information about the stake holders that do this every single day. not just people that deal with rehab but prosecutors from around the country all different -- and big pharma. all the people involved. what we have to do besides increasing access because it's not enough, it's such a complex issue is we have to have a public-private partnership. on the private side we should model it after madd. all these companys that have a ton of money can be doing a huge advertising campaign to bring issues up to awareness whether
you're a school or a grandmother. it's just one aspect of it. we have to deal with what do you do when you come out of rehab? there's nowhere for you go. we have to get rid rid of this stigma from being aned a di they have to stop making drugs that are so addictive. we have to deal with the f.d.a. so they can stop allowing these drugs to hit the market. this is such a difficult and complex issue you can't just look at increasing the access. you have to look at the whole picture. i would work with the hss secretary and look to do a pilot program with the full wait of the administration in conjunction with the city and state right here in staten island. >> are you saying that you would ban some type of opioid -- is that what you were saying? >> congress has to give through it's oversight functions has to give f.d.a. let's say more
guidelines and maybe through legs not allowing certain things to come to market that -- at are so addictive. you see, the problem is oxy contin they say it's for cancer patients that are terminal. and that's fine. but you find out that 18-year-olds are being prescribed vicodin or perk set. that's where we have to work with the f.d.a. for stricter rules so they are only used for terminal patients and so on. >> and mr. donovan? >> and in full disclosure, i'm the product of an alcoholic father. my father found the rooms of a.a. when i was 8-year-old. if heidn't find those rooms, i wouldn't be here today. so i understand recovery. we had one of the most successful drug treatment courts in all of new york state. i started the pilot program here in staten island that trained
and equipped police officers save countless lives. now every police department in the u.s. is using tha i also had the highest conviction rates. this is opioid week in congress. we're passing the opioid bills. we passed 35 of them so far. one of those bills requires n.i.h. to research and develop a nonaddictive nonnarcotic pay relief. that's one of the things we could do. we could treat the pool of that are affected. educate people just because it's in mom's medicine cabinet doesn't mean it's safe. we have to educate people. on the treatment side, the local people do it better than washington does it 100%. we're supplying them with the sources four more beds and treatment.
the role is the support, supply and then get out of the way. >> did you sponsor or write any of them? >> no, they came out the nrge and commitees fre. -- committee. >> when my opponent took office we didn't have a problem yet. the problem was just starting. that's true. >> that problem became a crisis and an epidemic all during his watch. and one of the reasons why -- yes, the conviction rate was very high. you want to know why, because a lot of those drug dealers were plea bargained down to possession charges. are now my opponent has a 10-point plan to fight opioids if he gets back in congress. he was in congress during that time and did nothing. i went down to washington and said mike, iave crossings to new jersey. i need you to get new york in the federal i stop network to stop people circumventing the system and going over to new
jersey to get their prescriptions written or filled. four years, he didn't get it done. i was there four months. one letter to governor cuomo and it was done. >> i've got to say something on this. i have to say something. anyone that is supporting dan donovan should know this. here's the reality, because we did the research. governor cuomo did do that. that's a fact. on the day that he was doing the ceremonial signing, this man here sent the letter to urge him to do it. he found out after the fact that the governor was going to sign that agreement with the other states and he sent a letter in just so he could take credit for it. that's a fact. if you look at the press releas, he doesn't mention his name not o if you look at the senator and michael cusack who had something to do with it, they thanked each other and the governor never mentioned his name. he's taking credit for things he had nothing to do with. >> that's just not true. [applause]
>>e sent a lter on the day the governor signed it. is that not ridiculous? you're going to tell me the governor didn't know the day before he signed it? the day he was signing it, he sends a letter. and now he wants to take credit for it. that is shameful. [applause] >> sticking on the same topic an obviously just having shorter answers potentially. i'm going to go back to obamacare for a little bit. and that is both of you say you want to repeal all of obamacare. and obamacare increased the amount of medicaid funding for certain states allowing people who needed treatment to seek it. they say it exponentially increases the amount of people who could go and get into rehab. in fact, it called substance abuse an essential health benefit. so how do you scare that? and we'll start with mr. donovan. >> we care na that as i said, this week we gave the locals
like cama lot and the ymca counseling services more resources so they could care for people. >> but is rehab an essential resource? >> absolutely. the folks in rehab can't function without sobriety. as i said my father was an alcoholic. i know that real well. >> it's about empowering -- i don't believe the federal government does things well. our military seems to be one of the exceptions. when it comes down to health issues like this they need flexibility. they need to serve their constituents. the best thing we can do is give grants and give them money to the local -- to the local areas and support areas like camelot that can give them the car. i do think you're hitting on a bigger issue. will the insurance companies cover it? that's a state issue. and the state of new york should make it mandatory that drug teement is, in fact, covered
under your care but not for the short amount of time that it's covered now. the reality is it takes much longer to recover. so if you send someone for a few weeks most likely they're going to relapse even harder. that's why the death rate goes up because they think they're recovered and then they actually end up using more when they come back from a rehab that was not complete. >> ok, thank you. >> next question. in 2017, you both vothe voiced support for president trump's executive order temporarily blocking people from seven countries from entering the u.s. on visas. those countries include, iraq, iran, siberia, sudan and yemen. at the time critics said not one major suspect came from any of those nations. in fact, the largest number of terrorists have come from the u.s. the question is why is it fair to sidge out the muslim majority countries if history shows blocking them wouldn't have prevent any major prior attack,
mr. donovan? >> that list was created by barack obama. and there's about 45 other predominantly muslim countries in the world. so when people are calling the travel pause -- because the president was only asking for a 90-day pause they were calling it a muslim ban. we were banning travel from these seven countries that we didn't have a proper vetting antiss to assure that when pascal came with a passport that it was him. at the time there were 700 million passports were stolen. we didn't know if that person was coming from syria or a terrist. our enemies told us they were going to compromise the refugee program in syria. so it was a very dangerous situation. while this was going on in courts, the secretary of homeland security and the state department came up with a proper vetting process.
so one of them was eliminated. but it was a travel pas -- pause. the president's number one priority and number one responsibility is to protect the people of this nation. and all he was asking for was a short period of time to determine that people coming into our country aren't going to do be harmful to us. and i supported it. [applause] >> again, i just want to point out in october 2016 when interviewed by "the new york observer" my opponent said he did not support the travel ban. but putting that aside, i do agree with what my opponent said. the other thing you're specifically looking like yemen for example, you're looking at areas where there were failed states. people need to understand it. it has nothing to do with religion. you're talking about areas that have failed states. my opponent did point out there were thousands upon thousands of passports that were stolen. but the real question is how? if it's a completely failed state do you do any vetting? there is no way to be able to do
a check and get an answer back. so at the end of the day the number one job of the federal government is to keep us safe. that's -- that's their number one job. the president is trying to do that. he's trying to keep us safe. one of the biggest issues that he has is we've become so political correct that it stifles our ability to do common sense things. it's common sense. i don't care if whether it's a catholic country, christian country, muslim country, it's irrelevant. if it's a failed state and poses a threat, then the president of the united states must and has a duty to keep us safe. i agree. >> how do you scare with those that are muslim? we have large population of muslims in brooklyn. how you do scare thatrelatives ? >> it's an inconvenience that going to protect our nation. i wrote a let tore ever mosque on the travel pause went into place explaining it to them what this was.
it wasn't an anti-muslim attack. t wasn't an anti-muslim policy it was a protection for the united states until such time that we could get that during the time it was being battled in court, one of the countries came off. >> it is extremely important to remember that coming into the u.s. is a privilege, not a right. it is unfortunate, maybe it can be a family member can't come. if you go back decades ago migraine grandparents -- my great grandparents it took many years to wait. they would have to bring a child or two, then what have to wait their husband or wife to come later. the privilege and honor of being in the u.s. and becoming a citizen is supposed to be valuable. we do not give it away, it is not a right. [applause] >> should president trump fire
robert mueller? >> yes. >> i think the investigation is over. >> yes or no? >> i think it is overcome he doesn't have to fire him. >> willis and all and will ever be built? >> i hope so. >> i doubt it. officer danny perpetually oh be returned to full duty? >> yes. >> should members of congress have term limits? >> no. >> yes. >> should public money be used to remove wild turkeys from staten island? >> i'm an animal lover, but yes. >> we have to do something. >> should new york city ban plastic bags? >> no. >> no. >> when was the last time you took mass transit? >> about seven months ago. >> i may have been on the bus. >> should new york state
legalize marijuana? >> no. >> no. we are going to go to our final round of questions. >> those in the audience who got here tonight, this question is geared towards them, because there was a lot of traffic on the staten island expressway. there are numerous studies that show members of the south shore of staten island have one of the longest commutes in the country. is elected, which transportation project would you make a priority to help the commuters of this district? there are two that i think are really important. bridge rail over the would be helpful. i think we have to be pushing for fast starts. we have a blue highway, we are not using it. if you look around the country, every major city is using them now. i'd like to say somewhere around the princes bay area, the park
and ride. you can park their and have a shuttle. that would service the south shore thendast shore. also somewhere on holland hooks. >> not many people wrote the ferry after hurricane sandy. >> it was in the great kills area, not a good place for it. there were a lot of unique things that were wrong, that was not planned out well. if you have that park and ride and a shuttle, that would help. are one of two boroughs, it has been profitable for new york. they should be paying for this. we are the only one that doesn't have a free bridge. stopweek, it should
midtown. that is the reason why we have it. >> it is multifaceted. i asked the mta to study the two-way toll. people believe that might relieve traffic. it may end up a revenue boost. it will relieve traffic and increase revenue, i want them to spend the revenue on staten island and south brooklyn. i have done the appropriation two bills,ey have one is for light rail, one is for transit. we can dedicate the funding sources d directly to staten island. i curtailed the requirements to be eligible. you have to have a dense population of 250,000 people, we have 500,000. it would go on the launcher
expressway. it would meet up with the bus rapid transit on the north shore. area, a to have a dense public transportation commute of over 35 minutes. our average is 43. we are one of the few communities that would qualify for this. >> thank you. we are coming down the home stretch. we will keep it quick. >> last topic is the new york city housing authority. andonday, the city department of urban development entered a creed to give $1 billion more to the public housing authority for much-needed repairs. over the past 10 years, it has been slashed by hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government. circumstances, whoever is going back to washington, if you go back to washington, would you advocate for more federal funding for the housing authority? do you think there should be more federal money spent on
housing authority? >> the best thing that happened was the federal monitor. new york city is a lousy landlord. there are thousands of people without heat. we are reporting on new york one, peeling paint and the lead exposure to young children. given the city of new york money isn't the solution. making sure they spend it correctly and hold them accountable is. the decision to have a federal monitor oversee the housing authority, make sure they are spending tax dollars properly, it was the right answer. >> more federal money? >> the problem with new york city is you expect the federal government to throw money, more money makes it a bigger problem. they have failed for decades to take care of the people that they asked their vote for. country,ok around the they are all controlled by local
and state democrats. why, thenderstand people don't hold them accountable. the monitor is forcing to hold them accountable. that's what we should do. wisely,spent the money people would live in a much better environment and would not need more money. >> thank you both. we are going to say good night, that is all the time we have. go on twitter and facebook and tell us what you thought about this debate. you will find it online. i'd like to thank both candidates, as well as everybody here. please remember to vote on june 26. on behalf of new york one, think you for watching, have a great evening. [applause]
>> is wasted in federal judge approving 85 nine dollars merger of at&t and time warner. joining us to talk about the deal, diana moss, president of the american antitrust institute. and joshua wright of george mason university. >> no mention of the word market in the decision. that's the key issue here. merger anda vertical horizontal merger, how does the merger change the companies incentives and their ability to
exercise greater -- greater market power? >> i have an antitrust case book. we have looked a long time to find a vertical merger after this case to preach justin's. there is not one in the modern era. way thishat whatever case came out, whatever way comes out on appeal -- should there be one, this is the first fully litigated opinion and a merger challenge and a long. of time. i think that even though it is one district court judge, one specific opinion and one industry, one proposed merger does give it some degree of importance. i think that should there be another vertical merger challenge or looking around to see what their article three judicial colleagues have done in these opinions, they can't miss this one. there is nothing else.
>> is the communicators on c-span two. on tuesday, a formulations committee spoke on the senate floor after an amendment he offered to the defense authorization bill was barred from getting a vote. we will hear from senators. this is about 30 minutes. speak on the ndaa bill that is before us today, and i think most people know that we have been engaged in some tariff discussions with other countries through the administration. we have a trade act of 1974 and one of 1962 that have laid out provisions as to how we would go about dealing with tariffs. in one section, section 232, there is a place where the president of the united states can